Macabre

===

JLV: Exegetes do not use current political institutions, ie, the separation of church and state, to determine the meaning of Scripture! They use steps similar to what is employed in the hermeneutics of some other literature as: historical background of a text; a search of the evidence to determine the original text; the meaning in the original languages of important words in text ; the context; grammar; syntax; parallel passages and doctrine and so forth. I know you did your best.

Thanks ,

 

Q.E.D.

Geez, Bill, you got me going. I think I owe you this deference given your kindness.

Here we go.


If the secularist has a life verse, it's Jesus' teaching to "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's." A Christmas Day Boston Globe article summarized the teaching as "Jesus' admonition that the secular and religious remain separate." It's the attitude behind many frequent calls for the "separation of church and state," even in issues unrelated to government.

Find it here in this link

Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. We are to engage ourselves in the necessary struggle, not between church and state, between humanity and God, but rather in the effort to keep the proper balance and priority that each requires.

Find it here.



No student of the Bible would deny that Jesus taught there was to be a distinction between church and state. During His earthly ministry, Jesus said: “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's” (Matthew 22:21).

Find it here.

Secularism may be accepted in a Christian society but it can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society. Christianity is devoid of a shari`ah or a comprehensive system of life to which its adherents should be committed. The New Testament itself divides life into two parts: one for God, or religion, the other for Caesar, or the state: "Render unto Caesar things which belong to Caesar, and render unto God things which belong to God" (Matthew 22:21). As such, a Christian could accept secularism without any qualms of conscience.

Find it here.

No Catholic church telling the kings what to do. No Saudi ulamas telling the people what is and is not moral-legal. No theocratic state a la Iran or the Taliban. I dislike the capture of the state mechanism by a competing organization based on appeals to religious authority. Separate authorities for separate spheres. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

Find it here.

And so on.

There are literally hundreds of persons who came up with a similar interpretation to those verses. I hope I made my point now.

 

Fed, you're right. I hope you don't see my previous comments as a critic to the States. It wasn't.

Christian democracy is very extended here in Europe. In fact they constitute a majority in the EU Parliament. Many of its members aren't necessarily religious, but believe in certain traditional values that , they think, must be maintained.

Current Dutch Prime Minister Balkenende is a Christian Democrat, centre right in the political spectrum while Janko's admired Fortuyn was far far right.

My point is that I don't want to see the Pope, the local Iman or our Priest here (Janko) telling us how to run our goverments, and making pontifications urbi et orbi whether they are in Holland, Saudi Arabia or the United States. Assuming that Janko was a Christian (which I still don't know) I resorted to those two verses to help illustrate my point. That was all. I hope now I finally got my idea across.

Cordial greetings

 

Re: Q.E.D.

===

JLV: Thankyou for all those sites.

I pray you will not be offended if I do not yield to the nearly overpowering temptation to allow the enlightened Boston Globe et al to interpret Scripture for me.

But let's rather see if you and I can agree on something: To interpret what Matthew records Jesus as saying in Matthew 22:15-22 ( also in Mk 12;Lk 20) one should actually look at the speech attributed to Jesus, not fawn over what others say about that speech.

Could you agree with that?

Thanks,

 

This Off Topic section is so addictive. I knew I would end up talking about Scriptures and Exegesis, and making a fool out of myself. I am just a mechanical engineer. I apologize in advance if any of my comments is inadvertently vulgar or disrespectful.

Yes, Bill, I agree with that. I can definitely accept a literal interpretation, and acknowledge that the message by Christ wasn’t perhaps intended to serve as a direct reference to secularism.

But I am just afraid that a non-sectarian approach to the Scriptures and, concretely, to these specific verses would yield identical results to those I pointed out earlier. What else could it be?

What’s your understanding of those verses?

Thank you very much

 

Sort of - he's Lutheran.

Joke Janko Joke

 

When you tell a funny joke like this one I'm delighted. hee hee hee

 

For another view of a nation's reaction

I don't really know what to think. The Japanese can be kind of enigmatic to the western mind.

http://www.iht.com/articles/516600.html

 

No.

 

Ah, but to the Spanish mind, infused with centuries of religious (as in Catholic) authoritarianism, a "priest" ALWAYS speaks for God. Hence the Inquisition, the depopulation and enslavement of the surviving native populations of the New World, and the explanation for the Franco regime.

 

Reginstein,

Reginstein,

Have you ever seen a passport? You don't seem to be very exposed to the real world. Are you this unsophisticated or are you just trying to fool us all?


Thanks for your outstanding comment.


PD Bill, I am at work and I have no much time. I'll try to reply as soon as I can. Have a great weekend!

 

Yeah, Carl. So there. Donchuno that all Americans failing to display cultural subordination to, that is, kissing the ass of, supercilious Europeans, are simply unsposhisticated*, parochial, unlettered, y untutored rubes?

*like unsophisticated, only lots worse