Legalistic Jesus

[_Jersey Girl]

Light,

Perhaps it would be a better idea to put a definition of "legalistic" on the table for discussion.

Jersey Girl

[_Sam Harris]

So if you approve of condemning murder, why is Richard a "legalist" for condemning homosexuality? The only noticeable difference is that you agree with one condemnation, but not the other. That would be clear evidence the term "legalist" is just an insult you use to describe religious views you don't find likable to your more liberal mindset. You also are not being incredibly consistent here, which is why it is hard to nail down the terms use. You have argued that thinking one has a more correct religious perspective - a more correct path to God if you will - is legalism. Here you appear to be backing down on such a silly, silly misuse of the term.

Do you value human life?

[_A Light in the Darkness]

So if you approve of condemning murder, why is Richard a "legalist" for condemning homosexuality? The only noticeable difference is that you agree with one condemnation, but not the other. That would be clear evidence the term "legalist" is just an insult you use to describe religious views you don't find likable to your more liberal mindset. You also are not being incredibly consistent here, which is why it is hard to nail down the terms use. You have argued that thinking one has a more correct religious perspective - a more correct path to God if you will - is legalism. Here you appear to be backing down on such a silly, silly misuse of the term.

Do you value human life?

What an odd rhetorical question. We all get that you disapprove of murder, but not homosexuality. The problem enters when you declare readings of the Bible "legalistic" if they condemn the latter on what appears to be no more sturdy a base than your own disapproval of the position. It gets worse when you imply that any condemnation of any behavior supported by scripture is "legalistic" only to contradict yourself when someone points to examples where you will not disagree.

Jersey -

Legalism is a pejorative referring to improper focus on religious law. What constitutes "improper" would be things like superficial observance of the law while neglecting its spirit, ostentatious, prideful obedience meant to signify one's superiority to others, etc. GIMR attacked Richard for little more than his explanation of what constitutes the law in the first place.

[_Sam Harris]

Just answer my question and stop with the misguided psychoanalysis.

[_Sam Harris]

So if you approve of condemning murder, why is Richard a "legalist" for condemning homosexuality? The only noticeable difference is that you agree with one condemnation, but not the other. That would be clear evidence the term "legalist" is just an insult you use to describe religious views you don't find likable to your more liberal mindset. You also are not being incredibly consistent here, which is why it is hard to nail down the terms use. You have argued that thinking one has a more correct religious perspective - a more correct path to God if you will - is legalism. Here you appear to be backing down on such a silly, silly misuse of the term.

Do you value human life?

What an odd rhetorical question. We all get that you disapprove of murder, but not homosexuality. The problem enters when you declare readings of the Bible "legalistic" if they condemn the latter on what appears to be no more sturdy a base than your own disapproval of the position. It gets worse when you imply that any condemnation of any behavior supported by scripture is "legalistic" only to contradict yourself when someone points to examples where you will not disagree.

Jersey -

Legalism is a pejorative referring to improper focus on religious law. What constitutes "improper" would be things like superficial observance of the law while neglecting its spirit, ostentatious, prideful obedience meant to signify one's superiority to others, etc. GIMR attacked Richard for little more than his explanation of what constitutes the law in the first place.

Light,

You need to point out piece by piece exactly what you percieve my inconsistencies to be. Quotes, thank you.

Also, do you read the Bible at face value, meaning reading and taking notes based on the English translation, or have you ever gone back to the orignial languages as best you can and tried to decipher what the writers were trying to say?

Also, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop trying to make it seem like I think Richard is a horrid Stalinist wife-beater because I disagree with him that the Bible condemns homosexuality. You see, Paul often speaks of "sexual immorality" and it is up to YOU to decide what that is. He speaks of men lying with men as with women, but Light, did you read what people like Jersey Girl and RogerMorrison had to say about what Paul was saying? Or again, do you just read the Bible at face value?

"Legalism is a pejorative referring to improper focus on religious law. "

Exactly! So tell me how condemning love between two people of the same sex is the same as murder. I wait enraptured.

[_Sam Harris]

It's probably the wrong thing to do, posting what I'm about to, but I think that people like Light's view of me as a person instead of the discussion at hand is coloring what they read.

This is what I believe. Of course at it's heart it's probably not "Christian" as many people see Christianity today. But I don't really care.

My Statement of Religious Belief

I believe in the Divine Worth of every human being, regardless of race, ethnicity, cred, religion, lack thereof, or sexual orientation. I believe that each individual is a thread in the tapestry, and that each thread is equally as important as the other.

I believe that due to fear and uncertainty about the future, mankind has trapped itself within the stricture tha is the lust for power; be it spiritual, financial, intellctual, or otherwise. We have lost the self-wonder and self-love of our youth, and now seek reassurance from having more than or being better than our neighbors. I firmly believe that we are doing ourselves a great disservice by hanging on to these behaviors. I do so believe that ignoring this is very dangerous.

I believe that God speaks many languages and goes by many names. I believe that the insistence upon one name and one language is again, the product of man's fear. I believe that we as a human race would do so much better if we worked more at building bridges instead of deep moats.

I believe that human life is sacred, and that God's ultimate task here for us is to make that life as joyful and as meaningful as possible (do not equate joy with happiness, sometimes they are not the same), regardless of how much time we may have to do so. None of us were promised that this would be easy, or even a permanently attainable state. Still, I believe that if you ask anyone hwo has lost a beloved how that person touched their lives, I think you will see the importance of the task of living with purpose.

Touching futher on my belief in the sanctity of human life, I believe that it is wrong to detract from the quality of another person's life based on prejudices or religious beliefs. Actions which take life away, make life unbearable, or turn life into a daily exercise in shame or rejection are wrong. Any person who has a sense of social justice should speak up when they see these things taking place, ignoring the pleas for "logic" and the character defamation that might be thrown in their direction.

I believe in Jesus Christ, not as an ultimatum for the rest of the world, but rather as a Teacher for me. I believe He is God Incarnate and I believe in His Teachings. I also beieve that His Teachings have been and are being used by opportunitsts who seek to provide a distraction while they detract from the quality of others' lives for personal gain. It is a sickness that I fear the Christian community will not heal from for a long time.

I also believe that humanity, especially the religious communities within the Abrahamic faiths, would do well to focus more on using their lives in pursuit of personal peace so that our "houses" (mind/body/spirit) may be oases for one another in times of need.

Lastly, I beieve in simply believing. I believe that I do not need to "know" in order to have spiritual experiences, in fact I feel that the knowing many people say they have today takes away from the mysticism that is faith. And I'm ok with just having that little faith.

-------------------------------------------------

Now that that's over....

Light, I'm sure you'll make an attempt to pick this apart piece by piece, and tell me just how horrid and judgemental I am because of what I have written, just like you started out with your initial personal attack against atheists in your most recent threads here. I have a feeling that this is just an opportunity for you to disagree with someone, instead of something valid that needs to be discussed. That's okay, as my friends say, "you do you". I hope you have fun. :-)...and I also hope that you at least once attempt to answer a question on this thread with something other than assumptions about what you think I think about Richard.


To anyone else who may want to post on this thread:

I think that sometimes in the attempt to "judge not" because that's the Christian thing to do, we let those who judge far worse than we do have free reign. When can a Christian say, even to another Christian, "it's wrong to hurt another person", and not have the book thrown at them by those doing the hurting? Do we even speak up, and if not, what is the point of being a Christian? I thought that we were supposed to do what Christ did, heal and love each other, not read a scripture and then go on and on about those we think are sinners.

Mind you, this may just be a message board, but put yourself in the shoes of the people who have to deal every day with folks telling them that who they are, or what mistaks they've made, based on someone's religious views, has caused God to disparage them. Perhaps those people (the "sinners") really love and want relationship with God. What are we doing to that relationship by not speaking up with condemnation comes?

[_Gazelam]

Thanks alot for posting this testimony of yours. I wish eneryone here would do the same.

You said:

I believe that each individual is a thread in the tapestry, and that each thread is equally as important as the other.

I like this. It reminds me of the great scene from the movie The Prince of Egypt where Moses is taught by the family Patriarch.
enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtmBzoPCTWA

The other thing I noticed is this:

I believe in Jesus Christ, not as an ultimatum for the rest of the world, but rather as a Teacher for me. I believe He is God Incarnate and I believe in His Teachings.

This has to do with the topic of the thread I believe. How do you reconcile a belief in Chrit with a belief that anyone can believe whatever they want? To declare Christ as your Savior is to at the same time deny false teachings that many hold dear. To stand with Christ is to draw a line in the sand and declare Muslims, Buddists. and Jews to be wrong in their faith.

This is not a declaration of War though. What is wrong in asking them to take all the good and great beliefs they have and to build upon them with true doctrine? There are bits of the gospel in all faiths, But to declare Christ is God is to tell people "Here is a fulness of truth". Is it wrong to take a stand on the side of Christ and denounce false doctrine?

Gaz

[_Sam Harris]

Gaz,

Go back to the "God speaks many languages" part. There is a version of the ten commandments in just about every religion in existence. There is a moral and ethical fabric that all of society holds onto. We should be focusing on that, rather on what name people call God.

I see God as Love and Light, Justice and Peace. I don't care if you call it Liebe und Licht, Gericht und Freiden.

Do you understand?