Glenn Beck vs. The Bible on Social Justice

[Chaotic Void]

You have interpreted the words and teachings of Jesus in verses 1 thru 6 in a manner that seems to suit a specific need rather than in a manner which embraces the words and teachings in context. If, as I suggest you do, you study the verses in their original form you may find that the words of Jesus do not comport with the meaning you ascribe to them.

These verses parallel Luke 6:35: “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:” In these verses Jesus admonishes us not to “judge” (verse 1)... warning that a consequence of our “judgment” of others is the judgment of ourselves (verse 2)… just as a consequence of our forgiving of others is the forgiving of ourselves. I suggested that you visit the original Greek because it is clearer in the original.

You're right... there are verses that parallel each other in Matthew 7 and Luke 6. However, you're wrong as to specific verses. The verses that parallel are Matthew 7:1-5 and Luke 6:37-42.

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

He also told them this parable: "Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher.

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

And you know what they have in common? Condemnation of Hypocrisy. Seems like you're the one who's shoehorning their personal interpretation into these passages.

[RonC]

Now as for the third quote, the only one on the topic of this thread... That Mississippi Governor, Eaves, may indeed see universal health care in just that way, but you said that this was a universal! problem. (bold by RonC)

I am tired of constantly correcting your misrepresentations of what I say. I never used the term universal or any synonym thereof. I never said "all Democrats". I never said "aall Republicans". I never said "all politicians". I used the definite article “the” which is an article of specification or particularization, as opposed to the adjective “all” which indicates “the whole of” or “every”. You misrepresented me by mis-characterizing my statement as being “universal” in nature. Universal means “of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole”. I did not use that term. My statement was not a universal one.

If you cannot see that the statement that God is with us is cloaking one's self in the righteousness of the divine, what I can I say. Believe as you wish.

[RonC]

You're right... there are verses that parallel each other in Matthew 7 and Luke 6. However, you're wrong as to specific verses. The verses that parallel are Matthew 7:1-5 and Luke 6:37-42.

And you are right. I cited Luke 6:37 and referenced it incorrectly as Luke 6:35!

And you know what they have in common? Condemnation of Hypocrisy. Seems like you're the one who's shoehorning their personal interpretation into these passages.

This is why I suggested that you visit the verses in their original language. Matthew 7:1-2 is a statement of the law of “sowing and reaping”; or “cause and effect”. It is a classical Greek construct. It is the form of ancient Greek prophetic warnings in Homer. (Eurylochus’ warning concerning Circe is in this form: “do not… lest…”) The consequence of judging will be that you will be judged. Luke 6:37 is the same. Verses 3 and 4 of Matthew are amplifications or illustrations of this. That is why verse 4 begins with “Or”… Matthew 7:3 “Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye…” Matthew 7:4 “Or how wilt thou say to thy brother…” "Why this/Or how that”. The metaphysical teaching is contained in verses 1 and 2 of Matthew… "Don't judge because this is what will happen". There are no caveats in Matthew 7:1-2 or in Luke 6:37.

If you wish to pursue this I suggest that you open a new thread in Biblical languages or another appropriate forum. I am concerned already that I have not been as respectful as one should be of the OP.

RonC

[gharfish]

RonC. You used the socialist redistribution of wealth line back on page one. I objected. You talked of "the aim of the Democrats" and "now they are cloaking themselves in the mantle of of Jesus by distorting His words and teachings...just as W did..." I really objected!

Now President Bush was not guilty of this take from those who don't support you and give to those who do support you taxation sin that you have identified and laid on the Democrats, was he ? You have not even begun to show that either Party misuses Jesus' words and teachings to hoodwink the public or each other or the media, etc. How does this actually happen ? Obama believes he is providentially meant to lead the country. So ?! What was this Bush distortion of Jesus' words and teachings ? I guess he thought the same thing ? - same God. This does not amount to "cloaking one's self" and your "agenda" in the Bible and specifically Jesus' teachings and words, a "distortion."


I don't think you have been misunderstood and misrepresented, but be tired of it if you wish to.




>

[RonC]

RonC. You used the socialist redistribution of wealth line back on page one. I objected. You talked of "the aim of the Democrats" and "now they are cloaking themselves in the mantle of of Jesus by distorting His words and teachings...just as W did..." I really objected!

Now President Bush was not guilty of this take from those who don't support you and give to those who do support you taxation sin that you have identified and laid on the Democrats, was he ? You have not even begun to show that either Party misuses Jesus' words and teachings to hoodwink the public or each other or the media, etc. How does this actually happen ? Obama believes he is providentially meant to lead the country. So ?! What was this Bush distortion of Jesus' words and teachings ? I guess he thought the same thing ? - same God. This does not amount to "cloaking one's self" and your "agenda" in the Bible and specifically Jesus' teachings and words, a "distortion."

I don't think you have been misunderstood and misrepresented, but be tired of it if you wish to.

In your opinion the following statement is not that of someone cloaking one’s self in the words of Jesus. To me it is.

Now, there’s a parable at the end of the Sermon on the Mount that tells the story of two men. The first built his house on a pile of sand, and it was soon destroyed when a storm hit. But the second is known as the wise man, for when “the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house, it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.”

It was founded upon a rock. We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand. We must build our house upon a rock. We must lay a new foundation for growth and prosperity — a foundation that will move us from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest; where we consume less at home and send more exports abroad.(Barak Obama, April 14, 2009, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.)

Here Obama is using Jesus' words and teachings to support a specific economic policy. That is cloaking one's self in the words and teachings of Jesus in my opinion. In your opinion it is not. We can agree to disagree.

I believe in civil unions… If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount… (Barak Obama, Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, March 2008)

Here Obama is specifically saying that his belief is supported by the words and teachings of Jesus. Obama is using Jesus' words and teachings to support a specific social policy which he personally believes in. Not only is that cloaking one's self in the words and teachings of Jesus, but, in my opinion, it is a distortion of Jesus words and teachings. In your opinion this is not the cloaking one’s self in or the distorting of the words of Jesus. We can agree to disagree.

Here are copies of Obama’s Brochure entitled “Answering the Call” wherein he cloaks his agenda regarding Healthcare, criticizing his predecessor, college tuition funding, and criticism of Washington under the banner of Christian Morality and cloaks himself by claiming that he is about Jesus’ work by specifically referring to himself as a “Committed Christian” and therefore his agenda as that of a “Committed Christian”.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ima...ma_faith_1.jpg
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ima...ma_faith_1.jpg
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ima...ma_faith_1.jpg

In your opinion this is not cloaking one’s self in the words and teachings of Jesus nor is it a distorting of those words and teachings to support one's personal political agenda and ambitions. To me it is. We can agree to disagree.

Have a blessed Easter.
RonC

[gharfish]

In your opinion the following statement is not that of someone cloaking one’s self in the words of Jesus. To me it is.
Here Obama is using Jesus' words and teachings to support a specific economic policy. That is cloaking one's self in the words and teachings of Jesus in my opinion. In your opinion it is not. We can agree to disagree.

What exactly is that specific policy, will you say (couple of sentences in 2nd paragraph from a speech) ? The statement sounds pretty generic and vague to me.

Here Obama is specifically saying that his belief is supported by the words and teachings of Jesus. Obama is using Jesus' words and teachings to support a specific social policy which he personally believes in. Not only is that cloaking one's self in the words and teachings of Jesus, but, in my opinion, it is a distortion of Jesus words and teachings. In your opinion this is not the cloaking one’s self in or the distorting of the words of Jesus. We can agree to disagree.

An ignorant choice of an analogy from the framework of a well-known parable. The two paragraphs, moving from this analogy, are N/A to one another. I suppose that is wrong - even reprehensible, as you put it on page one?

Here are copies of Obama’s Brochure entitled “Answering the Call” wherein he cloaks his agenda regarding Healthcare, criticizing his predecessor, college tuition funding, and criticism of Washington under the banner of Christian Morality and cloaks himself by claiming that he is about Jesus’ work by specifically referring to himself as a “Committed Christian” and therefore his agenda as that of a “Committed Christian”.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ima...ma_faith_1.jpg
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ima...ma_faith_1.jpg
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ima...ma_faith_1.jpg

In your opinion this is not cloaking one’s self in the words and teachings of Jesus nor is it a distorting of those words and teachings to support one's personal political agenda and ambitions. To me it is. We can agree to disagree.

Have a blessed Easter.
RonC

I see the same campaign ad page each time, with the same four issues that are about what he considered matters of [his] "conscience" which he hopes and assumes are morally self-evident. No "Christian banner" is there. There is not one thing said there about the Bible or Jesus' words or teachings at all. These three exact duplicate pages don't say anything but to request prayer for him and his family and talks of asking others to mention him and his campaign to peoples in "communities of faith." Btw, I read something different about his 'agenda' there, and it is not "cloaked in the mantle of the words and teachings of Jesus', distorted." Nothing of Jesus or the Bible is mentioned. Nothing. He wrote this: that 47 million Americans don't have health insurance, half of S. Carolina students don't graduate from high school, [the criticism of Bush is criticism of the War in Iraq], and that 37 million Americans live in poverty, forgotten by their leaders in Washington.

On that same page, linked-to the three times by you, Obama does not call himself a "Committed Christian." Where ?! And this time it is YOU who are misrepresenting what the term "Answering The Call" means there on that mini webpage advertisment. It's answering the call to serve. Come on.

I noticed that you have dropped your criticism of "W." His cloaking himself...misuse of Jesus' words and teachings - distortions of, were "reprehensible" to you too (post eight, page one). What did Bush do ?




>




>

[RonC]

I see the same campaign ad page each time, with the same four issues that are about what he considered matters of [his] "conscience" which he hopes and assumes are morally self-evident. No "Christian banner" is there.

I am exposed for the computer illiterate that I am! I thought that I had sent different links. It took a while but I found another link which (I hope) will show all pages to that brochure… just scroll down a bit.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...08/01/21/obama

On that same page, linked-to the three times by you, Obama does not call himself a "Committed Christian." Where ?! And this time it is YOU who are misrepresenting what the term "Answering The Call" means there on that mini webpage advertisment. It's answering the call to serve. Come on.

The link above reveals exactly what I said was there. "Committed Christian" is presented as a huge banner headline.

I noticed that you have dropped your criticism of "W." His cloaking himself...misuse of Jesus' words and teachings - distortions of, were "reprehensible" to you too (post eight, page one). What did Bush do ?

I thought we had agreed that Bush said similar things to Obama. Below I give two examples from each… a then quote a third politician…

1. George W Bush said: “The cause we serve is right… The momentum of freedom in our world is unmistakable… We can trust in that greater power who guides the unfolding of the years. And in all that is to come, we can know that His purposes are just and true." Barak Obama said: “We do what we do because God is with us.” If these words of Bush and Obama do not represent cloaking one’s self in scripture and are acceptable to you as not misusing the words and teachings of scripture, then so should these words be: "I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.” Guess who said them.

2. George w. Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act…” Barak Obama said: "My faith teaches me, that I can sit in church and pray all I want, but I won't be fulfilling God's will unless I go out and do the Lord's work." If these words of Bush and Obama do not represent cloaking one’s self in scripture and are acceptable to you as not misusing the words and teachings of the Bible, then so should these words be: “[man]… has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will,” Guess who said them.

In my opinion all these quotes are meant to cloak the speaker and his/her agenda in the words and teachings of scripture and distort the meaning of those words and teachings to fit their personal agendas. I guess to you this is not the case. We can agree to disagree.

[gharfish]

I am exposed for the computer illiterate that I am! I thought that I had sent different links. It took a while but I found another link which (I hope) will show all pages to that brochure… just scroll down a bit.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...08/01/21/obama

The link above reveals exactly what I said was there. "Committed Christian" is presented as a huge banner headline.
I thought we had agreed that Bush said similar things to Obama. Below I give two examples from each… a then quote a third politician…

1. George W Bush said: “The cause we serve is right… The momentum of freedom in our world is unmistakable… We can trust in that greater power who guides the unfolding of the years. And in all that is to come, we can know that His purposes are just and true." Barak Obama said: “We do what we do because God is with us.” If these words of Bush and Obama do not represent cloaking one’s self in scripture and are acceptable to you as not misusing the words and teachings of scripture, then so should these words be: "I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.” Guess who said them.

2. George w. Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act…” Barak Obama said: "My faith teaches me, that I can sit in church and pray all I want, but I won't be fulfilling God's will unless I go out and do the Lord's work." If these words of Bush and Obama do not represent cloaking one’s self in scripture and are acceptable to you as not misusing the words and teachings of the Bible, then so should these words be: “[man]… has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will,” Guess who said them.

In my opinion all these quotes are meant to cloak the speaker and his/her agenda in the words and teachings of scripture and distort the meaning of those words and teachings to fit their personal agendas. I guess to you this is not the case. We can agree to disagree.

I can now see the print ads that salon.com provided, where Obama calls himself a Committed Christian. The article says that this was done in South Carolina as a defense of sorts against Mike Huckabees' campaigning and partly to counter the popular idea that he (Obama) was a Muslim.

We had agreed that Bush thought himself truly a Christian. He said that Jesus had changed his life (converted him). I saw the quotes and I didn't ignore them. We had agreed that both men had thought themselves providentially meant to lead the country ("God is with [us]." (Obama) I don't know what all Obama considers "the Lord's work" to be, that should be done

I'm tired - literally tired, mentally, of wrestling with this issue. I was not aware that Pres. Bush had so carried the cross into battle in the Iraq war. I thank you, sincerely, for pointing that out to me. That really was his will projected onto God - Yes, something reprehensible.




>