Pay Attention Rudy

By Erick Posted in Comments (35) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Note to Rudy: We change for God, God and his word do not change for us.

Also, you've killed yourself on the abortion issue. I will not, cannot, shall not vote for you in the primary based on your abortion answer. Review Mitt or Fred's answers and repeat until you believe.

Oh, and mock me if you will, but I do not question the account of Jonah and the Whale. You know, Mayor, Faith ain't just a woman's name.


« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | Back To The FutureComments (0) »
Pay Attention Rudy 35 Comments (0 topical, 35 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

I personally feel too many conservative Christians have wrongly de-emphasized the doctrine of Free Will and its necessity for salvation.

Secondly, if you want to see what a country looks like when scripture is legally enforced, look no further the Saudi Arabia and their implementation of Sharia law.

I track the Saudi-backed expansion of extremist Wahhabi Islam
http://wahaudi.blogspot.com

Are you comparing conservative Christians with the Saudis? Who specifically do you mean?

HTML Help for Red Staters

Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, Jonathan Edwards, C.H. Spurgeon, the founders of the Southern Baptist Convention, the authors of the Westminster Confession of Faith, St. Augustine, George Whitefield, the authors of the London, New Hampshire, and Philadelphia Baptist Confessions of Faith, the Puritans, the Pilgrims, and virtually any credible Protestant theologian you could name save for John Wesley would disagree with as to whether man has a will naturally free to do anything other than go to hell, and therefore free will is not necessary for salvation, but created the fall. Therefore, any de-emphasizing of "the doctrine of free will" is evidence of people coming home to the roost, not of some crazy progressiveness.

Secondly, I'm not for enforcing the Bible as law, but if we did so it would not look like Saudi Arabia (as they don't follow the Bible, but the Koran). We have concrete examples of what it looks like when governments try to implement the Bible as law. Anybody willing to do some reading knows that people have tried to implement the Bible as law in the past, so you don't have to look to Saudi Arabia. Instead you can look to John Winthrop's Massachussetts (who also didn't believe in free will, by the way) or John Calvin's Geneva, or to varying degrees many colonies, enclaves, and cities throughout Europe and the Americas at one time or another.

Roger Williams has a great little writing on this called The Bloody Tenet of Persecution, in which he argues that since man's will is not free, society can't force an individual to be anything other than what he is, and then went on to coin the phrase "wall of separation" (or "hedge of separation" I can't remember) between the church and the civil magistrate. BTW, Williams was placed under house arrest for preaching doctrines disagreeable to the Massachussetts Bay Colony at the time, and then left in the middle of the night to found Providence, Rhode Island, where he started what was really the first religiously tolerant colony.

(thus ends bluechip's religious rant of the day)

So perhaps you may want to rethink your position. See the 10 commandments. So in essence, we do enforce the bible.

Let me know when covetousness, taking the Lord's name in vain, bowing to idols, adultery, and having gods before God is illegal in this country.

So perhaps you may want to rethink your position. See the 10 commandments. So in essence, we do enforce the bible.

Be careful what you wish for: the Catholic Church and many Protestant churches have different versions of the 10 Commandments, even different interpretations on Thou shall not kill/murder. So a Federal/Constitutional law must ultimately favor one Christian sect over another. Look where that got the British -- a mass migration of religious refugees (Quakers in PA, Puritans in NE) who fought for Freedom.

I track the Saudi-backed expansion of extremist Wahhabi Islam
http://wahaudi.blogspot.com

ERIK are you in the press filing room? If so.. jump up and yell REDSTATE so I know Where you are!

Albert N. Milliron
Politisite.com
The Right Side of the Web
www.milliron.net

I agreed with you all night, only because you agreed with me :) But taking a shot at Rudy's personal opinion of the Bible, that not every single story is a historical transcript, is out of line. Yes, of course we finite individuals can not give a deffinitive answer on what is literal and what is not. But you are mistaken to attack Rudy's personal opinion on the literalness of the Bible. Check the debate thread if you want more on my opinion of this subject.

Molon Labe!

I think he should have given a short answer. To be fair, it wasn't Jonah that lost it. It was giving modern interpretation to the Bible that lost it.

We change for God. God doesn't change for us.

Fight On!

I wholeheartedly agree. But Rudy played it safe. Think about it, he was asked if EVERY SINGLE WORD of the Bible was literal fact. He gave his own personal opinion, remember, he did say he revered the Bible and was a believer. I even said in the debate thread that Rudy should have played it safe, so in that we agree, Rudy was "too honest".

One other thing, I am reading the Bible straight through right now. I have read it before but I am reading it straight through again in a couple translations. I want to pass along a few lines from Exodus.

When God was giving the law to Moses, He said, (this is a paraphrase of the "contemporary English version):

"If you beat a slave and he dies, you should be stoned to death". But, "if you beat a slave, and he lives for a few days, and then dies, you should not be punished, because you have already paid by losing his service for a few days".

my point should be clear, there are things in the Bible that are hard to fully understand. It is not out of line for Rudy to say "not every single thing in the Bible is neccessarily literal fact, but sometimes things are allegory or revealed truth".

I think Bible interpretation is a personal issue, remember, even Christ did not say "you must believe the Bible is literal transcript (yes, there was no Bible at the time), He said, "you must believe in God, you must believe I am your Savior"

my point, Rudy was not "wrong" on theology, yes, he might of lost points with some people, but he was honest, and what more can we ask?

Molon Labe!

If you'd like to say that believing in a literal Christ and a literal Word are different. After all, a God capable of creating the universe is surely capable of proper fact-checking His hand picked authors.

And the way to deal with passages regarding slavery and the like is to explain them, not explain them away. We can't read something we disagree with and ask why God would do such a thing. Instead, we should ask, why should God NOT do such a thing. And for the answer to that, you may go to Romans 9.

theology is personal. Rudy represents the majority of this country when he says "some verses in the Bible could be allegory". The thing some people/believers do not get is that there is no reason why the Bible can not have allegory or tales that did not happen literally but give a religious truth. Ever here about George Washington and the Cherry tree? It never happened, but the lesson of telling the truth is a moral fact.

My point, which should be clear to most, is whether each line in the Bible happened exactly as said, in the same way that the Italian Renaissance "happened" really does not matter. Ok, if it matters to you, fine, no problem, but in most Christian theology, it does not define salvation. You either believe Christ is King or you do not. God will never ask you if you believe Jonah was in an actual whale. Then again, if you believe he will, fine with me.

My criticism of many hard core believers is they do NOT study the history of the Bible or their demomination enough. How many of use are in the denomination of our parents, or country of origin, yet have no desire to find out why theirs is the right one versus the hundreds of others out there?

Molon Labe!

First of all, the bible never said he was in a Whale, he was in a big fish, so lets get that straight. I for one, believe if god wants to create a big fish to swallow Jonah, he is quite capable.

If you deny one mircle, don't you denie all?

If we are talking about belief in the literal word of God than it was a fish that swallowed Jonah, (Jonah 1:17) not a whale.

there will never be 3/4ths of the states to make it a constitutional amendment and the reasonable solution is give it back to the states. The bible by the way does have allegories and is not the literal word of God but by men's interpretation of what God said to them and might I add changed many times over the centuries by men.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

but they are stated as such or worded in a way that would lead you to understand that they are not to be taken literally. Other than that, everything else is your own opinion and I disagree. The Bible has not changed over the centuries.

The bible is actually a collection of books. The original 5 books comes from the Jewish bible. The rest were collections of writings done at different times.

When King James decided to get a divorce and marry another woman, he broke with what is now the Catholic Church.

He then created a commission to collect all the religious writings of prophets, apostles, etc. together.

Deciding what should be in the bible and what should not was not an easy task. Some where easy, such as the apostles writings, while others where more difficult to decide, such as the psalms.

The original writings were done at different times and in a few different languages. Some where hand copies of hand copies. Since, at the time of their writings, there where no printing presses.

From the copies, there where some minor changes (such as a period, here, a the and thou there) but generally speaking little changes occurred over the centuries. Mostly because those who where doing the coping took as a sacred duty.

Then there was the problem of translation. Since this was done by committee, there were some disagreement of how the words should be translated. In most bibles, if you read the beginning, it describes how they marked the parts they weren't sure about.

However, generally speaking, scholars have poured over the biblical writings and found them to be farley accurate.

Now as far as whether you should take it literally, you have to take it case by case bases, however, it is fairly clear when they are being literal and when it’s a metaphor.

Except that the problem of the canon was solved in the second and third centuries. When James had the 1611 translated, they did not reconsider the vaidity of various books to the best of my knowledge, but used those which had been approved as inspired by the early church councils. Remember, many other translations had already been made. The Vulgate had been used for centuries, the Bishop's Bible was in use, the Geneva Bible was common as the Pilgrims used, so most of the problems in determing the inspiration of books for the canon had already been solved.

My impression was that Jaded was claiming that the material in the Bible had been changed over time to suit various people. If all she was saying was that books had been added, then I have less of a disagreement, although I still disagree with her claim that the Bible is not the Word of God Himself.

One of the first things done by the new king was the calling of the Hampton Court Conference in January of 1604 "for the hearing, and for the determining, things pretended to be amiss in the church." Here were assembled bishops, clergymen, and professors, along with four Puritan divines, to consider the complaints of the Puritans. Although Bible revision was not on the agenda, the Puritan president of Corpus Christi College, John Reynolds, "moved his Majesty, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the Original."

The king rejoined that he:

"Could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst. I wish some special pains were taken for an uniform translation, which should be done by he best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by the Royal authority, to be read in the whole Church, and none other."

for more info.

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html

They just didn't think that the translations being used were very good. That is completely separate from deciding anew on the canon.

...have absolutely no place in a political debate.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Huck said Jesus wouldn't run for political office and there in is the answer WWJD.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Uhh, so you don't think there can be legitimate debate, even among believers, about what elements are literally true and what elements are allegorical?

Because there are a lot of committed Christians who believe absolutely that they are saved by Christ's sacrifice through faith and forgiveness that debate stuff like that all the time.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

I would enjoy that. My background is history, and I am a believer. I love the history of the Bible, theology, the Reformation etc. But Rudy will not pay for what he said, he was honest. Eric is right that Rudy should have played it safe, but hey, he said what he believes. Any Christian can say "I believe in the Bible", Rudy answered the specific question, do you believe every word is historical fact.

Molon Labe!

You must be baptist! :)

Rudy's answer was almost exactly what I heard from a Presbyterian minister 20 years ago.

There is plenty of room for those who want to interpret things literally and for those who want to interpret them figuratively.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

Catholics aren't biblical literalists. Leave Rudy alone on that one. There are lot of better issues to pick a fight with him on.

I disagree with Rudy about Jonah and the Whale, but I seriously doubt that anything is going to come across the presidents desk dealing with the issue. I think I have much more serious theological disgreements with most politicians, so Jonah and the Whale just really doesn't matter to me.

I honestly don't think it matters whether a candidate for president considers Jonah and the whale as having literally happened or instead he sees it as a divinely inspired allegory told via imperfect human beings.

What matters to me is their stances on the issues. Then again, maybe this isn't as big an issue for me because the Bible being literal doesn't square with my religious background in the Methodist church I grew up in.

For me, what I looked for in the answers about that question is who I felt like was honest and comfortable in talking about the Bible and their thoughts on it. I did think Rudy was a little thrown off on that question but I believed him that he generally believes in the Bible but doesn't take everything literally and does apply some modern interpretations to it. While Mitt may have said he believes the Bible is the literal word of God and maybe that was the "right" thing to say I had trouble believing him in his simple answer that is what he really believes just in how he delivered it and in my own distracted ignorance and confusion about where the Book and Mormon fits into that question. And of course Huckabee was great in his answer I thought, but then again he has that unfair advantage as a minister.

That said, this question and religion in general is not going to determine how I vote in the primary and just because Huckabee is the minister and had the best answer for me on the Bible doesn't mean I'm necessarily going to vote for him.

As the U.S. Constitution states:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but [u]no religious Test shall ever be required[/u] as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article6

Blogs 4 Conservatives is keeping conservatism alive in the 21st century and beyond!

Erick, I love you, man, but I have to say that if you're going to make this election into a contest about who can have the most literal belief in every word of the Bible, I hope you enjoy having Hillary Clinton in the White House.

I've watched Rudy's answer several times now and I don't think he was being anything other than serious and truthful. And I happen to agree with it. I thought Romney's comeback answer was very, very opportunistic and glib.

you didn't like came after badgering by Anderson360 for more information. Sort of like, "Do you still beat your wife? Hurry up, I don't have all day." I didn't count them, but there were two instances like that I'm aware of. Mitt should have said simply, "I've given my answer."

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

Romney? Opportunistic?

I'm shocked!

Gar

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service