real people (us), legal people (corporations), and Christianity

[M2]

...
     I am constantly amazed at how folks misread one another on this BB.  For example, from Marcia:

Tom M does not post emotional replies.  That's news to me.  I must be mis-reading his posts.

     Nope-- mine!  
...

We will all meet our Dave Halitsky's out there in the real world.  If our 'faith' is so easily shaken when we encounter an opposing viewpoint then we have not truly matured as we ought to.

Lord bless,
Marcia

     I am glad for those who are mature enough in faith to recognize the wolves come in among the sheep.  It is those very ones who are not yet mature, many of whom are "wounded pilgrims," for whom I am concerned.  ...

Al et al,

Yup, we all misread posts from time to time.  It is an indication of my humanity, not an indication of malicious intent on my part?

I suppose I am one who is not mature enough in faith since I have not recognized any wolves among the sheep.  The "wounded pilgrims" for whom you are concerned can EM or PM the moderators if they have a problem with any discussion on the BB.

IMHO, though I believe that Al is sincere and has good intentions, it does not necessarily follow that he has correctly evaluated the motives and intent of various ones posting on this BB.  It has been clear from the beginning that Dave H is a skeptic re. Biblical Christianity, so I am not surprised nor amazed when he makes -ve comments about Christians.  In fact I know some ex-assembly agnostics (wounded pilgrims) who are of the same opinion as Dave H.

Personally, I do not have a problem with his queries.  If he is forbidden from posting on this BB then I suppose the discussion could always continue on another.

Lord bless,
Marcia

[dhalitsky]

OK - I really (sincerely!) think this is a well-constructed question that TomM is gonna have to think a LITTLE while about - not too long - but maybe a little longer than he usually has to before he decided the right argument to use.

Here's the deal - the four main people I chat with here (Marcia, TomM, MarkC, and summer007) all have one very important "article of faith" in common.

They all believe that God had a perfect plan for the world going from day 1 of genesis, and that the Crucifixion and Resurrection of his Son was the perfect fulfillment of this perfect plan.

They also all believe that Isaiah (and Jeremiah, I THINK) were two of the major Hebrew prophets thru whom God spoke to foretell the coming of Emanuel.  (By the way Marcia. don't you miss the choir in your old Catholic church singing Emmanuel at Christmas - such a beautiful song - so peaceful but still purposeful.)

So, the question to me is: WOULD God use less than perfect prophets to fulfill a perfect Plan? Wouldn't this be like a master cabinetmaker using chisels from Sears when he had just gotten a set of the best from Germany for his birthday.

OK - Tom - that;s the part I THINK you're gonna have to think about a while.

Cause if God wouldn't think of using imperfect tools to fulfill a perfect plan, then I & J were perfect prophets in His eyes.  And therefore, He wouldn't have let perfect prophets preach nonsense about how the rulers of Israel in their time did NOT take care to take care of the widows and the orphans - IF  He thought that this criticism of the rules WAS nonsense.

From which I PERSONALLY conclude that a "works" or "social gospel" interpretation of Matthew 25:40 IS the correct and perfect interpretation.

And further, that inasmuch as  the CEOs of multinational corporations ARE the real rulers of our world, we are duty bound to take them to task for failing to take care to take care of the widows and orphans, i.e. the "dispossessed" of our society.

Blessed are we in Christ, however he has chosen to enter our hearts.
Dave

[Oscar]

OK - I really (sincerely!) think this is a well-constructed question that TomM is gonna have to think a LITTLE while about - not too long - but maybe a little longer than he usually has to before he decided the right argument to use.

Here's the deal - the four main people I chat with here (Marcia, TomM, MarkC, and summer007) all have one very important "article of faith" in common.

They all believe that God had a perfect plan for the world going from day 1 of genesis, and that the Crucifixion and Resurrection of his Son was the perfect fulfillment of this perfect plan.

They also all believe that Isaiah (and Jeremiah, I THINK) were two of the major Hebrew prophets thru whom God spoke to foretell the coming of Emanuel.  (By the way Marcia. don't you miss the choir in your old Catholic church singing Emmanuel at Christmas - such a beautiful song - so peaceful but still purposeful.)

So, the question to me is: WOULD God use less than perfect prophets to fulfill a perfect Plan? Wouldn't this be like a master cabinetmaker using chisels from Sears when he had just gotten a set of the best from Germany for his birthday.

OK - Tom - that;s the part I THINK you're gonna have to think about a while.

Cause if God wouldn't think of using imperfect tools to fulfill a perfect plan, then I & J were perfect prophets in His eyes.  And therefore, He wouldn't have let perfect prophets preach nonsense about how the rulers of Israel in their time did NOT take care to take care of the widows and the orphans - IF  He thought that this criticism of the rules WAS nonsense.

From which I PERSONALLY conclude that a "works" or "social gospel" interpretation of Matthew 25:40 IS the correct and perfect interpretation.

And further, that inasmuch as  the CEOs of multinational corporations ARE the real rulers of our world, we are duty bound to take them to task for failing to take care to take care of the widows and orphans, i.e. the "dispossessed" of our society.

Blessed are we in Christ, however he has chosen to enter our hearts.
Dave

Dave,

I am not aware that anyone on this board has said that Isaiah or Ezekiel preached nonsense.   They, as far as I know, faithfully discharged their missions of warning God's people of their unfaithfulness and faithlessness, and called them to return to God by obeying his law.

So, I don't think they were poor quality prophets, I just don't believe that they were talking to modern America, Europe, or anywhere else.

The issue is not the quality of their work, it is the purpose for their commission as prophets.   Your perfect/imperfect idea does not even address the key issue of your "argument".

The reason I typed "argument" is that I am still waiting for you to make one.

You are trying to slip in a few hidden premises, my friend.

Who told you that their statements are applicable to all men, in all situations, in all countries, in all times?  If you think that this is the case....you need to provided an argument for each one.

You have not done so.

Who told you that when Jesus said the nations would be gathered before him, that the "goat" nations represent CEO's of corporations?

You need to inform us why we should believe that this is so.  

You have not done so.

You have merely made assertions that seem nonsensical to most, if not all, of us.

If you wish to be taken seriously, you need to get serious.

Until you at least provide some arguments as to why we should understand your arbitrary assigning of symbolic meanings to passages, your assertions do not rise above the "I'm a pickle" level.

Thomas Maddux

[M2]

OK - I really (sincerely!) think this is a well-constructed question that TomM is gonna have to think a LITTLE while about - not too long - but maybe a little longer than he usually has to before he decided the right argument to use.

Here's the deal - the four main people I chat with here (Marcia, TomM, MarkC, and summer007) all have one very important "article of faith" in common.

They all believe that God had a perfect plan for the world going from day 1 of genesis, and that the Crucifixion and Resurrection of his Son was the perfect fulfillment of this perfect plan.

They also all believe that Isaiah (and Jeremiah, I THINK) were two of the major Hebrew prophets thru whom God spoke to foretell the coming of Emanuel.  (By the way Marcia. don't you miss the choir in your old Catholic church singing Emmanuel at Christmas - such a beautiful song - so peaceful but still purposeful.)

I cannot remember the song (for some reason).  Could be oldstimers??
But then, I don't even remember the choir singing at Christmas time.

I remember Handel's Messiah (post Catholic days).  Now there's a performance well worth attending.

So, the question to me is: WOULD God use less than perfect prophets to fulfill a perfect Plan? Wouldn't this be like a master cabinetmaker using chisels from Sears when he had just gotten a set of the best from Germany for his birthday.

God used imperfect men to speak and prophesy His Word.
Your perspective of God may be a bit skewed.  He is the "Father" God.
When my kids were little, I had them do certain tasks that I knew that I could do much quicker and better than they would do it.  But they did it nontheless, and the task got done.  This is not to say that the prophets of old were inexperienced or immature re. spirituality, but definitely they were less so than their heavenly Father.

OK - Tom - that;s the part I THINK you're gonna have to think about a while.

Cause if God wouldn't think of using imperfect tools to fulfill a perfect plan, then I & J were perfect prophets in His eyes.  And therefore, He wouldn't have let perfect prophets preach nonsense about how the rulers of Israel in their time did NOT take care to take care of the widows and the orphans - IF  He thought that this criticism of the rules WAS nonsense.

Re. the prophets preaching nonsense, TomM has answered this already, but I am curious if this is your opinion, or did you read this somewhere?

Looks like I misunderstood you here.  I have italicized my previous answer.
IMO God used imperfect men to prophesy, as I've aldready stated.

From which I PERSONALLY conclude that a "works" or "social gospel" interpretation of Matthew 25:40 IS the correct and perfect interpretation.

And further, that inasmuch as  the CEOs of multinational corporations ARE the real rulers of our world, we are duty bound to take them to task for failing to take care to take care of the widows and orphans, i.e. the "dispossessed" of our society.

Blessed are we in Christ, however he has chosen to enter our hearts.
Dave

Re. the "dispossessed" of our society.  The government taxes its citizens and we trust uses the monies to aid the dispossessed and defend the country...  However, as is evident in most governments, people take advantage and abuse the system and there are always loopholes that need to be closed and.....

Christians also have programs to help the less privileged ones.

It is not possible to "christianize" society via a political agenda.  However, there has to be laws in place to protect society from total de-gradation.

Lord bless,
Marcia

[Oscar]

Folks,

You will notice that "DHalitsky" has not replied to my last post, that on Oct. 1.

There is a pattern here: a.  He makes bizarre interpretations of the scriptures which support weird criticisms of Christianity and Christians.  b. I, or someone else, challenges him to support his ideas with some sort of evidence or logical argument.  c. He ignores the challenge.  d. He comes back a few days later with a new criticism of Christianity.

Notice his really strange idea about which scriptures are relaible: only direct quotes from Jesus.

Paul is judgemental so anything he says is untrue.  The gospel authors can't tell us anything so whatever they say is unreliable, etc. (If they quote Jesus, suddenly they can be trusted???)  He hasn't pronounced upon Peter, John, James and Jude yet.  

He sounds like he has been influenced by the Jesus Seminar.

If that is true, he is drinking from a poisoned well.  The members of that crowd are materialists.  Jesus didn't do miracles, (beyond psychosomatic levels), didn't prophecy of a coming kingdom, didn't rise from the dead.

Although they mask their attack behind methods of "higher" criticism...the real basis is that nothing miraculous took place, because miracles are impossible.  

But remember, they haven't proved their basic argument.  If it is not true, just about everything they say collapses.

So, Dave, when are you going to do some serious thinking about Jesus Christ?   (The real one).

Thomas Maddux

[summer007]

Just a comment: I realize I'm going out on a limb here. Perhaps Dave needs some time to construct a well thought out post. (an exercise in the patience of the saints). BTW Dave or anyone else have you checked with your church to see how much they give to the "widows and the orphans". And who qualifies as a widow or an orphan anyway?. Most of the orphans today are in foster care. Are you, yourself Dave planning on taking in foster children? If so how many. Also theirs plenty of convolescent patients row after row of elderly left in beds waiting to die. How often do you visit the abandoned widows? Also to take to task corporations does'nt make sence to me. As most of the tax dollars are used for medicare/medical that fund these beds and pay for the fostercare. I'm not saying oh just let the state do itf. But the church has guide-lines for the "widows". The most I've seen for the homeless/ dis-possessed is a box of grocerys and maybe some used clothes given out, and then some program to help them get back on their feet that most won't follow and then are termed irresponsible. Sort of then written off by the church. So if anything your question did spark for me a good question to ask at the two churches I frequent. Matthew 5:48 ' Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect'. Summer.

[M2]

IMO, "the widows and the orphans" can be substituted by "the dispossessed and the needy" in modern day terminology.   I know that many widows and orphans are very well taken care of, and are in an even better 'financial' and 'social' situation than I am; and I say good for them.

DaveH is on a course and may be the reason that he has not replied.  But I do not know for sure.

Interesting that you think that Dave has similar beliefs to the Jesus seminar folk.  I've never heard of them.

Lord bless,
Marcia

[Joe Sperling]

Tom----

The picking and choosing that David H. seems to do reminds me of the Jefferson Bible. Though Thomas Jefferson was an extremely intelligent person, he showed little intelligence when compiling "his" Bible. he picked which verses he wanted, and the ones he didn't like he simply kept out.

Also, a word on the "social Gospel". In my opinion it has always done far more harm than good. Not that we shouldn't help the poor or give to them. But when we try to "clean up" the world through Christianity, it is an awful error. Remember the "temperance leagues" back in the 20's who tried to "clean up" America by getting rid of all alcohol? They used  Christianity as their soapbox, and they did get an amendment passed banning alcohol. What did this lead to? Some of the worst crime of all time, with gangsters taking advantage of this "ban" and making millions off of it. It proves that trying to "reform" evil will lead to only greater evil.

As J. Vernon McGee used to say "The Lord didn't send us to clean up the fish pond, just to catch fish out of it". I think this is a simple yet very valid point. We, as Christians, will be led to help the poor, but helping the poor is not the message of the Gospel--salvation is the message of Jesus Christ. It goes back to Ephesians which states that we are "saved UNTO good works" not BY our works.

--Joe

[dhalitsky]

Tom/Joe/Marcia -

Sorry that incorrect conclusions are being reached concerning my delay in posting back to this thread.

Reason for the delay is threefold:

1) I was in Vancouver last week and Montreal this week taking training; so am very tired;
2) I have found from experience it is bad to post when tired; tied = cranky, usually;
3) I posted the exact question re the perfection of God's prophets and the perfection of His plan to the FBB which I mentioned here a little while ago.  The question engendered a LOT of posts both from traditional believing Christians, non-traditional questions, and the usual assortment of atheists and agnostics with axes to grind.  I am in the process of collecting all this discussion, which is difficult, because the format of the FBB is a "tree structure" in which different independent discussions branch off from the main thread.  But when I am done, I am going to post all the discussion at my own web-site, because it may be of interest to people here.

NOTE: I am not doing this (collecting the FBB posts) to "propagandize", but actually to provide evidence of how many people actually want to think about questions like this; to me, that is encouraging, not discouraging.  As you will see, there are many posters who share the opinions of Al/Joe/Marcia/summer on the question.

4) I am trying to satisfy Tom's criteria for what he considers an "argument"; hate being called a "pickle" and so am working hard at trying to come up with a good argument.  To give y'all a heads-up, though, the argument will turn on the issue of perfection in God's intelligent design of man and the universe in relation to his bringing forth prophets to foretell the Coming and Its Aftermath.

Apart from these points, there is one simple observation I would like to make.  When ChristJesus preached Matt 25:40, there WAS NO CHURCH yet.  And therefore, his remarks can ONLY be interpreted as addressed to INDIVIDUALS,  This moots all discussion of what this or that congregation is or is not doing.  The question is simply what we are each obliged to do as indiviudals.  For some, charity work or volunteer work is enough.

I say it is not enough; that not even Mother Teresa's work was enough.  Because she did not confront the machinery of modern societies which create and foster conditions in which:
a) the widows and orphans are not taken care of; b) worse than that, NO ONE thinks it is necessary to take care of these conditions, except of course, by a little voluntarism.

The analogy I always use is the following: When the US AirForce expends tens of thousands of dollars in jet and chopper fuel to rush snake anitvenom to a child in danger of death in a remote location, everyone applauds.  When it is suggested that the same taxpayer's money be spent on eyeglasses so that poor kids have a better shot at advancing themselves thru schooling, that is anti-Christian socialism.

You guys figure that one out.

I've given up trying.

Hope to have the posts on my site by Sunday, and also a post back to Tom by then.

Also, I have never heard of the Jesus seminar.  Sounds suspiciously like another feel-good operation to me, one which lets people buy a sense of Grace on the cheap.

But again, don't know anything about it at all.

Blessed are we all in ChristJesus, regardless of how he has chosen to enter our hearts.
Dave

[dhalitsky]

actually, here are two links to the discussion at the other board:

http://fray.slate.msn.com/?id=3936&m=12378415

http://fray.slate.msn.com/?id=3936&m=12390284

The first is to the long thread initiated by my initial post.

The 2nd is a second equally long thread which I had no role in starting.
I have NO idea who O_Hellenbach is (the guy who started the 2nd thread.)

Dave

[dhalitsky]

Here's a song that Americans of good-faith used to sing in the 1940's.

It is one interpretation of Matthew 25:40.

Remarkably, people who sang this song were considered likely Communists.  Does anyone agree with this assessment.

Don't know who wrote the song.  Maybe Pete Seeger.
If so, that's why it was considered Commie propaganda.
Seeger was a known Communist at one time.


PASSING THRU

Passing thru, passing thru
Sometimes happy sometimes blue
Glad that I ran into you
Tell the people that you saw me passing thru

I saw Adam leave the garden
with an apple in his hand
I said now you're out
What are you gonna do
Plant some crops and pray for rain
maybe raise a little cain
I'm an orphan and I'm only passing thru

I saw Jesus on the cross
On that hill called Calvary
Do you hate mankind for what they've done to you
He said speak of love, not hate
Things to do, it's getting late
I've so little time and I'm just passing thru

I shivered with George Washington
One night at Valley Forge
I asked why do men freeze here like they do
He said men will suffer, fight,
Even die, for what is right
Even tho they know they're only passing thru

I rode with old Abe Lincoln
On that train to Gettysburg
And I asked him what he thought to be most true
He said every man must be
Unconditionally free
We're all brothers and we're only passing thru

I was at Franklin Roosevelt's side
Just a while before he died
He said one world must come out of World War II
Yankee, Russian, Black or tan
Still a man is just a man
We're all strangers and we're only passing thru

I was with those freedom riders
on that bus to Birmingham
They said all men are equal, that is true
And the answer when it came
Brought those freedom riders fame
Freedom's colors are red, white, black, and blue

[matthew r. sciaini]

Dave:

Who are you?  I don't recall ever seeing you before in connection with anything assembly-wise.   You sound like an "artsy-fartsy" type to me.


Matt

[M2]

...
Apart from these points, there is one simple observation I would like to make.  When ChristJesus preached Matt 25:40, there WAS NO CHURCH yet.  And therefore, his remarks can ONLY be interpreted as addressed to INDIVIDUALS,  This moots all discussion of what this or that congregation is or is not doing.  The question is simply what we are each obliged to do as indiviudals.  For some, charity work or volunteer work is enough.

I say it is not enough; that not even Mother Teresa's work was enough.  Because she did not confront the machinery of modern societies which create and foster conditions in which:
a) the widows and orphans are not taken care of; b) worse than that, NO ONE thinks it is necessary to take care of these conditions, except of course, by a little voluntarism.

The analogy I always use is the following: When the US AirForce expends tens of thousands of dollars in jet and chopper fuel to rush snake anitvenom to a child in danger of death in a remote location, everyone applauds.  When it is suggested that the same taxpayer's money be spent on eyeglasses so that poor kids have a better shot at advancing themselves thru schooling, that is anti-Christian socialism.

You guys figure that one out.

I've given up trying.
...

I was reminded of this story when I read your comment about Mother Teresa.  The only parallels I want to draw between MotherTeresa and the woman in the story is that she did what she could, and the Lord was pleased with her service.

MAR 14:3 ¶ And while He was in Bethany at the home of Simon the leper, and reclining at the table, there came a woman with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume of pure nard; and she broke the vial and poured it over His head.
MAR 14:4 But some were indignantly remarking to one another, "Why has this perfume been wasted?
MAR 14:5 "For this perfume might have been sold for over three hundred denarii, and the money given to the poor." And they were scolding her.
MAR 14:6 But Jesus said, "Let her alone; why do you bother her? She has done a good deed to Me.
MAR 14:7 "For the poor you always have with you, and whenever you wish, you can do them good; but you do not always have Me.
MAR 14:8 "She has done what she could; she has anointed My body beforehand for the burial.
MAR 14:9 "And truly I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, that also which this woman has done shall be spoken of in memory of her."


God bless,
Marcia

[dhalitsky]

Tom or Mark -

Care to adjudicate BEFORE-HAND this time (re message from Matthew S. below) ?

Or do you just want to wait till I am sufficiently provoked, and then chide
ME out for being intemperate ?

Since I am the guest at this board and Matthew is more than likely someone with  a "historical" right and reason to be here, that imposes even more of an obligation on him to be polite.

Or, do you think that terms like "artsy-fartsy" lead to productive discussion ?  To me, it sounds like Matthew may have been listening to a little too much Rush L over the past few years.  Rush uses labels as rhetorical devices also, e.g. his favorite tag "liberal", which he personally has reduced to a meaningless appellation, but which nonetheless still resonates with folks who don't want to or can't think BEYOND labels.

Dave

Message from Matthew S.
***************************************************************
Dave:

Who are you?  I don't recall ever seeing you before in connection with anything assembly-wise.  You sound like an "artsy-fartsy" type to me.

Matt
*******************************************************************

[vernecarty]

So sorry to hear about Rush's fourth marriage being on the skids. How strange that people who seem to have all the answers are frequently wholly unsuccesful in the pursuit of that most basic and fundamental of human endeavour - the establishment and maintenance of stable relationships. My sympathies to him and Martha...
Verne