This election was emotionally devastating for me. This is not so much because of the results though they did, in many ways, depress and terrify me. Much of my angst had to do with the choice that was posed. The incumbent has the most anti-baby and pro-abortion record of any president in American history. His challenger had a record on abortion that was suspect at best, and in addition to this, his running mate capitulated on life issues after his selection by supporting the candidates position in favor of allowing abortion on the basis of who the child's father was.

So, personally, I was left with two major party candidates that I didn't want to vote for, one third party candidate that I *somewhat* liked (but who was not on the ballot in my state), and one third party candidate who I could possibly support. So, I made my choice. I voted against the worst of the three. Which of the other two I voted for is not relevant at this point.

In the end, the President was reelected. I was immediately filled with fear. I started thinking about the millions of babies who will die in the next four years. I thought about the Health and Human Services Mandate which may attempt to force churches to pay for some of those murders. I thought about how the church will navigate this mine-field and concluded that I have no idea. I fell into despair.

Fear and despair are not good. I should fear God, and God alone. The President should hold no terror for me.  This is true even though I am quite confident that we are entering a time of renewed persecution of the church. Three states passed ballot initiatives which will introduce gay "marriage" (the quotes are there because it's not real marriage regardless of what the state says). Over half of our country's voters chose a man who wants to finance murder with the offerings of the Christian faithful.

I think the best response is twofold: repent and pray.

We need to repent of all our sins, even the sin of our vote. None of us went to the ballot box with pure and holy motives. All that we do, even there, is tainted by sin, and this is true even if we voted for the "right candidate" (whoever that is). We should also repent of our many sins for which God sends His daily wrath against us. When we suffer, we deserve it. When things go well, it is only because of God's mercy.

We must also pray. We need to pray for our country and for our enemies. And, ironically, these prayers do in certain ways end up being offered for the same people. Here are two prayers I intend to pray daily for the next four years:

"O merciful Father in heaven, because You hold in Your hand all the might of man and because You have ordained, for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do well, all the powers that exist in all the nations of the world, we humbly pray You graciously to regard Your servants, especially Barack, our President; the Congress of the United States; Steve, our Governor(-elect); and all those who make, administer, and judge our laws; that all who receive the sword as Your ministers may bear it according to Your Word; through Jesus Christ, our Lord."

and

"O almighty, everlasting God, through Your only Son, our blessed Lord, You have commanded us to love our enemies, to do good to those who hate us, and to pray for those who persecute us. We therefore earnestly implore You that by Your gracious visitation all our enemies may be led to true repentance and may have the same love and be of one accord and one mind and heart with us and with Your whole Christian Church; through Jesus Christ, our Lord."

In addition to all of this, I and my wife have decided to become soldiers in the "war on women." We are volunteering at Saint Catherine's Family Health Care Clinic & Pregnancy Resource Center.  Jen will work in their resource room organizing donations for mothers and their babies.  I will pray with pregnant moms, perhaps edit the newsletter, clean toilets, vacuum floors, write... whatever they need.  We are also exploring the possibility of being a host home for pregnant teenage mothers who have nowhere else to go.  We don't know anything about the legalities of that, but we're finding out.  You can probably see the irony.  The war on women consists largely in doing whatever it takes to help women keep their babies including letting them live in our guest bedroom for nine months.

But, every war is different.  They have to be fought differently.  That's what we're doing right now.  Please pray for us and for all who are struggling as a result of the election.  God can work good out of evil.  He did it on the cross, after all.

This is just a thought for those who struggle with the authority (which we can distinguish from the literalism) of Genesis.

Let's assume, for the moment, that humankind indeed evolved from some species of ape.  Let us therefore further assume that the account in the opening chapters of Genesis does not literally describe the origins of humankind, but instead is there to provide insight through metaphor.  Let us also for the moment put aside theological formulations such as Original Sin and the typical Sunday School teaching associated with the Fall.

Instead, let's look at the simple fact of the narrative itself.  Isn't it interesting that some writer somewhere in the middle of nowhere so many millennia ago specifically pinpointed the wearing of clothes as that which marks the advent of Man-in-the-world?  Generally accepted scientific thinking has, until the present day, focused almost exclusively on language and tool-making as that which evidences a transition from pre-human to human.  Archaeological and behavioral research has primarily been concerned with understanding how and at what point some hominid creature was able to manipulate objects and/or symbols in a way that can legitimately be called "human" -- so that we can better understand where we come from and how we got there.

But the Bible asserts that at the moment we became who we are, we covered our genitals.  Many animals communicate with each other through sounds and gestures.  Apes can even be taught certain elements of human language.  Several animals use tools in some form or another as well -- to build homes or obtain food.  But only one animal (albeit not universally) covers its genitals with clothing.  That's us.

Could the mind that first conceived this have been right in some way that even today's most learned experts don't yet quite understand?  That is, is there something uniquely authoritative about the Genesis account?  And how does this observation about nakedness tie (via the account of the Tree) into the idea of a morality -- that, even though none of us apprehend it perfectly, there is some "right" and "wrong" to which we must strive to conform?  Why is naked wrong?  Why is nakedness the first thing that we ever thought was wrong -- and therefore the first indicator that we became distinctively human?

Why is anything wrong and some other thing right?  Why do we aspire to something we perceive as "rightness" in any way at all?  Why is this, in fact, our obsession?  And what does this obsessive aspiration have to do with covering ourselves?

Like I said, this is just a thought for those who have lost their sense of the OT's miraculous authority because of their inability to accept its literalism.  Hope it helps.

"So why do you worry about clothing?"  -Matthew 6:28

For we who are in this tent groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed -- that mortality may be swallowed up by life.   -II Corinthians 5:4

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods?"' If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came -- and the scripture cannot be broken -- do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God?'" -John 10:34-35

1) Why does Jesus refer to the Psalmist as one "to whom the word of God came?"
2) What does Jesus mean by His assertion that "the scripture cannot be broken?"

And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the scriptures. -Luke 24:45

3) Do you think that as He "opened their understanding," Jesus let the disciples know which portions of the OT were authoritative and which ones they were better off ignoring?

Jesus answered and said to them, “Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the scriptures nor the power of God?" -Mark 12:24

4) Why did Jesus use "nor" in this declaration?  Why did He not merely assert that the Sadducees didn't know the power of God?  Why does He make weak understanding of the Hebrew scriptures an integral element of His indictment?

5) What particular scripture passage does Jesus then immediately refer to?  Do you think He saw the persons in that scripture passage as mythological or real?  What about the person and narrative He refers to in Matthew 16:4?  Real or mythological?

I'm very curious about something. I admit I was inspired by a recent post about a rather comical explanation of what happened at Mount Sinai (apparently Moses was stoned?). But, it got me thinking. I watch a lot of the History Channel, and a few years ago a special was run that was touted as the definitive explanation for the ten plagues of Egypt as outlined in the bible. In this special, several things were explained scientifically. For example, the water turned to blood was explained in one way by a red, toxic algal bloom that would not only have turned the waters red like blood, but would also have killed fish and any other creatures living in that water. The frogs could, then, be explained by the same token. They would have left the waters of the river and, in many cases, have died. This explanation goes on and on, and many more have been offered. For your perusing pleasure, I link you to Wikipedia: under the heading "Natural explanations".

Now, my question is not whether or not you believe that these things can be explained away, thus disproving the bible. My question is this: Why could not all of these things have happened precisely as (or nearly precisely as) scientists explain them, and all of them been precipitated by God? After all, if God created the Earth, man, etc. he surely must understand the mechanics of toxic algae and swarms of locusts. Could he not have orchestrated all of these things and also have afforded us a scientific explanation for them, should we desire it? Could this not be an instance in which science and religion could someone intermingle?

I've noticed that many of the members of this community seem very open-minded and pleasantly open to interpretation of the bible and any other religious edicts, so I'm very curious to hear what you have to say on the subject. Please know that I am in no way suggesting that you are wrong and scientists are correct. I'm merely curious to know if you would be supportive of an idea that the scientific explanation could actually support the biblical account and visa versa.

x-posted to ljchristians

This post is intended as a counter-balance to some recent posts in this community that directly assault the authority of scripture, in particular that of the OT. This post is not a defense of sola scriptura or literalism. Nor does it in any way represent an assertion that New Covenant disciples must somehow be obedient to OT law.

In response to the very honest post of okaywhatsnext yesterday, I thought I would set out here some the reasons I believe that our faith is not dependent on an inerrant bible but actually benefits from viewing the bible as a human and fallible document. I am a 'liberal' christian in the sense that my approach to the bible is one where I'm prepared to discriminate between the profound encounters people had with Godde, and the human limits of those people's understanding, writing as they did from within their own traditions and social assumptions and knowledge. So, in a spontaneous response to yesterday's post, I've tried to explain why far from being unfaithful to Godde in questioning parts of the bible, we're maybe being honest with Godde and wanting to challenge portrayals of Godde that seem to be limiting and sometimes even morally repugnant and demeaning. Instead of idealising the original authors, we should maybe humanise them more, and realise that like all of us they were "trying to make sense" of extraordinary encounters. But we have to as well, and I believe a more 'liberal' approach to the bible offers more opportunity for each of us to open out and explore this Godde we meet and really think for ourselves about morality, instead of just perpetuating the assumptions and sometimes prejudices of the past. So here's what I wrote:

( Read moreCollapse )

Just to be clear: I respect the integrity of christians who believe the bible literally and try to live lives of faith and love on that basis. And may Godde bless each of us on our journey and in our lives. Someone who views the bible as literal or inerrant is expressing loyalty and faithfulness to Godde. I happen to have a different view on how to approach the bible. However, I am no better person. We all need the grace of Godde.

It must be Genesis night here in the Christianity Community.

There are a lot of Christians who say they don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve, one man and one woman creation, for whatever reason. The reason personally doesn't matter to me because I do not feel it is a hugely important thing for salvation and knowing Christ, and whatever helps one get to the path easiest is what is best.

What I am curious about, however, is what do you believe as a Christian if you don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve? I'm sure belief in evolution from a common ancestor is common. I personally disagree with this because I feel it shows no deep connection between man and God versus any other creature, but that is just my opinion. Regardless, surely the divide cannot be so clear cut, yet those are mainly the only examples I see when the issue of the origin of man comes up (from Christianity's standpoint). So, what other personal feelings are there? That God created maybe ten men and women at once, a hundred, so on and so forth? Or what else?

In Numbers 31, we read about Moses taking military action against the Midianites, because the Midianite women had been seducing men from Israel to worship Baal. So 'God' is reported as saying (verse 1) "Take vengeance on the Midianites." So they went into battle and killed every man, burnt down their towns and settlements, and returned to Moses with all the Midianite women, children, animals, and plunder.

But we're told (verse 14) Moses was angry. And he gave the soldiers this order (verse 17):

"Kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

So the boys were all killed, and we're told only 32,000 virgins were spared (verse 35) and given to the Israelites.

It is fairly clear from the narrative that Moses was apparently acting under orders from God, and the narrative seems to accept in unquestioning fashion this treatment of the children and prisoners.

My question is this: do you believe this 'God' portrayed here actually wanted this kind of treatment of children (execution) and women (execution or handing over of the virgins)?

This 'God' who we later read in the gospels saying "Let the little children come to me."

Or is this account in Numbers, simply a fallible human account of ruthless action, justifying the ethnic cleansing by claiming the sanction of 'God'?

I get that Jesus was the greatest man who ever lived. wee count the years from the time he was born. he never wrote a book , or had any wealth, founded no great lasting dynasty.

Yet He has done more to change the world we live in than all the armies that ever marched, every fleet that ever sailed and every other ruler in history. Men such as Genghis Kahn, Napoleon Bonaparte, Julius Caesar and Karl Marx are insignificant, as compared to the impact that Jesus Christ had on the history of the world. ( Read more...Collapse )