Ep. 74: Happy 2010!

[Pseudonym]

Right, gotcha.

I also liked Marcus' post. However, I would like to note for the record a pet peeve of mine. (Disclaimer: I don't know what's on the poster.)

"Wonderful" and "counsellor" are not separate titles for Jesus. The title is "wonderful counsellor". I blame George Frideric Handel.

[imagesmith]

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.

This also brings up the question of whether "Jesus Christ" falls under the requirement of not taking the Lord's name in vain as literally interpreted by some. After all, Jesus did not exist! It was Iesus, transliterating the Greek word Ίησους (Iēsous), from the original Hebrew Yeshua (i.e. Joshua).

So if you hit your thumb with a hammer, go ahead and say "Jesus Christ". But whatever you do, don't say "Yeshua Hamashiach" or "Joshua Messiah"!

It is always good to know where the actual boundaries are. Though we could take a tip from the Pharisees and include "Jesus Christ" just to have a hedge around the Law.

[crazylegsmurphy]

Wait a second...

When you hit your hand with a hammer, and you say, "Jesus Christ!" what exactly are you saying?

What I mean is that this must mean something. Like are you saying, "Jesus Christ, those nerve endings you made sure do hurt sometimes!" or are you saying, "Jesus Christ, you suck for making this hurt!" or, "Jesus Christ, please make this not hurt!"

I guess what I am saying is, it it "bad" to use these terms in times of stress? I personally would be flattered if someone thought of me in these times. I can see it now....Emery is sitting there, listening to his record of Stryper when it skips off the turntable and smashes on the floor. Seeing his favorite record in shards on the floor he throws his hands in the air and yells, "Ahhh Crazylegsmurphy!!"

I personally would find this awesome....more awesome than if he yelled, "Awww Tony English!"

[imagesmith]

Crazylegs-H-murphy!! Give me a break! I was just trying to make a point!

[mikedsjr]

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?

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.

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.

The Bible says what it says. How hard is that? Instead of me going over this again, here is a snippet from CARM website. Matt Slick, yes that is his real name and was made fun of in junior high, has a Masters of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary.

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.

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.

God is not much more interested in anything but man glorifying God. And no man can please God, the father, except through God, the Son. And no man comes to the God, the Son, unless the God, the Father, draws him.

What you have just done is placed your own thoughts into scripture. However, you are correct that a Christian can say, "Oh my God" and not degrade the person of God. How? By actually talking to God. And you are right again that someone could go their whole life without saying "Oh my God" and still degrade the God. How? We are born in sinners. As scripture says, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God", thus they speak and live their lives degrading God, until God, the Father, draws a person to God, the Son.

[/quote]

...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.

I disagree.

back at ya.

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.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with deriving meaning from the text. The problem is reading into the text and I've been guilty of that. I strive to get better and better at not doing that because I find it as disrespectful (sin) to God to be loose (vain) with scripture. Sola Scriptura is not a license to just decide, "Well, culture says evolution is true so I might as well not look stupid to culture, which doesn't concern itself with God". Who's deciding value in your life? culture or God? No one can serve to masters.

There is a difference between ten commandments and civil law, or i guess i should have said judicial law. The judicial law was how to hand down punishment for crimes within Israel. Its no different than what we have in America. We have judicial law here. The 10 commandments summed up the entire law given to Israel. There was not any punishments tied to them except what is found within those verses. And amazingly enough, the verse that deals directly with the name of God, which you so casually want to pass off as God doesn't care how you use His name, there is a promise of punishment for abusing His name.

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"

That's not what the verse says. Stop re-interpreting the verse. It doesn't say, "You shall not degrade God in word or deed". It's specifically says, "The Lord's name". So what does, "my God" mean to you?

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?

"I think the christians miss the point". I'm not missing the point.

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.

Personal conviction if scripture already clearly tells us? no. Let's be real. Most christians, jews, muslims, and whatever else that believes in some other god, believes degrading a god is a bad idea. So what? That isn't the point. The point is that scripture tells us, "The Lord's name".

Also, the scriptures tell us how to live in harmony with everyone, despite whether they agree with you. The point here is that you are interpreting based on your own personal convinctions and not by what the text says, "the Lord's name". I talk to 2 atheist at my work and good friends with them. They know EXACTLY where I stand and we have laughs and live in harmony. I have to admit, I'm less harmonious with people claiming to interpret scripture when I don't see they are close.

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).

What are the things man are supposed to ask of God? The Lord's prayer clearly teaches us. "Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil."
This doesn't mean we can't ask for things. This doesn't mean we can't ask for a sign. I have a friend that he and his wife had many signs that they were doing God's will. Amazing story. It isn't a story of wealth and Prosperity. It was about becoming missionaries and they didn't become missionaries in the usual sense. Amazing, amazing story.

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.

I don't mind hyperboles and wild eyed rants. That's one thing. You have disregarded the clear teaching of scriptures.

[mitchellmckain]

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.

Mike, however much I agree with your objection, your argument is invalid. Here are some other examples of the same kind of reasoning.

"What is a telephone, but a means of communication with people. You can't smash a telephone without smashing people."

Or if you like something even more similar:

Suppose a teacher says that conversation is not allowed during the test she is giving and some wiseacre student responds by saying: "What is conversation, but talking to people. You can't forbid conversation without forbidding people."

If you are saying that testing prayer is equivalent to testing God then I could not disagree with you more. If a new convert to Christianity has no experience with prayer, can't we tell them to give prayer a try and see if it works? Well THAT is EXACTLY what we mean by testing prayer. It is certainly NOT the same as testing God if we do not make our belief in God conditional upon whether a prayer is answered. It is simply seeing whether praying about things is an effective way of dealing with problems in life.

If your Calvinstic doctrine doesn't even allow people a process of learning the value of a Christian lifestyle, then you make Christianity sound like some kind of robotic programming and that Christians are just mindless tin soldiers obeying for the sake of obeying and not because any of it has any value to people. If we ask you why you do what you do and all you can say is "the Bible says so" then you are no different from the borg, which I think has little more life than a virus - just mindlessly following the instructions in its DNA. The borg (or the devil) can say, "resistance is futile" all it wants and the plain fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter whether it is futile or not. I will resist the borg the same way I will resist all life destroying addicts of power and that includes a "god" that is so obsessed with power and obedience that he frankly sound a great deal more like the "god of this world" than the Christ who died for my sins -- Jesus whom I know in a loving relationship.


HOWEVER, I do agree with you in regards to this toaster/God test and I disagree with Scott. This is testing God not testing prayer because the point of this test is to compare God with a toaster and not simply to see what prayer can do for your life. I think I can even throw at Scott similar examples of the same kind of fallacy he is using, the same way I did to you above.

Suppose I give a test to my son David and tell him that he must not ask his elder brother for the answers to the questions. David uses a cell phone to call up his elder brother to get the answers and when I ask David what he is doing he says, "But I am not asking my brother I am asking the cell phone." Just because you are using prayer as a means to test God does not mean that you are testing prayer rather than testing God.

[JustJim]

When pagans prayed to their gods for rain and the rain came, did that mean their gods answered their prayers "yes" - or was that just a coincidence? When they prayed to their gods for rain and the rain didn't come, did that mean their gods answered their prayers "no" - or was it just that they didn't pray hard enough, didn't pray correctly, etc.? Or did the rain not coming mean their gods answered their prayers "wait" - and they just stopped praying or gave up hope for an answer to their prayers too soon?

How are prayers made to 'false' gods (i.e., any gods other than the Christian God) different from prayers made to the 'real' God, in terms of their efficacy? Does praying to Zeus (or a toaster) offer any possibilities for answers that are different from the answers obtainable by praying to the Christian God? Aren't the potential answers - yes, no, and wait - the same for both Zeus (or the toaster) and for the Christian God? And how could you possibly tell the differences? The answer to any prayer will always be yes, no, or wait - regardless of to whom/what the prayer is made. If I pray to Zeus for rain and you pray to God for rain, and it rains, whose god made it rain? How can you tell?

Good luck with your experiment....

Jim

[NH Baritone]

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.

Mike, I think you forget that heresy was for centuries a capital crime. From a vigilante point of view, it occasionally remains so. John Calvin had his friend Michael Servetus beheaded for heresy and said to those who criticized the act:

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.

However, I must say that you are the most pure Calvinist I've personally had any dealings with. In that vein you are often historically on target.

Of course, that could simply make you a relic.

[ScottBarger]

OK, the Toaster Test thing....

The idea was to actually put to the test the humorous comparison that some have leveled against praying to a deity, namely, that it is no more effective than praying to a jug of milk or a toaster. I always thought that was funny and sort of on point. So let's see if it is true. In terms of "testing God" or "testing prayer" I suppose I misspoke, I guess it is a bit of both. However, as Emery pointed out, I guess it is not all that different from Elijah and the prophets of Baal, except I do not propose that the loser be put to death.

[ScottBarger]

Mike,

You are missing my point. Maybe I am not explaining it well enough. I will give it another try when I get to the office. Thanks for the feedback, though!

[ScottBarger]

Mike,

Actually, we had a conversation like this before, though I can't remember the topic. But I sent a message to you to explain my point of view and decided to copy that message here since it pertains to the issue. You are accusing me of some pretty harsh things, the most hurtful to me personally is that I have no regard for what Scripture teaches. This is totally untrue (anyone who knows me will confirm this). As I tried to explain in the following message, our disagreement isn't rooted in the fact that you believe what the Bible says and I don't. It is rooted in the fact that you have interpreted meaning one way and I have interpreted it another.

My previous message to you:

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.

[Emery]

Mike,

Kudos for sticking to your guns. I don't think Scott is as wishy washy as some may think--his answers are as principled as yours, for example, but are based on different principles. He seems more concerned with the intent of the law, while you with the letter. What do you think?

That being said, thanks for the Matt Slick quotes. It would be cool to have him on the show too, but like Turek, he probably has much bigger fish to fry.

I wonder if in Slick's definitions of "vain" there is room for an English one, which I got from Dictionary.com:

"without real significance, value, or importance; baseless or worthless: vain pageantry; vain display."

If so, do you think vain prayers also violate the commandment? As mentioned on the podcast, there is no indication that God has ever, or will ever, answer prayers to keep children safe and warm on a given night. Probably we can all think of 10 similar worthy-but-never-answered prayers.

If such prayers invoke God's name, are they doing so in vain?

[Brad]

Great post and really fantastic query (both here and in the podcast), Emery!
I look forward to reading any replies by Mike and other Christians.

BTW, about possible books for a podcast series discussion:
I had a chance to glance at The Good Book in a Barnes & Noble last night. It looks like a great and funny read. But it is only about the Hebrew Bible, right, which doesn't exactly address the Christian aspect here?
And my last suggestion, The God Virus, though it would be my personal choice, might be too strong a medicine for the podcast - that is, it might lead to the side effect of "inflammation" here.
But here's a possibility I've heard good things about that is supposed to be quite even-handed and which addresses our topic here as directly as one could imagine - Dialogue with a Christian Proselytizer by Todd Gates.
I have it on the way right now from Amazon, and will post if it lives up to its notices.

[mikedsjr]

John Calvin had his friend Michael Servetus beheaded for heresy and said to those who criticized the act:

Servetus was asked not to come back Geneva or else he would be sentenced and burned. Calvin did not want this to happen and went to Servetus to try to change his mind or convince Servetus not to go back to Geneva. Calvin also convinced the town to have him beheaded because it was more humane. Calvin did agree that Servetus must be put to death. But it wasn't Calvin who beheaded Servetus. It was Servetus who beheaded Servetus because he was stubborn despite the several warnings to stay out of Geneva.

[imagesmith]

It was Servetus who beheaded Servetus because he was stubborn

Though Calvin may have requested a beheading, he had no issue with the sentence. He believed that heretics needed to be punished. There were many people during this time who were put to death due to their convictions. These are called martyrs or heretics depending on which side of main stream belief of the victorious party they fall on.

In fact, there is not one christian alive today that would not be considered as a heretic by some previous orthodoxy. As a matter of fact, it is the Orthodox who are the believers that have changed the least. Should we compare your faith to their orthodoxy? You would be a heretic!

It was Servetus who beheaded Servetus? I doubt that. Religion and religious pride killed Servetus. And Calvin was not only party to this, but he supported it in principle - even if he was troubled by this one.