Posted on 03/15/2004 9:57:21 PM PST by kattracks
I recently interviewed a 26-year-old Swedish student about her views on life. I asked her if she believed in God or in any religion."No, that's silly," she replied.
"Then how do you know what is right and wrong?" I asked.
"My heart tells me," she responded.
In a nutshell, that's the major reason for the great divide within America and between America and much of Europe. The majority of people use their heart -- stirred by their eyes -- to determine what is right and wrong. A minority uses their mind and/or the Bible to make that determination.
Pick almost any issue and these opposing ways of determining right and wrong become apparent.
Here are three examples.
Same-sex marriage: The heart favors it. You have to have a hard heart not to be moved when you see many of the loving same-sex couples who want to commit their lives to one another in marriage. The eye sees the couples; the heart is moved to redefine marriage.
Animal rights: The heart favors them. It is the rare person, for example, whose heart is not moved by the sight of an animal used for medical research. The eye sees the cuddly animal; the heart then equates animal and human life.
Abortion: How can you look at a sad 18-year-old who had unprotected sex and not be moved? What kind of heartless person is going to tell her she shouldn't have an abortion and should give birth?
The eyes and the heart form an extraordinarily powerful force. They can only be overcome when formulating policies by a mind and a value system that are stronger than the heart-eye duo.
With the decline of Judeo-Christian religions, the heart, shaped by what the eye sees (hence the power of television), has become the source of people's moral decisions.
This is a potentially fatal problem for our civilization. As beautiful as the heart might be, it is neither intellectually nor morally profound.
It is therefore frightening that hundreds of millions of people find no problem in acknowledging that their heart is the source of their values. Their heart knows better than thousands of years of accumulated wisdom; better than religions shaped by most of the finest thinkers of our civilization (and, to the believer, by God); and better than the book that has guided our society -- from the Founders of our uniquely successful society to the foes of slavery to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and most of the leaders of the struggle for racial equality.
This elevation of one's heart is well beyond self-confidence -- it is self-deification.
One of the first things you learn in Judaism and Christianity is that the eyes and heart are usually terrible guides to the good and the holy. " . . . (D)o not follow after your own heart and your own eyes, which you are inclined to whore after" (Numbers 15:39); "the heart is deceitful above all things . . . " (Jeremiah 17:9).
Supporters of same-sex marriage see the loving gay couple, and therefore do not interest themselves in the effects of changing marriage and family on the children they do not see. And since they venerate their hearts, the biblical ideal of male-female love, marriage and family is of no significance to them.
Animal rights supporters' hearts are deeply moved by the animals they see experimented on, not by the millions of people they do not see who will suffer and die if we stop such experiments.
Likewise, the hearts of the people who support PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) are so moved by the plight of slaughtered chickens that the organization has a campaign titled "Holocaust on your plate," which equates our slaughtering of chickens with the Nazi slaughtering of Jews.For 25 years I have been asking high school seniors across America if they would save their dog or a stranger first if both were drowning. The majority has nearly always voted against the person. Why? Because, they say with no self-doubt, they love their dog, not the stranger. An entire generation has been raised with no reference to any moral code above their heart's feelings. They do not know, and would not care if they did know, that the Bible teaches that human beings, not animals, are created in God's image.
So, too, those who cannot call any abortion immoral are moved by what they see -- the forlorn woman who wants an abortion, not by the human fetus they do not see. That is why abortion rights groups are so opposed to showing photos of fetuses that have been aborted -- such pictures might move the eye and the heart of viewers to judge the morality of many abortions differently.
It is undeniable that many people have used their minds and many have used the Bible in ways that have led to evil. And some of these people have been truly heartless. But not one of the great cruelties of the 20th century -- the Gulag, Auschwitz, Cambodia, North Korea, Mao's Cultural Revolution -- came from those who took their values from the Bible. And the great evil of the 21st century, though religion-based, doesn't come from the Bible either.
Meanwhile, the combination of mind, Judeo-Christian values and heart has produced over centuries the unique success known as America. Reliance on the heart will destroy this painstaking achievement in a generation.
©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
This is an angry prayer offered up to God, not a command FROM God. God never endorses the sentiment.
Outstanding exegesis. Couldn't have put it better myself.
As I am sure they would refuse, Just like I am sure even if ordered they wouldn't kill all the men and non-virgins and keep the virgins for themselves like in Numbers 31. They would be using their hearts and mind not the Bible as a guide since when ever the "Heroes" of the Bible conquered a land they raped, pillaged and committed genocide upon the poor inhabitants.
Are you trying to convince yourself or just trying to turn people away from God?
Neither I am just pointed out the hypocrisy of self righteous Religious people.
But, You really should be asking Dennis Prager that question.
Attacking people who don't believe like he does in this way, Scapegoating is a true sign of someone who has doubts about himself.
As for driving people away from God, Do you really think a hate filled, vile article like this blaming all the world's problems on people that don't believe in their God in a way they find acceptable is really going to get you any converts?
Articles and people who feel like this do more to drive people away from God than any Atheist ever could.
And just like the Democrats that employ the same tactics, They will never learn and continue to do so. Which is why both Philosophies are in rapid decline.
,p .The History of the Revised Standard Version ,p . It may seem a bit confusing. The Revised Version was the English Version of the Greek Text which was used by Westcott and Hort and came out in 1881. Westcott & Hort produced both a) their version of the Greek New Testament as well as b) their version of that same text in English Text.
The Revised Version was designed to replace the King James, but it soon ran into trouble. One of its main deficiencies are the many differences between the RSV and the King James Version.
There were hundreds of changes made in the RSV, which did not correspond either to the Textus Receptus (Greek) or to the King James Version.
[Source for this statement: 1. The Revision Revised by John William Burgon (Dean Burgon)/560 Excellent pages and 2. Which Version by Philip Munro]. We offer both books for sale.
The American version of the RSV became the ASV, the 1901 American Standard Version. This effort was largely headed by Philip Schaff, who was President of Union Theological Seminary. [The ASV essentially is the RSV with a very few minor cosmetic changes. Its descendant today is the NASB].
In anycase, the history of the Revised Version does not end with the Original RV which was produced in 1881.
The Revised Version of Westcott & Hort apparently had not made enough changes. It was not liberal enough. Consequently, it was revised and became today's RSV.
There was a translation committee appointed to the task. Those who undertook this revision were 9 men who "improved" the Revised Version with their translation committee. These men worked to issue their "better" translation, yet they rejected the message of the Bible and the message of Salvation through the death & resurrection of Jesus Christ.
This translation committee issued the entire Revised Standard Version in 1952 (Though the New Testament was published in the U.S. in 1946). These were the 9 translators (We have also posted their main affiliation):
Walter Russel Bowie - Union Theological Seminary Millar Burrows - Yale University Henry J. Cadbury - Harvard University Clarence T. Craig - Oberlin Graduate School of Theology Edgar J. Godspeed - University of Chicago Frederick C. Grant - Union Theological Seminary James Moffat - Union Theological Seminary (Moffat died in 1944) Luther A. Weigle - Yale Divinity School (Weigle was its dean) Abdel Ross Wentz - Lutheran Theological Seminary
There is no doubt that these scholars gave themselves good publicity by publishing the RSV which was based on the Corrupt texts of Westcott & Hort. However, by traditional Christian standards of Biblical Christianity, these translators did not believe in the message of the Bible or the need to personally accept Jesus Christ. These men are not considered Christians.
You may note one of the great influences on the translation committee is Union Theological Seminary. This was one of the first Seminaries to openly question and attack the Divinity of Jesus, as a result of the corruption of so-called German
For more on Bible versions:
www.exorthodoxforchrist.com/modern_versions.htm
Wrong. The Christian tradition is what separates Western Civilization from the barbarism of certain other cultures.
Well, tell me by what rationale they came to believe that abolition was a mandate from God? The Bible condones slavery, do you disagree?
So, if they somehow came up with a creative interpretation that led them to believe the Bible says exactly the opposite of what it really says, are they not then the ones who are following their heart and not the Bible?
I know there must be some painful cognitive dissonance living in an age where slavery is universally condemned in the west, yet adhering to a Bible that says it's OK. I realize it's tempting to paint a noble face on your fellow Christians and say it was the Bible leading them to be against slavery, but I'm afraid that's not the case. It was their heart and conscience, in contravention from the words of the Bible.
I'm having trouble understanding how the case is being made that abolitionists were both adhering to the Bible, and against slavery. An anti-slavery stance is a bit difficult to reconcile with a Bible that clearly supports it.
Yes, I disagree. The Bible recognises slavery as something people did, but never condones it. Not once. This is similar to God's recognition that married people will divorce. He allowed provision for divorce, though the Bible states plainly that He hates divorce.
I know there must be some painful cognitive dissonance living in an age where slavery is universally condemned in the west, yet adhering to a Bible that says it's OK.
The Bible does not say that slavery is OK. Just because you want desperately to believe something does not make it so.
An anti-slavery stance is a bit difficult to reconcile with a Bible that clearly supports it.
Utter nonsense!! I defy you to find one New Testament verse that purports to support any form of slavery. Don't waste your time. You can't.
The New Testament teaches love for other people, and the dignity of each individual who is so precious that God's own Son would die a horrible death for their salvation. It teaches a form of egalitarionism which states emphatically that no one is more noble or precious in God's sight than anyone else. That viewpoint stands in direct conflict with that of slavery. It is impossible to understand Scripture and support the institution of slavery at the same time.
I realize it's tempting to paint a noble face on your fellow Christians and say it was the Bible leading them to be against slavery, but I'm afraid that's not the case.
History annihilates that supposition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.