Posted on 11/03/2010 9:42:34 AM PDT by Cinnamon Girl
>David and Solomon were “a mixed bag” only if you don’t know the Oral Tradition. Would that such men were among us today!
What!?
David himself was a murder and an adulterer; if that doesn’t qualify him as a “mixed bag” what does?
Your appeal to oral tradition stinks of the flaw of Humanism: the valuation of man to the exclusion of the reality of his sin.
I don’t want “mostly good,” I don’t want “good;” I want Good and Perfect and Just: I want Jesus!
Not the namby-pamby buddy-Jesus that loves and accepts everyone, the one that gets ANGRY at injustice, the one that basically calls the “prominent & respected” men on their hypocrisy, the one that BREAKS THE NATIONS AS POTTERY WITH A ROD OF IRON!
It also looks like they cost us the Senate seat. Both were ours to take with Ritter run out of the race and Bennet a weak candidate.
I can explain it real easy....and I leaned this from living in the peoples democratik republik of michiganstan....It is called “C”...you see, grades are A,B,C,D,and E, with most people falling into the C, or average catagory...assuming that most C grade people gather together, and do not want to look like C grade people, but like B or A grade people, they will gather together with D and E grade people, in order to appear intellegent....truth is, C grade and below usually fall into the union, the so called intelletual class (teachers, professors, etc) and the outright morons. The so called intelectual class has convinced the union class that socialism is the right way to go...these two classes convincing the moron class is relatively easy....this gives the C grade people a slight majority over the truly intellegent....we need to eliminate the so called intellectuals from the educational institutions. Once this is done, they will be seen for the true D grade people that they really are. Then, and only then, can we begin to take back the entire country..
My family lives there, and has for over 60 years. Here’s their calculus:
We fired Gray Davis, and hired Arnold. He did fine for a while, lost on a bunch of initiatives, and then gave up. We are so much worse off today than we were during Davis’ term.
In fact, we are beyond screwed. Most of us have pensions, and many of us hope we’ve been in our jobs long enough that we’ll be grandfathered into the ‘spikers’ class of retirees.
The state, city, and county employees following us will likely go 401K, but we can literally make more in retirement than we did, annually, as a regular employee.
I could hire Whitman, or Fiorina, who are both basically in the mold of Arnold - supposedly fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Nobody running is willing to stand up to closing the border, and no matter who we hire, the financial situation is going to deteriorate.
Since we’re already naked socialists anyway, let’s hire a guy with experience at it and go with Brown. Clown? Granted. Likely to do more damage than what’s already been done? Who’s to say? Arnold’s been in charge for a long time and illegals are still pouring across the border and we are issuing IOU’s to vendors here.
Who’s more likely to be able to finagle some sort of bail out once California collapses, Brown or Whitman? Brown. Hands down, no doubt about it. Politics is what he does, and he’s authentically a Californian, in that he’s as out of touch with reality as we all are.
Nobody down there thinks private business is coming back to CA. Nobody. Either they go the whole socialist hog, or they collapse. I’d look to most of Silicon Valley pulling stumps before too long. Google has a massive campus in WA state as it is now. Besides Oracle, I can’t think of many businesses that can afford to keep going down there any more.
The simple fact is the electorate gets the representation it deserves. Yes, California deserves Brown. My hope is that this will drive conservatives to close “red” states making them redder. Let California fail. It needs to. California has no one to blame but Democrats. Even though their last governor was technically a republican he was still married to a Kennedy. California’s economy needs to crash.
Ingratitude???!!! Care to explain the Dan Maes trainwreck to me???
Again the postitive things I listed:
Without the Tea Party:
(1) There would have been no wave at all.
(2) Russ Feingold would have won reelection in Wisconsin (remember, Johnson only got in the race after being inspired to run by attending a Tea Party rally).
(3) Charlie Crist (FL), Bob Bennett (UT), & Lisa Murkowski (AK) would have all cruised to an easy victory for reelection. The Tea Party candidates that defeated them in the primary are all a significant improvement when it comes to conservative principles.
(4) The GOP would have drifted even farther towards “Democrat lite” if the Tea Party movement had not emerged to drag the GOP back to towards conservatism. Leaving us with no real alternative to the Democrat/liberal agenda.
For every “Tea Party trainwreck” you can point out, I can list a dozen wonderfully positive things that would have not occurred without the Tea Party.
And yes, I think ingratitude is exactly the right word. Without the Tea Party movement, the GOP today would still be an also-ran party, Nancy Pelosi would still be speaker of the house, and Obama would be making plans for his next step in transforming America into his image.
The Tea Pary pulled the GOP’s butt out of a burning house, resussitated it, and saved its political life; and the GOP’s response is to complain that the Tea Party movement wasn’t perfect in everything it did saving the GOP’s life.
Yea, I think that is a pretty good definiton of ingratitude.
Your equation of Divine Truths which were not written down in the Bible with "humanism" merely marks you as a Protestant. If everything not written down is "humanism," then you'd better toss all the vowels and punctuation marks out of your "old testament," because these were not written down but preserved orally.
I'd also be interested in hearing how you think the ancient Israelites intercalated their calendar with nothing written down in the Bible about it. Was it "humanism" to see to it that Passover always came in the spring by adding an extra month every few years?
Technically, David was neither a murderer nor an adulterer, because the conditional divorces which were given to soldiers before going to battle were retroactive up to the time they left. Yes, what David did was beneath him which is why it is held against him in Scripture, but—admittedly by a technicality—he was neither of these things.
So why did God send Nathan to David with the story of the poor man, the rich man, and the sheep?
Why did God (via Nathan the prophet) tell David “Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes?”
Why did God punish David (”Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity on you.”) for these actions?
Why did David respond to all this by saying “I have sinned against the LORD.”?
You are confusing ethnocentrism and society with humanism.
Humanism –noun
1. any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, and dignity predominate.
2. devotion to or study of the humanities.
3. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) the studies, principles, or culture of the humanists.
4. Philosophy. a variety of ethical theory and practice that emphasizes reason, scientific inquiry, and human fulfillment in the natural world and often rejects the importance of belief in god.
Ethnocentrism –noun
1. Sociology. the belief in the inherent superiority of one’s own ethnic group or culture.
2. **a tendency to view alien groups or cultures from the perspective of one’s own.**
Society –noun
1. an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.
2. a body of individuals living as members of a community; community.
3. the body of human beings generally, associated or viewed as members of a community: the evolution of human society.
4. a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members: American society.
[...]
Much of the Bible is humanistic, in the sense of definition #1; the Law, for example, is predominately about how Man should behave in a manner that shows values and dignity in self and in other [men]... even the Capital Punishment Directive of the Noah-Covenant (Gen 9:5-6 — “And surely for your lifeblood I will require an accounting; from every beast I will require it; and from man, from every man [who spills another’s lifeblood] I will require a reckoning. Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God He made man.”)
There is nothing ‘humanistic’ (any def) about “the vowels and punctuation” of the old testament; it is the art of translation to take the meaning of something in some language and express the same in another, transliteration is [word-for-word substitution] results in something closer to the “what was said.” Idioms are a good example; the phrase “between a rock and a hard place” transliterated into Spanish would have little of the original meaning carried by the saying, but they have a saying that carries the same concept [transliterated to English] it is “between the sword and the wall.” (Yes it *is* understandable in transliterated form; but the goal of communication is not to be possibly understood, but to be impossibly misunderstood.)
Regarding your claim that David didn’t commit adultury, technically; then explain this, Jesus said: “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” [Mat 19:9]
Are you going to tell me that Jesus has no authority to speak on the matter?
Are you going to tell me that following tradition *IS* acting righteously? Didn’t Jesus also condemn the religious leaders of his day for their traditions? If so, then explain Jesus’s summation of “Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.” [Matt 3:17; in response to allowing someone to basically put into a trust “for the Lord” things that could otherwise be used to help their parents in need. Much akin to *showing* that the parents are worthless by pushing them off into ‘homes’ that American society does today.]
Hmmm, thank you. I now have an understanding of something that eluded me before: the reason behind Jesus saying to Peter "Get behind me Satan!"
The utterances you have just uttered are so utterly repugnant that they could only have come from the Father of Lies.
How can you possibly believe God to be so unjust as to a) allow loopholes in His law, b) hold one to account for "not technically violating" said laws, and c) hold to a second/differing standard these "great tzaddiq"?
Righteousness is righteousness and Sin is sin; this is regardless of the position someone has been placed in or the authority given them.
When it looks like the rest of the country is going to swing heavily to the Republicans, enough Democrats go to the polls in Massachusetts to give the Democrats victory in the state.
Barney's district is a lost cause for Republicans, especially now. The only slim hope of taking him down would have been if the election were only about him and enough of his voters could give him the thumbs down without feeling that they were turning Congress over the Republicans.
But that only would have been a very slim hope. Much of his district was old Republican country -- Joe Martin, the last GOP Speaker of the House before Gingrich, was from the area and his successor Margaret Heckler was also a Republican -- but nowadays it's as lost to Republicans as Manhattan or San Francisco or Obama's neighborhood in Chicago.
That’s interesting. So maybe knowing that more Republicans would be elected in other states motivated the nuts to especially get out there and support Boxer even though few people actually like her.
Hey, you’re the one accusing me of humanism, remember?
...are you admitting to being so unintelligent as to recognize that there are multiple meanings to the word?
Further, are you being so obtuse as to ignore that I listed the definitions for you?
That your only response is based upon my usage of the same word, but different [valid] definitions thereof, is intriguing.
*not recognize
Where did you get the idea that I rejected anything in the TaNa"KH? Of course G-d sent Nathan to David to rebuke him, and to sentence his unborn child to death! David was a great tzaddiq and held to a very high standard. Even though he was not technically guilty of murder or adultery he had committed a great sin and was punished accordingly.
Hmmm, thank you. I now have an understanding of something that eluded me before: the reason behind Jesus saying to Peter "Get behind me Satan!"
The utterances you have just uttered are so utterly repugnant that they could only have come from the Father of Lies.
Wow. Just . . . wow.
How can you possibly believe God to be so unjust as to a) allow loopholes in His law, b) hold one to account for "not technically violating" said laws, and c) hold to a second/differing standard these "great tzaddiq"? Righteousness is righteousness and Sin is sin; this is regardless of the position someone has been placed in or the authority given them.
People in a very high spiritual state are held to a much stricter standard. For a tzaddiq it might be a tremendous sin just to waste one's time. Even your "new testament" says "to whom much is given, much is required."
Where is the "loophole?" 'Uriyyahu should have been executed earlier. When 'Uriyyahu was killed his divorce from his wife became retroactive, meaning that Bat-Sheva` technically was not married and no adultery took place. But G-d punished David severely. Or perhaps you think David got off lightly?
I am well aware of the Protestant worldview, having once shared it myself. Every human being since Adam is born damned because of the sinful nature Satan planted within him when he got him to commit the first sin. But the TaNa"KH says nothing about any of this because the TaNa"KH is not a chr*stian scripture. To the contrary, chr*stianity imposes its alien worldview onto it.
The fact that you believe there are two "gxds," one good and one evil, warring against one another like something out of paganism or Tolkien, is not my problem.
That your only response is based upon my usage of the same word, but different [valid] definitions thereof, is intriguing.
I get the distinct feeling you don't like me.
My initial post was not aimed at you (since I was at the time blissfully ignorant of your existence). You chose take offense and start an argument with me which apparently you refuse to let go of.
Since our religious beliefs differ, why don't you simply ignore my posts? There is something distinctively creepy about a stalker.
David committed adultery with Bathseba, then he gave orders designed to get her husband killed. Why do you try to twist the scriptures to hide David’s guilt? God sent Nathan to rebuke David BECAUSE he had committed adultery with Bathsheba. He makes that plain in his story to David. David committed murder to try and cover his adultery. I suspect you haven’t a clue why Scripture says David was a man after God’s won heart ... HINT: at what point is it recorded that God pronounced this? I suspect Grace is a foreign concept when coupled with repentence which you don’t want to comprehend, you might awaken to Jesus.
::Sigh::
I'm not a chr*stian and you can't expect me to hold chr*stian beliefs.
My religious beliefs are statutory, not salvational. Your quarrel with Catholicism is misplaced with me. Catholicism is a confused mixture of statute and salvationism. My religious beliefs, like yours, are consistent. If you want to argue Paul with someone, argue with someone who at least claims to accept what Paul wrote.
I'm not making any of this up. Read any traditional Jewish commentary on the scriptures in question. David was not guilty of adultery on a technicality, but he was guilty of a great sin for which he was punished by G-d. How is this being "soft on David's sin?"
You people claim to have such "love for Judaism," but when you encounter it you act like you've seen a three-headed unicorn. Judaism is not "old testament chr*stianity" (there never was such a thing).
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.