145 replies to this topic

[KnightOfArmenia]

Well, his crucification is an article of faith; God decreed that he HAD to die on the cross, in order to suffer for the sins of Man and redeem us.

But the way that America-Hye crystalizes his own views as the "right" one and scoffs other views is just incredible.

[axel]

But I don't see what is wrong with that. If somebody chooses to worship God in this way, why should someone else attack him. Is it a sin? Does Christ ever say it is wrong? I am surprised that Jews didn't criticize Judaizers since they never accepted Christ

He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth. (Luke 11,23)

Sasun, I know you are a well-intentioned person and I appreciate you a lot but there are elements of christianism you seem to ignore and tend to replace by your own sentimental judgements (I am not sure "sentimental" is the correct english word but I guess you understand my point) . Some of your syncretic views on religion, such as considering Christ as a man, not as God-man (if I recall what you wrote some time ago) are unacceptable from the christian standpoint. The latter is actually known as Arius' heresy which has vigorously been condemned for it reduces christianism to a simple humanistic philosophy (which it is not)

[axel]

Judaization is an attempt to destroy Christianism. As such, it is not surprising that judaizers are not criticized by jews (By jews here, I mean the followers of the jewish faith not ethnic jews for there are obviously ethnic jews who are christian and not judaizers)

[Rousas]

AMERICAN-HYE, you said:

Rev. Rushdoony's grandson clearly stated in this thread that killing is not necessarily murder. This can be understood in time of war or if one commits a murder. But these preachers are espousing the right of people to go out on our streets and murder those whom they dislike.

This is a blatant lie. I never said this. My grandfather never said that the people have a right to go into the streets and murder those whom they dislike. Nothing further could be from the truth. Capital punishment is a matter of the court, utilizing Biblical law justly and rightly. He and I never said to form a mob and kill people we disagree with. That is a down-right LIE!
You also told someone the following in a vain attempt to defend your statement:

I will try to find Rushdoony's exact quotes. Obviously, you do not know of his Chalcedon Foundation.

You will TRY indeed, and find nothing. Simply because the man never said anything that would give people the idea that the Bible allows them to... "Go out into the streets and kill or maim any who do not agree with you." Either you cannot understand what you read or you have never read that which you pretend to know. I will remind you that a godly man would keep silent about such things of which he does not know.
It is statements such as the ones you have made that malign one of the most godly men I have ever had the pleasure of knowing, without any documentation backing up such spiteful words. Most likely someone whom you admire has said such things and you continue to spread lies and gossip about a man whom you have never known and of whose books you have never read. I think I am quite accurate in saying that everything you have posted concerning Rushdoony on this website is completely fabricated. I ask you in all fairness, why? Why would you tell people that he said things of which he did not speak nor write?

SASUN,
I am truly sorry that I have not replied to your request, as yet. I will do so this afternoon, when I have more time to be thorough in my response.

[Stormig]

one advice Stormy, educate yourself before making judgements. or are you just acting out of bad faith?

http://www.chrysostom.org/jews.html

What is unfortunate is that this misuse of the saint's words is based significantly on a mistranslation of the title of the sermons, translated as Against the Jews, rather than Against the Judaizers, which is the rendering the most up to date translations are now using.

OK. Here's the "correct" translation - does it make sense to you or seem normal in any way?

"How dare Christians have the slightest intercourse with Judaizers! They [Judaizers] are lustful, rapacious, greedy, perfidious bandits: pests of the universe! Their [Judaizers'] synagogue is a house of prostitution, the domicile of the devil, as is the soul of the Judaizer. As a matter of fact, Judaizers worship the devil; their [Judaizers'] religion is a disease, their [Judaizers'] synagogue a an abyss of perdition. The rejection and dispersion of the Judaizers was done by the wrath of God because of His absolute abandonment of the Judaizers. God HATES the Judaizers, and on Judgement Day will say with those who sympathize with them [Judaizers]: "Depart from Me, for you have had intercourse with my murderers [Judaizers]!" Flee, then, from their [Judaizers] assemblies, fly from their [Judaizers'] houses, and hold their [Judaizers'] synagogue in hatred and aversion."

[axel]

"Calling any Church Father anti-Semitic on the basis of ostensibly denigrating references to Jews, therefore, is to fall to intellectual and historiographical simple-mindedness. Applying modern sensitivities and terms regarding race to ancient times, as though there were a direct parallel between modern and ancient circumstances, is inane. This abuse of history is usually advocated by unthinking observers who simply cannot function outside the cognitive dimensions of modernity"

source: http://www.orthodoxi...ntisemitism.htm

[axel]

from the same source:

"I would avoid people who like to dismiss the Patristic witness because of flaws in the character of the Fathers, whether real or imagined. I befriended at Princeton a brilliant philosopher (Rose Rand), then an old woman, who was one of Wittgenstein's few female students. She was a rabid anti-Semite. But this did not make her philosophy inadequate. It did not invalidate her brilliant insight into some very intricate theories about human thought and language. The same could be said of the Fathers. If perchance some were anti-Semitic (and again, to say this unreservedly and without a clear definition of terms is to nullify the meaning of intellectual history and to use language wrongly), does this mean that the Truth which they taught was tainted by their anti-Semitism? I think not. To say so is, again, simple-mindedness and ultimately constitutes an anti-intellectual stand. And anti-intellectualism, despite its moldy and revolting presence in some Orthodox circles, is inimical to the Patristic spirit.

The matter at hand is, once more, complex. It should not be discussed with people who lack an appreciation for that intelligent shade of gray that lies between the antipodes of white naivete and lack ignorance. As a case in point, Dr. Rand, my aformentioned, virulently anti-Semitic friend, was a Polish Jew!"

[America-Hye]

My reply. Here is one article to read. I will post others:

http://reason.com/9811/col.olson.shtml

[America-Hye]

Here is another article. Scroll down to the sections commenting on Rushdoony and the Chalcedon Foundation.

http://newark.rutger...rew/joy122.html

[America-Hye]

I guess that Rushdoony ONLY preached that the courts should have the right to put certain classes of individuals to death. However, the climate he created gives mentally ill persons the moral right to take the law into their own hands.

I had not been involved in homosexual practices in 20 years. I had been married, owned a home with my ex-wife and was dating a number of women. My competitors at work, knowing that I was held in high regard by my supervisors dug out old stuff from 20 years previous. A mentally compromised individual proceeded to poison me by tainting my lunch in an office refrigerator, thinking that he was doing the work of God. Part of this was that he also despised Armenians. This information gave him the justification to do what he did.

[Sasun]

He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth. (Luke 11,23)

Sasun, I know you are a well-intentioned person and I appreciate you a lot but there are elements of christianism you seem to ignore and tend to replace by your own sentimental judgements (I am not sure "sentimental" is the correct english word but I guess you understand my point) . Some of your syncretic views on religion, such as considering Christ as a man, not as God-man (if I recall what you wrote some time ago) are unacceptable from the christian standpoint. The latter is actually known as Arius' heresy which has vigorously been condemned for it reduces christianism to a simple humanistic philosophy (which it is not)

Axel, I am not sure what I have said in the past to lead to this misunderstanding Jesus Christ is the Supreme Lord of the universe and a man at the same time. He is not an ordirnary man, and his teachings are not a mere humanistic philosophy. On the other hand, Christ serves the humankind, in that sense he is the greatest humanist.

As to the quote, it is very true. One can be either with God or against God, there is no other position. And that is the point that Jesus makes. Also, that one should always stay with God to be permanently rid of evil. Many people think that there can be a neutral position also, but that is only a self-deception.
However, to be with God means different things to different people. There is no perfect and single correct paradigm of worship of God. Worship is a very private feeling and has a unique form with any given individual according to his inner culture. Therefore people should be let freely choose the way they feel right. That is why there are so many different religions, branches in religions, theological variations, sects, etc. It is quite possible that a person who belongs to a non Christian religion is in fact closer to Christ than the pope himself. It is not about the forms and names but the spirit and the deep understanding of God. So if I have feelings towards other religions that doesn't mean I am not with Christ. When it comes to religion and spirituality, in my understanding the heart is the most important guide. My heart tells me that if I accept Christ I cannot reject Rama, Krishna and Buddha. Deep down their teachings are about the same unique and highest Truth. Only they have different names and forms.

As to Judaizers, I honestly don't know what they did to earn such mistrust from Christians. Perhaps some of them had clandestine activities, but more likely not. If their only "sin" was that they soulfully prayed both in the church and synagogue then I think they were unfairly judged.

If you want we can discuss more in the religion thread. Actually such topics interest me more than others But don't expect me to know all religious figures and dogmas in Christianity.

[KnightOfArmenia]

Reason.com is rather leftist (not liberal; far leftists are against religion for the most part); I'm not surprised someone there speaks against the religious right (that is like being shocked that a turk says the Genocide never happened). Even ignoring that, it gives a single person's account of a piece written by followers of Falwell about a piece written by Rushdoony; that makes it, what, a 4th person account? That's still not a direct quote.

And back to my original point; just because a religion does not look favorably upon YOU or YOUR lifestyle does NOT make it wrong. To think that anything YOU don't agree with is automatically incorrect is a very egotistical idea.

[axel]

Sasun, some of Buddha, Krishna...'s teachings may not contradict Christianism. I am to ignorant of these to express an opinion but things like reincarnation are not acceptable. And why would we need them when we have Christ? There is a lot to explore in christianism itself and there are a lot of fascinating christian authors such as Dostoevsky among others (Have you read "The brothers Karamazov"?).

Judaization as its name implies is an attempt to judaize (transform as the -ize implies) christians. if you agree to this "He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.", then it follows that post-christian judaism is against Christ. So judaizers following the teachings in the synagogue (not praying) are serving the anti-christian spirit. One cannot serve two opposite spirits at the same time.

[axel]

Sasun, I found the quote I was referring to and that is unacceptable from the christian standpoint in your Sri Chinmoy thread:

But if somebody says that he is the Saviour, the only Saviour, and that
Krishna, the Buddha and others are not Saviours, then unfortunately I
cannot agree, because I know these other great Masters as well as I
know the Christ. If we say that the Christ is the only chosen Son of
God, then we are limiting God. These other Masters did exist. These are
all God's chosen children of the highest order. They are brothers and
God, the Supreme, is their Father.

this is in complete contradiction with the Nicene creed:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, True God of True God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from the heavens, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man; And was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; And rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures; And ascended into the heavens, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father; And shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets; In One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I Confess one Baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the Resurrection of the dead, And the life of the age to come, Amen.

[Rousas]

SASUN, as you requested:

Below is taken from R.J. Rushdoony's book, The Institutes of Biblical Law, vol. I. I added in a few comments, and also added in some Biblical texts that were not in the specific section of the book which I copied this from but located elsewhere in the book. So this is not a word for word quote, but very close to it. Also, the emphasis is mine.

The laws concerning the death penalty can be briefly summarized:

Numbers 35:31: - Shall not be remitted.  {Given to Noah after the flood}
Genesis 9:5,6; Numbers 35:26-21, 30-33; Deuteronomy 17:6; Leviticus 24:17: - Inflicted for murder, but not for accidental killings.
Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:21-24: - For adultery.
Leviticus 20:11, 12, and 14: - For incest.
Exodus 22:19; Leviticus 20:15, 16: - For bestiality.
Leviticus 18:22; 20:13: - For sodomy or homosexuality.
Deuteronomy 22:20,21: - For unchastity.
Deuteronomy 22:25: - For rape of a betrothed virgin.
Deuteronomy 19:16-20: - For false witness in a case involving a capital offense.
Exodus 21:16: Deuteronomy 24:7: - Kidnapping.  {And enforced slavery}
Leviticus 21:9: - For a priest’s daughter who committed fornication.
Exodus 22:18: - For witchcraft.
Leviticus 20:2-5: - For offering human sacrifice.
Exodus 21:15, 17: Leviticus 20:9; Proverbs 20:20; Matthew 15:4; Mark 7:10: - For striking or cursing father or mother. (It should be noted that Christ condemned the scribes and Pharisees for setting aside this law.)
Deuteronomy 21:18-21: - For incorrigible delinquency or habitual criminality.
Leviticus 24:11-14, 16, 23: - For blasphemy.
Exodus 35:2; Numbers 15:32-36: - For sabbath desecration.
Deuteronomy 13:1-10: - For prophesying falsely, or propagating false doctrines.
Exodus 22:20: - For sacrificing to false gods.
Deuteronomy 17:12: - For lawless refusal to abide by godly law and order, anti-law, anti-court attitudes and actions, that is, refusing to abide by the court decision and thus denying the law.
Deuteronomy 13:9; 17:7: - Execution by the witnesses.
Numbers 15:35,36: Deuteronomy 13:9: - Execution by the congregation.
Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15: - Not inflicted on testimony of less than two witnesses.

At a few points the penalties were altered in the New Testament, but the basic principle of the death penalty was undergirded and set forth by Christ’s atoning death, which made clear that the penalty for man’s treason to God and departure from God’s law is death without remission.
        The blood of the altar and the fact of the altar are thus a declaration of the necessity of capital punishment.  To oppose capital punishment as prescribed by God’s law is thus to oppose the cross of Christ and to deny the validity of the altar.

As one can clearly see, there is a strong case for the death penalty on a strictly Biblical basis. And for those who think that God's law here is rather harsh, Solomon long ago wisely noted, that “the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel” (Proverbs 12:10).

AMERICANHYE,
As I suspected, you haven't read Rushdoony, but have read someone who claims that they have, and therefore have proclaimed the same judgment upon him without an reason or evidence for doing so. It is as if you have proclaimed Rushdoony's word as dung when you are in complete ignorance concerning his own statements and his life-long study concerning Biblical law. If you are angry with these laws, then your problem is with God's word, not R.J. Rushdoony.

[axel]

Rousas, I do not espouse the liberal views of Americ-Hye but, on the other hand, your cult seems to have more to do with orthodox judaism (with its emphasis on the letter of the old testament...) than with orthodox christianism. Where is Christ in all of this? I only see "biblical law" and a reduction of the Christian Faith to a legalistic concern.

[axel]

1 Corinthians 13

1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away.
9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part,
10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.
11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.
12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Edited by axel, 22 August 2003 - 06:45 AM.

[Sasun]

Sasun, I found the quote I was referring to and that is unacceptable from the christian standpoint in your Sri Chinmoy thread:

But if somebody says that he is the Saviour, the only Saviour, and that
Krishna, the Buddha and others are not Saviours, then unfortunately I
cannot agree, because I know these other great Masters as well as I
know the Christ. If we say that the Christ is the only chosen Son of
God, then we are limiting God. These other Masters did exist. These are
all God's chosen children of the highest order. They are brothers and
God, the Supreme, is their Father.

this is in complete contradiction with the Nicene creed:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, True God of True God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from the heavens, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man; And was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried; And rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures; And ascended into the heavens, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father; And shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceedeth from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, Who spake by the Prophets; In One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I Confess one Baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the Resurrection of the dead, And the life of the age to come, Amen.

Axel, I see your point. The Necene crede (which I didn't know by its name) is true for those who have not heard of other Masters. But think about this: what of those people who are born in a non-Christian religion, or those who lived before Christ's coming. They don't have Christ, how could they have Christ. So if you believe that God is all compassionate then he would not leave mankind without a Master. Krishna came long before Christ, and his message is absolutely as powerful and divine as the message of Christ. If you were familiar I don't think you would say otherwise. Some time ago I didn't know Krishna or others, and if somebody told me what I am telling now I would say that they are wrong and their Gods are false, etc. But God is such a thing that human mind can never comprehend fully. One should always keep an open mind. When Christ came in Israel and the Western world at the time, there where hardly anyone who were remotely aware of the Masters that came before Christ. Therefore, Christ was the only way at that time.

To me it sounds like this: Christ represents both a goal and a path. As a goal He is absolutely unique. As a path, He is not unique, there are other paths given by other Masters. But all paths lead to the same destination - God. There is only one Truth, but we all call and understand or misunderstand it differently.

About Judaizers, I am suspecting that they were called such by Christians because they were viewed as stealing believers from Christianity. But if they prayed in the church then how could that be? If this is not what was happening, then maybe they did something wrong.

You are right saying that Jews do not accept Christ. That is a limitation. But Jews accept Christ's Father. Both Christians and Jews worship the same one God although differently. So we as Christians would say, why are they accepting the Father but not his chosen Son? We find it wrong, or rather not wrong, just a limited vision. Now if you follow the same logic, I am asking you, if you accept the Father and Christ his Son, then why don't you accept His other sons, the brothers of Christ? This is all our differences.
Yes and one more difference, for me true Christianity is only what Christ has said. What others say in the Bible may or may not be true Christianity. And I consider strict religious doctrines as limiting and not useful for ones spiritual development.

About reincarnation, I think it makes a lot of sense. God who has infinite compasssion and grace would not just give one lifetime chance to be a good Christian worthy of Heaven. Or if you assume that one lifetime is enough to be a good Christian then your standards are extremely lenient compared to the standards that I understand.
It is true that Christ has never explicitly said there is reincarnation. But he didn't deny it either. It doesn't really matter, whether or not there is reincarnation Christ's teaching is the same, it doesn't change what is required from us.

You are asking if we have Christ then why do we need others? Then I will ask you if we have Christ why is he coming for the second time?

And by the way, I really liked your quote from Corinthians This makes me think that if you were familiar with other Masters teachings you would like them.

Edited by Sasun, 22 August 2003 - 04:03 PM.

[axel]

The Necene crede (which I didn't know by its name) is true for those who have not heard of other Masters.

I fundamentally disagree. Anyone who rejects the Nicene creed or minors its significance cannot call himself christian.

But think about this: what of those people who are born in a non-Christian religion, or those who lived before Christ's coming. They don't have Christ, how could they have Christ.

I will quote the russian theologian Khomiakov

"Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the fulness and completeness of the whole Church which the Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits; and (according to the words of Paul the Apostle, to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 5:12) does not judge the rest of mankind, and only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belonging to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind, whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the judgment of the great day. The Church on earth judges for herself only, according to the grace of the Spirit, and the freedom granted her through Christ, inviting also the rest of mankind to the unity and adoption of God in Christ; but upon those who do not hear her appeal she pronounces no sentence, knowing the command of her Savior and Head, "not to judge another man's servant" (Rom. 14.4). "

and I will add:

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. (John 3.8)

You are right saying that Jews do not accept Christ. That is a limitation. But Jews accept Christ's Father. Both Christians and Jews worship the same one God although differently.

The sad truth of non-christian judaism is atheism Sorry, I don't have the time nor the will to elaborate on this topic.

You are asking if we have Christ then why do we need others? Then I will ask you if we have Christ why is he coming for the second time?

To find the answer, you should spend time studying our religion instead of Sri Chinmoy

[KnightOfArmenia]

LOL axel. You said just about everything I was going to say.

That cut my responses short so... Here's a ninja!