When reminded that his stance is likely radical with respect to the American mainstream, he consistently responds with something along the lines of “Christian theocracy is neither illegal nor shameful.”

His church is a rapidly growing evangelical one in northern McPherson county.

He’s a natural leader and will likely end up a pastor in his faith – at a minimum.

He also agrees with about 85% of what Fred Phelps and the Phelps clan expouse, so go figure.

It’a hardly a stretch, under the ‘leadership’ of President Bush, to extrapolate from my ex-brother-in-law to the plurality formed by a majority of white male Republican voters and the portion of frightened female voters who support President Bush and his agenda of a just and pre-emptive war waged whenever ‘necessary’ and, from the viewpoint of this coalition, see why the GOP is successful.

$0.02

BTW, you might recall that on another thread I pointed out the tremendous work done by Catholic Crarities, Salvation Army and others. They are DEFINITELY doing the true work of God in my opinion. Regardless on where we might end up in a philisophical discussion. And I support those groups in their work without reservation. (along with United Methodist and several others)

There is a big difference between animus and not wanting a group to rule. For example, ‘my’ Priest is a wonderful man and I value his counsel. However, I do not want him running the government. In fact, another reason for separation IMO is that we need Church keeping State honest and vice versa. “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” If church/state merge and then stray there is no watchdog. With them separated we have the churches, synagogues, mosques all fracturing the “absolute power” and helping to keep things in check. I COUNT on the Church to fill that role.

I am also glad Ben, that you hold no animosity toward Christians.

Let me guess, you want the Bible and Christian doctrine to be living and breathing entities like the Constitution, right?

Viva la Raza Blanco!!

Context is very important indeed.

Jesus and the writers of the New Testament lived in world far different from our own.

Trying to make sense out Biblical passages without looking at the historical context is like a primitive tribe reading “Hamlet.”

I am told this is why Muslims are required to learn Arabic so they can read their Book in its language. I can get a a translation to English but it is not really considered authentic if i were trying to actually practice their faith.

They found that the previous translation of the Bible when compared to that of the just unearthed dead sea scrolls was about 99% accurate in it’s translation.

That is the jist of it.

Nathan – “The Old Testament law does not apply to Christians.” Direct quote from outlander. Therefore, since the 10 are of the Old testament they “do not apply to Christians”. I am not saying anything; only directly quoting. “does not apply” sounds a lot like “invalid” in this context.

Where did you get the 99% figure?

If you are very familiar with the New Convenant then why do you make statements about the 10 commandments like Outlander is saying they are invalid when he was talking about the New Covenant?

You make it sound like the majority of Christianity is having problems with transaltions and such.

It is the opposite. The Bible has been found to be like 99% accurate in its transaltions.

There are many different versions of the Bible, which don’t translate the meaning differently, they just tell it in different words for better understanding.

Yes, there are a couple of Bible translations which intentionally manipulate the text, but not due to translational errors, human distortion instead.

By the way, I do not seek to “teach the Bible”; I simply note that various of those who do seem to have differing interpretations of its meaning. In fact, there are significant differences of opinion over the years of what Books should be included in the collection and which should not be. Add to that, of course, the problems inherent in multiple translations and it becomes difficult at times to discern precise meaning, at least in my opinion. That is why I seek advice from different sources including (but not limited to) Priests, Pastors, Rabbis, etc.

I am going to jump out on a limb and speak for Outlander and he can clear it up if need be.

When he says we are under a New Covenant it doesn’t mean the Old Testament is invalid.

Actually, if you read the New Testament it is pretty clear on what parts of the Old Testament LAW are not needed to be followed anymore.

It is called context. Our relationship with God changed after Christ came to die for our sins.

Before Christ came we sacrificed offerings for our sins, Christ was the ultimate sacrifice.

Just as we no longer sacrifice things for our sins, other parts of the law were no longer needed for us to be pure and have relation with God.

Has nothing to do with the 10 commandments the way you describe.

I still find it hard to believe that you were teaching about the Bible and you don’t even grasp the concept of the New Covenant.

Has nothing to do with the simplicity of “Old rather than New” and neither Outlander nor I would say it was that simple.

My only point is that neither your nor my interpretation should be forced into law. And DEFINITELY not Phelps’ interpretation of Christianity. Would you say that he doesn’t understand that which appears to have been his life’s work?

And yes, by the way, I always want to learn more; both about my own religion and others as well. Then I might begin to understand the myriad ways that God has tried to communicate with humanity over the millenea. (mis-spelled I’m sure)

I appreciate your interest and I hope that you want to learn more. But using the Bible to argue your points when you don’t understand the subject is pointless.

Then why did Pharisee Phred quote Isaih last night on KAKE? Why is one of the three Scripture readings in Mass Old Testament? Why does Sunday School include stories about Moses, Jonah, Noah, etc? No, Outlander, I don’t think the Old Testament is eliminated, at least not in the Christian churches I grew up in.

Nathan – I have nothing “against Christianity or Christians” as you lyingly claim. I DO, however, have a problem with the Phelpsians, Foxians, etc, who would shove their beliefs upon others.

Lets try it this way: I like meat. Nothing better than a nice juicy steak for dinner. I don’t want a vegetarian Hindu prohibiting that. Does that mean I have something against Hindus ot Hinduism? NO! They are perfectly free to not eat meat, just not to impose that on me. I like BBQ spare-ribs. Jews don’t approve of pork. As long as they leave me alone I have no rpoblem there either. At my Parish dances alcohol is routinely served. Well, should my Muslim friends be allowed to get a law passed prohibiting that? Not in my world I hope. I also do not drink alcohol; does that give me the right to prohibit others from enjoying the beverage? NO!

No, nathan, I do NOT have anything “against Christianity or Christians”; just in the attempts of a few to force their interpretation onto the rest of us. The reverend Phelps has called for execution of “Sodomites” and condemns divorce. That is fine with me as long as he doesn’t get to force those views on the rest of us.

we have had this discussion at church about social sin and the need to change it through laws ie racism, voting rights, but i think Sam is taking all this to far.

While god does judge, contrary to popular belief on here, he also loves unconditionally and forgives. I didn’t see alot of that in the article. As for the article its coming from Rolling Stone makes me wonder on saeveral fronts.

lots of questions for me

You can quote Paul all you want; I just don’t think that we should use his words to effectuate the “establishment of religion” by enshrining it into statute.