From a theist point of view -
One of the most common claims of religious adherents is that atheists and agnostics are incapable of true moral behaviour because they do not acknowledge moral laws of a divine origin. Whereas god's laws are absolute - always right and impossible to question - man's laws are merely relative to some principle that may be here today and gone tomorrow. This is the criticism.
"Every Catholic holds that the Christian dogmas were in the Church from the time of the Apostles; that they were ever in their substance what they are now..." John Henry Newman. In other words it is only necessary for the church to discover what was originally there - never to invent new answers to moral questions.
God's laws are neutral - so it goes - god's moral laws treat everyone the same while man's moral laws are often designed for the benefit of some to the detriment of others. Nationalism, socialism, capitalism have a moral basis which works for some more actively than for others.
So theists think that only god's laws are satisfactory because they see things from god's point of view. Any moral code that man might think of would be flawed precisely because it was designed from man's point of view. A moral code based on maximizinfg the number of happy people, for example, would be inadequate because this might involve considerable suffering or injustice for some.
God's laws are seen as being rather like a written Constitution handed down by god. Instead of starting 'We the people...' it starts 'I, God...' Men's laws are rather like having no Constitution to refer to but having to argue out a hodgepodge solution to what is right and wrong. The written Constitution of Christianity is the Bible. It doesn't change and gives a sense of certainty and stability. Man's unwritten Constitution is, well, unwritten - and it's a lot less comfortable to live with because there are no black and white guidleines for us to follow. (Many Americans see their written constitution - especially the Bill of Rights as being almost a sacred document).
God's laws are not intended to make anybody happy or to make life easier for us - they are designed from a principle of what is right in an changeless, absolute sense. Almost by definition they are hard to follow since it is in our nature to disobey them. (The Old Testament makes much of this point e.g., "For all who have been born are entangled in iniquities, and are full of sins and transgressions." - Esdras 7:68.) This somehow makes them pure and inherently more reliable.
A moral code that was easy to follow would be as suspect as someone giving away free £5 notes.
Man would simply design a code in his own self-interest and change it when his perception of self-interest changed. There would be no absolute right and wrong. Morals would be pale relative things and humans would do terrible things to each other and themselves and call them good. Since mankind has an inherent tendency towards evil (because they enjoy bad things - especially in the sexual arena - the bible refers endlessly to whoring) they could not devise a satisfactory moral code designed to maximise happiness.
So a moral code originating from man could not be trusted. For example it might say - 'if it's inconvenient then let's kill foetuses and bump off our old people and call that moral'. God's laws are not like that. It is wrong to practise abortion or euthanasia and that's final. That kind of statement can give us a tremendous sense of rightness (provided we obey). We just know we are right!
A moral system with man at its centre would be a kind of consumer morality - subject to man's whim. Without a moral law handed down by god man is left in a kind of moral no-man's-land. Each one of us might have a different idea of what is right or wrong and no way of demonstrating who is right.
Could the courts arbitrate between our conflicting positions? Anything that the law permits would then be acceptable and we could pass decisions about right or wrong on to the courts. Horror of horrors - this would result in a society based not on moral principles but on what is legally possible - notoriously contrary outcomes.
So a society without the absolute moral standards handed down by god must be a miserable society - a divided and corrupt society - the kind of society we live in. There is instability and perpetual squabbling. The human race is like a bunch of irritable seagulls on a rock. We need order, not division. It is the failure of people to follow god's laws that is responsible for the terrible state we're in. We need to impose... Oops! I've just jumped off the Religious Right as found in the U.S.A.
However, it is easy to see where such ideas come from now we have followed the argument. It would also be fair to say that very many theists think in terms of the ways they can personally help people who are experiencing problems with thier lives rather than seeking to impose order on society or individuals. Not surprisingly, though, 'discipline' is a key word in a monastery!
An athiest point of view
The assumptions made by the theists are not based on fact. There is no source of absolute morality to be found in any religious document - and to the extent that there is - moral viewpoints differ. Even If we accept religious pluralism there will be squabbling over the rules and if we do not accept religious pluralism there could be serious social problems or even war.
The document that Christians rely on is the bible. It is an imperfect document, however, containing many contradictions. Even what material should be included in the Bible and what should be left out is the subject of disagreement amongst the different Christian denominations - who publish different bibles!
One of the contradictions that remains is very well known:
"...thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. " Exodus 21:23-25
"...ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Matthew 5:39
These two strictures are completely incompatible (and come without clarifying explanations) and it is not possible for a reasonable person to construct a moral code of practice based on them. Even if it is, it is not possible to do so without debate and disagreement. The Bible, then, cannot provide us with an absolute moral code.
Here's another pair of contradictions - both from Ezekiel:
"A child shall not suffer for the iniquity of a parent, nor a parent suffer for the iniquity of a child; the righteousness of the righteous shall be his own, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be his own." - Ezekiel 18:20
Speaking of whores (Ezekiel 23:43-46) "The assembly shall stone them and with their swords shall cut them down; they shall kill their sons and their daughters and burn up their houses." - Ezekiel 23:47 (It is clear that the children of prostitutes are to be killed - in clear contradiction of Ezekiel 18:20
Except, of course:
"Parents shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their parents; only for their own crimes may persons be put to death." - Deuteronomy 24:16
The balance seems to be in favour of killing the innocent:
"You shall not bow down to them or worship them (idols, from line 4), for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generations of those who reject me" - Exodus 20:5
or punishing illegitimacy for rather a long time (probably disqualifying most people now alive):
"Those born of an illicit union shall not be admitted to the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of their descendants shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord." - Deuteronomy 23:2
These quotations represent not the serious or sober elucidation of laws or principles - but the foolish exaggeration of some ranting rabbis. We have a rambling hodgepodge lacking intellectual weight or consistency of thought merely designed to satisfy whatever prejudice the writers had about a particular topic. Again, it is not possible for a reasonable person to construct a moral code based on such contradictions - any more than killing the innocent could be part of an acceptable moral code.
In theory, the Catholic Church has a solution for this problem - firstly in the General Councils of bishops (including the pope or his representative) which are believed to be infallible (what they teach as the truth is taken to be as true as though it were a statement of Scripture itself), and in the person of the pope.
In a decision taken in relatively recent times (First Vatican Council 1869-70) the pope declared that when he spoke 'ex-cathedra' (from the chair) he was speaking the incontrovertible word of god. Popes have wisely shied away from such statements, however (not wanting to make fools of themselves), and only two such statements have been made (including the first declaration). If the Pope were to exercise his power to clear up a few of these biblical contradictions Catholics would then have an absolute source to turn to. If there were any real faith in such pronouncements we would expect to hear them all the time to clarify a wide variety of problems. That we do not represents an acceptance by the church that it is impossible to arrive at absolute truths and dangerous to seek to express them - because only five minutes need go by before their failure to meet the demands of circumstances will catch up with them.
Even if there were no contradictions in the Bible there would be further problems. Some aspects of god's behaviour in the Bible are incontrovertibly immoral:
"Then the spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah, and he passed through Gilead and Manasseh. He passed on to Mizpah of Gilead, and from Mizpah of Gilead he passed on to the Ammonites.
And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord, and said, 'If you will give the Ammonites into my hand, then whoever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return victorious from the Ammonites, shall be the Lord's, to be offered up by me as a burnt offering.' So Jephthah crossed over to the Ammonistes to fight them; and the Lord gave them into his hand. He inflicted a massive defeat on them... Judges 11:29-33 Then Jephthah came to his home at Mizpah; and there was his daughter coming out to meet him with timbrels and with dancing. She was his only child; he had no son or daughter except her... she returned to her father who did with her according to the vow he had made." Judges 11:34-39
The terms were acceptable to god - who is supposed to be omniscient and know the future - and so knew what would happen and accepted the human sacrifice of Jephthah's innocent daughter. (The relevant context of this gruesome episode has been explained in full).
We would be appalled at this kind of arrangement with god today but would not be surprised to read of such things in a horror story in which the protagonist made a pact with the devil.
There are frequent references to slavery in Exodus which make it clear that slavery was not only acceptable, but a proper course of action according to god's ordinance:
"The Lord said to Moses and Aaron: This is the ordinance for the passover: no foreigner shall eat of it, but any slave who has been purchased may eat of it after he has been circumcised" - Exodus 12:43-44
"But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work - you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns." - Exodus 20:10 (4th Commandment)
"You shall not covet your neighbour's house; you shall not covet your neighbour's wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour." - Exodus 20:17 (10th Commandment - note the house comes before the wife)
"These are the ordinances that you shall set before them:When you buy a male Hebrew slave*, he shall serve for six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. But if the slave declares, 'I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out a free person, then his master shall bring him before God.
He shall be brought to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him for life." - Exodus 21:1-6 (The process of piercing the ear with an awl may refer to a technique of lobotomy in which entry to the brain is made through the ear.)
*Hebrew slave - It is difficult to know how one might buy a Hebrew slave since it is prohibited in Deuteronomy: "If someone is caught kidnapping another Israelite, enslaving or selling the Israelite, then that kidnapper shall die." - Deuteronomy 24:7 (Perhaps that someone could quote Exodus as a defence?)
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed (returned to her family); he shall have no right to sell her to foreign people since he has dealt unfairly with her. If he designates her to his son he shall deal with her as with a daughter." - Exodus 21: 711
"When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment for the slave is the owner's property." - Exodus 21:20-21
"When a slave-owner strikes the eye of a male or female slave, destroying it, the owner shall let the slave go, a free person, to compensate for the eye. If the owner knocks out a tooth of a male or female slave, the slave shall be let go, a free person, to compensate for the tooth." - Exodus 21:26-27
"When someone steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, the thief shall pay five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. The thief shall make restitution, but if unable to do so, shall be sold for the theft." -Exodus 22:1-3
"For six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest, so that your ox and your donkey shall have relief, and your home-born slave and the resident alien shall be refreshed." - Exodus 23:12
"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves." Numbers 31:17-18 (It would appear that the girls were to be raped and kept as slaves)
It is unequivocally clear that the god of the bible did not disapprove of slavery (or the killing of children, or even human sacrifice - see quotations above) on moral grounds. If this had been the case it would surely have been rejected. The Hebrews were god's chosen people, and it is conceivable that a case might be made for god accepting the slavery of non-Hebrewss (who would go to hell anyway) but it is inconceivable that god would have accepted the slavery of Hebrews if it had been morally repugnant to him. However, the above quotations show that god did accept the slavery of Hebrews, and even that men could sell their daughters into slavery as a form of prostitution.
It is impossible to square an acceptance of slavery with any acceptable moral code.
God clearly acts in an immoral manner towards children (see also quotations above):
"Thus says the Lord of hosts, I will punish the Amekalites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." - 1 Samuel 15:2-3 (Presumably this advice has subsequently been taken by Slobodan Milosevik).
"You shall not bow down to them or worship them (idols, from line 4), for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generations of those who reject me" - Exodus 20:5
It requires no special moral sense to understand that children cannot be held responsible for what thier parents do or believe. Yet this last quotation is part of the first of the Ten Commandments. (It is no surprise that Christians are selective about which 10 Commandments they quote from, since those in Deuteronomy 5:1-21 are more benign these are normally the ones quoted with the slavery bits omitted here also).
There is no suggestion that present-day Christian groups hold theses atrocities to be morally acceptable - even though the bible says they were part of god's ordinance. However, the fact that these ideas have been firmly rejected means that what was once morally acceptable to Christain teaching is no longer so. It is therefore the case that Christainity does not contain a fixed and inviolable moral code. It is a variable code in which even god's ordinances - as supposedly spoken by god at Mount Sinai - can be ignored or varied. The idea that Christian morality is fixed in some way is untrue.
In addition the bible is clearly not so perfect a document as to resist the schism of Christianity into a large number of different groups each claiming a truth and declaring the other versions of Christianity to represent an untruth. An example of early disagreements relates to the nature of god. Is god made up of three distinct persons that might be described as three gods? Is god one person only and the Holy Ghost and Christ are not god? Is there some mysterious and inexplicable way in which the three persons are one and the same god while being quite distinct? Well, the three-in-one people won the argument in the end, although several councils of bishops including Arles (353AD), Milan (355AD), Sirmium (357AD), and the simultaneous councils of Rimini and Seleucia (359AD) supported what is known as the Arian heresy. It is a matter of the winner writing history and declaring the losers to be heretics.
It is a fact that the whole history of the church has heaved with religious conflict and bloody disputes (wars) over doctrine involving a large number of breakaway groups and 'heresies', besides ruthless infighting. There are far too many of these to consider discussing them here. The stablity of the church is an illusion.
Here is an additional selection of ordinances that god passed down to Moses at Sinai, which have been inexplicably overlooked:
Whoever strikes father or mother shall be put to death. Exodus 21:15
Whoever kidnaps a person, whether that person has been sold or is still held in possession, shall be put to death. Exodus 21:16
Whoever curses father or mother shall be put to death. Exodus 21:17
If a theif is found breaking in, and is beaten to death, no blood-guilt is incurred. Exodus 22:2
If you lend money to my people, to the poor among you, you shall not deal with them as a creditor; you shall not exact interest from them. Exodus 22:25
The first born of your sons you shall give to me. You shall do the same with your oxen and with your sheep: for seven days it shall remain with its mother; on the eighth day you shall give it to me. Exodus 22:29-30
For six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest. Exodus 23:12
The choicest of the first fruits of your ground you shall bring into the house of the Lord your God. (Perhaps the chaps who invented this had their own interests at heart!). Exodus 23:19
You shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk. Exodus 23:19
Quite a lot of fuss is made in the UK from time to time about the importance of the Sabbath (the seventh day) which Christians take to be Sunday i.e., the first day of every week. The biblical authority is found above. Christian groups do not complain that their firstborn sons, cows, sheep etc. are not given up to the Lord, however, despite the explicit nature of the instruction. Of course, that such a stern stricture could appear on a list requiring that baby goats must not be boiled in their mother's milk might give one pause for thought. Besides this there are frequent references to blood sacrifices and having blood splashed all over the altar (which must not be made of hewn stone). These strictures have also been overlooked. These solemn ordinances, or commandments are simply ignored, despite their prominence in the bible.
The Catholic Church has taken it upon itself to ignore Deuteronomy's sanctioning of divorce (the Catholic Church does not permit divorce):
"Suppose a man enters into a marriage with a woman, but she does not please him because he finds something objectionable about her, and so he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house; she then leaves his house and goes off to become another man's wife. Then suppose the second man dislikes her, writes her a bill of divorce, puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house (or the second man married to her dies); her first husband, who sent her away, is not permitted to take her again to be his wife after she has been defiled ..." - Deuteronomy 24:1-4 (This is in keeping with the general anti-woman tone of the bible).
It's surprising that Catholics take the trouble to quote the bible at all, if its contents mean so little to them!
It is clear then, that Christianity in general has simply chosen to ignore much of the bible upon which it is based. It is equally sure that Christianity does not have an unchanging moral code. Something that was wrong in the past can be right now, and something that was right in the past can be wrong now.
It seems reasonable to argue that what was suitable for a group of primitive Israelite tribespeople is not suitable for the life we lead now - or indeed for much of the intervening period. The bible is, in fact, almost laughably inadequate and superficial as a moral document and discusses no moral question with any clarity or depth - plenty of nice things are said here and there but do not rise above the platitudinous. It seems incredible that such a thrown together mishmash has had such importance in western history. We need to develop a sophisticated moral response to the issues that face us today that were not dreamt of in biblical times, and seek solutions which are appropriate to our conditions.
Here is the beginnings of a list of problem areas which were not dealt with in the bible:
Euthanasia - medical advances and increased longevity have transformed our way of looking at old age. There is no indication that the major religions have ever been opposed to the large-scale killing of people when they were perfectly healthy. The bible, in fact, is rather keen on killing people. (Atheism Central is not declaring in favour of euthanasia - but saying it is an open issue).
Abortion - the writer does not know if abortions were performed in biblical times (certain procedures may have been used to kill the foetus), but conditions (both medical and social) were very different from the present day. The killing of infants is regarded as acceptable (see above). We cannot rely on the bible for any guidance here. Interestingly - many of even the most Catholic countries have legalised abortion in the event of rape (e.g., Mexico).
Gene manipulation - entirely beyond the scope of the authors of the bible. The potential benefit is enormous. The bible cannot help us to decide its rights or wrongs - we must use different principles.
Human rights - an alien concept in the bible, which is designed to promote theocracy. Humans do not have rights in the bible. They are subservient to god at all times. Humans acquire all their value from god and have been given nothing in themselves. For this reason, presumably, god can kill when he chooses (at the behest of the theocratic rulers). In particular, anyone who believers in another religion will go to hell, which is too bad for most of the world's population, and seems a little unfair. Such a viewpoint makes a nonsense of the concept of human rights.Besides this, the bible accepts and even promotes the concept of slavery, in both the Old and New Testaments.
Drugs - there are some references to the evils of drunkeness but no guidance as to the special problems presented by drug addiction, reckoned to be responsible for one third of all crime here in the UK.
Contraception - high infant mortality and death in childbirth would have put the emphasis in biblical times on having more children, not fewer.
In vitro fertilisation and genetic screening - these processes require the selection healthy or viable embryos from a larger group which may contain equally healthy embryos. Both these techniques can be used to promote life and health. Genetic screening can remove fatal genetic errors from the population.
Animal rights - no small question as it becomes clearer and clearer that we are not as different from animals as was thought in past ages. Some religions are predisposed against certain animals. Moslems are predisposed against dogs, pigs, and apes and monkeys of all kinds. (Zoroastrians are very favourable towards dogs, however.)
There is nothing so dangerous as someone claiming to be always right because that is certain to lead to them being wrong - at least some of the time. Fortunately, driven by secular influences since the Renaissance, Christianity, at least, has given up much of its barbaric past and improved its claim to be able to represent a moral standpoint (at the expense of ignoring the bible). It should not be allowed to claim the present as its own, however, but must disappear or contunue to change. The fear, of course, amongst many Christians, is that much further change would lead to its disintegration, and they may be right.
Besides these arguments, it is universally the case that it is impossible to write down a dozen words on a piece of paper and have two people unequivocally agree on their meaning. It is even more the case that two people from centuries apart in time would have very different views. There is little doubt that any current member of any clergy alive today would be horrified at the moral viewpoints of their forebears centuries ago. Those forebears lived in mental worlds we would find virtually incomprehensible and barbaric. As a result, effectively, they believed in a different religions from believers today. That religious institutions show organisational continuity from generation to generation should not disguise the fact that they are very different now from what they were in the past, just as our individual forebears were.
Where do we go from here?
We certainly could not rely on the courts to arbitrate between different positions in the moral debate. We cannot pass on decisions about right or wrong to the courts. As the theist argument goes (above) this would result in a society based not on moral principles but on what is legally possible - notoriously contrary outcomes.
Many non-theists would probably prefer a gradualist approach, with mankind feeling its way towards a right solution for moral dilemmas - with no claim of certainty along the way, but plenty of lively debate. For this we need to promote the development of mature democratic societies and the freedom of speech. Public opinion would be the forum within which moral development would take place. Many of the moral principles developed would be expected to find themselves expressed one way or another in legsilation and ultimately also in the determination of justice in the courts.
In articles to be developed over the next several months, Atheism Central will investigate how we might go about looking for moral solutions to the dilemmas facing us.
For additional discussion and for Koranic (Quranic) contradictions these (linked) sites are highly recommended:
http://users.uniserve.com/~tfrisen/welcome.html
http://www.eclipse.co.uk/thoughts/absolutemorals.htm
Thursday, December 29, 2005
The Old Testament
On the Reliability of the Old Testament
by K A Kitchen
http://books.google.co.in/books?ie=UTF-8&hl=en&id=Kw6U05qBiXcC&dq=Deuteronomy+rules&prev=http://books.google.co.in/books%3Fq%3DDeuteronomy%2Brules&lpg=PA300&pg=PA300&sig=tXAeuc1Vg3WpKIbs9yIb2GmIGOM
by K A Kitchen
http://books.google.co.in/books?ie=UTF-8&hl=en&id=Kw6U05qBiXcC&dq=Deuteronomy+rules&prev=http://books.google.co.in/books%3Fq%3DDeuteronomy%2Brules&lpg=PA300&pg=PA300&sig=tXAeuc1Vg3WpKIbs9yIb2GmIGOM
Monday, October 31, 2005
Padre be careful wat u preach
Seven Woes
Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees sat on Moses' seat. All things therefore whatever they tell you to observe, observe and do, but don't do their works; for they say, and don't do.
For they bind heavy burdens that are grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not lift a finger to help them.
But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad, enlarge the fringes of their garments, and love the place of honor at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called 'Rabbi, Rabbi' by men.
But don't you be called 'Rabbi,' for one is your teacher, the Christ, and all of you are brothers. Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven.
Neither be called masters, for one is your master, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you will be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and as a pretense you make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men; for you don't enter in yourselves, neither do you allow those who are entering in to enter.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel around by sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much of a son of Gehenna as yourselves.
"Woe to you, you blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obligated.
' You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifies the gold? 'Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is obligated?'
You blind fools! For which is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifies the gift? He therefore who swears by the altar, swears by it, and by everything on it. He who swears by the temple, swears by it, and by him who was living in it.
He who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God, and by him who sits on it. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cumin, and have left undone the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faith. But you ought to have done these, and not to have left the other undone.
You blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel!
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and unrighteousness.
You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the platter, that the outside of it may become clean also.
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitened tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but inwardly are full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and decorate the tombs of the righteous, and say, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we wouldn't have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.' Therefore you testify to yourselves that you are children of those who killed the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers.
You serpents, you offspring of vipers, how will you escape the judgment of Gehenna? Therefore, behold, I send to you prophets, wise men, and scribes. Some of them you will kill and crucify; and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city; that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom you killed between the sanctuary and the altar.
Most certainly I tell you, all these things will come upon this generation. "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets, and stones those who are sent to her! How often I would have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is left to you desolate.
For I tell you, you will not see me from now on, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!'"
Matthew 23:1-39 Full Chapter
Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees sat on Moses' seat. All things therefore whatever they tell you to observe, observe and do, but don't do their works; for they say, and don't do.
For they bind heavy burdens that are grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not lift a finger to help them.
But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad, enlarge the fringes of their garments, and love the place of honor at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called 'Rabbi, Rabbi' by men.
But don't you be called 'Rabbi,' for one is your teacher, the Christ, and all of you are brothers. Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven.
Neither be called masters, for one is your master, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you will be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and as a pretense you make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.
"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men; for you don't enter in yourselves, neither do you allow those who are entering in to enter.
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel around by sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much of a son of Gehenna as yourselves.
"Woe to you, you blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obligated.
' You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifies the gold? 'Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is obligated?'
You blind fools! For which is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifies the gift? He therefore who swears by the altar, swears by it, and by everything on it. He who swears by the temple, swears by it, and by him who was living in it.
He who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God, and by him who sits on it. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cumin, and have left undone the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faith. But you ought to have done these, and not to have left the other undone.
You blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel!
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and unrighteousness.
You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the platter, that the outside of it may become clean also.
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitened tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but inwardly are full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and decorate the tombs of the righteous, and say, 'If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we wouldn't have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.' Therefore you testify to yourselves that you are children of those who killed the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers.
You serpents, you offspring of vipers, how will you escape the judgment of Gehenna? Therefore, behold, I send to you prophets, wise men, and scribes. Some of them you will kill and crucify; and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city; that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zachariah son of Barachiah, whom you killed between the sanctuary and the altar.
Most certainly I tell you, all these things will come upon this generation. "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets, and stones those who are sent to her! How often I would have gathered your children together, even as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you would not! Behold, your house is left to you desolate.
For I tell you, you will not see me from now on, until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!'"
Matthew 23:1-39 Full Chapter
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
church goers
ssssss
Controversies, Corrections and Calls to Trust
This third portion of the Jerusalem journey section deals with themes of opposition to Jesus. Religious leaders question the source of Jesus' healing power. They think Satan is responsible. Next Jesus warns about response to him. The portion closes with Jesus' strong condemnation of the Pharisees and scribes. The lines are being drawn, and positions about Jesus are hardening. In the midst of this growing opposition there is the call to know what miracles mean and to understand the times. To think Jesus' power comes from Satan is to miss the arrival of God's kingdom and thus to make a grievous mistake.Why Miracles? (11:14-23)
Contemporary Western culture is highly visual. As I teach, I can hardly think of lecturing without considering what audiovisuals I might use to reinforce an idea. And we can hardly watch television or use a computer without being amazed at the visual variety and creativity in our electronic world.
Visuals are powerful. They say things that words cannot say. As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. Pictures reach places that words may fail to reach, penetrating the closed vault of our hearts and allowing us to see things that words only obscure.
This passage is probably the most strategic text for explaining why Jesus performed miracles. In other miracle stories considerable attention is given to the occasion, setting and nature of the miracle. In some texts, such detail spans thirteen verses (Mk 5:1-13). But in Luke 11:14-23 all these elements appear in a single verse. The rest of the account gives the reaction to the miracle. It is a miracle story turned upside-down. Here it's the commentary on the miracle that counts. The fact that this passage's form departs from the standard shows its importance. What Jesus tells us here is that miracles are an audiovisual, a graphic display of how God's plan and power advance.
The event that leads to the discussion is an exorcism of a demon that had caused its victim to be struck dumb. The exorcism makes the man able to speak again, so the crowd was amazed. Speculation begins regarding the kind of power Jesus possesses. His healings must be explained. That they are taking place cannot be denied.
Two options are suggested by those who have doubts. First, some attribute his capabilities to Beelzebub, the prince of demons. They clearly have Satan in mind and imply strongly that Jesus is demonically controlled. The name Beelzebub in its English form comes from the Latin; it appears to refer to the Philistine god Ekron (2 Kings 1:2-3, 6, 16). In all probability the name means "Lord of the flies" (on this discussion and other options, see Fitzmyer 1985:920-21). The name was a derisive characterization of Satan.
The second alternative is a wait-and-see approach. Some want more proof through some sign from heaven. It is unclear what this might have involved--a heavenly portent or just more miracles? In any case, not all are persuaded that demonic control is the answer.
These two possibilities well summarize reactions to Jesus today. Some reject him; others want to see more from him. But clearly, those who were exposed to Jesus realized that they could not ignore his actions or claims. His ministry demanded that people consider his identity.
Significantly, the opponents did not doubt Jesus' miraculous power. The opinion of skeptics today, that miracles do not happen or that whatever Jesus did was not miraculous, was not a line Jesus' opponents took in his day. This is very significant. Surely if this nonmiraculous option existed, it would have been taken. But the opponents and those they hoped to persuade were too close to Jesus to deny that something supernatural was happening. Unfortunately, historical distance can so blur reality that explanations not considered possible at the time of the event can seem possible later. We can reject Jesus, but to doubt his miracles is to question not only him but also, curiously enough, his opponents.
Jesus, knowing their thoughts, responds. He raises the issue of the divided house. How can Satan stand against himself if he wants to survive? A divided kingdom does not stand. Jesus argues that it is a strategy of foolishness if Satan has sent one of his henchmen to undo his own work of destruction.
Then Jesus makes a second argument. By whose power do their own followers cast out demons, if Jesus casts out demons by Satan's hand? Now this argument is making one of two points. Jesus may be saying, I do the same exorcisms as Jewish exorcists do, so to attribute my exorcisms to Satan is to attribute theirs to Satan as well. Do you wish to demean the activity of your own exorcists in this way? Another possibility, and the one I prefer, is that Jesus is arguing that their "sons"--that is, his disciples--also do this work. So if the people are going to question his work, they must also question the work of those who follow him. I prefer this argument because I am not sure Jesus would endorse the activity of Jewish exorcists and, more important, predict their positive role in the future judgment, since they are currently outside God's will in their rejection of him. More likely Jesus is arguing that he is not alone in this ministry. Either way, the argument that Jesus is enabled by Satan falls like a house of cards.
So Jesus offers another alternative, in a statement loaded with theological significance: "If I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come to you." Jesus says the miracles are evidences of the arrival of God's promised, redemptive rule. They are audiovisual testimony to God's power and rule.
The key term in the verse is ephthasen (from phthano), "has come." Theologians debate this arrival language. Some question whether arrival is in view and argue that Jesus is simply saying the kingdom has drawn near, as in Mark 1:15. They note that this term can carry that force (Mt 26:45; Lk 15:1; Jn 21:1). However, against this view is the presence of epi with the verb. Daniel 4:24, 28 (Theodotion) show the force of this combination of terms. The combination means "arrive." In addition the contextual emphasis in verses 18 and 21-23 indicates that it is current events that are pictured and current power that is described (Kummel 1961:107 n. 8). The miracles trumpet the arrival of God's ruling power in such a way that Satan's display of power on earth is challenged and is in the process of being defeated.
To say the kingdom has arrived is not to argue that consummation has come, only that its presence has begun. The process of establishing kingdom authority is a long one, as Jesus will reveal, and it will take his return to bring the full promise of the kingdom to completion (for more on the kingdom see above discussion of 9:57-62). God is breaking peacefully into the creation through Jesus to reclaim humanity from Satan's grip.
Jesus overcomes the presence and power of evil in the world. His power is greater than that of demons. He is stronger than Satan. His power and authority reverse the effect of sin. This exercise of power through Jesus is why Paul can call the gospel "the power of God" in Romans 1:16-17. The story of the gospel is the story of how Satan, sin and the flesh are overcome through Jesus' provision of the Spirit. So Paul calls the kingdom of God a matter of power (1 Cor 4:20) as well as justice, peace and joy inspired by the Spirit (Rom 14:17). And Ephesians 1:15--2:10 and 6:10-18 refer to the battle we have against the forces of evil and note how Jesus has a position of authority over them. These theological realities are pictured in Jesus' words.
The parable that follows in verses 21-23 shows that this cosmic struggle is the point and that the miracles provide evidence for Satan's defeat. The strong man in the palace at the parable's start is Satan. But someone stronger than he comes and overpowers him, takes his armor and divides the spoil.
Here is the ultimate cosmic war. Jesus and Satan stand toe to toe in battle. The miracles are an audiovisual that Satan's cause is ultimately lost. He can do great damage, as any enemy can; but the die is cast. He will lose. The picture of the "stronger one" alludes back to 3:15-16. The stronger one is the promised Messiah who brings fire and the Spirit. The dividing of the spoil recalls the imagery of Isaiah 53:12 (see also Is 49:25-26). Jesus' work means that Satan is no longer in control of the palace.
Other New Testament texts highlight this theme of cosmic victory and refer to the cross and resurrection (Eph 4:7-16; Col 2:14-15). The entirety of Jesus' first coming sets up the kingdom's coming and Satan's defeat. The spoils in these texts are the benefits of salvation distributed to those who have been redeemed. Thus Paul presents Jesus' lordship as an expression of grace as Jesus richly bestows his blessings on all who call upon him (Rom 10:9-13). Our sins can be cleansed, and Jesus can pour out the Spirit because of our Savior's victory.
There are no Switzerlands in this cosmic war. He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters. Jesus says that neutrality to him is opposition to him. To decide for God, one must decide for Jesus. In a cosmic war there are no spectators; everyone lines up on one side or the other. The implication is to be careful which side you choose. The miracles not only make a statement about Jesus' authority; they ask a question about our response.
But even where there is opposition, the opponents are not abandoned to their fate. Evangelism is infiltration into enemy lines. Rejection is not a cause for abandonment, since we never know when a Saul might become a Paul.Warnings About Response (11:24-36)
The previous passage has shown that Jesus' presence forces a choice. This unit reinforces that idea. In a series of short sayings Jesus warns of the dangers of rejection and states the benefits of responding to him. Images of threat are juxtaposed to images of light. As often in this Gospel, the question has to do with how we respond to Jesus.
It is popular in our day to be neutral. In a culture where tolerance is highly valued, nonpartisanship is attractive. In religious discussions we try to avoid stepping on toes, for in Western cultures religious views are generally considered private. We want to avoid offending others in a culture that is diverse. But neutrality is not always a good thing, and neither is polite disengagement. Some issues are important enough to require our considered choices. That is Jesus' premise in this passage.
If God exists, should we think of him as having a laissez-faire attitude, not interested in how we relate to him? Jesus argues that is not the case. Religion by its very nature is a public affair, since it deals with how people relate to reality and to others. Though religious coercion such as marred European history in the Crusades and the Thirty Years' War is wrong, so is our culture's tendency to relegate religious concerns to the fringe world of private reflection. The issues are too important to be kept peripheral. Ultimately we must ask each other, What centers our lives, what do we accept as truth, what defines our character? And so in this short passage Jesus calls us to consider what directs our lives.
In the first of five short units, Jesus tells a parable that urges us to make a spiritual response. Blessing provides an opportunity for response to God, but ignoring the opportunity brings tragic results. Having just discussed exorcisms, Jesus maintains the theme by speaking of an unclean spirit that looks for a place to reside after an exorcism. The man who has had the exorcism is compared to a house that is swept clean. Nothing has replaced the demon that once took up space in the house. Empty, it is fit to be reinhabited. So the spirit brings seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they take up residence there. The man's situation is now worse than it was before.
Jesus' point is simple. When you are blessed by a cleansing of evil that allows you to receive fresh spiritual input, do not leave your inner "house" empty. The risk is that the void will be refilled with something even worse than what had been banished. Neutrality is emptiness, a void that eventually is filled by something--often something like what was there before. When we do not respond to God, opportunity becomes tragedy, and the chance for permanent reversal is lost.
Jesus has used exorcism as a graphic example of the principle he wants to convey. He says that we should make sure our inner house is not empty and that we take in light, since emptiness will likely lead to darkness.
Perhaps because all this talk of demonic confrontation has been making the crowd nervous, one woman now offers a blessing for the mother who nurtured Jesus to life. Jesus deflects her praise and replaces it with a blessing that calls for reflection. His beatitude is for those who hear the word of God and obey it. Reminiscent of 8:21, this blessing encapsulates a major theme of Jesus' teaching. In short, Jesus is saying, Respond to the preached offer of the kingdom. Believe the gospel.
The call to respond also provides an opportunity for rebuke. The rebuke extends to the fence-sitters of verse 16, those who want more signs. Neutrality always seeks more evidence. Now careful consideration of truth is a good thing, but to delay decision in the face of repeated demonstrations of power is really avoidance. Jesus calls this generation an evil one for seeking a sign. He implies that the time for signs is passing away. For having refused to believe God's Word, the people will not believe a sign either (16:30-31). Only the sign of Jonah remains to be given.
A surface reading might lead us to think that by the sign of Jonah Jesus means resurrection, since a striking feature of Jonah's career was his three-day reflective sojourn in the belly of the fish. But when we look carefully at Jesus' remarks in Luke, we find that the sign he means is Jonah's preaching of repentance. Jesus mentions both Jonah and the Queen of the South in making his point (1 Kings 10:1-13; 2 Chron 9:1-12; Josephus Antiquities 8.6.5-6 165-75). In both cases he mentions teaching or preaching as the point of contact.
So Jesus argues that someone greater than Solomon or Jonah is present. Response is demanded, and looking for more signs is not the way to proceed. Rather, the preached word is the issue. It is time to decide, not sit on the fence. At risk is condemnation from those of a former era who did respond to the preached word. The Son of Man is a sign to this generation in the sense that he brings the Word of God to light, so people can come to know God. Thus Jesus issues both a rebuke and an exhortation here: Do not be evil and seek more miraculous signs; believe the Word as the Ninevites did and as the Queen of the South did. Jesus is the bearer of God's wisdom (7:31-35; 10:21-22; 1 Cor 1:24, 30).
Finally Jesus turns to the image of light. Again he makes his point through comparison. Lamps are not lit to be hid, but to be set on a stand where the light can do some good. Then the light allows those who enter a room to know where they are going. The image is very much like that of 8:16. In the ancient world such light usually was kindled in an oil lamp; what the KJV calls "bushel" (bowl in NIV) was a vessel for grain. Light did not go in bushels but on stands. Here Jesus' teaching is compared to light. Jesus has not failed to discuss what God is doing. Guidance is available through Jesus' teaching. But it guides only when it is seen and received.
Receptivity is Jesus' final point. The metaphor shifts slightly as the eye is now compared to a lamp for the body, but it can either be lit or be dark. Be careful what you take into your soul. The opportunity exists for the body, the person, to be full of light, if he or she takes in what God makes available. Jesus emphasizes the positive here; thus in the span of the entire passage he has both warned and exhorted. A healthy eye is a clear or pure (haplous) eye that takes in the light and benefits from this illumination. For Jesus there is no automatic inner light; light must be received. And the possibility of taking in darkness means that some things received are not the light. In sum, we must take in the teaching Jesus offers, for it is our source of spiritual light and spiritual health.Jesus Rebukes the Pharisees and Scribes (11:37-54)
Luke loves meal scenes and often reports discourses of great significance at the table (5:29; 7:36; 10:38; 14:1; 22:14). This meal is no exception. If diplomats had been present at this meal, the press release afterward would have said, "The two parties held frank and direct discussions, but no agreement was reached." In typical diplomatic terms that description would be an understatement. Jesus takes the occasion of this meal to condemn his host's religiosity. The harshness of his critique strikes our modern, sophisticated taste as almost rude, but in ancient culture, as in many non-Western cultures today, discussions about religion were very open and direct. So Jesus delivers his honest opinion about the leadership's spiritual life. Here is a checklist of potential pitfalls in the pursuit of piety.
The differences between Jesus and the leadership are not small; a great gulf yawns between them.
The evening starts simply, with Jesus responding to a Pharisee's invitation to dine with him. As Jesus begins he does not wash before the meal, a fact that astonishes the host. Jewish tradition made a point of washing (Gen 18:4; Judg 19:21; Josephus Jewish Wars 2.8.5 129; especially m. Yadayim 1).
The Old Testament describes such washings, but they are not commanded. Later writings from Judaism speak of washings both before and after a meal. The Pharisees are concerned with ritual purity before God, but Jesus will view this concern as adding burdens to God's revelation.
Jesus' host is thinking about these things--there is no indication he says anything to Jesus. Nevertheless, Jesus responds. What follow are a general condemnation and then six woes. The first three are directed at the Pharisees and the last three at the scribes. The general condemnation is for hypocrisy, and in the woes Jesus specifies the subtle variety of forms such hypocrisy takes.
He begins with the picture of a cup that is clean on the outside but filthy with extortion and wickedness on the inside. When I read this text, I often recall walking over to my children's sandbox after a rainstorm. The cups the children played with would be covered with sand and dirt on the outside but, because they were turned upside-down in the sand, absolutely clean on the inside. They were so filthy that I almost hated to pick them up. Though Jesus' image is the reverse of this, what he is evoking is similarly distasteful. Jesus creates a powerfully emotive visual.
Jesus' reply moves beyond hand-washing to address issues of character. In speaking of cups that are clean on the outside, Jesus alludes to the precise care that went into washing utensils so as to avoid ritual uncleanliness. Often this was called "fly impurity," for if an unclean or dead bug fell onto a cup or plate, that would render the dish unclean (Goppelt 1968b:149). The practice was grounded in Leviticus 11:32-33 and 15:12 (in later Judaism, t. Berakot 5:26; see Booth 1987:119-50, 194-203).
Jesus is not condemning physical cleanliness. However, he is reacting to the contrast between compulsiveness in external cleanliness and an absence of concern for the heart.
The two vices Jesus names are greed and wickedness. Both are broad terms for immorality of various types, usually attitudes that lead us to treat people and possessions as objects to be used and manipulated. Luke 20:45-47 is similar in tone. The rebuke has Old Testament roots (Is 1:10-17; 58:4-8; Amos 5:21-24; Mic 6:6-8). From the very start of his rebuke Jesus shows that a person's heart concerns God most.
As he completes the general rebuke, Jesus turns his attention to God's role as Creator, the One who made both the outside things and the inside. God cares about both. To think otherwise and act otherwise is foolish. In calling the Pharisees foolish people Jesus harks back to the book of Proverbs' many rebukes of the fool. The fool exhibits the exact opposite of the wisdom the Pharisees think they possess.
To be a fool in the Old Testament is to be blind to the things of God (Bertram 1974:230-31). The question whether God created both the outside and inside is structured for a positive answer (note the use of the Greek particle ouk). God made both, and both cups and hearts are subject to him!
Jesus' next remark is difficult. To what does the reference to giving alms refer? In the ancient world giving alms meant contributing to those who had material needs. The practice reflected a sensitive religious concern for the unfortunate (Bultmann 1964b:485-87; Sirach 7:10; Tobit 12:8-9).
To give alms is to show mercy (Is 1:10-31; Hos 6:6). Giving alms requires conscious action. But what do alms have to do with hypocrisy? The saying "Give alms for those things that are within" (Greek) means one of two things. (1) Most read it to mean that one should be generous from the heart (NIV). Such generosity makes for spiritual cleanliness. The opposite of extortion and evil is generosity. (2) But another meaning is possible: to apply the consideration we give to almsgiving to the issues of the heart.
If we give special attention to the heart, then cleanliness is the result. Given the heavily figurative language of the context, this second sense seems more natural and sets the theme of Jesus' remarks: true piety begins when we pay careful attention to the issues of the heart.
Now Jesus begins the woes. A woe is a cry for God's just judgment in light of an action that deserves a divine response (see 6:24-26). The first woe says to the Pharisees, "You give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God." Another religious practice of Jesus' day was giving one-tenth of all one had back to God for the temple and its ministers. This practice also had Old Testament roots (Lev 27:30-33; Num 18:21-32; Deut 14:22-27). In fact, there were various types of tithes, including tithes of produce and tithes involving livestock. By tithing minute herbs the leaders showed themselves scrupulously faithful. Elaborate rules existed for such tithes (m. Ma`aser Seni; m. Demai 2:1). But two large relational imperatives were ignored--justice and love for God. It is no accident that these two ideas are linked, as they were also linked in 10:25-28.
The basic call of God is to love him and respond properly to others (Mic 6:8; Zech 7:8-10; Col 3:12-13). Jesus corrects the Pharisees by saying that they should tithe without neglecting the pursuit of love with justice.
The second woe addresses pride. Why do the Pharisees seek the most important seats in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces? Judaism had elaborate greetings for rabbis, and the prominent seats drew attention to the leaders' status. Jesus offers no correction here, only the rebuke.
The third woe is the most direct. The Pharisees are like unmarked graves, which men walk over without knowing it. Here is the height of uncleanliness. Jesus suggests not only death but also uncleanliness. Jesus' view of the Pharisees is exactly opposite of their self-image. In fact, what they thought about Jesus' not washing his hands is true of them. The "cleanliness tables" have turned! Jews were careful about their contact with dead bodies or things associated with death (Num 19; Lev 21:1-3; m. Demai 2:3). Yet Jesus says the Pharisees, far from being paragons of purity, are bearers of burial, death and uncleanliness. Only they carry their uncleanliness in a stealthy, underground fashion. Unfortunately, few knew just how deadly they were.
At this point a scribe tries to come to the Pharisees' rescue: if Jesus is going to attack the Pharisees, he'd better realize he is also attacking the scribes. The logic seems to be that surely Jesus would not want to throw his net of rebuke quite so wide. In fact, the scribe actually accuses Jesus of insulting (hybrizeis) them all. Does he really want to take them all on, and does he really want to tell them all to repent? Surely the religious leadership is above reproach.
Briefly, Jesus' answer is yes, they all need to repent. So he continues to issue woes and turns his attention to the scribes. There is plenty of guilt to go around. The first woe for them is because "you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers" (Greek). This woe can also be read in one of two ways: either (1) they are hypocrites, asking others to do what they do not ask of themselves, or (2) they are heartless, asking others to labor hard at spirituality while doing nothing to help those people accomplish the task (NIV will not lift one finger to help them). The term for burdens in the verse (phortion) is normally used to describe a ship's cargo. So the burdens are indeed heavy ones.
Given the Pharisees' reputation for being very careful to keep the letter of the law, it is unlikely their kind of hypocrisy is the point. Since the other passages refer to failures at a relational level, we might expect a similar failure to be cited here.
The rebuke is for a failure to show mercy and encourage others in their pursuit of God (view two above). Quick to point the finger but slow to lend a helping hand--that is Jesus' complaint.
True devoutness is never cold and withdrawn. The scribes' hypocrisy lies in claiming to know God's will yet being cold to others. The leadership was loading others down with a U-Haul or lorry full of demands and then standing by and watching them get crushed under the load. The scribes were so right in their own eyes that they unconsciously but constantly did wrong. What a rebuke to those whose life was focused on getting the law exactly right.
The second woe for the scribes is for their support of the slaying of the prophets. Now this woe contains irony: "you build the tombs for the prophets, and it was your forefathers who killed them." They built these tombs, no doubt, to show how they honored the prophets. But Jesus argues that in fact it shows their support for killing these divine agents! By building the tombs, he says, you testify that you approve of what your forefathers did. Here is one of Jesus' fundamental critiques of the leadership: they have been disobedient as their ancestors were. This evaluation also has Old Testament roots. It has been called the "deuteronomistic" critique of the nation, for throughout the books of Samuel and Kings the nation is condemned for consistent unfaithfulness before God in light of standards God proclaimed for the nation in Deuteronomy (Moessner 1989).
Jesus, speaking for "the Wisdom of God" (Greek), goes on to predict that another line of sent prophets and apostles also will be slain (NIV has simplified the construction by removing the personification of the Greek). This will be proof that Jesus' point is correct. This generation will have to answer for the slaying of all the prophets, since all the prophets preach the same call to obey God.
The final woe to the scribes is a stinging rebuke for their assumption that they know the way to God and hold the key to knowledge (Weiss 1974:48). Jesus argues that in fact they have taken away the key. In fact, not only have they not entered into knowledge themselves, but they have put up barriers for those who were entering!
They are doing the exact opposite of what they assume. No one enters the house of the knowledge and blessing of God through them. They are a wall instead of a door.
The woes are a devastating critique of pride and self-assurance in religious practice. Amid concern for external righteousness, the heart was neglected.
Rules existed for everything except for how to relate honestly to God and to others. Self-importance replaced humility, and destruction replaced pursuit of God's will.
These remarks are strong because they show how deceived people can become if they do not rely humbly on God. Sometimes the obsessive pursuit of what is right results in some very serious wrong.
The reaction to Jesus is strong. The leaders press around him and try to think of questions that may provoke him. Lying in wait, they hope to catch him in something he might say. Enedreuo ("to lie in wait") and thereuo ("to catch") are hunting terms. The opposition to Jesus has become a hunt with Jesus as the prey. But this time the hunters will be shooting themselves.
Luke is showing not only how the opposition grew but also how they failed to heed Jesus' earlier call to repent (11:29-32). Luke also reveals what piety does not look like. The way to God is not that of the Jewish leadership.
The way to God is not in a piety of pride and rules without care and compassion. The God-lover should not point the finger but lend a helping hand.
http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/?action=getCommentaryText&cid=3&source=1&seq=i.49.11.1
Sunday, August 21, 2005
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Cheap justice ....
In Qazi courts, justice is cheap
MOHAMMED WAJIHUDD
MUMBAI: In a tiny first-floor office, off the teeming Bhendi Bazaar's Mughal Masjid lane, sits burqa-clad Shagufta Ansari.
Across the table is seated the bearded, bespectacled Qazi Abdul Ahad. This 26-year-old man, in a kurtapyjama and skull cap, may grant Ansari, 30, what the country's judiciary has failed to: it may free her from a marital hell. Or so believes the young woman.
The order, expected in a few months, will be swift and according to the Islamic principles of divorce. This is a story from one of hundreds of Darul Qazas (Sharia courts) in the country which the Supreme Court wants to investigate.
On Tuesday, acting on a petition, it issued notices to the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Darul Uloom Deoband and eight state governments about these "parallel courts". Aided by dozens of tomes, including the 900-year-old compilation of fatwas, 'Fatwa-e Shami' by Allama Ibne Abidin, and his own knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence, Qazi Ahad dispenses justice — a job the petitioners think is "extra-constitutional".
Qazi Abdul Ahad, who has an office in Bhendi Bazaar's Mughal Masjid lane, earns Rs 9,000 per month and claims he is the highest paid qazi in the country.
Continued...Next
MOHAMMED WAJIHUDD
MUMBAI: In a tiny first-floor office, off the teeming Bhendi Bazaar's Mughal Masjid lane, sits burqa-clad Shagufta Ansari.
Across the table is seated the bearded, bespectacled Qazi Abdul Ahad. This 26-year-old man, in a kurtapyjama and skull cap, may grant Ansari, 30, what the country's judiciary has failed to: it may free her from a marital hell. Or so believes the young woman.
The order, expected in a few months, will be swift and according to the Islamic principles of divorce. This is a story from one of hundreds of Darul Qazas (Sharia courts) in the country which the Supreme Court wants to investigate.
On Tuesday, acting on a petition, it issued notices to the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, Darul Uloom Deoband and eight state governments about these "parallel courts". Aided by dozens of tomes, including the 900-year-old compilation of fatwas, 'Fatwa-e Shami' by Allama Ibne Abidin, and his own knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence, Qazi Ahad dispenses justice — a job the petitioners think is "extra-constitutional".
Qazi Abdul Ahad, who has an office in Bhendi Bazaar's Mughal Masjid lane, earns Rs 9,000 per month and claims he is the highest paid qazi in the country.
Continued...Next
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Bad news for christians .....
Christians - what are your chances of getting into Heaven?
http://images.google.co.in/imgres?imgurl=http://www.english-atheist.co.uk/football2.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.english-atheist.co.uk/worldcup.htm&h=320&w=240&sz=29&tbnid=eNQphFcLttYJ:&tbnh=113&tbnw=84&hl=en&start=60&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfootball%2Bworld%2Bcup%26start%3D40%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26rls%3DGGLG,GGLG:2005-30,GGLG:en%26sa%3DN
Friday, July 29, 2005
Pope’s first 100 days well finished ...
By Nicole Winfield
Vatican City: For someone who joked that becoming pope was like having a guillotine fall on him, Benedict XVI has plunged headfirst into the job, reaching out to other Christians and China while holding fast to church doctrine. But in his first 100 days, Benedict has also stumbled, offending Israel by neglecting to mention a suicide bombing in a list of countries recently hit by terrorism, an apparent oversight that is unlikely in the long term to tarnish his otherwise strong record on improving relations with Jews. Benedict has acknowledged he’s still learning the ropes, and his spokesman asked that he not be judged at the traditional 100-day mark, which arrives on Thursday, noting that popes aren’t elected in four-or-five year terms the way politicians are. But when asked this week whether the last 100 days had been difficult, Benedict did respond, saying: “In a certain sense, yes. I had never thought about (assuming) this ministry. But people have been so good to me and have been supporting me.’’ By all indications, though, his toughest test still lies ahead, his return to his native Germany for World Youth Day in Cologne, next month. He will visit a synagogue and meet with Muslim leaders, and be closely watched to see if he can connect with young people to the same degree his predecessor Pope John Paul II did. “No one expects him to be a superstar like JP II, but how well can he communicate with them?’’ asked the Rev Thomas J Reese, the former editor of the Jesuit weekly America magazine.Reese was quite possibly the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s last victim from his days as guardian of church doctrine. He was forced to resign shortly after Ratzinger became pope April 19 because of complaints that his magazine published opinions contrary to church doctrine. Because of such incidents, many believed that as pope, Benedict would be a stern, authoritarian leader with little flair for the pastoral. Over the past 100 days, though, he has tried to shed that reputation. He has delved into church crowds to greet the faithful, joked that he felt like a “guillotine’’ was falling on him when he realised the votes were going his way during the conclave, signed autographs and even posed for photos with stunned tourists atop Mont Blanc during a recent impromptu visit during his Alpine vacation. Indeed, unifying Christians and reaching out in particular to the Orthodox seems to be an early hallmark of his papacy. During both his first homily as pope and his first papal trip, Benedict pledged that healing the 1,000-year rift with the Orthodox would be a “primary’’ commitment of his papacy, and so far it has been.he gestures seem to have been well received: Orthodox leaders confirmed in June that the theological dialogue between the two churches that was interrupted four years ago can resume. Reuters
Vatican City: For someone who joked that becoming pope was like having a guillotine fall on him, Benedict XVI has plunged headfirst into the job, reaching out to other Christians and China while holding fast to church doctrine. But in his first 100 days, Benedict has also stumbled, offending Israel by neglecting to mention a suicide bombing in a list of countries recently hit by terrorism, an apparent oversight that is unlikely in the long term to tarnish his otherwise strong record on improving relations with Jews. Benedict has acknowledged he’s still learning the ropes, and his spokesman asked that he not be judged at the traditional 100-day mark, which arrives on Thursday, noting that popes aren’t elected in four-or-five year terms the way politicians are. But when asked this week whether the last 100 days had been difficult, Benedict did respond, saying: “In a certain sense, yes. I had never thought about (assuming) this ministry. But people have been so good to me and have been supporting me.’’ By all indications, though, his toughest test still lies ahead, his return to his native Germany for World Youth Day in Cologne, next month. He will visit a synagogue and meet with Muslim leaders, and be closely watched to see if he can connect with young people to the same degree his predecessor Pope John Paul II did. “No one expects him to be a superstar like JP II, but how well can he communicate with them?’’ asked the Rev Thomas J Reese, the former editor of the Jesuit weekly America magazine.Reese was quite possibly the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s last victim from his days as guardian of church doctrine. He was forced to resign shortly after Ratzinger became pope April 19 because of complaints that his magazine published opinions contrary to church doctrine. Because of such incidents, many believed that as pope, Benedict would be a stern, authoritarian leader with little flair for the pastoral. Over the past 100 days, though, he has tried to shed that reputation. He has delved into church crowds to greet the faithful, joked that he felt like a “guillotine’’ was falling on him when he realised the votes were going his way during the conclave, signed autographs and even posed for photos with stunned tourists atop Mont Blanc during a recent impromptu visit during his Alpine vacation. Indeed, unifying Christians and reaching out in particular to the Orthodox seems to be an early hallmark of his papacy. During both his first homily as pope and his first papal trip, Benedict pledged that healing the 1,000-year rift with the Orthodox would be a “primary’’ commitment of his papacy, and so far it has been.he gestures seem to have been well received: Orthodox leaders confirmed in June that the theological dialogue between the two churches that was interrupted four years ago can resume. Reuters
Friday, July 22, 2005
anti-semitism ...
how cud the early christians hate jews?
Jesus was a jew too
how cud the Vatican remain silent as millions of jews were gassed ?
Jesus was a jew too
how cud the Vatican remain silent as millions of jews were gassed ?
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
The absurdity of the Old Testament, and why Jesus gave us the New Testament ....
Letter to George.W about Homosexuality etc
Dear President Bush,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev.21:20 states that I may ! not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though Lev. 19 expressly forbids this: 27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
(Thanks Phoenix ;) )
posted by Caraf @ 5:21 AM
Dear President Bush,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev.21:20 states that I may ! not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though Lev. 19 expressly forbids this: 27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
(Thanks Phoenix ;) )
posted by Caraf @ 5:21 AM
Sunday, July 03, 2005
An open letter to Bhaalu ...
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the Lord
'My shit dont smell'
'My ass is redder then yours'
when u preach / teach
u must be prepared to learn too
i tot the Bible was the last word on God
until i chanced to read Spirituality /
the speaking tree on TOI
i also read Bhaalu and Cyno to read about Indian spirituality
and i learned a lott
i tank u guys
But bhaalu mostly talks theory
Hinduism is a way of Life
not a religion in the conventional sense
Hinduism allows u to explore
which few religions allow
'My shit dont smell'
'My ass is redder then yours'
when u preach / teach
u must be prepared to learn too
i tot the Bible was the last word on God
until i chanced to read Spirituality /
the speaking tree on TOI
i also read Bhaalu and Cyno to read about Indian spirituality
and i learned a lott
i tank u guys
But bhaalu mostly talks theory
Hinduism is a way of Life
not a religion in the conventional sense
Hinduism allows u to explore
which few religions allow
Friday, June 17, 2005
Monday, May 23, 2005
Sunday, May 22, 2005
THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ....
GOD vs RELIGION
The First Amendment to the Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
u will find all dis on www.starkravingviking.blogspot.com/2005/03/testing-first-amendment-in-us-is.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Steven G. Erickson
The First Amendment to the Constitution
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
u will find all dis on www.starkravingviking.blogspot.com/2005/03/testing-first-amendment-in-us-is.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Steven G. Erickson
Dont mess wid religion .......
GOD vs RELIGION
JO BOLE SO NIHAL
www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=1&theme=&usrsess=1&id=77750
'Desecration of the Holy Quran common at detention camps'
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_18-5-2005_pg7_48
UNLIKE THE WESTERNERS who freak out wid Jeeeesus H. Christ at the drop of a hat
the other guys in the third world do take their religion seriously
for chrissake's sake u ass holes HANUMAN-ji is worshipped as a GOD
dont use Him to sell beer
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/001550.html
JO BOLE SO NIHAL
www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=1&theme=&usrsess=1&id=77750
'Desecration of the Holy Quran common at detention camps'
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_18-5-2005_pg7_48
UNLIKE THE WESTERNERS who freak out wid Jeeeesus H. Christ at the drop of a hat
the other guys in the third world do take their religion seriously
for chrissake's sake u ass holes HANUMAN-ji is worshipped as a GOD
dont use Him to sell beer
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/001550.html
Saturday, May 21, 2005
God as seen by Michael Angelo, a loveable oldie dat looks like me ....
dis is me- Not God, oldie silly!
BEEG GOD ....
God loves u
Two men went fishing.
One was an experienced fisherman, the other wasn't.
Every time the experienced fisherman caught a big fish, he put it in his ice chest to keep it fresh.
Whenever the inexperienced fisherman caught a big fish, he threw it back.
The experienced fisherman watched this go on all day and finally got tired of seeing the man waste good fish. "Why do you keep throwing back all the big fish you catch?" he asked.
The inexperienced fisherman replied, "I only have a small frying pan."
Sometimes, like that fisherman, we throw back the big plans, big dreams, big jobs, big opportunities that God gives us. Our faith is too small.
We laugh at that fisherman who didn't figure out that all he needed was a bigger frying pan,
yet how ready are we to increase the size of our faith?
Whether it's a problem or a possibility,
God will never give you anything bigger than you can handle.
That means we can confidently walk into anything God brings our way.
You can do all things through God.
Nothing is too big for God.
Stop telling God you've got big problems.
Tell your problems you've got a BIG GOD!
gott dis from Mendes, a goyenkar oldie, like me
Two men went fishing.
One was an experienced fisherman, the other wasn't.
Every time the experienced fisherman caught a big fish, he put it in his ice chest to keep it fresh.
Whenever the inexperienced fisherman caught a big fish, he threw it back.
The experienced fisherman watched this go on all day and finally got tired of seeing the man waste good fish. "Why do you keep throwing back all the big fish you catch?" he asked.
The inexperienced fisherman replied, "I only have a small frying pan."
Sometimes, like that fisherman, we throw back the big plans, big dreams, big jobs, big opportunities that God gives us. Our faith is too small.
We laugh at that fisherman who didn't figure out that all he needed was a bigger frying pan,
yet how ready are we to increase the size of our faith?
Whether it's a problem or a possibility,
God will never give you anything bigger than you can handle.
That means we can confidently walk into anything God brings our way.
You can do all things through God.
Nothing is too big for God.
Stop telling God you've got big problems.
Tell your problems you've got a BIG GOD!
gott dis from Mendes, a goyenkar oldie, like me
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
lets make dis world a better place .....
Michael Jackson, Neale Donald Walsch
Dear Friend,
Your coming to this web site means more to me than I could ever tell you. It says to me that you are one of the courageous ones. Someone on whom we can count on to continue the silent, individual search for the highest truth in order to make a difference in your own life.
Why this means so much to me is that I know that when you make a difference in your own life, you make a difference in the world. And the world is urgently in need of being made different now.
I know that I do not have to work hard to convince you of this. One look at today's headlines as you opened your Internet connection this morning has already done that. All that any of us are looking for now is a way to make a difference, a way to help change things.
Now you may be one of those who believe that there is not really much that any of us can do to have any real impact in such a huge undertaking, but I call out to you now from the deepest reaches of my heart to beg you not to accept that belief, not to embrace it, for it is simply not true.
Every-day people, in the every day living of their lives, are what create the collective reality on this planet in which we all live and move and have our being. The way in which you walk through our world affects our world, perhaps more profoundly than you might ever have guessed. A pebble dropped into the water creates ripples that extend beyond your imagining.
I know that most of you have come to this website because you have been touched in an important way by the messages in the With God series of books. Others of you may be here out of simple curiosity, having heard about these books and having wondered what all the commotion is about. In either case, I see you in the category of courageous people that I have described, for it takes courage even to be curious, and that is not a courage I dismiss lightly.
Part of the challenge we face in the world today is that so many people already have their minds made up about everything. About politics, about religion, about economics, about life itself. They feel that they have all the answers, and there is nothing further to question. There is merely to implement the answers, to insist on the answers, to stick to the answers no matter what.
Yet this is dogma, and dogma is killing us. Our refusal to look for new answers-or to even consider the possibility that new answers might exist-at a time when it is clear to all of us that the old answers are no longer working, is bringing an end to the experience of life on this planet as we have known it.
Of course it does not have to be like this. And it will not be, so long as people at least have the courage to ask, "Might there be another way?"
There are other ways to live our lives, other ways to interact together, other ways to resolve our differences, to deal with our major conflicts, and to reach decisions affecting the huge collective that we call Humanity. Some of those ways are described in the With God series of books-and this website exists for those who wish to know more about that.
So welcome. It is well that you have come here. I hope that you will travel all the pages of this site, explore their contents, and interact with us in ways that feel good to you. And I invite you to join with us in changing lives and changing the world, one person at a time, starting with ourselves.
I send you my love,
Neale Donald Walsch
Dear Friend,
Your coming to this web site means more to me than I could ever tell you. It says to me that you are one of the courageous ones. Someone on whom we can count on to continue the silent, individual search for the highest truth in order to make a difference in your own life.
Why this means so much to me is that I know that when you make a difference in your own life, you make a difference in the world. And the world is urgently in need of being made different now.
I know that I do not have to work hard to convince you of this. One look at today's headlines as you opened your Internet connection this morning has already done that. All that any of us are looking for now is a way to make a difference, a way to help change things.
Now you may be one of those who believe that there is not really much that any of us can do to have any real impact in such a huge undertaking, but I call out to you now from the deepest reaches of my heart to beg you not to accept that belief, not to embrace it, for it is simply not true.
Every-day people, in the every day living of their lives, are what create the collective reality on this planet in which we all live and move and have our being. The way in which you walk through our world affects our world, perhaps more profoundly than you might ever have guessed. A pebble dropped into the water creates ripples that extend beyond your imagining.
I know that most of you have come to this website because you have been touched in an important way by the messages in the With God series of books. Others of you may be here out of simple curiosity, having heard about these books and having wondered what all the commotion is about. In either case, I see you in the category of courageous people that I have described, for it takes courage even to be curious, and that is not a courage I dismiss lightly.
Part of the challenge we face in the world today is that so many people already have their minds made up about everything. About politics, about religion, about economics, about life itself. They feel that they have all the answers, and there is nothing further to question. There is merely to implement the answers, to insist on the answers, to stick to the answers no matter what.
Yet this is dogma, and dogma is killing us. Our refusal to look for new answers-or to even consider the possibility that new answers might exist-at a time when it is clear to all of us that the old answers are no longer working, is bringing an end to the experience of life on this planet as we have known it.
Of course it does not have to be like this. And it will not be, so long as people at least have the courage to ask, "Might there be another way?"
There are other ways to live our lives, other ways to interact together, other ways to resolve our differences, to deal with our major conflicts, and to reach decisions affecting the huge collective that we call Humanity. Some of those ways are described in the With God series of books-and this website exists for those who wish to know more about that.
So welcome. It is well that you have come here. I hope that you will travel all the pages of this site, explore their contents, and interact with us in ways that feel good to you. And I invite you to join with us in changing lives and changing the world, one person at a time, starting with ourselves.
I send you my love,
Neale Donald Walsch
Friday, April 29, 2005
Why does God let bad things happen? .....
a message for all u cry babies out there
Why does God let bad things happen?
Neale Donald Walsch
It is much easier to change what you are doing than to change what another is doing.
You may ask, ‘‘Why does God let bad things happen?’’ Or, ‘‘If there is a God, why do bad things happen?’’
Well, don’t ask a question if you don’t want an answer. Are you sure you want to know? Remember, if you don’t like the answer or don’t like or believe where it comes from, that’s your problem.
There are no victims in the world, and no villains. And neither are you a victim of the choices of others. At some level you have all created that which you say you detest and having created it, you have chosen it.
This is an advanced level of thinking , and it is one which all of you reach sooner or later. For it is only when they can accept responsibility for all of it that they can achieve the power to change part of it.
So long as you entertain the notion that there is something or someone else out there ‘doing it’ to you, you disempower yourself to do anything about it. Only when you say ‘I did this’ can you find the power to change it.
It is much easier to change what you are doing than to change what another is doing.
The first step in changing anything is to know and accept that you have chosen it to be what it is. If you can’t accept this on a personal level, agree to it through your understanding that We are all One.
Seek then to create change not because a thing is wrong, but because it no longer makes an accurate statement of Who You Are.
NOTE: this is the view of Donald
go to http://spirituality.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1093156,curpg-2.cms for more on the subject
Why does God let bad things happen?
Neale Donald Walsch
It is much easier to change what you are doing than to change what another is doing.
You may ask, ‘‘Why does God let bad things happen?’’ Or, ‘‘If there is a God, why do bad things happen?’’
Well, don’t ask a question if you don’t want an answer. Are you sure you want to know? Remember, if you don’t like the answer or don’t like or believe where it comes from, that’s your problem.
There are no victims in the world, and no villains. And neither are you a victim of the choices of others. At some level you have all created that which you say you detest and having created it, you have chosen it.
This is an advanced level of thinking , and it is one which all of you reach sooner or later. For it is only when they can accept responsibility for all of it that they can achieve the power to change part of it.
So long as you entertain the notion that there is something or someone else out there ‘doing it’ to you, you disempower yourself to do anything about it. Only when you say ‘I did this’ can you find the power to change it.
It is much easier to change what you are doing than to change what another is doing.
The first step in changing anything is to know and accept that you have chosen it to be what it is. If you can’t accept this on a personal level, agree to it through your understanding that We are all One.
Seek then to create change not because a thing is wrong, but because it no longer makes an accurate statement of Who You Are.
NOTE: this is the view of Donald
go to http://spirituality.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1093156,curpg-2.cms for more on the subject
Whom the the God's love .....
take heart God loves u
Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Monday, April 25, 2005
Let's Learn to Take That Leap of Faith .....
Pranav Khullar
The Way of Sorrows is marked in Jerusalem as the path taken by Jesus as He carried the Cross to Calvary.
The burden of history hung heavy in the morning air as I looked across at the Temple Mount of Jerusalem, Mount Moriah, sacred to all the three great Semitic faiths. For a city so deeply driven by faith and so sharply divided by history, this is a kind of common ground which draws all faithful.
Judaism believes that this is the ground of the ancient Temple of Solomon, and the Rock of Moriah is where Abraham prepared to sacrifice his son Isaac. To this day, prayers are offered at the Western Wall of the complex, popularly known as the Wailing Wall.
For Islam, the rock of Moriah over which stands the Dome, is the place of the Holy Prophet Muhammad's ascension to Heaven, the third most sacred place next only to Mecca and Medina. It is believed that Abraham brought his son Ishmael — from whom Muslims trace their ancestry — to this Rock, and not Isaac. I could see across in the distance another well-known summit, 300 feet higher than the city: The Mount of Olives, so closely associated with Jesus's life, a place where Jesus is said to have gone often for retreat and prayer.
At the foot of this Mount, the guide informed me, is the Garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus spent his last night, spoken of as the hour of His Passion, wherein he prepared Himself through prayer, for suffering: "Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me, nevertheless not my will, but thine be done" (Luke 24:42).
It is also where Jesus was betrayed by Judas Iscariot, and one is shown eight olive trees, which botanists say are 3,000 years old — actual witnesses to the Passion and Betrayal
of Christ.
The paradox of Jerusalem is that some of the noblest and grandest of visions of the oneness of man and brotherhood, from three ancient faiths, have sprouted from this ground, and it is also the place where more wars have been fought at its gates than in any other city in the world. Kierkegaard said that, "...man has made something of him, but is a stranger to him still..." Maybe what we really require is a giant leap of faith to overcome all conflict and killings.
"Religion helps us deal with what is important to the human spirit: Values, meaning, purpose and quality", wrote Prof Huston Smith while comparing religions. Good Friday and Easter should be seen as opportunities to ponder on the essentials of religion afresh, which bind and bond each person to the other, truths which still reverberate in the inner space of each man, beyond history and dogma.
Jerusalem is not merely a call to history, it is a call to the seminal tenets of monotheism, where not only God is one but all men are alike as well, where each man has that special covenant with God. "An eye for an eye can only end up making the world blind", said Mahatma Gandhi. The Via Dolorosa or The Way of Sorrows which is marked in Jerusalem as the path taken by Jesus as He carried the Cross to Calvary is also the larger metaphor for the path Jerusalem has chalked out for itself in its tryst with destiny. The Buddha said: "Out of great suffering... comes great peace".
As I left Jerusalem, my heart was brimming over for I remembered what TS Eliot said of Jerusalem: "Being the still point of the turning world..." I left reluctantly, nurturing the hope that out of the relics of history, peace might be stirring to life.
got dis from Indiatimes>Spirituality> The Speaking Tree> Faith
The Way of Sorrows is marked in Jerusalem as the path taken by Jesus as He carried the Cross to Calvary.
The burden of history hung heavy in the morning air as I looked across at the Temple Mount of Jerusalem, Mount Moriah, sacred to all the three great Semitic faiths. For a city so deeply driven by faith and so sharply divided by history, this is a kind of common ground which draws all faithful.
Judaism believes that this is the ground of the ancient Temple of Solomon, and the Rock of Moriah is where Abraham prepared to sacrifice his son Isaac. To this day, prayers are offered at the Western Wall of the complex, popularly known as the Wailing Wall.
For Islam, the rock of Moriah over which stands the Dome, is the place of the Holy Prophet Muhammad's ascension to Heaven, the third most sacred place next only to Mecca and Medina. It is believed that Abraham brought his son Ishmael — from whom Muslims trace their ancestry — to this Rock, and not Isaac. I could see across in the distance another well-known summit, 300 feet higher than the city: The Mount of Olives, so closely associated with Jesus's life, a place where Jesus is said to have gone often for retreat and prayer.
At the foot of this Mount, the guide informed me, is the Garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus spent his last night, spoken of as the hour of His Passion, wherein he prepared Himself through prayer, for suffering: "Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me, nevertheless not my will, but thine be done" (Luke 24:42).
It is also where Jesus was betrayed by Judas Iscariot, and one is shown eight olive trees, which botanists say are 3,000 years old — actual witnesses to the Passion and Betrayal
of Christ.
The paradox of Jerusalem is that some of the noblest and grandest of visions of the oneness of man and brotherhood, from three ancient faiths, have sprouted from this ground, and it is also the place where more wars have been fought at its gates than in any other city in the world. Kierkegaard said that, "...man has made something of him, but is a stranger to him still..." Maybe what we really require is a giant leap of faith to overcome all conflict and killings.
"Religion helps us deal with what is important to the human spirit: Values, meaning, purpose and quality", wrote Prof Huston Smith while comparing religions. Good Friday and Easter should be seen as opportunities to ponder on the essentials of religion afresh, which bind and bond each person to the other, truths which still reverberate in the inner space of each man, beyond history and dogma.
Jerusalem is not merely a call to history, it is a call to the seminal tenets of monotheism, where not only God is one but all men are alike as well, where each man has that special covenant with God. "An eye for an eye can only end up making the world blind", said Mahatma Gandhi. The Via Dolorosa or The Way of Sorrows which is marked in Jerusalem as the path taken by Jesus as He carried the Cross to Calvary is also the larger metaphor for the path Jerusalem has chalked out for itself in its tryst with destiny. The Buddha said: "Out of great suffering... comes great peace".
As I left Jerusalem, my heart was brimming over for I remembered what TS Eliot said of Jerusalem: "Being the still point of the turning world..." I left reluctantly, nurturing the hope that out of the relics of history, peace might be stirring to life.
got dis from Indiatimes>Spirituality> The Speaking Tree> Faith
Lucky Ali on religion and spirituality ...
interviewed by POOJA BEDI, daughter of Kabir Bedi
'Religion leads to spirituality'
-Lucky (Mansoor) Ali
'How important is rituals ?'
-Pooja Bedi to Lucky
Mansoor Ali : 'I say Namaz 5 times a day
it helps'
enters Milind Soman, model tirned Actor
'i am an atheist' says he.
Actually he means agnostic
He dont no for sure
'Do u fear death?
- Pooja to milind
Milind: 'i envy believers
who have a reason not to fear death
but me, i dont fear death the unknown
but i fear the transition phase, pain and suffering'
'Religion leads to spirituality'
-Lucky (Mansoor) Ali
'How important is rituals ?'
-Pooja Bedi to Lucky
Mansoor Ali : 'I say Namaz 5 times a day
it helps'
enters Milind Soman, model tirned Actor
'i am an atheist' says he.
Actually he means agnostic
He dont no for sure
'Do u fear death?
- Pooja to milind
Milind: 'i envy believers
who have a reason not to fear death
but me, i dont fear death the unknown
but i fear the transition phase, pain and suffering'
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
tell us about your religion ......
Please post here
requesting Firaa and Bhaalu and CYNO to post too
and Ashes can post about his religion... atheism ..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
