You can see commentary on this at HOT AIR.
Somebody needs to give Tavis Smiley a course on what constitutes Christianity.
A Christian, by definition, is one who has a personal relationship with God through Christs by having confessed with his/her mouth that Jesus IS Lord and believed in his/her heart that God has raised Him from the dead, and who claims the promise of John 3:16.
Christianity is not a default religion; ie: "I am not Muslim; I am not Hindi; I am not Jewish; I am not a follower of Eastern Religions, therefore I must be a Christian.
Christians are followers of Christ. No true follower of Christ would commit murder, else he/she would not be a follower of Christ. This includes, by the way, the favorite example of stupid people: the Crusaders. It is not possible that they were Christians.
If I call myself a luxury liner, that does not make me able to float. And if I call my self Christian and do not the things of Christ, I am nothing more than a liar or self-deceived.
The outrageous statement of Tavis Smiley is a perpetuation of a most unfortunate stereotype of his race, and he should be ashamed of himself.
What is this insatiable desire of liberals to somehow make the tenets of Radical Islam somehow excusable? Why do they insist that they are just like us?
Why would New Yorkers consider it proper to erect a Mosque at the very spot where Radical Islam committed an act of war against America, killing nearly 3,000 office workers and First Responders?
Are those of Tavis Smiley's ilk really that stupid?
Oh, and check out this OOOOPS!
Nothing like a visit to the old homeland.
32 comments:
what a horror this man is..She should have torn that comment to pieces..thanks Joe..I will add ya to my blogroll right away!:)
Joe, isn't it amazing?
I'm going to go get that gun out of my bible, find me some muslims and start shooting...because "the Bible tells me so!" (GeeeZ)
Angel, it's about TIME you put our buddy Joe on your blogroll!! :-)
WHT: Thank you. I have seen you all over the blogosphere in comments, finally went to you site and loved it!
Z: You must be thinking about II Hezekiah 4:12.
Here's a neat idea ... why don't we just sweep the fact that Obama is unqualified to serve as president under the carpet?
On the issue of your outrage, you know ... the number of Presbyterians blowing up Baptist day care centers is out of control. We've got to fix this problem.
mustang: Them thar Presbiterans is tuff.
Carpet? What carpet? President BO is openly defiant about not revealing his true place of birth.
(For the benefit of any liberals who stumble by, I am not a birther. I just want him to settle the whole thing by showing his original birth certificate...simple).
I had to show mine just to get a drivers license. And I'm not even president...yet.
I can't believe that idiot believes he is a "Christian" and that we were responsible for Colombine and post office shootings???!! WTH! Where did he get his information from? The man is absolutely clueless and he is giving true believers a bad name, but then again, that is what the MSM does against us and Jews.
So truly sad.
"On the issue of your outrage, you know ... the number of Presbyterians blowing up Baptist day care centers is out of control. We've got to fix this problem."
Speaking of blowing things up, it was only 47 years ago when Christians did this to other Christians. How quickly you forget the Christian KKK terrorists who dominated the South and commited acts of terrorism against fellow Americans.
When you say that the Crusaders were not Christians just because you don't agree with what they did, it does not exculpate them for their crimes. The were Christians.
Peaceful Muslims could say the same thing about the radicals of their religion. It doesn't make their crimes go away either.
SK: You obviously do not know the definition of a Christian. If you think the Crusaders were Christians because they called themselves Christian, you are 100%, totally wrong. There is no discussion appropriate here you are just plain wrong. Dead wrong.
Did they call themselves Christian? Some did. They were wrong, because they, too, did not know what it means to be a Christian.
You do not know what it means to be a Christina or you would not have said what you said.
There was not a single Christian among the KKK. There were lots of church goers, and lots of people who called themselves Christian, but they were not.
If you don't know that, then I was right (which I was): You don't know what it means to be a Christian.
See, no man or woman gets to choose what it means to be a Christian. No dictionary gets to define it. No encyclopedia gets to pontificate about it. No hyperlink gets to decide it.
A Christian is a person who has recognized that in the face of a sovereign God, he/she is a sinner condemned to spend eternity in Hell, separated from God forever unless the price of his/her sin is paid by God's perfection...which it was in Jesus.
It is the knowing that Christ died on a cross, at the hands of the Romans and at the insistance of the Jewish leaders, but more importantily because of your and my sin. It is repenting of that sin and turning to Christ in faith believing in, and only in, the finished work of Christ on that cross for the remission of sin.
That belief results in a changed life-attitude that precludes murder, racism, and hatred (even hatred for conservatives [or liberals]).
That is what a Christian is.
Nothing else constitutes being a Christian.
By the way, I do not excuse what the Crusaders did. That they did it in the name of Christianity is disgusting. They deserve eternal punishment for it. And that they will get.
Ditto the KKK.
Shame on you for daring to come here and try to redefine the meaning of Christianity.
You have overstepped a boundary that is not yours to overstep.
I hope you are intelligent enough to know that.
More proof that one doesn't have to be smart to gain success. Both Smiley and Obama.
"A Christian is a person who has recognized that in the face of a sovereign God, he/she is a sinner condemned to spend eternity in Hell, separated from God forever unless the price of his/her sin is paid by God's perfection...which it was in Jesus."
Joe, that is YOUR definition of being a Christian--but it isn't the only one. By stating that anyone who doesn't believe in your dogma is NOT a Christian, it makes you, well, unChristian. I have had conversations with ordained ministers and priests who would not agree with you on this.
would your answer to that be they're not Christian?
But of course they most certainly are, and probably more forgiving, loving, and accepting--which is Christlike--than your answer to me is.
You know nothing about me, and yet you--in your most scathing and intolerant diatribe--tell me what I am?
Then you tell me I should be ashamed of myself for trying to define what a Christian is when I did not define what a Christian is.
Go back and read my comment--it was about people who define themselves as Christian committing unChristian acts.
You seem to be extremely defensive about this subject and it is evident by your nasty and condemnatory language toward me.
Dave Miller is a Christian and a blogger with whom I exchange emails. He does missionary work with the poorest of the poor in Mexico. I suggest you visit his blog and understand how this religion thing should work.
I have no idea if he accepts Jesus as his personal savior, but I suspect that if Christ were to earth and watch Dave working with the poorest of poor, Jesus would not care.
Shaw, obviously you are not Christian or you would see the fallacy of your argument. This is not derisive. It is simply fact.
ie:
"I have no idea if he accepts Jesus as his personal savior, but I suspect that if Christ were to earth and watch Dave working with the poorest of poor, Jesus would not care."
For one thing, the statement, "If Christ were to (I assume you meant to insert the word "come" ) here to earth..."
If you knew Christ you would know that Christ is eternal and omnipresent. He IS here.
Second, If your friend hasn't accepted Christ as his personal Savior, Christ would not care because Christ would not know him, or his works.
"Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Matthew 7:22-23
BTW, Shaw, I am not being self-righteous here. I fear hearing the above words from Jesus as much (perhaps more) as anyone.
Joe, you'd better explain II Hezekiah 4:12 to Shaw before he starves himself to death looking for it in his dust covered Bible.
I really don't care what you think Mark, least of all your use of Biblical passages to support your prejudices and devaluing the good works of people like Dave Miller. He helps the poor doesn't he, and didn't Jesus state that whatever you do for the least of mine you do for me? Mr. Miller is most certainly doing Jesus's work.
The NT also says this:
1 Timothy 6:17-19
Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life.
James 1:27
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
You and Joe have absolutely no idea what God or Jesus think of people like Dave Miller, but through your comments (and Joes') I have a very good understanding of YOUR ideas of Christian exclusivity and self-satisfied stinginess of spirit.
SK: You say: "Joe, that is YOUR definition of being a Christian--but it isn't the only one. By stating that anyone who doesn't believe in your dogma is NOT a Christian, it makes you, well, unChristian.
First, it is not MY definition of being a Christian.
Secondly, stating what I stated is not unChristian.
Through our church's food pantry my wife and I helped provide over 7,000 people with food last month.
We understand what it means to "do work for Christ."
Trouble is, doing work for Christ does not make one a Christian.
I do not pretend to know anyone's heart, and thus can only judge whether or not they have a personal relationship with God through Christ by their own testimony.
But I am not the judge, God is. I do not judge whether or not someone's heart is right with God, but I examine their spiritual fruit and make an educated guess.
Fortunately, I am not the last word on the subject, for which we can all be grateful.
This I know, however: If you have a personal relationship with God through Christ, having confessed Him as Lord and having believed in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead and having trusted in His finished work at the cross of Calvary, quite apart from what you do or don't do, you have the right to call yourself "Christian."
Everybody else is a pretender.
That is not to say that what they do is evil, or bad, or that it should not be done, just that THAT is not what makes them Christian.
Shaw, you aren't paying attention. I never said your friend isn't a Christian. My point (and the point of the scripture I quoted)is: Doing good works does not make one a Christian.
Christians do good works. Yes. So do non-Christians.
Jews do good works, perhaps more than most Christians. I don't doubt that. Do you? But, they are still Jews, and I'll bet if you asked a particularly altruistic Jew if he was a Christian, he'd say no.
A true Christian who doesn't do good works is still a Christian, but, admittedly not a Christian who is doing the work the Lord has commanded him to do.
As I pointed out, an unbeliever who does good works is not necessarily a Christian.
Actually, I'm not surprised that you fail to grasp this concept. The Bible says, unbelievers do not understand the ways of God.
If you still fail to understand this concept, and if you really want to understand this concept, I would suggest that you repent of your sin, and ask God for forgiveness, and trust that Christ has saved you through the shedding of his blood upon the cross.
Upon doing this, truthfully in faith, you will understand. I don't know how to explain this adequately. Faith opens a lot of doors and causes a blind eye to see.
Mark: You're doing a great job! Keep it up!
SK: "I really don't care what you think Mark..."
If that's true, why did you bother to respond to him?
Hmmmm?
Mark,
Thanks for your concern, but I don't need "saving."
You are welcome to your beliefs if they make life bearable and help you get through it.
But it is rather arrogant and haughty of you to suggest I need to be saved.
Those are your beliefs, but not necessarily the only ones that religious people hold.
There are some groupd of Christians always thumbing their noses at other people's religion, believing no one but they will be "saved." That is mighty arrogant, if I may make an observation.
I am perfectly happy and content with my family and my life and have been able to face some challenging health ordeals without begging an invisible deity to make it go away.
I faced my challenge with courage and confidence in medical science and accepted the love and support from my friends and family.
I'm not the only one to have the strength and courage to do this.
Many millions of us get through life without religion and die a peaceful death without fear of retribution from an avenging god who didn't get the worship he or she demanded from his creations.
A god that would condemn millions of people to eternal and horrendous suffering because they didn't follow some particular rule of his religion, or were not even aware such a religion existed or did not open their hearts to him or her is no god of love and acceptance.
I would not punish anyone for not adoring me in a proper manner or for not saying the proper words to accept me. Therefore, I must be more merciful than god.
SK: 97% of people who become saved didn't think they needed to be saved before they were saved.
Being saved is not a bad thing, it is a good thing. You just don't realize it.
Wishing you to be saved is not arrogance, it is caring.
But of course, you don't need that, either. You can make it on your own.
You are obviously a superior life-form, totally absorbed in your "I'm better than you"ism.
That's fine.
Trust me (or not)...there is a rude awakening ahead for you.
Neither Mark nor I wish it on you. Nevertheless, it will come.
Your arrogance will be shattered some day, and the shattering will be irreversable.
You are free to choose your beliefs, but you are not free to choose the consequences of your beliefs.
"A god that would condemn millions of people to eternal and horrendous suffering because they didn't follow some particular rule of his religion, or were not even aware such a religion existed or did not open their hearts to him or her is no god of love and acceptance."
My God has never condemned anyone to eternal and horrendous suffering. Like you, they have condemed themselves by rejecting the claim of Christ on their lives.
As for those who have not heard, two things: 1)It is shameful that they have not heard, for that means Christians have dropped the ball by not telling them; and 2)Don't worry. God is just and fair in the umpth degree. If they truely have not heard, he will treat them properly, for he is the definition of love and justice.
The one thing you will not be able to say when you stand before God and are judged is "I didn't know about Jesus." Mark and I have just told you.
Leticia: I didn't mean to ignore your comment. You are absolutely correct. He must have gotten his information from some "wise" college professor, or other liberal.
"You are obviously a superior life-form, totally absorbed in your "I'm better than you"ism."
No, Joe, it is you, not I who claim this. You believe I will have some sort of rude awakening for not accepting Christian dogma.
I don't believe I'm superior, those are YOUR words characterizing my belief that I don't need religion.
Your conviction that I'll have a "rude awakening" which may come in the form of punishment, is a form of "superior-ism." I make no such claims for your life--you do so to mine.
You don't wish me ill, but you're convinced I will?
What kind of sick religion would make people gleeful over the prospect of someone suffering eternal retribution because they don't accept your dogma?
Think about it.
And then you add this gem:
JOE: "The one thing you will not be able to say when you stand before God and are judged is "I didn't know about Jesus." Mark and I have just told you."
You may believe this, but I don't. And you will never know which one of us is correct.
You say
Shaw, I read recent your comment with interest, and I knew you would get around to this:
"A god that would condemn millions of people to eternal and horrendous suffering because they didn't follow some particular rule of his religion..."
This is something else you don't understand. God doesn't condemn anyone to eternal horrendous suffering. God does not punish anyone. God never sends anyone to Hell.
Dust off your otherwise pristine Bible and look for any place in the scriptures where they say God does any of these things. You will have as much luck finding that as you would finding II Hezekiah.
The unrepentant sinner sends himself to perdition. God doesn't want him to go to Hell, but if he doesn't repent, he is condemned by his own rebellion already.
You may have heard on occasion that there is nothing God cannot do. That is simply not true. God cannot Lie. God cannot be unjust. And, among other things, God cannot save the unrepentant sinner from an everlasting death created by the sinner's own rebellion.
I would humbly suggest that you do some research before you decide you don't need God. Once you are dead, you won't have a chance to change your mind.
SK: If you don't believe it, and you're so certain you are correct, why one earth are you making such a big deal out of it?
In fact, why do you continue to concern yourself with what we ignorant, uneducated Christians have to say?
BTW: What you believe about something is not what makes it true or false.
Isn't it arrogant to say, "I don't believe it therefore it must not be true.?"
"In fact, why do you continue to concern yourself with what we ignorant, uneducated Christians have to say?"--Joe
Those are your words, Joe, not mine. You assume I think Christians are ignorant and uneducated? Are you living in my head? Because if you are, I'll have to start charging you rent.
Seriously, nowhere did I express such an idea. Members of my family, whom I love and admire, are devout Christians, Mormons, Buddhists and Jews. Just because I am a non-believer it does not follow that I think believers are ignorant and uneducated. Perhaps it is you who thinks that of nonbelievers? What else would have prompted such a rude remark?
"BTW: What you believe about something is not what makes it true or false."--Joe
Again, those are your words, not mine, and what you are saying by expressing them is this: What one believes about something [Christianity? Mormonism? Islam?] is not what makes it true or false.
"Isn't it arrogant to say, 'I don't believe it therefore it must not be true.?'"--Joe
I never wrote or uttered those words, so I don't know why you put quotation marks around something I didn't write. You may be using that quote as an example and not something I said, so my answer is this:
There are lots of people who don't "believe" in Evolution, but their nonbelief does not cancel out the fact of Evolution.
OTOH, faith, by definition, is a firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
We each have our own way of dealing with life. You and Mark believe your way is the only true way.
I, a non-believer, and many other people of other faiths disagree.
I would ask Mark who stated that God doesn't condemn anyone to punishment but rather sinners condemn themselves: Who made up the rules for what a sin is?
And why should it be sinful to work on the Lord's day? That is one of the 10 Commandments that Christians believe were handed down directly from God to Moses--God's 10 Commandments.
Are Christians who work on the Lord's day sinners? [Christianity owns Sunday, Judaism's owns Saturday, and Islam owns Friday].
Someone had to make up these rules in order to then label "sinner" those who break them.
If one breaks God's laws, one is a sinner. Why did God make working on Sunday a sin for Christians? That seems an unfair Commandement, especially when some Christians need to support their families by working on that day.
So it definitely is a sin for Christians to work on Sunday, since it is in direct opposition to what God commanded.
Mark, what I'm trying to say is that God made the rules that people break and then become sinners.
IMHO, there is no sin in working on the Sabbath to support one's family, but as I said, how can I be more merciful than God? It is HE who condemned people to sin by creating this Commandment.
Exactly, Shaw. God made the rules. Only He can change them.
Apparently, you can't find ypur dust covered Bible, because, if you had actually read the ten Commandments, God never said "Ye shalt not work on Sunday".
He said, "Honor the Sabbath to keep it holy." I submit one can work on the sabbath (whatever your day of Sabbath is) and still honor the sabbath. Pastors work on Sunday. If that isn't keeping it holy, what is?
You still don't understand, and sadly, without the unveiling of your eyes performed by the Holy Spirit, you never will.
Christians aren't necessarily Christians because they proclaim themselves thus. Christians who fit the Biblical definition of Christianity are true Christians. Those who claim to be Christians but intentionally claim that un-Godly acts, words, and deeds are Christian are not Christians.
In fact, the definition of blasphemy is, among others, the attribution to God things that come from Satan.
Those who claim things that God has called unholy (such as homosexuality) are now Holy are not Christians according to the Biblical definition.
Although, there is one caveat: Some actual Christians, who have allowed themselves to be misled, who may argue at times in support of un-Biblical principles, are still Christians.
Fortunately for Christians, God has assured us that nothing can separate us from God.
Mark wrote: He said, "Honor the Sabbath to keep it holy." I submit one can work on the sabbath (whatever your day of Sabbath is) and still honor the sabbath. Pastors work on Sunday. If that isn't keeping it holy, what is?
"For six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even in ploughing time and in harvest time you shall rest."
Remember the sabbath day,to keep it holy.Six days you shall labor,
and do all your work; but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your manservant, or your maidservant, or your cattle, or the sojourner who is within your gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea,and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it"--Genesis 20:8-11
Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the LORD your God commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work. But the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God, you shall not do any work -- you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you. Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day.--Deuteronomy 5:12-15 (NRSV)
It appears you need to dust off your Bible. There is no question on this point. It is a sin to break God's Commandment, and His commandment clearly and unequivocally states NO WORK on the Sabbath. And I don't see any exceptions for clergy. But since the NT records Jesus preaching on the Sabbath, maybe that gives clergy exception--however, clergy are not gods.
And this:
To prevent any possible misunderstanding, Jesus warned those who would try to abolish God's law: "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least [by those] in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great [by those] in the kingdom of heaven"
SK: You have aptly demonstrated your inability to properly interpret Scripture in light of its entire context, rather than with proof-texting.
The most "dangerous" Christians are those who take portions of Scripture and form their doctrines from them.
The Bible says, in Matthew 27:5 "So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself."
Luke 10:37 says: ""Go and do likewise."
In John 13:27 we read: ""What you are about to do, do quickly,"
Putting those together we get:
"So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.
"Go and do likewise.
"What you are about to do, do quickly,"
Each of these verses in this illustration is taken out of bothe its immediate context and the context of Scripture as a whole.
The resulting conclusion is not at all what the Bible means.
The Bible contains many subjects, but only one objective: to reveal God's character; His love for His creation and His plan for its redemption.
The ten commandments are not rules to be followed, but a mirror to reveal how short we fall of being able to keep them. Romans 3:23 says "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Not some, all.
In the Old Testament, God reveals the problem: sin.
In the New Testament, God reveals the solution: Jesus' sacrificial atonement for sin.
Every verse, every chapter, every story, and every parable is aimed at either the revelation of the sinfullness of man or the extraordinary grace God showed in giving His only Son to die for us who are steeped in sin.
Interpreted from any other perspective, it is a hodge-podge of seeming contraditions and strange stories/outcomes.
Interpreted from the afore-mentioned viewpoint, and it all comes together and makes sense.
One way will result in ALWAYS getting the wrong idea and/or interpretation.
The other will always get it right.
There is no middle ground.
You get to choose whether you want to get it wrong or right.
Seems silly, though, to interpret it from the wrong perspective and be forever trying to make it fit together. It can't be done. Been tried by some of the best theologians in the universe, and they have never been able to do it.
Touche', Shaw.
Tavis is an idiot, and does not belong on the same stage Hirsi Ali.
What a liberal moron...
Yes, Silverfiddle, Tavis is a wild-eyed, delusional boob! And I say this knowing --- anybody ever read Hard Left ? ugh....
Post a Comment