I
incense
Guest
Within an article by Gary DeMar is a scripture interpretation:
What do you think?
- Status
J
JRKH
Guest
K
kepha1
Guest
Satan has a secret. It is the secret about his three primary strategies to destroy us. If Satan can convince our culture to adopt the philosophy precipitated by these secret strategies he can brainwash our children, disrupt our families, manipulate our culture, and bring apostasy within the Church.
All the problems that we see today in society and in our church can be traced to these three fundamental strategies. It is the basis of the politically correct movement and of the heresy of individualism. These strategies are the fuel that powers feminism, the engine that drives liberalism, and the vehicle of the post-modern worldview that predominates our world today and that contaminates the Church.
These three secret strategies are:
All the problems that we see today in society and in our church can be traced to these three fundamental strategies. It is the basis of the politically correct movement and of the heresy of individualism. These strategies are the fuel that powers feminism, the engine that drives liberalism, and the vehicle of the post-modern worldview that predominates our world today and that contaminates the Church.
These three secret strategies are:
*]All opinions are equal
*]Never judge anyone
*]Never step on toes
Three Secret Strategies of Satan to Destroy our Children, our Families, our Culture, and our Church
by Bro. Ignatius Mary
(a Hermit of St. Michael)
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
I am not familiar with DeMar’s work – but from the quotes you gave, he appears to be mixing contexts; It’s not that I disagree, totally, with his particular choice of passages – but I am uncomfortable with the particular connections he is making; eg: his choice of company for the scriptures he explains.Within an article by Gary DeMar is a scripture interpretation:
What do you think?
eg: There are two kinds of judgment – public and private; religious (personal) and public. DeMar makes no distinction and may be over simplifying.
When Jesus says – Judge for yourself right and wrong he is referring to the ability of man to find the universal law of morality within themselves – eg: part of man’s nature as a rational being. This is the foundation of civil governments – even of Pagan cultures which can distort, but can’t totally irradicate the rule of law inscribed in people’s hearts.
The second kind of judgment, personal – eg: as in the worth of one’s neighbor, and his rights before God – and of one’s own personal holiness – which is subsidiary to the law of rational people; but it is also the place of most abuse/racism/etc.
Matthew and Luke are very different in their audiences and why they write – so that comparing those two will be more fruitful than working with John’s highly polished narritive. Matthew is versed in the details of the Law (torah) of his day and views the Judgments of Jesus in light of Jewish civil law primarily in the context of the Jewish people themselves (an internal inspection); Luke on the other hand is a convert from Gentile origin, and is writing to an educated – but pagan oriented crowd (an outsider’s view). The assumptions they make are different;
Notice, the passage in Luke comes just after the sermon on the plain (AKA the sermon on the mount in Matthew.) Though in Matthew’s Gospel there is a lot more material between the statement DeMar cites and that of Luke. Luke also lists four beatitutdes with four woes, wheras Matthew cites eight beatitudes – and elsewhere lists the Woe’s of the Scribes and Pharisees. I am not going to speculate much on the reason for these differences, but would just reassure you that Jesus had to repeat his sermons for different crowds over and over – there were no microphones in a super-stadium/church.
What I would like to do, though, is caution you that DeMar does appear to be picking passages which are ripe for political issues; and I am not sure where he stands – but it looks like he may be crossing the boundary between his own ideology and what is truly supported by scripture regarding civil government – I have only a small snippet to look at; but before further dialog – it might be helpful to me if you could give me an idea of where he comes from; I don’t think it looks very Catholic, and it looks like social teaching of some kind, but I could be wrong…
The main targets of these NT quotes are the Pharisees and Scribes (the Sadducees are secondary in these particular quotes.) Jesus was extremely Judgmental against these groups who were political parties advocating for a particular religious (theocratic) method of Judging the world which in essence made God a puppet of their whims; Jesus’ most serious and repeated charge against them is their personal hypocracy. Notice the Beam in the Eye v. the Splinter that Jesus mentions in Luke (I think) right after the quote of DeMar. It is the same theme.
Also in Luke, at the sermon on the mount Jesus says – “they treated your ancestors the same way” referring to persecution of the Jewish prophets. Often, modern commentators will claim that statement proves Luke was not a Jew by a slip of the tounge and putting “their” on Jesus’ lips. But that argument is erroneous; Jesus is differentiating between classes of Jews who were all under the same religious Government. The ancestors were known, as historian Josephus suggests, because the Pharisees kept track of who their parents were – a pedigree of sorts – which was socially a boasting point. It turns out the particular people who killed the prophets were almost invariably the fathers (biological) of those in the Pharisee class. St. Paul (AKA Saul before he was knocked off his high horse), a Pharisee, is seen assisting those stoning St. Stephen – a Christian. They were known for this typical type of persecution all throughout history against those God had chosen.
The passage in Luke also talks about “giving what is holy to dogs” and also about throwing ones “pearls before swine”. It is clear, then, that these teachings are not for the who world – but for a particular group of people who must deal with contrary groups. This is true both within – and outside – of any particular religious community with factions. The syro phonecian woman whom Jesus grants a miracle, is called a “dog” by Jesus almost quoting this passage verbatim; She was a non-Jew – But Jesus does give her his “pearls” by granting her request – also, think that just as Jesus says “turn the other cheek” in one place – but asks the guard why he struck him (Jesus) on the cheek if he had done nothing wrong while before the high priest and crucifixion; but it does not say he turned the other.
It is only where DeMar starts citing the old testament passages which include the execution of non-foreigners (native Jews) who offend God by worshipping false Gods that I become significantly concerned with the connection DeMar makes – for much of the teaching of Jesus contrasts with the severity of the Law that Moses imposed; and as Jesus made clear – some of this law was purely a concession to the evil tendencies of peoples hearts; this is a two sided issue with many points to consider – which I can’t go into right now. But, this is where I think your reading of DeMar needs to be tempered with a comparison of Catholic teaching – and perhaps, if you are Marian oriented, you may also notice a stark contrast with what she is purported to have said throughout the ages – if not, the study will be more intense, but perhaps also more satisfying.
Peace.
–Andrew.
I
incense
Guest
I don’t believe he has it right.
It would be easy to judge someone to my own standards, when I don’t have a problem with that particular sin or weakness. Such as drinking too much. I don’t, so it would be easy for me to condemn anyone who continually gets drunk. I wouldn’t be using two differents measures, so according to him, it would be okay. But I don’t believe that’s what Jesus meant.
The standards are set by God, and our judgements should always be in a manner to help the sinner, and protect the innocent.
This came from an e-mail essay passed on by a protestant friend. The point was that we need to speak out against homosexuality, and that we are all made impotent by the fear of judging. Which I do believe he is correct about. But his justification is wrong.
I
incense
Guest
A great read. Thank you. I especially found the third section, not stepping on toes, to be instructive for me.
B
bbentrup
Guest
Here is my own take on “judge not”:
It is dangerous to judge people. Your own salvation is hard enough and more than enough to occupy you 100% - how is it going to help you to be a busybody in someone else’s affairs? Furthermore, as much as you think you do, you don’t have all the facts.
Example: car screams down the highway at 90 miles an hour. Initial reaction: scorn. Upon reflection: why judge? maybe he had a health emergency, a state secret, or whatever else that gave him legitimate reason. Self - mind your own business.
Our society can’t live like that 100% though. We need a structure with authority figures that by nature of their position must judge others. I do not envy them that responsibility as it is a grave injustice to misjudge someone. Far better to be a choir monk than the abbot, so to speak. As a teacher, I do have to make judgments sometimes - judge students’ work, their stories, their intentions - it is not a fun matter to have this power, but in certain aspects it is definitely my job to judge them; to not do so, would be sinful, and I just have to pray for humility and wisdom that I do my best.
All glory to Jesus! Amen!
It is dangerous to judge people. Your own salvation is hard enough and more than enough to occupy you 100% - how is it going to help you to be a busybody in someone else’s affairs? Furthermore, as much as you think you do, you don’t have all the facts.
Example: car screams down the highway at 90 miles an hour. Initial reaction: scorn. Upon reflection: why judge? maybe he had a health emergency, a state secret, or whatever else that gave him legitimate reason. Self - mind your own business.
Our society can’t live like that 100% though. We need a structure with authority figures that by nature of their position must judge others. I do not envy them that responsibility as it is a grave injustice to misjudge someone. Far better to be a choir monk than the abbot, so to speak. As a teacher, I do have to make judgments sometimes - judge students’ work, their stories, their intentions - it is not a fun matter to have this power, but in certain aspects it is definitely my job to judge them; to not do so, would be sinful, and I just have to pray for humility and wisdom that I do my best.
All glory to Jesus! Amen!
- Status