Anonymous wrote:OP me ER said what kind of Baptist Church this is. Just as their are Reform, Coonservative and Orthodox anew s, their are many varieties of Baptist: Southern Baptists, American Baptist Assn., and they range from conservative to liberal.

Anonymous wrote:

Next time your mind wanders you can get a taped version of the sermon and listen to the whole thing again

Anonymous wrote:OP me ER said what kind of Baptist Church this is. Just as their are Reform, Coonservative and Orthodox anew s, their are many varieties of Baptist: Southern Baptists, American Baptist Assn., and they range from conservative to liberal.

Anonymous wrote:This pastor/minister/holy man doesn't sound very Christian to me, or very educated for that matter.

I hope your in-laws wake up and say something. They should not go back until he apologizes.

This reminds me of Obama's pastor who routinely spouted off all of his racists comments while the Obamas just sat there. Again, not so Christian but even worse because that southern minister may not actually know any Jewish people (so hard to believe but OK) but Jeremiah Wright for sure knew a few white people. Lovely that people trust the moral education of their children to these idiots.

Ok ok....the defense of Jeremiah Wright starts now....1, 2, 3....go!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:. . . He began talking about what appeared to be the superiority of Christianity and then ultimately why people should donate momey to the church to help with expanding the church building. In talking about Christianity, he made a comparison to Judaism and used the term "Jewish legalism" I think in an effort to show that while Jews follow a gazillion rules to connect with god, Christians don't need to do this in order to enjoy god's blessings and grace. . . . Finally the pastor goes on to talk about a biblical story involving a "Greedy Jewish tax collector" and then ultimately weaves the story into the present and how people should donate to the church. My blood was boiling at all these, what appeared to be negative jewish references, and i walked out of the sermon. . . . Would you have been offended?

Frankly, I am wondering if you were missing the point of what the pastor was saying. For instance, the story if Zaccheus has nothing to do with jewish people in general being greedy. Everyone in the bible was basically jewish - jesus himself referred to gentiles as "dogs." Zacheus himself in particular was apparently despised (by jewish people) because he personally was a greedy tax collector. There's no anti-semetic inference to it. The story about the prostitute - she was a prostitute, and she became a christian, i.e., church-goer and non-prostitute. Again, I don't think there is anything anti-semetic about that either. So, while you say there was a bunch of other "superiority of chirstianity" rhetoric at the sermon, I am wondering if you did not just misunderstand what the pastor was saying. But it's hard to say for sure because I don't know what was said other than what you paraphrased here. Hope this helps.

I agree with this. Not meant to be anti-Semitic. Same as the story of Jesus pushing the money-changers out of the Temple. Many of the New Testament stories are about how the Judaism had become rule-ridden, prideful and had lost the sense of religion and soul - and Christ, a Jew, openly criticized these "Pharisees". Just Bible History 101. Of course, I wasn't there, but I would be surprised if the pastor was openly anti-semitic.

Anonymous wrote:I was raised in a reform Jewish household and identify myself as Jewish although not actively practicing. My husband grew up southern baptist (we met in grad school in the south) and also is not actively practicing his religion. We do go to church with his family, who are very involved In the church, when we visit them around 3-4 times a year. The church is located in a southern, heavily Christian area. I went to church with them this Sunday and was stunned at the references the pastor made towards Jews. Since my knowledge of both Judaism and Christianity is very limited, I'm not sure if his comments were atypical for a church or even, out of line... I also tend to mentally check out during church so unfortunately I wasn't paying great attention to the sermon, so I lack perhaps pertinent contextual details. It appeared as though the pastor began the sermon discussing father's day and the importance of fathers. Somehow the sermon took a turn and. He began talking about what appeared to be the superiority of Christianity and then ultimately why people should donate momey to the church to help with expanding the church building. In talking about Christianity, he made a comparison to Judaism and used the term "Jewish legalism" I think in an effort to show that while Jews follow a gazillion rules to connect with god, Christians don't need to do this in order to enjoy god's blessings and grace. He then went on to discuss a story whereby a prostitute, who initially aligned herself with "Jewish spies" ended up turning on them when she encountered Jesus, bathing his feet in very expensive perfume, which others could not understand why she would use such expensive fragrances. Through helping Jesus and believing in him, he saved her...or something to that extent. Finally the pastor goes on to talk about a biblical story involving a "Greedy Jewish tax collector" and then ultimately weaves the story into the present and how people should donate to the church. My blood was boiling at all these, what appeared to be negative jewish references, and i walked out of the sermon. My husband was also troubled by the language used. I thought about writing an email to the pastor and asking him to clarify his statements. Does anyone have any insight into the references he used or whether this is commonplace? Would you have been offended?

Anonymous wrote:I was raised in a reform Jewish household and identify myself as Jewish although not actively practicing. My husband grew up southern baptist (we met in grad school in the south) and also is not actively practicing his religion. We do go to church with his family, who are very involved In the church, when we visit them around 3-4 t

I also tend to mentally check out during church so unfortunately I wasn't paying great attention to the sermon, so I lack perhaps pertinent contextual details......

Anonymous wrote:Not PP but I think she was talking about Orthodox Judaism.

Anonymous wrote:Orthodoxy - as in Orthodox Christianity?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Now, Carholics generally understand the Bible contextually and as allegory. It is not a literal accounting of historical fact. This is ver different from Protestant fundamentalist denominations that interpret the Bibke in a literal sense. It is because of this that Catholics can easily co-exist with the theory of evolution while fundamentalists seebitvasca threat to their faith.

I'm sorry, but in my experience it is not at all true that Catholics "generally understand the Bible contextually and as allegory". If that was the case, then 1) why were wars fought over the doctrine of transubstantiation? And 2) why is it that women cannot be priests, or that gays cannot marry?

Answers:

1.Those wars you mention were fought before Catholics changed their understanding of the bible. so it goes.

2. They kept the parts of the bible that served their purposes and built them into church doctrine.

But my point is that all of those are examples of Catholics taking things extremely literally. I'm not aware of any Catholic that understands Jesus to have been speaking metaphorically when he said "this is my body, this is my blood," even though (IMO) that is the most natural way to understand that.

Perhaps you mean that Catholics don't take it literally when Jesus said it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven? Of when he said give to everyone who begs from you, or let him who is without sin cast the first stone?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:. . . He began talking about what appeared to be the superiority of Christianity and then ultimately why people should donate momey to the church to help with expanding the church building. In talking about Christianity, he made a comparison to Judaism and used the term "Jewish legalism" I think in an effort to show that while Jews follow a gazillion rules to connect with god, Christians don't need to do this in order to enjoy god's blessings and grace. . . . Finally the pastor goes on to talk about a biblical story involving a "Greedy Jewish tax collector" and then ultimately weaves the story into the present and how people should donate to the church. My blood was boiling at all these, what appeared to be negative jewish references, and i walked out of the sermon. . . . Would you have been offended?

Frankly, I am wondering if you were missing the point of what the pastor was saying. For instance, the story if Zaccheus has nothing to do with jewish people in general being greedy. Everyone in the bible was basically jewish - jesus himself referred to gentiles as "dogs." Zacheus himself in particular was apparently despised (by jewish people) because he personally was a greedy tax collector. There's no anti-semetic inference to it. The story about the prostitute - she was a prostitute, and she became a christian, i.e., church-goer and non-prostitute. Again, I don't think there is anything anti-semetic about that either. So, while you say there was a bunch of other "superiority of chirstianity" rhetoric at the sermon, I am wondering if you did not just misunderstand what the pastor was saying. But it's hard to say for sure because I don't know what was said other than what you paraphrased here. Hope this helps.