text:
The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...
There are two verses that unbelievers think they know but misuse.
Mr. Bennett doesn't even quote one of those he thinks he knows correctly.
Judge not, indeed. Church discipline (asking that members keep their membership vows in order to stay members) in America is so rare that, when it goes public, it elicits reactions like the deliberate inaccuracy of a recent CTFP headline, along with the pathetic (but predictable) cartoons, hyperbole and ad hominem diatribes supporting such yellow journalism.
Trivializing membership vows warrants the charge of hypocrisy just as much as does failing to be consistent or charitable. The 21st century American church and its critics are quite the mess.
Conservative is up early as there's dogs to kick, wings to pull off flies, crosses to burn, public restrooms to check, homeless to insult, gays to crucify, poor to mock, kittens to drown, books to burn, heretics to punish, liberals to torture, and pornography to research.
All this before arriving at church to sing, "What A Friend We Have in Jesus" and preach on brotherly love.
wwwtw: Yeah, but what would the left do, if not demean religion or shout the "R" word?
daytonsdarwin: Proof that at least some humans evolved from apes.
Three out of ten young Christians (29%) said "churches are afraid of the beliefs of other faiths" and an identical proportion felt they are "forced to choose between my faith and my friends." One-fifth of young adults with a Christian background said "church is like a country club, only for insiders" (22%).
But buried within Barna's category of "sex and sexuality" is something quite specific: churches' stances on gay and lesbian issues. Research from earlier this summer reveals that nearly 7-in-10 (69%) Millennials agree that religious groups are alienating young people by being too judgmental about these issues. Only 37% of seniors agree.
"Who can over estimate the progress of the world if all the money wasted in superstition could be used to enlighten, elevate and civilize mankind? " Robert G. Ingersoll
It's Sunday morning. Stay home, read a good book by Carl Sagan or Robert Ingersoll, enjoy nature, eat a nice breakfast, and listen to Beethoven.
Or, if you must watch TV, the faith-healers and gimme-cash Christians will provide hours of laughs and educate your kids about snake-oil salesmen at work.
Sunday--why spoil it with religion?
weaksauce, tiffy. is that your default reply now?
"Medicine is the keystone of the arch of socialism." - Vladimir Lenin
Follow link below to see all the unions, companies, states and cities that are exempt from obamacare.
It appears that everyone can quote Matthew 7:1; however, very few even know about John 7:24 which tells us to 'judge'. Of course, hypocritical judging is wrong: condemning someone for the very thing you are practicing is wrong. Also...1 Corinthians 5:12 tell Christians that they "must" judge other Christians.
daytonsdarwin said... listen to Beethoven.
Might I suggest Beethoven's Missa Solemnis, his Christus am Ölburg, or his Mass in C, Op. 86. Each of these is an a propos selection for starting the Lord's Day, though any work of Beethoven is sufficient for leading you to contemplate the majesty of your Maker.
@GreenKepi, John 7:24 does say judge, but it was addressing "REAL" christians..Judge with love without being judgemental and hate, something the klan baggers know nothing about!
Judge not means not to judge based upon one's personal opinion. Christians are not precluded from speaking the truth written in God's Word. In fact, we fail to show the true love of Christ when we do not say what God says about sin (and yes, all sins not just homosexuality). When Jesus confronted the woman at the well, He pointed out the sin of her multiple marriages and that she was living with a man out of wedlock. After she repented of her sins and was saved, Jesus told her to go and sin no more.
Missa Solemnis is one of my favorites, particularly the first movement. But it reminds me of the greatness of Beethoven, the mystery of the universe through metaphor, and the wonder of existence. Beethoven was also a product and proponent of the Enlightenment, when science, liberality, and reason supplanted the domination of religious orthodoxy and conservative reactionary government.
Just as I appreciate the great cathedrals, mosques, Hindu and Buddhists temples, and other such spaces, it does not cause me to accept superstitions as reality or think that some ancient tribal deity is my maker. Gods are not real, but metaphors of a mystery. Fundamentalists try to stamp their gods as reality and it's just not true.
I would remind you that Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is about the brotherhood of man, something fundamentalists mouth but do not apply.
I have no need of superstitions, ghosts, goblins, miracles, and gods to enjoy my life.
Ah...there's one of them.
I'm very sure that Mr. Bennett knows the correct quotation of the Scripture, but what was done to Linda Cooper, and the very thought that as a sixty year member of a church, and as a mother to her daughter, that she should be subjected to a public disgracing in front of a congregation of fellow church members, is about as appalling as it gets.
Ridgedale Church of Christ minister Ken Willis, who appears to be the chief judge in what went down, will one day stand before God and he will have to explain to God why it is that he took it upon himself to exile a member of his congregation for merely loving her own daughter.
Everyone is guilty of passing judgments on others. But when one does judge, it us important to consider the spirit in which we attempt to correct someone else. Why? Because the fact is, even if we are not guilty of the same offense, or sin, there is not one righteous human being who is not guilty of sin.
The Bible says, "Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ" (Galatians 6:1-2)
Demanding a mother to publicly shame her own daughter as a condition of continuing membership of a church is not something that I believe that God would condone.
If Matthew 7:1 read "Love not, lest ye be loved," more people might get it.
I have no doubt that as the day progresses, there will be many who will throw out Biblical scripture to justify judging others, and acting upon those judgments.
Judging someone to be right or wrong based on Biblical values is one thing, but there is a fine line between judging someone and persecuting them.
The "sin" in this case was for a mother to unconditionally love her own child, whom is believed to be living in sin.
Rather than to leave any prosecution for such sin to God, someone or a bunch of someones decided that a more earthly justice was called for.
Who gave them that authority? God?
Where is the scripture that commands us to exile a fellow church member, based on one sin, when we all know that we are all guilty of sin and that we all fall woefully short of the Glory of God?
The very nerve that some people have, is astounding.
theplaceofgrace said...
"Judge not means not to judge based upon one's personal opinion. Christians are not precluded from speaking the truth written in God's Word."
Then why do they pick and choose which words to speak about? How many over-weight gluttons are in your church? Isn't that one of the "Deadly Sins"??? Homosexuality is not.
Agree with them or not...Ridgedale was attempting to handle their matters within the confines of the congregational environment. Paul in 1 Cor. 6 was rebuking that congregation back then because they were 'flaunting' their differences before unbelieving authorities. That's what happened in this story...the press and Mr. Bennett are the ones who took the story from the confines of the congregation....
I see...so now it is the entire "congregation" who imposed the requirement that Mrs. Cooper stand before them and denounce her own daughter and repent for her own sin for loving her?
Religious belief has divided more people on this planet than all other divisive causes combined.
Tiffy worships at the alter of Enzo. Varoom.
My offerings at the church of my choice. http://downbylawberlin.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/offerings-1024x633.jpg
Greenkepi wrote: "alprova...no...not the "entire" congregation - the Elders of that congregation. Any member is free to leave and attend some place else - if that's what they choose to do...."
And what do you want to bet that there are not many members who know Linda Cooper, who are going to attend church elsewhere this very day, as a result of what was done to her?
Al, We don't always agree on things but this time we are in agreement on what went down at the Riverdale church. If it was me I wouldn't be able to get out of that congregation fast enough.
As for judge not lest ye be judged, Most people, be they atheist or Christian, are judgmental. It's the nature of the beast.
Did Kat Cooper's mother make any verbal comment about her lesbian lifestyle? Not that I can find. But she did stand beside her in support of her city council request for same-sex benefits. Actions speak louder than words. I do not agree with the Church of Christ on a lot of things, but on this I do. By biblical standards homosexuality, fornication, adultery etc. are wrong. Any other opinion is based on humanism.
degage, you are correct that judging comes with the territory. And in most cases, there is nothing wrong with judging someone to be wrong for a particular sin they may be engaged in or condoning, overtly or passively.
But who on this planet has the right or authority to demand that anyone guilty of a sin, atone themselves before them or anyone else for a sin?
That's the line that was crossed in this any many other "stone throwing" scenarios.
There are many Christians who have the belief that they are empowered by God to act on his behalf here on Earth, and no scripture I have ever read gives anyone any such authority.
I'm not fond of the Catholic religion, but the newly elected Pope Francis recently said;
"If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge? We shouldn't marginalize people for this. They must be integrated into society."
Pope Francis may well be on the path to inspiring churches to be more inclusive and merciful, rather than critical and disciplinary.
joepultizer wrote: "By biblical standards homosexuality, fornication, adultery etc. are wrong. Any other opinion is based on humanism."
Are you human? Can you sit there and state that you live each and every day of your life without sin?
Are you a parent? If your child came to you one day and told you he or she was gay, would you cast them from your home until they repented TO YOU of that one of many Biblical sins?
Are you so sure that God would be pleased with you if that is the way you handled the situation? What about his Son? What would Jesus do? Does anything in the New Testament give you any reason to believe that you are to cast away those you disapprove of?
"I like your Christ; I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." -- Mahatma Gandhi
joe putzer wrote: "By biblical standards homosexuality, fornication, adultery etc. are wrong. Any other opinion is based on humanism."
That's exactly the reason that an American judicial system does not use religion as a basis for arrest and conviction. That's why we have separation of Church and State.
I would not want it any other way.
The action does seem extreme. However, it is the church's right to decide what they require of members. Those supporting or condoning the action will be held accountable. Their accounting will not be to the TFP or other outsdiers weighing in with their judgments.
How ironic those that are criticizing the church for judging and disciplining a church member for what that member agreed was a sin when he joined the church are judging the church. if they were members for 60 years they knew the church's position on homosexuality. when the members changed their mind about the sinfulness of homosexuality they should have left because the church didn't change their mind.
And that is exactly why "God gave His only begotten Son ...."
ALPO says "I'm not fond of the Catholic religion,...."
wow, what a shocker, alpy
joepulitzer said...
And that is exactly why "God gave His only begotten Son ...."
And fundamentalists have been making humanity pay for it for centuries.
No thanks, Jehovah. You can keep him. But we could use a few more laughs instead of all that weeping and gnashing of teeth you so lovingly delivered. Maybe some food for hungry people, fix the Middle East where you screwed up, and another season of Breaking Bad.
And could you stop all those idiots arguing over you, your will, and that nonsense written in all those unholy books? Thanks, that would be special.
One more thing Jehovah. Could you strike dead telemarketers?
lkeithlu said...
Churches should be free to hate anyone they choose. We should be free to expose them when they do. Let the chips fall where they may.
If you had written"Churches" to indicate false churches which are led by false teachers and prophets you would be correct. However, Christian churches are not free to hate anyone but should hate sin and should put those professing Christians out who will not repent of their sins or who are opposed to Christian doctrine.
daytonsdarwin said... Missa Solemnis is one of my favorites
The introduction of Christianity is exactly the thing that challenged and, with partial success, disabused those European hillbillies of their superstitions, ghosts, and goblins. (Read the writings of St. Patrick to get some vivid descriptions of what it was like.) Their violent, tribal instincts never completely disappeared from that backwaters-turned-civilization; hence the overreaction against spooks in the European events you delight in using to mischaracterize a global religion and its essential message.
The source of ideas about the brotherhood of man in Europe? You guessed it: Christianity. Most Enlightenment thinkers, by contrast, viewed non-Europeans as inferior or, in some cases, as sub-human. (And we all know where that led over the course of the next 3-4 centuries.) Beethoven was a man of his times, a non-observant Catholic influenced by Pietism and the Enlightenment, but he never shared your disdain for the Bible or for the influence of its message on societies throughout the world. Neither did Galileo or the other leaders of the Scientific Revolution. Your mythology of modern Europe's development, while popular among the pseudo-intellectuals before whom you kneel, just doesn't square with the facts.
As you admit, your life would be greatly impoverished without the civilizing work of the movements and institutions you blame for the world's problems. You've thrown the baby out with the bathwater and you live as a life-depleting leech on an imperfect, but life-giving organism, the Christian church. It is possible that you've never been exposed to its good news.
What should a Christian Church stand for ? Why don't all you critics of Christian Churches lay
out your guidelines for what a Christian Church should be like? Abortion is ok, Homosexuality
is ok, etc, etc. It's a private organization, that has certain beliefs and standards. I don't see
you lefties pounding Islam for their treatment of homosexuals, which includes putting them
to death. Once again, Christians are hammered by you liberals for just stating their beliefs,
while Islam gets away with murder.
alprova said...Religious belief has divided more people on this planet than all other divisive causes combined.
Another ill-informed judgment on religion from Alprova.
Name one historic institution on the planet more inclusive than the Christian church – one. Chanting the mantra that what is true of Islamism is true of all (or any) religions is a popular way to excuse oneself from religious literacy and a factual understanding of world events.
the reason Bennett and other liberals don't attack islam or it's followers the way they do Christians is because they are COWARDS. if Christians were like the Taliban as some here claim liberals would not be attacking them and using them as a punching bag.
Fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Christians are blood brothers. Both interpret their holy books literally to get the same message, death to infidels, heretics, and free thought. Only the secular law has kept the uber-fundamentalists from starting their own version of Sharia law.
You only need to study Christian Reconstructionists, Fred Phelps, Conservative, and the others nutters who take their Bible so madly to see what happens if given a chance.
You may need an invisible and imaginary god to be moral; I don't.
Beethoven was more properly called a Deist; not a fundamentalist. Like many others he saw a divinity in Nature, not a literal Jehovah and Jesus. He understood the difference between metaphor and fundamentalism.
What is always telling and humorous about modern-day Christian fundamentalists is when they claim Catholics as kinsmen when they make arguments.
Most of the time fundamentalists are claiming the Pope as the anti-christ, priests as pedophiles, and Catholics as idol worshippers. Then again, honesty and Christian fundamentalism have never been bedfellows.
Christian fundamentalism — evidence that religious ignorance never goes out of style.
Excuse me if I disappear for a while (nope, not struck down by the Incredible Flying Holy Spook). There's faith-healing circus on TV and time for popcorn and belly laughs. We always see how many different people get "healed", how many times they ask for money, and how many ways they can say "Jesus" -- extra laughs when they start shedding crocodile tears, though we're not holding our breath waiting for Gawd to heal an amputee.
Everyone knows you never see amputees on Gawd's faith-healing circus TV shows. Even Jesus knows that would be too embarrassing!
Those false churches are the ones which hate. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 in plain and simple language states that no practicing Homosexual will inherit the kingdom of God. Those who will not warn others of their fate are the ones who hate.
If you love your children you warn them from actions that will cause them harm. If you love your fellow man you will warn them of God's righteous judgment.
conservative said...
"If you love your fellow man you will warn them of God's righteous judgment."
I hope God's judgment improves. He hasn't done much for Tim Tebow lately.
But I received a divine Word from Gawd --He's going to back Green Bay this year. It's a miracle!
Most of what you call your own morality was given to you by Christianity. Even Nietzsche admitted this.
"Fundamentalism" is a divisive, pejorative used by atheists who are unaware of or unappreciative for their Christian heritage. If terms from 20th century American theological controversies are one's primary context for understanding the world's religions, then one's perspective is very narrow. Yet it comforts fellow atheist fundamentalists to "think" in those terms.
Seems to me that most of the bitterness on here comes from the unbelievers. DD's vitriol, and so forth. (DD spouting stuff that's been said for hundreds of year....only he thinks he thought it up. hahaha)
@conservative. I think Clay actually meant not to cite the Bible verse exactly, hard as that may be for a limited literalist mind to comprehend. And what causes the creepy lust for you and the other true believers decreeing what the proper use is of other people's naughty bits?
lkeithlu said...
Churches should be free to hate anyone they choose. We should be free to expose them when they do. Let the chips fall where they may.
Your straw man is easily refuted because Christian churches do not hate anyone. You, a professing Atheist and proud heathen are the one who hates.
I bet you cannot find evidence that I hate a single soul, conservative.
I hold all religions the same. Each has its extremists, its fundies, its haters, and its silliness. Since I don't believe in the supernatural, I don't really care what religion people adhere to. As long as they treat others with kindness, their beliefs mean absolutely nothing to me.
conservative said...
"Your straw man is easily refuted because Christian churches do not hate anyone."
Westboro Baptist Church where Gawd hates Figs! They're too liberal for Conservative.
Sorry, got to run. There's a TV preacher who's going to take a demon out of a woman -- like Bullwinkle pulling a rabbit out of a hat. This is good for at least five minutes of laughter before the "Seed Money" scam. Thank you, Jebus!
Still hoping to see an arm or leg grow back today, but the ushers won't let amputees on stage with the faith-healer. Wonder why?
Who are you kidding?
You reject your creator.
conservative thinks he is on a "Mission from God".
Just in time for Sunday night! Benny Hinn heals nobody! Gullible still send money!
Now if Gawd can only heal Benny's hair, though the Navy is looking to use it as an landing strip. Thank you, Jebus!
One of the most disgusting stories I have heard. Why doesn't this church have all the fat people in the church come to the front and repent their sins so they may stay and worship? Why don't all the people who lied have to come to the front? "People want god's love without the wrath..."???? The people and leaders if this church are pompous bigots
Wwwtw wrote: "Name one historic institution on the planet more inclusive than the Christian church – one."
You can't seriously ask such a question. But I'll answer it anyway.
ANY secular institution is more inclusive than any most churches in this nation.
Most churches within the United States are segregated.
When religion was born, way back when, there was one religion.
Now there are more than 21 differing major religions in the entire world.
There are more than 41,000 different Christian denominations, in the United States alone.
There are more than 450,000 churches in the United States.
Every time a dispute erupts between church elders over some disagreement to the meaning of a particular passage of scripture, another new church is born.
Those of you bring Islam into this debate are bring up something that is not part of this subject.
The church in the center of this circle jerk claims to be a Christian church.
If and when a Muslim church exiles or executes one of its members for failing to follow some established edict, let's be sure to revisit the issue.
AL, Islam executes female members for any and all infractions the males can think of. Fathers and sons carry out all sorts of horrible acts against their female members of the family for their honor. You are full of BS when it comes to Islam. Islam calls for it.
degage said...
"Fathers and sons carry out all sorts of horrible acts against their female members of the family for their honor."
Let's take a look at the Bible. That's the book everybody has, but nobody reads. And that's the problem. Read the Bible; not just the sweet Jesus had a little lamb parts, but the whole thing. It's the biggest pile of dung since Noah had to clean the ark.
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)
Gawd is love! No violence here! Just peace and compassion! No family killings! Praise Jebus!
degage, not all Muslims follow those types of rules. Only extremists do. Most American Muslims don't. Have you ever known anyone who practices Islam here in the US? You'll find that, although protective of their daughters and socially rather conservative, are not any different than many American families.
"You'll find that, although protective of their [Muslim]daughters and socially rather conservative, are not any different than many American families. "
Never had a Muslim yet ring my doorbell after ignoring the "No Soliciting" sign and ask me if I had accepted Mohammed as my personal lord and savior, wanted me to be dunked, give money to him since Mohammed wasn't around, and want me to sing sad, weepy songs about blood, sin, and sorrow, eat flesh and drink blood.
Or maybe the fundamentalists are illiterate and can't read my sign.
degage wrote: "AL, Islam executes female members for any and all infractions the males can think of. Fathers and sons carry out all sorts of horrible acts against their female members of the family for their honor. You are full of BS when it comes to Islam. Islam calls for it."
Has anything of the sort been in the news IN THIS NATION within the past few days or weeks? No.
So why muddy the waters with that kind of crap when the subject at hand is what a CHRISTIAN church did to one of its members?
If and when somewhere in America, a church of Islam commits some heinous act, you'll be sure to read my personal condemnation.
A Church of Christ is what we should be focused on. Not some hypothetical happenings that may or may not be ongoing in other non-Christian church.
Dayton, you risk the wrath of conservative any time you point out murderous acts in the Bible.
I've gotta admit however that calling upon the Lord to provide 2 bears to maul 42 boys to death for calling the Prophet Elisha "Baldy" was a new one.
Guess the guy was a bit overly sensitive about his lack of locks.
conservative said- "1 Corinthians 6:9-10 in plain and simple language states that no practicing Homosexual will inherit the kingdom of God."
conservative, kinda lame and selective since you left out all the other "sins" in that verse that would keep you out of heaven.
Specifically, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers, and swindlers.
Classic case of christian cherry picking to justify their beliefs. Gotta love those cafeteria christians.
The Christian church was hijacked in the third century by Constantine. The holy roman empire and the Roman catholic church perverted the church that Christ built.Holy days became holidays the sabbath day changed to the day of the sun god idolatry is now freely accepted (the cross, the Jesus fish, the portraits by Divinci). So what that tells me is nobody actually reads the bible anymore they just listen to preacher and believes what he say's.The scriptures plainly state never put you faith in man,only the bible.So for any Protestant church to accept gays would not suprise me at all.So hurrah for the Ridgedale church of Christ for standing up for God.Being gay is not only a sin to God but also a sin against nature if everybody were gay we would no longer exist.
"But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men which sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?" (II Kings 18:27)
Be careful what you eat in that Christian cafeteria, and bring your own sweet tea!
It would of course come as no surprise that Conservative's a regular diner there and loves him some poopsicles.
The voters in Collegedale need to remember how those they voted to be good stewards of tax payer money chose to allocate some of their hard earned tax money. Why do employers provide healthcare for any spouse, they didn't hire the spouse and kids? Of course it is easy to make such noble decisions when others are paying for it. Shades of D.C. right here in Collegedale. The PPAHCA has caused employers to revisit what and how they pay for healthcare. Many appear to be evaluating what the minimum required will be and will provide that for the employee only leaving the spouse and kids coverage up to the employee.
alprova. I pay the expenses for my very elderly mother including a retirement home, health care etc. Recent events, expenses and the health care provider communication about what is coming makes me need again the assurance that Obamacare, as the PPAHCA has become known, is the best thing to come along since sliced bread.
al-disproven said...
"Those of you bring Islam into this debate are bring up something that is not part of this subject."
You, DD, and lkeithlu introduced other religions to the discussion with your lame-brained broad-brushes. I mentioned some specific examples and comparisons to disprove your ridiculous generalizations. You have no trouble making your own rules. You just have trouble living by them.
"ANY secular institution is more inclusive than any most churches in this nation."
You also have trouble responding to my actual statement about the inclusiveness of institutions on the planet. The planet is not limited to America. You did not (and cannot) name an institution which includes more cultural expressions than Christianity. Secularists, by contrast, are almost exclusively rich white westerners and their disaffected-fundamentalist sycophants.
Attending different churches or having different theological emphases or cultural traditions does not entail being "divisive." Besides, if everyone attended the same church building, where would we put everybody? Is complete agreement among billions of people – or even a few – realistic or even desirable?
New churches are rarely born over disagreements about "the meaning of a particular passage of scripture." The variety of causes is as broad as the American frontier (and the frontier denominations it spawned), not the least of which is the fact that that American churches are corrupted and fragmented by their shallow, consumerist mentality of constant rebranding and hyper-independence, thus my comment about the mess it's in. Church-hopping is pretty unique to America, which is why church discipline (preserving a group's identity) is such an anomaly here. These are American values, however, and not Christian values. And the church was born in (and is closer to its essence) in places other than America.
"If and when a Muslim church [sic] exiles or executes one of its members for failing to follow some established edict, let's be sure to revisit the issue."
It's official. Al-disproven know even less (absolutely nothing) about the world's second largest religion than he does about the largest.
Try converting from Islam to another religion or to atheism. OMG you are ignorant. No group kills more Christians worldwide than Isalmists. No group kills more Muslims worldwide than Isalmists. It's so bad, even religion-haters in the secular press have to cover it. Do you live in a cave? Be honest. You do, don't you?
Notice that DD, in his righteous indignation against Christianity, almost exclusively quotes the Hebrew Bible, and he does so in ways explicitly condemned in the New Testament. What a literalist dunce.
Al, you are the one that brought Islam into the discussion, now you want it removed.
Ike,muslim fathers killing their daughters because they think they dishonored them happens all to often in this country. The two girls in Texas killed by their father in a cab he was driving then fleeing and hasn't been found yet. One daughter called 911 while he was killing her sister then he turned the gun on her while she was still on the phone. He hasn't been found because the muslim community is helping him.
All you Christian haters like DD want to protect Islam yet you despise the rest of us, all because we don't adhere to your beliefs. DD, are you a muslim?
Embarrassed by that misquote Mr. Bennett?
degage, an anecdote does not refute my statement. I know families that practice Islam and they do not fit your generalization. Therefore your statement is not correct. Not all Muslims oppress the women in their families. Before the Enlightenment Christianity was quite oppressive; any religion can be interpreted this way. Combine Islam with a tribal, patriarchal society and it can get quite extreme. But Islam in the context of modern America is not.
When you know the character of the beast, you can predict the conduct of the beast.
Unbelievers have and always will attack and lie about Christianity and Christians, that is just the character of the beast.
Mr. Cook in his piece gave this FALSE reason why the Cooper family was confronted by the church:
"What did Kat's mother do that was so criminal? So sinful? She loved her daughter. Her gay daughter"
Likewise Pam Sohn Gave the same FALSE reason:
"The mother's sin was merely in loving her daughter and publicly standing beside her as the young woman sought and received Collegedale city benefits for her partner in a same-sex marriage."
I defend Christians all the time. For 30 years I worked for a church, and my coworkers were the kindest, generous, most accepting people you would ever come across (liberals, so in conservative's eyes not TROO CHRISTIANS) Christianity does not get a free pass, though. As the majority religion it has bullied and suppressed other religions in this country for more than 200 years, and it does not like the fact that other religions and non-believers are finally saying "enough". Christianity does a lot of good, but it does a lot of bad too, and needs to own that. A lot of bad is done in the name of Islam, but not all Muslims are bad. It is a real testament to our constitution that people of diverse faiths can live together and respect the rights of all people, both within and outside their faiths. But some Christians have gotten too used to crossing that line without challenge, and they don't like the fact that they are being challenged.
To insist that Christians respect that line is not persecution.
And no, conservative, I did not make your point.
Matthew 5:11 KJV
Blessed are ye , when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely , for my sake
degage said...
"DD, are you a muslim?"
If your IQ was larger than your shoe size you would have picked-up on my position that all fundamentalist religions that take ancient texts as literal, scientific, and historically accurate are ignorant.
I do not hate Christians or Muslims. Hate is a wasted emotion. I do think that religious fundamentalism, when portrayed and acted upon as many fundamentalists do, is dangerous to progress as shown by countless examples throughout history.
A society governed by constitutional secular laws protects everyone. A fundamentalist government only protects those fundamentalists.
Religion has no place in public schools or government when taught as fact in opposition to science and history. Religion can can taught as subject matter in public schools as beliefs and practices of those who believed it, but not as a dogmatic fact.
Jus as we learn about the ancient Greek and Roman gods, so too it's important to learn about other traditions as well. No school I know of teaches that Zeus or Mars are real gods, but rather are metaphors for explanations for nature and mysteries.
The sad fact for fundamentalists is most atheists and agnostics know more about Christianity that professing Christians as shown in this forum. Few fundamentalist Christians know the formation and development of their own system of beliefs. That is ignorance, as shown in this forum, is a deliberate and willful ignorance.
When the stock answer to hard questions is "God did it, God said it, and that's you need to know" an ignorance is shown and accepted.
Were there believers of fundamentalism who helped the world progress? Certainly, but they did it by asking questions, most often in opposition to the religious ruling structure. It was not the blind, deaf, and dumb acceptance of dogma so many fundamentalists preach, and wish to enforce on others.
But those who insist that old creation myths, imaginary deities, ancient stories about supernatural miracles, that have been told, combined, and re-created thousands of times throughout humanities existence are factual and literal demands for human conduct today, that's wrong.
And that's why I expose such dogmatic fallacies for what they are.
degage, I suggest you take a course (online if you wish) on comparative religions and learn the basic tenants of all the world's religions. The basic ideas of all the major worlds religions are easy to understand and are positive. They offer a sound basis for ethics and morality. All religions can be twisted and used to oppress others inside and outside the body of followers, and most can do so with support from their own religious texts. All religions have been used to justify wars and oppression. That does not make their foundations faulty.
There is much truth in what you state. Let me just say this. I repent of my "conservatism" where it is NOT Biblical. We live in an imperfect world and Christians, at least true Christians, understand that they are imperfect people. After all, David, a man after God's own heart committed adultery, then tried to cover it up by sending the husband of the wife he got pregnant into the heat of battle where he was killed. Nathan the prophet had to expose his sin. True believers are capable of committing every sin in the book. Hypocrisy exists. True believers are simply always recovering hypocrites. One day they will have ALL the hypocrisy kicked out of them. Any believer worth his salt longs for the day that he will not be able to sin and be displeasing to His Lord.
As far as Christianity doing good and bad. Given what was just stated, why would this not be true ? God is in the business of turning bad things ( us, our acts ) into good things--men and women saved by grace alone. There is nothing "good" in men ( or woman ) from birth. I think that's where most unbelievers go wrong. They fail to perceive the starting point of all humans. Depravity is a key doctrine of Christianity that so many Christians ( Roman Catholics & Armininian -- as opposed to Calvinistic believers ) fail to grasp. No one is good. Man is not improving or progressing ( contrary to Clay's cartoons that assume we can get there through liberal politics of expropriation ). The evidence of the mirror is crystal clear. No man has a clear conscious. The evidence of history is crystal clear. There is nothing new under the sun. Sin and evil have always existed and we are not rooting it out via legislation.
"If people could be made moral by law, it would be a simple matter for the board of supervisors or for Congress to pass laws making all Americans moral. This would be salvation by law. Men and nations have often resorted to salvation by law, but the only consequence has been greater problems and social chaos.
"We can agree, therefore, that people cannot be saved by law, but it is one thing to try to save people by law, another to have moral legislation, that is, laws concerned with morality."
The problem with Clay's cartoon. He judges a Church based on its doctrines and standard when he himself is an avowed atheist. Tell me how that works ? In one sentence he negates the whole of religion. He himself has told me personally, he believes there was no Creator. Tell me then, by what standard does he judge a Church who is simply holding to the standards based on the simple words and tenets of their religion ? Answer: He has no basis to judge them. The fact that he does not even grasp it is just one of the aspects of depravity he cannot even begin to understand. He judges some men to be hypocrites while he himself thinks he cannot possibly be guilty of the sin--simply because he is an unbeliever. Tell me how that works.
Funny that you would use the word dogmatic. I as a Christian am required to conserve the word of God. God doesn't change and His word stands forever.
Now who brings up sodomy/homosexuality first?
You LIberals can be so absurd. Don't you think people notice?
I'm not fixated on sodomy. But the focus of this thread is Sodomy and sodomites. Scripture from O.T. to New is very clear on what it taught. The harshness of the O.T unbelievers mock. They like to scoff and say: so, should we keep killing homosexuals ?
The harshness of the O.T was to prove its point. This sin was heinous. It was deserving of death because it vileness had a way of spreading. Given that Depravity is a core doctrine of Scripture, why would we suppose it would not try to spread ?
Nowhere does Scripture say that to know all is to forgive all. Rather it says that on the Day of Wrath, everything secret will be known and everything in darkness will come to light. Nevertheless, Christians get pulled into absolutionism by all sorts of ropes. Ours is a God of mercy. Yes, but He is also a God of judgment. These two qualities are united by the atoning sacrifice of Christ, of which we cannot avail ourselves unless we repent. Christ has commanded us not to judge. Yes, but we are not commanded not to judge acts; we are only commanded not to judge souls. We know which acts are wrong because He has told us; we don't know which souls will repent because He hasn't.
Matthew 5:11 KJV
Blessed are ye , when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely , for my sake
Some Notes:
As for being tolerant of the homosexual and the homosexual agenda, I would reply: Let's be honest with each other. We both know gays are the ones who reject what is different from themselves. They reject the challenge of the other sex, God's natural order & choose to disorder themselves. Absolutely, they may be born with certain feminine characteristics and it may very well be they fight an uphill battle due to it. I agree with them being born with "tendencies too". Here's the reasoning, however: Homosexuals ask you to accept them for who they are. They say they were born that way. Ok, and what of the person who is born with the tendency to lie and steal--or worse ? Should we "accept them for who they are ? As I state below: the most loving thing we can do is tell them the truth. God calls it a Sin. They should turn from it the same as I should turn from heterosexual lust--which only serves to strengthen my marriage and honors my wife and God above. Thing is: homosexuals are not interested in honoring any one save their urges. Their whole life revolves around a disordered sexual urge. We were meant to be much more than sexual beings--both on this earth and beyond it.
When i hear: I have a committed gay relationship.
The reality: The committed gay relationship is a myth. Research shows that homosexuals with partners don't stop cruising, they just cruise less.
How often do we hear: You're demeaning my dignity.
I respect your dignity as a human being, but when you practice acts you'd be ashamed for heterosexuals to know about, you demean your own dignity. Again: that which God had ordered--homosexuals disorder, then ask that you accept them and be tolerant of that disorder.
The fallacy: There's nothing wrong with gay love.
The reality: Tell me what's loving about sex acts that cause bleeding, choking, disease, and pain. You might start by explaining the meaning of the medical term Gay Bowel Syndrome, or how people get herpes lesions on their tonsils. Working in the medical field, I can give first hand accounts: Disordered and unnatural sex--especially over long periods of time reeks havoc on the body.
Often you will hear: By what right do you tell me whom to love?
I would reply: I'm not telling you whom to love; I'm telling you that there is nothing loving about mutual self-destruction.
[ Two ]
How often have we heard the argument: You're demeaning my love for my partner.
I respect friendship wherever I find it, but sex doesn't make every friendship better. It distorts the friendship of two men, just as it distorts the friendship of a father with his daughter.
Gay is just as natural for some people as straight is for other people they say.
The reality: Homosexual union is a kind of narcissism. You are trying to unite with yourself in a mirror.
They will say: You hate people like me.
I would reply: You seem to think that love for you requires not telling you the truth. I think love for you requires telling you the truth.
Militant Gays are quick to say: How dare you oppose hate crimes legislation?
Reality: Murder and beating are already illegal. It's hard to see how murdering for hate is worse than murdering for fun or for greed.
Homosexuals say: I believe in equal treatment for every sexual orientation.
Really ? All 23 + ? I thought you might, but sexual lust for kids, sexual lust for the dead, and sexual lust for animals are sexual orientations too. The North American Man-Boy Love Association has been marching in gay pride parades for years. ( You no doubt know about this too, but probably deny anything wrong with it ). You say there is no progression to this sort of thing. Obviously you are a fool, deaf, dumb & blind if you think so. We would not be having this conversation 40-50 years ago. While there is nothing new under the sun & this sin has been around from the beginning, no one in those societies sought normalization and validation. Why ? While they loved their sin, they knew it was debauchery and society should not & would not normalize it.
How often have we heard the past few years: I can't see why marriage should be restricted to a man and a woman, not two men or two women, other variations?
I would ask: Then where do you stop? How about a man and two women? Or a woman and two men? Or a man and a boy? Godless Fools do not see logical progression.
How often have we heard in the news: It's wrong to discriminate according to sexual orientation in employment.
Logic replies: It all depends on the job. If employment discrimination means not letting sodomy advocates near kids, you bet I'll discriminate. I think people should be left to make these decisions for themselves, don't you? You: Probably not.
"In the late 1950's and early 1960's, I began to notice a drift of men into perversions, and now women also. The men, for example, found that not only marital sex but also adulteries were no longer capable of exciting them. As a result, they were experimenting with anal sex, homosexuality, child molestation, incest, and like perversions as a means of reviving their flagging sexuality. The drift was appearing in their forties, at an early age. The pleasure in sex was in violating God's law and in defiling another person. The mentality of the Marquis de Sade was becoming democratized, with ugly results. The pleasure was in sin, not in godliness. This is an ancient impulse, and we see it, certainly, in the behavior of the men of Sodom (Gen. 19:1-19). The attitude of all too many is that of Caligula; when confronted with God's law, their angry response is, "Who dares teach me?" After all, who can teach a god, and, since fallen man is his own god, who can qualify to teach him? Given this premise, the modern educational goal is to teach children that they have a right to create their own value systems, and also to refuse to be bound by them."~ RJR
Let's be honest here. Homosexuality is one of 22 perversions. if one is "right" tell me on what basis do we judge the others "wrong" ?
The answer ALL unbelievers will give: Why of course we and "the culture" define what is right, good, true.
No, but you get your views from your holy book. Your holy book applies to the members of your religion. Not to everyone else. Again-why do you care?
You were unable to answer this several days ago.
Save your preaching for your fellow churchgoers. I am proud to be American, where my freedom to believe (or not) is protected.
Why do you care ? He asks ? Very simply: My sin does not just affect me. It's tentacles spread out and affect others as well. Did David's Sin with Bathseba JUST affect her ? NO. It ended in the death of Uriah.
Sin is chiefly an affront to God above. He is the one we should all be chiefly concerned with. We will give an answer for our sins and be judged according to God's standard of perfection ( the law ) or else we will be judge "IN" Christ ( the Perfect Sacrifice ) who made us "right"--knowing we cannot keep the law.
True believers love the law, even know they cannot keep it. The law makes them run to Christ. They KNOW and understand they are hypocrites.
I would ask you: By what standard then do you judge yourself who is even now outside of Christ ? WHy of course you judge yourself against other human beings and tell yourself: "I'm not as bad as this hypocritical Christian." I'm not Hitler. I'm not Jeffrey Dahmer, Pol Pot, George Zimmerman ( had to throw him in. )
Scripture tells us very simply, it's not wise for men to judge themselves against the standard of other men.
Folks, I do not defend radical Islam. I never have.
It seems that in your defense of Christianity and perhaps what happened to the Coopers, you're contrasting an issue that is not a widespread problem in this country, nor in any manner associated with what happened right here in OUR AREA in a local CHRISTIAN Church.
You apparently are under some impression that I have been attacking Christianity. That couldn't be any farther from the truth. My concern is limited to one church that I feel has done something completely contrary to what Christianity stands for.
I am a Christian, but I do not defend all Christians.
Bringing up problems that occur in other nations may be relevant in your eyes, but I don't see the point.
WWWTW, I noticed that in your response to my charge of divisiveness, you completely left out any retort to the fact that there are more than 41,000 different Christian denominations, WITHIN THE UNITED STATES.
Divide that by the 50 states, and you have an average of 820 different Christian denominations per state. I'm sure that it doesn't play out like that, but it's very easy to understand that all those different Christian platforms did not evolve out of total agreement among all Christians.
World stats are highly irrelevant to this discussion as well. I'm well aware of the efforts to convert people to Christianity around the world, but in this nation, Christianity, while the dominant religion, continues to be extremely divisive, and who knows how many people from those 41,000 denominations are attempting to sell their brands of Christianity around the world.
And you know what? Each and every one of those different denominations believe their version is the correct one and all other have it wrong.
I'm quite sure that Linda Cooper will find another church, and she may well by this time have received many invitations from several other churches who are not hung up on hammering cherry picked passages from the Bible while completely ignoring others that if taken literally, would apply as well.
The natural progression of my stance would most definitely have to include that it is the Bible that is at the core for the divisiveness among Christians.
I do get my answer from His Holy Book. What Holy book of knowledge do you get your views ? Where is it that I should know it, read it, understand it?
Given your answer, if that book is used for believers who judge themselves according to it, how then do you get Clay judging men and condemning them for using that book ?
We can all grasp that unbelievers think it untrue, but when a man--such as Clay--uses the book -- who is himself outside of it--and judges the Church according to it and its standards, tell me how that works ?
Might I suggest an excellent treatise on moral law ?
You won't find a better reasoned, written book on the subject.
Enough of this talk about sodomy! Tifosi is getting turgid.
caddy said...
"I do get my answer from His Holy Book. What Holy book of knowledge do you get your views ? Where is it that I should know it, read it, understand it?"
Relax Caddy. Hear the sacred words of St. Penn and St. Teller. Don't be afraid to throw off your chains of religious ignorance.
Freedom is just around the corner if you will stop being so dense.
However I suspect you like your religion's S&M practices because you've discovered that thinking is hard and it's easier to follow your religious Judas goat to your church altar of ignorance.
There is dividing with in the ranks and "the Book" itself understand exactly why it is:
Matthew 10:34-42 (AMP) Mt 10:34 (AMP) Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to part asunder a man from his father, and a daughter from her mother, and a newly married wife from her mother-in-law— 36 And a man's foes will be they of his own household. 37 He who loves [and takes more pleasure in] father or mother more than [in] Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves [and takes more pleasure in] son or daughter more than [in] Me is not worthy of Me; 38 And he who does not take up his cross and follow Me [cleave steadfastly to Me, conforming wholly to My example in living and, if need be, in dying also] is not worthy of Me. 39 Whoever finds his [lower] life will lose it [the higher life], and whoever loses his [lower] life on My account will find it [the higher life]. 40 He who receives and welcomes and accepts you receives and welcomes and accepts Me, and he who receives and welcomes and accepts Me receives and welcomes and accepts Him Who sent Me. 41 He who receives and welcomes and accepts a prophet because he is a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward, and he who receives and welcomes and accepts a righteous man because he is a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward. 42 And whoever gives to one of these little ones [in rank or influence] even a cup of cold water because he is My disciple, surely I declare to you, he shall not lose his reward.
DD said "I do not hate Christians or Muslims. Hate is a wasted emotion." DD doing a whole lot of wasting here
There are consequences for many behaviors such as alcoholism, drug use, homosexuality, abortion,obesity, to name some offhand.
Would you be in favor of individuals bearing the financial costs incurred as a result of their behavior instead of others in society?
^ Given the above, we get a stark picture and are left with answering ONE QUESTION: What is Ultimate for us ? Where do we spend our $$, our time, our thought life ? There is our God. God would have us love Him above ALL things. The whole law can be summed up very simply in Loving God above all. Scripture tells us: Even God's help--and condescension are required for us to do even that.
Ike: "Oh, and I am not a "he". You haven't really answered, except to reveal that you have every intention of imposing your sectarian views on others. Very unpatriotic, I think."
so we get a picture of what is ultimate for Ike: Country above God.
Got it.
All of us have "gods" until God would root them out. Some He allows to keep. God has two hands: One of Mercy, One of Justice.
There is no Mercy to the man ( or woman ) who deems she ( or he ) needs NONE.
PlainTruth said...
"DD said "I do not hate Christians or Muslims. Hate is a wasted emotion." DD doing a whole lot of wasting here."
No wasting or hating here, though I do take delight in the laughs.
However, I do enjoy presenting views contrary to religious fundamentalism. I'm betting my posts have influenced more people to search for Bible contradictions, inaccuracies, and the fallacies of religious fundamentalism than you've persuaded to talk a walk down Fundy Wacko Lane.
"Every time a Bible-Thumper posts, another agnostic is born." Thanks for all your help.
I would bet you are wrong Dayton. you words have less influence than you give them credit for. you're not saying anything that hasn't already been said before. you and the other Christian haters are not as smart as you think you are. smarter people than you have made similar remarks for centuries and yet the Bible is still here.
the wisdom you think you posses is nothing more than foolishness.
DD said "However, I do enjoy presenting views contrary to religious fundamentalism. I'm betting my posts have influenced more people to search for Bible contradictions, inaccuracies, and the fallacies of religious fundamentalism than you've persuaded to talk a walk down Fundy Wacko Lane." Don't spend too much time thinking you are influencing anyone, DD. You take yourself far too seriously
Now the truth from pastor Willis who refutes both Mr. Cook and Ms. Sohn:
"The sin would be endorsing that lifestyle," Willis said. "The Bible speaks very plainly about that."
Willis, a father himself, said the church didn't expect the Cooper family to disown their daughter.
"But you certainly can't condone that lifestyle, whether it's any kind of sin -- whether they're shacked up with someone or living in a state of fornication or they're guilty of crimes," he said. "You don't condone it. You still love them as a parent."
I laugh too much to take any of life too seriously. While fundys are sweating over miniscule jots and tittles the size of ant testicles, I'm laughing, having fun, and enjoying life.
I put the silly nonsense of fundamentalist religion away years ago. It's a superstitious relic of history like flying witches, alchemy, angels dancing on the head of a pin, and an earth only 6000 years old. That you believe this stuff is a testament to self-induced gullibility and willful ignorance.
But you are good for laughs.
DD says "I put the silly nonsense of fundamentalist religion away years ago." apparently not
alprova said..."WWWTW, I noticed that in your response to my charge of divisiveness, you completely left out any retort to the fact that there are more than 41,000 different Christian denominations, WITHIN THE UNITED STATES. Divide that by the 50 states, and you have an average of 820 different Christian denominations per state. I'm sure that it doesn't play out like that, but it's very easy to understand that all those different Christian platforms did not evolve out of total agreement among all Christians."
While there are many varieties of Christianity as it has adapted to and taken root in hundreds of cultures and subcultures around the globe, America's experience is somewhat unique. We had HUNDREDS of varieties of cereals in our grocery stores. There are TENS OF THOUSANDS of stores for any given type of product or category of products. There are TENS OF THOUSANDS of civic clubs with different emphases and beliefs, but by and large in agreement with our form of government. This does not make any of these entities DIVISIVE. In some ways, it makes our society healthier.
One third of the planet's population is Christian. Christianity's diversity of expressions should not be surprising for a movement that has proven to be highly adaptable and appealing to such a wide diversity of cultures and subcultures. In an immigrant nation such as ours, we see it, albeit on a smaller scale.
The whole idea behind the formation of organization is to unite people with similar beliefs, values, or agendas. The idea of "divisive organizations" is an oxymoron. Individuals and ideas can be divisive, but if the tendency of an entity to create diversity of thought within its unity is your criteria for being labeled "divisive," then you would have to include online political cartoons, newspapers, political institutions, and the free market in your criticism of "divisive" forces. The church is not unique in its ability to foster debate and occasional splits. Many denominations are actually formed by bringing together several like-mind churches or groups of churches. The church in question is part of one such denomination (even though they profess to be opposed to the whole idea of denominations). A careful study of the history of denominations will make this phenomenon abundantly clear.
alprova said..."World stats are highly irrelevant to this discussion as well. I'm well aware of the efforts to convert people to Christianity around the world, but in this nation, Christianity, while the dominant religion, continues to be extremely divisive, and who knows how many people from those 41,000 denominations are attempting to sell their brands of Christianity around the world … And you know what? Each and every one of those different denominations believe their version is the correct one and all other have it wrong. The natural progression of my stance would most definitely have to include that it is the Bible that is at the core for the divisiveness among Christians."
You earlier stated "Religious belief has divided more people on this planet than all other divisive causes combined." I responded to that statement, not the one you wish you had made now that it is clear that you cannot defend it. You have yet to do so, and you will continue to change the subject to avoid it.
World Christianity was diverse long before our republic was ever born. Critics of "organized religion" like yourself, confine your perspective to that of Europe and America. This is very ignorant and dishonest.
Americans are an entrepreneurial people and, when applied to the church, it has had both positive and negative effects. Educational and charitable Institutions tend to spring up around the varieties of Christianity in America (and elsewhere). The Ivy League schools were associated with the largest denominations in colonial America. There was healthy competition and debate among and within those schools, as well as in the various land grant universities. The same goes for k-12 schools and benevolence societies. Denominations sponsor thousands of hospitals, literacy programs, orphanages, and other services for believers and unbelievers alike.
The primary negative is that, as renewal movements develop and become institutions (a necessary step for the survival of ANY movement of ANY type), they tend to calcify and some of the creative energy is lost. This spawns new renewal movements and the process of organizational development starts over. The process is not unique to Christianity or to religions in general. The simplistic assessments espoused on this forum are lazy, dishonest, and historically inaccurate.
"I'm quite sure that Linda Cooper will find another church, and she may well by this time have received many invitations from several other churches who are not hung up on hammering cherry picked passages from the Bible while completely ignoring others that if taken literally, would apply as well."
Oh, no doubt. Another negative is America's shallow, individualistic, and narcissistic mindset of shopping for a church or brand of churches that best caters to you individual preferences and whims. No church is immune from cherry-picking, nor are the church's critics. As is abundantly clear in this forum, very few people are skilled at interpreting ANY literature, much less that of the Ancient Near East. And this is yet another source of church disunity and unfounded criticism of the Bible in America.
WWWTW: Please don't feed the animals. ALPOO will simply go to google and wiki and dig up another pile of poo to post.
Now the Cooper family in opposition to church and Christian doctrine confirming Pastor Willis:
"Hunt Cooper said his family rejects the notion that being gay is a lifestyle choice. And his wife, along with her brother and sister, believed repentance would be hypocritical. So the decision to leave, devastating as it was, was a simple one."
"There's no sin to repent for," he said. "And she's not going to turn her back on her daughter."
From the beginning, cleaning up the litter of unbelievers has been a hallmark of our faith. This morning, it happened to be my turn for scoop duty. Good day.
Well said, "Whats_wrong_with_the_world."
Makes me wonder how people see the Church in China ? It's grown by leaps and bounds--underground though it is. Persecution always separates the Sheeps from the Goats. There are a lot of "Professing believers" here in America. Professors will be denying Christ left and right if and when persecution comes.
Here's an image of one of the resident thumpers dressed in his Sunday best. Guess which one?
Regarding your associations with Christians at a church you worked for, what did they say to you when they presented the Gospel to you?
I do get my answer from His Holy Book. What Holy book of knowledge do you get your views ? Where is it that I should know it, read it, understand it?
I get nothing from a "holy" book, as I don't believe in the supernatural. But ethics exists outside of religion. You don't have to believe a sky fairy is watching you to be ethical.
Curious: wwwtw and caddy: How is my not believing a threat to you? How is my being an atheist taking away your (or anyone's) rights? I could ask the same of being gay-how is someone being gay a threat to your rights, your sexual orientation, or your own straight marriage?
Are you saying no one ever shared the Gospel with you?
Holy rollers can't be happy unless they're hunting witches. Their demonization of homosexuals today is every bit as disgraceful and disgusting as their indulgence in witch hunts of yore. And based just as much on ignorance. They were completely convinced of the appropriateness of their actions back then and they are equally convinced today that God is likewise on their side. At least we should all be thankful that there are laws today to protect their prey from being burned at the stake, but these self-righteous knuckle draggers still manage to make life miserable for gays as they heap their unwarranted condemnations on them and excommunicate them for their "sin" of being born gay.
It will probably take some time yet for the veil of ignorance to be lifted from the eyes of these pious bigots, but they will come to see, eventually, like every other rational person already sees, that homosexuality is not a life-style choice but a matter of genetics. Gay people do not indulge in homosexuality out of defiance, thinking it be somehow more kinky, but simply because they are wired to be attracted to the same sex. They can no more "choose" to lust after their same gender any more than we heterosexuals "choose" to lust after the opposite sex. It doesn't take years of scientific research or psychological studies to see that. All it takes is being objective and freely talking to enough gay people and listening to what they are saying.
If you try to de-program a gay person or ask them to stop acting on their natural (God-given) impulses you are asking them to live their life going against the very grain of who they really are. What these mean-spirited Bible thumping Christians are calling sin is nothing more than people acting on the natural impulses that their God created them with in the first place. Yes, there are many gays who are promiscuous and indulge in sex out of pure carnal pleasure, but if so, their "sin" is no worse than that of straight people who do the same thing. There are likewise many gay people who find fulfillment in a committed relationship, and for them marriage should be just as much an option as for any straight couple.
I don't know what it will take to open the eyes and the hearts of these pious, despicable holy rollers who are stuck in the Dark Ages but all we can do in the meantime is to stand up to their vile actions and injurious accusations against the innocent and hope that eventually they will see that their sin of self righteousness is far worse than any sin they are accusing others of committing.
conservative, I've attended church all my life. I've read and studied the bible including the gospels. Belief is an individual journey. The bible does not mean the same to someone who does not believe in the supernatural, something I lost when I stopped believing in the tooth fairy. Someone else cannot 'make' me believe any more than I can 'make' them not believe.
Once you don't believe in the supernatural, you must find other reasons to be ethical, moral and honest. No fear of hell, and no reward in heaven. No sky fairy saying do, do not, or else I smite you. My ethics are complicated, and have developed over a lifetime. I have no obligation to defend that to you or anyone else.
You believe in that stuff, that's your business. But nowhere in the laws and constitution of the US of A does it say that I must.
Not seeing much relevancy here regarding the 2 sides. Seems to me that the atheists are much more mean spirited than the believers ( lu excepted ). Little ricky and DD love to rant, no? I'm fairly ambivalent toward the non-believers (as in don't give a rat's ass). Why can' they show the same in return?
TFP poll today 45%, 131 people voted that no on question - Is homosexuality a sin?
I would love to know how many of those 131 would identify themselves as a Christian?
Daytonsdarwin said - "I would remind you that Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is about the brotherhood of man, something fundamentalists mouth but do not apply."
No where in the Bible is the "brotherhood of man" taught that I know of. There is no conservative denomination that teaches anything like that either. They do teach the universal depravity of mankind however.
Only congregations that have turned to liberalism dream up things like that. Good luck with it! The 5th dimension - "This is the dawning of the age of aquarius..." we'll see...
Are you saying no coworker ever shared the Gospel with you?
No, conservative. I attended services as part of my job. It was not my co-workers' job to "share the gospels" with me. They were not preachers. Even the clergy did not force things on us. We did our jobs. No where in my or any others job description said we had to "share the gospels".
I am beginning to think you believe I am a non-believer out of lack of exposure to the Bible. You couldn't be more wrong.
I have to take as reality that 131,45% people so far say that homosexuality is not a sin.
What they think is not important. What people "think" does not make reality. If you don't believe in "sin" then the question is meaningless. But polls only show what people think. It has no bearing on reality. Like I said, many people think that ESP, Clairvoyance, Telepathy, Ouija Boards, Alien Abduction, and Homeopathy are real. Doesn't make it so.
I find it very troubling that those Christians coworkers never shared the Gospel with you. You worked for a church where you never heard the Gospel.
There is a great contradiction here.
Did they allow open homosexuals to be members?
Well, that is a reality for them. That is their stated belief, a belief contrary to Christian doctrine.
Hey Jesse. Agree. CONman is just showing his ass. Like DD and Little ricky.
"Seems to me that the atheists are much more mean spirited than the believers ( lu excepted ). Little ricky and DD love to rant, no? I'm fairly ambivalent toward the non-believers (as in don't give a rat's ass). Why can' they show the same in return?" - PT
How magnanimous of you to be so ambivalent, PT! Actually you are either too dense to see how horrid the behavior of the holy rollers is, or you are too apathetic and cowardly to stand up to them. Just because we call out the Bible thumpers for their bigotry and their heinous actions of constantly casting aspersions upon gay people does not make us mean-spirited. If we rant and rave and holler just as loud as the self righteous thumpers it's only because it is cowardly and wrong to let their vile words and deeds go unchallenged. Silence implies acceptance or indifference. There are some thing that simply cannot go unchallenged.
Did this church allow all these groups to be members? Were you a member?
Yeah P.T. BUT they are responding to Con man's raving in the same tone he uses! He's the DADDY of all this ! Every time he gets on here it's the same crap and he is gonna get in somebody's face about it no matter what!!He needs a good Attitude adjustment!!
TFP needs to do away w/monikers and require you to use your REAL name on here, like H.P. is getting ready to implement!Put a stop to all the B/S!!
I get that to work there one did not have to be a member. However, were they allowed to be members and were you a member?
Sure, they can join if they like. I have been a member since I was young. I am still a member. That changes nothing. We attended services as part of our job. But we were not required to sign a statement of faith, or convert, in order to work there. Anyone was welcome to become a member, including gays. And many did. Members were not required to sign any kind of agreement or pledge either. We all explored the deeper questions of what it means to be human together, each with our own understanding. What's not to like? I was very fond of everyone I worked with and I miss them all. We felt we had a purpose in being there, and we took our jobs seriously.
Thank you for your honesty.
I am not surprised to hear that such "churches" exist but I must say that I don't know what goal or purpose such a "church" would have.
Your description/requirements of membership is totally foreign to any Christian church I ever heard of and the term church as used by you and myself would have nothing in common.
Don't you see the confusion that results when two people use the same words but have totally different meanings in mind?
I think we all need to understand what we are dealing with here. Scripture is very clearly here. We see cartoons by Clay -- and many comments by unbelievers in this thread trying to make a "judgment" on a Faith that he and others are either hostile to or outright denounce. There is a reason for that. Jesus stated it very plainly. There is no misunderstanding it.
Matthew 13:11-15 (HCSB) Mt 13:11 (HCSB) He answered them, "Because the secrets of the kingdom of heaven have been given for you to know, but it has not been given to them. 12 For whoever has, ⌊more⌋ will be given to him, and he will have more than enough. But whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. 13 For this reason I speak to them in parables, because looking they do not see, and hearing they do not listen or understand. 14 Isaiah's prophecy is fulfilled in them, which says: You will listen and listen, yet never understand; and you will look and look, yet never perceive. 15 For this people's heart has grown callous; their ears are hard of hearing, and they have shut their eyes; otherwise they might see with their eyes and hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn back— and I would cure them.
Remember the Dan Brown, Angels & Demons with Tom Hanks as the character of Robert Langdon ? Brown got one thing right in that movie with Langdon's character.
The central character is Harvard Professor Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks). When asked about his own beliefs, he describes himself as a person who has "not yet received the gift of faith".
Nothing, absolutely nothing makes sense to unbelievers until God opens their eyes. When we understand that the starting place is that ALL men are deserving of Death and Hell, it becomes clearer that there was NEVER anything good in me or any other man who lived and died and came to Faith in history past. The Salvation of ALL men is a TOTAL gift of God. Many He leaves in Unbelief. Keep in mind--when anger tends to take over for all the believers towards the unbelievers in this thread that NONE of you ( or me ) believers in this thread deserved an OUNCE of God's forgiveness.
Little Ricky. That's just it. I see the majority of the name calling coming from your ilk. CON man speaks for the few, believe me. Besides, the gays seem to be doing a good job standing up for themselves. But go ahead and rant.
conservative, I suspect you are not as worldly as many folks. There are many ways to live, and not all of them are as conservative Christian. That doesn't make them wrong. At our place we took care of each other and those around us, expected honesty, expected each of us to own up when we fell short of the high standards of our community, and respected the freedom, beliefs and privacy of everyone. And yes, all this in a mainline Protestant denomination right here in the US.
PT, adult gays really can look after themselves, particularly when marriage equality becomes the law of the land. But gay teens are one of our most vulnerable groups; they are fearful that they will be rejected by those that should love them and scared that they feel differently than their peers. They cannot help being who they are (as if just being a teen isn't hard enough) and are more at risk of self-destructive behavior and suicide. It is for them that we must work tirelessly to educate the citizens of this country. The sad thing is that some percentage of those born into families that attend churches like the one in this cartoon. They in the end will be forced to choose between their family and church, and who they really are inside. It is tragic and serves no purpose to condemn or oppress those that are gay.
Lu, PT does not Condemn gays. Live and let live. The problem for the teens is resolving itself. No thanks to the Little Ricky ranters.
The notion that it hurts no one is naive at best.
Caddy drooled: "The central character is Harvard Professor Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks). When asked about his own beliefs, he describes himself as a person who has "not yet received the gift of faith"."
The gift of faith? isn't that like God's gift of hemarrhoids?
Praise Jebus! He's given Caddy the "Gift of the Grapes of Wrath."
At least medicine can get rid of hemarrhoids. Fundamentalism requires lobotomies.
I hope this will be my last question for the day.
You said anyone can be a member in your church, you are evidence of that.
Do any of them,even homosexuals, call themselves Christians and do members ever refer to one another as Christians.
So CON, are you the decider of who is Christian and who ain't?
Yes. They call themselves Christians. Even the gay members. Without your approval or blessing. And they are, regardless of what you think or say. If there was a Jesus (and I think there probably was) he would be proud of them for their kindness, empathy and compassion for others.
Caddy, the Gay Liberation Front does not represent everyone who is gay. If so, then Fred Phelps speaks for you.
"Nothing, absolutely nothing makes sense to unbelievers until God opens their eyes." - caddy
The vast majority of atheists/agnostics used to be believers who were raised in the Christian faith or who had at one time undergone a visceral experience of being "saved." Fortunately we were able to maintain enough of an open mind to see the more brilliant and liberating light of truth and reason. Once a person is free to be objective in reading the Bible the absurdity of it becomes obvious. There is no going back to the childish blind faith of Christianity.
As for original sin it is one of the most fiendish and destructive concepts ever devised by man. It was merely a doctrine that was promulgated by the early Church to keep men subservient to it and feeling dependent on its authority. I am not a perfect human being and never will be, but I was not born with a permanent stain upon my being that requires the blood of a mythical "savior" to wash it away and save me. That is not arrogance or contempt, that's just recognizing and appreciating our own distinctive individuality that God (nature) bestowed upon us. If there is a God and it is possible to blaspheme that God, then it is surely blasphemy to deny the gift of reason and our own individuality that we were endowed with by our creator.
It's a shame that you Bible thumpers can't let go of the primitive belief in the sort of God who would even conceive of a place like hell, let alone would actually let his own children suffer in it eternally, for the mere "sin" of daring to be an individual and believe in accordance with his/her own beliefs. Fortunately we non-believers know that there is no such God. It is only in the small, perverse minds of you thumpers that such a God exists.
You need an editor, Little ricky. Calling believers "thumpers" is not real cool.
PT, in her column the other day Pam Sohn used that very term. Does she need an editor, too? Oh wait...she IS an editor! The term "Bible thumper" has been around a long time and it is no more offensive than calling someone a redneck. Anyway, it is not nearly as offensive as those "thumpers" constantly calling gay people sinners who are worthy of burning in hell. You want uncool? THAT is uncool!
The thing that is so asinine about you is how you're so quick to call out libs for name calling but you and the teabaggers (oops, pardon my uncoolness yet again) do it all the time, but you manage to give yourselves a pass for it. Even if you don't use a specific pejorative you fling insults, and that is the same thing as name calling. To call you a hypocritical buffoon is to state the obvious.
Well Ricky, no matter the side, you prove that an A hole is an A hole.
Thank you very much.
I guess I have been somewhat naive about what is going on the last several years in Liberal "churches" and even in politics.
I have devoted most of my spare time in Scripture and have largely abandoned politics and canceled 90% of my many magazine and newspaper subscriptions.
I had a pastor friend impress upon me a number of years ago that you only had to know the genuine to quickly identify the counterfeit.
I suggest that you look up the meaning and origin of the word Christian (notice Christ in the word) and "obey" and "wrath" and "judgment in a concordance and you will see why it is impossible to be a Christian and be opposed to Christ, especially by homosexual conduct.
Isn't it great that those posting here are not judgmental of others? All the Christians receptive to different views and acknowledging someone else may be right even though they don't think so. No personal attacks and condescending attitudes, what a pleasure to read when a different view is expressed so tactfully. uh oh...my bad, I thought I was in another forum, rave on.
Beep beep, beep beep – his horn went beep beep beep " Calling believers "thumpers" is not real cool."
Is that your tacit way of saying Rickaroo should be more respectful? Really? YOU?
If so I don't really understand exactly what it is that he's supposed to respect? It seems to me he'd need to be some kind of moral contortionist to respect something that noxious, something that depends for its existence on a closed mind, and that drags humanity in the wrong direction at every turn, and giving out false ideas about ourselves and about the nature of reality. I feel if he respected that he'd be needlessly contributing to the stupidity and ignorance of the human race, and that's one thing I'd bet he doesn't want on his conscience. No offense.
As for me, the best I'll give you is amused incredulity, and that'd be on a good day.
~Thanks Pat
conservative, your problem is that you are hiding from the world because you cannot handle ambiguity. The world is complicated and full of shades of gray. It is not black and white like you seem to think. If you are not willing to see the vast diversity of people as a wonder and a joy, then I am sorry for you. You are so busy trying to make people see and follow rules, you lose the chance to celebrate humans for their gifts and their complexity.
You say you are Christian, but I as an unbeliever have a more blessed life.
caddy said,,The reality: Tell me what's loving about sex acts that cause bleeding, choking, disease, and pain.......before my wife left I thought the same way. But 16 years of being single, fornicating and adulterating I met a woman who changed my mind. Pain , choking , using the unnatural reason of and all that has been presented in a whole new light. I recommend chocking her out and using your belt but that's just her..... And since the law allows divorce for irreconcilable differences I was doomed to Hell years ago. But fortunately for me my grandmother taught me the love of Christ and to be good to everyone so I don't waste too much time worrying about the thoughts of any church I just try to treat people with respect and do good works while I am here. God has blessed my life in all things and I thank him each day from the depth of my heart. Let his goodness in people and forget about the dogma..... When you pray say thank you and ask what you can do to better this world. I type this as I wait for my gay friends to join my girlfriend and I for dinner.....
Ike, sorry but you are wrong.
There is great joy and blessing in following Jesus Christ.
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."John 14:6
There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.Proverbs 14:12
I don't know how many ways to tell you conservative. Your BIBLE means NOTHING to me, so you are wasting your time quoting scripture. Save it for someone who gives a flying flip. I am ending this conversation because I am tired of making this point to you. I don't believe in your sky daddy and your bible to me is just a book. You will not convince me of a thing by quoting from it, except that you are slow on the uptake.
You just can't believe the number of people that would take action against others they disagree with on this matter.
"Senior Master Sgt. James Clark has served in the U.S. Air Force for 19 years with a clean service record. But his new commander has relieved him of duty and is threatening his career, allegedly because of his beliefs regarding gay marriage. Officials are investigating as Monk appeals his punishment.
Clark was First Sergeant of the 326th Training Squadron, stationed at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. According to his attorneys, Monk recently returned from a deployment and found he had a new commander, Maj. Mary Johnson.
Clark explained that in one of their first meetings, Johnson discussed wanting a chaplain to offer a benediction, but she, "objected to one particular chaplain that she called a devil because he preached that homosexuality is not a sin." Clark says the commander's response was, "I don't know what kind of people actually believe that kind of crap."
Clark is a devout Christian, but he believes marriage is not limited to the union of one man and one woman.
There was an episode involving Johnson with an Air Force trainer discussing gay marriage. Johnson allegedly wanted to harshly punish this trainer, and solicited Clarks's recommendations on how to respond. Clark suggested the commander use it as an opportunity to teach tolerance and diversity instead. Johnson told Clark that they were not on the same page, and that if he did not get on his commander's page he would not be allowed to continue serving in his current position.
Then Johnson gave Clark an order demanding Clark tell her whether he regards those, who endorse gay marriage, as unGodly and that he would not be allowed to disagree with her.
Clark claims he responded that he could not answer Johnson's question the way she wanted, and that he feared expressing his true beliefs could put him in legal jeopardy.
Clark was then relieved of his duties.
Wait a minute!! .... that's not exactly what happened. Here is the real story:
This church was wrong. Churches are suppose to welcome everyone. Sinners, different races, and and even different beliefs. Imagine if someone came to church this week and said,"I am a non believer and would like to learn more about this Jesus thing." Are they gonna oust him for "sinning" his whole life?
TheCommander said...
Daytonsdarwin said - "I would remind you that Beethoven's Ninth Symphony is about the brotherhood of man, something fundamentalists mouth but do not apply."
No where in the Bible is the "brotherhood of man" taught that I know of. There is no conservative denomination that teaches anything like that either. They do teach the universal depravity of mankind however."
Forget that Bible part about loving thy neighbor as thyself? That brother's keeper stuff? the Good Samaritan?
You've pointed out one more time what is wrong with your brand of Christian fundamentalism. Your depravity at failing your own Bible's moral lessons. Thanks for making my point again.
Who would want to spend eternity with you bunch of nitwits?
Imaginary Jesus is doing another imaginary facepalm at your conduct.
And I'll stop using George Carlin when you get a god with a sense of humor and not a psychopathic murderous old fart you worship as some loving father, and when his feeked-up fundamentalists followers practice "Love thy Neighbor" as much as they love their dogmatic BS.
conservative wrote: "I suggest that you look up the meaning and origin of the word Christian (notice Christ in the word) and "obey" and "wrath" and "judgment in a concordance and you will see why it is impossible to be a Christian and be opposed to Christ, especially by homosexual conduct."
Oh, you've stepped in it now.
Connie, do me a favor and quote your favorite verse of scripture, detailing anywhere and at anytime that Jesus ever addressed homosexuality, personally.
WWWTW wrote: "You earlier stated "Religious belief has divided more people on this planet than all other divisive causes combined." I responded to that statement, not the one you wish you had made now that it is clear that you cannot defend it. You have yet to do so, and you will continue to change the subject to avoid it."
Sir, I don't need to defend that statement. The numbers tell the story.
There are more than 41,000 different, mostly segregated, Christian denominations in the UNITED STATES.
That's more than 41,000 instances of divisiveness.
Alpo. With respect, you are such a pile of it.
Something must have happened 2013 years ago. Our calendar year is 2013 A.D., as in after death. Something evidently happened back at zero. Who died? Did they say Jesus was a fairytale back in 1 A.D.? It was a current event then. Why did they go along with A.D. if Christ did not die?
Matthew 19 Jesus says 'that at the beginning the creator made them male and female, and said, for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife..."
if jesus found homosexuality acceptable why not also say a man will leave his mother and father and be united to his husband. from the beginning marriage was defined as male and female and Jesus made it clear that was how he viewed it.
Now, anyone of you Christian hating Bible scholars please point to a verse where God or Jesus changed his mind about how marriage was defined?
If you can't do that, answer this question. If God defined marriage as between a man and a woman and Jesus in the New Testament confirmed this definition, who has the authority to change the definition. I will answer it for the Christian hating Bible scholars posters on here. The only person with the authority to change the definition as between male and female is the person who defined it, not man, and not government. Even as smart as all of you are that includes you al, ricky, and Dayton.
Much ado has been given to the Book of Leviticus, and it is quoted quite often when someone condemns homosexuality.
Troo Christians (Thanks lkeithlu) quite often quote Leviticus 18:22 as proof the God condemns the sin of homosexuality.
The Book of Leviticus was allegedly written by Moses. Moses wrote the letter to the "Children of Israel." Verses 17-26 are directed at those who, at the time, entered the Temple as Priests.
The Levitical priesthood and animal sacrifice ended in AD 70, with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.
Starting in Leviticus 19, we read that when you gather in the harvest of your land, you must not completely harvest the corner of your field, and you must not gather up the gleanings of your harvest. You must not pick your vineyard bare, and you must not gather up the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You must leave them for the poor and the foreigner.
You must not withhold the wages of the hired laborer overnight until morning. You must not curse a deaf person or put a stumbling block in front of a blind person.
You must neither show partiality to the poor nor honor the rich. You must not sow your field with two different kinds of seed, and you must not wear a garment made of two different kinds of fabric.
When you enter the land and plant any fruit tree, you must consider its fruit to be forbidden. Three years it will be forbidden to you; it must not be eaten.
You must not eat anything with the blood still in it. You must not round off the corners of the hair on your head or ruin the corners of your beard. You must not incise a tattoo on yourself.
You must stand up in the presence of the aged, honor the presence of an elder, and fear your God. When a foreigner resides with you in your land, you must not oppress him.
In Leviticus 20, we read, If anyone curses his father and mother he must be put to death. If a man commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
In Leviticus 26:46, it states clearly, "These are the statutes, regulations, and instructions which the Lord established between himself and the Israelites at Mount Sinai through Moses."
So, unless you are a direct descendant of an Israelite, which the chances are less than 1% that any one of us are, the above statutes, rules, and regulations do not apply.
Matthew 19:4 was a direct response to a direct question about divorce.
Matthew 19:3 - "Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
Some conveniently leave off the finality of that chapter.
Matthew 19:6 - "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."
It was not a statement that Jesus in any manner condemns homosexuality.
Keep trying though...
Fundagelical Christians love to purport the myth that marriage originated in the Bible, but there is a problem with that assertion.
Nowhere in the Bible exists any scripture that supports the modern day marriage ceremony.
Weddings are a creation of man and Governments. According to the Bible, no ceremony is necessary nor defined.
Marriage is a non-Biblical ceremony.
"Our calendar year is 2013 A.D., as in after death. Something evidently happened back at zero." --GameOn
"Anno Domini" is Latin for "in the year of our lord" and is the real root of the calendar A.D. B.C. does stand for "before Christ". The B.C./A.D. calendar as we know it now was the work of a monk commissioned by the pope during the sixth century. The church was trying to figure the proper date for Easter. Thus, there is no year zero and Jesus was declared to have been born in 1 A.D.
The Easter Bunny was born in 1927 A.D. in a thicket behind the Hallmark Store.
alprova said....
Weddings are a creation of man and Governments. According to the Bible, no ceremony is necessary nor defined.
You are right. I have stated the same many times without it being challenged with logic. A state license is a manmade revenue generating and state record keeping process. Obtaining a state license does not make two people more or less married than those committed to each other without benefit of a license. Gay marriage is a financial issue enabling more people to participate in the 1100+ ways the governments have provided to discriminate against singles or those without a state marriage license. Gay marriage simply allows more people to eat at the public trough and shifts more of the tax burden and increases the impossible to pay debt. The citizens of Collegedale should be livid over the behavior of their elected officials and stewards of tax money. They chose to spend tax money that had nothing to do with providing services specified in the city charter. It is so easy to declare oneself broad minded and other ego boosting accolades when it is other peoples money enabling it.
Those opposing gay marriage should insist all the discrimination against singles end immediately. However, the hypocrites are too selfish to do that but still want to insist the law not allow gay marriage.
Jesus condemns homosexuality by the definition of marriage. Like it or not jesus defines marriage.
Of course it was answer to an question about divorce, how does that change how God and jesus defined marriage? What does the modern day wedding ceremony have to do with anything. You can't issue a certificate of divorce without a marriage. Please point to scripture where the definition of marriage was changed, nobody is talking about a ceremony.
Good point Sokya. Did the gentle Jesus of liberalism really do something as silly as quote Genesis as an authoritative source in dealing with controversies? If so, then that is not the Jesus of liberalism. That would be the Bible thumping Jesus of fundamentalism I guess?
When you argue on these threads, do you ever cite a source that you KNOW to be erroneous, outdated and irrelevant? Of course you don't and no one else would either. Jesus confirms the accuracy and authority of the O.T. by quoting it over and over. Every liberal on this thread cannot deny that Jesus never questioned ANY writings of the OT and used them frequently authoratatively just as the fundamentalists do today.
How is it that every nation from antiquity recognizes marriage in general and as especially between a man and a woman (polygamy aside)? In spite of that fact, we cannot conclude it had to have come from a universal authority? How can diverse peoples from China to Europe all recognize marriage and also a seven day week without them being of a universal origin? Some tribes tried an 8 day week but they are long gone. The seven day week comes directly from God exactly as Genesis tells us. There is no natural occurrence that gives us our seven day week. Can someone try their hand at that one? I am willing to listen to anything except being called names once again.
Genesis isn't an accurate description of the origin of the earth or of life on earth, commander. And the seven day week is an artificial construct-just because it is now used everywhere doesn't mean that it isn't entirely man-made. Polygamy was common in many cultures, and still is in some.
According to the "scientist" the mere belief in God was the overwhelming factor that brought us from hunters and gatherers to civilized society.I can't prove there is a God, but having faith in God has sure got me through a lot of tough times.I can't prove there is a God But athiests can't prove there isn't.So the debate rages on and we won't ever be able to Know who's right.I think that debate just wastes energy, time and rescources.
Ike, I agree 100 percent, I would never ask an athiest to believe something they can't. I understand your position.My youngest son is agnostic and we have some very interesting conversations about God.At the end of the day we agree to disagree and still love and respect each other.The bible is a good book for morals and and values though.
you are either one or the other.... a worshiper or a scholar.
one is after truth and the other is obvious.....