[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Katie Hopkins: Laurence Fox and my beaver. NOT FOR THE WEAK Government Accidentally Reveals Someone Inside Twitter Fabricated 'Gotcha' Accounts To Frame Conservative Firebrand The Magna Carta Of 2022 – Worldwide Declaration of Freedom Hamas Accuses Trump Of A Set-Up In Doha, After 5 Leaders Killed In Israeli Strike Cash Jordan: Angry Voters Go “Shelter To Shelter”... EMPTYING 13 Migrant Hotels In 2 Hours Israel targets Hamas leadership in attack on Qatar’s Doha, group says no members killed Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said on Monday that villages in the Israeli-occupied West Bank should look like cities in Gaza FBI Arrests 22 Chinese, 4 Pharma Companies, Preventing Disaster That Could Kill 70 Million Americans 911 Make Believe New CLARITY Act Draft Could Shield Crypto Developers From Past Liability Chicago Builds a Wall To Protect Illegal ALiens From Ice Sens. Scott, Johnson Launch Investigation into Palisades Fire; Demand Newsom's Cooperation "Go Talk To Bill Gates About Me": How JP Morgan Enabled Jeffrey Epstein's Crimes, Snagged Netanyahu Meeting Cash Jordan: Looters EMPTY Chicago Mall... as Mayor's 'No Arrests' Policy BACKFIRES Caitlin Johnstone: They Just Bombed Greta Thunberg's Boat Democrats MELTDOWN Over RFK Jr. Bill Gates, Truth About Vaccines, & Big Pharma’s Plot to Destroy Doctors Who Question ”The Science” Supreme Court upholds 'roving patrols' for immigration stops in Los Angeles MN Gunman’s Pot Use Is Further Evidence Against Rescheduling Marijuana Intense Exercise is Best New Cars Are George Orwell 1984 Compliant PEGASUS EVENT 201 Over Half Of Berlin's New Police Recruits Can't Speak Basic German, Officials Admit Thomas Massie NAMES Epstein as a CIA and Israeli Asset How Chickens See the World (Its CRAZIER Than You Think) You remember TommyTheMadArtist? Joe Rogan on the Belgian Malinois Democrat New Mexico Governor Admits National Guard Making Progress In High-Crime Albuquerque Florida banning vaccine mandates To Prevent Strokes, Take Potassium.

Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: 45,000-member evangelical group breaks ranks with Bush administration on torture
Source: Raw Story
URL Source: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/45000 ... l_group_breaks_ranks_0314.html
Published: Mar 14, 2007
Author: Raw Story
Post Date: 2007-03-14 18:42:23 by Zipporah
Keywords: None
Views: 1050
Comments: 28

The National Association of Evangelicals, representing roughly 45,000 churches across the U.S. endorsed on Tuesday a declaration against torture put together by Evangelicals for Human Rights – an organization of 17 evangelical scholars – in a striking break from the Bush Administration's policy.

"Tragically, documented cases of torture and inhumane and cruel behaviour have occurred at various sites in the war on terror, and current law opens procedural loopholes for more to continue," the evangelicals' statement declares.

"There is a perception out there in the Middle East that we're willing to accept any action in order to fight this war against terrorism," the NAE's Rev. Rich Cizik told AP. "We are the conservatives – let there be no mistake on that – who wholeheartedly support the war against terror, but that does not mean by any means necessary."

"As American Christians, we are above all motivated by a desire that our nation's actions would be consistent with foundational Christian moral norms," the document adds. "We believe that a scrupulous commitment to human rights, among which is the right not to be tortured, is one of these Christian moral convictions."

Their full statement follows.

#

1. Introduction: From a Christian perspective, every human life is sacred. As evangelical Christians, recognition of this transcendent moral dignity is non-negotiable in every area of life, including our assessment of public policies. This commitment has been tested in the war on terror, as a public debate has occurred over the moral legitimacy of torture and of cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees held by our nation in the current conflict. We write this declaration to affirm our support for detainee human rights and our opposition to any resort to torture.

2. Sanctity of Life: We ground our commitment to human rights in the core Christian theological conviction that each and every human life is sacred. This theme wends its way throughout the Scriptures: in Creation, Law, the Incarnation, Jesus' teaching and ministry, the Cross, and his Resurrection. Concern for the sanctity of life leads us to vigilant sensitivity to how human beings are treated and whether their God-given rights are being respected.

3. Human Rights: Human rights, which function to protect human dignity and the sanctity of life, cannot be cancelled and should not be overridden. Recognition of human rights creates obligations to act on behalf of others whose rights are being violated. Human rights place a shield around people who otherwise would find themselves at the mercy of those who are angry, aggrieved, or frightened. While human rights language can be misused, this demands its clarification rather than abandonment. Among the most significant human rights is the right to security of person, which includes the right not to be tortured.

4. Christian History and Human Rights: The concept of human rights is not a "secular" notion but instead finds expression in Christian sources long before the Enlightenment. More secularized versions of the human rights ethic which came to occupy such a large place in Western thought should be seen as derivative of earlier religious arguments. Twentieth century assaults on human rights by totalitarian states led to a renewal of "rights talk"after World War II. Most branches of the Christian tradition, including evangelicalism, now embrace a human rights ethic.

5. Ethical Implications: Everyone bears an obligation to act in ways that recognize human rights. This responsibility takes different forms at different levels. Churches must teach their members to think biblically about morally difficult and emotionally intense public issues such as this one. Our own government must honor its constitutional and moral responsibilities to respect and protect human rights. The United States historically has been a leader in supporting international human rights efforts, but our moral vision has blurred since 9/11. We need to regain our moral clarity.

6. Legal Structures: International law contains numerous clear and unequivocal bans on torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. These bans are wise and right and must be embraced without reservation once again by our own government. Likewise, United States law and military doctrine has banned the resort to torture and cruel and degrading treatment. Tragically, documented acts of torture and of inhumane and cruel behavior have occurred at various sites in the U.S. war on terror, and current law opens procedural loopholes for more to continue. We commend the Pentagon's revised Army Field Manual for clearly banning such acts, and urge that this ban extend to every sector of the United States government without exception, including our intelligence agencies.

7. Concluding Recommendations: The abominable acts of 9/11, along with the continuing threat of terrorist attacks, create profound security challenges. However, these challenges must be met within a moral and legal framework consistent with our values and laws, among which is a commitment to human rights that we as evangelicals share with many others. In this light, we renounce the resort to torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees, call for the extension of procedural protections and human rights to all detainees, seek clear government-wide embrace of the Geneva Conventions, including those articles banning torture and cruel treatment of prisoners, and urge the reversal of any U.S. government law, policy, or practice that violates the moral standards outlined in this declaration.

#

READ MORE HERE.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

#1. To: Zipporah (#0)

The concept of human rights is not a "secular" notion but instead finds expression in Christian sources long before the Enlightenment.

Indeed, the Christian concept of human rights found expression in such noble works such as Malleus Maleficarum, and in deeds such as the group massage of Hypatia, the disarmament of Camdessa, and the urban renewal of Ferento.

leveller  posted on  2007-03-14   19:02:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Malleus Maleficarum

yeah .. everything old is new again :P

Zipporah  posted on  2007-03-14   19:07:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

All christians should be against torture! Hello! Do they forget the little old word 'persecution' and what it entailed? Or not returning evil for evil?

rowdee  posted on  2007-03-14   19:11:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

All christians should be against torture! Hello! Do they forget the little old word 'persecution' and what it entailed? Or not returning evil for evil?

it's one thing I can never understand ..how those who call themselves Christian could possibly be in favor of such things.

Zipporah  posted on  2007-03-14   19:16:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Yes, the Malleus Maleficarum is a testament to the Christian concept of Human rights:

"And here, because of the great trouble caused by the stubborn silence of witches, there are several points which the Judge must notice, and these are dealt with under their several heads.

And the first is that he must not be too quick to subject a witch to examination, but must pay attention to certain signs which will follow. And he must not be too quick for this reason: unless God, through a holy Angel, compels the devil to withhold his help from the witch, she will be so insensible to the pains of torture that she will sooner be torn limb from limb than confess any of the truth.

But the torture is not to be neglected for this reason, for they are not all equally endowed with this power, and also the devil sometimes of his own will permits them to confess their crimes without being compelled by a holy Angel."

Malleus Maleficarum (1487), Part 3, Question XIII.

"SECONDLY, the Judge must take care to frame his sentence in the following manner. We, the Judge and assessors, having attended to and considered the details of the process enacted by us against you N. of such a place in such a Diocese, and having diligently examined the whole matter, find that your are equivocal in your admissions; as for example, when you say that you used such threats with no intention of doing an injury, but nevertheless there are various proofs which are sufficient warrant for exposing you to the question and torture. Wherefore, that the truth may be known from your own mouth, and that henceforth you may not offend the ears of the Judges, we declare, judge and sentence that on this present day at such an hour you be placed under the question and torture. This sentence was given, etc. . . . . While the officers are preparing for the questioning, let the accused be stripped; or if she is a woman, let her first be led to the penal cells and there stripped by honest women of good reputation. And the reason for this is that they should search for any instrument of witchcraft sewn into her clothes; for they often make such instruments, at the instruction of devils, out of the limbs of unbaptized children, the purpose being that those children should be deprived of the beatific vision. And when such instruments have been disposed of, the Judge shall use his own persuasions and those of other honest men zealous for the faith to induce her to confess the truth voluntarily; and if she will not, let him order the officers to bind her with cords, and apply her to some engine of torture; and then let them obey at once but not joyfully, rather appearing to be disturbed by their duty. Then let her be released again at someone's earnest request, and taken on one side, and let her again be persuaded; and in persuading her, let her be told that she can escape the death penalty. . . . . And while she is being questioned about each several point, let her be often and frequently exposed to torture, beginning with the more gentle of them; for the Judge should not be too hasty to proceed to the graver kind. And while this is being done, let the Notary write all down, how she is tortured and what questions are asked and how she answers.

And note that, if she confesses under torture, she should then be taken to another place and questioned anew, so that she does not confess only under the stress of torture."

Malleus Maleficarum (1487), Part 3, Question XIV.

"If he wishes to find out whether she is endowed with a witch's power of preserving silence, let him take note whether she is able to shed tears when standing in his presence, or when being tortured. For we are taught both by the words of worthy men of old and by our own experience that this is a most certain sign, and it has been found that even if she be urged and exhorted by solemn conjurations to shed tears, if she be a witch she will not be able to weep: although she will assume a tearful aspect and smear her cheeks and eyes with spittle to make it appear that she is weeping; wherefore she must be closely watched by the attendants.

In passing sentence the Judge or priest may use some such method as the following in conjuring her to true tears if she be innocent, or in restraining false tears. Let him place his hand on the head of the accused and say: I conjure you by the bitter tears shed on the Cross by our Saviour the Lord JESUS Christ for the salvation of the world, and by the burning tears poured in the evening hour over His wounds by the most glorious Virgin MARY, His Mother, and by all the tears which have been shed here in this world by the Saints and Elect of God, from whose eyes He has now wiped away all tears, that if you be innocent you do now shed tears, but if you be guilty that you shall by no means do so. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen.

And it is found by experience that the more they are conjured the less are they able to weep, however hard they may try to do so, or smear their cheeks with spittle. Nevertheless it is possible that afterwards, in the absence of the Judge and not at the time or in the place of torture, they may be able to weep in the presence of their gaolers. . . . . But let it not be thought that physical contact of the joints or limbs is the only thing to be guarded against; for sometimes, with God's permission, they are able with the help of the devil to bewitch the Judge by the mere sound of the words which they utter, especially at the time when they are exposed to torture. . . . .The third precaution to be observed in this tenth action is that the hair should be shaved from every part of her body. The reason for this is the same as that for stripping her of her clothes, which we have already mentioned; for in order to preserve their power of silence they are in the habit of hiding some superstitious object in their clothes or in their hair, or even in the most secret parts of the their bodies which must not be named. . . . . From this it may be seen what a Judge ought to do when such a case happens to him: namely, that he should rely upon the protection of God, and by the prayers and fasting of devout persons drive away this sort of devil's work from witches, in those cases where they cannot be made to confess under torture even after their clothes have been changed and all their hair has been shaved off and abraded.

Now in the parts of Germany such shaving, especially of the secret parts, is not generally considered delicate, and therefore we Inquisitors do not use it; but we cause the hair of their head to be cut off, and placing a morsel of Blessed Wax in a cup of Holy Water and invoking the most Holy Trinity, we give it them to drink three times on a fasting stomach, and by the grace of God we have by this means caused many to break their silence. But in other countries the Inquisitors order the witch to be shaved all over her body. And the Inquisitor of Como has informed us that last year, that is, in 1485, he ordered forty-one witches to be burned, after they had been shaved all over. And this was in the district and county of Burbia, commonly called Wormserbad, in the territory of the Archduke of Austria, towards Milan."

Malleus Maleficarum (1487), Part 3, Question XV.

leveller  posted on  2007-03-14   19:27:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

have you ever read the Fox's Book of Martyrs? This puts me in mind of that book.. sickening.

Zipporah  posted on  2007-03-14   19:37:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Fox's Book of Martyrs?

Half a dozen chapters of Foxe deal with Papal persecutions of heretics and Protestants. It's sobering stuff.

leveller  posted on  2007-03-14   19:57:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Makes one wonder if it wasnt used as a how to guide at Abu Ghraib..

Zipporah  posted on  2007-03-14   20:01:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

how to guide at Abu Ghraib..

Didn't we learn most of our aggressive interrogation techniques from the Koreans? I don't know, because I missed that civics class.

leveller  posted on  2007-03-14   20:06:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

can we hear an amen?

christine  posted on  2007-03-14   20:22:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

If the group represents 45,000 churches, that's a lot more then 45,000 members.

Katrina was America's Chernobyl.

aristeides  posted on  2007-03-14   22:08:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Well it's about time!

Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)

robin  posted on  2007-03-14   22:14:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

The National Association of Evangelicals, representing roughly 45,000 churches across the U.S. endorsed on Tuesday a declaration against torture put together by Evangelicals for Human Rights – an organization of 17 evangelical scholars – in a striking break from the Bush Administration's policy.

Frankly, we should be disgusted that mainstream Christian church leaders and scholars feel the need to issue formal declarations condemning torture. They had to think about this stance and then vote on it? Ughhh.

Burkeman1  posted on  2007-03-14   22:15:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

All christians should be against torture! Hello! Do they forget the little old word 'persecution' and what it entailed? Or not returning evil for evil?

it's one thing I can never understand ..how those who call themselves Christian could possibly be in favor of such things.

Christianity is paganism, and the vast majority of those that call themselves Christians know not who they worship.

The Creator need not to gain our approval. It works the other way around. There are many gods, and this fact escapes Christians. For some unexplainable reason, they cannot see that it would be Satan (or some other god) which would be the one to bestow "blessings" on them in order to deceive them.

For example, a friend of mine (who proudly claims to be Christian) just the other day was talking about his new boat (a very nice boat). He said "I feel fortunate and thank God for allowing me to be the keeper (or caretaker - I can't remember his exact word) of it." Which is the more likely scenario - that the Creator see fit to make sure he has this new boat, or that Satan does; and thereby gets the "praise" for it???

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Sounds to me like there's gonna be a lot of disappointed souls. The requirement is "doing the WILL of the Father". So what exactly IS the WILL of the Father??? It's just a guess, but could it be to follow His commandments, statutes, and judgments (in other words His Laws)? After all, He did say that 172 different times in Scripture - so I'm guessing it's rather important to Him.

And just exactly WHAT are His Laws? Well, at the time the Messiah spoke these words not one word of New Testament had been written - therefore the "Law" was what was contained in the Old Testament. The Messiah also said in Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Aren't the words in the Old Testament part of the words that proceeded out of the mouth of God? What is it about the word every that Christians don't understand? If they're that illiterate, there are dictionaries available which they could use to look up what the word means. Again, at the time the Messiah spoke these words, not one word of New Testament had been written. But Christians don't believe this. They believe the New Testament supersedes and abolishes Old Testament (even though they can find proof in the New Testament itself that they are wrong on this issue in Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Again, at the time this was spoken by the Messiah, the Law was what was written in Old Testament - and as I look around I see the earth, so I assume it has NOT yet passed, NOR has all in Scripture yet been fulfilled [all being another of those words which Christians don't seem to understand the meaning of]). That's why they have no problem with eating bacon for breakfast, although eating pig was the subject of one of those "Laws" and was strictly prohibited by the Creator. And why do they believe this? Because their god (Satan or whoever) has deceived them with "goodies" like new boats, and gotten them to follow the lie.

So it shouldn't be surprising in the least that Christians (in the generic sense of the word) would be in favor of such things.

No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer

innieway  posted on  2007-03-15   10:53:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Re the matter of eating bacon--IIRC, Peter was told in a vision that it was OK to eat everything; he objected on the basis of his being a kosher Jew; and was told God's Word was not to be triffled with (in so many words). This was just before he went to the home of Cornelius, when he and his household converted.

I further recall that the apostle Paul said all things were lawful, too.

I have friends who observed the abstaining from consuming hog meat. For some reason, Raul refused to believe what was given to Peter.

rowdee  posted on  2007-03-15   18:21:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Re the matter of eating bacon--IIRC, Peter was told in a vision that it was OK to eat everything; he objected on the basis of his being a kosher Jew; and was told God's Word was not to be triffled with (in so many words).

No, I'm afraid he wasn't.

You are referring to Acts Chapter 10. Starting with verse 13 we see: And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. 14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. 15 And the voice [spake] unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, [that] call not thou common.

Nowhere is it stated that swine had ever been cleansed. God had "cleansed" certain meats (cow, sheep, goat are some examples), and told us those we can eat. Others we were told not to eat as they were unclean to us (pig, rabbit, horse are some examples). Same is true of fish and fowl. Catfish and shrimp are "out", trout and tuna are "good". Owls and swans are "out", chicken and turkey are "in".

Furthermore, Peter's vision had nothing to do with a change in God's meat laws; (no matter how much anyone uses this particular incident as proof He did) it was concerning his dealings with people. We see this in verse 28: And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

This is but another example of people twisting Scripture to justify their beliefs or desires. It also flies in the face of the statement found in Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. People don't believe that either. The ONLY reason God would have to change the law concerning eating swine is if He made a mistake in the first place and saw the need to correct it - and THUS would NOT have been the same yesterday, today, and forever.

I further recall that the apostle Paul said all things were lawful, too.

Ludicrous. The quote I just gave of Hebrews 13:8 is from Paul. So is verse 9: Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines. Eating swine is a "diverse and strange doctrine".

HOWEVER, I'm sure you didn't mean ALL things were lawful, but were referring to the "food laws". Not that it matters, as Paul didn't declare that the food laws were "changed" either. I think you are referencing 1 Timothy 4:4 For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: (This is the "other" Scriptural reference which pork eaters use to justify their transgression of the law - otherwise known as sin) But once again, they are taking this out of context. What is the SUBJECT of Paul's discussion in 1 Timothy 4? He is talking about people departing from the faith and following seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils!!! 1 Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

Verse 4 is part of the "speaking of lies" and "doctrine of devils" of "seducing spirits" which we are warned against.... Paul had NO AUTHORITY to change God's laws, and NO INTENTION of doing so!!!!! Again, if God had changed His laws, he would NOT have been the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

I have friends who observed the abstaining from consuming hog meat. For some reason, Raul refused to believe what was given to Peter.

Good for Raul. He's NOT refusing to believe what was given to Peter, but rather knows that it was NOT given to Peter to eat pork.

I consider it TRIVIAL to try to make an argument from the writings of Paul or whoever OVER a statement by the Messiah Himself, and that statement I'm referring to is For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Of course most people know He was lying, and that they are correct in how they have it figured out)

I don't care if somebody wants to eat pork. I'm not here to tell anyone what to do, (but I will admit that the way I put things sometimes it comes across that way) I'm simply telling them what Scripture says. But I can kind of picture the conversation these folks will have with the Creator someday...
God: "So Joe, did you keep my commandments and abstain from eating pork?"
Joe: "No. The preacher said that Paul said it was OK."
God: "Well Joe, did you keep the Land Sabbaths?"
Joe: "The LAND SABBATHS??? What the hell is that?"
God: "Then I'm sure there no point in even asking if you wore mingled fabrics."
Joe: "Mingled fabrics? You mean like socks that are 96% cotton, 2% rayon, and 2% polyester? That was a LAW???"
Joe: "But LORD, I DID help out the neighbor when he needed it, and I DID always speak good things about you, and I DID rebuke the devil."

Somehow I don't think Joe is gonna have a very good argument. He won't have a leg to stand on, and will qualify as as one of those cited in Luke 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? and Matthew 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And he shouldn't be too surprised when the response he gets is I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. as we are told in Matthew 7:23 (by the Messiah Himself) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. exactly what He will say.

No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer

innieway  posted on  2007-03-17   10:24:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I wouldn't go so far as to say "Christianity is paganism', but I believe there are many who don't really understand who they worship, nor if they truly worship.

I agree it is we who need the Creator's approval, not He needing ours!

Rather than there being many gods, I would say there are many idols that mortals chase after, just as in olden days.

I believe that there will be many that think they are one of his, but who won't be.

While there were no New Testament writings when Christ was on this earth, He gave verbal commandments and instructions to follow. The Law couldn't save anyone; that is done by the grace of God through His Son's death and resurrection based on faith. And faith is more than just 'believing'--even Satan believed in Jesus Christ...that was why he was trying to get Him to give in to his desires out in the wilderness/desert.

I believe all Scripture is there for us to learn by or from, even if not directed to us, as christians, or outcalled ones, if you prefer, the Law.

I have a friend who told me several years ago not to bother with the Old Testament, that its just old history and stuff! I cringed, but being new in faith once again, I said nothing. If for no other reason, I should have said something along the lines, 'but history repeats itself'. And in the O.T., it certainly did--as witnessed by the cycle of repent, believe, stray, judgment, repent, believe, stray, judgment.

I think all too many believe seem to want to box God into a corner saying that 'He is love'. Sure He is love, but He is so much more. He's also a God of Wrath (yep, that's Biblical), but it is not all encompassing of what He is.

Re Matt 5:18, I believe that until Christ was crucified, buried, and risen, the Law was not abolished. But with those events occuring, grace has changed that. But the Law was never meant to save anyone.

I agree that not all Scripture has been fulfilled.

I've already touched on the hog/bacon.

EDIT: Geeze, Louise......I had mean to add that I am still learning, reading, studying. I may have something wrong, EXCEPT I am not wrong in faithing in Jesus Christ, my Lord and Saviour. I leave it to the Holy Spirit to move me to the right answers.

rowdee  posted on  2007-03-17   15:50:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Regarding the hog/pig/bacon. In the O.T., Leviticus, God forbade the eating of certain animals as being unclean. That is why Israelites did not eat swine. This was something like 1200 - 1300 years before Peter, et al.

Why would it be necessary for it to even be brought up again? It isn't like Peter wasn't a practicing Jew/Israelite observing their kosher/food laws. That's why he objected to this 'sheet' and voice telling him to kill and eat all the animals shown on that sheet. And the voice for THREE times said this and also said that what God hath cleaned, he wasn't to call common--in other words, who is Peter to countermand God's Word.

[EDIT TO MAKE SENTENCES/PARAGRAPHS]

KJV: Act 10:10 And1161 he became1096 very hungry,4361 and2532 would2309 have eaten:1089 but1161 while they1565 made ready,3903 he fell1968 into1909 a (846) trance,1611
Act 10:11 And2532 saw2334 heaven3772 opened,455 and2532 a certain5100 vessel4632 descending2597 unto1909 him,846 as it had been5613 a great3173 sheet3607 knit1210 at the four5064 corners,746 and2532 let down2524 to1909 the3588 earth:1093
Act 10:12 Wherein1722, 3739 were5225 all manner3956 of fourfooted beasts5074 of the3588 earth,1093 and2532 wild beasts,2342 and2532 creeping things,2062 and2532 fowls4071 of the3588 air.3772
Act 10:13 And2532 there came1096 a voice5456 to4314 him,846 Rise,450 Peter;4074 kill,2380 and2532 eat.5315
Act 10:14 But1161 Peter4074 said,2036 Not so,3365 Lord;2962 for3754 I have never3763 eaten5315 any thing3956 that is common2839 or2228 unclean.169
Act 10:15 And2532 the voice5456 spake unto4314 him846 again3825 the (1537) second time,1208 What3739 God2316 hath cleansed,2511 that call not thou common.2840, 3361, 4771
Act 10:16 (1161) This5124 was1096 done(1909) thrice:5151 and2532 the3588 vessel4632 was received up353 again3825 into1519 heaven.3772

Peter later went to the home of a Gentile, Cornelius, by name, realizing that God is no respector of race, i.e., Gentile vs Jew, i.e., just as he had no need for clean and unclean.

You wrote..."This is but another example of people twisting Scripture to justify their beliefs or desires. It also flies in the face of the statement found in Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. People don't believe that either. The ONLY reason God would have to change the law concerning eating swine is if He made a mistake in the first place and saw the need to correct it - and THUS would NOT have been the same yesterday, today, and forever."........Whew. I trust this is not directed at me personally--the first couple of sentences, anyways. I've been reading and studying God's Word in heavy duty time (2 to 8 hours a day/night) the past two years--searching for the truth==HIS TRUTH--not mine.

God, to be God, can do whatever and whenever He wants. We, in our small human mind can declare it a mistake, an error, an honest attempt, whatever--but what we declare it is immaterial. It is what God says. Was God wrong when He said he wouldn't take it out on His creatures again, ie, like the flood, when He was wiping out mankind? Not in my book--He can do whatever He wants--its His world, His universe, His creation.

Anyways, I don't take that as a personal attack. :) Really. :)

You also wrote..."HOWEVER, I'm sure you didn't mean ALL things were lawful, but were referring to the "food laws". Not that it matters, as Paul didn't declare that the food laws were "changed" either.

I think you are referencing 1 Timothy 4:4 For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: (This is the "other" Scriptural reference which pork eaters use to justify their transgression of the law - otherwise known as sin).....I wasn't referencing Timothy--haven't got to him yet!

Your scenario, IMO, might work with Israelites when appearing before the Judgment Day.

It is my belief the Law of Moses was written for the Israelites. Given the time when Jesus Christ was born (after Greek rulers) and under Roman rule, and most all those Gentiles out there in the world didn't know a thing about the Law of Moses, don't you wonder why virtually nothing is given, if anything, of those laws in the New Testament? I'm into Thessalonians presently (it is a long story on how I am studying), and thus far, I've not come across anything being said containing the list of do dos (beyond a few short brief things-- nothing like Leviticus)--certainly not on Land Sabbaths, as a for instance.

Right now my mind is going twenty ways from Sunday, but essentially all I can recall at the moment regarding the list of do'dos and don't dos is mostly in regards to sexual morality.

I'm sure there's more, but I'm dealing with a vexing situation at the moment. Sorry....

Thanks for discussing. So long as responses are done in good faith, it is a joy to read, to try to understand.

rowdee  posted on  2007-03-17   16:53:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

It is my belief the Law of Moses was written for the Israelites.

I agree. But the Israelites didn't just disappear off the face of the earth, and in fact a great many of us are descendants of them. (Off topic, but as an aside Stephen M Collins has a set of books out, in one of which he used Scriptural prophesies concerning each of the "lost" tribes combined with the fulfillments of those prophesies to "locate" each of those tribes today. George Gordon reviews that book in a program called Israel's Tribes Today, an interesting program worth listening to. It can be found here in December 2005) The Messiah in His teachings was fully supportive of the Mosaic Law, and in fact critical of those (especially the pharisees) that violated that Law. The Messiah Himself was a practitioner of Mosaic Law.

I cited the Messiah's statement from Matthew. In John, during the Feast of Tabernacles, the Messiah was in the temple teaching; and we see the Jews asking how he knew the Law (not having been formally taught the Law). He responded:
John 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. 19 Did not Moses give you the law, and [yet] none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?

By this time, the people had already strayed so far from the Law it was necessary for the Messiah to "get them back on track".

We see in 1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
And in 1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
Acts 5:28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us. 29 Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men. (That "doctrine" is Mosaic Law - which was strange to them as they were not following it. They were following the Babylonian Talmudic ways, brought back with them from their time spent in Babylonian captivity)

All of these citings are New Testament. And as I pointed out, references to "the Law" at that time was Mosaic Law. The last three of these references are made AFTER the crucifixion of the Messiah.

I wasn't referencing Timothy--haven't got to him yet!

Timothy is an epistle of Paul written to Timothy...

Whew. I trust this is not directed at me personally--the first couple of sentences, anyways.

No, it wasn't!! My apologies if it came across that way. I do still stand by the statement I made "The ONLY reason God would have to change the law concerning eating swine is if He made a mistake in the first place and saw the need to correct it - and THUS would NOT have been the same yesterday, today, and forever."
A study of hogs will show that they are still to this day filthy creatures. They prefer wallowing in their own slop to being on clean ground. They are cannibalistic - if one in the pen dies and isn't promptly removed, the others will eat it. And they have historically been carriers of trichinosis. The ONLY reason this deadly parasite is under control these days in hogs is because of modern dewormers (chiefly Ivermectin). However, this is merely replacing in the meat a deadly parasite with a toxic chemical. Eating of meat (or anything else) tainted with toxic chemicals over a period of time is bound to have adverse health effects - thus we see a dramatic rise in cancer compared to 75 years ago before so many chemicals were in use in agriculture. Therefore I maintain the Creator knew EXACTLY what He was doing (and meant it) when He told us to NOT eat swine, and in order to "be the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow" did NOT change that. Yes, some things He cleansed; but some things He didn't (and He told us which is which; it is up to us to learn the difference and believe Him or not) - and all this was done from the beginning... ALL of His laws are strictly for OUR benefit - NOT His.

God, to be God, can do whatever and whenever He wants. We, in our small human mind can declare it a mistake, an error, an honest attempt, whatever--but what we declare it is immaterial. It is what God says.

No truer words were ever spoken!!! It doesn't matter one little bit what any of us "thinks" or "believes", ONLY the Creator totally KNOWS the TRUTH, and only someday in the future will each of us come to learn it.

Thanks for discussing. So long as responses are done in good faith, it is a joy to read, to try to understand.

Wholeheartedly agreed!!!!! It is by sharing that we learn. I don't think anyone has all the answers. Difference of opinion gives us something to "ponder on", and rational collective discussion is most likely to advance us towards learning the truth.

I have heard that the worst thing to ever happen to the Bible is that religions got ahold of it - that it's NOT a "religion book" but rather a "LAW book". I'd have to agree with that statement. If we look at it as the Creator's code of laws and approach it that way it begins to make much more sense. Not that it doesn't have very useful other purposes. A careful study will show who in modern times are the "perpetrators of evil", how they have come into power, what to avoid, how to live, what to expect, and a whole host of other benefits. But IMHO, ALL modern organized religions (whether you call it Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Taoism, Mithraism - which is what I believe modern Christianity is or WHATEVER) are all falsehoods which are leading mankind down the wrong path, and the vast majority of the world's population are following some organized religion and buying into it hook, line, and sinker...

No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer

innieway  posted on  2007-03-18   12:11:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Rather than there being many gods, I would say there are many idols that mortals chase after, just as in olden days.

I can see that point. But aren't these people making those idols their "god"? The Creator Himself made a distinction between the two in the first 2 Commandments:
Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:

Would the Creator have had a need for the first commandment if other gods did not exist?

I believe that until Christ was crucified, buried, and risen, the Law was not abolished. But with those events occuring, grace has changed that.

Hmmmm... That word 'grace'... Not that Paul was the only Scriptural writer to use the word, (which is whose writings you are opining here) but somehow we tend to give it a different meaning when it concerns his writings... In the Old Testament Hebrew text it was the word chen; with the translation of "favor" as in "in God's favor"... In the New T, the Greek text is the word charis; with the translation of acceptable, benefit, or favor...

There is nothing magical about "grace". It isn't something that didn't exist before the crucifixion. To say "grace changed the law" coupled with your later statement of "I agree that not all Scripture has been fulfilled." is contradictory to the teaching of the Messiah in Matthew 5:18 when He told us "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Like I said, I put more trust in what the Messiah had to say in the matter than what Paul had to say, especially given how confusing Paul's writings can appear to be sometimes - to the point of seeming to contradict ALL other Scriptural writings.

But the Law was never meant to save anyone.

Hmmmm... That word "save".... Seems to be a "Christian" concept. If by that we mean "getting to Heaven", then I would submit that indeed following His Law IS the proper thing to do towards achieving this goal. It was asked of us to follow His Laws 172 different times in Scripture, thus I would consider that it was quite important to Him, and would be doing His will... Had mankind followed His will all along, He would NOT have NEEDED to send the Messiah.

There are MANY that feel a "calling" to come "closer to God", but that doesn't mean much. MOST of them won't "cut the mustard".
Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few [are] chosen. Perhaps the reason "few are chosen" is because there are few that differ from the "norm" and do His will by following His Law (speculation)...

I am not wrong in faithing in Jesus Christ, my Lord and Saviour.

You must have been a "student" of the late Gene Scott... He was very sharp!!! It's a real shame the archives of his teachings are no longer available on the internet! I think Melissa (his much younger ex-stripper/pornstar wife)is the perpetrator behind this... (UH - what does that say about Gene??? He was quite big on Paul you know. I still liked him though, what little I got to learn from him before his death.)

No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer

innieway  posted on  2007-03-18   13:21:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I did and still do think quite highly of Dr. Scott.........it is he who shone the light to where I turned back to God.

And I think quite highly of his MUCH YOUNGER/EX whatever your words are......the archives were pulled because of what was being done in Gene's name, or lack of it. If she and the lawyers can be it straightened out, the goal is to have them back up.

Yes, I'm aware he was high on Paul. I think he was a perfect selection for the times.

Going back to Mrs. Scott....I presume you don't think very highly of Abraham or Moses or David?

You must not believe in repentance, or have I used another word that comes from the 'religious' word dictionary? God must be incapable of using people for His purposes? Jesus Christ was only here for perfect ones of the world? You're not alone--I'm pretty sure my Mother would say that Jesus wouldn't go in a bar either, or to a race track, or a dance hall, or a movie theatre, or the backseat of cars, or whatever/wherever.

My Lord scooped me up out of the gutter--just one of those ol sinners saved by grace. Oops, should I have said God's favor, or God's grace?

Have a good day.

rowdee  posted on  2007-03-18   15:47:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

They are cannibalistic - if one in the pen dies and isn't promptly removed, the others will eat it. And they have historically been carriers of trichinosis. The ONLY reason this deadly parasite is under control these days in hogs is because of modern dewormers (chiefly Ivermectin). However, this is merely replacing in the meat a deadly parasite with a toxic chemical. Eating of meat (or anything else) tainted with toxic chemicals over a period of time is bound to have adverse health effects - thus we see a dramatic rise in cancer compared to 75 years ago before so many chemicals were in use in agriculture.

From emedicine http://www.emedicine.com/emer g/topic612.htm

In these countries, the WHO report comments that some swine herds currently have a 50% prevalence of trichinosis, and thousands of human cases have been documented. The report correlates this increase in prevalence with a breakdown in social structure in these countries (state veterinary services, state farms), coupled with economic hardship and war. Travelers to these regions are strongly advised to avoid consumption of any pork sausage and to verify the adequate cooking of any pork prior to consumption. Pork products from this region should be considered suspect.

Although generally thought of as a disease of omnivorous or carnivorous animals, herbivores have demonstrated infection, most likely from prepared feed that contained remnants of infected animals. In France, horse meat, largely imported, has become the most common source with more than a dozen outbreaks involving more than 3000 human victims since 1976. Interestingly, the same meat exporting countries supply various other European Union countries that have no human trichinosis; unlike the French and Italians, those countries do not have the culinary habit of eating meat raw or minimally cooked (Boireau, 2000). Mutton and goat have become a recognized vector in countries where pig consumption is restricted for religious or economic reasons.

I can remember being taught in my 8th grade cooking class about the need to thoroughly cook pork products. That was long before Ivermectrin was produced as a 'wormer'. Back in the days of having our ranch, we used Ivermectrin on our cattle--IIRC, as a pour-on to halt 'grubs', the bane of leather users, not to mention the occasional animal paralyzed from grubs entering the spinal column.

rowdee  posted on  2007-03-18   20:05:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

No, it wasn't!! My apologies if it came across that way. I do still stand by the statement I made "The ONLY reason God would have to change the law concerning eating swine is if He made a mistake in the first place and saw the need to correct it - and THUS would NOT have been the same yesterday, today, and forever."

We disagree, obviously.

Why, for what possible reason, would there have been a need for a vision to be presented to Peter showing a whole bunch of 4- footed animals, etc., and being told to EAT.....he's been following their food laws all along. If he hadn't been following these laws and LIED and said he had, do you not believe that a lightning bolt or something would have straightened the LIAR out?

His refusal was because it WENT AGAINST WHAT HE HAD BEEN RAISED WITH. He was objecting on the basis that it was against their LAWS.

That is when the voice said that God had cleansed them and that he wasn't to question it.

Otherwise, there's an awfully dumb conversation going on there. Peter had no intentions of not comporting with EXISTING food laws.

As for changes--God can do whatever he wants for whatever reason or for no reason. Was not Israel to be a theocracy? What happened that created a monarchy?

I understand that we will continue to disagree on this point, so I'll not say more.

rowdee  posted on  2007-03-18   20:17:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I can see that point. But aren't these people making those idols their "god"? The Creator Himself made a distinction between the two in the first 2 Commandments: Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:

I would suggest that most people wouldn't consider or think that material things, i.e., boats, cars, stocks, bonds, $$$$$$$$$$$ are 'gods', whereas it would be easy to show them as idols.

I guess the choice of words, IMO, would depend on circumstances.

Anything that would remove one from focusing on God could be an idol, or god, if you prefer. That could even include family, which is hard for people to fathom in that family is highly prized by God.

rowdee  posted on  2007-03-18   20:23:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I think Melissa (his much younger ex-stripper/pornstar wife)is the perpetrator behind this... (UH - what does that say about Gene???

Did you happen to listen to him when he explained to the congregaton that she had been thoroughly background checked? He wasn't no dummy, or some dottering ol fool that fell in love/lust with some young chick.

Are you one of the sour grapers that wasn't selected to replace him, so a little bit of slur time is needed to assauge feelings, or something? You mention porn.........how do you know that? Been surfing the internet? Renting videos? Don't worry...that is only rhetorical. :)

rowdee  posted on  2007-03-18   20:29:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

I still liked him though, what little I got to learn from him before his death.)

His programming is still on the internet 24/7; on satellite; on shortwave; and nationwide on some different channels, there's a PAX something or other in some places, and ION or something like that in other places.

It's not like his teachings are lost. With roughly 30 years on tape, I believe the vast majority of people would hear 'new' programming--his nitro pills and other teachings have remained the same over the years; some new examples or language or manuscripts or books to present facts/events/whatever.

And Pastor Scott, Melissa, is very well read and taught. She is quite a linguist; and I daresay has a better handle on languages than Doc did. She's very well educated in grammar, as well as having studied Fine Arts.

She did a presentation on Ephesus recently which was interesting in that she was able to present some of our art books showing various things about that city, providing insight into what Paul and the other apostles were up against as they tried to spread the gospel.

And she's determined that Doc's 30 years not be flushed down some rat hole.

rowdee  posted on  2007-03-18   20:33:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Thanks for the info! I'll check into it!

As for Melissa, I found out about her "background" from a discussion on some forum (can't remember which one). But you're right, what one has done in the past is just that - passed.... It's what they do after "waking up" that counts. I'm sure we've all done things which looking back we feel weren't the best choices we made in life. But in the big scheme of things those choices may have been necessary to "bring us around"....

I didn't know anything about Gene until very shortly before his death. I understand he had done some fascinating research on the pyramids. I had started going through his archives on his website and was just getting going good when they were suddenly pulled shortly after his death.

I did enjoy his work. Wish I'd learned of him sooner. He was quite a "flamboyant" character - I liked his style!

I like to get the "input" from many different sources concerning Scripture. I don't know if it helps in sorting out the truth, or if it only creates more confusion; but I think at the very least it makes for a more thoroughly rounded knowledge base from which to work.

No matter how noble the objectives of a government; if it blurs decency and kindness, cheapens human life, and breeds ill will and suspicion - it is an EVIL government. Eric Hoffer

innieway  posted on  2007-03-19   9:14:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Chrissie, I pinged you so you'd see it direct from me about using you as an example.

Innieway, I wouldn't exactly count on some internet forum for any degree of truthfulness regarding people. You can see proof of that in what was said/done regarding our own Christine on these 'political' forums. It's very easy to type words to tear down someone's reputation; quite another to try to rebuild.

And if it was a bunch of what one considers 'religious' people running off at the keyboard/mouth, shame on them--unless they have personal knowledge of a matter, gossiping. THem, in their 'righteous' indignation, forego Scripture's admonition to not gossip. They're in the hands of the devil for trying to tear down God's word being taught.

Melissa herself has said she's done things in her life that she now is not proud of. She's the first to say she is not perfect. She had lawyers involved in some of that crap that was going on.

I personally believe that God has used flawed people, bad people even, throughout history, for His purposes. The great Moses was an educated murderer, for instance. Nebuchadnezzar, a great king over a ruthless military, hauled a bunch of people into slave conditions, after killing a whole bunch more, and yet held Daniel in the highest esteem. Rahab, a harlot, was used to save a couple of Israelite spies. Cripes, look at Paul/Saul-- obsessed in tracking down christians and turning them over to the Sanhedrin to be martyred or brutalized.

I believe this shows that God can use any of us for his purposes...and he does because we've each been given gifts by the Holy Spirit.

Melissa has a natural talent for languages. She's now studying Russian. Even when Doc was alive, he mentioned numerous times of receiving correspondence/calls from people thrilled or excited at his using their language, ie., one of the Coptics, or Aramaic, or Arabaic, etc. With a world- wide ministry, imagine an Egyptian receiving the message of the resurrection in one of the Coptic languages.

She has no desire to make it about her and her teachings. They still show Pop and Mom Scott programs, very little of her, mostly all is Doc and his teachings. In fact, just this last week, there was a segment about the pyramids. I can't get into them, so I can't tell you what it was in regard to.

rowdee  posted on  2007-03-19   11:26:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]