Note: I encourage readers to read the complete article by Rabbi Yisroel Blumenthal. This article, more than any other on this blog, has a thread of extended, amiable comments shared between Yisroel and me. I have denoted those clips from his article with italics and asterisk (***) marks. The section headings are from his article. gt
***The Church has enjoyed the credibility associated with these truths because people failed to discern between that which is originally Christian and that which is the true possession of all mankind.
Christianity has also falsely claimed to be the originator of certain truths that do not belong to her.
And finally and most seriously, the Church has set herself up as the sole distributor of truths that belong to everyone.***
The Universal Principles of Justice and Charity
***This literary device accentuates the fictitious notion that Jesus is the originator of these universal truths and that they were unknown to mankind until Jesus uttered them to his audience.***
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Rush Limbaugh: The mockery of mockers
I have never been a follower or listener of Rush Limbaugh. I have not become one. His message may be different but his mindset is no different than the likes of Howard Stern. Over the years I doubt seriously if my total listening time of Rush Limbaugh amounts to one hour.
He may imagine himself, even as some Christians do, to speak of or for the faith that is in Christ Jesus, but that is his delusion. He may speak for conservatives, as some of them claim, but the designations of conservative or liberal,whether touted or rejected, hardly serve as biblical describers of what it means to be a Christian, a disciple of Jesus; one who has crucified the flesh. These are the matters of the world in which many a disciple entangles himself. These are the terms taken up and embraced by many to clothe themselves as righteous or right, but which can blithely and easily amount to mockery.
My first comment to one of Rush Limbaugh's rants was concerning President Obama speaking at a Miami fundraiser. Limbaugh was incensed at what he described as Obama's mockery of the American tax payer. What neither Limbaugh nor many self-professed Christians, of conservative and liberal variety, recognized was Limbaugh's own mockery of the faith that is in Christ Jesus. This from a man (I don't know if he still does) mockingly boasts he is, "on loan from God." Limbaugh likened one of the Obama administration's measures with these words to a particular miracle sign performed by Jesus: "The recovery act stimulus bill it's more like loaves and fishes." . . . "It is all bogus." Limbaugh effectively mocked the miracle of Jesus. He equated the miracle of the loaves and fishes with the stimulus bill describing these as bogus.
Now his mockery on government subsided birth control is being eaten up like loaves and fishes by many for whom Limbaugh speaks. I heartily concur with him that one whose choice to engage in sex should hardly be the responsibility of the American citizen to fund the cost of birth control measures that person incurs for themselves.
As a margin note I refute the argument of politicians who wonder if coverage of medicine may fall on employers' chopping block under the guise of religious belief: Well, we believe in prayer. This does not equivocate with funded birth control. By way of an illustration, the enslaving vices of tobacco and alcohol are not similarly funded. There are two noteworthy points of distinction between these and birth control. When those who are enslaved to tobacco and alcohol determine to be free of these vices they may, as some are able, severe cleanly and abruptly their use of tobacco and alcohol. Others can seek medical solutions or support groups to aid them in their quest to be free of their addiction. The choice tobacco and alcohol users made years before and which they maintained over the years was not dependant on and did not require the necessary engagement and participation of another person as in sexual unions for which some demand the entitlement of birth control.
There's litte reason to doubt Christians (those professing themselves as conversative or liberal) heartily embrace this latest rant of Limbaugh of alleged mockery on Americans. There's another mockery, I allege. Since Limbaugh's rant concerns sexual promiscuity I will reference the passage in the gospel according to John 8. A woman caught in the act of adultery, hence, the sexual promiscuity, was brought before Jesus. I allege there is a mockery, not only by Limbaugh, but by those who have been stirred without discernment to rally behind him, much like the Pharisees who brought the woman to Jesus. They were no more interested in keeping the law of Moses than to see the restoration to faith of their fallen sister. If their interests were truly in keeping the law they would have stoned the woman, according to their law, without consulting Jesus. Their consultation of Jesus was a mockery. Their supposed interests created a carnival spectacle around the adulteress not unlike the insipid voyeurism of recorded video sex demanded by Limbaugh mockingly from the sexually promiscuous on supposedly on behalf of the American taxpayer in exchange for funded birth control.
If you can state unequivocably your interests to restore those enslaved as much to tobacco and alcohol as sex than in all likelihood you are not so blithely or easily taken in by the mockery of mockers.
He may imagine himself, even as some Christians do, to speak of or for the faith that is in Christ Jesus, but that is his delusion. He may speak for conservatives, as some of them claim, but the designations of conservative or liberal,whether touted or rejected, hardly serve as biblical describers of what it means to be a Christian, a disciple of Jesus; one who has crucified the flesh. These are the matters of the world in which many a disciple entangles himself. These are the terms taken up and embraced by many to clothe themselves as righteous or right, but which can blithely and easily amount to mockery.
My first comment to one of Rush Limbaugh's rants was concerning President Obama speaking at a Miami fundraiser. Limbaugh was incensed at what he described as Obama's mockery of the American tax payer. What neither Limbaugh nor many self-professed Christians, of conservative and liberal variety, recognized was Limbaugh's own mockery of the faith that is in Christ Jesus. This from a man (I don't know if he still does) mockingly boasts he is, "on loan from God." Limbaugh likened one of the Obama administration's measures with these words to a particular miracle sign performed by Jesus: "The recovery act stimulus bill it's more like loaves and fishes." . . . "It is all bogus." Limbaugh effectively mocked the miracle of Jesus. He equated the miracle of the loaves and fishes with the stimulus bill describing these as bogus.
Now his mockery on government subsided birth control is being eaten up like loaves and fishes by many for whom Limbaugh speaks. I heartily concur with him that one whose choice to engage in sex should hardly be the responsibility of the American citizen to fund the cost of birth control measures that person incurs for themselves.
As a margin note I refute the argument of politicians who wonder if coverage of medicine may fall on employers' chopping block under the guise of religious belief: Well, we believe in prayer. This does not equivocate with funded birth control. By way of an illustration, the enslaving vices of tobacco and alcohol are not similarly funded. There are two noteworthy points of distinction between these and birth control. When those who are enslaved to tobacco and alcohol determine to be free of these vices they may, as some are able, severe cleanly and abruptly their use of tobacco and alcohol. Others can seek medical solutions or support groups to aid them in their quest to be free of their addiction. The choice tobacco and alcohol users made years before and which they maintained over the years was not dependant on and did not require the necessary engagement and participation of another person as in sexual unions for which some demand the entitlement of birth control.
There's litte reason to doubt Christians (those professing themselves as conversative or liberal) heartily embrace this latest rant of Limbaugh of alleged mockery on Americans. There's another mockery, I allege. Since Limbaugh's rant concerns sexual promiscuity I will reference the passage in the gospel according to John 8. A woman caught in the act of adultery, hence, the sexual promiscuity, was brought before Jesus. I allege there is a mockery, not only by Limbaugh, but by those who have been stirred without discernment to rally behind him, much like the Pharisees who brought the woman to Jesus. They were no more interested in keeping the law of Moses than to see the restoration to faith of their fallen sister. If their interests were truly in keeping the law they would have stoned the woman, according to their law, without consulting Jesus. Their consultation of Jesus was a mockery. Their supposed interests created a carnival spectacle around the adulteress not unlike the insipid voyeurism of recorded video sex demanded by Limbaugh mockingly from the sexually promiscuous on supposedly on behalf of the American taxpayer in exchange for funded birth control.
If you can state unequivocably your interests to restore those enslaved as much to tobacco and alcohol as sex than in all likelihood you are not so blithely or easily taken in by the mockery of mockers.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Why I Hate Religion, But Love Jesus - - - a comment
There's much truth which needs to be spoken and this brother in Christ has spoken it. There is no objection to or denial of the problem which he hates. I value and accept heartily what he says. Clearly, he has understood and responded to the fundamental call of Jesus to follow him. I commend him for it. If Americans prefer to watch a video than read a post it holds doubly true of their love for catchy slogans and phrases such as, "Why I hate religion, but love Jesus." This brother, to his credit, has offered much explanation behind his phrase.
I'll take up a cue from his opening words, "What if I say to you?" What follows in the video are his strong convictions. There are a couple of points I would like to address because although this written message holds little appeal for a video audience others may prefer reflecting on the written print. My brother uses the terms "religion" and "Christianity." These are terms which can easily be misunderstood by nonbelievers as well as believers of the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
Those who are familiar with video cassettes remember the expectation: rewind before returning it to the rental store. You were expected to RE wind it. That is, to wind it AGAIN. Note the appearance of the prefix RE in these two sentence. It means AGAIN. It is from the Latin RE just like LIGION. Although the term is widely associated, even as this brother does, it has nothing to do with religion. The implication inherent in the term is of one who was at one time bound, but severed that bond. The application of religion to the term is neither wrong nor inappropriate. When applied to God it says, in the strictest sence, the one who is religous towards God is one who after living a life being severed from God CHOSE to be bound (ligion) again (re) to God. So, in this respect my brother is absoutely, if not unwittingly, correct when he states "religion puts you in bondage." (timestamp 2:54)
The other term used by my brother is "Christianity." It, like the term "religion" is widely used and as widely misunderstood. The term was coined by the world to refer to "the faith that is in Christ Jesus." I do not have a problem with the use of the term, but it does suggest to me something about how a disciple has been influenced by the world and probably does not know it.
These words spoken by Jesus bring an imagery to mind of the yoke placed on the neck of oxen.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart; and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
However, it is more than an imagery. It is a reality. It is a binding on us when we take on the teachings of Jesus. It is religion. I understand there's an aversion to "commandments" by many saints who equate that with rule-keeping as mistakenly as they equate faithful attendance to the assembly as their fulfillment of the righteousness of God. I take another cue on aversion from my brother. Speaking claims of one's aversion to religion does not equate to understanding those teachings to which we are bound anymore than claiming to love Jesus equates for understanding his teachings.
There is one word noticeably absent from my brother's message of hate and abhorence: hipocrisy. No, this is neither an allegation or charge of hipocrisy on my brother. Rather it is the biblical, and to take another cue from my brother, I can say to you is found in the teachings of Jesus by which those called out of sin to walk in the newness of life are bound. The reality is that there is a related or flip side to his message of hate of religion. It is another familiar slogan: "I'm not religious, just spiritual." Many there are who will craft their own idea about what it means to be bound to Jesus so as to free themselves and dissassociate themselves, in a manner in which Paul never did, from our brothers and sister in Corinth or the fellowship of the saints in Christ today.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Christianity and Gender - - - a comment
This is a comment I posted on this article on the author's blog. My own article on this subject is here.
It was good of you to began with the much discussed Greek terminology on the silence/quietness of women which, ironically, has not quieted the discussion of this subject. Also, a very good point is that Paul urged and encouraged quieteness and orderliness among men and women when praying or prophesying in the assembly. Lastly, the admonition against the haphazard, weapon-like use of the passage is well stated.
Where I do pause is on the connection you draw between the false teachers in I Timothy 1 to include the women in that false teaching. Hence, the apostle's instruction to the women. I understand your efforts to justify this connection in the opening words of chapter two, “Then I urge you first of all…” and then to support it with the patriarchial culture.
There definitely was false teaching. There was/may have been a patriarchial culture, but this key, I believe, towards understanding Paul's instruction to women and which is evident in several of his letters. I am referring to the prevalent dominance of the female culture of Artemis in the very city where Timothy ministered. It was there that the Holy Spirit enlightened the church to Artemis. What the law of Moses was to Jews in Jerusalem and Judea, Artemis was to the Gentiles in Ephesus and Asia.
Paul had himself received no less a similiar instruction directly by the Holy Spirit as he gave to the women when he was prohibited twice from preaching in Asia. Although we never read that prohibition was removed exited then reentered Asia at Ephesus where he stayed two years. It was as much an evangelism strategy by the Holy Spirit as was his direction through Paul for the women. During a time when there was a bit of false teaching at Ephesus and which could potentially have been as bad or worse than Corinth Paul determined this was NOT THE TIME for women, in the female-culture city of Ephesus, for our sisters to take on more than the most passive form of learning and teaching. Paul himself, in a physical manner, was prohibited and restrained by the brothers from stepping into the fomenting mob Demetrius had stirred up in Ephesus in Acts 19.
There are many beliefs attributed to Artemis and although there are various forms of those beliefs these three were pretty much universal. They are alluded to in I Timothy and other of Paul's writings in such a manner that those who had come out of the Artemis cult worship would readily recognize: 1) She was BORN FIRST then turned to assist her mother give birth to her twin brother Apollos, 2) She ensured the succession of KINGS, and 3) She was the SAVIOR of WOMEN. Just in I Timothy 1 & 2 these three are not too subtely countered and refuted by Paul's assertions of Jesus as the FIRSTBORN, the KING and the SAVIOR, not of women alone, but all MANKIND.
It was good of you to began with the much discussed Greek terminology on the silence/quietness of women which, ironically, has not quieted the discussion of this subject. Also, a very good point is that Paul urged and encouraged quieteness and orderliness among men and women when praying or prophesying in the assembly. Lastly, the admonition against the haphazard, weapon-like use of the passage is well stated.
Where I do pause is on the connection you draw between the false teachers in I Timothy 1 to include the women in that false teaching. Hence, the apostle's instruction to the women. I understand your efforts to justify this connection in the opening words of chapter two, “Then I urge you first of all…” and then to support it with the patriarchial culture.
There definitely was false teaching. There was/may have been a patriarchial culture, but this key, I believe, towards understanding Paul's instruction to women and which is evident in several of his letters. I am referring to the prevalent dominance of the female culture of Artemis in the very city where Timothy ministered. It was there that the Holy Spirit enlightened the church to Artemis. What the law of Moses was to Jews in Jerusalem and Judea, Artemis was to the Gentiles in Ephesus and Asia.
Paul had himself received no less a similiar instruction directly by the Holy Spirit as he gave to the women when he was prohibited twice from preaching in Asia. Although we never read that prohibition was removed exited then reentered Asia at Ephesus where he stayed two years. It was as much an evangelism strategy by the Holy Spirit as was his direction through Paul for the women. During a time when there was a bit of false teaching at Ephesus and which could potentially have been as bad or worse than Corinth Paul determined this was NOT THE TIME for women, in the female-culture city of Ephesus, for our sisters to take on more than the most passive form of learning and teaching. Paul himself, in a physical manner, was prohibited and restrained by the brothers from stepping into the fomenting mob Demetrius had stirred up in Ephesus in Acts 19.
There are many beliefs attributed to Artemis and although there are various forms of those beliefs these three were pretty much universal. They are alluded to in I Timothy and other of Paul's writings in such a manner that those who had come out of the Artemis cult worship would readily recognize: 1) She was BORN FIRST then turned to assist her mother give birth to her twin brother Apollos, 2) She ensured the succession of KINGS, and 3) She was the SAVIOR of WOMEN. Just in I Timothy 1 & 2 these three are not too subtely countered and refuted by Paul's assertions of Jesus as the FIRSTBORN, the KING and the SAVIOR, not of women alone, but all MANKIND.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
The unwearied human body
I confess. Sometimes I grow weary of the endless barrage on the church. This from saints in Christ.
I know a brother who goes on long and tiring about the church's misuse of funds for buildings not authorized by Jesus. Thousand, hundreds of thousand and even millions are spent and still the church cannot meet her budget.
I pointed out the Jews built meeting places. The synagogues were neither authorized nor prohibited under the law of Moses for Israel. Jesus and the apostles taught in those synagogues. It was never a source of contention for them or something about which Jesus castigated the people of God for all their shortcomings, failures and sins.
Clearly, at least it seems to me, the principle of a meeting place for the people of God and the practice of doing so are matters of liberty for the discretion of the saints in Christ. So why does any of this matter?
It matters because as I pointed out to him he has not hit upon some great discovery of the church's sin concerning buildings. Furthermore, I said, imagine the wide open door for smugness and self-righteousness were the church to boast in her self-sufficiency to meet her budget.
As it is the church is as human as you and I and every brother and sister who struggles with finances and various other matters, but who presses on trusting in the Lord to provide for her, not for herself, but for those to whom she ministers.l She is a body. She is human. She, like her Savior, bleeds yet does not grow weary. Blessed and praised be God, her Lord and Savior.
I know a brother who goes on long and tiring about the church's misuse of funds for buildings not authorized by Jesus. Thousand, hundreds of thousand and even millions are spent and still the church cannot meet her budget.
I pointed out the Jews built meeting places. The synagogues were neither authorized nor prohibited under the law of Moses for Israel. Jesus and the apostles taught in those synagogues. It was never a source of contention for them or something about which Jesus castigated the people of God for all their shortcomings, failures and sins.
Clearly, at least it seems to me, the principle of a meeting place for the people of God and the practice of doing so are matters of liberty for the discretion of the saints in Christ. So why does any of this matter?
It matters because as I pointed out to him he has not hit upon some great discovery of the church's sin concerning buildings. Furthermore, I said, imagine the wide open door for smugness and self-righteousness were the church to boast in her self-sufficiency to meet her budget.
As it is the church is as human as you and I and every brother and sister who struggles with finances and various other matters, but who presses on trusting in the Lord to provide for her, not for herself, but for those to whom she ministers.l She is a body. She is human. She, like her Savior, bleeds yet does not grow weary. Blessed and praised be God, her Lord and Savior.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Father, Son, Holy Spirit . . . heart, mind and soul
One of the more common references many of us have heard over the years is this one: God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The tendency is to speak clearly and openly of the Father as God. The Son and Holy Spirit, well, they have a subset status. We even hear about, "He's the second person . . ." The deity test of our conviction is revealed when we stop short of saying point blank: God died. We say, "the Son of God died." This, of course, is true but it is spoken with a corrupt adaptation of: God is not a man that he should lie. (Numbers 23:19) As you can see the passage says lie, not die.
God did die. He did not remain dead. The Giver of Life has demonstrated his power over death, not merely by raising the dead, but by laying down his own life to take it up again.
God did die. He did not remain dead. The Giver of Life has demonstrated his power over death, not merely by raising the dead, but by laying down his own life to take it up again.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Christmas and holidays
Now that Christmas 2011 has passed and the holiday spirit lingers I think it is as good a time for this brief document.
Christmas, as far as believers in Christ are concerned, is no more a biblical or commanded day to be observed by the saints in Christ. There are two weak and tragic attitudes and views disciples in Christ often take towards observance of holidays.
The first view in favor of observance of holidays is on the basis of the legal recognition of a holiday, such as Christmas, in America. This, plus its cultural relevance, is all the permission some Christians need to observe a holiday. This view is earthly and carnal and hardly reflects the disciples response as beign with the knowledge and understanding of the scriptures.
The second view is the rejection of Christmas as much as Halloween and all holidays as being of pagan origin. Some of the passages cited include Colossians, "Let no one therefore judge you in eating, or in drinking, or with respect to a feast day or a new moon or a Sabbath day, 17 which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ’s." The encouragement by Paul to the Colosse saints was to NOT ALLOW or permit anyone to impose their judgments on the believer. It was NOT a prohibition by Paul to the saints at Colosse not to observe any particular holiday. Elsewhere in Romans 14 Paul's point was to admonish both the brother who judges another just as he himself is judged concerning observance or non-observance of days.
A related element of this view concerns the pagan origin of holidays, such as Christmas, as the reason Christians are not to observe it. This is mistaken.
The truth is Paul was free from the law of Moses. He definitely would never teach the saints to observe a holiday, whether pagan or established by God. Yet, this is precisely what Paul did with Pentecost.
For Paul had determined to sail past Ephesus, that he might not have to spend time in Asia; for he was hastening, if it were possible for him, to be in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. (Acts 19)
He arrived in Jerusalem (Acts 21) to learn there was a lot of misinformation about his teaching. He accepted the advise of the saints in Jerusalem, went with other men who had a vow into the temple in accordance with the law of Moses and Jewish custom. Incidentally, this did nothing to appease the ignorant, misinformed Jews who still stirred the people to seize Paul.
Is Paul's observance of Pentecost to be taken by the saints in Christ today as an authoritative example to observe Pentecost? After all Pentecost was NOT a pagan holiday. It was established by God.
When the mob seized Paul it provided him the opportunity to proclaim the gospel. (Acts 22) Paul was never at loss as are many saints today to draw a connection between his circumstance and the message of the kingdom. For example he took the inscription, "To the Unknown god" as his perfect cue to preach. Similarly, when the provocation in his spirit could bear it no longer he proclaimed the gospel. (Acts 17:16) Of course, Paul, like Jesus, would never turn down the opportunity or an invitation to preach in synagogue. How many brethren would refuse lest misinformation about them might spread and they fall out of favor with men.
It's time, especially teachers and preachers of the word to the people of God, developed an understanding beyond mere trite, bland responses on observances of holidays. This is equally true of teachers and preachers who rail ignorantly about pagan holidays and do nothing to enlighten the saints nor to proclaim Jesus. This is vital as much for the saints in Christ in Nigeria, Eygpt or America.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year in 2012 to one and all. Rejoice in the Lord always and again I say, rejoice.
Christmas, as far as believers in Christ are concerned, is no more a biblical or commanded day to be observed by the saints in Christ. There are two weak and tragic attitudes and views disciples in Christ often take towards observance of holidays.
The first view in favor of observance of holidays is on the basis of the legal recognition of a holiday, such as Christmas, in America. This, plus its cultural relevance, is all the permission some Christians need to observe a holiday. This view is earthly and carnal and hardly reflects the disciples response as beign with the knowledge and understanding of the scriptures.
The second view is the rejection of Christmas as much as Halloween and all holidays as being of pagan origin. Some of the passages cited include Colossians, "Let no one therefore judge you in eating, or in drinking, or with respect to a feast day or a new moon or a Sabbath day, 17 which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ’s." The encouragement by Paul to the Colosse saints was to NOT ALLOW or permit anyone to impose their judgments on the believer. It was NOT a prohibition by Paul to the saints at Colosse not to observe any particular holiday. Elsewhere in Romans 14 Paul's point was to admonish both the brother who judges another just as he himself is judged concerning observance or non-observance of days.
A related element of this view concerns the pagan origin of holidays, such as Christmas, as the reason Christians are not to observe it. This is mistaken.
The truth is Paul was free from the law of Moses. He definitely would never teach the saints to observe a holiday, whether pagan or established by God. Yet, this is precisely what Paul did with Pentecost.
For Paul had determined to sail past Ephesus, that he might not have to spend time in Asia; for he was hastening, if it were possible for him, to be in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. (Acts 19)
He arrived in Jerusalem (Acts 21) to learn there was a lot of misinformation about his teaching. He accepted the advise of the saints in Jerusalem, went with other men who had a vow into the temple in accordance with the law of Moses and Jewish custom. Incidentally, this did nothing to appease the ignorant, misinformed Jews who still stirred the people to seize Paul.
Is Paul's observance of Pentecost to be taken by the saints in Christ today as an authoritative example to observe Pentecost? After all Pentecost was NOT a pagan holiday. It was established by God.
When the mob seized Paul it provided him the opportunity to proclaim the gospel. (Acts 22) Paul was never at loss as are many saints today to draw a connection between his circumstance and the message of the kingdom. For example he took the inscription, "To the Unknown god" as his perfect cue to preach. Similarly, when the provocation in his spirit could bear it no longer he proclaimed the gospel. (Acts 17:16) Of course, Paul, like Jesus, would never turn down the opportunity or an invitation to preach in synagogue. How many brethren would refuse lest misinformation about them might spread and they fall out of favor with men.
It's time, especially teachers and preachers of the word to the people of God, developed an understanding beyond mere trite, bland responses on observances of holidays. This is equally true of teachers and preachers who rail ignorantly about pagan holidays and do nothing to enlighten the saints nor to proclaim Jesus. This is vital as much for the saints in Christ in Nigeria, Eygpt or America.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year in 2012 to one and all. Rejoice in the Lord always and again I say, rejoice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
