Religions

[gejyspa]

On a different topic, I thought about the following on Saturday. We've been studying first Samuel in synagogue for the past year or two (we go through only a few verses a week in our hour study sessions, along with the commentaries), and I wondered how Xtians understood the following. 1 Samuel 23: 2, 4:
"2. So David inquired of the LORD, saying, "Shall I go and attack these Philistines?" And the LORD said to David, "Go and attack the Philistines and deliver Keilah."
4. Then David inquired of the LORD once more. And the LORD answered him and said, "Arise, go down to Keilah, for I will give the Philistines into your hand." [NASB translation]."

Specificially, what I'm wondering is, in what manner do you understand that David inquired of the Lord? (I know the Jewish answer, but I'm curious as to the(?) Xtian take on it.)

[Andu]

I'm not xtian, but could almost call myself 'ex-tian'.

Anyway, to my question. How would a hypotetical universe without god be different from ours? Thoughts?

[gejyspa]

(btw, got the answer to my previous question from another email list that I'm on, so thanks anyway)
Well, Andu, that's a darn good question, and a nice gedanken experiment. And I'm not sure of the answer, of course. I'm not even sure if multicellular life would've gotten a foothold without God.

[Chris]

(btw, got the answer to my previous question from another email list that I'm on, so thanks anyway)

Share with us?

[gejyspa]

(btw, got the answer to my previous question from another email list that I'm on, so thanks anyway)

Share with us?

Sure, this is my follow up to the answer that someone else gave (reformatted for forum, and names edited]

[gejyspa], I checked the footnotes in The NEW INTERPRETERS BIBLE and it says: “ ‘Inquired of the LORD’ is a technical term meaning to ask for divine guidance using a prophet or priest and the Urim and Thummim (the sacred lot of vv20-21…..) page408 note on 10:22;” However, I assume most Christians reading this verse would assume that “inquired of the LORD” means praying; since our New Testament teachings pretty much destroy the idea of intermediaries and instruct us to pray directly to God through Jesus who is our sole intermediary. Thanks for the question; these Hebrew Texts are full of rich insights.

Thanks, A___. That was PRECISELY the answer I was expecting. You are right, we understand it to mean he had Abiathar consult the Urim and Thummim (from 1 Samuel 22:19-23:6, ("ephod" here is a synecdoche for all the priestly vestments)). But I wondered if "you guys" would assume it to mean he prayed directly for Divine guidance and received it. (nothing wrong with doing that, mind you. We don't believe in the need to use (ANY) intermediaries, either. But if you want a pretty unequivocal and direct answer in words, and you are not a prophet, it's not likely to happen without the Urim and Thumim (our traditional understanding of how it worked, btw is that the "Urim and Thumim" is actually a piece of parchment with the 72 letter name of God written on it, which in turn "powered" the breastplate causing letters on it (the names of the tribes, plus "Abraham", "Isaac", "Jacob" and the phrase "the tribes of Yeshurun") to light up, which would have to be arranged to understand the answer. Misinterpretation was possible. Thus, when Samuel's mother prayed to God for a son, the high priest Eli consulted to Urim and Thummim and received the letters shin, kaf, resh, and heh, which he interpreted as "shikurah" (drunk) when it was actually intended to be "kasherah" ("fit, proper"))).

[gejyspa]

Others on the list had agreed that they assumed it was direct two-way communication between David and God. And there was some further back-and-forth about the Jewish interpretation.

[gejyspa]

(This link might not work outside the US?)

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-a ... s=share_fb

[Chris]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-april-9-2012/faith-off---adapting-passover?xrs=share_fb

I thought, "How long before Fox News does 'War on Easter' segments? And then I thought, "Wait, maybe they already have!" Googled it, and yes, Fox does not disappoint.

[Chris]

Paul Ryan's Claim That His Budget Reflects Catholic Teaching Is 'Nonsense'

If you’re Paul Ryan, you don’t decry the [Catholic] church for engaging in class warfare. Instead, you spin an interpretation of the church’s latest pronouncements that bears scant resemblance to what’s been written—but that just happens to favor your political interests.

Ryan says: “The preferential option for the poor, which is one of the primary tenants [sic] of Catholic social teaching, means don’t keep people poor, don’t make people dependent on government so that they stay stuck at their station in life, help people get out of poverty out onto life of independence.”

That worked for a while, as Ryan made the rounds of Washington talk shows, and as he spoke out of both sides of his mouth on trips home to a district that is home to dozens of Catholic churches and religious institutions.

But now he’s up against the Jesuits.

Close to ninety professors at Georgetown, the nation’s oldest Catholic and Jesuit university, where Ryan will today deliver a major lecture, welcomed the congressman in a letter.

“However,” the professors added, “we would be remiss in our duty to you and our students if we did not challenge your continuing misuse of Catholic teaching to defend a budget plan that decimates food programs for struggling families, radically weakens protections for the elderly and sick, and gives more tax breaks to the wealthiest few. As the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has wisely noted in several letters to Congress—‘a just framework for future budgets cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor persons.’ Catholic bishops recently wrote that ‘the House-passed budget resolution fails to meet these moral criteria.’ In short, your budget appears to reflect the values of your favorite philosopher, Ayn Rand, rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Her call to selfishness and her antagonism toward religion are antithetical to the Gospel values of compassion and love.”

“Our problem with Representative Ryan is that he claims his budget is based on Catholic social teaching,” explained Jesuit Father Thomas J. Reese, a senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown. “This is nonsense.”