Posted on 04/02/2007 8:52:50 AM PDT by Terriergal
April 9, 2007 issue - Rick Warren is as big as a bear, with a booming voice and easygoing charm. Sam Harris is compact, reserved and, despite the polemical tone of his books, friendly and mild. Warren, one of the best-known pastors in the world, started Saddleback in 1980; now 25,000 people attend the church each Sunday. Harris is softer-spoken; paragraphs pour out of him, complex and fact-filled—as befits a Ph.D. student in neuroscience. At NEWSWEEK's invitation, they met in Warren's office recently and chatted, mostly amiably, for four hours. Jon Meacham moderated. Excerpts follow.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
And frankly I am not all that keen on Brownback being given the podium either, but the Obama thing should have been even more clear — because in that case it was not just political photo ops in the church but moral incompatibility.
I love you Alex! Maranatha!
You asked — “I’m anxious to hear your opinion whether Daniel compromised his Nazarite vow while in Babylonian captivity.”
Absolutely not. When we consider the many things God granted to Daniel (interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, a major official or ruler over two different kingdoms [that’s amazing by itself, as one was the enemy of the other], saved from the lions, given prophecies of the end times which Jesus referred to Himself and which figure prominently into our current day interpretation of these coming events) — we see that God would not have given those things to just anyone and especially not anyone who would “slide” on some things.
Consider this in Daniel 9:20-23
20 Now while I was speaking, praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the Lord my God for the holy mountain of my God,
21 yes, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, reached me about the time of the evening offering.
22 And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, “O Daniel, I have now come forth to give you skill to understand.
23 At the beginning of your supplications the command went out, and I have come to tell you, for you are greatly beloved; therefore consider the matter, and understand the vision:
There are not too many people that God has sent Gabriel to, in order to explain things. And he says, also (to Daniel) “for you are greatly beloved...”
Daniel is a magnificient example for us all. There’s a saying in some churches — “Dare to be a Daniel.”
And, as another example of the type of people that God chooses, and *also* to what degree some of those people may fail — let’s take a look at Moses. He was and is greatly revered. Considering all that he was and did, I can see why.
But, Moses was not allowed to go into the Promised land, as a judgement from God for something that Moses did. Considering all that Moses was and did — one might think that the “little thing” didn’t make too much difference when weighed against the greatness of everything else Moses did. But, not to God.
Do you know what that was — that caused God to bring the judgement against Moses, saying that he could not go into the Promised land because of what he did?
I’ll wait and see if anyone remembers...
Regards,
Star Traveler
Moses hit the rock instead of touching it ... to bring water.
I’ve got that smug look on my face again. LOL!
Thank you ST, for your wise reply.
I think the press overstated Rick’s comments in Syria. The country is in fact better in terms of protecting the rights of Christians than say North Korea or Saudi Arabia, right?
The press didn't say anything. Joseph Farah raised the issue after hearing Rick in his own words.
Have you even read the whole debacle? Have you listened to Rick's own words about Syria? I have. Then he went on to lie outright to Farah and then was naive enough to say the opposite of what he told Farah in front of his church.
Jesus died for CFR members as well ; )
Ha ha that's nice and flippant. He died for homosexuals as well. You don't have to join their political action group.
IF Rick starts spouting the same globalist evil BS as the rest of his CFR colleagues, then we’ll have to revisit the issue.
He already is. Haven't you been listening?
P.E.A.C.E. Plan I’m not sure why ANYONE would be against this.
Because it requires the church to yoke together with unbelievers the way Rick has it structured. He makes it sound as if the church hasn't been doing anything lo these many eons.
How can the S.T.O.P. Plan I posted above be considered “bad” either?
It's not. Helping people physically is not bad. It's also not necessarily Christian. A Christian group should have as its primary mission to bear witness to the truth and closely behind that is to minister physically to the people. Without salvation, physical ministrations are really eternally worthless and promote a social gospel, which is heresy.
The church can do this better than ANY other organization in the world.
I would agree. But not when it partners with secular organizations.
I have qualms about torture– I know in some limited circumstances, it may be the only recourse – I just don’t know if it should be our FIRST recourse.
I'm not sure how this came up in a thread on Rick (maybe I should go back and try to figure it out...) but in any case, we should define torture first. Democrats define torture as turning the thermostat down to 65 as opposed to 70. I guess if that's torture and it works to get information out of them, I'm all for torture!
I also don't think desecrating the Koran is torture. It may be offensive. But it's not torture.
FUNDAMENTALISTS I wasn’t able to read all 652 posts on that thread, but I do know that Rick Warren has never denounced: 1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8-9); 2. The Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:27); 3. The Blood Atonement (Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25, 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:12-14); 4. The Bodily Resurrection (Luke 24:36-46; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 15:14-15); or 5. Scriptural Inerrancy. What he IS saying is that people who ABUSE these five “fundamentals” (or the “fundamentals” of the Koran, the Talmud, whatever religion) to justify violence, etc. are dangerous – e.g. “recolonize Africa and kill all their leaders” as stated above - will be the greatest source of conflict for the rest of this century (unless the Environmentalist Wackos take over first : )
Well that would be nice if that was actually what he said. But it isn't. You are filling in blanks in what he said with what you WANT him to have meant. Rick consistently leaves gaping holes in his answers where people out of human nature fill in the gaps with their preconceived notions. For example, the first time I read PDL I thought really I had heard the Gospel. But on REALLY reading it through -- it's NOT there. Not in any coherent form.
I'm going to quote someone here that actually likes what Warren has to say sometimes, so you know it's not just me:
from Jolly Blogger
Warren's loosey-goosey approach to history comes out in his comments on fundamentalism.
Warren predicts that fundamentalism, of all varieties, will be "one of the big enemies of the 21st century."
"Muslim fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, secular fundamentalism - they're all motivated by fear. Fear of each other."
In his famous Pew Forum interview, (which I think he did very well on in many ways) Warren says:
Now the word "fundamentalist" actually comes from a document in the 1920s called the Five Fundamentals of the Faith. And it is a very legalistic, narrow view of Christianity, and when I say there are very few fundamentalists, I mean in the sense that they are all actually called fundamentalist churches, and those would be quite small. There are no large ones.
Aaarrrgghhh Matey!! Would a little accuracy kill anyone here? Let's go over this again. The way the word "fundamentalist" is used today is very different from the way it was used back in the 1920's with the publication of the Fundamentals of the Faith. The Fundamentals were key, cornerstone Christian doctrines which the writers believed must be affirmed by anyone who calls themselves a Christian. All of these doctrines had been denied in one form or another by the modernists.
PDL BOOK, etc. I read through those threads and I’m still not sure what exactly you are upset about, Alex. Of course, no one expected that PDL was going to sustain record-breaking sales forever. Is that some kind of criticism though?
I'm not sure specifically what Alex might be upset about with falling sales. However PDL is an 'easy believism' non-gospel that has been touted like Oprah Winfrey is touting "The Secret" now. PDC is an unbiblical approach to 'doing church.' That in short is what I have a problem with.
I also don’t think Obama was an official candidate for President at the time he visited Saddleback.
He struck the rock and spoke to it instead of just speaking to it as he was commanded.
we see that God would not have given those things to just anyone and especially not anyone who would “slide” on some things. Yeah, what was it that Daniel said that was so equivocating and compromising... oh yeah, here it is:
Daniel 3:16-18 Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego replied to the king, "O Nebuchadnezzar, we do not need to give you an answer concerning this matter. "If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the furnace of blazing fire; and He will deliver us out of your hand, O king. "But even if He does not, let it be known to you, O king, that we are not going to serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up."Note how the probable outcome is NOT valid criteria for deciding course of action...
My understanding of fundamentalist is a believer
who holds to the fundamentals of the faith and
who takes the Scripture literally and seriously.
Britannica explains:
A movement in American Protestantism that arose in the late 19th century in reaction to theological modernism, which aimed to revise traditional Christian beliefs to accommodate new developments in the natural and social sciences, especially the advent of the theory of biological evolution. In keeping with traditional Christian doctrines concerning biblical interpretation, the mission of Jesus Christ, and the role of the church in society, fundamentalists affirmed a core of Christian beliefs that included the historical accuracy of the Bible, the imminent and physical Second Coming of Jesus Christ, and Christ’s Virgin Birth, Resurrection (see resurrection), and Atonement.
Yep... but apparently we're pretty rare! And the five fundamentals actually that Warren refers to are a bit too broad!
What I agree with Warren on (in a frightening way),
is that fundamental Christians will become the enemy
of the state. We know this from Isaiah and Revelation.
I see... you have a point. What is scary is the implication of what side he considers himself on.
[... He struck the rock and spoke to it instead
of just speaking to it as he was commanded...]
Oops I was wrong. Forgot Moses was told to speak
to the rock. I just have this picture of Moses
beating the life (water/blood) out of that innocent
rock. If it is a metaphor for Christ’s persecution,
it is a good one.
That’s what I get for being smug. Sheesh. Humbled.
Many will be left behind choosing a type of
spirituality without the knowledge of God.
What is dangerous - and I can’t speak about
Warren - are Pastor’s who imitate the world
to attract people. We have quite enough of
the world. Desperate people need to know
that good people don’t go to heaven. People
who confess Jesus Christ as Lord go to heaven.
Warren said that in the debate. Kudos to him
for paraphrasing John 14:6.
You said — “Moses hit the rock instead of touching it ... to bring water.”
Yeah, he hit the rock, but he was supposed to speak to it, actually. The water came out anyway, because the Lord was going to do it, and so He did. However, the Lord God rebuked Moses and Aaron because of their unbelief.
Numbers 20:7-13
7 Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying,
8 “Take the rod; you and your brother Aaron gather the congregation together. Speak to the rock before their eyes, and it will yield its water; thus you shall bring water for them out of the rock, and give drink to the congregation and their animals.”
9 So Moses took the rod from before the Lord as He commanded him.
10 And Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock; and he said to them, “Hear now, you rebels! Must we bring water for you out of this rock?”
11 Then Moses lifted his hand and struck the rock twice with his rod; and water came out abundantly, and the congregation and their animals drank.
12 Then the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not believe Me, to hallow Me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them.”
13 This was the water of Meribah, because the children of Israel contended with the Lord, and He was hallowed among them.
And there it is...
I remember when I first came across this and I said to myself, “I don’t have a snowball’s chance in Hell...” if Moses himself, in spite of all that he did, was judged and rebuked because of this one thing.
What it really does show is the character of God and His perfect and ultimate righteousness.
I’m also reminded of Ai here, too, and the trouble Israel had at that small town.
So, when someone says, “It was only a small thing...” well, I see a lot of small things that God makes a big thing out of.
Thanks be to God for the Cross and Jesus Christ.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Yes, but I forgot Moses was told to speak to the rock.
Thanks so much for this post.
Wouild be intersting to know what that “Christian” label really meant.
Back home now.
Yeah. I think you understood my position pretty well.
Thx.
I don’t think God counted anything as unrighteous to Daniel. I think God impressed on Daniel where Daniel had to draw the line and he did so to even the lion’s den. And, I think God impressed on Daniel where issues were no big deal to God and Daniel past the test giving the graders the answers they were looking for though he didn’t personally agree.
I do not think that the Hebrew understanding of the evidence in the stars for the coming Messiah began to touch on the astrology expected and demanded of Babylon court’s “wise men” = astrologers plus whatever else they had to know. Daniel was characterized as wiser than they all IN ALL THAT WISDOM AND KNOWLEDGE. Bablyon court was NOT a kosher Hebrew court by a very long shot.
.
What all are you calling his Nazarite vow?
I can see how you would construe it that way.
I do NOT construe it that way.
And, actually, I’d be surprised if God construed it that way.
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.