Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Feast of St Stephen

This one goes out to everyone who ever wondered who Good King Wenceslas was (St Wenceslaus I, Duke of Bohemia, 907-935 AD), or what the "Feast of Stephen" in the song referred to. The Feast of St Stephen is today, December 26 (also Chairman Mao's birthday, for interested parties), which is how Good King Wenceslas got to be a Christmas Carol. In Canada and other countries, today is known as Boxing Day, a day to give alms to the poor, as Good King Wenceslas does in the song. (In my saltier moments, I have wondered if the US doesn't celebrate Boxing Day because nobody believes in giving to the poor.)

And what kind of Deadhead would I be, if I didn't post ST STEPHEN? The best short (operative word, SHORT) musical version I found was recorded in 1969, and both Bob and Jerry look like teenagers (except Jerry looks like an exceptionally hairy teenager). It was recorded for Playboy After Dark, which isn't optimal, but whatcha gonna do?

St Stephen was martyred in the New Testament. Because he is what is often called a "Biblical saint" (meaning his sainthood was "grandfathered in" and he didn't need to undergo the usual canonization process) I thought it would be safe to wish another Christian a happy St Stephen's Day today. Ha! Dream on, Daisy! John Knox spins in his grave! The Christian-in-question bit my head off in the usual Calvinist style. Honestly, I'd like to know what they put in the water over there at Bob Jones University, which seems to make the people 1) stupid and 2) terribly unhappy.

This conversation broke out into a rather heated theological discussion that seemed to leave everyone around us alternately freaked-out and awestruck, but I'll be DAMNED if I will allow some FUNDIE KNOW-IT-ALL who is studying to be another CLUELESS PREACHER (as if we don't have enough preachers around here as it is) tell me all kindsa bullshit about "epistemology"--a word they have apparently just learned over at BJU, since I've heard it from two of them now.

The discussion ended up with young Preacher-Man self-righteously informing me I was not WORTHY (shades of Wayne's World!) to hear the Gospel. I guess he doesn't think I've heard it already, or not the CORRECT one, in any event. He said he'd visit here to argue with me further, and I wouldn't underestimate him. ZEAL is the brother's middle name. He is right, everyone else (except for John Calvin and Bob Jones, one assumes) is wrong, and that's that.

And then, I remembered the day itself; I thought of St Stephen:

Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:

Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept [it].

When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with [their] teeth.

But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord

And cast [him] out of the city, and stoned [him]: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul.

And they stoned Stephen, calling upon [God], and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

--Acts 7: 52-60 (KJV)
Who is now doing the stoning? It's interesting to read this, in our modern times. Who are the people doing the judging? Who are the people deciding that other people are not good enough, or (ahem) WORTHY enough?

The Calvinist fundamentalists would have stoned St Stephen, as surely as they now have no need for his feast day.

Did he doubt or did he try?
Answers aplenty in the bye and bye
Talk about your plenty, talk about your ills
One man gathers what another man spills

Saint Stephen will remain
All he's lost he shall regain
Seashore washed by the suds and the foam
Been here so long he's got to calling it home


~*~

Grateful Dead - St Stephen

[via FoxyTunes / Grateful Dead]

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

Greetings, This your your friendly, close minded, dogmatic, offensive, Establishmentarian Calvinist from work. Today at work you surprised me by being humble enough to take the label "pluralist". At least you are honest enough to take a label. However, after hearing the typical pluralistic epistomology, I don't see how you can really accept any meaning to any word, though you do it anyway. I also found it interesting to hear the way you argued me. You had a rehearsed answer for me right after I started quoting the Bible. You were waiting for me to "contradict" myself and in doing so you refute your own pluralism. By doing so you recognize that there are laws to language and laws to logic. All of us constantly do that, and most don't even realize that(I am sure you will never address this point as Dr. Gordon Stein diliberatly avoided when he debated Dr. Greg Bahnsen). Laws are totally contrary to pluralism. If you revel so much in your pluralism answer me this: Wkipedia quotes from searching "human sacrifice"

"The Aztecs were particularly noted for practicing human sacrifice on a large scale; an offering to Huitzilopochtli would be made to restore the blood he lost, as the sun was engaged in a daily battle. Human sacrifices would prevent the end of the world that could happen on each cycle of 52 years. In the 1487 re-consecration of the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan as many as 80,400 prisoners were sacrificed.

In India
Some people in India are adherents of a set of theistic philosophies called Tantrism (not to be confused with Tantric Buddhism). Most either use animal sacrifice or symbolic effigies, but a small percent of them engage in human sacrifice:

“ After a rash of similar killings in the area — according to an unofficial tally in the English language-language Hindustan Times, there have been 25 human sacrifices in western Uttar Pradesh in the last six months alone — police have cracked down against tantriks, jailing four and forcing scores of others to close their businesses and pull their ads from newspapers and television stations. The killings and the stern official response have focused renewed attention on tantrism, an amalgam of mysticism practices that grew out of Hinduism.[29] ”

A 2006 newspaper report states:

“ Police in Khurja say dozens of sacrifices have been made over the past six months. Last month, in a village near Barha, a woman hacked her neighbour's three-year-old to death after a tantrik promised unlimited riches. In another case, a couple desperate for a son had a six-year-old kidnapped and then, as the tantrik chanted mantras, mutilated the child. The woman completed the ritual by washing in the child's blood. "It's because of blind superstitions and rampant illiteracy that this woman sacrificed this boy," said Khurja police officer Ak Singh. "It's happened before and will happen again but there is little we can do to stop it. In most situations it's an open and shut case. It isn't difficult to elicit confessions — normally the villagers or the families of the victims do that for us" […]. According to an unofficial tally by the local newspaper, there have been 28 human sacrifices in western Uttar Pradesh in the last four months. Four tantrik priests have been jailed and scores of others forced to flee.[30]"

Examples could be multiplied such as women throwing their babies off bridges for alligators to eat in honor of the god of the river (etc.) in India and in obedience to the beloved Hinduism that many in our country thinks a much more civil alternative to Christianity.
I ask, is this practice of human sacrifice part of your tolerant pluralism, and do you find these acts honorable, because as the pluralists says: we must honor all religions,...right? Religious liberty is a myth and it will never exist consistently because government by definition if religious and discriminates religion. If you make such a strong point on the mulitplicity of religious books in the world where is your standard for your philosoophy of government? When a magostrate takes up the task of writing laws and statutes for a society he does so on the basis of what he believes is right and wrong. Those things that are morally wrong, he punishes. American pluralists make such a fuss about George Bush and his fscism and the whole time your answer for George Bush is in Dueteronomy 17. And why vote for Ron Paul? He wants to destroy the very foundations of the same left wing socialist philosophy of Govenrment you accept. Did you know a heavy progressive or graduated income tax, centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly and free education for all children in public schools are some foundational planks of Communism and all of which Ron Paul has clearly made known he will destroy?

December 26, 2007 5:04 PM

EDITOR'S NOTE: COPIED FROM THE ERRONEOUS THREAD IT WAS POSTED IN.

Daisy said...

And now, I will give your post the attention it deserves.

Greetings, This your your friendly, close minded, dogmatic, offensive, Establishmentarian Calvinist from work. Today at work you surprised me by being humble enough to take the label "pluralist". At least you are honest enough to take a label. However, after hearing the typical pluralistic epistomology, I don't see how you can really accept any meaning to any word, though you do it anyway.

If nobody accepted the given meanings of words, we couldn't talk or say anything at all. Now, you know this. Why do you say such silly things?

(Note for those following along at home, see how proud they are of that damn word they all just learned over there? Now, if we could just get them to spell it right. PS: It's epistemology)

I also found it interesting to hear the way you argued me. You had a rehearsed answer for me right after I started quoting the Bible. You were waiting for me to "contradict" myself and in doing so you refute your own pluralism. By doing so you recognize that there are laws to language and laws to logic.

You didn't answer me. Instead, you ran ahead, tried to head me off at the pass, and asked me a bunch of questions that had nothing to do with my primary question, which was, and I repeat: of all the holy books in the world, how can you prove that yours is THE holy book inspired by God alone? You admitted to me that you can't prove this, except by referring to the book itself. And indeed, all religious people can do the same... the Bible, the Vedas, the Quran, ... all the holy books of the world, say THEY are God-breathed and God-inspired. You choose the one to believe in, just as I do. The difference is you will not take responsibility for your choice, as I do. You have not investigated the others... yet you claim you have "found" the right one.

How can you know this, if you have not studied them all?

All of us constantly do that, and most don't even realize that(I am sure you will never address this point as Dr. Gordon Stein diliberatly avoided when he debated Dr. Greg Bahnsen). Laws are totally contrary to pluralism. If you revel so much in your pluralism answer me this: Wkipedia quotes from searching "human sacrifice"

"The Aztecs were particularly noted for practicing human sacrifice on a large scale; an offering to Huitzilopochtli would be made to restore the blood he lost, as the sun was engaged in a daily battle. Human sacrifices would prevent the end of the world that could happen on each cycle of 52 years. In the 1487 re-consecration of the Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan as many as 80,400 prisoners were sacrificed.


And in a few scant years after these events, Christians also practiced human sacrifice with something called THE INQUISITION (Catholic) and THE WITCH HUNTS (Protestant). Remember those?

It's just that they aren't called "human sacrifice" by the white- people-raised-Christian who founded (and run) Wikipedia. But rest assured, it was human sacrifice. And all of that was fine with you. They weren't *worthy*--so why should you care what happened to those people?

I am an EXISTENTIALIST. I choose to believe in God for my own emotional well-being, which was the primary reason belief in God evolved in the first place. At some point, religion became fascistic, like government. We began serving IT, like some Leviathan.

Why do you want this kind of fascistic religion again, only a Protestant version this time? This makes no sense to me.

Some people in India are adherents of a set of theistic philosophies called Tantrism (not to be confused with Tantric Buddhism). Most either use animal sacrifice or symbolic effigies, but a small percent of them engage in human sacrifice:

“ After a rash of similar killings in the area — according to an unofficial tally in the English language-language Hindustan Times, there have been 25 human sacrifices in western Uttar Pradesh in the last six months alone — police have cracked down against tantriks, jailing four and forcing scores of others to close their businesses and pull their ads from newspapers and television stations. The killings and the stern official response have focused renewed attention on tantrism, an amalgam of mysticism practices that grew out of Hinduism.[29] ”


There is also a war going on... did you know? Human sacrifice there, too.

Dubya even called it a Crusade, didn't he?

What religion is Dubya, again?

A 2006 newspaper report states:

“ Police in Khurja say dozens of sacrifices have been made over the past six months. Last month, in a village near Barha, a woman hacked her neighbour's three-year-old to death after a tantrik promised unlimited riches. In another case, a couple desperate for a son had a six-year-old kidnapped and then, as the tantrik chanted mantras, mutilated the child. The woman completed the ritual by washing in the child's blood. "It's because of blind superstitions and rampant illiteracy that this woman sacrificed this boy," said Khurja police officer Ak Singh. "It's happened before and will happen again but there is little we can do to stop it. In most situations it's an open and shut case. It isn't difficult to elicit confessions — normally the villagers or the families of the victims do that for us" […]. According to an unofficial tally by the local newspaper, there have been 28 human sacrifices in western Uttar Pradesh in the last four months. Four tantrik priests have been jailed and scores of others forced to flee.[30]"


Can it, please. I can match you example for example, from the Thirty Years War alone.

Examples could be multiplied such as women throwing their babies off bridges for alligators to eat in honor of the god of the river (etc.) in India and in obedience to the beloved Hinduism that many in our country thinks a much more civil alternative to Christianity.
I ask, is this practice of human sacrifice part of your tolerant pluralism, and do you find these acts honorable, because as the pluralists says: we must honor all religions,...right?


Hey, you are the one who cooks and eats meat, not me. Why are you asking me these preposterous questions?

Religious liberty is a myth and it will never exist consistently because government by definition if religious and discriminates religion.

If you people continue, they will outlaw religion because you can't stop pissing people off. Should I blame you or them for that?

If you make such a strong point on the mulitplicity of religious books in the world where is your standard for your philosoophy of government?

Thomas Jefferson, Voline, Antonio Gramsci, Mikhail Bakunin, Karl Marx, Herbert Marcuse, Frantz Fanon, John Locke, Rousseau, Friedrich Nietzsche, Gandhi, Franklin Roosevelt, etc. etc. (How much time do you have?)

I am large, I contain multitudes.

When a magostrate takes up the task of writing laws and statutes for a society he does so on the basis of what he believes is right and wrong.

Laws EVOLVE over time. Particularly in a democracy or republic, they are not imposed by fiat.

It is spelled MAGISTRATE. Don't they teach you spellcheck over at BJU? Is that like your knowledge of Hinduism?

Those things that are morally wrong, he punishes.

Nope, a jury punishes. That jury is made up of a diversity of people, many of whom will not agree with you, or the "author" of the law.. that is what "jury nullification" means.

If a law is scoffed at enough, it will cease to be enforced after awhile, or it will be rescinded entirely. THAT is pluralism.

American pluralists make such a fuss about George Bush and his fscism and the whole time your answer for George Bush is in Dueteronomy 17.

Do you mean Deuteronomy?

Okay, do you mean this one:

Deu 17:15 --Thou shalt in any wise set [him] king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: [one] from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which [is] not thy brother.

Those rules were intended for ancient Israel. Are you saying they are intended for the modern- day USA?

(ASIDE TO READERS: SEE WHAT I MEAN? THEY ARE SCARY, NO?)

Well, I don't think GOD set Dubya over me, I think BROTHER JEB did. I think the election was stolen. (By who? Well, who IS the Father of Lies?)

And why vote for Ron Paul? He wants to destroy the very foundations of the same left wing socialist philosophy of Govenrment you accept.

I thought he was a libertarian, and would therefore destroy ALL government?

I am voting for RP in the primary to move the Republican party to left on the war, which I consider the most crucial issue of HUMAN SACRIFICE that is going on right now. (Please click on RON PAUL in the "topics" at right, for further details.)

Did you know a heavy progressive or graduated income tax, centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly and free education for all children in public schools are some foundational planks of Communism and all of which Ron Paul has clearly made known he will destroy?

And how, pray tell, will he do that? Is he going to abolish congress, too?

I just want the HUMAN SACRIFICE to stop, and I really don't care about that other nonsense he claims he will do, which is impossible for one branch of govt to accomplish without the others.

Are you going to answer my question about Jesus? To wit: Did Jesus save you 2008 years ago? If so, it's done, and your "right thinking" and "right belief" (Buddhist concepts, which existed for thousands of years before Calvin decided they were Christian... did he steal them?) is not what saves you.

If you think your "belief" saves you, then you are saving yourself by what you THINK, and that is heresy. (see: Hilaire Belloc)

Did Jesus save you, or do you save you?

Film at Eleven.

thene said...

I could be wrong, but I thought Boxing Day in the UK was traditionally the day employers gave gifts to employees, apprentices, servants and the like. That tradition's gone here but the name remains.

of all the holy books in the world, how can you prove that yours is THE holy book inspired by God alone?

-I'd love to hear about that one too. I've had this out with JWs on my doorstep before now; they seemed pretty clueless about other religious books in general, even claiming that the Bible was older than the Vedas (not true). Why is the Bible truer than the Vedas, or the Tao Te Ching?

belledame222 said...

wait. Daisy, you're an Aztec? I'm so confused.

and um, dude, I seem to remember at least one requested sacrifice of one's own (mortal) son in Scripture..and "psych, I was only testing you" doesn't really seem like like such a great God to -me-. Likewise, plagues, wars, and other examples of favoritism and general pissiness at not being Paid Enough Attention To.

I mean, seems to -me-, this is behavior that would be considered petty and abusive, not to mention signs of someone who's well, kind of insecure, in a mere mortal; wouldn't you think The Almighty God might have a little better self-esteem?


but then, I'm a secular humanist pagan type who will undoubtedly be Left Behind, (neener neener), so, what do I know, clearly.

belledame222 said...

p.s. I had the weirdest feeling of deja vu, reading this exchange; and then I realized: it reminded me a lot of trying to discuss feminism with the likes of delphyne and w-w.

"Orthodoxy is not my doxy"

belledame222 said...

p.s. how exactly does one reconcile a keen interest with destroying the tax system, particularly one which at all seems to favor the poor, with the whole "render unto Caesar" bit? and, well, everything else Jesus was actually about.

I mean, what, now? "I Am The Way, The Truth, And The Self-Reliant: pull yourselves up by your bootstraps, take up your guns and follow Me, and don't let anyone take them away from you until they pry your cold, dead fingers from them."

"Consider the lily: they toil not, neither do they spin. Mow 'em down, the lazy pansies."


whatEVerrr

--Bamboo Blitz-- said...

Great post to stir up the religious debate!

Judging by annoymous' erroneous human sacrifice argument, I'm going to have to side with you on this one, Daisy. And to add to your list of oppressive Christian fundamentalist woes--colonialism, residential schools, the KKK. Annonymous sure has a bad case of circular/selective reasoning....

Carla said...

Daisy, thank you for the history lesson, and especially the youtube. What a FANTASTIC St Stephen! Young ADORABLE Bobby, Phil with pork chops! Tee Hee! I hit play on the youtube link, turned it up and twirled all the way into the kitchen to refill my coffee.

As for the religion debate. An interesting read. But I'm an atheist.. I believe in the tangible. So "THE book" discussion is where it ends for me. No religious text is "THE book". As far as I'm concerned they're all hooey.
Anyone can practice what they want. In their own home. In their church. But keep that filthy dogma away from me and my kids.

Anonymous said...

The Calvinist:
I only have internet access at the Library so please excuse any rough style form or spelling I only have a limited time here and am typing as fast as I can.
I am not a fundamentalist. You need to read "Fighting the Good Fight" published by the OPC. That books deals with the false claims that histroic reformed denominations are fundamentalists and we are not.
You say: "If nobody accepted the given meanings of words, we couldn't talk or say anything at all.Why do you say such silly things?"

The reason is by admitting what you said you agree that there are laws to language and logic. If admitted, where do these laws come from and how do you know?

To the objection about the different books:

You had mentioned that every religion teaches the same thing. This is wrong. In the clearest sense most religions do not teach that the fundamental seperation between God and man is sin. Most religions teach that the seperation is ignorance. The Bible teaches in Romans 10 that all people know the basic information about God.

18But I say, surely they have never heard, have they? Indeed they have;
"(AB)THEIR VOICE HAS GONE OUT INTO ALL THE EARTH,
AND THEIR WORDS TO THE ENDS OF THE WORLD."

The problem is not ignorance but sin. The bible is the only book that lays out in specific what sin is, "the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4) and then in specific details the legal administration of Christ's redemptive work to save men from sin. In this the Bible is without doubt fundamentaly different than all other religions and religious books. I am speaking in a context of eastern religions, not ones that claim Abraham as patriarch which is another conversation.

To the objection about the Inquisition. The definition of Christianity is the Westminster Confession, not the Roman Catholic Church or the Inquisition. The witch hunt objection is absurd. These civil punishments and I do not claim every one was biblically practiced but, the statute in the law that a witch shoul not be allowed to live is a punishment of civil law. This is different than a sacrifice of a ceremonial nature. These civil penalties were in no case a part of worship and were punishments given for violoations of law. These other events by pagans were in no such character and for the most part they pursued virgins and those who were morally pure for their ceremonial sacrifices and were by no means acts of civil justice. By replying to me in such a fashion you totally avoid the main objection and admit that human sacrifices are morally wrong and therefore refute your own pluralistic beliefs.

To the objection about being worthy to hear the gospel.

I did not say you were no worthy to hear the gospel. You had just yelled "heretic" at me from across the restaurant and you were acting obscene. This is not even close to being any what civil or someone interested in truth, since you have heard very little of what I believe and then scream heretic in the middle of a place of business therefore qualifying yourself as the swine Jesus mentioned to not cast your pearls to. It was not the restricitive sense of the "gospel" that I was rejecting to speak with you on, but the broad subject of the "order of decrees" which is what seemed to be the topic of your objection(maybe I was mistaken).

To the objection about me wanting fascism.?!!! .... ? What?

I am a theonomist and believe in the preminnence of biblical law and a view to the smallest form of government I know of......fascist?

To your objection about the many supposed authors you base your views on. My question is focused on the basis of morality which government is based on by definition. How do you know what is morally right and wrong? Those men you quoted admit they have no standard.

I find very little accuracy in your responses and claims here at all. Which is why I find you not worthy to hear. You do not care about truth. If I find any interest to answer any more of your supposed objections I may conclude this post another time, but I seriously doubt it. Read the Westminster Confession. This is more information than you deserve, be grateful.

belledame222 said...

the restaurant? we're in a restaurant? send this back, then, it's a bit overcooked.

belledame222 said...

...holy crap. Thomas Jefferson, Gandhi, Locke, etc. etc. etc. "have no standards."

sweetie. the Koolaid: is it at least a decent flavor? Raspberry, I like raspberry.

but I mean, yeah: wouldn't it just suck if you were wrong about all this? imagine living such a miserable constrained life all for -nothing-.

Daisy said...

Firstly: Thene, apparently the whole name of "Boxing day" (see link) came from giving little boxes of coins to the poor, which branched out into the custom of employers giving their workers coins/bonuses the day after Christmas! Very nice!

Next: Carla, thank you so much for linking me! Everyone should hear ST STEPHEN! And yeah, I didn't even recognize Phil at first, I thought, who IS that guy, where's Phil? Those dorky glasses!! :P

Bamboo, thanks for getting it. And Belledame, you know you always -SLAY- me, right? :D

Bryce said...

"I find very little accuracy in your responses and claims here at all. Which is why I find you not worthy to hear. You do not care about truth. If I find any interest to answer any more of your supposed objections I may conclude this post another time, but I seriously doubt it. Read the Westminster Confession. This is more information than you deserve, be grateful."


and how many people read YOUR blog, asshole?

you arrogant motherfucker. D thinks U R worth talking 2, but some of us think throwing your ass 2 the lions was a good idea! U need 2B polite 2 the person who gives U benefit of the doubt! i don't! and fuck you.

Daisy said...

Be nice, Bryce.

Anonymous, what makes you think I haven't read the Westminster Confession?

You are the one who refuses to read other works by other people of faith. By contrast, I have read most of the majors, and not a few of the minors.

To backtrack:

I am not a fundamentalist. You need to read "Fighting the Good Fight" published by the OPC. That books deals with the false claims that histroic reformed denominations are fundamentalists and we are not.

Sorry, hon. You don't get to make the definitions the rest of the world uses. If you believe the Bible is the inerrant, always-truthful, historically-correct and inspired word of God, rather than fable, myth, spiritual lesson or symbolism, you are a fundie. Period.

That is the way the majority of the world objectively sees you. I realize, you are in the midst of it, and your education is severely lacking in this regard (objectivity, history, fable, spiritual lessons)... but I hope someday you can break free of the dogma. You have a curious and questing mind, and I hope that carries the day, rather than the smug, ego-driven religious impulse that now sustains you.

The reason is by admitting what you said you agree that there are laws to language and logic. If admitted, where do these laws come from and how do you know?

Culture and history. Are you saying the actual WORDS we use are a result of GOD'S LAWS? Like, where did a SLANG word like DISS (haha, I'm a hoot, ain't I?) come from?

I "know" because when I use a word, people understand me, or they don't.

Sorry, your point (is there one?) is not getting through...

You had mentioned that every religion teaches the same thing. This is wrong. In the clearest sense most religions do not teach that the fundamental seperation between God and man is sin. Most religions teach that the seperation is ignorance. The Bible teaches in Romans 10 that all people know the basic information about God.

The problem is with your English word SIN. Surely, you understand that SIN is an Anglo-Saxon concept. You must look for points of similarity... you seem intent on seeing only the differences, which is why fundamentalists like yourself and your Popes, Ian Paisley and Bob Jones III, are into backing all sorts of wars, instead of peace. You see them vs. us, rather than US. (As Jesus taught.)

All faiths have some version of the word SIN, and yes, all teach that lowered spiritual consciousness leads to damage of various types. In Buddhism, for instance, the concept is Kilesa
which is usually read in English as "defilements."

The bible is the only book that lays out in specific what sin is, "the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4) and then in specific details the legal administration of Christ's redemptive work to save men from sin. In this the Bible is without doubt fundamentaly different than all other religions and religious books. I am speaking in a context of eastern religions, not ones that claim Abraham as patriarch which is another conversation.

This is simply incorrect. You have read ALL of the Vedas, even the Smriti? You've read the entire Abhidhamma? Because I haven't, and most lay-persons have not, and surely, I doubt a BJU student knows anything at all about it.

As Bryce made note, your arrogance is incredible. I yelled "heretic" at you, after you announced rather *loudly* that I did not know what I was talking about. I suppose it has not occurred to you that my job depends on my knowing what I am talking about, so I did not appreciate you saying that. ;)

And yes, I was trying to make the point: according to most CHRISTIAN religions of the world, you are a heretic. As Mitt Romney is. No shock that Pope Bubba/Bob Jones has endorsed him for president. You are FRINGE and EXTREME.

I know you don't get out much, but take my word for it.

The witch hunt objection is absurd. These civil punishments and I do not claim every one was biblically practiced but, the statute in the law that a witch shoul not be allowed to live is a punishment of civil law. This is different than a sacrifice of a ceremonial nature. These civil penalties were in no case a part of worship and were punishments given for violoations of law.

You are justifying Matthew Hopkins and his ilk, then? Ah, like a good puritan. Of course.

And hey, torture for confessions of witchcraft? All in a day's work.

I take it as an "establishmentarian"--you would re-establish this kind of law? Would you put witches/pagans to death or sentence them to jail?

These civil penalties were in no case a part of worship and were punishments given for violoations of law. These other events by pagans were in no such character and for the most part they pursued virgins and those who were morally pure for their ceremonial sacrifices and were by no means acts of civil justice.

Could you offer some historic proof that these witches were engaging in sacrifices of virgins?

What the hell are you talking about?

This is not even close to being any what civil or someone interested in truth, since you have heard very little of what I believe and then scream heretic in the middle of a place of business therefore qualifying yourself as the swine Jesus mentioned to not cast your pearls to.

Excuse me, but you rattle on about religion back there in the kitchen non-stop, and quite loudly. Everyone has heard you, multiple times. I have heard you, and you insult everyone regularly who does not agree with you, in the same arrogant way you are insulting me here. There is NO ONE you have NOT "discussed" religion with, including my friends, and you know exactly who I mean. You have made numerous people, customers included (and you know we have a lot of Hindu, Pakistani, Muslim customers, you clueless and rude fool) very uncomfortable.

Do you care about any of that?

I am a theonomist and believe in the preminnence of biblical law and a view to the smallest form of government I know of......fascist?

Theonomist? Is that the new word-of-the-week over at BJU? Who invented that? Oh wait, here it is:

Theonomy

QUOTED FROM ABOVE:

[Theonimists] cite the numerous scripture passages referring to God's collective judgment upon unrighteous nations and God's blessing upon those rulers and societies heeding His Word as evidence that the presence or absence of Christian values may profoundly influence the rise and fall of nations.

Although theonomic writers may not always agree on specific policy matters, goals often cited include:

* Elevation of the importance of Biblical case law in the judicial system.
* Importance of civic rule by believers.
* Recovery of a more public and formalized acknowledgment of the sovereignty of God over human government, as they argue was predominant in the American Founding Era.


So, your goal is a THEOCRACY to go with your THEONOMY, correct?

Those men you quoted admit they have no standard.

Huh? NO STANDARD? (((looks up to the sky nervously, expects Wagnerian bolts of lightning as guided by the ghost of Friedrich Nietzsche to come crashing down on your ass at any moment))

Are you serious?

Do you think if someone has a different standard than you do, it is the same as NO standard at all? Why would you think that?

I find very little accuracy in your responses and claims here at all. Which is why I find you not worthy to hear. You do not care about truth. If I find any interest to answer any more of your supposed objections I may conclude this post another time, but I seriously doubt it. Read the Westminster Confession. This is more information than you deserve, be grateful.

And you sound you are from Mars.

My purpose in this discussion is to let everyone see what the Bob Jones people are really like. You speak for yourselves far better than I ever could. I have written about that place several times, but have not managed to convey how scary Bob Jones University really is. You, on the other hand, are a walking illustration. Thanks for making my points for me, about how dangerous you people are to the Republic.

PS: Belle, this is a cafe section of a store, so technically, he's in the 'restaurant', and I am on the sales floor.

Dw3t-Hthr said...

Hm. I think "the separation between man and God" is nonsense. The buggers won't leave me alone.

Some people's rhetoric makes no damn sense to mystics ....

Daisy said...

Kiya, actually, that is quite a good point. (You always make good points about spiritual stuff...)

Perhaps all of these LAWS the Theonomists want to institute, are a way of joining the material and spiritual worlds, that THEY experience as separated. They feel a certain "disconnect"--as mystics, pagans, Pentecostals, etc do not, so they are constantly trying to bridge that gap. And the only way they feel they can do that is BY FORCE (passing laws with a religious basis?)...

Anybody got any other ideas? (Bryce, be nice.)

Dw3t-Hthr said...

Honestly, it makes me very sad.

Especially when coming from people who are dealing with a god-of-love, not a god-of-law.

Love the Divine; love the world. (As Hillel said, the rest is commentary.) Building law to fence in love and tame it and corral it is ... there was this spectacular post I found a while back, talking about the Irish Christians and how they saw the Holy Spirit as a goose, rather than a dove.

A dove is quiet and nurturing and frankly a bit dim.

A goose is loud, demanding, pushy: the Holy Spirit doesn't stay happily in the little dovecote of law, it comes charging at you and honking and spreading those wings and you have to decide whether to face it or run like all the demons are after you, because it's not going to just coo at you, it's going to shove.

Law and dovecotes won't turn the goose into a dove. It'll just make it so the Spirit can't fit through the space built to let it in with its big-ass wings and its attitude.

Jesus came to hang with the poor, the afflicted, the leprous, the foreigners, the tax collectors: all the pariahs of His day.

If you want to fix the separation between self and Him, look for Him among those who wash the feet of the queer, the mentally ill, the disabled, the poor (who are, as He said, always with us): the pariahs of our day.

The kingdom of God is there within you.

(Mystics all speak the same language. Not my faith, but I know what's being said, you know?)

Bryce said...

dw3t, u r a far better preacher than anony. will ever be.

ppl like anony have driven so many of my friends (& D's) from this area - so i get pretty mad @their TOTAL BULLSHIT.

Dw3t-Hthr said...

"Preach the Gospel always. When necessary, use words." --St. Francis of Asisi

When a cranky pagan makes a better preacher than someone who seems to fancy they've taken on the job, I think there's something gumming up the gears somewhere. (Maybe that's just me.)

Anonymous said...

Daisy,
I really see what you are saying in response to "anony". What you said resonates what I feel, too. I thought you may enjoy this. I wrote it over a year ago. I am a student of "A Course In Miracles". To me, one of the coolest things about it is that it is a "self-study". You don`t have to tell anyone about it, you don`t have to "convert" everyone to "the right side"...it`s just about taking responsibility for yourself, recognizing your own divinity, & most importantly...Love. That may seem simple-minded to some, but that`s OK by me.
((Love & light to All reading this!))


One day, while sitting in bumper to bumper traffic, I saw a sticker on the back of a car that said Catholic Radio. It came to me that out of this vast Universe, we have lessened ourselves, & everything around us with label, upon label, upon label…In the 1800`s Soren Kierkegaard, wrote “When you label me, you negate me.” In our homes, in the city, in the state, in the country, in the world, the Earth, & the entire Universe, & beyond…we cannot allow ourselves & others just to BE. I can envision looking at this world from a great distance, & seeing everything muddled with big yellow post-it notes. We don’t look into each other`s hearts…most of us don’t even look each other in the eye. We just look for the label. It tells us who we think we are, & who everyone else is. With labels we have expectations, conditions……SEPARATION. In Reality we are never separate from anything, or anyone. How large of an ego must we be feeding to have ever thought that we could be in the first place? When someone doesn’t live up to their label, they don’t cease to exist; they don’t just stop breathing and keel over on the spot.
You are here, you chose it…allow yourself and others to BE. Source/Life needs no label; it simply is…you simply ARE, and that is simply magnificent. When you peel off all the labels it’s plain to see that we are all ONE.

nonnymouse said...

Two points:

A) Wenceslas's mother's name was Drahomira, which I think is the best evil name up until Disney came up with Cruella DaVille. (Drahomira was a pagan who reputedly arranged to have Wenceslas's Christian grandmother strangled.)

B) Calvin's great contribution to theology was using the newly developed humanistic method of exegesis to scripture and previous theological thought. Whatever you think of his theology, it was his application of academic thought to the foundations of Luther et al. underpins virtually all modern Christian theology.

And it shames this Calvinist to think that his contributions to the world are being so abused by people purporting to be in his tradition.

Tarot cards said...

Hmm Well I was just searching on Google for some Tarot readings of some Tarot reader
and just came across your blog, generally I just only visit blogs and retrieve my required
information but this time the useful information that you posted in this post compelled me
to reply here and appreciate your good work. I just bookmarked your blog

nike free run said...

Calvin's great contribution to theology was using the newly developed humanistic method of exegesis to scripture and previous theological thought. Whatever you think of his theology, it was his application of academic thought to the foundations of Luther et al. underpins virtually all modern Christian theology