News-Record.com

One wonders whether this blogging thing will please many people in the long run. It appears to be a medium that allows populist sentinents to come out a little more clearly and openly. That could mean that more of a spectrum of views will start coming into play.... and that sort of thing is anathema to the insular conservative type that has been in charge of the SBC for the past 20 years or so.

If less black-and-white thinking starts to seep in, will the powers that be approve any longer? I seriously doubt it.

____
BTW, who is this Amy, and will Nancy be back? Just curious...

Thanks for the link Amy. It was nice to meet you. The people from Westboro do not speak for Christians. They have an evil message that needs to be exposed. Jesus came not to condemn but to love and save people.

"Matt 10:34-36 - Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one's foes will be members of one's own household."

Yep... sounds like a real loving, caring guy to me.

I agree that the bloggers being given newsroom observer passes was a significant step forward in acknowledging the significance of their contribution to discussion of the issues.

Love how you take things out of context Eric. That's sorta like Fred Phelps and his gang do.Right?

Reference to Micah 7:1-10 and see where the words originated to better understand the meaning. also continue reading Matt: 10:34 through verse 40. Understanding comes to those who seek.

Eric-
Check out the response of those in Saudia Arabia or Iran whenever a person trusts Christ. There is a variance in the family and is usually turned against the new believer. This is to what Jesus referred. All Christians know that our allegiance is to Him above all others.

"Check out the response of those in Saudi Arabia or Iran whenever a person trusts Christ. There is a variance in the family and is usually turned against the new believer."

It's human nature, Marty. It happened in my family when I left the faith. We have this myth in all religions that if a person holds to the same religion we do, then they can be trusted. And people continue to believe this even when continually presented with evidentce to the contrary.

Likewise, it appears to be natural for people to buy into the myth that those of "alien" religious beliefs should be seen with distrust. None more so than atheists, according to some recent surveys. This, again, in spite of the fact that there are plentiful examples of fine, wonderful people in all religions who don't fit the fearful stereotypes.

It's a shame, really. One would think that people would be able to see past such prejudices... but an awful lot of people would prefer not to even try.

Mr. P is correct. Eric did rip the passage out of context in a very clumsy and shallow effort to show Jesus as an unloving ideologue. The larger context is that Jesus was a true spiritual iconoclast; not just a rebel without a cause. His message was so opposed to legalistic religionism, and FOR a radical expression of godly love, that those who followed him in this could count on rejection, even hatred by those who did not have “ears to hear and eyes to see.” He most certainly was NOT calling for people to consciously and intentionally cause strife and division within their families and identity groups. Not to see this shows either a refusal, or an inability, to grasp the message of Messiah. Jesus was no gushy bleeding-heart liberal either, but upheld the righteous moral demands of the Law, while opposing hypocrisy and loveless legalism.

The Saudi connection was also very appropriate, but is not the same thing as Christianity’s claims of uniqueness. There is really no way around the fact that truth is truth. Jesus openly and plainly declared that He was “the way, the truth and the life.” The entire tenor of the NT revelation is that God has revealed Himself in the Son and all His truth at the same time (Hebrews 1). Yes, there are untaught and/or immature Christians that are not able, or willing, to extend love and mercy in the face of opposition and divergent dogma. However, it IS possible to love our enemies (those who oppose us personally) while at the same time holding fast to the truth that IS Jesus and the biblical record – and even to engage in stringent dialogue and heated debate with them without hating or demeaning them.

Many Christians are like people in general, and are not able to deal with nuances of belief, but feel more comfortable in making sweeping statements of rejection and antipathy. This is unfortunate, but unavoidable, because of the sheer numbers involved. On the other hand, there are quite a few Christians who ARE able to recognize similarities of dogma with other religions without “buying into” them. Having studied and practiced Eastern religions, for example, I am aware of similar teachings in them, but also blatant dissimilarities. The “scandalon” of Christianity remains Jesus the God-man, who died on the cross as the fully necessary atonement for the sins of all who believe. The truth of the Gospel, and the entire Word of God that frames it, is a seamless, incomparable garment of Truth, which can never, by its very nature, be sacrificed on the maudlin altar of compromise and multi-religionism. In contrast to Jesus’ message of mercy and grace, Muslim practices today are indicative of the absence of Christ’s emphasis on love and forgiveness. Islam is systemically a religion of Law without real grace, as Jesus accomplished it on the cross and in his teachings. Careful study and examination shows that the world religions are NOT AT ALL the same!

So Jesus was speaking metaphorically? Or did he mean to take up actual arms against some perceived enemy? If the former, then isn't it possible more of the texts are metaphor, not history or plain descriptive reality? If the latter, it seems to contradict "turn the other cheek".

Yes, "a aword" is metaphorical, siginifying conflict; but not physical warfare. Christain "jihad" is simply the innevitable confrontation of Messiaic truth with the darkness of fallen human thinking and practice. Not at all sure of what you are asking in regard to "more of the texts are metaphor." What texts? Jesus' examples and parables or those which are clearly portrayed in the scriptures as historical narative. It doesn't really take a rocket scientist to discern between figurative, symbolic language and descriptive narative.

Turning the other cheek can also be figurative language for not responding in kind. Have to go. Please continue this line of dialog.