Far away, across the field
The wailing of the muezzin
Calls the faithful to their knees
To hear the softly spoken magic spell
Category Archives: Religious Toleration
The Bible. What is it good for?
As is his wont, my King James Bible believing Dispensationalist libertarian Christian co-blogger Tim tagged me in his post (of the above image) on Facebook. š
Be sure to get your doctrine from the Bible, not the traditions of man! (Colossians 2:8)
I really do appreciate the pro-tip. It’s just that there’s a whole lotta problems with this instruction. At least one of which renders Tim’s advice utterly useless!
One problem is that the cited verse, Colossians 2:8, does not even mention the Bible.
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (KJV)
See! What this verse is really saying is be sure to get your doctrine from Christ, not the traditions of man! I agree! But let’s be clear. There’s no mention at all of the Bible in this verse. And I’ve made it quite clear in previous blog posts what my view is. It is that Jesus is inerrant, but the Bible isnāt. The Word of God is inerrant. His scribes, not so much. Yes, that’s right. I basically equate the Bible with “the traditions of man”. I don’t equate the Bible with Christ. The Bible as we know it hasn’t even been around a couple of thousand years yet. Whereas
In [the] beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (DARBY)
Believe it or not, another problem is that the KJV mistranslates this particular verse. And don’t believe it or do, so does the NIV. But of course! š
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces[a] of this world rather than on Christ. (NIV)
Which is why I always have recourse to Young’s Literal Translation for times like this when it matters exactly what the Bible says.
See that no one shall be carrying you away as spoil through the philosophy and vain deceit, according to the deliverance of men, according to the rudiments of the world, and not according to Christ (YLT)
It’s clear that “spoiled” is a KJV mistranslation of “spoil”. Yet at least the NIV has the good grace to provide a footnote (see above) to the effect that it has construed “the basic principles” (rudiments) as “the elemental spiritual forces” of this world.
But here’s the fatal flaw with Tim’s advice—be sure to get your doctrine from the Bible, not the traditions of man!—which renders it useless. Which Bible?
Tim’s telling me to be sure to get my doctrine from the Bible, but which one? As we all know, Christians (e.g., Protestants vs. Catholics and Orthodox Christians) can’t even agree on which books belong in the Bible, let alone which translations of the canonical books are themselves canonical.
Which Bible? Tim will, of course, answer the Authorized King James Version of 1611. Which is a fair answer to a fair question. But if I accept this answer, one thing’s for sure. I’m now getting my doctrine from the traditions of man, and from the traditions of one man in particular, viz., my co-blogger Tim Wikiriwhi! And not necessarily from either the true Bible (if, indeed, there even is such a thing) or Christ.
It comes down to this. When all is said and done, we must decide—each of us individually must decide—in what and/or in whom to trust.
I trust in Jesus, the Son of God, whom I know from the first-hand accounts of his ministry by the original gospel authors, from his work in the lives of my brothers and sisters in Christ, from his work in my own life, and from personal encounter.
I trust in the deliverances of my own God-given moral compass when (not often, just occasionally) they conflict with what’s in the Bible.
So the Bible. What’s it good for?
Why, it’s profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works, of course! š
The Word of God is inerrant. His scribes, not so much.
Jesus is inerrant, but the Bible isn’t.
Anyone who’s spent any time in serious study of the Bible (or even someone who’s only delved into it intermittently) will have discovered, for themselves, apparent contradictions, of which there are very, very many.
Just for example, Ezekiel 33:11 (and Ezekiel 18:32) and Psalm 37:13 seem rather at odds.
Say to them, āAs surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?ā (NIV)
but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he knows their day is coming. (NIV)
How should a Christian respond to such apparent contradictions? It’s not easy maintaining contradictions. Maintaining a contradiction is surely the very essence of cognitive dissonance, and cognitive dissonance is something we all naturally seek to minimise.
Of particular concern are the apparent contradictions in Bible verses about salvation. Is justification through good works or by faith alone? Enquiring minds want to know.
The inerrantist response is to hold that the Bible is inerrant. On the premiss (due to Douglas Stauffer) that
God will preserve His word, and not allow it to pass away.
And then try to explain away the apparent contradictions. All of them. One attempt to do this (with particular emphasis on what the Bible says about salvation) is the doctrine of Dispensationalism due to John Nelson Darby.
Now, I can see that the above premiss has merit and that Dispensationalism is, in some sense, a reasonable response to the apparent contradictions in the Bible.
But doesn’t God operate according to the KISS principle?
“Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (NIV)
Dispensationalism is complicated. Doesn’t God’s fundamental message have to be intelligible to little children and simpletons? Because Dispensationalism isn’t.
The errantist response is to hold that the Bible is not inerrant. To concede that it’s full of contradictions, some of which cannot be adequately explained away. But that, nonetheless
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (KJV)
and that Jesus’s fundamental message remains intact, which it does.
Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (KJV)
My reason for writing this post is my concern that those who hold that the Bible is inerrant are fooling themselves. In a bad way. Notwithstanding that Douglas Stauffer (already quoted above) tells us that
Satan has reveled in creating doubt concerning the authority of the words of God.
the simple fact is that there is doubt concerning the authority of scripture as it has been handed down to us. Not to acknowledge and to express doubt such as this is to deceive oneself and maybe others too. It’s my considered opinion that those who persist in maintaining that the Bible is inerrant are involved in more convolutions and contortions than David Bain trying to explain his movements on the morning of 20 June 1994, more turns than a sluggard on his bed, more preposterous suspensions of disbelief than an atheist proclaiming that this blog post is an anticipated result of the Big Bang. They’re playing the exegetical version of Twister—the game that ties you up in knots.
Spread a little hate worldwide
I found reading this incredibly sad.
You know Fred Phelps. You loathe Fred Phelps. You despise everything he stands for, like his family membersā infamous protests at soldiersā funerals with their awful āGod Hates Fagsā signs. Theyāve been a symbol for many years of the religion-based animosity against the LGBT community ā to the point that theyāve been labeled a āhate groupā and even the most fundamentalist Christian groups denounce his churchās activities.
Nate Phelps … is Fredās son and a former member of Westboro Baptist Church. He left the church, and therefore the core of the family, in 1976 when he was 18 years old and has since come out as an atheist, but he still keeps in touch with some of his extended family members, many of whom have also escaped from the church.
Tonight, on Facebook, Nate posted this:
Iāve learned that my father, Fred Phelps, Sr., pastor of the āGod Hates Fagsā Westboro Baptist Church, was ex-communicated from the āchurchā back in August of 2013. He is now on the edge of death at Midland Hospice house in Topeka, Kansas.
Iām not sure how I feel about this. Terribly ironic that his devotion to his god ends this way. Destroyed by the monster he made.
I feel sad for all the hurt heās caused so many. I feel sad for those who will lose the grandfather and father they loved. And Iām bitterly angry that my family is blocking the family members who left from seeing him, and saying their good-byes.
It seems that Fred Phelps badly misconstrued the meaning of
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. (KJV)
As for Phelps and fags … sure, if you truly believe that people are destined for eternal conscious torment in hell, then arguably it is a loving act to warn them as loudly as you can of their impending doom, but I don’t think Fred Phelps really understood or practised the second great commandment. Do you?
Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (KJV)
I found reading his son Nate’s Facebook post incredibly sad but I find reading the reactions that news of Phelps’ impending demise has engendered even sadder. Here are some typical reactions I’ve seen on (or linked to from) Facebook.
Fuckin hate this cunt with a passion !! If he needs help gettin over that edge Holla !!!!
Someone give him a shove, and maybe stab him in the back a few times
sweet i so hope he lingers on in utter pain and has to spend the remainder of his miserable existence being hand bathed slowly by a FLAMING HOMOSEXUAL 3 times a day
To the people who spew such venom, I’ve simply got to ask. What did Fred Phelps ever do to you? Did he picket your funeral? Did he personally come and pee on your rug? Seventy times seven, peeps. And don’t you think you’re getting a bit overwrought over something that’s essentially a clown act?
Hate breeds hate. Luckily, I don’t loathe Fred Phelps and never did, but so many people do. Phelps bred hate and spread more than a little hate worldwide. And I’m guessing he might even have inspired some of heavy metal band Slayer’s lyrics. š
No reciprocal hatred from me. Just a wish, in the spirit of yesterday’s St. Patrick’s day, that Phelps’s is “a quick death and an easy one.”
Did Aaron the High Priest smoke? || The biblical roots of Jews and marijuana:
Aaron… The ‘High’ Priest. š
Doctor, mohel, and former IDF lieutenant Yosef Glassman finds surprising links between controversial plant and ancient Judaism.
āAlso, one will beautify [Shabbat candle lighting] when the wick is made from cotton, flax or cannabisā¦ā
Thatās right, cannabis.
This dictate, found in the Shulchan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law), piqued the curiosity of Boston geriatrician Yosef Glassman when he was reading about Sabbath rituals on a religious quest nearly two decades ago.
The future doctor decided to embark on a project to learn whether cannabis was also used for medicinal purposes in ancient Jewish times. At first, he proceeded hesitantly ā the federal ban on marijuana stigmatizes even library research on the drug, he said.
But in recent years, with medical marijuanaās legalization in several states, Glassman felt more comfortable delving in. What he found was a wealth of references in the Bible and beyond. Marijuana usage, he contends, is an aspect of Jewish law and tradition that had long been buried, and one that deserves āresurfacing and exploration.ā
āThere is no question that the plant has a holy source, God himself, and is thus mentioned for several ritualistic purposes,ā said Glassman, who is also a mohel and a former Israel Defense Force lieutenant. He lives in Newton, Mass. with his family.
Glassman also found many references to non-medicinal uses of marijuana. āIt is clear that using cannabis for clothing and accessories was very common, according to the Talmud,ā he said. It was used for making tallitot and tzitzit, as well as āschachā (Sukkot roof coverings).
Glassman also found that cannabis fit into the category of kitnyos on Passover, meaning that Ashkenazi Jews were prohibited from using it on the holiday. āOne thus might assume that it was also consumed, perhaps as food, during the remainder of the year,ā he said, noting that hemp seeds are a non-intoxicating form of protein.
Glassman first presented his findings in late October during grand rounds ā a medical teaching session ā at the New England Sinai Hospital in Stoughton, Mass., where he is a physician. He has since gone on to give the same lecture to lay and medical professional audiences. āThe goal is to educate practitioners on the rich cultural history behind the use of cannabis as a medicine, explain its mechanism of action, and dispel myths about its safety profile,ā he said at one such presentation open to the public in Brookline, Mass. in November.
He explained that he had received no commercial support for his research, that no exhibitors were present, and sorry, but there were no free samples. āNot even in those brownies in the back?ā joked one audience member.
In the talk, Glassman described finding several biblical references to the herb that include Book of Numbers 17:12-13, where Aaron the High Priest, āno pun intended,ā probably burned marijuana as an incense offering āduring a time of turmoil.ā Other passages include Godās instructions to Moses to ātake for yourself herbs bāsamimā ā herbs of medicinal quality ā and instructions in Exodus to ātake spices of the finest sort, pure myrrh, five hundred shekels, fragrant cinnamon, and ākeneh bosem,āā which literally means āsweet cane,ā but possibly refers to cannabis, said Glassman. āKeneh bosemā is also mentioned in the Song of Songs 4:14, Isaiah 43:24, Jeremiah 6:20 and Ezekiel 27:19. Another pronunciation is the Aramaic ākene busma,ā which, perhaps unsurprisingly, is also the name of a modern reggae musician.
Glassmanās research revealed that cannabis may have been used as an anesthetic during childbirth in ancient Israel; he described an archaeological discovery of hashish in the stomach of the 1,623-year-old remains of a 14-year-old girl in Beit Shemesh. Maimonides was also an advocate of using cannabis oil for ailments such as colds and ear problems. āThere are complex laws of plant mixing and hybridizing from the Talmud, which Maimonides comments on,ā said Glassman. āCannabis specifically was taken especially seriously in terms of mixing ā¦ and could, in fact, incur the death penalty. This shows me that apparently, cannabis was treated quite seriously.ā
Ancient Jews werenāt the only people to use cannabis medicinally, of course. In his lecture, Glassman noted that cannabis has been used in Chinese medicine, as one of the 50 fundamental herbs, for 4,700 years; ancient Egyptians used it in suppositories and for eye pain; and Greeks made wine steeped with cannabis and used it for inflammation and ear problems.
Read more >>>here<<<
Spiritual Warfare. The Great Controversy.
This is an old and valid….(though a tad simplistic I admit) Christian argument which is simply showing that the Modern regression in morality is founded upon both the acceptance of Atheist evolution and the rejection of Bible based theistic Christianity.
I say it is simplistic because some of this ‘liberalism’ has in fact been real progress because it has removed bad Laws… and as such should in fact be supported by Christians… like the End of Prohibitions on Homosexuality, etc…)
Many Christians have been taught by ignorant and bigoted preachers that such reforms are evil…. when infact Christianity proper is not about oppressing sinners and infidels. That has historically been a great evil which resulted from the merging of Church and state…. Constantine…. etc… which was a deviation from what Christianity truly is… a voluntary association… not A political lobby for Power.
This is not to say that Christians ought not to participate in the democratic process, but that they must take care to be on the side of Liberty and justice… not tyranny and oppression.
They must seek to be ‘the salt of the earth’ not by despotic Laws…. but by Example and preaching Christian values and inspiring voluntary endorsement of their beliefs.
This picture also attempts to show Christians why they must be prepared to directly confront the False religion/ pseudo science of Evolution…. because it is the foundation of so many lies and Great evils.
It was when I realised that Evolution was Bogus, that I became much more open to the truth of the Bible…. because The idea of God crating Mankind began to make much more sense.
Read more…
Materialism renders Man Nought. Meaning-less, Value-less, Right-less
The Christian Fellowship is a voluntary private society, not a theocratic political movement.
Standing up for Justice more important than Personal Ambitions
What is rationality? (Part 1)
It’s been a while, but tomorrow night The New Inklings meet again! The time is 7 pm. The place is the Downtown House Bar and Cafe at the Downtown Backpackers, corner of Bunny Street and Waterloo Quay, Wellington.
We discuss philosophy (mainly) and theology. You’re welcome to join us, provided that you are (1) irenic, and (2) rational. If you don’t know what it means to be irenic, Google is your friend. If you don’t know what it means to be rational, well … tomorrow night’s discussion topic is for you!
the nature of rationality and what a commitment to Reason entails
So I thought I’d jot down a few recent thoughts … and start a series of posts … on this fundamentally important to everything topic.
Here’s my all-time favourite Ayn Rand quote.
To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in oneās thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate oneās mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.
I used to love to brandish this one at Ayn Rand’s hypocritical followers. I say ‘used to’ because it’s just dawned on me that Rand got it completely wrong! (Yet again! Wotta surprise!)
To arrive at a contradiction is NOT to confess an error in one’s thinking. To arrive at a contradiction is the strongest confirmation possible that there is NO error in one’s thinking!
And to maintain a contradiction is NOT to abdicate oneās mind nor to evict oneself from the realm of reality. At least, not in the short-term, probably not in the medium-term and possibly not even in the long-term! NOT to maintain a contradiction, in the short-term at least, would be irrational in the utmost extreme!
I really don’t know why I didn’t see this sooner … perhaps you don’t see it yet, so I’ll explain.
The simplest example of a contradiction is a proposition and its negation. P and not-P. Two propositions are contradictory, or inconsistent, if they cannot both be true. Three propositions are mutually contradictory, or form an inconsistent triad, if they cannot all be true. Four propositions that cannot all be true form an inconsistent tetrad. And so on and so forth.
None but the completely insane ever believes P and not-P. But believing A, B and C, where A, B and C cannot all be true? This is a commonplace. But most people who believe A, B and C don’t notice the inconsistency. A and B don’t contradict. B and C don’t contradict. C and A don’t contradict. It’s the mutual inconsistency that gives rise to the contradiction. To arrive at the contradiction you actually have to have some logical nous. You have to be able to recognise that
(P1) A
(P2) B
Therefore, (C) not-C
is a deductively valid argument. So to arrive at a contradiction is actually to confirm that you have at least a basic grasp of logic! Which most people don’t.
So you’ve arrived at a contradiction. You believe A, B and C and you are cognizant of the contradiction. You know your beliefs can’t all be true. You know that (at least) one of them has to go. But which one? You’d better sit down and try to figure that one out. But you don’t want to reject the wrong belief. So, in the meanwhile, you’ll maintain the contradiction. Take your time. It’s the rational thing to do.
Alonzo T Jones. Classic defence of Religious Liberty. National Sunday Law.
It has always been the fate of minority faiths to defend their right to religious liberty from oppresion from Popular Orthodoxy and encroaching Legalistic mobocracy.
American Seventh Day adventist Alonzo T Jones delivered a classic defence of religious liberty in opposition to the establishment of a National Sunday Law in 1889.
“In 1889, A.T. Jones spoke before a United States Congressional subcommittee; the topic of discussion was the āBreckinridge Billā which proposed the compulsion of Sunday observance in the Washington, D.C. environs. Jonesās testimony helped to defeat this bill, and Jones became known for his abilities in defense of and knowledge regarding freedom of religion. In 1892, he was again called to speak before the U.S. Congress regarding the Sunday closure of the Chicago Worldās Fair, known as āThe Columbia Expositionā.
Wikipedia.
Read about him Here:
The Boston Bombing. Christian Grace and Freedom and the Higher Path.
Are you suggesting this is justification to cry out “Death to Muslims”?
How do you differentiate yourself from the hater and the fanatic?
We must walk a higher path.
It is a fundamental principle that when seeking to over throw an evil, you must never assimilate the evil yourself.
That is to fall from the position of righteousness and to become a hypocrite.
Furthermore is your own faith defined by the Religious Zealots whom claim to represent Christianity?
Is your faith even defined by what the so-called majority of Christians claim to believe?
Mine is certainly not!
Thus why would you assume these Muslim fanatics truly represent the Muslim faith?
Is that not Duplicity on your part?
The Higher road may seem to most much too difficult…. an absurdity to even attempt, yet does the fact that it is difficult make it the wrong way to go?
Because the Low road of reciprocal Hatred appears much ‘easier’… much more satisfying, and direct… does this make it acceptible for the Christian to travel?
Are you allowing these haters to sow hate directly into your own heart?
Donāt you have control of your own feelings?
“Vengence is mine saith the Lord, I will repay thee”
I donāt find any place in Paulsā writings where we are called to Hate the lost.
(I must confess to my own shortcoming in this area too)
Let us not render evil for evil but overcome evil with Good.
“If it be possible, as much as lieth in you. Live peacefully with all Men.”
St Paul.
Boston Marathon. The Horror of Religious Violence and War.
I add that even if it is not possible to live peacefully with some people because they are hell bent on your enslavement and destruction, yet still, though we must defend ourselves, we must not become like them, and take the first opportunity for peace.
To allow the Terrorists to sow Religious hatred and intolerance in our hearts, or to make us so fearful as to accept a more tyrannical Police State in the name of ‘Security’… is to retreat in the battle of Good over Evil.
It is to loose faith.
Satan Laughing Spreads His Wings.
I bow my head in sorrow for the Lives lost and pray for the injured and Maimed in Boston.
I also pray for God to raise up Brave Preachers to preach grace to the lost, and to put his protecting hands upon those enlightened Muslims whom seek an end to Religious fanaticism and who work for peace.