Church to ex-congregant: End your affair or we’ll publicly humiliate you
posted at 3:59 pm on December 19, 2008 by Allahpundit
They warned her twice to break it off, once in front of witnesses, but evidently God’s healing love requires a ritual shaming in front of the entire congregation. Which, incidentally, includes her kids — but not her. She quit the church after they violated her confidence the first time.
They’re going ahead with it anyway. To do otherwise might be considered un-Christian.
Hancock learned that her private sessions with her mentor hadn’t been so private after all, when in October her mentor pulled her aside in church and asked her come into another room.
“In the room, there were several women that I never told my business to. And they proceeded to tell me about my business and what I was doing and what a sinner I was — just persecuting me.” Hancock said. “One of the ladies was even saying ‘I was at your house when you didn’t come home all night.’”
It was then that Hancock said she decided to leave Grace Community Church…
Darrell L. Bock, a research professor for the Dallas Theological Seminary, said that public admonishment is not uncommon in churches that focus on discipline but added, “Most churches would handle this much more privately than this particular community is choosing to do.”
This kind of process normally would happen after “much more private interaction” with the person, Block said, and is normally reserved for church leaders as opposed to “a normal member of the church.”
More importantly, he said, the actions are unusual given that Hancock had severed her relationship with the church.
Here’s the actual letter they sent her, two months after she left the congregation. I can’t tell what they’re planning to do, whether it’ll be just a pro forma declaration that she’s sinned — which of course is public knowledge now anyway — or whether they’re going to spill secrets about the particulars of the relationship that were confessed to her pastor. Predictably, at least a few commenters in Headlines are citing chapter and verse to defend the church; my own reading of the relevant passage in Matthew 18 is that she’s already “neglected to hear” the third admonishment by cutting off ties with them, in which case they should skip it and just dismiss her as a heathen. Exit question: Is this actually S.O.P. in Protestant ministries, at least for congregants who are still members? I’ve never heard of anything remotely like it happening in a Catholic parish.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Next »
Exodus 22:18, for example, requires you not allow a “sorceress” to live.
Exodus 21:17, for example, requires anyone who curses their mother or father be put to death.
I think I’ll ignore that book.
MadisonConservative on December 20, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Come on, people. Only a couple more comments to make it an even 500.
Disturb the Universe on December 20, 2008 at 3:27 PM
While the laws and penalties certainly don’t apply in today’s world, there’s still a lot of worthy content in Exodus. The entire story of the Hebrew deliverance from bondage and migration to the Promised Land is a story where you get to see the full range of human behavior from its most saintly to its most despicable. It’s a story of triumph and tragedy of success and failure of humility and hubris. One doesn’t have to be a religious person to garner the important elements to enjoy or garner the important lessons from Exodus.
But yes, it’s draconian laws and punishments do belong in the past.
Matt Helm on December 20, 2008 at 3:31 PM
Glad to hear it, but doesn’t that call much else into question? If it’s god’s word, and he is infallible, how can it be wrong? I’ve had the amusement of people telling me that the bible is the word of god, and therefore it always applies, and it timeless, every word, even in the face of these examples. Strangely enough, they never address the examples themselves, just the book as a whole.
MadisonConservative on December 20, 2008 at 3:35 PM
five hundred?
Handel on December 20, 2008 at 3:35 PM
YAY! I WAS FIVE HUNDRED, AND NOT MADISON..WOOO HOOOO!
Handel on December 20, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Congratulations on reaching what could be considered the most significant accomplishment of your life.
MadisonConservative on December 20, 2008 at 3:38 PM
I think you have to be careful not to fall into the “Forest-Tree” trap with the Bible. The Bible possesses both time-specific and time-less elements. Time specific elements would include such things as the law codes and other issues applying to life at that specific period of time. The timeless elements would include such things as: to love your neighbor, to respect others, to treat people fairly–these simple precepts apply regardless of time or place.
While the Bible might be the word of God, it was written by human beings and translated into numerous languages after being passed on through generations of oral tradition. Remember, the New Testament canon was only approved several hundred years after Christ’s Crucifixion and Resurrection. If you’re looking to find contradictions in Scripture–believe me, you will find them–they’re all over the place. But the basic universal timeless truths–those, I believe, to be the word of God.
Matt Helm on December 20, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Well thanky madison. I do appreciate your well wishes.
But I would say as proud as I am of the 500 post, I would say its not exactly my proudest moment. That would be marrying the lady love of my life,and my children. And then my reaching success in my professional life.
NOW…
Being that you are still angered that prop 8 still doesn’t allow you to marry your….’significant other’, and that your testi count is a paltry .04 , and adopting children is still frowned upon for you. And that your raise of minimum wage still doesn’t allow you to be able to buy the “really GOOOD” non alcohol beer…
Its obvious why your such an angry lil miss.
Jealousy.
>:)
Handel on December 20, 2008 at 3:49 PM
They do create a foundation for a moral, just, productive society. Much of the controversy is rooted in literal translations or interpetations necessary to justify certain acts, which is what much of this thread is about.
a capella on December 20, 2008 at 3:52 PM
This is really a non issue.
Seriously.
Look, I realize that there are non believers out there.
OK..I accept that. There are those whose religion is environmentalism, or their god is rocks, or aliens, or small bundles of turd (no offence madison).
But what it comes down to is this…Even if it was a religion based on water monkeys…If they have their standards, or rules…be them based off of ANYTHING, And a member of the church goes against them —even AFTER a warning.
Then that’s that.
You don’t have to be a believer to understand that standards are important. The only thing you DO have to be to deny the importance of standards, is to be…a democrat.
Simple as puddin.
Handel on December 20, 2008 at 3:55 PM
Huh. I’ve been admonished with outrage for suggesting the Bible had many contradictions.
I accept and agree with your analysis of the bible as being time specific with regard to law codes of the time.
So, the question is, if adultery is now legal in this time, do the bible verses on adultery apply? Homosexuality? Gambling? Other vices? Gay marriage would be a big question, as would abortion. The conclusion that, effectively, the bible must “move with the times” would cause quite an uproar, although it would provide some conclusive decisions.
MadisonConservative on December 20, 2008 at 3:55 PM
“People” who believe the Bible is God’s word should be able to give countless examples and the ones I know, including myself, do.
I don’t know who you’ve been talking to that is so ignorant of the Scripture.
Jenfidel on December 20, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Looks like we’ve got a contender for Heavyweight Troll of HotAir.
MadisonConservative on December 20, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Normally I would agree with you. But she left the church voluntarily. They are doing this to her two months AFTER she left. That should have been the end of it, period, because SHE IS NO LONGER THERE.
ScoopPC11 on December 20, 2008 at 3:58 PM
MadisonConservative on December 20, 2008 at 3:55 PM
I suggest reading http://www.yadayahweh.com
You’ll come to find there are few, if any, contradictions in The Word.
bridgetown on December 20, 2008 at 4:02 PM
I would contend that as regards adultery and sexual misconduct (not necessarily homosexuality–I’ll get to that can o’ worms in a moment) the verses would apply in the sense that they damage not only the individual’s relationship with God, but also with others in a variety of ways–broken friendships, hurt feelings, discord–and yes, the potential for violence and injury. Abortion for me is the taking of a human life and I think that its continued practice damages all involved psychically and spiritually in a most profound manner. I am also of the opinion thought that this is a matter that should be settled by the people at the state and local level either through their state legislatures or directly through referendum.
Gambling and drinking–again, in moderation, neither is necessarily harmful, but if in excess, can result in profound injury psychologically, spiritually, and even physically.
Homosexuality and gay marriage–this is the one that brings everyone out and where conversations on threads like this almost invariably lead (sigh). My personal view is that we have to separate out cultural and time-specific notions regarding homosexuality that the Hebrews and early and later Christians possess with those universal and timeless truths of loving one’s neighbor and faithfulness to one’s spouse. In that sense, I see no problem with homosexual relationships–as long as both parties are consenting and do not interfere with the rights of others. As for gay marriage, as I’ve said on other threads, I take a Lockean view of marriage–I don’t view it as a sacrament, rather, I view it as a social contract and like any other social contract, society can revisit its terms should it decide to do so. But–I think it should be society that should do so, again, on the local level through either state legislatures or directly through referendum. At this time, society does not seem willing to readjust those terms and attempting to force them on an unwilling society can only result in harm.
Matt Helm on December 20, 2008 at 4:13 PM
What I find ironic is the church is named “GRACE Community Church”. Perhaps they should consider changing that….
johnwyp on December 20, 2008 at 4:14 PM
I’m no troll maddy..I’m a true conservative that has a love for eating elitist snobs, be them on the left OR the right.
Which is why I like talking to you so much.
As for your claim about Christianity having ‘contradictions’. I hear this alot from aforementioned snobs, who have (as I see you have ) seen a website and think its true. These are the same that like to sit around late at night with rubbing their fat bellies, while eating cheetos as they stare at ‘loose change’ caca…muttering to themselves, “Oooog, we killed our own people..oooo oh my gaw’…ooog.. -burp-fart-”
I’m less interested in why you think or what you think is a contradiction than as to WHY you care?
Why?
Are you so unhappy with your life that you would spend even an inkling of time on it.
You have no standards. you have no values really that you hold dear. Go out and enjoy your self.
Get drunk. Pick up a man ho or three..
Live it up baby.
But no…
You want to spend time on trying to prove that there are ‘contradictions’ in the Bible.
Ok..knock yourself out.
If that is what will bring you some ‘joy’ in your lonely life..
Sad. Very VERY sad.
Handel on December 20, 2008 at 4:14 PM
MadisonConservative asked:
Adultery has been a capital crime ever since the time God made it a law to be obeyed. Adultery is still a capital crime today. Just as murder has been a capital crime ever since God declared it to after the flood in Genesis 9. There is today no justification for having multiple wives or partners and there is no place for it.
We need to re-criminalize adultery if we are to stop the epidemic of divorce caused by adultery in the USA.
TheMightyQuinn on December 20, 2008 at 4:18 PM
johnwyp wrote:
Of course you would say that since you are biblically illiterate.
The Apostle Paul used the word and talked about “grace” far more times than anyone else in the bible. In fact, you don’t ever read of Jesus Christ using the word “grace” during His earthly ministry. Searching for the word “grace” finds it appearing the great majority of the time in Paul’s epistles.
Paul, “the Apostle of Grace”, wrote about disfellowshipping the unrepentant sexually immoral in 1 Corinthians 5:1-11 which is basically what this church is obeying.
Read this several times out loud:
1 Corinthians 5:1-11 It is actually reported [that there is] sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles — that a man has his father’s wife! 2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6 Your glorying [is] not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened [bread] of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet [I] certainly [did] not [mean] with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner — not even to eat with such a person.
TheMightyQuinn on December 20, 2008 at 4:24 PM
We only have her word for it as to what the church intends to do.
The church didn’t give a statement to FoxNews.
Personally, I think this woman is a blabby, attention-grabbing psycho.
Her bad for both purposely picking such a busy-body church and then bad again for not leaving when she knew she was breaking that church’s rules.
I’ve never heard of a church in 21st Century America that was so invasive in their members’ lives!
(This church is only one step away from “The Scarlet Letter” territory of the 18th Century!)
Jenfidel on December 20, 2008 at 4:25 PM
Normally I would agree with you. But she left the church voluntarily. They are doing this to her two months AFTER she left. That should have been the end of it, period, because SHE IS NO LONGER THERE.
ScoopPC11 on December 20, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Scoop..thats the only thing that doesn’t make sense to me.
Why? Because any church knows…especially in this political environment..that they are opening themselves up to a law suit of harassment, IF they are harrasing her at home.
So I tend to think that there is more to this. OR that the woman is being vindictive and saying that this is still happening. Because she wants to sue later.
But really..Ive seen when a member refuses to change their ways and so goes their own way. Of which the pastor will go up and before the sermon announce what has happened and why that person is no longer there (in the church).
Believe me..if that person was a member, than that person would have been known by the ‘body’. If that person is all of a sudden no longer there, then questions would arise as to why they are no longer there.
Its all quite normal.
We have choices.
Be it in the work force or in the private sectors or churches.
We make those choices and live by the consequences.
If you steal something at work. Is that not brought up by management to the workforce?
If your argument is that its a “private matter”. That’s not how it works in the church body.
You should not join a church if you don’t want to follow rules or standards.
Handel on December 20, 2008 at 4:25 PM
Entirely agreed on all points. I think self-control should be key in terms of behaviors which, largely, can be personal and not affect others. I’m also curious if you think this would apply to another hotly debated concept – sex without marriage. I realize this will bring up the abstinence vs. precautions debate, but putting that aside, and eliminating the extremes of telling everyone to never have sex along with telling people to have lots of sex and just always use condoms…do you think average sex lives of those in monogamous (non-marital) relationships, coupled with a combination of fidelity and protective measures (contraception and the like) is covered as adultery?
Again, eye-to-eye on all points. Glad to meet another federalist.
Who would you say would be the authority in readjusting the terms of marriage? That seems to be a large crux of the deal. Personally, I don’t think it should be the government at all. As marriage is a ceremony born out of spirituality and not bureaucracy, I think they should be the last to have a say. Ideally, I would want to see marriage licenses distributed through churches through communication with the government. This would allow some churches to practice marriage of gay couples if they choose, and others to choose not to. In other words, I think it should be on a case-by-case basis, and if a homosexual couple needs to “shop around”, as it were, for a church to marry them, then that would be proper. People shop around for churches that appeal to them all the time.
MadisonConservative on December 20, 2008 at 4:30 PM
Yes, I think your confused as to what “grace” is John.
Or how it works.
Its not what you think it is…not a ‘get out of jail free to rape and pillage only if you apologize with some tears and slobber on your chin, card’—Only to do it again and again and again.
Thats ‘entitlement’ that you might be thinking of.
Or ‘reletivism’.
But certainly…Not Grace.
Handel on December 20, 2008 at 4:30 PM
Well, which is it? This?
Or this?
a capella on December 20, 2008 at 4:32 PM
Okay. I cheated on my ex-girlfriend. Report me so that I may be tried and go to the gas chamber.
(Note: I did not actually cheat on my ex-girlfriend. This was to demonstrate the fact that TheMightyQuinn once had his brain replaced with a baked eggplant.)
MadisonConservative on December 20, 2008 at 4:33 PM
FIXXXED:
“Again, eye-to-eye on all points. Glad to meet another religious bigot snob. Lets get together and dip a crusifix in urine. not the Koran, because we have no spine to go with our lack of values”
Handel on December 20, 2008 at 4:33 PM
Read other posts of Handel’s, then come on back and think real hard.
MadisonConservative on December 20, 2008 at 4:34 PM
There have been far too many people on here, including ALLAHPUNDIT, who have been mangling what Jesus said in John 8 concerning the woman caught in adultery.
Since those of you abusing this passage of the bible are by no means mediocre bible students (beneath mediocre and even poor) here is the passage explained. The main point of what follows is that God has the leeway to make an exception in punishing an adulterer for their crime if He wants to and that He has done this 3 times as recorded in the bible – but the law against adultery and the penalty for it is still in place.
**Thanks to Bob Enyart for writing this excellent material**
Link to Bob Enyart’s article
GOD FORGAVE ADULTERERS BEFORE
Gomer was an adulteress yet God forgave her (Hos. 3:1). Still, He demanded that His people obey His law (Hos. 4:6).
King David committed adultery and murder (2 Sam. 11). Yet God forgave him (Psalm 32:1-5).
It was a conscious decision on God’s part to not execute David. As Nathan said to David:
As Nathan said to David:
* “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. However… by this deed you have given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme…” 2 Sam. 12:13
Still, God’s law remained in effect (Ps. 1:2; 19:7; 78:1, 5-8; 89:30-32; 119).
God forgave the New Testament adulterer just as He forgave Old Testament adulterers, in neither instance revoking His law. God has all authority to forgive the criminal and disregard temporal punishment. Contrariwise, Men must obey God and cannot ignore punishment.
THE PHARISEES WANTED TO TRAP CHRIST
The Pharisees wanted to accuse Jesus of rebelling against the Roman Empire:
* This [the Pharisees] said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. John 8:6
Rome had revoked the Jews’ authority to put a criminal to death (John 18:31). A straight-forward answer to the Pharisees would have brought Jesus into premature conflict with Rome before His “hour had come.” Jesus solved this problem stating, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first” (John 8:7). Christ often frustrated the Pharisees giving clever answers that thwarted their wicked intentions (Mat. 22:15-22; 21:21-27; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26).
TheMightyQuinn on December 20, 2008 at 4:34 PM
Wanna watch Fitna?
Now go away, child.
MadisonConservative on December 20, 2008 at 4:34 PM
Funny thing is , I believed you the first time.
Then I KNEW you were just kidding..
Cuz,I don’t think you like girls.
They’re too soft and non hairy for your liking.
Handel on December 20, 2008 at 4:35 PM
More insight that isnt.
I like you maddy. I don’t fashion myself all that much of a genius..But who was it that once said,: “If you want to make yourself look like a genius–hang out with stupid people”?
What’cha say we go have some pastries and some coffee?
I need and ego boost!
SHOTGUN!
Handel on December 20, 2008 at 4:39 PM
I’ve been following along. Matt Helm seems well grounded. Perhaps Handel is another Ace or AP personality. I really hope so.
a capella on December 20, 2008 at 4:39 PM
What am I thinkin?
Maddy probably doesn’t even drive yet.
I’ll have to ride on his handlebars.
(sigh)so sad…so very very sad.
Handel on December 20, 2008 at 4:40 PM
This is all well and good…
…but have we figured out who writes books?
/ducks and runs
Religious_Zealot on December 20, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Time for din din..I love you maddy. Your my special needs project.
Teach you more later ok?
>: )
Handel on December 20, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Handel wrote:
Its obvious that this woman has some alterior motives since she is complaining about the church making her affair public and at the same time she goes out and lets the mainstream media know that she is having this affair so that the entire nation can hear about it.
So yes, she is an evil attention seeking whore who wants people to back up her whorish behavior and approve of her sexual immorality even though she knew the entire time that she was dealing with people in her church that were working to help KEEP HER ACCOUNTABLE and do the right thing by obeying God.
BUT THERE IS ONE GREAT THING THAT CAN COME FROM THIS!!
And that is this story can be used to talk with churches (specificly pastors) about church discipline and whether or not they obey the instructions given in 1 Corinthians 5 and 1 Corinthians 6 about judging within the local church.
At least, that is how I am going to use this story :]
TheMightyQuinn on December 20, 2008 at 4:42 PM
The Stand is my holy book.
MadisonConservative on December 20, 2008 at 4:43 PM
Work it baby, work it!
a capella on December 20, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Personally, I don’t view it as adultery. If the parties involved are consenting and aren’t harming anyone, then who am I to tell them how to live their lives? Besides, many of my best friends are unmarried couples…I and The Boss used to be one ourselves… :)
Since the Protestant and Catholic Reformations, the state has taken that role over from the church. However, I would say that the authority would rest with the people forming the society–again, my John Locke coming out.
The major flaw to that argument is that it does transform marriage into a sacrament of the church. I think that the institution of marriage itself should be a secular (better word choice would probably be temporal) function with spiritual elements should the couple choose to partake. Otherwise, the only way a marriage could legally take place would be within the confines of a church/mosque/temple/synagogue–that’s giving the religious element a little too much influence and power over the institution for my liking. Atheists, agnostics, and non-church goers should be allowed to marry too… :)
Matt Helm on December 20, 2008 at 5:03 PM
Wait…by The Boss you don’t mean Hot Air’s The Boss.
If so, we need confirmation.
By the way, it’s always refreshing to hear the simple words “who am I to tell them how to live their lives” from the mouth of a religious person on this site. I normally hear them in real life, but the comments section here tends to attract some of the more…well…interesting characters, you might have noticed. I think one of the core differences between modern conservatives and modern liberals is exactly that sentiment.
I agree, but how is that authority to rule on a new definition? Are we talking state legislatures putting forth bills for initiatives for state-by-state ratification of new definitions? If so, do the bills which legalize gay marriage really redefine the word?
A very, very good point, which makes me rethink my own position. The primary thing poking me about that idea is that, by secularizing marriage, it feels like it diminishes the true foundations that marriage was built upon. By that I mean, it wasn’t created for tax benefits and legal recognition for get health insurance for your spouse through your job. It was created to allow to people to announce to the world their love and commitment to each other. I would think that secularizing it would not help the current state of divorce, although I hold many other issues and problems as far more significant to that state.
Now you really have me re-thinking about this, though.
MadisonConservative on December 20, 2008 at 5:19 PM
“The Stand” by Stephen King???
You must be joking!
Even King admits he didn’t know how to finish it and it was certainly not intended to be a religious text.
Jenfidel on December 20, 2008 at 5:20 PM
No, I totally hold a Stephen King fictional novel as the rules to which I make every decision in my life. I’m also a black Muslim who lives in Kathmandu.
MadisonConservative on December 20, 2008 at 5:27 PM
MadisonConservative on December 20, 2008 at 5:27 PM
LOL!
bridgetown on December 20, 2008 at 5:39 PM
I have to agree with Handel on his criticism of Madison Conservative. I do always appreciate Maddy’s comments, but I have to say that I wonder why anyone cares whether the Bible is inspired or has contradictions or is inerrant or whatnot.
I have been reading the Bible for over thirty years and have found only one supposed contradiction – that we are predestined and yet at the same time have free will. So, believing that the word of God is inerrant, I believe that particular paradox rather than crying that reason forbids any such paradoxes and trying to explain it away.
Other “contradictions” have been handled here but here is another I always appreciate: the OT says that Gods mercies are new every morning but Solomon says that there is nothing new under the sun. The so-called contradictions of the Bible appear to me to be simply insufficiently thought out sound bites of Scripture. To come even close to finding a true contradiction in Scripture takes lots of humble reading to find out what the passages say in relation to each other.
But while we’re on the subject of contradictions, let me give you all a secular example of a contradiction within science. I bring this up because I believe the very arguments you are likely to raise to show that there is no real scientific “contradiction” are likely to be the same arguments I would raise to explain the there are no Scriptural “contradictions”, just taking things out of context, insufficient explanation, poor logic or poor cosmology.
So here it is: I was watching Discovery or something about space travel and galactic motion and they moderator spent the first 45 minutes breathlessly arguing that the speed of light is an unalterable constant and that nothing will ever be able to go faster than the very fast but fixed speed of 186,000 miles per second; not galaxies, not space ships, not particles. But then in the second half of the show he suddenly switched gears and explained that diffraction of light through a lens involves changing the speed of light and goes o to assert that in fact the speed of light has been brought down within experiments to zero.
If this isn’t contradiction of his first statements that the speed of light is constant, I don’t know what is. (I won’t even get into the articles that indicate that the speed of light has been very, very slightly slowing down in the two hundred years we’ve been calculating it.)
But to find Scriptural contradictions takes an understanding of Scripture that is similarly as deep as the understanding the top physicists have on the nature of light. And it’s a rare reporter who can understand it, let alone authoritatively comment on it.
flicker on December 20, 2008 at 6:14 PM
As long as there are actually people who consider the book to be something flawless, and the world of the all-powerful creator of everything, I’m going to want to ask questions out some notable problems in it, as is anyone who doesn’t just take your word for it.
If it bothers you so damn much, feel free not to listen to the question. I would note, though, that why would you be worried about questions if you were secure in your belief that the book is infallible?
MadisonConservative on December 20, 2008 at 6:27 PM
The book is not infallible.
It has been mistranslated through the centuries. Therefore, it’s simply not reliable at all anymore, Especially the English versions.
bridgetown on December 20, 2008 at 6:32 PM
Wait, so you WEREN’T being silly when you talked about God’s concern about sex? You know, near the top of his list?
See, I had no idea you meant it and were serious about it and had no issue with God peeking into your bedroom practices.
Krydor on December 20, 2008 at 6:36 PM
Hey look, I can quote scripture too!
Grace.
johnwyp on December 20, 2008 at 6:44 PM
I’ve read Supreme Court decisions with fewer citations!
eeyore on December 20, 2008 at 6:56 PM
So I take it you’re not religious and haven’t read the Bible.
Thus, why do you care?
Religious_Zealot on December 20, 2008 at 7:06 PM
Actually, this isn’t true at all.
We have many ancient manuscripts and the differences between modern and ancient are small (and none of them affect any major piece of theology).
Yes, there are differences in translations (get three translators in a room and you’re going to get 4 different variations)…
…but there are no significant errors.
Religious_Zealot on December 20, 2008 at 7:08 PM
Oh, I’ve read it and thus my lack of religion.
I’m more interested in why you think it’s fine for God to be looking into your windows when you have marital relations, and don’t even give a passing thought to what he could be doing instead of spying on people.
Krydor on December 20, 2008 at 7:10 PM
Nope…MY boss–aka She Who Must Be Obeyed.
Here I’m going to punt to Marsilius of Padua when he refers to the majority of the people or the sanior partis [sic]. If we go with popular referendum, then it would be the former, if through state legislatures, then the latter. If the state legislatures are acting to carry out the will of the people and society, then the bills would in a sense redefine the word–at least as far as this society is concerned.
Historically, marriage has always had a strong secular component. Under Roman law, for instance, you had two different types of marriage: a ceremony with far more sacral elements where the bride passed from her father’s power into that of her husbands and a civil ceremony where she moved in with her husband, but still technically remained under her father’s potestas–which was actually a far more favorable arrangement for her. Germanic marriage customs had some similar roots. Really, marriage has always had a strong temporal connection as it was seen to serve as an important glue holding communities together.
By all means people should have the right–and should be encouraged–to have religious ceremonies should they be so inclined–if nothing else, the spiritual component in the services does, I think, help to get the marriage off to a good start. But…if a couple should choose to elope to Vegas and be married by an Elvis impersonator licensed to perform marriages–then–who am I to say no?
Matt Helm on December 20, 2008 at 7:14 PM
Then you must have missed all that stuff about sexual purity.
Believe me, though – it’s in there.
Gee, to answer that question I would have to sit down for a couple of hours to go back and correct a whole lot of fundamental Christian theological mistakes that your question is based upon.
And based upon your attitude, you don’t seem to be especially inclined to listen.
But if you want just a taste of it, you make a very interesting (in a Rorschach test kind of way) leap from God demanding sexual purity and God “peaking in our windows.”
Religious_Zealot on December 20, 2008 at 7:18 PM
How does he know if I’m sinning if he isn’t looking? Does someone else look for him and pass the news along? He has to know if I’ve been sinning, otherwise he’s not able to judge me.
Carl Sagan did a nice job deconstructing the problem with having a omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent being. I’ll just assume you’ve read the essay, found it lacking and continued on your way.
Do you never question the rules?
Krydor on December 20, 2008 at 7:27 PM
Madison,
You overstate my case. I am not “bothered so much” and I’m not worried. What I said was “I wonder”. And you have a good right to ask questions.
But at the same time, I think you cannot really understand what a physicist is saying if you feel a priori that relativity must fly in the face of reason and you choose to ridicule him after every sentence.
And in the same way, I don’t think you will understand what the Bible proponent is saying if you have an existing prejudice to the conclusions that you expect will be drawn from his arguments.
flicker on December 20, 2008 at 7:30 PM
Again, why do you care?
You’re not religious and obviously think that religion is silly, so why are you trying to argue over what God’s will is?
As far as God knowing, that’s covered under the concept of omniscience.
Of course I have, and the answers I found strengthened my faith.
And man-made philosophical deconstructions of God are always problematic because they, by their very nature, have to begin with a human understanding of God.
Since the finite can never understand the infinite, the conclusions are usually flawed and skewed toward a preconceived conceit.
Religious_Zealot on December 20, 2008 at 7:31 PM
Religious_Zealot on December 20, 2008 at 7:31 PM
Whenever I questioned the rules, I always found the answers lacking. Glad to see that you didn’t.
An omniscient being negates free will.
Krydor on December 20, 2008 at 7:39 PM
No it doesn’t…
…unless one doesn’t fully understand omniscience or free will.
Religious_Zealot on December 20, 2008 at 7:44 PM
Why? Just because God knows what you are going to do doesn’t mean you don’t have a choice. He just knows the choice you will make.
Disturb the Universe on December 20, 2008 at 7:44 PM
Does predestination obviate fee will?
flicker on December 20, 2008 at 7:46 PM
TheMightyQuinn on December 20, 2008 at 4:34 PM
Mr. Quinnboy, you are by far the most Pharasaical douchebag I have encountered in my many years on the intertubes. You are the most self-righteous, insulting, know-it-all ass imaginable. That’s a pretty high bar to reach, but you’ve managed to jump it by so far that you can’t even see it from up there.
Lemme guess: On Sundays, you can be found in the same pew; indeed, you would never think of sitting anywhere else. On Wednesday evening, you can be found [mis]leading your Bible study group, taking upon yourself the title of Pope, dispensing wisdom from that little arrogant head of yours. And I have no doubt your hair is perfect.
Where you won’t be found spreading the Gospel: soup kitchen, prison, the corner where the homeless guy eith the homemade sign is….
There are Pharisees, standing proudly in Church DISPLAYING their holiness. And there are Publicans, begging mercy, and the Zaccheus types, climbing a tree for a glance.
Venture a guess about how I discern you, you arrogant prick?
HerrMorgenholz on December 20, 2008 at 7:49 PM
Of course, which is why it’s goat flop.
HerrMorgenholz on December 20, 2008 at 7:51 PM
I hate (REALLY hate) to sound like Bill Clinton…
…but it really depends on how you define those two words.
I read a Calvinistic treatise on the subject and while I don’t completely understand it, it went SOMETHING like this…
Since time is not a constraint to God (God lives ‘above’ time), God sees the past, present and future all at the same time.
Thus, God knows what free will choices each of us will make.
Thus, God ‘predestines’ those people.
And, no, I can’t really defend this, I’m just relaying it.
Religious_Zealot on December 20, 2008 at 7:53 PM
If God knew that the creation He was speaking into existance would eventually, and soon, bring into being humans who would be morally lawless against Him, couldn’t He have just changed some physical law in His universe that would have led, say, Adams brain to think just a little bit differently and not eat the forbidden fruit?
Or is something else going on; something spiritual in nature rather that physical? Or is there a component to being human that science doesn’t acknowledge, or that science doesn’t speak to, or that secular scientists refuse to accept?
flicker on December 20, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Understand both quite well, thanks. God knows what I’m going to do, when I’m going to do it and with whom it will be done. Predetermined, therefore all I have is the illusion of choice under your philosophical outlook.
Just so you know, an argument simply isn’t saying ‘no it isn’t’. While I understand the need to take a position counter to mine, you need a bit more meat on the bones.
Krydor on December 20, 2008 at 7:54 PM
Hmm, incomplete thought.
How about:
God ‘predestines’ those He knows will chose to commit their lives to Christ.
Religious_Zealot on December 20, 2008 at 7:54 PM
This coming from a person who simply stated “An omniscient being negates free will.”
And, no, knowing what we will do does not invalidate our freedom to chose what we will do.
As long as it is simply knowledge of what we will do and not forcing us to do it…
…it does not negate free will.
Religious_Zealot on December 20, 2008 at 7:56 PM
Or, let me put it this way…
…knowledge is a passive thing, it does not affect that which it knows about.
Thus knowing someone’s choice does not negate the freedom that person has to make it.
Religious_Zealot on December 20, 2008 at 8:00 PM
God knew what was going to happen and created it anyway. All I can say is that He wanted mankind badly enough to make it, bad as it would be, and then make the way to save it. This is the best argument I have for free will. Because if He didn’t want a race of humans to love Him freely, then He could have made a race of creatures that had no other choice but to love Him.
If you had the choice of a spouse who loved you out of free choice or out of a preset mental construction, which would you really want?
flicker on December 20, 2008 at 8:02 PM
Or…
…just because someone tells you “I knew you’d do that”…
…it doesn’t mean you had any less freedom making the choice.
Religious_Zealot on December 20, 2008 at 8:14 PM
HerrMorgenholz on December 20, 2008 at 7:49 PM
lol. Thank You. That was fun to read.
bridgetown on December 20, 2008 at 8:15 PM
How do Christians reconcile salvation for the probable other civilizations and the human Jesus, the only son of God?
beatcanvas on December 20, 2008 at 8:16 PM
HerrMorgenholz on December 20, 2008 at 7:49 PM
And, I might add….God forbid this person is married. If so, I shall pray for his wife. Oh the hell she must be living in.
bridgetown on December 20, 2008 at 8:18 PM
1) I don’t mind answering theological questions, but if this going to be one of those things where you just keep throwing out questions, then I think we both probably have better things to do.
2) I don’t really understand the point you’re trying to make. What do you mean by “salvation for the probable other civilizations”? What “other civilizations”? What is the underlying point you’re trying to make?
Religious_Zealot on December 20, 2008 at 8:21 PM
Oh, shoot.
Please disregard #1 above. I confused a couple of things in my head.
Religious_Zealot on December 20, 2008 at 8:22 PM
Sure it does. Whatever I put in here next was already known to God. If I don’t write what is expected of me, I have become more powerful than God, but he would already know that due to his omniscience.
The bum in the gutter is a bum in the gutter because it was predetermined that he become a bum in the gutter. Whatever choices he made were not his choices to make. For whatever reason, his being a bum in the gutter is predetermined. He can make no choices to save him from his fate.
Krydor on December 20, 2008 at 8:28 PM
What are “probable other civilizations”?
Yes, Jesus is human as well as God. He is the only-begotten Son of God (Mary is human and the Holy Spirit, who created the child Jesus in her, is God). But what are you asking?
flicker on December 20, 2008 at 8:29 PM
Someone brought up Carl Sagan, so across the “billions and billions” of stars in millions of galaxies, let’s assume there exist at least a few civilizations.
beatcanvas on December 20, 2008 at 8:29 PM
Krydor,
Are you saying that if the top economists say that if taxes are raised then the economy will contract are actually causing the economy to contract by knowing it ahead of time?
Knowing that your child will get you a necktie for Christmas doesn’t in itself make it happen.
flicker on December 20, 2008 at 8:34 PM
Never more than 1 date. You never know though, there could be a large demand for toupee wearing, Herb Tarlich leisure suit types in his neck of the woods. ; )
thomasaur on December 20, 2008 at 8:39 PM
It seems a greater leap of faith to me that we are alone in the universe than that we are not. Likewise, I have a difficult time believing that the foibles of humans are unique to humans. Lust, greed, jealousy…
So were humans the only sentient part of creation worth saving with the one-time sacrifice of God’s only son?
beatcanvas on December 20, 2008 at 8:40 PM
You’re confusing ‘expectations’ with ‘knowledge’.
God doesn’t ‘expect’ us to do something, He simply already knows what our free choice will be.
There is no causation between knowledge and someone else’s choice.
No.
The bum in the gutter is a bum because s/he chose that life.
That God knew that choice would be made is NOT the same as predetermined (which means that God MADE that choice for them).
Religious_Zealot on December 20, 2008 at 8:45 PM
Beatcanvas,
Just because Carl Sagan speculates it, doesn’t mean it’s so. And to assume that all other civilizations are human and fallen and created in God’s image is very hypothetical.
If you believe the Bible, you already know that other beings have been created (not in God’s image) and fallen into sin and yet there is no way for them to be saved that we know of. They are referred to as reprobate, unrepentant and presumably unredeemable.
But we absolutely do know that man exists and that mankind tends toward tremendous evil. God sent Jesus to die for mankind to save it. Beyond this we must rely on God being good, loving and just to deal with all of His creatures rightly.
flicker on December 20, 2008 at 8:45 PM
The Bible is God’s revelation of Himself to humans on Earth.
I do not have an answer for how God has revealed Himself to other civilizations on other planets.
I would assume that God revealed Himself to those people in similar but location-specific ways.
Of course, this is only speculation.
Religious_Zealot on December 20, 2008 at 8:48 PM
And with all respect to Religious Zealot, perhaps the bum is in the gutter not becuase of his own coices but just so that someone can display God’s love by helping him out of it.
flicker on December 20, 2008 at 8:49 PM
By definition, other civilizations wouldn’t be human. Likely not even close. Carl Sagan’s speculation doesn’t make anything so, but sheer numbers do.
But if I understand your point, humans would be the only creation in the universe created in God’s image and therefore worthy of salvation. Do I have that right?
beatcanvas on December 20, 2008 at 8:50 PM
I believe that we are incapable (at this point in time) of knowing if the one-time sacrifice was one-time for us, one-time for everyone, or each civilization had a one-time sacrifice.
We really have no way of knowing.
But I will say that I have found nothing in the Bible to preclude God working for the salvation for beings on other planets.
Religious_Zealot on December 20, 2008 at 8:50 PM
Very true…
…and the amazing thing is that doesn’t preclude the bum having freely made the choices that got him/her there.
God loves to use our choices for other purposes (remember the Joseph story).
Religious_Zealot on December 20, 2008 at 8:54 PM
Yeah, and thanks for entertaining the question. I just thought it was interesting that God would choose Earth, out of the entire universe, as the place and the people where he would sacrifice his only son. Seemed improbable to me, so I thought I’d toss it out there.
beatcanvas on December 20, 2008 at 8:55 PM
The posts here, and Grace Community Church’s actions here remind me….must share a quote…can’t find the author’s name…but I’m going to quote it anyway:
bridgetown on December 20, 2008 at 9:02 PM
I HAVE heard some speculation about Christ’s on other planets…
…and even the SAME Christ on each planet.
We simply don’t have an answer.
But as I said, I’ve yet to come across anything in the Bible that would preclude God from working for the salvation of other beings.
Religious_Zealot on December 20, 2008 at 9:02 PM
Don’t ya think we have enough trouble here on earth to wonder about other beings in other galaxies? I think so.
bridgetown on December 20, 2008 at 9:03 PM
We humans were, according to our Scriptures, created in his image in a way that no other beings are recorded as having been created. While I cannot say that God didn’t perform this creative act a billion, billion times, it is beyond me to speculate and, frankly, far beyond the boundaries of discussing the societal and spiritual aspects of life here on earth.
I would add that I like science fiction but generally find the the most expansive speculations on man’s place in the universe, in my view generally written before sputnik, tend to ignore or equivocate on the historical validity of what we do know: that is that the Jews say that God created them to be His people and to bring glory to Him.
Where the rubber meets the road to me is that even if creatures come down from the heavens in metal, space-time contraptions, I would be hard-pressed to believe what they say just because they say it. After all, you yourself indicate that other races might just be fallen as well as ours.
flicker on December 20, 2008 at 9:04 PM
Ah, but it is predetermined. Nothing can change the life of the bum, because it has been forseen. If the bum made the correct decisions to avoid becoming a bum, that is also predetermined.
If you are saying that God cannot provide alternatives, which is what this discussion implies, then he is not omnipotent.
Have you recognized the paradox yet?
Krydor on December 20, 2008 at 9:07 PM
But wouldn’t negate the “only son” part?
So for those civilizations that existed millennia ago – how would that work?
Since we’re all sitting around apeculating on other things, why not this too, eh?
Oh, and that’s a killer quote (no pun intended), bridgetown.
beatcanvas on December 20, 2008 at 9:08 PM
You are making illogical jumps in definitions.
Knowledge is not the same thing as expectations which is not the same thing as predetermination.
Knowledge of an event does not CAUSE that event.
THIS is the vital link you have not (nor can not) provide.
So now you’ve moved the goalposts.
What was first a discussion between knowledge and free will has now morphed into a discussion of power.
It’s hard enough to keep track of all the words you think are synonyms (knowledge/expectations/predetermination)…
…it’s much harder to keep track of when you change the subject.
Religious_Zealot on December 20, 2008 at 9:12 PM
Seems like a rather boneheaded approach by the church but the whole incident rather smacks of drama that we didn’t need parading as news. She goes on about the horrors of what this could do to her children — then we read that they are of the tender ages 18 and 20. Sounds like a bit of drama queening all around.
Back to the news.
DaMav on December 20, 2008 at 9:14 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Next »