Fantastic quote, my friend. Don’t you love how religion encompasses everything, so that they are experts on it all, from science to politics to personal lives. Magnificent. Scientists–the ones who actually STUDY what is really going on–aren’t allowed to speak their mind, but when it comes to religious zealots and crackpots chiming in about how amazing god and jesus are and how everyone who doesn’t think like that is just plain stupid, we must “respect” their “opinion.”

At least those scientists aren’t saying, “It just is.” I respect those men for saying something, be it wrong or in the wrong field or whatever, MUCH more than I respect a Christian who tries to tell me who should shut up when they say things that Christian doesn’t agree with.

Anyone who calls himself a Christian refuses to submit to reason. But that IS just opinion.

“I did not come to bring peace”! Isn’t that the truth! How many conflicts have arisen because of that lunatic! Oh, did I misconstrue the passage? Alright, how about you guys tell me the snippets of the bible I should read and the other parts I should ignore.

BTW… we could have done without the petty comments about oral sex. At least my mention of virgin promises has some basis in fact and the issue at hand.

One final note though, however not offended I am by the image, I do disagree with the context. I am reasonably convinced that Jesus’ command to “wash each other’s feet” applied to the fellowship of believers. We are to pray for our enemies, and we are to love them as well (ouch), however until the “body is cleaned” cleaning the feet would be entirely futile. In short, I am convinced I should pray and try to love my enemy, but that doesn’t mean I help them accomplish their plans. I’ll focus my help on things like orphans, widows, sick, and hungry… I’ll leave the killing and stuff to the folks in that row.

Final, final note… anyone else having trouble shaking the relief over Hussein being gone? I’m sure if I knew him I would find a way to miss him.

There is no conflict between religion and science. You can believe in both without any problems. The conflict is between science, which must conform to the real world, and individual preachings, which do not have to have any basis in reality. It is not likely you will find many people today that believe teaching the Earth revolves around the Sun is a threat to their religious beliefs, but this was certainly the belief four hundred years ago. You have to wonder, what will people four hundred years from now think about the debate between creationism and evolution.

Also, there is criticism of scientists that voice opinions outside the realm of their expertise. This seems to be a self-defeating. By this stance, if you can only voice an opinion of something that you’re an expert in, then you can’t voice an opinion about scientists that opine in fields outside their expertise, unless you are such a scientist.

The fact is, scientists are well-educated people that are well-trained to think in a logical manner. Their opinion on things is usually well thought out. Of course, if you don’t like their opinion, you’re free to disagree with it or to simply ignore it.

(1) Matthew 10:34/Luke 12:51 ‘did not come to bring peace - but a sword’

This passage is based in the scene of Jesus sending his 12 confidants out into the land of Israel to speak a simple message ‘the kingdom of heaven is at hand’ to the people. However, the message is obviously controversial in Israel on one level - since it seems to hearken back to a Messianic idea. When Jesus mentions the idea of ‘the sword’ here he is using it simply to symbolize the possible ‘cut/tear’ between families that might occur because of heeding the teachings of the disciples (which are in essense Jesus’ sayings).

I think Jesus was quite aware how controversial this really was going to be - thus division will happen over it. What is odd the disciples add the passage from Micah 7:6 as backgorund to where this teaching orignates from - about a prophet giving a message and reeling from the problem of division in the land and the godliness of the people. To me it is clear this teaching has nothing to do with a literal ’sword’ - but with division that can occur when a prophetic message is spoken.

The Luke passage is this same idea re-ittirated to another audience about the same thing - and Luke does not use ’sword’ but settles for ‘division’.

The idea finds it’s reality even in our day in age. We see someone like Medger Evers talking about ending segregation (later carried forward by King Jr and others) and they were speaking ahead of the actual outcome - not knowing what it would be - but still telling the message as it needed to be said. I think they not only caught heat from their own families/communities for stirring up these emotions in America but also from people that opposed the idea strongly. Irregardless, for me the message was easily prophetic and was about ‘justice’ - and it truly hearkens back to the idea from Micah 7. One could read Micah 7 and think of the times of Evers, Malcolm, and King Jr., and see this total dis-regard for righteousness or justice in place and time - and I imagine how Micah felt - these same people felt from seeing those same problems.

Luke 22:36 - ‘let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one’

The passage from a singular scripture reads like an advocation of weapons of warfare but I think in total context it loses that meaning fairly quickly.

(a) For some odd reason the disciples feel the absolute neccesity to show Jesus as fulfilling a prophecy - or idea from Isaiah 53:12 - ‘he will be numbered with the transgressors’ -which leads to the idea they need the 2 swords they find (at which point Jesus says ‘it is enough’ - meanwhile there were 11 others with Jesus - 9 with no swords). It seems Jesus in this passage is not building an army but is basically giving the Romans a reason to arrest him.

(b) It is interesting by the little story in vs. 49-51 see one of those swords used to cut someone’s ear off (a slave of the High Priest). Jesus is not for that action and outright denounces it fast ‘Stop! No more of this’ - which to me shows the idea of having the swords was more for the show of it than for the actual use of them (plus they have Jesus healing the injured man). Again the swords seem like a symbol of rebellion to the state than actual items of use.

(c) This story is re-ittirated in each gospel and it really changes very little 0 violence is never used - and in John 21 we see another line concerning this scenario “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.” Jesus see’s no reason for violence because he is not fighting for a kingdom, land, or practically anything - all things belong to God anyways.

There is nothing concerning ownership within Jesus teachings when talking about this earth. I cannot see a Jesus even in this dark period of his life (prior to crucifixion) going to his lower instincts of violence since he is quite aware this fight is over nothing - and is not worthy of taking another’s life for (even when they are threatening yours). One could say Jesus is portaryed living his values of ‘love your neighbor or enemy’ as he stared down his own mortality.

Again this is something that seems to have found it’s way into many a great movement in various time periods. The odd thing about guys like Gandhi and King Jr. is they expected their deaths to occur but were willing to make that sacrifice (their mortality) for the benefit of others (their mortalities). It’s one of the mpost noble concepts in human history - mind you it’s not popular but it is the only answer for nations that think war is the answer to societal problems.

(Matthew 10:34) - “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

(Luke 12:51) - “Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division;

(Luke 22:36) - “And He said to them, “But now, let him who has a purse take it along, likewise also a bag, and let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one.”

It seems to me the message of these verses, and history, contradict your assertion. But, since your take on things is normally a bit different from the usual Christian fare, I’m curious to see your interpretation.

I think the point about taking faith down to the personal level with regards to politics - agreed. I make the point that no matter who gets in most Christians will find themselves at odds with some platforms irregardless…what really gets my goat is Christians defend the wars coming from America as normal - and I always ask ‘what did Jesus teach on this?’. They usually skirt the issue with some patriotism of some sort but the fact is Jesus was anti-war and pro-peace.

I am not sure where I stand in politics and faith - I guess I am open to what people will say on it.