IDidntDoIt
-
Content Count
530 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by IDidntDoIt
-
-
Pubby,
I must say, when I read your response to CoachLeeCollins, I was flabbergasted. Coming from you, a professional writer, editor and publisher for decades, and a man of broad intellectual interests and backgrounds, I truly find myself humbled by your compliments. It was very kind of you to say what you did. I really had no idea you viewed what I put out here, that way.
Simply said, Thank you...
-
Well, after an absence of about 48 hours, I'm refreshed to see this topic is still alive and well.
Coach:
You're a great guy, but your comments about me make me feel a bit schizoid. How is it that at one and the same time I am, "blah, blah, blah... the WORST" and respected for everything I say, and yet am arrogant and egotistical? Am I losing my marbles here or have I seriously missed something? I must admit, when it comes to juxtaposing those comments, I just don't get it... Get it?
Let me see if I can BRIEFLY (defined as somewhere less than 5000 words) [it really is OK to laugh, as that was a lame attempt at humor] respond to some of what seems to concern you.
First, ya gotta know I'm a preacher, have been a college prof, counselor and administrator, work with behavior disordered and mental health challenged juveniles, and I've NEVER EVER IN MY LIFE been accused of being short-winded.
Second, let me address why some of my posts, the other on in this thread in particular, get long. Many people assume that a short question invites a short answer. There are many areas where even long questions can be answered simply, succinctly with an economy of words. When those kinds of issues come up, you will note from my history, I very often do not respond, because I consider them transparent, and really have nothing else to offer on the subject. I do not get involved in every thread on Pcom, not primarily because I have no interest (although there are threads in which I have absolutely NO interest whatsoever), but because many times, I see other people have already touched all the relevant bases that I have seen, and someone may have already coherently summed it up, leaving me room for nothing but to bolster my ego by restating the obvious, getting kudos from some of those who like me and thinking I've really accomplished something... NOT. If I do not think I have some definition to add to a subject, or am not particularly passionate about it, I usually leave it alone, and let someone else develop it, refine it, and go with it.
Other questions, however, very often "conventional wisdom," misperceived as being so simple the guy who fell off the last turnip truck could answer before he hits the ground, are, beneath the surface, laced with false assumptions, internal inconsistencies, and a host of other logical fallacies, in addition to sometimes being factually incorrect. Untangling some of those assumptions often takes much more time than just giving the simple "yes" or "no," but some people (and please, I'm not interested in naming names) are just bothered by detail. Yet, the paradox is so exquisitely stated by that old saying, "The devil is in the details." By that, I'm just using personification to suggest that problems are often missed by the first glance.
Third (Remember, I'm TRYING REALLY HARD TO BE BRIEF): Some posts, like Voltaire's involve a litany of issues. I guess I could have simply taken the sound-bite route and said, "I disagree," left the site and gone about my business. It might have accomplished what you were looking for, but that answer would not have satisfied several others. I felt compelled to disagree with Voltaire (hopefully without bashing him/her, whoever Voltaire is) (at present I remain a bit confused as to who is representing themselves as Voltaire). But I also felt compelled to select a precious few issues from the 50 or so topics Voltaire touched, about which I wanted to respond, and put out some substance, so that anyone who was interested (as I assume you were not) could understand a bit of my perspective on those matters. That's really what I'm about. I'm essentially a teacher/preacher/philosopher/communicator at heart. If that bothers you or anyone else, I'm genuinely sorry you're bothered, but I really don't intend to, at almost 57 years of age, become something I'm not. I really do know how to compose one liners, and have a knack for putting out zingers. If you want to see some of that, ask me to write some copy for your next advertising campaign, or let me at your resume, as I do both. But essentially, within the debate arena, what I'm striving for is to add definition and comprehension to some of these issues. I'm not always successful, and no one knows that better than I do. I cannot tell you the hundreds of times I have thought of better ways to say something AFTER I've spoken to it.
OK, now, in TRYING REALLY HARD TO KEEP MY WORD OF BEING SHORT, I'll end this post.
PS... If my musings really do bother you, might I introduce you to the "ignore" button Pubby has included on this fantastic site?
-
Ellen,
You just might have a point there -- IF we could remove the attachments they wear on their ears and mouths when driving...
But then fantacizing is a fun thing to do every once in a while.
-
Voltaire,
You are a bit amusing, seriously misguided, and not nearly of the intellectual depth you project.
I find you amusing in that you come into a website that you well know is populated primarily by evangelical Christians, a good number of sincere Catholics (some of whom, I genuinely regard as my Brothers and Sisters in the Lord), a few agnostics, a couple of athiests, several secularists, some humanists, a couple who haven't even discovered that there is such a thing as a belief system, and blow off a lot of steam designed to shake some of them up, leave for a while (I well understand the 9-5 business, wish I could find a 9-5), make these mysterious remarks that seem to baffle most who read them, then come back, and attempt, with one fell swoop to pose sound-bite answers to the duststorm of comments that followed you initial forray, and THEN, quaintly refuse to engage in any more conversation, as if it is now beneath you. You're not just amusing, you're a hoot!
As to being seriously misguided, you must know that Voltaire was a philosopher of the enlightenment (as previously alluded to by others on the board), who was later refuted by too many to list. Your whole approach to your belief system seems little more than eclecticism, kind of a pick and choose your own candy store approach. You bounce from being almost biblical in some of your ideas to some sort of secularist and really seem to have no foundation or coherence to your belief system. I'm not trying to bash you, but I really think you opened the door to some honest response at your first post, and that is what I'm attempting to offer.
As to the pseudo-intellectualism you propound, take this as an example: You pontificate about the Old Testament being good for nothing but moral growth, and imply the same about the New Testament. Now, that is an interesting position, albeit one with philosophical self-contradiction; an argument with internal inconsistencies throughout it. You see that is but a variant of the old argument about who Jesus is. Some have said that He was a Lunatic. The only problem with that statement is that He gave the most incisive teaching into human nature ever presented on the planet. And, like it or not, but the old wive's tale that there is a fine line between a genius and an idiot is sheer nonsense. I've worked in mental health and have seen both. They do not resemble each other. Some say He was merely a legend in His own time. The problem with that is that He had a host of contemporaries who, if He was not who He claimed to be, should have been able with ease, to produce His carcass. The problem is they could not produce the body, and there were above 500 eyewitnesses who stated they saw Him alive for up to 50 days after He died. This is in a similar vein to a group arising today that would claim John Fitzgerald Kennedy never died. I know he died. I was in Texas when he was killed, about 135 miles from Dealey Plaza, where I have later driven dozens of times. I've seen the footage of his shooting, I've noted the history books that state irrefutably that Lyndon Bains Johnson became the next President of the United States without being elected to the office. I remember the funeral, the days that school was dismissed. I even recall what I was doing when it was announced that he died: I was doing the standing broad jump (8'6") that was part of the Kennedy physical fitness test. I've seen the eternal flame at his grave in Arlington. If someone were to assert he never died, there are millions of us who would instantly and powerfully refute that claim. Then there are those who claim Christ is just a great moral teacher. Yet, how can one at one and the same time be a great moral teacher and lie about the most essential aspect of his identity? With that, the term great moral teacher becomes an oxymoron -- a contradiction in terms. If He is a great moral teacher, then He cannot at the same time have been a LIAR about the essence of who He is. So the only other logical option about who He was is that He was who He claimed to be -- Lord.
Then, you also at another point say you believe in God, but apparently the God you believe in is one of your own construct... One you have created with an inability to reveal himself, and an inability to intervene in your or anyone else's life. What a pity. The only problem with your god is that he's too small for me. I have a God who is too great for me to box and/or encapsulate Him as I wish. I haven't created Him, He created me, and has the inalienable right to command. He has also clearly revealed Himself to me and anyone else who wants to know Him.
You also disparage prayer. Here, I somewhat agree with you. If your god is too small to answer prayer, then prayer does become a meaningless exercise. The God I serve, however, does hear AND answer prayer. He has answered mine too many times to enumerate. It is not about me working myself up into some sort of nirvana state, or into a frenzy. It is about communing with One who loves me, cares for me and intervenes in my life. "Coincidence!!!" you say? Funny, but it is amazing to me that there is such a high correlation between the times I seek Him about things and the times He responds. If that's what you want to call coincidence, I have no problem with that. I just now have a new definition for the word. So the next time I have some issues about which I need help I'll just ask God for another "coincidence."
Miracles? Maybe you've just never experienced a healing touch in your own body that is irrefutable. My grandmother had just such an occurrance. In 1948, Granny Lynch, whom I dearly love, was diagnosed with inoperable, terminal cancer, documented by her physician. She heard about some "evangelist" by the name of Oral Roberts, who was having a revival in Mobile, Alabama. She went to this tent meeting with a considerable set of biases and preconceived notions about how she would need to be prayed for in order to be healed. She noted that for every one in front of her, Roberts laid his hands on them prayed fervently for them for extended periods of time. But when her turn for prayer came up, she got angry. For you see, Roberts merely laid his hand on her, said, "Be healed in the Name of Jesus," and pushed, that's right, pushed her on out of the way so he could pray for the next one. She fumed all the way home to Andalusia, Alabama. She simply could not get over it, and fussed for the next two full days and part of the third. That's when Granny had to go to the bathroom, and passed a huge mass into the commode. Various members of the family viewed it and acknowledged it was something significantly different than what people normally pass into a commode. Her pain left. She went back to her doctor, who performed more tests, and was completely baffled as to what had happened to her. He clearly had x-rays to prove what had been there, and x-rays to prove what was no longer there. And lest you think this was merely a figment of an old woman's imagination, Granny died in 1996--almost exactly 48 years after her miracle. Voltaire, you may wish to attempt to refute some of the objective arguments and debate, but what you will NEVER debate away is what I know happened to my wonderful Granny. I've heard her tell the story many times while people who knew the events sat there and verified what she said.
Not only can I tell you of my Granny, I could tell you of substantial miracles in my own life, if there were only time and space to do so.
If you really want to have some honest and open discussion about what you believe, that's fine, I have no objections to it. But I don't really think honest, open discussion is what you are about because of your tactics. I think if you wanted genuine debate, you would have responded differently than your last post did -- significantly so. If you do have the courage to return and follow-up on what you've started I'll be very surprised -- pleased, but very surprised. I really think little of you to come in with material that you know is so highly controversial, come back with a couple of one line zingers, disappear, and when you make your ultimate swan song, imply that further conversation is not available. I was a little suspicious when I read your original post and found it to be so scattered and incohesive. But what capped it off for me was your swan song -- just plainly an inappropriate way to deal with many people on this website, some of whom support you, and others who would disagree with you. My conclusion??? You just came by to stir things up, watch the dust fly, and laugh at the sincere responses on both sides of the issue. Chances are you really don't know what you want to believe, and five years from now, your opinions will be substantially different from what you have posted here, if, indeed what you posted is at all what you truly believe. I may be wrong on a bit of this, but for whatever it's worth, it is my opinion.
-
TBAR,
How very courageous you are. Man, I mean, after several people came on P.com recently with such caustic and biting comments about the tunnels-- they didn't ever want to hear about them again -- they were sick of hearing about the tunnels -- it sounded as if they were going to really HURT the next person who wrote about the tunnels.
TBAR, PLEASE, PLEASE be careful. I mean you never, never know when someone is going to ride right up beside your car and let go with a full automatic machine gun blast and blow you to kingdom come and back agian.
With all the threats and unbridled intmidation, you would think NO ONE would ever have the raw, unmitigated gall to ever write one of these tunnel messages, let alone start a thread with your name out there and all.
With such great exposure, I'm going to call on Pubby to build newer and more secure environment when you are working on things for him. I just hope you also have your insurance paid in full, that way, at least your wonderful family will have the ability to at least eat some after you're gone.
Man, you are such a HERO!!!
TBAR FOR PRESIDENT...
TBAR, if you're nominated, will you accept such a tedious job that has such great risks and tremendous exposure of your precious family?
Man, YOU"RE my HERO!!!!
-
LOC,
Sorry I put you to sleep, but honestly, I warned you in the second paragraph of the previous post that it would not be a sound bite. Part of the problem of the ADHD generation that has been raised on TV is that they have been trained to expect someone to arrive on the scene with intellectual pablum -- simple sentence explanations of concepts as complex as Einstein's theory of relativity (one explanation of the theory of relativity is it depends on who you're related to).
I also appreciate some of your perspective on the intergenerational nature of this conflict, but I'm afraid I, like TBAR, don't quite buy intergenerational gaps as the explanation for all the problems in church history. You obviously have studied church history at some point, and have an acquaintence with a large fact-base. What's important is what you do with those facts, and how you utilize them. Benjamin Bloom alluded to this in his taxonomy of learning tasks. Memorization was the basis for everything else. However, mere memorization of facts and even comprehension fall short of analysis, synthesis and evaluation.
Pubby,
Thank you. I knew the sound bite mentality, and the preoccupation with oversimplification. That is exactly why I put in that second paragraph. I am one of those people afflicted with a need to understand complexity.
Delphi,
Thank you for your comments. I know from some painful history the things you addressed. I do hope, however, that you will be able to find your way back to a congregation's fellowship. God didn't intend for us to live as lone rangers. His design was a Body, an integrated whole, a unifying organism. It is there that you can find the greatest significance, the greatest venue for your gifts, and the place of greatest need for your service.
As to the appreciation for liturgy, I must confess I grew up in Army towns and many of the churches I attended were quite small. Some of my pastors were, quite frankly, uneducated. The pastor of the church where Lord finally chased me down was in possession of a third grade education, and as a sixth-grader, I was the best reader in the congregation. What Willie Taylor had, however, was a whole lot of love. So what I largely came from was decidedly "low-church." The Assemblies of God was, as I was growing up, a revival movement, primarily made up of people who had been thrown out of other churches because of their experience of Acts 2:4. As the A/G grew, more pastors got college degrees, and graduate degrees, and ultimately D. Min's, Th.D.s, and Ph.D.s. When I moved from Baton Rouge, La, in 1988 to Toms River, NJ, to pastor a church, I was very quickly immersed in a liturgical A/G church. Rather than fight it, I decided to try to understand it. For an Army brat from central Texas, that was quite a thing.
Much of my congregation (80%) was of Catholic heritage, and had a deep appreciation for the symbolism of "high-church." I did my best to meet their needs in that respect, and gained an enormous appreciation for a more liturgical worship structure, without compromising anything. Some of the best experiences of our lives were a result of doing some things in a "high-church" motif.
That was probably a funny sight -- a Pentecostal Texan in a liturgical, largely charismatic Northeastern church. I knew I had a serious problem shortly after my first Sunday in the pulpit. I had several ladies (the men never offered such an opinion) who met me at the sanctuary doors who said, "Pastor, you have such an accent." They meant no harm, mind you, but it had to be addressed. The next Sunday, as I prepared to read the Scripture text for the sermon, I paused, looked out over the congregation, and in very solemn tones, said, "It has come to my attention this week that I've only been here a week, and we already have a malicious rumor going around in this congregation. You will find I'm not one to run from problems, so I must deal with this now..." I paused a good 5-10 seconds without saying a word. At that point, you could have heard a pin drop on shag carpet, as they had no idea what I was about to address. I continued, again, in very solemn tones, "There is a rumor going around that I have an accent... I don't have an accent..." then as I pointed at the entire congregation present for that service, I said, "YOU do!!!" They began to look at each other in astonishment, and then in their laughter, did everthing but roll on the floor. I honestly saw one lady wiping tears from her eyes, she had laughed so hard.
TBAR,
What can I say? Again, we are very close to the center of the same page. (Must be that "great minds" thing, you know, dragon killin' vs. lizzard runnin'.)
-
This is an interesting replay of situations that have been in the church for decades. It is also a trans-denominational issue. Stetzer has some good points, a worthwhile read.
In responding to this, I need to say at the beginning, this is not a 30 second sound byte. The issue is complex, and in order to understand it better, some other concepts must be introduced and addressed. If you're looking for a short quip, just go on to the next post in the thread. My goal here is to add some understanding to the complex issue, but hopefully not write an entire book.
I see several underlying issues in these sorts of divisions. First, from a purely administrative focus, there is the matter of perspective. Both the traditionalists and the the contemporaries are having exactly the same perspective issue, just from different perspectives.
The PERSPECTIVE of the traditionalists is that they have been in church for decades, grew up on and, for the most part, love the theological content and musical stylings of the hymns. There is a familiarity with them that creates a comfort zone. They are concerned about folk of similar perspective who may not have the force of personality to represent themselves, but in more intimate settings have shared their feelings about change having threatening aspects to it, missing the forms and content which have formed a stable base for them over the decades. They have poured their lives into what had become comfortable for them, and see the contemporaries having attitudes that are interpreted as, "I could care less about your feelings, you old goat." They feel the contemporary agenda is being crammed down their throats. They feel there is an element of rebellion ("Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft"), in that many of the contemporaries they know are simply oppositional to everything the traditionalists say or teach, and defiant of the legitimate authority structures within the traditional church. To them (many of them, at least), the feeling is that the way they came to know the Lord is being invalidated by these youngsters who have no appreciation, and want to have no appreciation for things that have worked for long periods of time.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the glass, the contemporaries often have had very little exposure to traditional worship forms and content, because they have been immersed in their own stylings and thinking, with very little intergenerational interplay. They are concerned that the "old goats" care nothing for them or their efforts to reach their own generation with a commonly understood genre. They are quite passionate about their own form and content, which over time has become their own tradition. They feel the older generation is not listening to them simply because the first time they bring up an idea there is not a flash of response where everyone swoons at their unmitigated genius. Their music is more sophisticated (to them) and relevant (to them) and reaches the current generation. They usually camp on the (false) idea that no traditional church is doing anything to reach the lost.
In addition, another set of problems comes from the age of the believers. By that, I have absolutely no reference to chronological age, but to one's years since the New Birth, and maturity level in Christ. As people mature in the Gospel, different issues begin to appear and be of concern to them. Younger believers often (not always, certainly) are so focused on winning their peers that their whole focus is on winning the lost, witnessing, and the more basic doctrines of the church, such as salvation, grace, fall of man, redemption, etc. (PLEASE NOTE: This is not a criticism, but merely a descriptive assessment based on decades of being in the church and watching cycles repeat themselves.) Meanwhile, those who have been in the Body an extensive time and have continued to grow in grace, begin to develop an appreciation for some of the depth of Christian experience that goes beyond simply being saved. Their focus is more on becoming more Christlike, learning other teachings of the scripture, and learning to become leaders in the Church. Other issues emerge over time. This in NO WAY diminishes the work of Christ on the Cross or the value they place on their original experience with the Lord, in coming to know Him as their Savior. It is a pattern of acquisition with them that Jesus referred to in the Sermon on the Mount, "Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled." While they still savor and very deeply appreciate the "First things," they are no longer satisfied with JUST the "First things."
Another set of issues that emerges in this matter is the way transition from traditionalist to contemporary inclusion is addressed. Transition, by any other definition is still CHANGE. People, by nature, are resistant to change, and to accept change must have it brought about incrementally. To take a church that has had a traditional form of worship for 100 years, and within a few weeks force it to adopt an EXCLUSIVELY contemporary liturgy is to plan unmitigated disaster. Transition is one of the keys to solving this problem. Transition is a process, not an event. If transition is brought about incrementally, the church will be as the frog put into cold water, then plased over the fire. He will not perceive the change as dangerous until it is too late for him to respond. Whereas if he is simply dumped into hot water, he leaps right out of it. The harmful transition is one that is forced and people are coerced into accepting something for which they have little or no appreciation. It represents a cultural change as well. Often times the traditionalist has an accepted form of dress and appearance. The contemporary has complete disregard for any of that. All of these are factors that can be negotiated over time, but not immediately transferred because of underlying values. It is an issue of first order change vs second order change. Any organization can accept first order changes instantly, because the first order change does not affect underlying attitudes, values, motives, belief systems, behavior or established norm. Second order changes go against those underlying attitudes, values, motives, belief systems, behavior and established norms. In order to be adopted successfully, they must deal with the underlayment or supporting issues first. The administrative rule of thumb is first order changes can be implemented instantaneously, provided the volume of them is not overwhelming, and second order changes can be adopted over a five year period, provided the underlying issues are consistently addressed and the people prepared for the transition.
Perhaps this is why Jesus introduced the concept of wineskins. I will not belabor that issue here, but simply refer to a very good book on the subject, "The Problem of Wineskins," by Howard Snyder. Superb book on this very subject.
Then there are the eye/hand/foot issues Paul deals with in 1 Corinthians. It seems that the early church had some of the same problems. There were those who valued their own functions and perspectives over those of their contemporaries (not used to describe the group previously labeled "contemporaries" above). Paul goes through an extended discourse about the value of various body parts and then comes to the poignant question of whether the one would have any value or ability without the other. The point he was making is that all are part of the Body and all are needed. None should be cast-offs. That is exactly where we are with the traditionalists and the contemporaries. Neither is seeing the value of the other. Their perspective is from their own point of view, and diminishes the relative importance of the other. In some cases this moves from expressions of concern to a real mean-spirited aggression that should never be once named in the Body. The problem is those on both ends of the spectrum who want to hold their position TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE OTHER PARTY. This is the epitome of selfishness and has no place in the Body of Christ. Regardless of which side, traditionalist or contemporary, those attitudes reflect issues of the heart that need to be brought to an altar and offered as a blood sacrifice, once for all.
Finally, How would Jesus handle this matter? Think for a moment just who it is for whom He died. Did He die for the traditionalist to be saved? Of course He did. Did He die for the contemporary to be saved? Of course He did. Perhaps if the traditionalists would accept the fact that Christ values the contemporaries so much that if there had only been one of them, He would still have gone the route of the Cross for him, they would have a higher value for their opponents and would be much less demeaning in their approach to the whole matter. Likewise, if the contemporaries would accept the fact that Christ values the traditionalists so much that if there had only been one of them, He would still have gone the route of the Cross for him, they would have a higher value for their opponents and would be much less demeaning in their approach to the whole matter. I think Jesus would simply point to his wounds and say, "I did this for them," -- to BOTH groups, and simply walk away a short distance, give time for reconciliation and then start leading the peaceful faction onward and upward.
-
Graduate:
The "Wrong" in it is there on two levels. The one I have chosen to address earlier is the LEGAL one. Tennessee has LAWS against this sort of behavior, as does most every other civilized part of society. The LAW has a proscriptive element to it. That means it can, by the very nature of it's existence, declare what behaviors a society will and/or will not accept. For those laws proscribing (having to do with depriving some act from the protection of the law, to denounce, to forbid) behaviors, they also have the consequent imperative of proscribing (having to do with declaring what shall be done in the event of a violation of the law) an accompanying sanction. The act engaged in by the so-called mother in this instance, was a proscribed act as designated by the appropriate legislative body. Society's device to rid itself of undesirable behavior is it's legal system. This community in Tennessee made the deliberative decision to say, "We, as a society, forbid this particular behavior, and further stipulate that those who transgress our law shall have the following sanction..."
I've been dealing with the court systems long enough to know that "If you don't want to do the TIME, DON'T DO THE CRIME."
The other level in which this is viewed as a wrong act has to do with whether on not one has a moral code, what the basis for that moral code is, and where the act falls with regard to that moral code.
For some, their moral code amounts to little more than a matter of convenience, "If it inconveniences me, then it's wrong for you to do it. If it inconveniences you, it does not matter, I will do what I want to do." Another way of stating it is, "If it feels good, do it."
For others, moral issues depend on the situation they are in at the moment -- kind of "different strokes for different folks."
Yet another moral code exists for those who see life having some sort of moral absolutes, and then within that moral system, one would have to examine the source of the absolutes and where the particular acts in question fall with regard to the absolutes. Quite obviously, I, for an enormous set of reasons do not subscribe to the first two moral systems, the greatest of which is that neither of them have any objective basis. I believe there are moral absolutes in life. Some things are just wrong because my moral code declares them wrong.
While I definitely believe what the woman did was a prima facia case of sleazebag motherhood, I would not intervene on that basis. Parents under our system of laws have the right to be perfect moral morons. What I would deal with in a heartbeat is the legal side of it. There are laws against that behavior, enforce them.
-
Well, it appears that moral relativism is in full swing around here. The problem is that when moral relativism (a belief that there are NO moral absolutes) is allowed to run rampant, there is a perception that there are no boundaries. Everybody can do what everybody wants to do, and there is no accountability for anything.
Well, guess what, folks, there are boundaries. Some are called LAWS. More than likely, the drug store personnel had been trained to identify what was legal and what was not legal.
Beyond that, the prosecutor, when finished reviewing the evidence, thought there was sufficient evidence to produce an indictment, as the evidence led him to believe there was a clear cut violation of law. The prosecutor's JOB is to ENFORCE LAWS. He then took the matter to the grand jury. The grand jury, after reviewing the evidence produced a bill of indictment, agreeing that the LAWS of that community had been violated.
It was not just a matter of drug store employee trying to invade someone's privacy, nor was it just a matter of a so called mother providing her son with a little "wholesome" entertainment. The article plainly states that there were 10 other minors at the event, some of whom WERE NOT family members. That is where the contributing charge arose. DUH!!!
Three cheers for a prosecutor with the courage to DO HIS JOB!!! Hoorraaayyy!!! Hoorraaayyy!!! Hoorraaayyy!!! Hoorraaayyy!!! (oops, one extra just slipped out because of my absolute uncontrollable enthusiasm!).
I wonder if any of those 10 minors will hereafter become sex-offenders??? Now that they've gone beyond the first boundaries (getting the clothes off a woman), how long will it take them to go further, get some other minor girl pregnant, and be prosecuted for statutory rape, because the state says a child under the age of 16 does not have the RIGHT to give consent???
I wonder if WonderMom here had the presence of mind to advise any of these little wild hormones running around her house that it violates the law for them to have sex with anyone under the age specificed in Tennessee, and that they could be prosecuted and JAILED for such behavior? I wonder if she also told them that it might be possible for them, having violated the laws of that state, to be prosecuted as adults if certain criteria were present? I wonder if she told them that conviction of sex-related offenses could lead them to be required to register as sex-offenders in every community they live in for the rest of their natural lives? Or, was this bimbomom just interested in becoming a grandmother at an early age? Did the parents of all the other minors at the party concur with the judgment of this brain-dead woman?
If any of you want to argue about the above scenario, perhaps you'd do well to first contact the Medlin Clinic in Marietta, or the counselors at the Tanner Beharioral Health TIP program in Carrollton, or some other licensed sex-offender treatment provider, and ask their opinion about this kind of behavior and the likely influence it will have on these 11 minors. Then, if you have daughters, think REAL HARD about whether you would want these young boys to be within a mile of your daughter.
In the end, this story is not really about morals at all. It's about criminal behavior on the part of a so-called mother. If she wants to corrupt her own child, although very sad, that is one thing. But when this woman involved minors who were not members of her family, whether or not she had parental consent, she became nothing but just another criminal. She should be prosecuted, and allowed to suffer the sanctions of the laws she broke, up to and including JAIL TIME...
Maybe we should get her picture (MOM, not the stripper!!) and use her as the poster child for a campaign to require people to get licensure to have children. Now that ought to heat things up a little.
-
One of the factors which lessens the value of personal property rights is the now transitory nature of modern society. Most of us have moved several times, and have no real roots tied to a parcel of land. Our lives have developed over transitions we have made, and original friends we held decades ago, are now forgotten.
However, there are still many Americans who have inherited lands and goods earned by their forebears. Those people have an almost inestimable value on their roots, their families for generations back, and the life-long experiences they have shared with the land. Most of us have no concept of those sorts of values. The attachment to land to these people is almost like a relationship with a set of departed family members. It is almost a sacred right to them.
For many of us, if someone wanted our land, it would be a simple financial transaction of a two-fer or three-fer. Pay me enough, you got the deed.
We can trivialize the importance of personal property rights, but when we do, we must understand the costs attached to it, which goes FAR beyond the mind-numbed, perspective-less bean counters. Life is more than money, and when the value of a political entity's respect for its weakest members degenerates to a dollars and cents equation, we may temporarily gain a few dollars, but we clearly will have lost our sense.
-
I'm not an expert on this issue at all.
However, it seems obvious to me that personal property rights are inversely proportional to ED.
If people have a right to own property, that right is effective to the degree the government has difficulty abridging that right. The easier it is for government to assert ED, the less valuable the relative right to own property is. If the government can call ED over such trivia as commercial development, the personal property rights are nothing but a joke.
Consider for a moment the property rights of residents on Whitlock Avenue in Marietta, by contrast. I've been in this area for almost 10 years. I used to drive to work via Whitlock Avenue. A 35 minute during the night turned into an hour and a half at rush hour. Those property owners, having the power to inconvenience an estimated 50,000 people TWO TIMES per day (or more) shows how powerful personal property rights can become. And yes, there should be debate about matters that significant.
What a contrast to a little ole lady who owns a house in the middle of a 100 acre parcel WalMart wants. If WalMart, or ANY commercial enterprise has the clout to FORCE a move by a private citizen, especially when the citizen is a life-long resident of that property, regardless of size, then the government is absolutely failing in it's responsibility to the citizens of that political entity. If the politicians abridge the rights of even the weakest citizen for commercial purposes or political expediency, then ALL citizens are at risk of the same treatment. There could be considerable debate as to the value of their character, and such decisions would give rise to the suspicion of payoffs, bribery and racketeering in the guise of government.
If you want to force someone else to give up their personal property rights for your convenience, you really need to ask yourself just how much you value your own ability to exercise personal property rights.
The issue of personal property rights extends not only to real estate, but to other personal property as well. It is entirely conceiveable that if the personal property rights of an individual regarding real estate dwindle to almost nothing, then the right to own any other tangible item of personal property would also be in jeopardy. If it's OK for the government to take your real estate, what is to stop them from taking your transportation, livestock, jewelry (assuming it has value and is in demand), and even items that seemingly have only sentimental value. What about their right to seize your computer, or your books, tools, tractors, televisions or radios?
While some would like to pose the question of ED such that only some lame-brained scuzzball who hates the entire community would be affected, in reality, the entirety of the community would be affected by an exercise of ED. In our society, typically, who cares, as long as it makes things more convenient for me and someone else's ox is gored. What a set of values we have!!! (or is it we DON'T have???)
-
Sorry TBAR... It's getting late, and I think I'm only firing on about 3 of 8 cylinders tonight.
I think I'll apply some cure to this problem... Nite all...
-
AGREED!!! and just to add a few more categories, judges, police/sheriffs, teachers, business owners, managers, carpenters, fighter pilots, auto mechanics, word processors, grocers, statisticians, politicians, mailmen, mothers, children, siblings, inlaws, outlaws, bankers, financiers, stock brokers, morticians, restaunteurs, chemists, physicians, chiropractors, truck drivers, cartoonists, lawyers, counselors, probation officers, juveniles, adults, principals, superintendents, bishops, barbers, bakers, and candlestickmakers.No doubt. Same with pastors. Or profs. Or deacons, elders, missionaries. Same of everyone.
I just don't like the guilt by association or inuendo or (as in the url) some serious stretches of application.As I said:
***I do NOT buy everything the man is saying. There are some logic lapses in some of his conclusions.*** However, the documentation he provides for the attributed statements appears to be sound.The basic problem I have with the article, is some of the logic leaps he makes, by suggesting guilt by association for the entire mass of Christian musicians. I have personally known several Christian musicians that for a time were household names in virtually the entire Christian community. For some of them, this article is a perfect description of their lifestyles. However, for most of them, it is a bit of a stretch.The important thing is to evaluate each musician as an individual. Some are very Godly people, some are total hypocrites, and most are somewhere in the middle. -
AJ:
Thank you for those kind words.
I realize I kind of went around the world to get across the street, but administration and organizational behavior can get a bit complex from time to time. This Zero tolerance is probably an example of an organization at it's worst.
-
When it comes to this issue of "Christian Rock," I ran across an interesting web site a couple of days ago quite by accident. I was doing a web search on "Blessing". One of the sites I found grabbed my attention:
Christian Rock Blessing or Blasphemy?
Now, please, before anyone accuses me of saying this person is absolutely right or wrong, that is NOT what my point is.
My whole reason for giving this URL is simply to provide food for thought.
I do NOT buy everything the man is saying. There are some logic lapses in some of his conclusions. However, the documentation he provides for the attributed statements appears to be sound.
At the very least, it is disturbing.
The basic problem I have with the article, is some of the logic leaps he makes, by suggesting guilt by association for the entire mass of Christian musicians. I have personally known several Christian musicians that for a time were household names in virtually the entire Christian community. For some of them, this article is a perfect description of their lifestyles. However, for most of them, it is a bit of a stretch.
The important thing is to evaluate each musician as an individual. Some are very Godly people, some are total hypocrites, and most are somewhere in the middle.
-
Administration... It's all about administration.
Institutions are supposed to be run by policy. The rub comes in that no human yet born (Jesus alone excluded) has had the wisdom to create perfect policy.
Administration is conducted in layers. The basic layer is the organization's constitution, then it's bylaws. In the case of government, other layers called statutes are then applied. These layers are supposed to cover every person and organization within the domain covered by the constitution, bylaws and statutes.
As progress is made to smaller arms of the body politic, additional constitutions, bylaws, regulatory statutes and policies are drawn up by the all wise heads of the organizations.
Policy is where the policy makers get together and decide ahead of time what decisions will be made and not made on certain issues. They specify (with greater or lesser clarity and specificity as the case may be) what the organization will and will not do.
Within the context of the broad policies of the organization, operational practices are then written to handle the more mundane matters.
The NEXT layer of administration is the administration/management/directorate or whatever label may be applied to this human level of the organization.
THE WHOLE REASON FOR ADMINISTRATION TO EXIST IS TO DECIDE WHEN AND HOW TO MAKE EXCEPTION TO POLICY.
When organizations implement zero-tolerance policies, they are making LOUD statements that they do not trust the administrators they have hired. It is a blatant example of power brokering and paranoia run amok. If these power brokers can't trust their administrators, FIRE THEM and HIRE SOME WHO CAN BE TRUSTED.
An example of how bad zero tolerance mentality can get, let us create a variation on a scenario to help illustrate the nonsense. Let us suppose we are present at Columbine High School on the day Klebold and Dillion did their dastardly deed. According to some zero tolerance policies, if a student had an opportunity to jump one of these mass murderers from the back and use the butter knife found in the band room to disable the villian, preventing more murders, the kid who braved live fire to save his classmates would be found to be in violation of the zero-tolerance rule, and be suspended, and presumably miss bacculareate, too. The paradox is that he probably would be given the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his unabashed mental clarity, courage and intervention at the risk of his own demise.
Now in the case that originates this thread, the school actually did not follow zero-tolerance policy. If they had, the girls would not have graduated.
This illustrates the political nature and the irrationality of the policy and its implementation. If the policy is zero tolerance, then the policy has been violated by not forcing the girls to miss graduation. Since they allowed them to "walk the line," they really have forfeited their right to enforce zero tolerance policy and made it null and void by their exception. Now, based on that logic (or is it illogic?), what we have here is administration that is both arbitrary and capricious, meaning that the policy is not worth the paper it is written on. It is a really sick example of a board making poor decisions to begin with, and then having an administrator that is smart enough to figure out the political implications of absolute enforcement of the policy, but too stupid to know how to handle the matter appropriately. Same goes for the Superintendent.
The sickening twist to this whole thing is that now the girls have become folk heros, the administration has displayed the "Dunderhead of the Year" mentality, and is probably giving "Attaboys" to the Dunderheads who did dis dopey deed.
-
Don't even get me started on the "proper" prayer or the King Jim bit. Instead of trying to impress everyone in the congregation that we have mastered the 1611 usage of the then English language, and know when to articulate our speech with the proper application of "thee," "thou," and "thine," maybe what public pray-ers need to do is for once in their lives, try talking to God in real, honest to God, gut-wrenching, heart-rending expression of someone desperate for His Presence. Who knows, if some were to do that, maybe we'd mess up the lunch count at Ryans, because the First Church of the Frigidaire broke out into white hot worship and fell on their faces before the Living God and a bunch of lives got changed!!! (oops, is it past noon?).
Think about what might happen if a Jonathan Edwards were to show up and render another "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God..." Or, perhaps a Charles Finney walked into a local factory (wish we had some) and every one in the factory fell under conviction of sin, repented and the bars had to shut down. I'm not necessarily endorsing everything Edwards or Finney said or did, but the point is there was a Presence in that sanctuary that day and a Presence in that Factory that made a few people late for lunch... More important things to address than filling the belly, like cleaning out the heart and soul.
Church has somehow got to get beyond a joke, three choruses, offering, announcements (that are already printed in the bulletin anyway), hymn, prayer, sermon and bye bye, come back when you don't have so long to stay, cause I'm late for din din. We've got to get beyond the sermonettes that produce Christianettes who sit around in front of their TV sets smoking their cigarettes. Instead of being worried about being a half-mile wide, the church needs to worry about being only a half-inch deep. We've got to lose the mentality that concerns itself about being so heavenly minded we're no earthly good, to realizing many of us are so earthly minded we're no heavenly good.
Whether it comes from the pew or the pulpit, there must be a change in the church world from business as usual to a passionate embrace of His Presence. Nothing less will do. We must not settle for the usual fare. We must have His Presence. We must behold His Face. We must feel His Feelings. We must think His Thoughts. Our fellowship must come to the point our heart beats with His, our minds are filled with Him, our work is for His Glory, our being is to fulfill His Purposes, our life is consumed with Him. In Him we live and move and have our being. What else is there to live for?
We (the church) must get beyond our preoccupation with the temporal and become part of the eternal. We must go beyond the fixation with narcissism and what God can do for me to a concern with what God can do with me and through me. There must be a turn from lavish affluent selfish indulgence to a commitment that may cost us. It is the Father's business we must be about. We must remember the story of history is soft silken slippers coming down the stairs while it is the hob-nailed boots that are climbing them.
-
TBAR,
EXCELLENT POINT!! That's exactly what I was trying to get across. You will notice that I'm not stuck on the old hyms exclusively. I did list some of the newer stuff I like as well.
Let me add my favorite hymn to blast: "Hold the Fort" I can't stand that song. Sorry folks, but the truth must come out...
It's not about old or new, fast or slow, unison or 7 part stacked harmony, 4/4 or Bossa Nova Neuveau. It's about being drawn to the Heart of God.
Old song services have had problems, too, just like you mentioned. The fact that they're old does not mean they're sacred. The only thing that makes a song, be it hymn, chorus or some special diddy Aunt Suzzy composed while shuckin' corn is whether it brings us into His Presence. If it fails that test, then jettison the thing, old, new, borrowed or blue.
The point I'm trying to address here is there is a need in ALL church music to get beyond what Watchman Nee classified as "soulish" worship and into what he calls "spiritual" worship. The church must go beyond the simple message of salvation, as wonderful as it is, and get into the life that Jesus enables us to live (check out Hebrews 6 and surrounding passages). The church will never do that as long as she is self-absorbed and narcissistic.
It's not just the songs we sing. It's the sermons, Sunday School lessons and prayers as well... The next time you're listening to any of these in a public forum, start counting the first person personal pronouns. Amazing the perspective a little number crunching can do. I can remember one sermon I heard that had over 900 first person personal pronouns. Yes, TBAR, I actually started counting them after the first five minutes. Look at the songs we sing. Count the first person personal pronouns. Listen to the prayers we either hear or pray, count the first person personal pronouns. Then tell me what the experience is about, or rather WHO it's about. I'm not interested in going to church and hearing about me or you (generic). I'm interested in being brought face-to-face with Him. The music, the Scripture Reading, the Call to Worship, the music program, the offering, the sermon, the conclusion... the entire liturgy must be directed to Him and direct us to Him, because therein is our Salvation. It is in Him that we live and move and have our being.
-
OK, now, to issue number two...
More to the focal point of this topic...
Let me share with some of you my concerns with some of the "contemporary" music I hear in churches today. Now, PLEASE... I'm not in attack dog mode here. But this is a perspective thing that gives me pause.
This has to do with the nature of the music itself. One of the things I love about the hymns of the church is that many of them are very solid theological treatises. Go to the hymnbook and look up the words of "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God," "Holy, Holy, Holy," "Great Is Thy Faithfulness," "Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing," "There Is a Fountain Filled With Blood," and dozens of others. What do they have in common? Not a common melody or harmony or rthym. What they have in common is a picture of an ENORMOUS GOD who is worth worshipping.
Now, before you chorusites blow a gasket, here, there are some equally wonderful contemporary songs/choruses that I love, too. "It's All About You, Jesus," "Amazing Love," "Breathe," some of the Hillsong music, and some of Michael W. Smith's works.
Some of the essential problems I have with some music is that kind of music which is exclusively "me" centered. I have room for things which are testimonial in nature as well as the great themes, but when the BALANCE of music chosen talks about what I will or can do or have done overshadows Who it is that I am being called to worship, SOMETHING IS WRONG!!!
Music that is spiritual at it's core is that which moves me, not to a hallelujah hoedown, but to fall on my face in absolute worship and adoration of the One Who has condescended to this lowly sinner and lifted me from the muck and mire I stuck myself into.
I don't care so much about the genre of the melody, harmony and rthym as I do about the essential drawing me into the Holy of Holies that the best music of all genres does. Now, for sure there are some things that just because of what they choose to emulate, grates my nerves. I'll never listen to the acid, heavy metal music, regardless of the lyrics. I do not see anything redeemable about punk or gangsta, or those types of genres, and do not believe they bring any benefit to the Kingdom. That which was born of rebellion, cursing, overt sexuality, drug cultures and similar ilk has no place in the church. God is a HOLY God. Look back for the background of the liturgy of the Levitical Priesthood, and how they perpetuated an awe, reverence and FEAR of God. I understand that at Jesus' death the veil in the Temple was rent in two, providing access, and that we as New Testament Christians are told to come BOLDLY to the Throne of grace. But never do we see in the New Testament the emphasis on self fulfillment and self indulgence that is commonly observed in the church today, and is reflected in much of its music.
There's much more to say, but I'll take a breath now, and let some of you respond.
-
Interesting discussion...
The most divisive thing to happen to the church in the last 50 years is church music. The problem is not so much whether you like contemporary or traditional, high church or low church, foot stompin', hand clappin', or the soothing touch of "Peace, peace, Wonderful peace. Coming down from the Father above..."
The essential issue about all this is selfishness. I've observed right here in Paulding County a church that had an average age of 45-55 in the congregation. A young, ADHD song leader with more zeal than knowledge was allowed to do whatever he wanted by the "Powers that be." Of course, he chose to ram contemporary music down the throats of the congregation. There was no consideration for anyone over the age of 18, because that was his focal point.
I need not tell you the outcome was significantly divisive and problematic, not because everyone hated contemporary music, but the attitude and method with which the transition was made. In essence, "If you don't like it, leave." What Godliness!!! This young man was spoken to on many occasions, but chose not to listen to any of the elders (older people, not an officer), and just do it his own selfish way. This is what psychologists have called oppositional defiant behavior disorder, and is offensive to anyone involved.
A church that targets one thing, and one thing alone (and I'm not for blunderbuss thinking), may be a bit mypoic, whether it is contemporary or traditional. Consideration needs to be given to the makeup of the congregation. Is change wrong? Absolutely not. But change that runs roughshod over those who have sacrificed most of their adult lives and ignores their feelings is not exactly a picture of how I see Jesus dealing with it. He is the shepherd of ALL the sheep, and He is concerned that ALL are able to worship Him.
From an administrative point of view, change is something on which much research has been done. Perhaps one of the reasons so much strife is held over the music is because of the way it has been implemented. In change theory, there are basically 2 kinds of change... First order changes and second order changes.
First order change is that which is granted to the change agent, simply because of who he is. For instance, if a new pastor comes into the church, and he asks for information about how something is done there, that information is usually forthcoming simply because most people regard that knowledge to be within the domain of things he should be able to access.
If, however, he comes in with a new slant on something strongly held by the congregation, and does not deal with the underlying values, motives, attitudes, practices and doctrines held there, his change will be rejected. Second order changes are those changes that require changes of values, motives, attitudes, doctrines and practices. Unless the underlying structure is changed first, the change attempt is likely to fail.
Change is also something for which a congregation must be thoroughly prepared. Now, I know that some pastors regard the idea of thorough preparation of the congregation for second order changes as the five minutes of lecture they delivered last Sunday morning... PLEASE... Change, in order to be successful needs to be paced so as to be comfortable for all affected, or at least predictable and acceptable. Change implemented as a raw grab for power is going to cost the leader some of his precious pennies from his leadership account. If he spends them all on frivolous things, there is nothing in the account when the important matters arise.
Perhaps the best illustration of change I know is about a pastor who came to a church the first Sunday after being elected. He had been accustomed to being able to see his organist at his previous church, catch her eye, and initiate the spontaneous singing of an unplanned chorus as he felt the need. (Yes, I know this is Baptist territory and everything is planned, but bear with me.) Well, in this new church, he could not catch the organist's eye very easily. So, during the week, he moved the organ four feet so he could see her. The following Sunday, as he got to his pulpit, he noticed the organ was back in it's original position. Now, this pastor felt he needed the organ at point B, not back at point A. But, he also knew if he did it all at once, he'd have to spend some of his leadership pennies. So, being an effective change agent, he decided to make the change... incrementally, 1/4" per week. Four years later, the organ was exactly where he wanted it, and no one was upset.
One of the things drummed into my head in seminary was "You can never do in one year what you think you can, but you can always do more in five years than you think you can."
People will follow a leader most anywhere he goes... as long as he leads from one step ahead.
-
Send it to Washington. With all the hot air, smoke and mirrors produced there, it will surely be in good company...
-
RRR,
Has this villain been caught?
-
OUTRAGEOUS!!!!
In my business, I have to score 100% all the time. Why on earth would we tolerate these kinds of scores in this county???
Compare this with our poor neighbor county to the west -- Polk.
* They had 96 restaurants scored.
* The lowest score in their table was 80, and only one of those.
* There were only two 83's and
* The rest, most having 3 inspections were 85 or above.
**VERY FEW of them even scored below 90.
*****Out of 96 restaurants,
**********31 had 100% of their scores = 100%.************
If we would start boycotting those restaurants with low scores (90 % below), I dare say we'd get some clean restaurants pretty quick. (check out those in the 70's and below!!!).
Think about what you are really putting in your belly, and what it just might do to you!!!
-
Oh, as far as pics is concerned, I can get you all the color pics you want, except for one thing. Christopher has the digital camera, and is leaving tomorrow with Exit East on their next tour.... Sorry
What Hardcore Christians Consider Just Dead Wrong
in Religious discussion
Posted
Mason,
I've really appreciated a lot of what you contribute on Pcom, and genuinely respect you on a personal basis. I think you already know that, and what I'm about to say doesn't change that one iota (for the Hebrew scholars among us).
I do have a disagreement with something you have stated in this thread, however. Now, before I actually get into the specifics of the matter at hand, let me state clearly and succinctly, so no on-looker gets a mixed message here, the context of my remarks here is that of orthodox evangelical Christian theology. I'm not addressing this from a philosophical point of view, or conventional wisdom, or the musings off a riverbank on a lazy summer afternoon. The essence of this discussion ultimately comes down to one's view of the Scripture. If the Scripture is viewed as the Word of God, then the whole of the argument arises, falls and is settled exclusively within the pages of the Scripture. It is a question that addresses whether human reason or Divine Revelation is superior. If human reason is superior, then all opinions are of the same weight, all other factors being equal, and no one person can gain dominance by anything but by debate, persuasiveness, passion and ethos. If, however, as I believe, the Scripture does represent something more than my opinion or yours, then we must rest the argument within the context of Divine Self-disclosure. God is Spirit, and we can know nothing about Him, other than what He chooses to disclose of Himself. When dealing with these issues and questions, what one must do is discover whether what God has chosen to reveal about Himself speaks to the issues, and how the argument may be settled in light of that Divine Self-disclosure.
The matter that I herewith concern myself has to do with the matter of the exclusive claims of Christianity that you seem troubled to embrace.
Now, for the faint of heart, if you have trouble reading more than 100 consecutive words, please stop here, and go to the next thread, as this may get longer than 100 words.
I write this to see if I can help you to understand some of the biblical basis for those claims, not to chastize you for whatever, and not to put down those who may happen to disagree.
Part of the concept comes from the Old Testament, the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy, more specifically, wherein God spoke through Moses and told the Children of Israel that they were the People of God. He identified His purpose for them at that time, just after wandering in the wilderness, post Exodus, and just prior to moving into the promised land under Joshua's leadership. The purpose of the People of God was to bring God to the heathen nations surrounding them, and to carry them and their needs to God, as a priestly nation in the world. This concept was patterned after the structure God had imposed on the nation Israel just prior to this in the Levitical writings in which the priesthood is described and commissioned. God's direction for Israel through Moses was that there was a specific pattern for worship that God would accept. That pattern included the layout of the Tabernacle, the staffing of the Tabernacle and the rituals of the Tabernacle.
The Tabernacle was laid out so that there were several specific areas. Among them were the Court of the Gentiles, the Holy place, and the Holy of Holies. In the progression towards God, there were various, specifically described steps, and a special class of people God had chosen to do the work of sanctifying the people, making atonement for sins with blood sacrifices and ultimately approaching God. This was all specifically described in the book of Leviticus. The point of my describing this liturgical process is that God Himself designated the Priesthood as the specific persons who would perform rites for the people of Israel and bless them in the Name of God. The priests, in turn, had specific protocols for entering into the Holy Place, and had specific limits placed on them and what they could/could not do while in the Holy place. Then once per year, the High Priest made atonement for all Israel, for all the priests, and ultimately for himself and in a very specific manner, entered into the Holy of Holies. He was dressed in a robe that had bells tied all the way around the bottom and a rope tied to his ankle. The bells were there so that if he died while in the Presence of God, there would be no more tinkling of the bells, and he could be pulled out of the Holy of Holies by the priests who had the other end of the rope on the other side of the Veil that separated the two places. This pattern of coming to God, and an exclusive approach was then used as Moses labels all Israel as the People of God, and defines their purpose. This theological term, People of God also occurs in the New Testament, in 1 Peter 2:9-10, where the theological construct is then applied to the community of faith in Christ, composed of both converted Jews and gentiles. God's purpose in choosing the Priesthood was to serve the spiritual needs of the people of Israel, and represent God and His plans to them. His purpose in choosing Israel was for Israel, the People of God, is to foster the ultimate salvation of all the nations of mankind. Now that Israel has failed at that purpose, Peter states that the Church is now the People of God, or the New Israel, and it is with the Church that God intends to reach the entire world for their ultimate salvation.
This salvation is brought about through the atoning death of Christ on the cross, his burial, descent into Hell to obtain the keys of death, Hell and the grave, His resurrection and ultimately His ascension to the right hand of the Father, from where He serves as the ultimate Head of the Church. It is the task of the Church to bring salvation to the entire world. Christ has chosen not to use angels or other beings, but has entrusted the work of spreading the Gospel to the entire world to the Body of Christ alone.
Several issues bear upon the exclusive claims of the Christian religion. I shall not even attempt to address them all or even the majority of them in this short post. I have simply chosen a precious few biblical concepts as representative of Biblical thought that are entirely consistent with the vast body of orthodox evangelical Christian Theology. The entire argument occurs within the context of the Church, the ekklesia, called out body of believers. Jesus told His disciples in Matthew 18 that it was upon Peter's confession that Christ was the Son of God, that He would build His Church. I realize the Catholics have a different take on this, and do not wish to insult their positions, but this is the position of of the protestant Christian community, without insult or apology.
The doctrine of Salvation bears upon this issue. Why did Jesus have to die? It is specifically stated in the Scripture that He had no sin of His own, but that His death was an atonement for the sins of the entire world. The "Roman Road" to salvation essentially states that all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God, that the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us of our sins and to cleanse us of all unrighteousness. The basic issue is that all flesh has offended God, and God has provided a singular method for man to be forgiven and enter into the Presence of God. The Scripture talks of Jesus claiming to be the Way, the Truth and the Life. It speaks of Him claiming a special relationship to the Father for He had come from the Father, and knew the Father as no one else could know Him. The whole reason for Jesus' crucifixion, according to the Jews was his claims of divinity amounting to blasphemy, and thus worthy of death.
Jesus, in talking to Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish hierarchy, told him that he must be born again. Jesus, in another place specifically stated, "I am the way, the truth and the life, and NO MAN cometh to the Father except through Me." Mason, that's a pretty specific, pretty exclusive claim that came from the lips of Jesus Himself. Then, Peter, speaking under the influence of the Holy Spirit said, Acts 4:12: Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (KJV)
While there is an additional substantial portion of biblical literature that speaks to this issue in parallel manner, I will rest this case here. Now, a couple of words about the hermeneutics of these passages. According to rules of hermeneutics, one cannot as a proper method of interpreting the Scripture, take a passage out of its original context and make an application that is plainly at cross purposes with the intent of the original writer. In addition, one must use the plain sense of the passage unless there is a specific reason for bypassing that sense, such as if the passage, rather than being didactic or narrative is apocalyptic or figurative. Please note, that the passages I have used here have not been inappropriately applied. It is the plain sense of the passage, and it is appropriate considering the surrounding context.
What this argument ultimately boils down to is one's view of Scripture. If one holds a high view of Scripture, then the only resolution to the issue is that there is one and only one approach to God, and that is through the atoning death of Jesus Christ, His burial, resurrection from the dead on the third day, and His ascension 50 days later. This is plainly and unmistakably the teaching of the Scripture. Now, for those with a low view of Scripture that assumes the Bible is exclusively the work of 44 different men over a 1600 year period and there was no collusion, no collaboration and no cohesion of the message, but only the independent writings of these men, and that God had no role in the writing of the Scripture, then the argument is settled outside the Scripture. The problem with this is that there is that in this system, there is no autorotative message, no rule for faith and conduct that is reliable. Now, there are some who want to use a cut and paste method of applying the Scripture, thinking that we will take what is convenient, and leave what we are uncomfortable with -- a truly dangerous approach.
If the Scripture is the hadiwork of God overshadowing His saints then there is but one conclusion to the argument. Christianity does, in fact, have claims of exclusivity. The Scripture does not support the "All roads lead to Rome," approach essential to allowing other approaches.
As I mentioned earlier, this was not intended as an exhaustive treatment of the subject -- entire books have been written on subjecs far less clear -- it is just a cursory review of some of the rudimentary elements of Christianity that touch this issue.