Huffington Post and Scripture
The Blog news service Huffington Post announced today it is starting a scriptural commentary. It should be interesting to watch.
The Blog news service Huffington Post announced today it is starting a scriptural commentary. It should be interesting to watch.
They have had a religion section for some time that covers all types of faith. Evangelicals have not been well represented but do appear now and again. Matthew 7:24-27 opens the effort. Jim Wallis is among those selected to comment on this text. It might be of interest to some to see how Scripture gets handled in this kind of a cultural context.
So we shall see what this news service offers.
21 Comments
jweaks
Huffington Post and Scripture
"Huffington Post and Scripture" I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around that. Sounds like an oxymoron to me. -jw
Lynn L
Are they not in the right
Are they not in the right club to discuss Scripture? "Taking scripture seriously means going beneath a superficial literal reading and understanding that we will find the deeper wisdom and guidance in the text when we recognize its history, complexity and that it contains many different ways of conveying its message. We are born with hearts, spirits and brains, and we need to use all of them when approaching scripture." The rest of this paragraph speaks about how Scripture has been misused in various ways, and I believe it speaks the truth. There are many treasures of wisdom and knowledge in the Scriptures–there are also complexities. Too many people do not wish to recognize this fact and sweep it under the carpet. We can take the truth of God's love for us, and the example of how we are to treat others–which is the entirety of the law of God–or we can use the Bible as a weapon against people. Is this not the case? It is a selective and superficial reading that allows it to be used this way. Hearing different people speak about this brings out these truths and should be welcomed. Conservatives do not have a lock on the truths of the Bible. His creation of humanity is diverse, He works in mysterious ways, and He is available to all who seek Him.
R. Jerome Harris
Too Many Voices
At Jesus' transconfiguration at Luke 9:35, a voice out of a cloud said: "This is my Son, the one that has been chosen. Listen to him."
While the world and it's many religions think that they are listening to him, all they are doing is speaking and using his name. This is a one-way communication.
Listening requires effort and action.
Sadly, the world is not listening to the voice of Jesus. Rather, it is listening to the voices of Pastors, Priests, Elders, Popes, and Politicians who claim they speak with Jesus voice.
We all do wisdom to listen to Jesus' voice and not the many voices of religious organization and the voices within the political arena.
We should run away from these strange voices as we are advised to to at John 10:1-6.
Lynn L
God is Love
1 John 4. Whoever is speaking of the love of God, which is the gift of God in Jesus Christ, is glorifying His name. It isn't love for our brother and sister to treat them like they are not in the right club because of their political beliefs. If they are preaching another way to God, that is from the world which is in darkness.
kirk
Huffington Post and Scripture
In matt. 7:15 Jesus Christ warns, "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves" Paul gave a similar warning in Acts 20:29.He said "I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock". Wallis joined the radical group The Students for a Democratic Society. The SDS changed their name to the Weatherman. They were a Marxist domestic terrorist group who wanted to over throw the American government. He has a long history of being communist apologist and supporting terrorists organizations. For example, he has had relationships with the communist Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador. He also has a history of being a democrat activist. His own words: Wallis was asked in a interview, "Are you then calling for the redistribution of wealth in society?" He replied, "Absolutely, without any hesitation. That's what the gospel is all about." He said: "My Dorothy Day story happened in Chicago. She was just leaving … We were living in Chicago … So I ran 20 blocks [to meet her], and I'm in the parlor of Catholic Worker, and in walks the great lady. Dorothy wrote a book about her life called Love Is the Measure. But she wasn't ever soft … very tough. [She said] 'So, you were a radical student like me, right? You were a Marxist like me, right?' [I said] Yeah." The United States is "the great captor and destroyer of human life." "refuse to accept [capitalist] structures and assumptions that normalize poverty and segregate the world by class." Obama went to a radical black liberation church for 20 years, headed by the reverend Jeremiah wright. Black liberation theology is primarily Marxism, mixed with racism, packaged as Christianity. Jim Wallis is now a policy advisor and spiritual advisor to president Obama. He is helping the Obama administration package far left political policies as biblical policies. He is the propaganda minster to the churches. It is not a big surprise that the Huffington post would pick him to write about Christianity. It won't be a big surprise when he writes that policies of the white house aren't political but are biblical. He is a political activist not a christian and when you see him coming run the other way.
Kirk
Huffington Post and Scripture
Lynn, "Conservatives do not have a lock on the truths of the Bible" An extreme left wing propaganda site hires a extreme left wing "christian" activist who pretends that far left political issues are biblical issues. Propaganda is not truth. This has nothing to do with the strawman conservative vs liberal christian argument. They are attempting to change Christian theology into a social religion. Name any far left policy and they are attempting to sell it to Christians as biblical policy. That all that this is about.
Lynn L
The compassion of Christ
Kirk, I get the feeling that anything left of center is "far left" in your view. Is it a "how dare anyone who disagrees with my views claim to be a Christian" kind of stance? Discussion on the Bible between people of different persuasions has much value. There is no "straw man" there. The church is not made up of political conservatives, and fortunately is much more diverse than that. Conservatism and truth are not at all synonymous. Political conservatism left unchecked is a problem. Personally, I am against extremism on either side of the fence–the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Marxism is extremism and has no chance in the United States of America, so I'm not concerned with any possible affiliation of anyone with its philosophy, past or present. There are more moderate views that are held by many people of faith. We (all on the political spectrum) do bring our spiritual beliefs to the table, but the seperation of church and state–which is explicitly laid out in the First Amendment–is to be valued for the sake of the gospel, as well as for the integrity of the Constitution. I'm not sure many "conservatives" have a grasp on that truth.
Kirk
Huffington Post and Scripture
Lynn, The issue here is that Jim Wallis in his own word described himself as a Marxist. He has become the propaganda minister for the Obama Administration and the far left. Every issue they are attempting to ram threw are not political polices but biblical policies. Both the Huffington Post and Jim Wallis are funded by George Soros. The last time I checked Soros wasn't very interested in theology. As To your contention that Marxism having no chance in America, have you seen who is surrounding this president? Van Jones, Jim Wallis,reverend Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, even more 60s radicals, and more self described socialists. They all follow liberation theology one way or another, which is not biblical. It's Marxism mixed with Christianity or just Marxism in some cases. We are about 120-130 trillion dollars in debt and increasing spending like it is going out of stile.What do you think is going to happens if the economy fails? You are already hearing arguments blaming capitalism for the economic problems as it is now.
Kirk
Lynn, The conservatives vs
Lynn, The conservatives vs liberal argument is an absolute strawman argument. It is a argument progressives are using to hamstring any of their opposition while they change christian theology to a social religion and frame all their political policies as biblical policies. They make the argument that people are not going to church because of conservative Christians. In other words, shut up and go away while we implement our agenda. The smarter ones will make arguments like we need to get away from signal issue politics and who is to say what single issue is more important? Abortion might be the single issue for you but the environment might be the issue for me. If people buy into this what happens? Who supports abortions? Democrats. If you can get the "useful idiots" from refusing to vote for anyone who supports abortion to voting for another issue, they might vote for a democrat if the environment is just as important as abortion. The same thing goes with homosexuality and same sex marriage. The smarter argument might say that homosexuality is a sin but why focus on that one sin? There are many other sins the bible mentions. When you ask if they are saying that homosexuality is just another garden variety sin, they will say something like yes it's a sin but there are others. They are not saying that homosexuality is just another sin but they are not not saying that either. Greed is a sin and the bible tells us to help the poor. What better way to help the poor than redistribute the wealth ,share the wealth and our resources? If people buy into that you erode the christian voting block and people might vote for democrats. The contention that conservatives are causing church attendance to decline is demonstrably false. How is church attendance in Europe? It's even lower than it is here. Why is that? It's because the more secularized a culture becomes, the lower the church attendance. The left is incrementally secularizing this country (and doing a great job, I might add), church attendance goes down, and then the left blames conservatives. The conservatives shut up and there is no push back or alternative view point being presented. This causes the culture to become more secularized and church attendance goes down even more. Then you have the "third way" argument. The people who adhere to the third way argument are making a fallacious arguments that is predicated on false assumptions. What they are saying is both sides are right and wrong. On the conservative side, the conservatives are right on social issues. Abortion, homosexuality, and believing that the if it "feels good do it" type of philosophy is a sinful mentality. They may also be right with theological issues.On the left side, they are right to be concerned with helping the poor and the environment. Here is the problem, this position assumes the conservative side doesn't care about or at best ignores the poverty issues and the left sides approach to fixing these issues are correct. The left wing ideology for fixing the issues of poverty are socialism and Marxism. The left wing way of fixing the environment are socialism and Marxism. The people who use the third way attack will not go into specifics on how to help the poor or address political issues. They will equivocate,obfuscate , and conceal their positions. They present themselves as being middle of the road. Both sides have merit but they only attack the conservative side. They only support left wing causes but attempt to obfuscate their positions. When questioned about this inconsistency to their third way philosophy they will revert back to " I said both sides are wrong" defense. If both sides are wrong why do they only attack and support one side? Case in point, I am middle of the road but conservatives left unchecked is a problem. Liberalism or progressives left unchecked isn't a problem?
Lynn L
reply to Kirk
Kirk, the "liberal vs. conservative" argument is simply two opposing viewpoints. You're making me work here in trying to understand your issues. Your implication in calling this a "straw man argument" seems to be that the progressive's argument is that "if conservatives are wrong in one area, they are wrong across the board," as a distortion and a political tactic, or in other words that it isn't an "either or" proposition. You go on later to say that you also have a problem with the idea that "both sides are right and wrong." Pardon me if I didn't follow your logic. I would agree that it is a fundamental problem with politics, that a candidate sometimes does not present his or her true positions on some things, for the sake of the election, then after the election the real person comes out. As an Independent thinker myself, I am conservative on some issues (crime and justice, fiscal responsibility, etc.), and on social issues I lean left and in favor of personal/civil rights and equality. The Constitution doesn't support only one side or the other. As to your concerns about socialism and Marxism, as far as I know Congress hasn't been overrun by this philosophy, nor has anywhere near a majority of the public. I don't have statistics on that, but it is an extremist position. Believers in the Lord do seem to respond to concerns about the poor and the environment. That doesn't amount to a valid concern about socialism in the extreme. The voices in your comment are a little unclear to me. Your example that "conservatives are right on social issues, i.e. homosexuality and abortion, but progressives are right on consideration for the poor and the environment," certainly doesn't come from the same side that primarily focuses on criticizing the conservatives, as you are saying there; it is usually the progressives who are doing that. I don’t think conservatives who are trying to restructure the right are particularly "attacking" conservatives. From my perspective, conservatives aren't right on most social political issues, or on some theological issues. People's biblical interpretations and perception of the definition of "sin" doesn't have a place in government, which is not a religious entity. Its laws are there for the respect, protection, and consideration of ALL of its citizens. Lastly, I am an equal opportunity critic–I don't want to see any extremism on the left succeed either. Again, we do all bring our spiritual beliefs into the discussion. The Bible should be discussed by people of all persuasions.
Kirk
Reply to Lynn
Lynn, My overall point was the "conservatives" are being used as scapegoats and demonized by the liberals. They argue that it is the conservatives fault that church attendance is dropping, while hiding the fact that they are coming from a liberal perspective. They do this by claiming that they have a middle of the road mentality. They are for "the third way" of picking and choosing ideas from both sides while only criticizing conservatives , blaming conservatives, and concealing what they really believe. They attempt to blame conservatives for the decline of the church as a political tactic. This shuts the conservatives up, while they have carte blanche to change Christianity to a social religion and sell political policies as being biblical values.
Kirk
Reply to Lynn part two
I don't know how you can read the bible and be socially liberal. Jesus states to even look at another woman is adultery. Do you think someone that said that would be ok with homosexuality, promiscuity, abortion, and the secularization of the culture? Look at that woman and your better off ripping your eye out but it's OK to be a homosexual despite the old testament (which Jesus referred to often) calling it an abomination? What usually follows this line of reasoning is to say the bible says not to judge and Jesus never judged. You are conflating acceptance of sin with everyone falls short of the grace of God and if you noticed Jesus told people to stop sinning. Go and sin no more means 'stop it'. You are attempting to insert your values into the bible.
Kirk
Lynn part 3
As for Marxism, it would seem that you haven't been paying very much attention to what has been going on. The justice department has been in court arguing that people don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to e-mail. In other words, the government should just be able to look at your e-mail when ever it wants to without a court order. They essentially passed socialized medicine. They passed the new financial regulations bill. This bill gives the government control of about 70% of the economy, the power to monitor your credit card transactions just because they feel like it, the SEC no longer has to comply with freedom of information requests, it gives the power to take over a private company because the government deems it a threat to the economy with out due process or congressional approval , and the president can now bail out companies that are too big to fail with out congressional approval. Should I go on? The health care bill and financial regulations bill are about 5000 pages combined. The constitution of the United States of America is about 14 pages. Seeing that you are fiscally conservative you must be against these two bills and all the spending the government has been doing lately, right? Then you have to account for all the people in the Obama administration who believe in "redistribution of wealth," were 60's radicals, self admitted socialists, self admitted communists, against the free market and Mao fans. The statistical probability of this being a coincidence is next to impossible. Incidentally, the phrase 'separation of church and state' is not in the constitution. The first amendment was designed to keep the government out of the churches not the other way around. The founders did not want another church of England.
Lynn L
Kirk, the last time I checked
Kirk, the last time I checked we still have a free market economy, and we still have a Constitution that is the foundation of the laws of the land. We are not headed towards Marxist Socialism, which is about as extremist and contrary to our Constitution as anything could possibly be. The bailouts of the Bush administration, and all of the other examples that you raise from the current administration, are not things that I am necessarily in agreement with. I can't engage in the fear and paranoia of those who are against President Obama's administration. The Republican president got us into a disastrous war–which should be a last resort for the protection of our country–that killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. He was elected by conservative Christians because of his social views. I trust only in God. As to your question about being socially liberal…I'm not socially liberal. I am a moderate as I said. Where I become extreme is when I see children raped and killed by men who have been through the revolving door of our justice system–repeat sex offenders–and the Religious Right is unconcerned, because they have a different religious agenda. I become extreme when I see ridiculously wasteful spending–from both sides of the political fence–while concern for the less fortunate is being called Communism. If equality in the laws is liberal, then I'm a liberal. It is Constitutional, and required by the Fourteenth Amendment. The separation of church and state–which is established in the First Amendment–works both ways. Congress is not to establish, as the law of the land, the religious beliefs of a segment of society, apart from any honest evidence. It is for all citizens and requires fairness towards the diverse beliefs of the people. Christ's kingdom is not of this world. People are fallible in their zeal for what they consider moral. The country doesn't belong to political conservatives. These are my views. I can't say there is nothing to what you are saying, but I'm not going to fear the extremism that many people are fearing. The system will work itself out as planned through checks and balances. My faith is in God. The teachings of Jesus and the laws of the land? You desire that "sin" be outlawed, and that our laws are established by not the Church of England, but by the "Church of America," which is to be decided by people who use the Bible selectively and with social favoritism. I don't know about church attendance, but I do know that the conservatives' social beliefs–some of which many agree is from ignorance–and how the laws should be established to deny basic rights, have made the gospel repulsive to more than a few non-believers, and have made more than a few believers uncomfortable claiming to be a Christian. Love is the law of God. You mischaracterize my beliefs, but I'll let that one go. Lastly, Jesus's references to the O.T. does not establish the Mosaic Law in the laws of the Christian church, let alone the laws of the land, nor are we under a theocracy. Thanks for your time. God bless.
Kirk
reply to Lynn
Lynn, You ignored everything I said about Marxism. If the government controls 70% of the economy you can't have a free market. Do you think it's a coincidence that there are so many people around this president who are calling for a redistribution of wealth and speaking badly of the free market system? Then you went into Bash Bush mode. Bush was elected because Al Gore and John Kerry were horrible candidates. Bush was the lesser of two evils and it wasn't the christian right who elected him. If the christian right have so much power, how did Obama get into office? This is what I mean by conservative Christians being used as a scapegoats. I have no idea where you are getting ludicrous idea that conservative Christians support a revolving door for child molesters or simply don't care for the issue. Anyone who has children is concerned with the issue more than the average person. It's really the other way around. Progressive judges give child molesters 5 years every time they ruin a child's life and they get paroled in 3 years. It has nothing to do with conservative Christians. In fact, this is an issue most people agree on.
Kirk
Lynn2
"As to your question about being socially liberal…I'm not socially liberal. I am a moderate as I said" Really, because in your last post you said: "I am conservative on some issues (crime and justice, fiscal responsibility, etc.), and on social issues I lean left and in favor of personal/civil rights and equality." So you are to the left and then moderate but you do not agree with christian conservative socials beliefs at at? How is that moderate? If you believe that Conservatives are wrong on every issue that would give you a diametrically opposing view. A diametrically opposing view of conservatism would be liberalism. I don't understand why you are so upset. Conservatives are against abortion, against pornography, they believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and believe in strong family values. If they get their way, abortion would be left to the individual states, pornography would be left to the individual states, marriage would be between a man and a woman etc. If you are moderate why are you so angry at only conservatives?
Kirk
Lynn3,
You are speaking in generalities and platitudes. What does equality mean? Does that mean equality in wealth? Does that mean equality in marriage? What basic rights are being denied? What is a civil right? Is redefining marriage a civil right and a right that is being denied? With the 14th amendment what part are you referring to? Equal protection? If redefining marriage is a equal right, everyone has the right to redefine marriage as they want. You accused me of characterizing your beliefs and then you mischaracterized my beliefs. I never said sin should be outlawed. If you want to be a womanizer or lead a homosexual lifestyle that's your business. That doesn't mean you get to change what the bible says about womanizing or homosexuality. That doesn't mean you can force people to accept certain policies, that most people don't want. That doesn't mean you can overturn the will of the people by judicial Fiat.If the intent of the founding fathers in the Constitution was to prohibit the Church of England in America, you can't have a church of the United States. That's all the Constitution says. There were individual states that had a state religion. The intent was for freedom of religious expression and to keep the government out of the churches. You still don't understand the the separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. You are simply making fallacious arguments and throwing around terms like equality justice, and civil rights with out defining what you mean by that. Your fixation is on demonetization of conservatives
Kirk
lynn4
"I become extreme when I see ridiculously wasteful spending–from both sides of the political fence–while concern for the less fortunate is being called Communism." Why would being concerned for the less fortunate be called communism unless you believe that "redistribution of wealth" is the way to help the less fortunate? Do you believe in economic equality? If you do believe in economic equality, you are not a moderate at all. If you believe in economic equality you are more concerned with social issues than biblical issues.
Kirk
No paragraphs?
Why is it when you preview your posts, there are paragraphs and when it is posted everything is mushed together?
briansea
The issue was indeed on our
The issue was indeed on our side and should be rectified now. Sorry about the trouble.
If you experience any other oddities, please report them using the "Report a problem/suggestion" link at the bottom of the page.
Thank you,
Brian
Darrell L. Bock
Paragraphs?
Kirk:
To be honest I am not sure. You might check under input format, if you have access to that. It should be filtered HTML.
If not, the issue is on our end.
dlb