ScottBarger wrote: I have bumped into them from time to time and they wouldn't say the words "God" or "Lord" and preferred "Yeshua" to Jesus. You're right though, the point remains.
I liked marcus' observation about all the names of God/Jesus in the Bible.
ScottBarger wrote:Earlier you seemed to indicate that it was heresy to deny the position "Saying 'Oh my God' = Taking the Lord's name in vain" is this true? How do you understand the word "heresy"? I understand it to mean a theological conclusion that excludes a person from being a Christian. If you share a similar view, then are you saying that for a person to be a true believer they must also agree with your position on taking the Lord's name in vain?
ScottBarger wrote:mikedsjr wrote:You are right. I shouldn't get bent out of shape with someone I don't believe worships the same God as I do. However, I do get bent out of shape with someone trying to represent the Christian perspective by throwing out opinions instead of pointing to what Scripture says. I get bent out of shape because Emery did a better job of interpreting the scriptures than the so-called pastor did. Scott's opinion was given all over the place. His answers were not like, "That is what the Bible says and God is to be honored". His answers was, "Yes" to Emery's question, "Is saying 'Oh my God'.....more like a category name?"
There is so much I would like to say at this point, but it seems to me the best response would be to ask you to consider the phrase "what the Scripture says" because what you understand about this phrase will determine the way rest of the conversation unfolds. There is no denying that the Bible says "Do not take the Lord's name in vain" (Exod 20:7) but that is not the real question. The real question was the question Emery and I were discussing, namely, "what does is mean?" What does the Bible mean when it says "Do not take the Lord's name in vain"? Though the answer seems to be self evident to you, it isn't to me.
The process of interpreting the meaning of this mandate is not all that easy. You understand it to mean "Don't say "Oh my God!" Others take it to mean "Don't say or write the name of God" I take it to mean that we ought to have reverence for God in word and deed, and specifically don't demean him by swearing oaths by his name.
God commands us not to use His name in vain.
1. The NIV translates it as, "Do no misuse the name of the LORD." But most Bibles say, ‘Do not use the name of the LORD in vain.’
2. The word vain is the Hebrew word shav. It has a variety of translations including emptiness, vanity, falsehood, nothingness, emptiness of speech, lying, and worthlessness.
1. To misuse God's name means literally, "to lift it up to or attach it to emptiness."
2. No one is to use the Lord's name in this manner.
Preamble this with a comment about the following examples about being careful to not use God's name even by citing examples.
3. Perhaps you've heard unbelievers use God's name in vain.
1. They might say, "Oh G-d!" Or "J-sus!" or "J-sus Chri-st!" "GD-it."
4. We Christians can easily see how wrong this is.
5. Unfortunately, I have heard many Christians use God's name in vain and think nothing of it.
1. God wants you to guard your words and make sure you are not using God’s name in vain even in normal conversation.
2. Check yourself to make sure you don’t use God’s name as an expression of surprise, anger, casual mention, or something in jest.
6. God’s name is too holy for that.
ScottBarger wrote:mikedsjr wrote:He went on to say several other things:Saying God's name in vain is on Old Testament mandate.
What about what Scripture says in the NT....I've already pointed them out.
See above, I think the NT validates the point I tried to make on the Podcast, God is much more interested in your heart and why you say what you say. I think it is possible for a person who is totally devoted to God to say "Oh my God" and not degrade the person of God. Likewise, I think a person could live their whole lives and never once say "Oh my God!" and still degrade his name by the way they speak and live.
ScottBarger wrote:mikedsjr wrote:...what we call....the tetragrammaton
No. Just because they refused to write the full name or say the name has nothing to do using God's name in vain.
ScottBarger wrote:mikedsjr wrote:Its funny how we protestants like to pick and choose old testament regulations
another mistake. This isn't a regulation. This is a command by God with the 10 commandments. Talking about lobsters demonstrates he doesn't get the purposes of the civil laws and the ceremonial laws for the Israelites. There is only one of the 10 commandments in the New Testament that isn't a command for us today and that one would be keeping the Sabbath, because Jesus is our Sabbath rest. We Christians rest in Him. That is why it doesn't matter what day you have church.
I disagree, your conclusions are interpretations that derive meaning from the text (and you may be correct) But understand that the entire law and prophets were binding in first century Judaism. You make a distinction between ten commandments and civil law that is NOT explicit in the text and subsequently obey 9 of the 10 commandments based on a theological construct that is not explicit in the Bible. For me, that's fine, just as long as you are aware of what your doing. You use the phrase "The Bible says" but it's probably more accurate to say "This is what I think the Bible means when it says"
We all do it. My interpretive framework has motivated me to build different theological constructs than you.
ScottBarger wrote:mikedsjr wrote:I kind of chuckle at [saying God's name in vain] now. Its kind of funny.
Not what I intended to say. I think taking the Lord's name in vain (which I interpret to mean "degrading God in word or deed") is a big deal. I just don't think that "Taking the Lord's name in vain" = "Oh my God"
ScottBarger wrote:mikedsjr wrote:the evil kind of speech we are told to avoid has to do with slander and hate, and malice, and those kinds of things. Never using 4 letter vulgarities. So i think the christians miss the point on that one
I'm glad he is talking like he isn't a christian, because as the scripture I wrote above stated in Matthew 12:36 "I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,"
In what way was talking like I am not a Christian?
ScottBarger wrote:mikedsjr wrote:Emery asked him after Scott's properly interpreted the definition of using God's name in vain:Emery: So isn't using His name...as part of an expletive, or part of an expression, wouldn't that being doing it in vain
Scott: I suppose......For me, it doesn't bother me.
Well, at least we have it straight. He agrees with scripture but he doesn't care.
I think our personal convictions should be considered when trying to understand meaning. Most Christians agree that degrading God is a bad idea, we just differ in our convictions as to what it looks like to live that way. Opposing convictions are par for the course within Christian communities, and fortunately the Bible offers great advice how to live in harmony even when our convictions don't line up.
ScottBarger wrote:mikedsjr wrote:And to follow using God's name in vain, they went to testing God. Again, Emery does a better job of pointing to scripture than the Scott. I'll make 3 quick comments.
1. I think it would be great for Emery to expose that Scott doesn't worship the true God and continue with this test.
2. Scott said,I don't we are testing God. I think we are testing prayer.
What is prayer, but talking to God. You can't test talking to God without testing God.
That's not true, in my opinion. The toaster/God test is intended to test if asking God for things is more effective than asking a toaster for things. I am testing the popular notion that prayer is asking God for things and expecting that he will give them to you. I fully admit that this is a silly, almost pointless exercise. Secretly, my hope is to humor the atheists and challenge the Christians to explore prayer outside of asking for things. My personal conviction is that God will do what he will do and is not often motivated by our requests, regardless of how pious we are (but this conclusion is informed primarily by my personal experience, which is admittedly at odds with Jesus' "ask, seek, knock" teachings).
ScottBarger wrote:mikedsjr wrote:3.Those of us who are christian, grab on to the Bible and say it is true....well one of the claims the Bible makes is when you ask God for stuff he will answer.
Ask for stuff? So God is a magic genie for Christians?John 15:7 "But if you stay joined to me and my words remain in you, you may ask any request you like, and it will be granted!
That doesn't say God is your magic genie. It says But if you stay joined to me and my words remain in you. There is a condition. You will say, "But this other verse didn't give the condition". Then i rest my case that it is about becoming your opinion and not rightly dividing the word of truth.
I don't understand what you are saying here.
A final note of defense for my dilapidated representation of Christianity, if you were to draw a continuum and on one side put an Old Testament prophet and the other side put a 21st century theologian, I would probably place myself somewhere on the "prophet" side. I have an affinity for hyperbole and wild eyed rants. Some people like to read the Bible, divide it up into manageable portions and reconstruct it into tidy theological systems. Me, I would rather run around naked in the wilderness eating bugs and telling people to repent.
Also, we invited Pat Robertson to take my place but he was too busy blaming horrible natural disasters on voodoo. By the way, I will give free holy water to anyone who gives that guy an atomic wedgie.
See? Hyperbole. Prophets do it better.
mikedsjr wrote:I don't think we are testing God. I think we are testing prayer.
What is prayer, but talking to God. You can't test talking to God without testing God.
mikedsjr wrote:Christians can speak heresy. If you believe something that is not part of orthodox Christianity, then its heretical. Many Christians, who believe in a heresy, don't realize the heresy until its explained. Then there are others who call themselves Christian, that aren't, and heresy is to be expected.
Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are. There is no question here of man's authority; it is God who speaks, and clear it is what law he will have kept in the church, even to the end of the world. Wherefore does he demand of us a so extreme severity, if not to show us that due honor is not paid him, so long as we set not his service above every human consideration, so that we spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory.
Ok, I think we are talking about two different things. What I hear you describing is how we ought to respond to what the bible teaches.
What I am describing is how we discern what the Bible is teaching in the first place.
In other words through what process do we start with:
εἴ τις θέλει ὀπίσω μου ἀκολουθεῖν, ἀπαρνησάσθω ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀράτω τὸν σταυρὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀκολουθείτω μοι
("If anyone wants to follow me they must deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow me" Mark 8:34)
and end up realizing that self denial is an integral part of the Christian life? The process involves Greek scholars, translators, theologians, pastors, teachers, readers, and students.
What I am saying is that many of us have different processes, and because the processes are different, we end up with different understandings of what the Bible is teaching us to do. This is why many Evangelical Christians believe that Jesus command to love our enemies and pray for those who do us harm (Matt 5:44) is universally binding, his command not to swear oaths (Matt 5:34) is somewhat less binding, and Paul's command for women to be silent in church (1 Cor 14:34) is not at all binding...even though all three are direct commands in scripture. These differences in process produce contradicting conclusions of what the Bible teaches regarding war, attire for women, hell, and homosexuality.
Since there is no divinely authorized process of interpretation, we are forced to live in a world were various modes of interpretation will necessarily be producing different conclusions.
NH Baritone wrote:John Calvin had his friend Michael Servetus beheaded for heresy and said to those who criticized the act:
mikedsjr wrote:It was Servetus who beheaded Servetus because he was stubborn
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests