Actually NO! Christianity is NOT compatible with torture

Though Sean Hannity claimed on FoxNews that Christianity and Torture make a fine combination...(can you believe it!?)...

...it is actually a heresy to claim that torture is compatible with Christianity...click the link below for more:

http://flyingfarther.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/sean-hannity-the-heretic/

At the "FlyingFarther" blog which you can find HERE

Christianity Is Not One More Bit Of Good Advice

Here's a quote from C.S. Lewis to chew on a bit!



"If Christianity only means one more bit of good advice, then Christianity is of no importance. There has been no lack of good advice for the last four thousand years. A bit more makes no difference."

C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (1943)

Hat tip to Creedal Christian:
Creedal Christian: Christianity Is Not One More Bit Of Good Advice

Theological Implications of being an "Abrahamic Faith"??

Just how related are the religions of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity?


On the Inhabitatio Dei blog, a wonderful question was posed related to the theological implications of these three "Abrahamic" faiths being connected to 'Father Abraham':


from Inhabitatio Dei

Here is my question: what theological significance, if any, does the common Abrahamic heritage of Judaism and Islam have from a Christian theological perspective? Clearly we cannot think about Judaism and Islam the same way we think about, say, Hinduism. At some level our stories are connected. What theological difference does this connection make?


read the entire post HERE

Love and Suffering Essay by Frederich Buechner

One of my absolute favorite authors is Frederich Buechner, if you haven't read any of his books, they are just wonderful and he explores the highs and lows and the joys and sorrows of the life of Faith. While reading Will's yearns&groans blog, I ran across the Inward/Outward blog which had this wonderful essay on Love and Suffering by Frederich Buechner. I am posting it here in full:

Love and Suffering

By Frederick Buechner

Love is a key concept in Buddhism and Christianity both. Buddhism, in the long run, seems to come out against it except in the sense of something like upekha, which is a love so vast and passionless, so disembodied and impartial, that it ceases to resemble the Christian form in any very apparent way.

Buddhism comes out against it not just for one’s own sake in the sense that to love another is to open the door into a whole new realm of vulnerability and suffering for oneself, but for the sake of the other also in the sense that unless we can break all the fetters, including love, which bind us to the wheel of rebirth, we can never achieve that Nirvana-like state of selfless detachment which is the only state in which we can be of any real use toward helping others to achieve it.

Bloodless, remote and mythical as these Buddhist insights are apt to seem from a Christian perspective, they are nonetheless greatly useful, I think, in deepening our understanding of love in a Christian sense.

That to love other people is to suffer when they suffer is a truth of life which Christianity recognizes no less than Buddhism does. It is a truth which has much to do, of course, with what the Cross is all about. To say that Christ takes upon himself the sins of the world is to say that he takes upon himself the suffering of the world too. It is to say that in a sense his suffering on the Cross continues for as long as any of us suffers. Furthermore, in being called to take up our own crosses and follow him, we are called to participate in his suffering.

But unlike Buddhism, Christianity nevertheless affirms this love that suffers and, what is more, affirms it not in spite of the fact that it suffers but because of it. It affirms it for the reason that to love others to the point of suffering with them and for them in their own suffering is the only way ultimately to heal them, redeem them, if they are to be redeemed at all.

It is God’s way in Christ, and as we are called to participate with Christ in his suffering, so we are called to be partners with him in his work of redemption. For our own sakes as well as for theirs, we are called to be Christs to all humankind, in other words, and that is close to the heart of our faith and of our lives together as Christians.

And yet. And yet. Having spoken this Christian truth, we must also, I think, remember the Buddhist truth which may be closer to it than at first glance it appears. If love is a matter of holding fast to, and identifying with, and suffering for, the ones we love, it is a matter also of standing back from, of leaving space for, of letting go of. To become, through loving and needing them, as involved in the lives of others as I was involved in the lives of my children is in the long run to risk being both crippled and crippling. Because we love our children as helplessly as we do, they have the power to destroy us. We must not let them, for their own sakes no less than for our own. A distance must be kept - not just from our children but from everyone we love.

I think of the Buddha sitting under his Bo-tree with his eyes closed upon an inner peace which he would not permit even his great compassion to disturb. I think of the staff of the East Harlem Protestant Parish with the pale northern blue of their compassion, their sad gaiety, their utter lack of sentimentality. I think of Jesus himself, who in the profoundest sense bled for people but was never what is meant by ‘a bleeding heart’; who did what he could for the sick and suffering who came his way and then moved on; who wept for Jerusalem but let Jerusalem choose its own way; who kept his own mother at arm’s length and, when Mary Magdalene reached out to embrace him at the end, said, ‘Do not touch me.’

We are to love one another as God has loved us. That is the truth of it. But to love one another more than God has loved us - to love one another at the expense of our own freedom to be something like whole and at peace within ourselves, and at the expense of others’ freedom, too - is the dark shadow that the truth casts.

Frederick Buechner has written many books, including The Sacred Journey, The Magnificent Defeat, Telling the Truth, and Now and Then, from which this piece is taken.

CHURCH and Church and church...and...?

The Episcopal Cafe blog quotes an interesting article about the Pope's recent statements about the validity of non Roman Catholic Churches. It seems that he takes a rather hard line about non Roman Catholic churches ... leaving the Eastern Orthodox "wounded" churches, and the Protestant Churches not churches at all... read the article, and the start of some interesting comments here. I know that more people will comment very soon on this topic, and it is not one that is at all a "new" topic, but it does raise for me the difference between the way that "church" is practiced and "done" at the grass-roots level (the local church) as it compares with the church universal. The ways that Christians live out their faith in their own context may look somewhat different than the ways that the Pontiff may discuss his faith and his understanding of faith and practice. I wonder how this document will affect ecumenical work. Will it stymie it? or, will people keep doing the good that they are doing ecumenically no matter what the Pope says?

I need to mull this all over. I took an absolutely great class while in seminary over at Catholic University, taught by a great professor, Rev. Dr. Patrick Granfield. The class was made up of a wide variety of people training for ministry, ELCA, Missouri Synod Lutheran, A.M.E., Episcopal, UCC, Methodist, Roman Catholic. At no time did I feel like "my ministry" or those from other Protestant denominations were "lesser partners" in the mission of the Church. I would hope that this type of thing would be the norm.

Why then does the Pope make this statement, at this time? The answer may be contained in a comment on the Episcopal Cafe site, "Benedict XVI has been pursuing a policy of reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X, or SSPX for short..." ...interesting!


An excerpt...
Apostolic Succession and the Catholic Church

From today's Arizona Republic

Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday asserted the spiritual primacy of the Roman Catholic Church.

He did so at the expense of Christian Orthodox churches, which he said are wounded, and Protestant churches, which he said are not really churches at all.

The pope approved a document that says the only path to true salvation is Catholicism. The move was a stark reaffirmation of centuries-old Catholic belief that Protestant churches are lacking because they cannot trace their leadership back to Christ's apostles.

The document says Christian Orthodox churches are true churches but have a "wound" because they do not recognize the power of the pope.

Looking for Scriptural Blogs? Check out Biblische Ausbildung

My former Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament professor from Seminary has an awesome blog that I read all the time, but this week he has assembled an annotated list of recent blog entries on the "Biblical Carnival 19" on the Scriptures that is just excellent. Check it out!




Biblische Ausbildung: Biblical Studies Carnival XIX