| Oct 7 @ 11:59 PM |
Sam Harris End of Faith revisited
|
|
pastordon
Posts: 624
|
I've just begun reading Sam's book, and will be doing a running critique of it. In chapter 1, Sam is guilty of a serious misrepresentation of Christians because of his gross ignorance of Scripture itself. He argues that "moderate" Christians are those who do not take Scripture "literally." As an example, he quotes Deut.13, where the Lord calls for any idolaters among Israel to be put to death. Harris argues that if we took Scripture literally, then we Christians would be at least trying to execute heretics today (just as Roman Catholics did, in fact, do from the 12th up to the 18th century).
This betrays Sam's gross ignorance of Scripture since he fails to understand that the Old Covenant (of which Deut. 13 is a part) was NEVER applied to Gentiles (nonJews)--or even to Jews after Jesus' death and resurrection. This is even evidenced by the fact that though Paul sternly warned Judaizers (and warned about them) in Galatians, he never called for these heretics to be put to death or even physically punished. Same with John. He spoke out strongly against the gnostics (just as Paul did in Col.2) in I & 2 John. Yet, he never called for them to be put to death. Efforts at persuasion--only--were to be used to try to correct heretics.
It's interesting: Harris has complained against those who misrepresented his writing concerning the use of torture (waterboarding) on terrorists. He defended himself saying he never argued for its routine, or even legal, use. He felt very offended that readers misrepresented him, saying he did argue for such. So, clearly, he does not like to be misrepresented. However, he thinks nothing of turning around and grossly misrepresenting Scripture and Christians--even publishing such misrepresentations to the world, to make some fast bucks off such sensationalism.
|
|
  |
|
| Oct 8 @ 12:24 AM |
Sam Harris End of Faith revisited |
|
Jankia
Posts: 11,881
|
Misrepresentation of facts seems to be a good tool for people that desire to remove those that are actual.
|
| |
|
| Oct 8 @ 12:28 AM |
Sam Harris End of Faith revisited
|
|
southernlass
Posts: 2,211
|
Agreed completely, Pastor Don. You will also find if you check into the writings of the other three "horsemen," that they too enjoy misrepresenting scripture and twisting its meanings.
Most of all though, these men are spreading a message of vitriol and hate toward a group of people (Christian) who are protected under the American constitution, whose beliefs are protected under the same. This radical element being presented all over the world virtually, worries me. Richard Dawkins was recently on Bill Maher's HBO political talk show. He said very, very little though, which was surprising.
Sam Harris in particular, seems to have a lot of angst toward religion overall though, not just Christianity.
|
|
| |
|
| Oct 8 @ 12:58 AM |
Sam Harris End of Faith revisited |
|
Angel54214
Posts: 18,167
|
Considering Harris comes from a Jewish Mother and a Quaker Father...his writings show a lot of self torment in his own bringing up life style of passiveness. His adjective rejection of faith leaves him fighting his own mind of chaos where no peace and tranquility can be born or reside. All he has for right now is his narrow soft mind conflict, while his heart remains made of stone. He's truly a self representative of denial to what matters that are most important that bears the true meaning of life.
|
| |
|
| Oct 8 @ 9:23 AM |
Sam Harris End of Faith revisited
|
|
sail_dancer
Posts: 9,857
|
I've just begun reading Sam's book, and will be doing a running critique of it. In chapter 1, Sam is guilty of a serious misrepresentation of Christians because of his gross ignorance of Scripture itself. He argues that "moderate" Christians are those who do not take Scripture "literally." As an example, he quotes Deut.13, where the Lord calls for any idolaters among Israel to be put to death. Harris argues that if we took Scripture literally, then we Christians would be at least trying to execute heretics today (just as Roman Catholics did, in fact, do from the 12th up to the 18th century). You are presenting your interpretation of this scripture but fail to understand that the interpretation of this scripture obviously contributed to the atrocities the christian church carried out between the 12th and 18th centuries. The problem is that your dogma can be interpreted in many ways, and based on how a christian group interprets these verses can result in massive atrocities as proven by history. Are you saying that it is out-of-the question that such atrocities can happen again in the future? On what basis would you base this claim?
This betrays Sam's gross ignorance of Scripture since he fails to understand that the Old Covenant (of which Deut. 13 is a part) was NEVER applied to Gentiles (nonJews)--or even to Jews after Jesus' death and resurrection. This is even evidenced by the fact that though Paul sternly warned Judaizers (and warned about them) in Galatians, he never called for these heretics to be put to death or even physically punished. Same with John. He spoke out strongly against the gnostics (just as Paul did in Col.2) in I & 2 John. Yet, he never called for them to be put to death. Efforts at persuasion--only--were to be used to try to correct heretics. Paul and John may not outright support the killing or torturing of so called heritics but clearly labeled these groups as enemies of the church that should be dealt with to protect the dogma they preached.
Only one person in the NT called for nonbelievers (heritics) to be slayed and that was Jesus himself. This can be found in verse Luke 19:27 (KJV).
Why should anyone accept your criticism of Sam Harris when his interpretation of the scripture was embraced by the christians of the 12th thru 18th centuries and used to justify the atrocities they carried out against people they labeled as so called heritics? Seems to me that christians just use and twist scripture to support what they are trying to sell at the time.
What you fail to see is the power such dogma places in the hands of those that claim (as you do) to have the correct interpretation of scripture. Any work that can be used to justify the actions of the christian church recorded in history, should be labeled as dangerous to mankind. We should require warnings to be placed on the cover of any bible being sold (similar to the labels placed on cigarette packs).
I'm not saying that truly peaceful and loving person cannot learn something by reading the bible, but that since this book of fables has a history of contributing to atrocities against the human race in general, people should be warned about how the dogma it presents has been used in the past.
Are you in complete denial of what history tells us? Can you substantiate your opinion?
Peace
|
|
| |
|
| Oct 8 @ 9:31 AM |
Sam Harris End of Faith revisited |
|
yashaenka
Posts: 8,197
|
Nicely done Sail  
|
| |
|
| Oct 8 @ 9:34 AM |
Sam Harris End of Faith revisited
|
|
iam01
Posts: 6,259
|
You have to consider PastorDon actually believes animals spoke and the universe is around 6000 years old. You might as well be trying to reason with someone who believes they were taken aboard an alien spacecraft or someone who insists Elvis is alive. Such beliefs are from the same source.
|
|
| |
|
| Oct 8 @ 10:05 AM |
Sam Harris End of Faith revisited |
|
Deborah551
Posts: 1,009
|
I'm not saying that truly peaceful and loving person cannot learn something by reading the bible, but that since this book of fables has a history of contributing to atrocities against the human race in general, people should be warned about how the dogma it presents has been used in the past. Even thought Pastor Dan says the OT rules are for the Jews, he probably believes in the 10 commandments. Every Christian church I've ever belonged to picks and chooses certain OT beliefs and follows them. Whether it's the 7th Day Adventist and their ban on eating unclean meat and Sabbath keeping or women not allowed to wear pants and their hair must be long; each denomination has its own do's and don'ts. they can't help it, rule keeping is part of belonging to most christian churches.
|
| |
|
| Oct 8 @ 10:06 AM |
Sam Harris End of Faith revisited
|
|
yashaenka
Posts: 8,197
|
Just because a person proclaims they are a pastor or minister does not make them right or wrong here in America neither one has to be Ordained to use those labels. Perhaps Pastor Don has been ordained but some church and went through their Seminary school but then we do not know that either.
The Minister Ordained
So you have decided to become an ordained minister or ordained pastor. There are so many things going through your mind often you don't know where to begin. How do I become a pastor? How do I become a minister. Do I got to seminary? What is an online ordination? Is online ordination legal? What about being a Christian Pastor or Christian Minister.
The Bible teaches that every child of God is a priest and there is but one high priest, Jesus Christ. "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a dedicated nation, and a people claimed by God for his own, to proclaim the triumphs of him who has called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. You are now the people of God, who once were not his people; outside his mercy once, you have now received his mercy" (1 Peter 2:9,10). This passage tells us that we all should share the Good News of the Gospel. But does it mean we should all be Pastors? Ministers?
If we read in Eph 4:11 "And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers"
Well if you simple want to share the Gospel, then you are just doing what we are all suppose to do.
What is a minister? What is the difference between an ordained minister or ordained pastor? Throughout the Bible we can find the word minister but it is often used as a verb meaning to care for. In Col we find the word minister and if you look at the original Greek that word means a servant like a waiter but also a Christian teacher and pastor. When you look at the different Bible verses for the word pastor it comes from the Greek word poimen which means "Shepherd" This means "a person who protects, guides or watches over a person or group of people." so it means someone who tends to the needs of others and can be someone who is in charge like a superintendent.
So in essence they both can mean basically the same thing. I consider a pastor someone who helps others with regards to the Bible, a preacher.
So why then do I need to be an ordained minister? Well let's look at that question. In order to preach and serve our Lord it is important to have a strong education about His Word the Bible. Now the Bible also says that a minister or pastor is someone who is above reproach or someone who will not bring disgrace to the title of pastor. You must also be someone who manages their household, can teach and not a new convert.
The Bible also tells us that we need to obey the laws of our land. Well in this country in order to do things like Weddings, start a church or ministry, prison or hospital ministry you must be licensed or ordained.
So now we know why minsters and pastors attended seminary. To understand the Word of God and to make sure that they were not new converts.
So when we think of Ordained Pastors or Ordained Minister or Licensed Ministers, as Christians that should be someone who has proved that they have a strong Biblical knowledge and are not "new" Christians.
So in the Christian faith, can someone become ordained online? Yes and No. Can they attend an online seminary and after completion of the required coursework become ordained? I think that is a definite yes and a great tool of the Internet. Now what about those programs that have Instant Ordination or instant pastor licenses. Well they may be legal but I do not think they are Biblical at all.
I also do not believe that many churches would really want to hire someone who simply paid the fee to be a pastor. http://ezinearticles.com/?Ordained-Online---How-to-Become-a-Pastor-Or-Minister-With-an-Online-Ordination&id=1979052
|
|
| |
|
| Oct 8 @ 10:10 AM |
Sam Harris End of Faith revisited |
|
yashaenka
Posts: 8,197
|
Dear Yahoo!:
My friends would like me to perform their marriage ceremony. How can I become an ordained minister?
Crystal
Martin, Georgia
Dear Crystal:
Studying at a seminary isn't the only way to become an ordained minister. You can sign up on a web site and immediately be a minister. Not everyone finds the Web's path legitimate from a spiritual perspective, but it's usually legal in the United States.
Perhaps the most popular instant-minister organization is the Universal Life Church (ULC). The ULC used to advertise in the back of magazines like Rolling Stone. All you had to do was mail in a self-addressed stamped envelope in order to become a minister. With the advent of the Internet, you're only a few clicks away from holy orders.
Founded by Kirby James Hensley in 1959 in Modesto, California, the ULC is about as non-denominational and non-dogmatic as a church can be. This group espouses no particular theology and simply requests that its ministers "do that which is right." Ministers can decide what is "right" for themselves. As of 2002, the ULC has ordained some 5 million ministers.
To ordain yourself online, simply go to any of the ULC sites such as ULC.org, ULC.net, or the ULC HQ, and look for the "ordination" link. Then supply your full name and address, and -- presto! -- you're a minister. Some of the sites provide a printable credential, while others will mail you a paper credential. http://ask.yahoo.com/20020702.html
I would hope Pastor Don would take very serious exception to the above!
|
| |
|
| Oct 8 @ 10:21 AM |
Sam Harris End of Faith revisited
|
|
Angel54214
Posts: 18,167
|
Only one person in the NT called for nonbelievers (heritics) to be slayed and that was Jesus himself. This can be found in verse Luke 19:27 (KJV).
The scripture is part of the Parable of the Nobleman and his wicked Servant Jesus was presenting in that chapter...LOL.
Representation of the last of the parable was the Jews being of wicked servants to the Romans (noblemen). Thousands were slaughtered by their own swords as well as the Romans in the Jewish-Roman Revolt.
(adding below and spelling correction in above paragraph)
As "mine enemies"...for the Jews became natural enemies of Christ; selling him for 30 pieces of silver and the jury condemnation of "crucify him"!.
[Edited on 10/8/2009 10:37 AM]
[Edited on 10/8/2009 10:39 AM]
|
|
| |
|
| Oct 8 @ 10:23 AM |
Sam Harris End of Faith revisited |
|
yashaenka
Posts: 8,197
|
We do not know if Jesus ever actually said that, do we?
|
| |
|
| Oct 8 @ 10:27 AM |
Sam Harris End of Faith revisited
|
|
alivenwell351
Posts: 3,005
|
Representation of the last of the parable was the Jews being of wicked servants to the Romans (noblemen). Thousands were slaughted by their own swords as well as the Romans in the Jewish-Roman Revolt.
Serious question...
How is a layman, someone not that familiar with scripture but curious, supposed to be able to tell supposed fact (the actual word of the christian god) from supposed fiction (parables etc)??
Thanks Sail...
Yes, we do potentially have much to fear from fanatic believers of ANY faith...christians included...
|
|
| |
|
| Oct 8 @ 10:45 AM |
Sam Harris End of Faith revisited |
|
Heaveninawildflower
Posts: 18,600
|
Yes, we do potentially have much to fear from fanatic believers of ANY faith...christians included...
And those of us who don't believe as well....as Voltaire said 'I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'
The only guarantee we have of our own freedom is the freedom we guarantee to others.
It's kind of off topic, as I've never read any of Harris's books, just sayin'...
|
| |
|
| Oct 8 @ 10:53 AM |
Sam Harris End of Faith revisited
|
|
yashaenka
Posts: 8,197
|
Your thoughts are always welcome  
|
|
| |
|
| Oct 8 @ 1:08 PM |
Sam Harris End of Faith revisited |
|
pastordon
Posts: 624
|
You are presenting your interpretation of this scripture but fail to understand that the interpretation of this scripture obviously contributed to the atrocities the christian church carried out between the 12th and 18th centuries. The problem is that your dogma can be interpreted in many ways, and based on how a christian group interprets these verses can result in massive atrocities as proven by history. Are you saying that it is out-of-the question that such atrocities can happen again in the future? On what basis would you base this claim?
Sail, what you must realize is that the Roman Catholic Church has never claimed to just follow the Bible. They have always presumed the right to create their own doctrine, which they call "Tradition." Listen to this quote from one of their authorized works ("For Them Also"): "The Bible is not the sole source of the doctrines of our faith. There is also another fountainhead of divinely revealed truths known as Tradition." And, it is their "tradition"--not the Bible--that "authorizes" their Popes to call for inquisitions.
No, I am not saying that such atrocities could never happen again in the future. If a certain pope came to power who was inclined towards such...who knows? But I'm just saying, place the blame where it lies--with man-made religion (including the Muslim faith, which clearly calls for "infidels"--nonmuslims--to be put to death). And recognize that such actions are IN SPITE OF the Bible, not because of it.
|
| |
|
| Oct 8 @ 1:20 PM |
Sam Harris End of Faith revisited
|
|
pastordon
Posts: 624
|
Paul and John may not outright support the killing or torturing of so called heritics but clearly labeled these groups as enemies of the church that should be dealt with to protect the dogma they preached.
Only one person in the NT called for nonbelievers (heritics) to be slayed and that was Jesus himself. This can be found in verse Luke 19:27 (KJV).
Yes, but "dealt with" by teaching--not by physical warfare. Paul clearly stated that our warfare, as Christians, is not physical--not "of the flesh"--but spiritual in nature. And the way we "fight" is through a faithful stand for truth. Listen to his words in 2 Cor.10:3--"For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty ting raised up against the knowledge of God..." Did you see that? As Christians we are fighting a warfare of ideas, philosophies, teachings--NOT a physical warfare.
In Luke 19:27, Jesus is relating a parable, in which the "Master" represents God who, on the Judgment Day, destroys those who had rejected Him and His rule. Read a corresponding parable in Matthew 25:14-30. Here, the "enemies" of the "Master" are cast into the "outer darkness" of everlasting punishment. So, Jesus is not at all calling for physical warfare.
In fact, He clearly stated to Pontius Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."
|
|
| |
|
| Oct 8 @ 1:27 PM |
Sam Harris End of Faith revisited |
|
Thor1960303
Posts: 3,345
|
what you must realize is that the Roman Catholic Church has never claimed to just follow the Bible. They have always presumed the right to create their own doctrine, which they call "Tradition."
As if the RCC was the only Christian organization to endorse murder and torture? Off the top of my head I can think of the Westboro Baptist Church that calls for death for what they consider heretics and they claim to follow the Bible to the later. In a TV interview,a Moral Majority member called for the state to authorize execution for homosexuals and his point of view was justified by scripture.
In short Christians have been cherry picking the Bible for centuries to make a point so your argument here doesn't hold much water there Pastor.
|
| |
|
| Oct 8 @ 1:29 PM |
Sam Harris End of Faith revisited
|
|
pastordon
Posts: 624
|
Why should anyone accept your criticism of Sam Harris when his interpretation of the scripture was embraced by the christians of the 12th thru 18th centuries and used to justify the atrocities they carried out against people they labeled as so called heritics? Seems to me that christians just use and twist scripture to support what they are trying to sell at the time.
As I said earlier, what Harris and you are not realizing is that the Roman Catholic Church does not claim to just go by the Bible. Truth is, they have consistently put their own tradition ahead of God's Word--the very thing Jesus rebuked the Jewish leaders for, in Matthew 15.
There's no question that people--not just Christians--often "twist scripture to support what they are trying to sell at the time." But that just underscores people's--not the Bible's--own evil nature. Let's say that, in just a few years, a cult ends up being spawned by Harris' book. And, they are determined they just want to wipe out anyone suspected of being a terrorist. So, they take what Harris said about using torture and they twist it to mean that it's o.k. to use torture on a regular basis to get the truth out of suspected terrorists. Would this be Harris' fault--or, wouldn't it just reflect their own evil intentions?
|
|
| |
|
| Oct 8 @ 1:36 PM |
Sam Harris End of Faith revisited |
|
pastordon
Posts: 624
|
What you fail to see is the power such dogma places in the hands of those that claim (as you do) to have the correct interpretation of scripture. Any work that can be used to justify the actions of the christian church recorded in history, should be labeled as dangerous to mankind. We should require warnings to be placed on the cover of any bible being sold (similar to the labels placed on cigarette packs).
Again, you must differentiate between church dogma--dogma that does not even claim to come from the Bible--and Bible dogma. No wonder Jesus and His disciples placed such great importance in teaching truth and exposing man-made doctrine. The Lord knew good and well that outsiders would not know the difference and end up accusing the Lord of things He never taught or supported.
So, as the saying goes, "don't throw the baby out with the wash"--especially since this world still desperately needs the baby!
|
| |
|
|
|
|