NY Times Blogs Online: Obama Quits His Church

[Rooster7 11]

Vicki -

 

Its difficult for me to tell if we disagree or not, because you seem to be trying to say something without explicitly stating it.

 

Regardless, as a philosophical point, I would like to offer something about the extremes and the middle. The middle is a safe place. Its not too far from either side. And while being at the extreme end, means you or the guy at the other extreme end is unquestionably wrong - it doesnt necessarily mean neither one of you is right.

[Vicki 11]

Rooster, you are completely and utterly convinced of your "rightness." That's fine, I've met several people like you. Fortunately extremists, by definition, will always be in the minority and they will be comfortable there because feeling embattled is part of how they define themselves.

 

But I, personally, feel I will potentially bring more people to faith through Luke 6:27ff than I ever will by flinging Romans 1 in folks' faces.

 

Vicki

[BadenP 93]

Rooster I just want to say that you need to see W just because it shows the side of the man the public should know about and what motivated him. It is not really an innaccurate depicition, much like his movie on Nixon. If you see it then condemn it at least you are doing so from a position of knowledge otherwise it is from a position of ignorance.

 

As far as my theology you and I have gone round and round before and while I admire the tenacity of your belief I can not help but remember the scripture, "You have eyes but you do not see, ears but you do not hear." So we will see who is correct on the other side. In the meantime whenever anyone uses scripture to condemn someone they do not agree with they have created a God in their own image and in scripture that is called blasphemy and idolatry. Still I wish you well.

[packsaddle 753]

I can hardly believe that I'm doing this (maybe one of those alien abduction/replacements?) but I'm going to defend Bush here. I haven't seen the movie but I have seen a few clips in the form of ads or discussions on television.

Rooster and I disagree on the man and that's a fact. But I probably won't watch this film because I do NOT see it as a fair presentation of the man. In fact, I think it might be unfair to both views, Rooster's and mine.

I admit that I am forming an opinion on a very thin basis. If this film was a truly serious work, carefully analyzing the man and his Presidency, I suspect that such a work would not be something that makes us laugh or react in the ways about which I'm reading. Instead this film is less informative and more entertaining, at least for those of us who would ridicule for sake of pleasure alone. If this is the case, and I admit I could be wrong, it does everyone a disservice. The breadth and depth of this tragedy deserves a more careful and serious treatment. And now, I can be released by the alien presence.

 

Rooster7, I have to admit...you've certainly mellowed in your old age. I guess the fundamental difference between us is that I'm never certain of the truth while you seem to think you know it absolutely. I can't figure out how to reconcile those two viewpoints.

[Rooster7 11]

Vicki,

 

Rooster, you are completely and utterly convinced of your "rightness."

 

Im not completely and utterly convinced of my rightness. I am completely and utterly convinced that the God of the Bible is real. It is his rightness that I embraceI dont own it.

 

Fortunately extremists, by definition, will always be in the minority and they will be comfortable there because feeling embattled is part of how they define themselves.

 

At one time, those who fought against slavery were considered extremists. I dont think they did so because they wanted to feel embattled. They simply fought for what they believed to be right and true. And as far as I can tell, theyre not in the minority today.

 

But I, personally, feel I will potentially bring more people to faith through Luke 6:27 than I ever will by flinging Romans 1 in folks' faces.

 

I understand that Jesus is love. And that certainly is much more appealing than being subject to His judgment. However, Jesus told the truth in love. Sometimes, after presenting the truth (or flinging it as you described it), those who thought they were his disciples decided differently. It wasnt what he wanted. He told the truth and some chose to reject it.

 

Jesus said:

 

"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

 

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn

'a man against his father,

a daughter against her mother,

a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw

a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.

 

Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." Matthew 10:32-39

 

[Vicki 11]

Yes, Rooster, Jesus' radical notion of loving thy neighbor as yourself, be that neighbor black or yellow, Republican or Democrat, was a sword that cleaved families asunder. The notion that the outcasts of society deserved care too cleaved communities asunder.

 

Vicki

[Rooster7 11]

Vicki,

 

How or why you managed to inject race and politics into my last post is curious at best. I thought we (you and I that is) were discussing Jesus and the words He used to draw folks into His Kingdom.

 

Don't know how to respond to someones reasoned argument? Frustrated? Its simplemake innuendoes that impugn your opposition with the likes of racial bigotry. Nice. Dont know why Im surprised. This has been the liberal philosophy in American politics for the last 40 yearsI shouldnt be shocked when their supporters and followers adopt the same tactics.

[Vicki 11]

Rooster, simply bringing Jesus' teachings into our century. In his day it was lepers and Samaritans. Well, those folks are safely back in 30AD aren't they? So let's talk about today's folks. Interesting exercise, isn't it? Not impugning you at all, by the way, I didn't hear you saying anything racist or bigoted, simply bringing a different interpretation into play. So no need for defenses on my account. Have others taken your literalism to be racist or bigoted?

 

You have no idea what my politics are, I think you'd probably be surprised.

 

Vicki(This message has been edited by Vicki)

[Rooster7 11]

Vicki,

 

Okay for the time being, Ill assume it to be paranoia on my part. So applying Jesus words to this generation, who is he speaking to in Matthew 10? Are these verses not applicable today? Is it enough to embrace Jesus teaching on love...even if one refuses to see a need for a savior?

 

[Vicki 11]

Rooster, I believe you and I would agree that a Christian embraces the whole package - Jesus as lover of humankind and Jesus as savior. Luke 12:8-12 are considered to be the parallel verses to those in Matthew. In those verses the language is less combative yet has the same message. Matthew, in general, tended to be more combative than Luke - possibly reflecting the reality of his time and place in the biblical narrative. You will probably disagree violently with me (although I may be making an unwarranted assumption) but I don't believe that Matthew was necessarily writing his gospel prior to about 70AD when the Romans savagely put down a Jewish revolt and tore down the temple. Matthew was writing for/preaching to a community that was fighting for its life with the Romans along with elements of the Jewish community.

 

Vicki

[Rooster7 11]

Vicki,

 

Your historical presumptions may be accurate. I dont know.

 

But heres the rub: I dont view any part of the Gospel as being tailored to a particular generation. Moreover, I see Gods Word as being relative to the ongoing spiritual battle that all of us must endure, rather than the specific circumstances that a Biblical authors contemporaries may have encountered. Lastly, when I read Jesus words, I view them as His words, not the words of the author. But thats not necessarily a huge point for me, because I view the entire Bible as Gods Word.

 

[Vicki 11]

Rooster, the word is not tailored to a specific generation. But, if we don't understand the context in which it was written and the people who wrote it we are not going to understand it for our generation.

 

I think we've eaten up enough of this thread. If you would like to continue this conversation we can do it privately, but I think I've reached an adequate understanding.

 

BTW, in terms of the original thread, I think whether or not one decides to participate in a specific Christian community is up to the individual and their family. Unfortunately, this individual and his family have attained national standing so their "doings" become our business, even when it isn't our business.

 

Vicki (edited for typo)

 

(This message has been edited by Vicki)