Even better - all of you should try and make it to the summer retreat, and find a time to talk through it all in person. You'll achieve more in 5 minutes of calm face-to-face conversation than in 5 weeks of online posting!
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
The sin of having twins
- Thread starter Shadowjak's Dancer
- Start date
- Status
Listen to me and Veritas76, go do some research then come back. Take a breath. I'm not angry at all with you ZecAustin.
But modern scholarship absolutely shows Luther was a scoundrel. That's great you downloaded the books I sent and looked at a few of the links. Do your homework; my perspective is not new; it's the historical majority.
But area you Luther's descendant? If not why do you call him your father?
seems a little off
Apologies
As expressed elsehwere I can't bring my wives to America at this time. They aren't citizens I'd love to make it.
No need to moderate the heck out of this; we are working it out. We are men.
Veritas76 and I are already on board. We'll all get there with ZecAustin. This has been a great thread because people are learning Jews aren't the only ones with traditions that blind us and we don't need to hero-worship otherwise our faith is in trouble when an atheist calls us out.
If we were all ladies maybe you'd need to freeze the thread to stop exploration
Just kidding ladies.
You said he's your father.
I think this is a spiritual issue brother.
Here is an excerpt from the book Martin Luther hated in the bible:
"Understand this, my dear brothers and sisters: You must all be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to get angry. ...for the wrath of man works not the righteousness of G-d."
Luther wanted to remove James from the cannon. Do you see why it is not fitting to label him your father?
Sure I'm not angry ... at all.
and Zec if I write something that destroys your point it doesn't mean I'm being smug.
I really really really am not being smug.
This is a good point Samuel has about face to face. Online we don't hear a tone; our brain can insert a tone.
My only purpose in attacking Martin Luther the murderer, was to expose how people are so quick to idolize a murderer yet easily attack biblical characters with ease.
Let's agree that G-d may have used Luther as he used Cyrus; a wrecking ball to the establishment.
Fair enough guys?
I have studied Luther, this assertion that because I disagree with you I must be stupid and ignorant is what comes across as smug and condescending. I assure you that this isn't the first time I've heard the name. I don't condone everything he said or did I believe Luther was a courageous reformer who changed the world. There is no way around the fact that God has blessed his work with a rich harvest. An imperfect harvest but a far greater harvest than any other preacher in history. I would be proud to be a descendant of Martin Luther. He cared desperately for the Jews and eloquently expounded on the Hebrew roots of our faith and the Jewish nature of our Savior and His Apostles. He castigated his fellow Christians for their treatment of the Jews and reminded them that the Jews had been free with the salvation the "Christians" were then so vehemently denying the Jews.
There came a point though when the individual Jews around him proved that they weren't going to convert and so he put them in the category with others he felt were incorrigible. In truth he was a little easier on the Jews then he was on the Christians he viewed as apostate.
The point is that we can't read Luther with 21st Century preconceptions anymore than we can read any ancient writer that way. And we shouldn't put him on a pedestal or expect to be anymore perfect than any of the rest of us. He got some things wrong. But he got a whole lot of things right. At a time when everyone who asked those questions got burned at the stake.
There came a point though when the individual Jews around him proved that they weren't going to convert and so he put them in the category with others he felt were incorrigible. In truth he was a little easier on the Jews then he was on the Christians he viewed as apostate.
The point is that we can't read Luther with 21st Century preconceptions anymore than we can read any ancient writer that way. And we shouldn't put him on a pedestal or expect to be anymore perfect than any of the rest of us. He got some things wrong. But he got a whole lot of things right. At a time when everyone who asked those questions got burned at the stake.
Luther's treatment of polygamy is interesting. He recognised it as not a sin, and even authorised one polygamous marriage. But then, during his lifetime, the Lutheran church participated in the slaughter of the Munsterites, who were polygamous. So he had the right idea - but then didn't follow through with it in practice and allowed his own church to kill those who practiced it. It sounds like his treatment of the Jews was similar, based on Zec's description. Starting with the right perspective (approximately), and then slipping back from this into open opposition. But in both cases the position he slipped back to was essentially the default position of the church around him.
It's similar today to someone being adament that we must read and believe scripture alone when it comes to matters like Creation but then insisting that polygamy is evil because that's what the culture around them teaches, despite the fact that this contradicts where you would have thought their thinking was going. Someone can start on the right track and then falter on various points. Ken Ham (Answers In Genesis) is a great contemporary example - I have enormous respect for the man, he has gone out on a limb and supported literal creation despite strong opposition, done great work for the Church, but then falters and takes the exact opposite approach to what his initial starting direction would suggest when it comes to polygamy. Fortunately he's not going around slaughtering polygamists so it's not exactly the same, but in a different day and age I can imagine someone like that doing so. We could look back on such a person in a positive light for the many good things they had done, while still acknowledging ve
It's similar today to someone being adament that we must read and believe scripture alone when it comes to matters like Creation but then insisting that polygamy is evil because that's what the culture around them teaches, despite the fact that this contradicts where you would have thought their thinking was going. Someone can start on the right track and then falter on various points. Ken Ham (Answers In Genesis) is a great contemporary example - I have enormous respect for the man, he has gone out on a limb and supported literal creation despite strong opposition, done great work for the Church, but then falters and takes the exact opposite approach to what his initial starting direction would suggest when it comes to polygamy. Fortunately he's not going around slaughtering polygamists so it's not exactly the same, but in a different day and age I can imagine someone like that doing so. We could look back on such a person in a positive light for the many good things they had done, while still acknowledging ve
Alright. I guess I have to apologize for loosing my temper. I'm not apologizing for anything I said, certainly not anything I said in a purposely private conversation but certainly I was furious and in a very wrong spirit.
Ish I am well known here because these folks don't write people off for being imperfect and because they have thick skins and a pretty good sense of humor that lets them see through some of the silliness I sometimes fall into. Like this conversation. And yes that was a parting shot so obvious I'm still struggling.
Ish I am well known here because these folks don't write people off for being imperfect and because they have thick skins and a pretty good sense of humor that lets them see through some of the silliness I sometimes fall into. Like this conversation. And yes that was a parting shot so obvious I'm still struggling.
Hey Zec just want to clarify nobody called you stupid or ignorant right? I dont think that and I dont think anyone else being said I can say I AM ignorant on a great many issues.
It's an attempt to "love he L-rd your G-d with all your 'heart'" that drives me to want to reduce my pockets of ignorance
Im not responding to you here but just blociating an idea oiggy backed on your post so Im writing for everyone in this next part.
Did you guys know "heart" in old Biblical Hebrew was a reference for "mind"?
Modern Hebrew has basterdized this concept and its the same as European languages but in the Ancient Israelite world heart meant mind and kidnies where the seat of emotions.
David uses "kulyotai" my kidnies, in psalms referring tomhis emotional struggles.
So...part of loving G-d with all our mind, are these painful orocesses of growing and learning.
Did you know 24% of Nobel Prize winners are Jews? Jews are. Nott even 1% of the world population. My point is the cultural inquisitiveness and refusal to settle in to one way of thinking is something all believers can adopt..especially having been adopted in to Israel. Together we can feel our way past our various ignorances.
There is a feeling that learning in general is an expression of love for G-d (even mathematics where we also see His beauty).
So when we are ignorant of something it is no shame. It is an opportunity for us to grow. I have grown through this exchange with you guys. My views of Jacob and Luther have not changed but I have learned other things.anyway that being said nobody should call someone else ignorant because the word no longer functions by its definition colloquially and it is surely offensive to label someone as such. Sorry for weird typos my ios upgrade now places the keyboard OVER the words I am typing in the forum so I cant even see my typos.
Peace to you all in Messiah Yeshua, Yeshua Hamsahiach, or Yeshua Meshichah , Jesus Christ depedning on your linguistic preferences
- Status