Seperation of Church and State

[IndependentTexan]

Ahh... I get it. So, we should erase ANY history dealing with church? Our money, songs, pledge, court systems..etc.. due to sensitive folks?

That Declaration of Independence? Bah... its junk.

Any speech by a President using "God Bless America" needs to be adjusted. They shouln't have said that and it be on the record. You know...

Our court system needs to be adjusted cause a prayer is required before any hearings in the Supreme Court.

I see your point.

Ain't gunna happen.

Well we can't get rid of all of it. But we can get rid of some of it. You realize that all of which you've stated goes against the 1st amendment. The 1st Amendment must be the most important amendment we have, but yet it is one of the most ignored ones we have.

 

[freedom69714]

I will steal a line from BIG Arnold Schwarzenegger ( SPELL CHECK ) he said on meet the press I'm a Christian but I leave my personal beliefs at the State house door .......I leave my bible at the state house door .......I must make all decision on their merit alone .

In-till 1950 we did not have one nation under god in our pledge of allegiance and before 1950 I think we had a great country.....Stop all the CRAP!

In god we trust should be taken off our money too......because if you read the bible ( and I admit it's been along time sense I read the bible ) God / Jesus did not care for the people with money ....however he did LOVE the poor people.

 

[Repubteen]

Of course we should extinguish our country's history because of this

What are they teaching you down there in Texas? So what your saying is that we shouldn't teach our youth American History?And we should ignore all facts about our history good and bad.What kind of person doesn't want to learn about their own country and would dismiss their history so easily. Your a sick person if you think changing our history is worth it for only a few LIBERALS.Your probably one of those kids I have at my school, the down to earth punk hippies who hate the government and authority and everything this country stands for. Get of the Kool Aid and pick up a book.Maybe you'll learn something about the people who sacrificed their lives so you could erase what they did. :fu

 

[IndependentTexan]

my appologies...extinguish wasnt the appropriate word there....but if u had read on u would have seen what i was trying to say....taking things out of context..isnt that what u republicans do best i meant the opposite of extinguish....TYPO... thank you ops

 

[sebastiansdreams]

In god we trust should be taken off our money too......because if you read the bible ( and I admit it's been along time sense I read the bible ) God / Jesus did not care for the people with money ....however he did LOVE the poor people.

Ridiculous! Firstly, if you've not read the Bible in so long, don't attempt to paraphrase. You are completely ignoring the entire message of the Bible: "God so LOVED the WORLD that he gave us his only begotten son..." Jesus, according to the Bible, died for everyone (rich or poor). And he also stated that it was THE LOVE OF MONEY not money itself which is evil. But regardless, that is the worst single argument I've come in contact as to why it shouldn't be on the bill. First of all, it says God... not Jesus, not Yahweh, just God. That has only a monetheistic tone, not a Jewish or Christian, or Muslim tone. Furthermore the idea of having "In God We Trust" on our dollar bills was, at least in principle, to seek guidance and protection by God. It is an effort to offer even our currency to God. Granted, now it's nothing more than something to battle about between Christian fundamentalists and those who are eager to stamp out Christian influence where ever possible... which to me both seem minute and frivolous. And there could be argument back and forth forever, but two things should be taken into consideration: 1st, the phrase does not affect those that spend it. No one has ever refused to use our currency based on what was printed on it. Only because it applies to a Christian doctorine is it in debate, and only because Christianity is the most practiced religion in America is it on trial. Secondly, removing the line from the bill does nothing. Nothing doctoronly or ethically would have changed. The supreme court would till pray before session, and the Constitution will still be heavily influenced by Christian doctorines. The presence of one line on a dollar bill or a court won't make that difference. The judges remain the same, the morals remain the same. This is all bells and whistles, and it's a ridculous waste of democracy to argue such pointless matters as to what is allowed to be on the walls of the court of the face of a dollar.

 

[shuamort]

:wcm To debate politics!

Furthermore the idea of having "In God We Trust" on our dollar bills was, at least in principle, to seek guidance and protection by God. It is an effort to offer even our currency to God.

While you're right in that point, what about what the Bible says about money (mammon)?

For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith, and pierced themselves with many a pang. But flee from these things, you men of God; and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance and gentleness. (1 Timothy 6:10-11)

Let your character be free from the love of money, being content with what you have; for He Himself said, "I will never desert you, nor will I ever forsake you." (Hebrews 13:5)

"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." (Matthew 6:24)

One might argue that the God of the Bible would not want to be associated with something deemed evil or possibly as a false idol as is alluded to in Matthew 6:24.

 

[Fantasea]

Not precisely on point, but not too far from it. I found it to be an exceptionally interesting read.

http://sw.jeffotto.com/render.htm

 

[Contrarian]

Welcome Sebastian to DP and well done!

Shuamort - I like your reasoning. As I have stated many times before. Most Christians do not read their own holy book, and if they do, they "interpret" it ad naseum until it conforms with their personal need or that of the audience they are trying to influence. All of the passages you quoted were surely blackened out of the bibles of Jim Bakker, Pat Robertson, JErry Fallwell, and Billy Graham. The god business was pretty good to them and made them all rich.

As for your thoughts Sebastian. I think you are wrong in saying the topic is a waste of time. It is fundamental to the foundation and future direction of our system of government. Both sides have very valid points and it is the "debate" that maintains a balance. "Democracy Demands Debate"

Keep up the good threads... we'd love to hear more from you.

 

[Contrarian]

Not precisely on point, but not too far from it. I found it to be an exceptionally interesting read.

http://sw.jeffotto.com/render.htm

I quickly read this link and question the conclusion you are trying to make?

The first paragraph states:

"There are several new testament verses that are quoted out of context by alleged government authorities and false churches in order to deceive people into believing that they should support their man-made governments and obey their man-made law. This, however, is not the case, as God has never given His people authority to make their own law or to walk in the statutes of men."

Are you saying that man should not follow the laws of their governments because they have not been sanctioned by God? Is the bible supporting the over throw of the US government?

 

[Fantasea]

I quickly read this link and question the conclusion you are trying to make?

The first paragraph states:

"There are several new testament verses that are quoted out of context by alleged government authorities and false churches in order to deceive people into believing that they should support their man-made governments and obey their man-made law. This, however, is not the case, as God has never given His people authority to make their own law or to walk in the statutes of men."

Are you saying that man should not follow the laws of their governments because they have not been sanctioned by God? Is the bible supporting the over throw of the US government?

I expressed no opinion, one way or the other. I merely commented that I found it to be an interesting read.

Now that you mention it, though, it does lend support to the idea that if one examines the laws on the books, the roots of the ten commandments will be found.

You may recall the equally non-violent resistance to government that was the hallmark of Martin Luther King. I can only guess, but it would seem that his thoughts were running along the same lines.

Could one say that he was the victim of a modern version of a crucifixion?

 

[RightinNYC]

Random thought, but I wish if people were going to start threads, they would spell words correctly.

Boston Collage?
Death penality and abortion?
Seperation of Church and state?

Bah, humbug

 

[Pacridge]

Random thought, but I wish if people were going to start threads, they would spell words correctly.

Boston Collage?
Death penality and abortion?
Seperation of Church and state?

Bah, humbug

Nobodyz prefek

 

[RightinNYC]

Nobodyz prefek

Werd, fer rull, nugga.

Chulla chulla.

 

[Pacridge]

Werd, fer rull, nugga.

Chulla chulla.

I don't understand, but then I'm not prefek. I do like this: People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

 

[Fantasea]

Perhaps some folks haven't been able to figure out that 'Spell Check' button alongside the Submit Reply and Preview Post buttons.

Maybe someone could post a list of instructions for its use.

 

[RightinNYC]

I don't understand, but then I'm not prefek. I do like this: People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

One of my buddies at West Point loves that quote, and it grew on me.

 

[Pacridge]

Perhaps some folks haven't been able to figure out that 'Spell Check' button alongside the Submit Reply and Preview Post buttons.

Maybe someone could post a list of instructions for its use.

Good idea. Hopefully those who can't spell- can read? I'll see what I can do.

 

[Pacridge]

One of my buddies at West Point loves that quote, and it grew on me.

It's good and it's honest. There's a lot of people in this world who have no understanding (or are at least unwilling to recognize) exactly what it takes to keep us safe. Freedom isn’t free.

 

[Contrarian]

I expressed no opinion, one way or the other. I merely commented that I found it to be an interesting read.

Now that you mention it, though, it does lend support to the idea that if one examines the laws on the books, the roots of the ten commandments will be found.

You may recall the equally non-violent resistance to government that was the hallmark of Martin Luther King. I can only guess, but it would seem that his thoughts were running along the same lines.

Could one say that he was the victim of a modern version of a crucifixion?

The only interesting thing about it is how humankind can take words that have been edited, rewritten, given a :spin: and manufactured to fit their agenda (control/power/money etc) as the absolute truth.

I'll keep looking for the: "Thou shalt not drive while intoxicated" and "Thou shalt pay child support" and "Thou shalt limit the terms of you elected official" in the tablet Moses etched in a slab of rock (am I ready for my close up CB?) to scare the collective idoliters into following his ways. (Just like W did in the last election.... see there is alot to learn from the bible!)

Martin Luther Kings motivations were clear. He was truly demonstrating against a racist society, which by the way was made up in large part by religious southern evangelicals (alittle hypocracy there?) AND as you say, a country founded on religious principals (oops happened again). Now we can agree that both those factions were wrong in their treatment of gods children (the black ones) could they not be wrong in everything else they are doing "in the name of god"? Wouldn't it be totally ironic, if the end of days was a result of god being totally pis*ed (saved you the trouble Rev. Vauge) that the religious abused his name and perpetrated far too many self serving acts, made too much money, and twisted his words far too many times... that he fried them all? That they all ignored the stories about the money changers and the outburst at the Temple and the direction of JC that the church was everywhere and not a place of business... when the "rapture" comes and you guys find out that you screwed it up... priceless!

As far as a MLK crucifixion analogy. I wouldn't have expected less. Take a mortal man who has done great things (JC included) and somehow diefy him. The Romans did it, Pagans did it and their successors on the food chain did it when the voted in JC as a bona fide immortal... nice political work by Constantine to keep the rabble under control and grant the pesky Christians a right they had as pagans... making a mortal into a god. So if it floats your boat, make MLK a god too!

 

[sebastiansdreams]

:One might argue that the God of the Bible would not want to be associated with something deemed evil or possibly as a false idol as is alluded to in Matthew 6:24.

If one were to argue that, one would be following the mistake that a great deal of people make in interpreting the teachings of Jesus: the idea of moderation. The first two scriptures you quoted both say "the love of money" is evil. Jesus is not saying that money is bad. He recognizes that it is a part of life, and that it is simply used for us to purchase goods and food and such (remember "Give unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's, give to God what is God's"). However, then as it is now, money was held far too precious by far too many. Jesus is arguing that anytime something comes before more important things, and especially when something comes before a relationship with God, it is a hinderance because one is then worshiping it (or making and idol of it). Therefore, if you love money, you're going to put it as a higher priority in life than it ought to be. Rather, Jesus was against the effects money has on people. And that is why I suggest to you that Jesus said it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle (or however you would like to interpret that) than it is for a rich man to get into heaven. Because, in His eyes money can be an addiction, if given more weight than it's worth. It is not necessary, neither Biblically or in principle, to completely abandon something that is fine in moderation. I argue that Jesus was just stating the importance of moderation and the evils of excess.

:It is fundamental to the foundation and future direction of our system of government. Both sides have very valid points and it is the "debate" that maintains a balance.

That's incorrect. It isn't Fundamental, our government will not change what it is because of the words that are placed in front of court houses. The judges will not change the way they rule based on the Ten Commandments being anywhere. When you enter Washington, you're either a Christian or your not, and that rarely changes after that point. And it's definitely not persuaded by what is in front of the court houses. You can argue that the government should or is heading in the direction of adopting aetheism, and even so, I promise you that the presence of the word God on dollar bills or in government property is going to have no affect on that. For those fearing the abandonment of God in America, the issue should not be "where does his name appear" it should be "I fear the for the abandonment of God in America." For the atheist or anyone who believes in a concrete seperation between church and state, the idea of having to see or in rare occassion say the word "God" should mean absolutely nothing. Rather the issue should be "I feel that America is too set in the principles of Christianity and should attempt to be an institution void of religious doctorine." The debate over where the word God appears seems frivilous compared to the issue that for some reason people want to avoid. You can fight over where the name of God appears until your face turns blue, but the real question is "does God actually have a place in American politics?" And until we start to recognize that that's what is being debated, we're just fighting over straws.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

The only interesting thing about it is how humankind can take words that have been edited, rewritten, given a :spin: and manufactured to fit their agenda (control/power/money etc) as the absolute truth.

Very good. You are simply restating one of the Ten Commandments. Though Shall not use My name in vain. That's what that means, by the way. It is Biblical that you are not supposed to take the words of God and use them for your own purpose, because they are the words of God.

Now we can agree that both those factions were wrong in their treatment of gods children (the black ones) could they not be wrong in everything else they are doing "in the name of god"?

One error therefore all error? You're abandoning reasonable logic. Yes that was a huge blunder. Lumped up there with the Crusades and the Holocaust (two other "Christian" led blunders). But, just because some have taken the words of the Bible and twisted them into something they're not, does not mean that one should completely ignore a book that has some of the most profound civil teachings ever recorded. Yes, politicians should stop claiming God as their ally in matters of political diplomacy, but at the same time, it would be stupid to ignore the kind of wisdom that the Bible, or the philosophies of Plato, or any other truly profound peices of literature, based solely and the fact that some people have screwed it up in the past.

As far as a MLK crucifixion analogy. I wouldn't have expected less. Take a mortal man who has done great things (JC included) and somehow diefy him. The Romans did it, Pagans did it and their successors on the food chain did it when the voted in JC as a bona fide immortal... nice political work by Constantine to keep the rabble under control and grant the pesky Christians a right they had as pagans... making a mortal into a god. So if it floats your boat, make MLK a god too!

See there is where you make your big mistake. "JC" as you refer to him, was one of two things... he either was who he said he was, or he wasn't. And we know for fact that he called himself the son of God. After all that's what he was crucified for. So either he was crazy (doubtful considering all the profound knowledge he had, not to mention his incredibly coherent arguments), he was a liar (which is possible, but then that means everyone around he was convinced to the point of seeing miracles recorded by historians and doctors. This means we should not believe anything he says, because after all he's no great man, he's just a liar), or he is what he says he is (the Son of God). I suggest the first is not a valid argument. The second two are valid. But don't make the flaw of calling him a great man or a great prophet, because he wasn't either of those things. He was crucified for saying he was God on earth. So either he was a liar or he was telling the truth, there's no middle ground. And the idea that Constantine some how obtained all of the physical accounts of the Gospels and the letters from Paul and the rest of the makings of the New Testament and just completely changed them single handedly is absolutely absurd. First of all, remember Constantine was a Christian, therefore this sect had already been well established before he ever came around. Do some study on the cannonization process before you make ignorant remarks. You know there is a ridiculous amount copies of the gospels predating Constantine? More so than any other historical record ever recorded! Constantine had nothing to do with the conclusion of Christ being the Son of God. Jesus made that decision, and he was executed for it. Which all boils down to this: It's one thing for other people to make a great man into an immortal, it's another thing all together to say you are the son of God, and be executed for that lie.

 

[shuamort]

If one were to argue that, one would be following the mistake that a great deal of people make in interpreting the teachings of Jesus: the idea of moderation. The first two scriptures you quoted both say "the love of money" is evil. Jesus is not saying that money is bad. He recognizes that it is a part of life, and that it is simply used for us to purchase goods and food and such (remember "Give unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's, give to God what is God's"). However, then as it is now, money was held far too precious by far too many. Jesus is arguing that anytime something comes before more important things, and especially when something comes before a relationship with God, it is a hinderance because one is then worshiping it (or making and idol of it). Therefore, if you love money, you're going to put it as a higher priority in life than it ought to be. Rather, Jesus was against the effects money has on people. And that is why I suggest to you that Jesus said it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle (or however you would like to interpret that) than it is for a rich man to get into heaven. Because, in His eyes money can be an addiction, if given more weight than it's worth. It is not necessary, neither Biblically or in principle, to completely abandon something that is fine in moderation. I argue that Jesus was just stating the importance of moderation and the evils of excess.

One could interpret the bible to mean that. Or in my opinion, rationalize it. But if we look at three points:

1. In Jesus' Sermon on the mount he said, "Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin. And yet I say unto you that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.” The gist is that we should not worry about accumulating worldly possessions, as God will provide for his followers.

2. Jesus overturned the tables of the money-changers and cast them out of the temple. Seems to me like Jesus had a problem with a house of worship engaging in commerce and accumulation of wealth.

3. Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

It would seem that he's either pushing Francis of Assisi form of poverty or a communist form as the parable in Acts goes:

ACTS 4:35
And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
4:36
And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
4:37
Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
Acts, Chapter 5
5:1
But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
5:2
And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
5:3
But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
5:4
Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5:5
And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
5:6
And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
5:7
And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
5:8
And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
5:9
Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
5:10
Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
5:11
And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

I'm not dissagreeing with you as far as the idea that Jesus was afraid of the outcome money can lead to. Again that goes back to the idea of moderation. Money, or possessions, or whatever are necessary to an extent, is not being questioned here, it is the love of these things, the necessety of the excess of them, that Jesus is discouraging. If anything, Jesus disliked money because he knew what it did to people.
Thus...
3. Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
It's easy to realize that it wasn't money that Jesus was conserned with, but rather the point of concentration of the man, because in the end the man he was addressing turned and walked away sad because he would not give up his money.
As far as the hapennings of Ananias, it is not the money that caused Ananias to lie, it was the fact that he loved it too much. If he had not had a greedy heart he would not have held back the money and he would not have lied about it. You're making the error of blaming the instrument when it is the obsession with the instrument that is the danger.

 

[shuamort]

I'm not dissagreeing with you as far as the idea that Jesus was afraid of the outcome money can lead to. Again that goes back to the idea of moderation. Money, or possessions, or whatever are necessary to an extent, is not being questioned here, it is the love of these things, the necessety of the excess of them, that Jesus is discouraging. If anything, Jesus disliked money because he knew what it did to people.
Thus...
3. Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
It's easy to realize that it wasn't money that Jesus was conserned with, but rather the point of concentration of the man, because in the end the man he was addressing turned and walked away sad because he would not give up his money.
As far as the hapennings of Ananias, it is not the money that caused Ananias to lie, it was the fact that he loved it too much. If he had not had a greedy heart he would not have held back the money and he would not have lied about it. You're making the error of blaming the instrument when it is the obsession with the instrument that is the danger.

And maybe we'll have to agree to disagree.

Q. Does the Holy Bible support the vow of poverty?
A. Yes, there are two Bible passages that refer to embracing a life of poverty. The first is found in the Gospel of Luke where Jesus teaches that those who wish to follow Him should dispose of their personal property. The second is found in the Acts of the Apostles where it is revealed that the early Christians did not claim private ownership of any possessions, but rather, shared everything in common.


"A certain ruler asked him, 'Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?' Jesus said to him, 'Why doyou call me good? No one is good but God alone. You know the commandments: 'You shall not commit adultery; You shall not murder; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother.' He replied, 'I have kept all these since my youth.' When Jesus heard this, he said to him, 'There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me. Jesus looked at him and said, 'How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!'" [Lk. 18:18-23]
"Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. They laid it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need." [Acts 4:32-5]

I'm still not seeing moderation, I'm only seeing poverty by means of communism.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

The first is found in the Gospel of Luke where Jesus teaches that those who wish to follow Him should dispose of their personal property. .

You're confusing "people who follow him" with his personal apostles. There is a difference in being a Christian, or someone who follows the Christian doctorine and being an apostle. The apostles were chosen personally by Jesus before his ascension (all save Saul/Paul). And it was the apostles he told to let go of their personal property, since they were instructed to travel the world telling about the salvation Jesus provided. One can seek Christ as a savior and follow the Christian doctorine without living the life of an apostle.

The second is found in the Acts of the Apostles where it is revealed that the early Christians did not claim private ownership of any possessions, but rather, shared everything in common..

Here you are confusing the way the early Christians lived (out of necessity since they were considered outcasts by Jewish officials and those who did not believe Christ to be the Messiah) with the way Christ suggests we live. Jesus was very specific when he was asking people to do something. He didn't beat around the bush when it comes to subjects like this. And if he had wanted everyone in the world to live in a community and sell everything but what they needed, he would have said so. But he did not. He only warns against the love of money. And other than his apostles, the only one he ever suggested should sell all their possessions is the man you mentioned in your argument. And again, the reason he said this to that man was that he knew that it was money that was preventing that man from the kingdom of Heaven. And as it ends up, he was right, because the man refused to give up his possessions, even if it costed him Heaven. So again, it's a statement against the love of money.

I'm still not seeing moderation, I'm only seeing poverty by means of communism..

Then you are mistaking Jesus for a political philosopher. But he was a guy that claimed to be the Son of God and the Key to heaven. That makes him more than a political mind. If he'd intended to make some sort of political splash, he would not have allowed himself to be so easily crucified for something as absurd as him calling himself the son of God (he would have used the the term Messiah if he was seeking a political revolution, he did not). And granted, it's easy to take things out of context and put them together and try to derive some sort of code out of that. The Wife of Bath in Chaucer pointed out this flaw. But you are taking bits and pieces of events and happenings, and then deciding the motivation of Jesus, despite the fact that he never mentioned anything about a necessity to live in poverty. Perhaps he just saw what anyone can see when they're on the other side of the spectrum: more money more problems. I personally went to the slums of Rio DeJenero a few years ago. And while to a degree it was sad to see the lack of conviniences, but at the same time, it was inspiring to see how happy these people were with their lives, and how selfless they acted. People without money don't concern thereselves with it as much.
There is no evidence stating that Jesus was seeking a world to live in a communist society. He only discusses the evils of the love of money. Anything else you arrrive at you are adding to the text based on your own opinion or speculation. And then you are committing the offense that so many accuse biblical scholars of.