I could not ask anyone to do for me what I can not do for myself. Torturing someone? First of all, forced confessions seldom work because you cannot trust the information. The act of torturing someone, what good is information if you have already lost your humanity in getting it.

This should be a no-brainer, that it isn't boggles my mind.

http://preparedcitizens.wordpress.com/

Posted by: Catherine "Jackie" Mitchell | September 12, 2008 3:55 PM

Since it always seems to come back to this issue anyway, I'll bite.
I looked up abortion and I don't see where the Savior directly addressed it--can someone help me?
This is a perfect example of people picking and choosing what issues they are going to make the most important and hammering away at anyone who dares to hold a different view.--Support of capital punishment is yet another one...

Posted by: Debbie | September 12, 2008 4:31 PM

re: Posted by: Debbie | September 12, 2008 4:31 PM

Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself. Surely you would not make an argument that 'He' is okay with abortion.

The early church however did have pronouncements about abortion and those are consistent to today as no major denomination (or catholics) condone abortion.

“You shall not kill the child by obtaining an abortion. Nor, again, shall you destroy him after he is born.” (Barnabas, 70-80 AD, 1.148)

“You shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one who has been born.” (The Didache, 80-140 AD, 1.377)

“We say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder. And we also say that we will have to give an account to God for the abortion.” (Athenagoras, 175 AD, 2.147)

“You shall not slay your child by causing abortion, nor kill the baby that is born.” (Apostolic Constitutions, 390 AD, 7.466)

Posted by: Peter S. | September 12, 2008 4:42 PM

“You shall not kill the child by obtaining an abortion. Nor, again, shall you destroy him after he is born.” (Barnabas, 70-80 AD, 1.148)
“You shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one who has been born.” (The Didache, 80-140 AD, 1.377) “We say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder. And we also say that we will have to give an account to God for the abortion.” (Athenagoras, 175 AD, 2.147)
“You shall not slay your child by causing abortion, nor kill the baby that is born.” (Apostolic Constitutions, 390 AD, 7.466)"
Posted by: Peter S.

Gee, Peter were around when all that was written? Impressive!

Posted by: JamesM | September 12, 2008 4:46 PM

Harold,

Jesus only did that because Gentiles were not being allowed to pray in the temple. Jesus tells his disciples to buy swords but then tells them not to use them, specifically when Peter tried to chop off the Roman's head Jesus said one comment and it was not finish the job. Jesus never advocated wiping out your enemies or torturing them to get information.

p

Posted by: Payshun | September 12, 2008 5:11 PM

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

"Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity." 2297

"In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors." 2298

Posted by: neuro_nurse | September 12, 2008 6:00 PM

Peter S.

"Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself. Surely you would not make an argument that 'He' is okay with abortion."

I think you are missing the context of her remarks. Big Guy made the point that Jesus did not directly address torture, giving the impression that since He didn't, it must be OK.

Debbie then used abortion to make the same argument to show that even though Jesus had nothing to say on abortion, that doesn't mean He would have thought it was OK.

Thus she was arguing that likewise, Jesus would not have thought torture was OK.

Posted by: squeaky | September 12, 2008 6:51 PM

Big Guy/ModerateLad - you were better when you were ModerateLad, please go back and find yourself.

Could we please have another example of Jesus getting angry beside the tired old moneychangers in the temple bit. Please, that incident is outnumbered like 10 to one by gospel accounts of Christ's gracious love for sinners and no one yet, including AlanD to whom the question was originally directed, has adequately responded to my plea last week to offer an interpretation of the John 2 moneychangers story in the context of the overall purpose of John's gospel. Hello?

I've heard that a third question has now been added to the two made famous by Evangelism Explosion. #3 - Do you realize that unless you offer an adequate answer to questions 1 & 2, I will have to torture you in the name of Jesus until you do?

Posted by: canucklehead | September 12, 2008 7:13 PM

Sheesh! Doesn't anybody here have jobs that they work at? (I have two part-time jobs - WALMART greeter and BK.) But when I am home, work outside also keeps me busy.

I think the money-changers example is a poor one to support torture. To me, it is significant that Jesus's actions in this case were directed at the corruption going on inside the church - not outside the church. After reading some of the posts above, I think the "money lenders" are alive and well.

Posted by: Sister Marie | September 12, 2008 8:44 PM

I VERY MUCH appreciate this quote from another individual that posted: [i]"Christian conservatism is NOT synonymous with political conservatism. Christian values are not synonymous with Republican party values."[/i] Now -- if we can get more of our conservative Christian Brothers and Sisters to live this, things will be much better.

I've been an ardemt Bible-believing evangelical Christian for several years. In the past, we never considered our Christian convictions in political terms, or as "conserative", "moderate", or "liberal". They just are part of us as followers of Jesus Christ. If I am His disciple and believe His Word and Way, then that's how I vote. There's no mistaking Sunday morning services at my church for Republican Party Conventions, and no one blurs the line of 'church & state' or tax exemption by 'naming names' nor specifically TELLING me who to vote for.

Posted by: OneGod1 | September 12, 2008 10:32 PM

While Jim attributes the precepts of the "Golden Rule" to Jesus the concept precedes him by a few hundred to over a thousand years. It is basic to Buddhism, was advocated by Greek philosophers (Pittacus 7th ce. BCE, Isocrates 5th ce BCE, among others), and is echoed in a number of verses in Hindu scripture.

But, to the main theme. Interesting statistics, especially as it relates to Christians needing to be "reminded" of ethical behavior.

I deplore the very concept of torture. It is basic to my sense of morality and ethics. As an atheist I don't need to be reminded of any sayings by anyone, mythical or otherwise, to strongly retain that perspective, anymore than I need some reminder that its wrong to kill, steal, enslave, rape, or treat women or minorities or homosexuals as less than equals.

That anyone needs to be reminded that cruelty toward his fellow beings (or to animals for that matter), isn't endorsed by some figure who may or may not have existed some 2000 years ago in order to jog their humanity is a complete marvel to me. Frankly, it is indicative of a basic character flaw. It speaks poorly of their personal philosophy.

But then again, just as some Muslims distort the Q'uran for their purpose, the scripture has been either ignored, or used to justify any number of hideous actions by Christians through the ages. Genocide, slavery, the subjugation of women, anti-Semitism / pogroms, and yes, even torture (Inquisition, witch trials).

In fact, some very inventive and unique methods for, and tools of, torture were invented by Christians. So we shouldn't be surprised by their attitude, or when Christians "stray" from the preferred dictates of their religious icon.

Posted by: dromedaryhump | September 12, 2008 11:22 PM

I believe this says a great deal about the malleability of Christian values. A great many Christians think whatever they are told to think. If Robertson, Dobson and the rest took a strong and consistent stand against torture the numbers would be very different. If there was no 24 on TV justifying torture with fabricated scenarios, not a single one of which can be shown to be a real situation, the numbers would be far different. If the republican party opposed all forms of torture with the same moral zeal applied to abortion, evangelicals would also condemn it.

In the 80s I met Richard Wurmbrandt, who wrote the book tortured for Christ. Every step he took was painful because his jailers beat his feet with a baton. At that time Americans felt that torture was evidence of a lawless and undemocratic government, the province of tyrants, and criminals, Stalin Nero the Inquisition and Hitler.

Our constitution forbids torture and there is plenty of Supreme court rulings to clarify and reinforce that position. One of the reasons for the American revolution was to free people from the arbitrary violence of the state and to require a speedy trial using due process with a jury of peers. We must not give up our constitutional rights to the whims of presidents of either party. History and wisdom both teach us that corrupt means are a poison that infects everyone and everything it touches.

big guy
Jesus said be harmless as doves, treat others as you would be treated, he taught us to love our enemies and , and refused to take up the sword. None of those teachings allow for torture.

psychorrhagia said: "I don't have an opinion one way or another on torture... I'll leave that between the rulers and the God that put them in place. However, it seems like "Do unto others" may be out of context if applied to governments."

Are you saying God put Stalin and Idi Amin, and Adolf Hitler, and all the murderous thugs of history in power? And you worship this God?
God never told anyone to form an army and invade and steal land that is not theirs. Jesus denied this history and the Jewish notion of law, saying you have heard it said by them of old an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I say to love your enemies and do good to those who mistreat you, for then shall you be called he Children of God....
The teachings of Jesus are a choice between the teachings of them of old and his good news of a direct relationship with a god of love and mercy.

Most Christians refuse the teachings of Jesus and adopt the teachings of Paul the Pharisee. The Pharisees believed that god worked through raising up kings and kingdoms to do his will. It was the only way they could explain the the historic denial of the Abrahamic covenant and the subjugation of Israel to one empire after another. It is a false doctrine and led Paul to say that God appointed rulers to support the good and punish the just. A patently ridiculous and morally repugnant lie. All through history rulers have been motivated largely by self interest and have frequently opposed and murdered the innocent or those who called for justice. Jesus death was not the least exceptional in this regard. The Romans often lined the streets of the lands they occupied with the crucified bodies of those who resisted them. They then imposed merciless taxes and took the land of the poor or politically weak. They did not bring justice, they brought injustice and oppression.

Jesus was dangerous because he opposed all hierarchies and taught people to serve each other. He said the kingdom was not somewhere else or somewhere in the future, but here now, as available to children as to the learned, more easy for the poor to find than the rich. He brought a healing love that freed people from religious and political rulers and gave them a way to live by sharing their food and the healing power of love, mercy, truth, freedom and joy.

It is true that the early church opposed abortion. They also opposed military service.

Posted by: jonabark | September 13, 2008 1:53 AM

"He affirms the commandment prohibiting murder. No commandment exists regarding torture, so a utilitarian argument does exist for its use." KevinS

Well put Kevin S. I knew somebody would pick up on that nuance. Now do you think that you could write a short email to Palin explaining to her what the Bush Doctrine is. No need to explain theology to her-- she's got that one pretty well tied down.

"To date, this has been the problem with the debate regarding torture in America. The goal is not to generate consensus around what interrogation techniques are morally acceptable, but rather to paint a political opponent as a peacenik or a torture-lover." Kevin S

Yeah I have heard you try to sound so intellectual in the past asking whether waterboarding was really torture. Then when I asked you if you would volunteer for a waterboarding experiment on yourself to determine whether it was torture, you declined. How is one to further the dialog unless you would be willing to take the ultimate sacrificial step to build that consensus of which you so articulately speak?

Posted by: JamesM | September 13, 2008 7:07 AM

"Now do you think that you could write a short email to Palin explaining to her what the Bush Doctrine is. "

Considering the the fellow who coined the phrase cannot even do so, I'm pretty sure I would fail at it.

"Yeah I have heard you try to sound so intellectual in the past asking whether waterboarding was really torture."

I have contended with a variety of methods, ranging from waterboarding to dogs barking. My point is that we should have a real discussion about what is or is not acceptable, draw a line in the sand, and move from there.

"Then when I asked you if you would volunteer for a waterboarding experiment on yourself to determine whether it was torture, you declined."

Did I? I thought I said it was a moot point. If there was an opportunity to volunteer, I'd probably take it on. It would make for an interesting blog post.

"How is one to further the dialog unless you would be willing to take the ultimate sacrificial step to build that consensus of which you so articulately speak?"

This logic doesn't make sense. I advocate life sentences for murderers. I am not inclined to volunteer to experience a lifetime in prison for the purposes of defending my position.

Posted by: kevin s. | September 13, 2008 11:05 AM

“If there was an opportunity to volunteer, I'd probably take it on. It would make for an interesting blog post."

That is mighty patriotic of you.

Plus you probably at least get something interesting on one of those blasé, narcissistic blogs like the The Problem with Kevin, for instance.

Posted by: JamesM | September 13, 2008 11:38 AM

"Plus you probably at least get something interesting on one of those blasé, narcissistic blogs like the The Problem with Kevin, for instance."

CORRECTION. IT SHOULD READ:

Plus you would probably at least get something interesting on one of those blasé, narcissistic blogs like the "The Problem with Kevin," for instance, if you posted it there.

Posted by: JamesM | September 13, 2008 12:06 PM

Do you deny that the Old Testament has any relevance to modern Christianity?Posted by: psychorrhagia |

Absolutely not. It is just that the way that you apply it that lacks relevance to modern Christianity.

Posted by: JamesM | September 13, 2008 12:18 PM

Pastor Jeff: "Jesus was sentenced to death by those who were experts in the 'Old Testament'"

Jesus was sentenced to death by experts of self-righteousness trying to protect their own positions. They were stretching the Old Testament laws. It was God's plan that he would die for my sins.

I completely agree that murder or torture has no place our daily lives. That is what Jesus was teaching. However, I can't write off the application of God commanding His nation to war. He even used other nations to war against Israel when they turned away from Him. I believe Jesus and the Father are one in the same, so there must be some way to reconcile the two commands. It seems pretty straight forward to me that one is directed at a government and the other is directed at individuals.

I don't claim to be a theologian, but I do strive to understand God's perspective. I just enjoy a little friendly banter with brothers and sisters in Christ!

Posted by: psychorrhagia | September 13, 2008 2:07 PM

"It is simple a vehicle to bludgeon those who adhere to a different ideology."Posted by: kevin s.

While Nero stroked his harp, Rome was burning. If it is not abundantly obvious to you that waterboarding is torture and you want to have an "intellectual", "abstract" discussion about it, that is your business.

And although you may cry foul, you are not the victim.

Posted by: JamesM | September 13, 2008 4:55 PM

Very few people who wring their hands regarding the torture issue actually care one way or the other. It is simple a vehicle to bludgeon those who adhere to a different ideology.

Wow! Talk about painting with a broad brush! Did it ever occur to you, Kevin, that perhaps some who, as you caustically put it, "wring their hands regarding the torture issue" are stating their actual belief and aren't concerned whether or not anyone's ideology is challenged by their thinking? Maybe they actually believe it's wrong and immoral.

Sort of like people who believe abortion is wrong and immoral.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | September 13, 2008 8:30 PM

One other thing there is no discussion on what forms of torture are more acceptable than others. That's not even worthy of debate. Torture is wrong. So instead of trying to debate what forms are acceptable we should be saying no torture.

p

Posted by: Payshun | September 13, 2008 9:18 PM

Also to Peter
There are rules of conduct for participation here. They allow for freedom of belief and argument, but require that we abstain from personal insults . An imprecise term, but i think it keeps things reasonably civil. I think your direct attacks on the logic of Christian faith are acceptable as long as they are not loaded with insulting language. You can say an idea is dumb, but not call people dumb, immoral etc. These rule also provide a good exercise in control as a writer /thinker.

psychorrhagia
"Do you deny that the Old Testament has any relevance to modern Christianity?"
The Old Testament was not dictated by God. It is a very flawed and human document with many historic inaccuracies and some deliberate falsifications.. What was written reflected the ideas, culture and times of the writers. If Jesus or Moses were alive today who would you trust to tell their story accurately? People have not changed. Much was written centuries after the events. Historical and textual analyses are worth reading. There is in fact no way to reconcile the teachings and example of Jesus with the OT scriptures. In fact there is no way to reconcile the different images of God that appear in the OT. The Bible never calls itself the"word of God". The modern invention of Biblical innerrancy is an invention to give power to those who wish to control the interpretation to suit their religious agenda and intimidate their followers.

Romans 13
Paul was a pharisee and remained proud of that and retained many of the teachings of the pharisees in his self proclaimed apostleship. It is obvious that he knew very little of what Jesus taught. The idea that Jesus teachings changed after his resurrection is ridiculous and unworthy of serious consideration. Paul himself said that he would bind nothing on the Gentiles except they refrain from fornication and things strangled.So he does not claim divine truth for his every word. His teachings about government are Pharisee nonsense IMO. Most Christians follow Paul because most Christians don't really like Jesus, and Paul offers a much more user friendly religion.

psychorrhagia
"...it seems like "Do unto others" may be out of context if applied to governments."

For any "government" to do anything, individuals must act. This imagined distinction is false and has no scriptural or logical support. Why would a God who warned his people not to take a king, and then went on to describe in detail a list of the ruthless abuses of Kings, spend his energies sorting through the governments of the world choosing this king to punish that king and so on ad infinitum. Do you really believe this? If he is so busy with all this lesson teaching and raising of righteous rulers, what went wrong?

I am not saying that God's spirit cannot influence governments and nations, tribes and peoples. But he idea that all governments are appointed by God is false.

Posted by: jonabark | September 13, 2008 10:10 PM

Payshun: I have no argument that the Lord is a God of mercy. However, he also knows when souls have completely rejected him and there is no point for them to live on this earth anymore.

Jonabark: If you don't believe in the inerrancy of the Word, what hope have you? If you can't trust anything in the Word, why do you even believe in God? I am not trying to argue, I am honestly interested to know.

Posted by: psychorrhagia | September 13, 2008 11:31 PM

" 6He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:
" 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
7They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.' 8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men."

9And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!" (Mark 7)

Jesus (and Isaiah) spoke directly to the practice of finding ways to ignore God. Sadly we often find excuses, exceptions, or simply say Jesus didn't mean what he said.

Igor

Posted by: Deryll | September 14, 2008 4:16 AM

I cannot believe a poll that says 57% of white evangelicals in the South support torture. This by a majority white evangelical school there in the South.

Having read a few religious texts, let me guess a few numbers of my own to fight the deists with.

Passing them as a poll debauches everything from mathematics to fine heterosexuality.

Picking numbers from my ewomb, I guess:

0.12-0.13% of white evangelicals in the South verbally support torture.

31% of white evangelicals in the south verbally curse sinful Islam.

6.25% of white evangelicals in the South make recists comments over once every two years.

66% of Israeli Jews verbally curse sinful Islam.

2% of Israeli Jews make a racist comments over once every two years.

0.9% of Israeli Jews verbally support torture.

85% of polling questions include a NAND gate.

74% of American tenured professors have doubted the foundations of all education in the Coran sense.

74.104% of cvUS defense lawyers believe every poll they see for sentencing preposal.

62% of American elected officials believe God rote has; no;; politics.

Or, you can believe 666 talents of gold in Solomon's temple translate into burning hell. There is no poll monopoly none. The Federal Writers' Project was written in tongues and so were the best censuses. I fear for the 2010 when Louisiana and Florida are mith enplaced.

Posted by: Only A Pawn In Their Game | September 14, 2008 7:13 AM

"Heck, I'm willing even to permit an INTELLECTUAL discussion."

You have left me with the impression that you want to blur and obfuscate the issues under the guise of an "INTELLECTUAL" discussion. Why don't you just come and and admit that water boarding constitutes torture?

"I'm not sure saying that "very few" people think this way or that consitutes utilizing a broad brush, at least not in such a way as to be problematic to my argument."

Of course it doesn't in your mind. Because then you would have to admit to being wrong.

Posted by: JamesM | September 14, 2008 3:02 PM

Deuteronomy 7= the Israelites are commanded to exterminate/annihilate the Canaanites and to "show them no mercy"

Matthew 15= Jesus shows mercy to the Canaanite woman's demon-possessed daughter

Deuteronomy 7= 7 nations are specifically marked out for genocide

Matthew 16= Jesus feeds the 4,000 on the Gentile side of the lake and there are 7 baskets left over, representing the 7 nations (just as 12 baskets were left over after the feeding of the 5,000 on the Jewish side of the lake, representing the 12 tribes)

Conclusion= Jesus reverses the Deuteronomy 7 command FROM "show them no mercy" TO "showing them mercy"

Application= I cannot see Jesus justifying torture under any circumstances. Jesus is pro-life from womb to tomb.

The challenge= how do we actually live the Jesus Way in the "real world"? In a world of violence, it seems clear WHAT we are supposed to do-- but it's unclear HOW we are supposed to do it.

Stay in One Peace,

Cool Runnings

Posted by: Cool Runnings | September 14, 2008 6:43 PM

Trojans 35 Buckeyes 3

Yeah, and the Browns are probably going to get their butts kicked by the Steelers later this evening. Cincinnati already lost earlier today.

Not a good weekend for Ohio football teams.

D

Posted by: Don | September 14, 2008 7:16 PM

"Thanks for this thoughtful post on the torture poll. Having worked on it myself, I was surprised and saddened by some of the results, but encouraged by others." Dan

Dan--What is the worldview that leads a group at Mercer to sample "white southern Evangelicals." What is distinct in your mind about this group?

One of the more disturbing and encouraging pieces of information was not highlighted in Jimmy's summary. Among the sampled group, over half that related their view to scripture, rejected torture outright. I think it hard to identify a sample as Evangelical if their ethical stances have no relationship to scripture.

I am sure many do ID themselves as Evangelical--but this is a label with many meanings. So without explanation as to how it was used in the "science" and in the minds of those surveyed--it becomes quite meaningless (in my mind).

And there is no way this topic can be heard outside of the political climate/arguments of the last few years. So a question about ethical view of torture immediately carries all kinds of meanings about Iraq, 'war on terror,' George Bush, Guantanamo, etc. etc.

The survey itself demonstrates how context changes answers. Those conducting survey interpreted results as showing that 14% would shift their view when reminded of the Golden Rule. Another interpretation is simply that when first posed with the question they heard it in political terms. The more times the interviewer raised basic ethical principles, it shifted the meaning of the conversation and they responded in more pure ethical terms.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | September 15, 2008 8:16 AM

psychorrhagia
Actually. I have been very happy ever since I stopped believing in a God of war and eternal torture. God is Love.

Kevin said he thinks torture should be illegal, but torture is in fact illegal. It is not legal by any branch of government or the military. The laws are clear and the phony "legal opinions " of lawyers like Gonzales and Addington do not change the law. These 3rd rate lawyers do not even cite case law or legal judgements.

Rumsfeld better not go to Spain or he will very likely be put on trial, as he should be.

Posted by: jonabark | September 15, 2008 10:43 AM

I think that the gun nuts have a point. I actually saw a picture on another web site of Jesus holding an AK-47.

"Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me."

Posted by: Sister Marie | September 15, 2008 12:09 PM

""I have no argument that the Lord is a God of mercy. However, he also knows when souls have completely rejected him and there is no point for them to live on this earth anymore.""

Sure, He knows. But, we don't. Which is why it is not up to any of us to make that call.

Posted by: | September 15, 2008 1:40 PM

"On the other hand, Jesus didn't sit there and turn the other cheek with the moneychangers in the Temple, he fashioned a whip and threw them and their things out of the place. Torture? No. Non-violent? Not hardly."

Good grief. Pay attention people: this is based on a long-recognized mistranslation in the KJV of John's Gospel. The actual original text refers to only the animals being struck, not the people. The specificity of the original text is attested to as early as the fourth century in recorded debate on related matters by bishops of the church. Please, please stop using this as your justification for "Christian" violence. It's absolutely inacurrate.

Posted by: dcrowe | September 15, 2008 3:45 PM

>>Or, you can believe 666 talents of gold in Solomon's temple translate into burning hell. There is no poll monopoly none. The Federal Writers' Project was written in tongues and so were the best censuses. I fear for the 2010 when Louisiana and Florida are mith enplaced.
Posted by Only A Pawn In Their Game | September 14, 2008 7:13 AM

First sensible thing posted on Sojo in a long long time--goo d to see some wisdom in the midst of obfusscation and special pleeding.

As usual the right course of action found in the middle and not on the extrmeses with the fanatics.

Posted by: Bud Duncan | September 15, 2008 6:29 PM

Good grief. Pay attention people: this is based on a long-recognized mistranslation in the KJV of John's Gospel. The actual original text refers to only the animals being struck, not the people. The specificity of the original text is attested to as early as the fourth century in recorded debate on related matters by bishops of the church. Please, please stop using this as your justification for "Christian" violence. It's absolutely inacurrate.

Posted by: dcrowe | September 15, 2008 3:45 PM

thx, dcrowe, and good luck w/ that - I've been pleading for two weeks for someone to relate the purpose of the moneychangers narrative to the gospel writer's overall purpose since that story is unique to John's gospel. No takers to date, so don't hold your breath.

Posted by: canucklehead | September 15, 2008 11:38 PM

It seems to me all questions and issues really boil down to this -- living
Christianly is neither sensible nor practical -- "turning the other cheek"; "doing good to those who hate you. . ."; loving your neighbor who well may be hateful and inimical. . ."; "losing your life to save it. . ."; gving "all you have" to the poor (the rich, young man; etc, etc.

Where would we be if we really lived like this?

Posted by: George,Jr. | September 18, 2008 11:46 AM