You have completely misinterpreted the quoted passage. Christ's point was that His teachings are a firm foundation upon which to build one's life, and all others are shaky and doomed to fail. It has nothing to do with condemnation of non-believers. And to reject Christianity because Christians don't live up to your standards is absurd for 2 reasons: 1. Because Christians are to live up to Christ's standards, which are often quite different from what humans might expect them to be, and 2. Because it is fundamental to Christianity that Christ has left us a standard that none of us can possibly reach. It is recognition of this fact that convinces us that we need a savior. Christians are, or should be, the people most acutely aware of their own shortcomings.

Well, I'm no Bible scholar, but I do know this: that choosing a passage that describes homes built on sand and being washed away by floods of water (yes, incidentally, homes of non-Christians) is, at best, ignorant given current global events. Once again, there is an opportunity (at a prayer service, no less--hello!) for compassion, for empathy, to ally oneself and one's people with the larger human family--and some prominent American totally misses the point.

Maybe God got fed up with him one day, too, but forgot about the security guards that day.:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/24/dc.shooting.03/


On a sobering note, Mark went to grade school with the daughter of one of the guards killed.

Sure am glad you're around to give us the one proper interpretation of the gospel, James.... I don't "reject" Christianity at all (nor do I feel Christians--or anyone else, for that matter--need to live up to "my standards," whatever those might be); I've simply cultivated other spiritual practices that bring me greater peace at this stage of my life. I sincerely hope your beliefs and practices bring you the sort of peace I'm talking about. I know that for me, striving for that which cannot be reached (which is how you've described your faith) does not sound like a recipe for peace.

Um. I believe James has misinterpreted your post, MN. Hey James: from what I see, MN is saying that Tom DeLay has misused that passage to condemn non-believers and is, as Arin says, completely ignorant. And MN is upset with DeLay's insensitive misrepresentation. As a Christian, I am upset with that insensitive misuse also. James, you should be upset with Tom DeLay, not MN.

I don't think so.

James1 - please re-read what Arin posted. If you still don't see why you should be embarrassed by what DeLay did, then, with all due respect, you seem to have fallen victim to a bad case of a closed mind. Don't worry, the majority of Americans today have the same problem. The discussion here is not who misrepresented the meaning of what passage. Its much simpler. The point here James1 is that whatever message Tom DeLay was trying to preach, he could have preached it without using a passage dealing with floods. I mean, common James, if you just lost your house, loved ones, and eveything else you own, I don't think you would want to listen to a prayer about floods. DeLay can preach about a solid foundation in faith with a slew of other passages, none of which mention floods or collapsed and ruined houses. MN - keep up the good work.

Thanks, A different James, for articulating what I was trying to say.