That Koran-burning guy

I've beenwithout a PC for two days and just got up and running. Scanned the subjects and couldn't resist responding to this one.

Of the comments made, I mostlyl agree with Al.

Newsmen/women look for a story. The more controversial, the better it sells. How many news people do you know that take a moral stand on what they will report? My understanding is that their editor decides if the story gets published.

In my view, the pastor in Florida is following an adulterated philosophy of his religion. He's using an old-testament, not a new testament philosophy to promote christianity. The hate expressed in the old testament comes through loud and clear with many fundamentalists. Their crusade to convert is not filled with love, but with fear. The use of the name Jesus with a doctrine of hate is not christian.

I've often felt that a christian should use only the new testament. Those that live by the old testament should be called something else. Any ideas?

Good question, Abe. There is certainly an argument for the concept of the New replacing the Old, but there is another for taking the whole as an extended metaphor. Northrup Frye's The Great Code looks at the whole as literature. the main point here, I think, is that it should not be considered a "rule book," whether coming from Old or New.

The Old Testament is a big part of western religious history, and is valuable as a source of where we come from, and, today, the New Testament is a good 2000 years old, so can hardly be considered a "new" work. Read as literature, both testaments of the Bible offer a rich panorama of tales and accounts that include love stories, satire, and intrigue. The Old Testament is richer in that sense, and in any sense, how do we understand the New out of that context?

Again, the problem arises when either is reduced to a book of rules.

Ann

Ann.
You are correct in what you say, however there are those that say, "I believe in the Bible from cover to cover" and don't separate the two testaments.
It is taken as the "word of God" and it therefore becomes a rule book for many. That being the case, the rules as represented in the old testament conflict with those of the new, and that's the problem. The 'eye for an eye' concept is not the teachings of Christ.

In the last days, the Devil will go about like a roaring lion seeking whom he may destroy. It sure seems to be that way now.

[quote="LC"]

Al Stevens wrote:

Al Queda isn't responsible for the Sharia law practiced in Iran and Saudi where people are legally stoned to death or crippled in hospitals in the "eye for an eye" philosophy. And let's not forget "honor killings."

And the KKK isn't responsible for the executions annually of many prisoners by lethal injection and electric chair. Folks who think capital punishment in the US is not "eye-for-an-eye," are in denial. No purpose for it other than revenge is supported by facts.

LC wrote:

As for "Bush's holy war," the fact that some have applied that term to it -and repeat it incessantly- doesn't make it true.

And the fact that some have rigorously and incessanlty denied it doesn't make it untrue. Bush himself referred to it as a "crusade." Oh, yeah, I forgot. We had to eliminate Saddam's pesky WMDs.

Quote :

And the KKK isn't responsible for the executions annually of many prisoners by lethal injection and electric chair. Folks who think capital punishment in the US is not "eye-for-an-eye," are in denial. No purpose for it other than revenge is supported by facts.

Such people here are executed after a trial. The woman in the news was never even accused of killing her husband, much less tried for it. She was accused of adultery. If you can't see the difference here, there's truly no point in discussing it further.

You really miss Lin, don't you?

Al Stevens wrote:

You really miss Lin, don't you?

Not particularly.

Getting publicity is not always positive and requires a thick skin.

Based on current events, the planned burning of the Koran brought attention to a little known pastor in Florida. He is now world famous.

If one wanted to capitalize on this current event, one could stage a burning of the Old Testament with the justification that the Old Testament is used to justify acts of revenge and even going to war. It is a gospel of hate - an ‘eye for an eye’ concept. The New Testament is a gospel of Love, Peace and Tolerance. Unfortunately, by burning the Old Testament one is committing the evil one wants to eradicate. If notoriety is the objective, then a thick skin would be required to offset the ridicule that would result.

History is filled with famous people and many are those who have committed horrible acts. Hitler is famous. His Nazi party also burned books.

Abe F. March wrote:

You are correct in what you say, however there are those that say, "I believe in the Bible from cover to cover" and don't separate the two testaments.
It is taken as the "word of God" and it therefore becomes a rule book for many. That being the case, the rules as represented in the old testament conflict with those of the new, and that's the problem. The 'eye for an eye' concept is not the teachings of Christ.

Abe F. March wrote:

If one wanted to capitalize on this current event, one could stage a burning of the Old Testament with the justification that the Old Testament is used to justify acts of revenge and even going to war. It is a gospel of hate - an ‘eye for an eye’ concept. The New Testament is a gospel of Love, Peace and Tolerance. Unfortunately, by burning the Old Testament one is committing the evil one wants to eradicate.

History is filled with famous people and many are those who have committed horrible acts. Hitler is famous. His Nazi party also burned books.

There is more to the Old Testament than Leviticus and Deuteronomy, Abe. It is true that the message of Jesus was one of "Love, Peace and Tolerance," but there is more to the New Testament than that message. There is Paul's interpretation of the message, and there are the apocalyptic messages, in the gospels as well as in Revelation, and those dire messages are so burned into western thought that some radical Christians are ready to bring on the devastation in order to see it all played out. Some of them are willing to burn other holy books, like the Koran.

Jesus was a Jew, who said, among other things, "I came not to abolish the Law and the Prophets, but to complete."

Paul focused on the concept of salvation, in effect, limiting the original message to a "chosen few." How much of the evil in today's situation comes from that New Testament concept?

You can't separate the good from the evil in Judeo-Christianity by separating the testaments. The New is an outgrowth of the Old.

Ann

Jesus came amd showed us how to live. His was a life of healing and help to others. I feel we are safe if we follow His example.
He burned no books.

We are wasting everyone's time and energy hating other's religions. Jesus practiced love and tolerance.

Perhaps we should study and emulate His way of living and leave the judging to God.

The Iranians are sending lots of love and peace to the parents of the American imprisoned there (the one who was hiking the border). For a mere half-million, they'll release her from jail. lol

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100912/ts_alt_afp/iranushikers

It is hard to fathom a justice system so corrupt that they deal in bribery, yet that is the way a large portion of the world is run.

I wonder if this comes to play in high profile cases in America? OJ comes to mind.
How could anyone not have found him guilty?

alice wrote:

OJ comes to mind.
How could anyone not have found him guilty?

The jury didn't want him to be guilty from the git-go because they liked him. They liked his dream team. Lots of charisma and charm on that side of the room. They disliked the prosecutors and most of the prosecution witnesses. Mostly the cops. Lots of dark demeanor and corruption over there.

All of which nullified the jury.

Al,

You are so right!

Al Stevens wrote:

The jury didn't want him to be guilty from the git-go because they liked him.

Huh. Sounds like the "empathy factor" Obama wants on our courts.

What, I haven't heard about that?

LC wrote:

Al Stevens wrote:

The jury didn't want him to be guilty from the git-go because they liked him.

Huh. Sounds like the "empathy factor" Obama wants on our courts.

A president has no control over who is selected for jury duty.

Sure he does. He helps select the highest jury in the land. And his Sotomayor pick was all about "being empathatic."

The OJ jury empathized with him.

LC wrote:

Sure he does. He helps select the highest jury in the land. And his Sotomayor pick was all about "being empathatic."

The OJ jury empathized with him.

I suggest a course in Civics 101 in order to understand the difference between the bench and the jury box.

I get your point, but it is unrelated to the Simpson case.

No, you don't get my point. At all.

Do, too.

LC,

Anything to bash President Obama, your desperation is quite evident.

We get it!