4.06.2005
The Pope, Sin City, and Transubstantiation
A new page has turned in my life. I am once again a full-time employee of an IT department -- the evil, money-grubbing, Fortune 500 corporation having coughed up the shortfall of their initial offer.
This means that my posting frequency will likely continue to be lower than it once was, as my days will be spent fulfilling my new duties. I haven't been able to make the transition to night blogging as of yet, but will try to squeeze in some quality time with my thoughts from now on.
I have had a few things on my mind, however, that I wanted to put together in my own inimitable way.
First, I'm having a real hard time jumping on the whole Pope bandwagon. Evangelicals the world over are being very, very nice towards the memory of this man, and I guess I don't have a real problem with that. It seems clear that his ministry gave voice to real issues to which Christians worldwide need to give heed. I admire his stances on poverty and terrorism. I've seen nothing more Christ-like from a world leader than his visit to his would-be Muslim assassin in prison to offer his forgiveness and comfort back in the early '80's. His last days and emphasis on dignity in dying will forever stand in stark contrast in my mind to the senseless, brutal, state-sanctioned murder of Terri Schiavo. Finally, his stance against capital punishment has caused me to think long and hard about my own views on the subject.
However, I've got serious issues with the Catholic Church in general, and the Pope's infatuation and confirmation of erroneous, if not heretical, dogma concerning Mary in particular. The elevation of Mary by the Catholic world, while possibly well-intentioned, is totally unbiblical and very, very dangerous in my mind. The teaching of the Immaculate Conception -- that Mary was born redeemed, without sin, and continued to be without sin during her entire life -- is total crap. The fact that this dogma was not even introduced into the Catholic Catechism until 1854 by Pope Pius IX should be the first clue. There is no Scriptural justification to believe this, and to believe it is to diminish the uniqueness and exclusionary claims of Christ as the only sinless person to walk the planet in all of human history.
Catholics will claim that this is the only possible explanation of how a human woman could conceive, carry, and give birth to God in the flesh. Nonsense. Scripture states that Mary was overshadowed by the power of the Holy Spirit and conceived without ever having known a man. His 'DNA' in the conception is the vehicle by which the very essence and a personality (that of the Son) of God became flesh. While Scripture leaves no doubt that Mary was righteous because she believed God and submitted joyfully to His call on her life, there is no justification for believing her to be sinless.
Additionally, the dogma of the Assumption of Mary is also crap and without Scriptural basis. There's a reason why Scripture makes very little mention of Mary beyond the Annunciation. It's because she's not the important one! Jesus is. In fact, the last recorded interactions between Mary and Jesus clearly show that He was separating Himself from her in order to accomplish His Mission.
Now, to completely do a 180, I went to see Sin City this weekend. I hadn't really wanted to see this movie. The wife and I had a date planned to celebrate our anniversary, but Guess Who was sold out when I went online to do the Fandango. Anyway, a very disturbing, but well crafted movie.
One of the vignettes had to do with a grotesque re-telling of the Beauty and the Beast story, with the Beast being an ex-con framed for the murder of a high-class hooker who showed him the only kindness he'd ever known. What we find out is that the killer is a part of a very wealthy, powerful and sick family. This Bible-toting sicko dismembers and eats his victims while they are still alive, keeping only the head -- which he mounts on his wall. This young man is possessed of amazing agility and speed, so that even the nearly indestructible beast is easily defeated in their first encounter.
Once the 'hero' figures out how to catch this killer, he learns later that his 'powers' come from the way that his cannabilism 'absorbs' the souls of his victims. This causes him to appear luminescent, peaceful -- even beautiful. Even during his own dismemberment at the hands of the Beast, he does not scream, but smiles beatifically.
This leads me to where my own somewhat twisted mind ties these events together. Yesterday, I was reading John 6, where Jesus gives His 'I am the bread of life' sermon. The wording in my translation of several verses began to sound oddly cannabilistic, putting me in mind of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, where they believe that the priest's blessing of the sacraments transforms them into the actual body and blood of Jesus. Verse 56 says, "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in Me." Creepy, huh?
Most Protestants take this to be a figurative statement based on Jesus' statements during the Last Supper. "Take, eat. This is my body that was broken for you." And, "Take, drink. This is my blood that was shed for you." But I am wondering today if we are missing the real impact of this concept. We humans are given to bloodlust, unless the person being killed or injured is someone we care about. Those of us who were sickened by the forced starvation of Terri Schiavo could very easily turn around and cheer wildly should we be given the opportunity to watch a gruesome execution of someone like Mohammed al-Zarqawi. With Jesus, I think we all must come to the realization that our sinfulness, particularly prior to having an encounter with the Living Christ, puts in the same class as the people who couldn't get enough of witnessing His suffering during the Passion.
Without Christ, I am little better than an animal, and I have fed my bloodlust carnivorously on His Willing Body, tearing at His flesh in my rage and lapping up His blood for my pleasure. But my savagery was the opportunity for my restoration when I came to my senses and saw my guilt contrasted with His love for me despite my abuse of Him.
From now on, when I received the sacraments in Communion, I will not only remember His suffering and sacrifice on my behalf, but also how much I was/am responsible for that suffering.
- posted by The Drake @ 8:26 AM
Comments:
<< Home
I am in no way trying to bait you or cause an argument, but if the bread is simply a symbol, and no real transformation has taken place, then why bother? We Catholics figure that if Jesus said, "This is my body," then that's what he meant. We assume Christ wasn't speaking in riddles at such an important time. Personally, I'll take his word for it.
It always strikes me as funny that fundamentalists who believe that God created the world in six days, and that the Red Sea actually parted a al Charlton Heston, think Christ himself was just fooling around.
As for Mary, I would be very interested to hear what "dangers" ensue from elevating her as Catholics do. Naturally, as a lifelong Catholic, I don't take particularly kindly to the words "total crap" being used in conjunction with her.
Now, don't get me wrong. I am FAR from a Catholic apologeticist, but you Protestants are always dredging up the same old stuff.
So, I'll be off to pray a Rosary (never did me any harm) and do some good works. If I want to be saved, I can't just sit around and say I am. I've gotta earn it.
It always strikes me as funny that fundamentalists who believe that God created the world in six days, and that the Red Sea actually parted a al Charlton Heston, think Christ himself was just fooling around.
As for Mary, I would be very interested to hear what "dangers" ensue from elevating her as Catholics do. Naturally, as a lifelong Catholic, I don't take particularly kindly to the words "total crap" being used in conjunction with her.
Now, don't get me wrong. I am FAR from a Catholic apologeticist, but you Protestants are always dredging up the same old stuff.
So, I'll be off to pray a Rosary (never did me any harm) and do some good works. If I want to be saved, I can't just sit around and say I am. I've gotta earn it.
Hmmmm.... Making me put on my theology cap very early in the morning.
First, for clarity's sake, please note that I am not a fundamentalist, but rather an evangelical. Check out http://www.ukapologetics.net/evangelicalism.html for a broader understanding of the differences. For purposes of our discussion, however, the key difference is that of biblical literalism. The evangelical approach, going back to the Reformation is to hold to the inerrancy of the Word of God, but to recognize that there are several literary genres encompassed in the 66 books of the Canon. Furthermore, the teaching style of Jesus, as detailed in the Gospels, is rarely literal.
Finally, in the context of the Last Supper, how is one to take the phrase "This is my body" literally? Jesus was standing right there, physically whole, talking about a piece of bread. Far from thinking that Jesus was 'just fooling around', evangelicals take the sacrament of communion very seriously. However, the notion that the elements are 'literally' transformed into the meat off Jesus' bones and His real, shed blood is just not reality. I don't taste salt or chew on tendon, i taste sweet shortbread and grape juice. In fact, the argument can easily be made that all sacraments are physical symbols of spiritual realities. Baptism representing the new birth, and marriage pointing to the perfect union of Christ and His bride, the Church, at the end of the Age.
The dangers of the elevation of Mary are pretty much summed up in the practice of praying the Rosary. You say 13 Hail Marys, and a total of 6 other prayers. Now, I'm not a Catholic, never have been, but my research shows that after the Rosary, you are instructed to say the following:
"HAIL, HOLY QUEEN, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve; to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, and after this our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary!"
Holy Queen? Our life, our sweetness, our HOPE? I THINK NOT.
This my friend, is blasphemy. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Our only hope is in His atoning death for our sins and His resurrection for our eternal life.
Which leads me to my last point. The last sentence of your comment says, "I've gotta earn it.", referring to your salvation, judging from the preceding lines. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ephesians 2:8,9 says, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–not by works, so that no one can boast."
Now James 2 presents the other side of this argument, in that your faith is displayed by your works. Our works are evidence of our faith, not the cause of it.
Let me conclude by saying that while I disagree with many practices and teachings of the Catholic Church, I believe that it still holds to the essential doctrines of the Faith. However, the extra-biblical teachings of the Popes and priesthood throughout history have created a dependency and biblical ignorance among the laity. This is what prompted Martin Luther to nail his 95 Theses to the Wittenburg Door. So when you say that we Protestants continue to dredge up the same old things, you are right. Since the 'Mother' Church has not reformed itself, these issues will continue to be contentious. I also believe that the Catholic Church has a lot to offer in many of its traditions.
I could go on and on, but these discussions are best had over a few beers with a commitment to love one another as Christ commanded us.
First, for clarity's sake, please note that I am not a fundamentalist, but rather an evangelical. Check out http://www.ukapologetics.net/evangelicalism.html for a broader understanding of the differences. For purposes of our discussion, however, the key difference is that of biblical literalism. The evangelical approach, going back to the Reformation is to hold to the inerrancy of the Word of God, but to recognize that there are several literary genres encompassed in the 66 books of the Canon. Furthermore, the teaching style of Jesus, as detailed in the Gospels, is rarely literal.
Finally, in the context of the Last Supper, how is one to take the phrase "This is my body" literally? Jesus was standing right there, physically whole, talking about a piece of bread. Far from thinking that Jesus was 'just fooling around', evangelicals take the sacrament of communion very seriously. However, the notion that the elements are 'literally' transformed into the meat off Jesus' bones and His real, shed blood is just not reality. I don't taste salt or chew on tendon, i taste sweet shortbread and grape juice. In fact, the argument can easily be made that all sacraments are physical symbols of spiritual realities. Baptism representing the new birth, and marriage pointing to the perfect union of Christ and His bride, the Church, at the end of the Age.
The dangers of the elevation of Mary are pretty much summed up in the practice of praying the Rosary. You say 13 Hail Marys, and a total of 6 other prayers. Now, I'm not a Catholic, never have been, but my research shows that after the Rosary, you are instructed to say the following:
"HAIL, HOLY QUEEN, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve; to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. Turn then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, and after this our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary!"
Holy Queen? Our life, our sweetness, our HOPE? I THINK NOT.
This my friend, is blasphemy. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Our only hope is in His atoning death for our sins and His resurrection for our eternal life.
Which leads me to my last point. The last sentence of your comment says, "I've gotta earn it.", referring to your salvation, judging from the preceding lines. Nothing could be further from the truth. Ephesians 2:8,9 says, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God–not by works, so that no one can boast."
Now James 2 presents the other side of this argument, in that your faith is displayed by your works. Our works are evidence of our faith, not the cause of it.
Let me conclude by saying that while I disagree with many practices and teachings of the Catholic Church, I believe that it still holds to the essential doctrines of the Faith. However, the extra-biblical teachings of the Popes and priesthood throughout history have created a dependency and biblical ignorance among the laity. This is what prompted Martin Luther to nail his 95 Theses to the Wittenburg Door. So when you say that we Protestants continue to dredge up the same old things, you are right. Since the 'Mother' Church has not reformed itself, these issues will continue to be contentious. I also believe that the Catholic Church has a lot to offer in many of its traditions.
I could go on and on, but these discussions are best had over a few beers with a commitment to love one another as Christ commanded us.
For the record, I did not think that you were a fundamentalist. I just tossed that out there because it went through my head. I'm a stream-of-consiousness-type apologeticist.
Now, you said:
"I don't taste salt or chew on tendon, i taste sweet shortbread and grape juice."
I hate to wax juvenile, but so what? Isn't believing what one cannot see (or taste) the very definition of faith? I've never seen anybody raise from the dead after three days, either. Frankly, it sounds preposterous. There is no physical evidence to suggest this is possible.
I'm not going to get into the Mary discussion right now, because I have to get out the door. But I'll be back, buster. Nobody calls me a heretic and escapes long commentary. ;-)
Now, you said:
"I don't taste salt or chew on tendon, i taste sweet shortbread and grape juice."
I hate to wax juvenile, but so what? Isn't believing what one cannot see (or taste) the very definition of faith? I've never seen anybody raise from the dead after three days, either. Frankly, it sounds preposterous. There is no physical evidence to suggest this is possible.
I'm not going to get into the Mary discussion right now, because I have to get out the door. But I'll be back, buster. Nobody calls me a heretic and escapes long commentary. ;-)
OK, i eagerly await my comeuppance.
Also just for the record, I didn't call you a heretic. Not to split hairs, but I am saying that the belief that Mary as "our life" or "our hope" IS heretical. Those designations belong to God/Jesus alone.
I can see your point about faith, and I believe that you are essentially right in your definition. My only caveat to that is that faith in something that is not clearly discernible from Scripture may be something else entirely.
We believed in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny when we were little because our parents were our ultimate source of authority, and they told us that they were real.
Much the same dynamic occurs, not only in the Catholic Church, but in any religious setting where we assume the infallibility of any human without checking the Book.
Ultimately, God gives us the responsibility for knowing what He says on any given subject, because we all (well, most of us) can read and think for ourselves. Plus, we have the promise of the Holy Spirit to guide us in our understanding, if we will let Him. But the Bible is the only source of authority I will acknowledge in this or any debate regarding things spiritual.
Also just for the record, I didn't call you a heretic. Not to split hairs, but I am saying that the belief that Mary as "our life" or "our hope" IS heretical. Those designations belong to God/Jesus alone.
I can see your point about faith, and I believe that you are essentially right in your definition. My only caveat to that is that faith in something that is not clearly discernible from Scripture may be something else entirely.
We believed in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny when we were little because our parents were our ultimate source of authority, and they told us that they were real.
Much the same dynamic occurs, not only in the Catholic Church, but in any religious setting where we assume the infallibility of any human without checking the Book.
Ultimately, God gives us the responsibility for knowing what He says on any given subject, because we all (well, most of us) can read and think for ourselves. Plus, we have the promise of the Holy Spirit to guide us in our understanding, if we will let Him. But the Bible is the only source of authority I will acknowledge in this or any debate regarding things spiritual.
I ease into this debate ...
"if the bread is simply a symbol, and no real transformation has taken place, then why bother?"
It's a request:
Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1 Corinthians 11:24-25 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
It is a symbol or an emblem. It represents the real thing - it isn't in essence the real thing.
The Scriptures are full of this type of language.
Along the same lines:
1 Corinthians 10
1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Is Christ a rock? a stone? No. Much the same as the offten mis interpreted:
Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Was Peter a rock? No. He was being referred to as a part of a larger stone. Peter himself completes the thought by demonstrating his own understanding of what the Lord was alluding to:
1 Peter 2:4-6
4To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
Many living stones in one building - the Church of God; the body of Christ.
"if the bread is simply a symbol, and no real transformation has taken place, then why bother?"
It's a request:
Luke 22:19 And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1 Corinthians 11:24-25 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
It is a symbol or an emblem. It represents the real thing - it isn't in essence the real thing.
The Scriptures are full of this type of language.
Along the same lines:
1 Corinthians 10
1Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Is Christ a rock? a stone? No. Much the same as the offten mis interpreted:
Matthew 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Was Peter a rock? No. He was being referred to as a part of a larger stone. Peter himself completes the thought by demonstrating his own understanding of what the Lord was alluding to:
1 Peter 2:4-6
4To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
Many living stones in one building - the Church of God; the body of Christ.
Good points all, Thomas.
I'd suggest one small tweak in the Peter as a rock symbolism, since this verse in one which most Catholics use to justify the establishment of the papal office with Peter as the first Pope.
The full context of the comment begins when Jesus asks the disciples who people are saying that he is. When hearing the various answers (Elijah, John the Baptist, Jeremiah or one of the prophets), Jesus asks "Who do you say I am?", to which Peter replies, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God."
Jesus then makes his comment, "You are Peter and on this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it."
There is great debate among scholars about whether the Rock means Peter, the work of Christ Himself, or Peter's confession that Jesus was, in fact, the Christ.
I say, why not accept all three? God and Jesus are often identified with a large, secure, stable Rock throughout Scripture, as you have pointed out. The word Peter in Greek, petros, means 'stone', a form of Rock, but not implying the massiveness we associate with the God symbols. And the confession of Peter, combined with His passion, zeal, impulsiveness and devotion to Jesus can very easily be seen as a 'rock' solid basis from which to launch the faith that would change the world.
I believe that if accept all of these interpretations as valid renderings in the full context of the passage and the usage of Rock / Stone / Cornerstone / Foundation symbolism throughout Scripture, what we come up with is a balanced and righteous view of Peter's role in the establishment of Christianity as a world faith.
There is no doubt that Peter is very important in the story, but like Mary, it is a mistake to ascribe to him characteristics such as infallibility and ascension into a role elevated above those of the other Apostles. The Bible simply doesn't support such a leap based on this passage, or any other involving Peter.
Again, the Bible is my ONLY source of authority on this subject.
I'd suggest one small tweak in the Peter as a rock symbolism, since this verse in one which most Catholics use to justify the establishment of the papal office with Peter as the first Pope.
The full context of the comment begins when Jesus asks the disciples who people are saying that he is. When hearing the various answers (Elijah, John the Baptist, Jeremiah or one of the prophets), Jesus asks "Who do you say I am?", to which Peter replies, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God."
Jesus then makes his comment, "You are Peter and on this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it."
There is great debate among scholars about whether the Rock means Peter, the work of Christ Himself, or Peter's confession that Jesus was, in fact, the Christ.
I say, why not accept all three? God and Jesus are often identified with a large, secure, stable Rock throughout Scripture, as you have pointed out. The word Peter in Greek, petros, means 'stone', a form of Rock, but not implying the massiveness we associate with the God symbols. And the confession of Peter, combined with His passion, zeal, impulsiveness and devotion to Jesus can very easily be seen as a 'rock' solid basis from which to launch the faith that would change the world.
I believe that if accept all of these interpretations as valid renderings in the full context of the passage and the usage of Rock / Stone / Cornerstone / Foundation symbolism throughout Scripture, what we come up with is a balanced and righteous view of Peter's role in the establishment of Christianity as a world faith.
There is no doubt that Peter is very important in the story, but like Mary, it is a mistake to ascribe to him characteristics such as infallibility and ascension into a role elevated above those of the other Apostles. The Bible simply doesn't support such a leap based on this passage, or any other involving Peter.
Again, the Bible is my ONLY source of authority on this subject.
No complaint from me. Thank you for taking the passage 'the extra mile'.
Scripture can have many applications but only one interpretation. If the interpretation militates against the rest of Scripture then it is wrong.
2 Peter 1:19-21 (Darby Translation)
19And we have the prophetic word [made] surer, to which ye do well taking heed (as to a lamp shining in an obscure place) until [the] day dawn and [the] morning star arise in your hearts;
20knowing this first, that [the scope of] no prophecy of scripture is had from its own particular interpretation,
21for prophecy was not ever uttered by [the] will of man, but holy men of God spake under the power of [the] Holy Spirit.
But we are digressing ...
Scripture can have many applications but only one interpretation. If the interpretation militates against the rest of Scripture then it is wrong.
2 Peter 1:19-21 (Darby Translation)
19And we have the prophetic word [made] surer, to which ye do well taking heed (as to a lamp shining in an obscure place) until [the] day dawn and [the] morning star arise in your hearts;
20knowing this first, that [the scope of] no prophecy of scripture is had from its own particular interpretation,
21for prophecy was not ever uttered by [the] will of man, but holy men of God spake under the power of [the] Holy Spirit.
But we are digressing ...
"So, I'll be off to pray a Rosary (never did me any harm) and do some good works. If I want to be saved, I can't just sit around and say I am. I've gotta earn it."
I begrudge you not for prayer, some amount of rite/tradition and good works. What I do take exception to is the thought that the work of Christ isn't enough to secure a "place in the Father's House".
If you can show from Scripture that our works are required then I shall most happily and assuredly join you.
I begrudge you not for prayer, some amount of rite/tradition and good works. What I do take exception to is the thought that the work of Christ isn't enough to secure a "place in the Father's House".
If you can show from Scripture that our works are required then I shall most happily and assuredly join you.
"If you can show from Scripture that our works are required then I shall most happily and assuredly join you."
Ah, this brings us to my my very favorite quality of the fundamentalist/evangelical thang.
"We're saved."
And so, if you want to find a Southern Baptist on a Saturday night, find a bar or pool hall.
And the SBs aren't unique, by any means.
I believe the words were "Then go forth, and sin no more."
The idea of spreading kindness and light wherever you go is sort of implied. As is avoiding the bars and pool halls . . .
Ah, this brings us to my my very favorite quality of the fundamentalist/evangelical thang.
"We're saved."
And so, if you want to find a Southern Baptist on a Saturday night, find a bar or pool hall.
And the SBs aren't unique, by any means.
I believe the words were "Then go forth, and sin no more."
The idea of spreading kindness and light wherever you go is sort of implied. As is avoiding the bars and pool halls . . .
# posted by 
: 4/14/2005 06:49:00 PM
: 4/14/2005 06:49:00 PM
"...fundamentalist/evangelical thang ..." - I'm neither.
"And so, if you want to find a Southern Baptist on a Saturday night, find a bar or pool hall.
And the SBs aren't unique, by any means.
I believe the words were "Then go forth, and sin no more."
The idea of spreading kindness and light wherever you go is sort of implied. As is avoiding the bars and pool halls . . . " - what's your point?
"And so, if you want to find a Southern Baptist on a Saturday night, find a bar or pool hall.
And the SBs aren't unique, by any means.
I believe the words were "Then go forth, and sin no more."
The idea of spreading kindness and light wherever you go is sort of implied. As is avoiding the bars and pool halls . . . " - what's your point?
Anonymous,
I believe that you are attempting to quote Jesus' words to the woman caught in adultery after He challenged the Pharisees by saying, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Then, after they left, He asked her if there was anyone left to condemn her. When she said no, He replied, "Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more."
Context is everything, if you want to go around tossing Bible quotes to make a point. However unclear.
Post a Comment
I believe that you are attempting to quote Jesus' words to the woman caught in adultery after He challenged the Pharisees by saying, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Then, after they left, He asked her if there was anyone left to condemn her. When she said no, He replied, "Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more."
Context is everything, if you want to go around tossing Bible quotes to make a point. However unclear.
<< Home
