I do some of the critique in the video itself. As well as below. (Posted by: Religio-Political Talk) When a pastoral minded/professor friend submits his short critique I will post it along with the below on my blog and edit in the link here.
Here is my blog post on the matter:
Now to some commentary:
Just some other examples from the above upload dealt with.
The prostitute mentioned changed, Jesus didn't judge her because in His presence she felt the grace and justice of God and knew she was loved first and repented, changed. Jesus didn't "hang" with non-repentant people. The thief on the Cross repented, Jesus conversed with him, and not the other. (CS Lewis says hell is locked from the inside -- freedom of choice played out in the micro at Calvary.) Jesus spoke A LOT about hell (or, judgment). He also created the structure and model of discipleship, or, organized religion if you will. Not saying that religion...
- RELIGION: used as the Founders defined "religion" for some history 101, they meant Christian denominations (see rough drafts of the 1st Amendment: http://tinyurl.com/b5yos42)
...is not corruptible, of course it is. That is the Gospel message, man is corrupt (Romans 3:10), but this is also weighed against the Holy Spirit's continual influence bringing to fruit the prophecy that the powers of hell will not conquer the Church (Matthew 16:18).
However, this is a big leap of logic to say anarchy will assist in this venture of incorruptibility. In the church or in man. If one reads Sowell's "Conflict of Visions," it is almost a primer in Calvinism.
And from it I link to this question to a Christian apologist (Ravi Zacharias) at Michigan University by a Muslim student. And Ravi explains how Jesus raised the stakes on the "Golden Rule." ~ http://tinyurl.com/a5gsbne
An example from Eastern Philosophy of the difference of the "golden rule." In the “wu-wei” principle we find the meaning of this "golden rule" of Taoism, which is essentially to “do nothing,” or, to “cease.” While there is a “Golden Rule" of sorts (see: http://tinyurl.com/d2hxv), one of my professors points out that that the perfect individual in most Eastern philosophies are “placid, self-contented and indifferent toward all people and all things...” So while having some of the semantics that seem familiar to the Western thinker, the ideal position behind treating someone as you would wish to be treated as has a completely different meaning than Christianity gives it. And what was done in the above video was conflating two wholly separate ideas of the Golden Rule into one Western (Judeo-Christian influenced) meta-narrative. Something many anthropology professors do at our "higher" educational institutions: conflate, then add a meta-narrative -- all while bemoaning the West culture while defining all others using it. Self-serving AND self-defeating.
The woman in the video, just after the non-sequitur comparison of the unrepentant homosexual to a crowd booing an idea not well defined -- as, somehow a litmus test for heaven/salvation -- does admit after her confused soliloquy that she "doesn't get it." I agree! She does not "get it." Not to mention that she makes LARGE sweeping life decisions and conclusions based on a poultry of evidence and understanding, which does not endear me well to anarchy. Something also based on little evidence and understanding.
S. P. Giordano, M.A.T.S. "The man who does not read good books is no better than the man who can't." (Mark Twain)