The further dumbing down of our city....
http://www.myspace.com/thegatheringtulsa
W T F? http://www.thegatheringtulsa.com/Pastor_Brad.aspx
Now we determined the exact date and time FOTD realized there were churches in Tulsa.
(http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4chan/for_forums/nothing_to_see_here.jpg)
Scott, What does it mean a church for the city?
If they are a church, then why do they base out of a office/retail location?
Quote from: FOTD on August 31, 2009, 09:50:46 AM
Scott, What does it mean a church for the city?
If they are a church, then why do they base out of a office/retail location?
Many smaller churches get their start in such a location. I'm failing to see what the outrage is about...
Quote from: FOTD on August 31, 2009, 09:50:46 AM
Scott, What does it mean a church for the city?
If they are a church, then why do they base out of a office/retail location?
Pretty sure they are meeting at a park. Like TURobY says, like every other startup.
Staples provides "supplies for the office" but they are in a retail area.
Quote from: TURobY on August 31, 2009, 10:48:53 AM
Many smaller churches get their start in such a location. I'm failing to see what the outrage is about...
No outrage. Just curious anytime religion and politics get together....
Quote from: sgrizzle on August 31, 2009, 10:55:22 AM
Pretty sure they are meeting at a park. Like TURobY says, like every other startup.
Staples provides "supplies for the office" but they are in a retail area.
Above the Brook in Brookside. Across from in the raw.
Staples is not a religious 501 3 c...
Quote from: FOTD on August 31, 2009, 11:14:46 AM
No outrage. Just curious anytime religion and politics get together....
In reading thier info on thier website, I don't see any connection between the church and politics. They are refering to the citizens, not the municipality. But don't be mistaken, a couple of churches I have attended here in the Phoenix area, Christian non-denominational, have political leanings and agendas, just like business and special interest groups. It's nothing new.
Quote from: FOTD on August 31, 2009, 11:16:12 AM
Above the Brook in Brookside. Across from in the raw.
Staples is not a religious 501 3 c...
1028 E 6th St is in Brookside?
This church likely isn't a 501c3 either. That status isn't easy to come by.
I'm still not sure how using "for the" in a sentence says there is any direct tie between two nouns. Marky Mark made "Music for the People" but I don't think there was any requirement for the general public to listen to it.
Quote from: FOTD on August 31, 2009, 12:40:34 AM
The further dumbing down of our city....
http://www.myspace.com/thegatheringtulsa
W T F? http://www.thegatheringtulsa.com/Pastor_Brad.aspx
FOTD: The further dumbing down of TNF....
This is an "emergent" congregation. I believe it is affiliated with Southern Hills Baptist Church. "For the city" is marketing lingo -- it means they're trying to reach out to young urban hipster types.
Plenty of churches got their start by holding services in leased spaces on Sunday (schools, rec centers, other churches) and renting a small amount of commercial office space. Traditional churches eventually grow enough to buy an existing church building or buy land and build. I suspect the Gathering will eschew the traditional path.
Is FOTD associated with the "Drive By" media, or is the person the founder of "SASM" ? (Short Attention Span Mentality)
Why the link to the city? What does this group intend to do on that front? What is in their agenda? They obviously have one. Who backs them? Why the billboard ads?
Just curious why only Dbacks has responded to that part of my question. And his response seemed like the usual code talk.
Quote from: sgrizzle on August 31, 2009, 01:21:51 PM
1028 E 6th St is in Brookside?
This church likely isn't a 501c3 either. That status isn't easy to come by.
I'm still not sure how using "for the" in a sentence says there is any direct tie between two nouns. Marky Mark made "Music for the People" but I don't think there was any requirement for the general public to listen to it.
So, they have meetings above the Brook in their space but the mailing address makes me wrong. City council?
Quote from: MichaelBates on August 31, 2009, 02:05:16 PM
This is an "emergent" congregation. I believe it is affiliated with Southern Hills Baptist Church. "For the city" is marketing lingo -- it means they're trying to reach out to young urban hipster types.
Plenty of churches got their start by holding services in leased spaces on Sunday (schools, rec centers, other churches) and renting a small amount of commercial office space. Traditional churches eventually grow enough to buy an existing church building or buy land and build. I suspect the Gathering will eschew the traditional path.
Unless they pull a Carlton Pearson....
Quote from: FOTD on August 31, 2009, 03:56:38 PM
So, they have meetings above the Brook in their space but the mailing address makes me wrong. City council?
Have to be watchful of these Christian-types for fear they will try and have the incense-inhaling hippies next door cast out?
Quote from: FOTD on August 31, 2009, 03:54:09 PM
Just curious why only Dbacks has responded to that part of my question. And his response seemed like the usual code talk.
Code talk? ::) There are a few code talkers here almost that you need an enigma machine to decode what they are saying.
Quote from: guido911 on August 31, 2009, 01:46:27 PM
FOTD: The further dumbing down of TNF....
Wow, that one took some effort. Make sure you didn't sprain somethin' on that one....
Quote from: FOTD on August 31, 2009, 03:54:09 PM
Just curious why only Dbacks has responded to that part of my question. And his response seemed like the usual code talk.
Because most of us could understand what he said and likely agreed with the assertion that you are reading too much into the phrase.
Quote from: TURobY on August 31, 2009, 04:17:27 PM
Because most of us could understand what he said and likely agreed with the assertion that you are reading too much into the phrase.
+10
Quote from: TURobY on August 31, 2009, 04:17:27 PM
Because most of us could understand what he said and likely agreed with the assertion that you are reading too much into the phrase.
Wait and we will see. The devil knows they are exerting their beliefs onto others. Wanna bet Anna Falling gets involved?
Quote from: FOTD on August 31, 2009, 04:23:02 PM
The devil knows they are exerting their beliefs onto others.
That kinda goes with all Evangelical Christian churches. Again, I'm not really seeing anything new here.
Also, in case you were wondering about their slogan, here is what it means to them (http://www.thegatheringtulsa.com/Who_We_Are.aspx):
Quote
A CHURCH FOR THE CITY
We believe that God has called us to be a light to the city of Tulsa. This means that this church exists not only for our own growth and pursuit of Christ, but also to serve and lead the rest of our city toward the person of Jesus. To that end, we feel that it's our responsibility to "clear the way" for people to come to church. Through worship that inspires and messages that move, we present the timeless truths of the Bible in a format that's easy to understand, even if you've never been to church.
You'll notice that they didn't capitalize the "City of Tulsa". ;)
Quote from: TURobY on August 31, 2009, 04:33:17 PM
That kinda goes with all Evangelical Christian churches. Again, I'm not really seeing anything new here.
Also, in case you were wondering about their slogan, here is what it means to them (http://www.thegatheringtulsa.com/Who_We_Are.aspx):You'll notice that they didn't capitalize the "City of Tulsa". ;)
" to serve and lead the rest of our city toward the person of Jesus"....let's only hope that this group has their hands full with that and with the next Mayor.....
" even if you've never been to church"= prostelytizing code talk!
Quote from: FOTD on August 31, 2009, 04:54:15 PM
" even if you've never been to church"= prostelytizing code talk!
You are repeating the exact same thing we are all saying: Evangelical Christian churches prostelytize -- that is not news to anyone.
So, what is so special about this church that you are trying to convey that is any different than any other Evangelical Church? That they mentioned the word "city" or their city of operation, "Tulsa"?
Quote from: TURobY on August 31, 2009, 05:03:05 PM
You are repeating the exact same thing we are all saying: Evangelical Christian churches prostelytize -- that is not news to anyone.
So, what is so special about this church that you are trying to convey that is any different than any other Evangelical Church? That they mentioned the word "city" or their city of operation, "Tulsa"?
***not wearing his tin hat today***
Quote from: TURobY on August 31, 2009, 04:33:17 PM
You'll notice that they didn't capitalize the "City of Tulsa". ;)
I don't put too much accountability for proper grammar on this site.
Quote from: FOTD on August 31, 2009, 03:56:38 PM
So, they have meetings above the Brook in their space but the mailing address makes me wrong. City council?
it says on their site they meet at the address on 6th. It is not their mailing address.
Quote from: sgrizzle on August 31, 2009, 08:29:28 PM
it says on their site they meet at the address on 6th. It is not their mailing address.
Then "they" are maybe franchising?
I'm surprised, FOTD. You've lived here most or all of your life, and yet you seem clueless about the variations and distinctions and subcultures that exist within Christianity in Tulsa.
As I wrote earlier, some new churches rent space for weekly worship services, and rent an office somewhere else -- a place for the pastor to study and meet with parishoners, a place to receive mail, a place to keep the church's materials and equipment (e.g. hymnbooks, overhead projector, electronic keyboard, sound equipment) when they aren't in use. In this case, The Gathering holds their worship services at the Central Center in Centennial Park and has an office in Brookside. This is not a difficult concept.
This is sort of like the Tulsa Run having an office that serves the organization throughout the year, but -- now this is tricky of them -- they don't actually hold the Tulsa Run in the office. They pay to use the streets for one day of the year. Since they don't need all those streets all year long, they have a small office for administrative use the rest of the year.
And as for "exerting" one's beliefs on others, why else do you bother posting here?
Maybe I can get across to FOTD...
Think of them as Deadheads gathering down by the river...
I think a baloon broke in his digestive tract coming back from Mexico.
It's time, FOTD:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_UjP_9LhHcGI/SVEwKqEWkfI/AAAAAAAAADU/jhq3eNLzmT8/s320/CavitySearch.jpg)
Quote from: MichaelBates on August 31, 2009, 09:25:58 PM
I'm surprised, FOTD. You've lived here most or all of your life, and yet you seem clueless about the variations and distinctions and subcultures that exist within Christianity in Tulsa.
As I wrote earlier, some new churches rent space for weekly worship services, and rent an office somewhere else -- a place for the pastor to study and meet with parishoners, a place to receive mail, a place to keep the church's materials and equipment (e.g. hymnbooks, overhead projector, electronic keyboard, sound equipment) when they aren't in use. In this case, The Gathering holds their worship services at the Central Center in Centennial Park and has an office in Brookside. This is not a difficult concept.
This is sort of like the Tulsa Run having an office that serves the organization throughout the year, but -- now this is tricky of them -- they don't actually hold the Tulsa Run in the office. They pay to use the streets for one day of the year. Since they don't need all those streets all year long, they have a small office for administrative use the rest of the year.
And as for "exerting" one's beliefs on others, why else do you bother posting here?
{EDIT}
And FOTD has never "exerted" religious belief's on others. Quite the opposite.
{EDIT}
The Gathering will eventually mix politics and religion and try to exert their faith onto citizens. Just an educated guess.
Inflammatory posts and attempts to skirt the word censor are not welcome.
Had someone once tell me that you can generally divide people into these 2 types...
One group, more or less, processes information first through the heart, then into the brain. They "get things" through feeling it first. They learn to understand and listen to the world, its patterns and divine its truths through emotions and feelings first. Once they feel that something is right or wrong, they then think and believe that its so.
The other group tends, more or less, to process information first through the head, contemplating and thinking about it, then into the heart. They have to understand it first, then they feel it.
Both are legitimate approaches, both can be done poorly or well. All of us have a bit of both but often we lean more towards one way of processing the world or the other. (its wise to know this when dating or meeting people, cause if your in a relationship in which the other person is quite the opposite from you in this respect, your likely to have difficulties communicating and even harshly clash) Both of these approaches have their limitations and can only go so far in figuring things out, finding truths, etc. Its then that the other approach can lend a hand in putting things back on track or into better focus. They can clash, but also compliment. They both have an important place in the world.
Perhaps I am wrong, but it seems to me that our society, and our churches, have trended more towards the "emotional processing" end of things, and tending to push those who arent that way, out and off to the margins. They no longer fit in and in some cases are even told they are wrong for not "shouting out the glory like a trumpet". Church can be more about getting a feel good rush, an emotional high, and then the message. But in some cases, the language has become so emotionally oriented that its become basically meaningless. Its become the emotional processing equivalent of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin". You can only reason and use logic on the limited info we currently have, so far before it goes off into dingbat land. Same thing with this emotional stuff. Some of the songs they sing now strike me as just having lost any real meaning other than just an emotional sugar rush. "God is a wonderful God, God is an Awsome, Glorious, Magnificent, Mega Super Duper, Most Ginormous...cue people frothing at the mouth, eyes rolling back in their heads as they look skyward, waving their hands in the air more and more frantically as each descriptor becomes more incredibilous. And it just goes on and on with more cutsey, cliche "key words" and phrases thrown in that often dont even make any logical sense. I am sure this is attractive to quite a number of young folk in particular. But I cant help but wonder where its really going to get them long term?
I also don't think many are reaching out to "unbelievers" like they could. Often the language and thinking that is used, only makes sense to those who are already steeped in Christian theology.
I get a kick out of the guy with the big van that on the side says "Jesus is Lord!". He says he is trying to reach out to those who dont know "The Lord". But those who dont know, arent going to get what the heck that means lol. Why is this guy a Lord? Did he move up from being a Duke? Whats so big about being a Lord when you can be a King? Is this guy kind of like a landlord? Whats the big deal with that lol?
"Siddhartha is Sadhu!" What kind of emotional impact would that have on you if you saw that on a sign and heard some man shouting it with a loudhorn? Not much I suspect. Certainly not the kind of impact the guy with the "Jesus is Lord!" sign thinks he is illiciting. Also, look at that video above. It too supposes that a person is basically someone steeped in Christian culture,,, guilt about sex, sex is dirty, etc. It supposes, from their perspective that the feeling must be an innate one that everyone shares, not one that they in particular learned. Thus it only resonates with them, speakes to them, not to those they say they say they are trying to reach out to. Some Christians are so steeped in their religion, their geographic and historic perspective... so used to only seeing things from their and their friends/family perspective, that they cant see that what seems so natural to them, feels so real to them, may not register at all with other people. There is a whole huge world out there that no more gets or registers anything about The Cross, any more than some of us would think much about seeing a little Buddha figurine, a peace sign, an eagle. Its just another symbol or trinket in the background as we rush by. I was raised in some of both, so have an idea of how both think and feel.
Trying to communicate using only an unfamiliar emotional language, to those who arent themselves versed in it or receptive to it, will limit your target audience and results, to the "choir".
Are we supposed to read all that, Artist? You'd never make it on Twitter... ::)
William never does anything small. Just compare the sizes of Mayfest paintings.
The chaining of Churchianity. This gives them their avenues to spread their politics. Hopefully, the IRS is keeping a warranted eye out.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090901_18_A1_CraigG129466
Artist,
Probably true of more than just Christians.
Mini,
He'd just have to string a few messages. I think that would work, I don't use Twitter.
Quote from: FOTD on August 31, 2009, 11:46:04 PM
And FOTD has never "exerted" religious belief's on others. Quite the opposite.
Agnosticism and athiesm are religious beliefs. Not sure which you lean more toward, but we get your beliefs crammed down our throats with almost every message you post.
Quote from: FOTD on August 31, 2009, 08:51:01 PM
Then "they" are maybe franchising?
What about evangelical Christianity do you not understand? Based on their very basic description, anyone can deduce that they tend to evangelize. This isn't rocket science.
ZOMG!!! wait, stop. Let me get this straight.
There is a new Christian Church in Tulsa. This Church espouses views, both religious and political. They intend to spread their religious views in an attempt to convert people and convince them that their version of God is better than the other versions of God(s). Then, having converted them from their heathen ways, they might influence their political thinking and ultimately attempt to basically creating a theocracy?
Holy crap. If this kind of activity isn't stopped we'll have monuments to their religion on our capital grounds and laws specifically catering to their beliefs with no real merit. Hell, a man won't even be able to buy a beer on their God's high holy days if they have their way. Then, now this is getting out there, they'll work on getting an exhibit in the zoo telling people that snakes are mean and can talk, that women have periods because God is pissed they ate an apple, that you can fit all life onto a relatively small boat and have it survive for a couple months, that we are all the product of one amazing incestuous family over 5,000 years and that any evidence, including common sense, that is to the contrary is really just their God testing our loyalty (but he isn't insecure).
(http://static.open.salon.com/files/jesus_dinosaur1234467260.jpg)
What makes this "the Gathering" Church any different than most others in Tulsa? By their nature evangelical Churches tell everyone else they are wrong, threaten them with Hell if they don't believe in their version of God, and attempt to influence laws and policies to force people to follow their guidelines. Clearly I'm with you in not mixing religion and politics, but why single out this Church?
Quote from: Conan71 on September 01, 2009, 09:00:41 AM
Agnosticism and athiesm are religious beliefs.
Not really; I'd say that they are more like the freedom from religious beliefs (but I don't want to get into this argument on this thread, as it would be prudent to continue to focus on FOTD's original point). Regardless, I'm an athiest, quite liberal, and mildly opposed to many religious institutions, so one would think that maybe I could understand where FOTD was going with this. But I can't.
At this point, it appears that FOTD read too much into a phrase. When called out on it, he refused to admit the blunder and avoided the questions posed back to him while simultaneously attempting to change the subject (from one church's slogan to churches who use satellite programs).
As I understand it. Church is only one part of your relationship with God.
Wherever you are spiritually filled and uplifted is entirely up to you.
I agree, Church and State should be separate. But some like Pat Robertson on the national stage, and Carlton Pearson on the local stage both found out.
I can only hope that our current President has separated himself from the teachings he was subjected to in Chicago.
But I think we have far more problems to worry about than his spiritual beliefs.
As his book says. His Son will not return until every Man, Woman and Child has had the opportunity to hear and know his word.
It does not say in which way or form you will hear it. Just that you will have the opportunity to chose or denounce him.
Its about you and your relationship with him.
Not the Gathering or the President.
Just You.
Quote from: FOTD on September 01, 2009, 07:52:31 AM
The chaining of Churchianity. This gives them their avenues to spread their politics. Hopefully, the IRS is keeping a warranted eye out.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090901_18_A1_CraigG129466
wow, churches with multiple locations using the web and satelite technology to reach people in other areas so that it's more convinient for them to attend instead of building a mega church building. Casual dress for church, nothing new here either. Preaching their view on where you should be politically? Yawn, nothing new.
The purpose of the evangelical church is to evangilize to the congregation, and then have them go out and do the same in the community to get more people to attend their particular church because the one they have been going to isn't teaching it the right way. As a guess for every one church caught in a financial scandal, three more pop up in it's place.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 01, 2009, 09:00:41 AM
Agnosticism and athiesm are religious beliefs
Religion Defined:
# concerned with sacred matters or religion or the church; "religious texts"; "a member of a religious order"; "lords temporal and spiritual ...
# having or showing belief in and reverence for a deity; "a religious man"; "religious attitude"
# a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
# an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"
# A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices.
- - -
By definition, agnosticism or atheism would be the absence of religion, akin to secularism. It is a belief, but not a religious belief. For purposes of governmental classification it is considered a religious belief - but governmental categories doesn't make it so. The category generally serves to count people with no religious beliefs.
CF- that could turn into a very, very long philosophical debate, as many of the definitions of religion are simply accepted opinions, though the points you posted are well-taken. Athiesm could be defined as a religion of denying there is a God or higher power.
Much longer post coming on, but I digress and will resist further threadjack.
Who here believes in the Koran?
None of you. Does that fact make you agnostic or atheist? yep.
Too bad if you don't take "a church for the city" as an omen. Wait and we will see.
It's a free cuntry entitling us to the freedom from oppressive voodoo science based on 2000 year superstitions, from prostelytizing megalomaniacs, and from constitutional meddlers.
Most these dicks will use the internet and their networks and their web for spreading hate. It does nothing for the city of Tulsa's attractiveness.
You are free to believe what you want. Respect my right too.
This article is a year old and pre-election, but still interesting. White Evangelicals ARE the modern Republican party. What McCain and other Republican party leaders didn't understand is that by choosing a candidate like (Moose-lini) Palin as his running mate, he split the evangelical population between old-style fundamentalists and the new theology, demon-chasing, spiritual warfare, rule-the-world dominionists (like Palin herself). By splitting evangelicals into competing camps, McCain actually helped the Democrats.
White Christian America Versus Everybody Else
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2008093604/white-christian-america-versus-everybody-else
Quote from: FOTD on September 01, 2009, 01:55:52 PM
Who here believes in the Koran?
None of you. Does that fact make you agnostic or atheist? yep.
What? Why haven't you answered the question as to why this particular church should stand out moreso than any other church?
Quote from: TURobY on September 01, 2009, 01:57:49 PM
What? Why haven't you answered the question as to why this particular church should stand out moreso than any other church?
It's a pre emptive assault on a potential constitutional conflict involving religious zealots. OK?
It sure has garnered some interesting responses. Except from that TNF egomaniac insider Bates. His response was a personal attack on the devil. Shameful!
Quote from: FOTD on September 01, 2009, 01:55:52 PM
Who here believes in the Koran?
None of you. Does that fact make you agnostic or atheist? yep.
No, in their culture, I believe it makes you an "infidel".
I read the link that you posted, and then some other of Sara Robinson's opinions on the blog you linked to, and I have to say that I am a white, male, 46 year old Christian, who turned 18 during the era of Reaganomic's and I have to say that I do not fit into her description of what I should be.
Also, I think you failed to notice the fact that she is not, I repeat, NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. She is from Vancouver, British Columbia. She can voice all of the opinions she wants, but if she has not become a US Citizen, and has a legal right to vote, it will always be her opinion. I am a firm believer in the fact that if you are not a registered voter, you can comment all you want, but if you did not vote, then your complaint is VOID.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 01, 2009, 02:26:23 PM
No, in their culture, I believe it makes you an "infidel".
In our culture, it makes you a non believer.
Quote from: dbacks fan on September 01, 2009, 02:26:35 PM
I read the link that you posted, and then some other of Sara Robinson's opinions on the blog you linked to, and I have to say that I am a white, male, 46 year old Christian, who turned 18 during the era of Reaganomic's and I have to say that I do not fit into her description of what I should be.
Also, I think you failed to notice the fact that she is not, I repeat, NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. She is from Vancouver, British Columbia. She can voice all of the opinions she wants, but if she has not become a US Citizen, and has a legal right to vote, it will always be her opinion. I am a firm believer in the fact that if you are not a registered voter, you can comment all you want, but if you did not vote, then your complaint is VOID.
SO WHAT! White Evangelicals ARE the modern Republican party.
http://www.ourfuture.org/user/11090/full
She was born in CA, but now resides in BC. (my mistake.)
Sara's Bio
Job Title:
Fellow, Campaign for America's Future
Website:
Orcinus
Favorite Quote:
"I was then persuaded, and remain confirmed, that the voice of honest indignation is the voice of God. I cared not for consequences, but wrote."
-- William Blake
Sara Robinson is one of the few trained social futurists in North America, and will complete her MS in Futures Studies from the University of Houston in 2009. Her skill set includes trend analysis, scenario development, futures research, social change theories, systems thinking, and strategic planning. She holds a BA in Journalism from the USC Annenberg School of Communication, and has worked as a columnist or editor for several national magazines.
Sara has blogged on authoritarian and extremist movements at Orcinus since 2006; and is a founding member of Group News Blog, the successors to Steve Gilliard's original News Blog, where she still posts occasional lighter and more personal pieces. Her recent work has also appeared online at Firedoglake, DailyKos, OpenLeft, and Alternet; and in print at The Progressive Christian and Survival: The Journal of the International Institute of Strategic Studies. She is a consulting partner with the Cognitive Policy Works in Seattle, and a Fellow at the Campaign for America's Future.
A native of California's High Sierra, Sara spent 20 years in Silicon Valley before moving to Vancouver, BC in 2004. She shares her home with her husband Evan, two teenagers, and a Norwegian Buhund who is her constant companion.
Is this the church that we are talking about?
http://www.thegatheringtulsa.com/
If so, I'd be happy to answer questions about it...I'm been part of it from the beginning.
Our website had a jump in traffic and we tracked it down...it's been fun reading the posts.
A couple of thoughts:
We are 3 years old as a church, primarily 20-30 somethings
We are a 501(c)3
Not trying to mix church and state in any way
Christian, but not necessarily "emergent"
We rent offices and a place to have worship gatherings (different buildings).
For us..."A Church for the City" means that we love Tulsa and seek to serve (homeless, powerless, etc)
Has anyone on here ever been?
Quote from: FOTD on September 01, 2009, 02:31:10 PM
SO WHAT! White Evangelicals ARE the modern Republican party.
Let's, get one thing straight, I said I am a Christian, that does not mean that I am an evangelical, or that I share the views of the evangelicals. I have had way too many experiences with God loving evangelicals, spreading their fear and hate and telling me how I should act, vote, respect, and who's going to heaven and who isn't because the are gay, interacial, and in some cases married to non-americans. It makes me wonder what it is they are so affraid of, when they say "Love your neighbor if they are like you, if not change them to be like you" (paraphrasing) My favorite was my ex mother inlaw who was a long time member of Victory Christian, who told me that "Every time your son cries, God keeps his tears in a jar, and those tears are going to send you to Hell when you die."
Quote from: junk2bj on September 01, 2009, 02:49:58 PM
Is this the church that we are talking about?
http://www.thegatheringtulsa.com/
If so, I'd be happy to answer questions about it...since I serve as Lead Pastor.
Our website had a jump in traffic and we tracked it down...it's been fun reading the posts.
A couple of thoughts:
We are 3 years old as a church, primarily 20-30 somethings
We are a 501(c)3
Not trying to mix church and state in any way
Christian, but not necessarily "emergent"
We rent offices and a place to have worship gatherings (different buildings).
For us..."A Church for the City" means that we love Tulsa and seek to serve (homeless, powerless, etc)
Has anyone on here ever been?
No I have not been. Sorry the athiest village idiot who speaks of himself in the third person has taken you guys to task.
Thank you for clarifying that your church is not about to overthrow the local government.
Dback, don't waste your time. I think he's been self-medicating again.
Quote from: junk2bj on September 01, 2009, 02:49:58 PM
Is this the church that we are talking about?
http://www.thegatheringtulsa.com/
If so, I'd be happy to answer questions about it...I'm been part of it from the beginning.
Our website had a jump in traffic and we tracked it down...it's been fun reading the posts.
A couple of thoughts:
We are 3 years old as a church, primarily 20-30 somethings
We are a 501(c)3
Not trying to mix church and state in any way
Christian, but not necessarily "emergent"
We rent offices and a place to have worship gatherings (different buildings).
For us..."A Church for the City" means that we love Tulsa and seek to serve (homeless, powerless, etc)
Has anyone on here ever been?
BRAVO! A coherent reply to a simple inquiry. Then we wish you well.
This devil just loves flushing out the camouflaged Republicants and the TNF over lords and the regular duches.
One question. Have you ever asked others to dispose of what you perceive as religious symbols you do not agree with?
Quote from: Conan71 on September 01, 2009, 02:54:09 PM
Dback, don't waste your time. I think he's been self-medicating again.
I know, just got frustrated and vented. I hear he could get cheap air fare to the Baja Peninsula, but the weather might not be so great.
Quote from: FOTD on September 01, 2009, 02:57:56 PM
This devil just loves flushing out the camouflaged Republicants and the TNF over lords and the regular duches.
Who are these "camouflaged Republicants" that you speak of on this forum? I'm pretty sure that nearly every active poster's politcal views are fairly well-known.
Quote from: junk2bj on September 01, 2009, 02:49:58 PM
Has anyone on here ever been?
No sir. But I greatly appreciate any insight you have to share. I hope thats end this pointless debate. And welcome to Tulsa Now! Please stay in spite of this thread. ;D
- - -
Conan:
Sorry buddy. But I stand by my definition:
Webster's:
* Main Entry: re·li·gion
* Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jən\
* Function: noun
* Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely
* Date: 13th century
1 (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Near Antonyms agnosticism, atheism, secularism
Atheist:
* Main Entry: athe·ist
* Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ist\
* Function: noun
* Date: 1551
: one who believes that there is no deity
Another characteristic worth noting is the idea of "rules." Religious people do this or that because God commands them to. No one does or refrains from doing anything because the rules of atheism or agnosticism says they should. No atheist has ever invaded a country because they believe in a rival God. No atheist has ever bombed people for their beliefs (not implying any particular sect has, just saying many things happen for GOD). No atheists wears special clothes, breeds a certain way, sacrifices animals or really does anything based on their lack of belief in a deity. It isn't the belief system most people in Oklahoma are familiar with because it is the dismissal of that belief system.
Atheism is as close to the opposite of religion as you can get, by definition. Religion is belief on faith. If you don't believe in a God or aren't sure that you do, you aren't religious.
Sounds like more of an Oktoberfest weekend conversation over your home brew, CF. Beer WILL be back on the menu by then.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 01, 2009, 04:06:22 PM
Sounds like more of an Oktoberfest weekend conversation over your home brew, CF. Beer WILL be back on the menu by then.
I miss Oktoberfest. They have one here, one day from 10 am to 9 pm.
http://www.phoenixoktoberfest.com/ (http://www.phoenixoktoberfest.com/)
Quote from: dbacks fan on September 01, 2009, 02:38:42 PM
Sara Robinson is one of the few trained social futurists in North America, and will complete her MS in Futures Studies from the University of Houston in 2009.
A few is too many.
I've seen the future and it will be
I've seen the future and it works
And if there's life after, we will see
So I can't go like a jerk
Systematic overthrow of the underclass
Hollywood conjures images of the past
New world needs spiritually
That will last
I've seen the future and it will be
Okay CF, you made me look. According to a court in Wisconsin, athiesm is a religion and according to SCOTUS in 1961 secular humanism was ruled a religion:
Court rules atheism a religion
Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate's right to start study group
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 20, 2005
1:00 am Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily.com
A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.
"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.
The court decided the inmate's First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.
Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court's ruling "a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence."
"Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion," said Fahling.
The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion.
Fahling said today's ruling was "further evidence of the incoherence of Establishment Clause jurisprudence."
"It is difficult not to be somewhat jaundiced about our courts when they take clauses especially designed to protect religion from the state and turn them on their head by giving protective cover to a belief system, that, by every known definition other than the courts' is not a religion, while simultaneously declaring public expressions of true religious faith to be prohibited," Fahling said.
I appreciate the research, but I believe the 7th Cir. Court spoke poorly (Circuit Court's can also have many desperate rulings amongst and between themselves). Furthermore, it appears the Court held that Atheism is THAT inmates religion; which is different from holding it as a religion in general. But I have not reviewed that case as it was not cited and I don't want to look it up at the moment.
However, Atheism is entitled to the same protection as religious belief as it generally serves as an alternative to religious belief. The Supreme Court has said repeatedly that the non-belief in a deity is equally protected under the 1st Amendment and should therefor enjoy the same protection as religion. Essentially, the freedom TO practice religion must necessarily include the freedom FROM practicing religion if one so chooses.
The issue in Torcaso v. Watkins was whether the State of Maryland could force an individual to profess a belief in God as a requirement to hold public office. Torcaso was appointed, but as an atheist (not a Secular Humanist) refused to make such a profession and was therefor refused office. The Circuit court held that Torcaso wasn't compelled to hold public office and that such was not a right, therefor the litmus test was OK. The Supreme Court disagreed. A full text of the case can be found, for free, here: Torcaso v. Watkin, 367 US 488 (1961) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=367&invol=488#t11)
The holding of the Supreme Court doesn't declare atheism a religion in any way. It does give an entire list of "religions" which profess no belief in God or Gods in a footnote to the holding: Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism ( Torcaso v. Watkins, FN 11 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=367&invol=488#f11)). That list confounds the proscriptive definition of "religion" and could be extrapolated to include any belief structure. But that is done by reference in a footnote and serves as an explanation of "other religions." It does not define atheism as a religion.
The Court goes on to make an interesting point about using the power associated with religious conformity to run a State. Which, I assume, is what FOTD is concerned about in a round about conspiratorial way. Noting that
Quoteit was largely to escape religious test oaths and declarations that a great many of the early colonists left Europe and came here hoping to worship in their own way. It soon developed, however, that many of those who had fled to escape religious test oaths turned out to be perfectly willing, when they had the power to do so, to force dissenters from their faith to take test oaths in conformity with that faith. This brought on a host of laws in the new Colonies imposing burdens and disabilities of various kinds upon varied beliefs depending largely upon what group happened to be politically strong enough to legislate in favor of its own beliefs. The effect of all this was the formal or practical "establishment" of particular religious faiths in most of the Colonies, with consequent burdens imposed on the free exercise of the faiths of nonfavored believers.
QuoteWe renew our conviction that `we have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion/
Torcaso v. Watkins, 368 US at 489.
The basis of the religious clause is covered succinctly herein:
QuoteThe 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
Torcaso v. Watkins, 368 US at 491; quoting Everson v. Board of Education, 367 U.S. 488, 493.
The case has tons of good language on the separation of Church and State. But declare Athesim a "religion" it does not. It merely makes it very clear that one can not deny public office based on the belief or disbelief in God. By extension and by reference, it supports the interpretation of the 1st Amendment which enables Americans to be free to practice in religion and to be from from religion.
However, I readily grant you that atheism and agnosticism are readily treated like religions. Similarly, many Eastern "religions" offer no belief structure in a deity - but because they profess to offer a way of life they are more easily classified as a religion. My hold out is in both the definitional semantics of the word "religion" as well as the practical use of the word therein.
Aren't First Amendment cases fun! Thanks for the discussion Conan. I was not aware of the 7th Cir. ruling and may try to look that up later.
Sheesh dude, go sue someone. Your last post is the precise reason I am not a practicing attorney, all the citations make my eyeballs spin.
My take:
Athiesm is the anti-religion religion
Agnosticism is the don't know/not sure/undecided religion
The point could be argued ad nauseum, but I think I'll go ahead and puke at this point. ;)