Since complaining about things wins out over doing anything 9 times out of 10, I'd like to see what people here would do if given the opportunity. If you were given the chance to try to change one thing, make one point, or give one statement, aimed at "The Religious Right" what would it be?
Well, I for one for one would point out that they seem to spend more time in political pursuits (and I've nothing against that, as the 1st amendment guarantees this, even if I don't happen to agree) than they do with acts of charity and bettering the lives of the communities they serve.
Well I would remind myself to keep God first. He works for the good of those who love him.
I don't know. Million-dollar churches, and they don't even try to spread the love-or share the wealth.
Everything I understood about churches growing up is they were like schools or gas stations. They serve a basic geographic area and once they start getting so big, they build another one.
Imagine if TPS had one elementary school?
Dear Religious Right,
You're beliefs are not superior to others. You are probably not right and most likely do not have it all figured out. I understand you think you are correct and that you're creation myth and story book is literal and 'a matter of faith,' I respect that - perhaps even envy that. However, let me explain something to you:
Many other religions think they are correct. Muslims view the Christian religion much the same way you view the Jews. They were on the right track, but then missed the latest and greatest profit (who was THE last profit). The Koran was transcribed BY GOD and is absolutely correct.
The followers of Moroni/The Mormon Church also have a book that was inspired by God. They have the new, new testament which corrects/adds to things in the new testament much like the new testament did with the old. It was render by GOD and is absolutely correct.
Scientologists have an entirely different book and dont base their religion on a previous one. But again, their book was inspired by supernatural powers and is absolutely correct. If you're into the latest greatest religion new ones pop up all the time.
If age is your thing, the Zorroastrians invented monotheism and their writings are inspired by visions of God. They predate the old testament's first writings by several hundred years and serve as gods testament.
Interestingly, some Eastern Religions arent so sure they got it right and preach their message along with the understanding that their religion is right for them but may not be for all others. Much like the ancient pagan gods of Rome, Greece, Carthage or any other region. You worship your gods and I'll worship mine.
Thinking that you are correct and everyone else is wrong is nothing new, but its still annoying. Please try to remember that many other people think they have THE ANSWER too. But for what religion your parents chose, odds are you would worship in a different way too, so tolerance and understanding might serve you well. After all, its possible no one has it right.
I just hope it isn't the Scientologists.
XoXo,
Marshall Herff Applewhite
(from the stars)
No more TV time.....And depending on the preachers lifestyle they would have to start paying taxes....
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
And depending on the preachers lifestyle they would have to start paying taxes....
That's a whole 'nother ball game. Preachers driving $30,000 cars and living in million dollar homes. I cannot believe people get duped into that scheme. "And the meek shall inherit the Earth" indeed.
Most preachers are pious and well intentioned people, but certainly some are just in it for the money. The problem would be getting the government to draw the line WITHOUT interfering with religion. As it stands, if a religion can pass the 'not-for profit' tests, it can write off the ministers home - no matter how luxurious. Not sure how I would remedy that without infringing on separation of church and state (its a two way street).
It's and oldie but a goodie but they are neither religious nor right.
Quit trying to legislate from the pulpit.
so...how's that 28th amendment coming along?
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
No more TV time.....And depending on the preachers lifestyle they would have to start paying taxes....
Preachers pay income tax.
How about caring for the millions of unwanted children that are already on the planet before pushing for legislation that would create millions more?
Lets see how you do with raising, feeding, education, medical bills - love and care - first.
Course before that we might want to check in with Big Brother first to make sure mandatory abortions are still a few years off.
And meanwhile keep your hands off the little boys.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Since complaining about things wins out over doing anything 9 times out of 10, I'd like to see what people here would do if given the opportunity. If you were given the chance to try to change one thing, make one point, or give one statement, aimed at "The Religious Right" what would it be?
Send me some money[:(!]
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Preachers pay income tax.
They do not pay taxes on their property which is owned by the church nor church expenses. In many instances a mega church is a cult of personality and the preacher and church are indistinguishable. He drives and lives in church property. So his Corvette and Mansion are tax free as legitimate church expenses. (I cant think of the name for this, its not Vestige but something like that, sorry).
Usually the preacher lives in a modest home and drives a modest car, which are provided by the church. However, many abuses take place. Especially in churches that preach divine economics (give us money and ye shall receive the grace of god in the form of riches)... which is pretty common.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Preachers pay income tax.
They do not pay taxes on their property which is owned by the church nor church expenses. In many instances a mega church is a cult of personality and the preacher and church are indistinguishable. He drives and lives in church property. So his Corvette and Mansion are tax free as legitimate church expenses. (I cant think of the name for this, its not Vestige but something like that, sorry).
Usually the preacher lives in a modest home and drives a modest car, which are provided by the church. However, many abuses take place. Especially in churches that preach divine economics (give us money and ye shall receive the grace of god in the form of riches)... which is pretty common.
I think the term you're looking for is parsonage...and that only counts if the house is actually on church property. Parsonages were built in the old days so that the pastor was close to the church if people needed them. Personal homes on private property do not count as parsonages, and I don't know of many in Tulsa anymore.
What's funny about all those people who put down Christians for being judgemental is doing the same thing they abhor. Lumping all Christians together isn't any different than others accusing Christians of acting "holier than thou".
Personal homes do count as a 'parsonage' of sorts if the preacher is using it to conduct official church business, as a counseling headquarters or brainwashing camp. Voila -- no taxes.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Preachers pay income tax.
They do not pay taxes on their property which is owned by the church nor church expenses. In many instances a mega church is a cult of personality and the preacher and church are indistinguishable. He drives and lives in church property. So his Corvette and Mansion are tax free as legitimate church expenses. (I cant think of the name for this, its not Vestige but something like that, sorry).
Usually the preacher lives in a modest home and drives a modest car, which are provided by the church. However, many abuses take place. Especially in churches that preach divine economics (give us money and ye shall receive the grace of god in the form of riches)... which is pretty common.
Especially around here...
I agree with the below statement about not lumping churches but quite a few are like those CF mentioned. John Stossel did a thing on ministrywatch.com that targets those same people and problems.
I love Stossel, he seems to piss off everybody equally...
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
Preachers pay income tax.
They do not pay taxes on their property which is owned by the church nor church expenses. In many instances a mega church is a cult of personality and the preacher and church are indistinguishable. He drives and lives in church property. So his Corvette and Mansion are tax free as legitimate church expenses. (I cant think of the name for this, its not Vestige but something like that, sorry).
Usually the preacher lives in a modest home and drives a modest car, which are provided by the church. However, many abuses take place. Especially in churches that preach divine economics (give us money and ye shall receive the grace of god in the form of riches)... which is pretty common.
Hence, the controversy with Robert Tilton, Kenneth Copeland and their ilk.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
I love Stossel, he seems to piss off everybody equally...
I think of him as Geraldo with a soul.
quote:
I think of him as Geraldo with a soul.
[}:)]
Ah yes, Geraldo, the perfect amalgam of Edward R. Murrow and Hunter S. Thompson-and I mean that in a good way.
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
Ah yes, Geraldo, the perfect amalgam of Edward R. Murrow and Hunter S. Thompson-and I mean that in a good way.
Not quite perfect as Geraldo hasn't offed himself........yet, but we can all hope.
quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
What's funny about all those people who put down Christians for being judgemental is doing the same thing they abhor. Lumping all Christians together isn't any different than others accusing Christians of acting "holier than thou".
Except I'm not claiming to do so at the bequest of god. Nor do I adhere to judge not lest ye be judged. So if nothing else, when I do it, at least I'm not a hypocrite.
I have found that those misguided souls in the Religious Right are simply naive and clueless and willfully ignorant about how the real world works and how hard life can really be at times. I think until something really hits home for them, they usually don't get the point.
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
I have found that those misguided souls in the Religious Right are simply naive and clueless and willfully ignorant about how the real world works and how hard life can really be at times. I think until something really hits home for them, they usually don't get the point.
So, would that make them the religious wrong? [;)]
another oldie... "the moral majority is neither."
Wow ... I had no idea you all had such hatred for people of faith.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by Rowdy
What's funny about all those people who put down Christians for being judgemental is doing the same thing they abhor. Lumping all Christians together isn't any different than others accusing Christians of acting "holier than thou".
Except I'm not claiming to do so at the bequest of god. Nor do I adhere to judge not lest ye be judged. So if nothing else, when I do it, at least I'm not a hypocrite.
Still, you are lumping Christians together. Want to know why? I'm a Christian and I am no better than you or anyone else on this earth. I have a different belief than you or someone else might, but that doesn't make me or someone else better.
Can we now talk about the Religious Left?
Seem to recall 4 out 5 Christians prefer Owasso.
I may have those stats askew, anyone got a link?
jdb
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
Wow ... I had no idea you all had such hatred for people of faith.
I assure you, very few people of faith I've met subscribe to the teachings of Jerry Falwell... the religious right and the overwhelming majority of "people of faith" don't have a lot in common... no matter what the politicians in your party say...
but keep playing the victim... bet it's fun. [:O]
quote:
Originally posted by Porky
Can we now talk about the Religious Left?
Sure. But they're not nearly as fun as the folks who give us unvarnished truths about Tinky Winky...
http://www.sojo.net/
http://www.faithfulamerica.org/
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by Porky
Can we now talk about the Religious Left?
Sure. But they're not nearly as fun as the folks who give us unvarnished truths about Tinky Winky...
They both give me nose bleeds but to each their own! [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
Wow ... I had no idea you all had such hatred for people of faith.
I assure you, very few people of faith I've met subscribe to the teachings of Jerry Falwell... the religious right and the overwhelming majority of "people of faith" don't have a lot in common... no matter what the politicians in your party say...
but keep playing the victim... bet it's fun. [:O]
While that may be true, christians who register republican get a "RR" brand automatically. I've seen complaints about people miscategorizing "liberals" as if it was a one-sided problem.
It goes like this a lot:
All democrats hate christianity, love homosexuals, love abortion, think trees are more important than people, and have no interest in holding down a "real job."
All republicans hate everyone who isn't christian, want to kill abortionists and homosexuals, hate the environment, own multiple guns and want to end all government assistance.
These same stereotypes are perpetrated here on the board quite often.
Please define "religious right." I'm a right-winger, or at least I consider myself right leaning, and I'm a Christian. So you lump everyone who is right-leaning politically and of the Christian faith into one big group? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me and just another left-wing attack on religion. Oh, but wait, not all religion, just Christianity.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaFan-inTexas
Please define "religious right." I'm a right-winger, or at least I consider myself right leaning, and I'm a Christian. So you lump everyone who is right-leaning politically and of the Christian faith into one big group? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me and just another left-wing attack on religion. Oh, but wait, not all religion, just Christianity.
Exactly. And for Cubs to comment about the hate people have for Christians and then the attack back is a perfect example.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
I assure you, very few people of faith I've met subscribe to the teachings of Jerry Falwell...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyE5wjc4XOw
For the record, I dont have anything against people of faith. I have something against the actions they may take that prohibits others from acting as they so please and those that feel the need to express how very wrong everyone else is.
To define religious right:
One who is on the conservative, or historically the right hand side of parliament, that holds and justifies that position by virtue of their religious beliefs.
(just my definition, but I think it works)
I still think the whole discussion about the religious right is rediculous in the first place. Everyone wants their particular brand of morality enforced, whether it be laze-faire, theocratic, or utilitarian. Those who want abortion to be illegal have axioms that they hold to, and those who want abortions to be legal want the opposite axioms held to. Either way, both sides make judgments about the situation based upon what they think is right or wrong and impose their will on the masses when they have the majority to vote in those who can impose their will.
And what's the danger of them expressing how they feel about moral issues they feel are important? The free exchange of ideas is not scary, and it's no more annoying for you to have to listen to a religious person tell you that something is wrong because "God said so" than it is for them to endure you telling them not to do something because "this particular group of people" say it's wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Cubs
Wow ... I had no idea you all had such hatred for people of faith.
I am a man of faith, yet I have believed for years that there is far more influence from the pulpit these days than the founding fathers intended for our country.
Interpretation of Christianity has become more liberal in the last 100 years with man trying to bend God to man's will. IMO, the churches are resorting to trying to legislate obedience to God's will since it's not happening within their walls. The RR is trying to reign in people who don't march to their strict ethical code by trying to influence legislation. That's wrong, IMO.
Where it gets especially nauseating for me is when you have an RR candidate like Anna Falling, who ran for county commissioner, that was spouting off about being pro-life and against same-sex marriage. That was trying to buy votes with an "endorsement from God" and were totally irrelevant views in relation to the job she was running for and did nothing to help me determine how she would perform her duties if elected.
IPLAW:
The side arguing for greater freedom is not requiring the religous right to give anything up. I dont believe I have heard an abortion advocate argue that religous person should be forced to abort a fetus for the health of the mother. One side seeks to stop an activity they do not like, the other side seeks to keep the activity legal for those that so choose while NOT requiring those opposed to partake. In my view, it is not the same.
Enforcement of my views may indeed preclude the enforcement of yours, but will not impede your actions on moral grounds nor attempt to tell you the right way to think. Merely prohibit you from impeding the actions of others on moral grounds. I believe there is a difference, and it is more than a fine distinction.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
I still think the whole discussion about the religious right is rediculous in the first place. Everyone wants their particular brand of morality enforced, whether it be laze-faire, theocratic, or utilitarian. Those who want abortion to be illegal have axioms that they hold to, and those who want abortions to be legal want the opposite axioms held to. Either way, both sides make judgments about the situation based upon what they think is right or wrong and impose their will on the masses when they have the majority to vote in those who can impose their will.
And what's the danger of them expressing how they feel about moral issues they feel are important? The free exchange of ideas is not scary, and it's no more annoying for you to have to listen to a religious person tell you that something is wrong because "God said so" than it is for them to endure you telling them not to do something because "this particular group of people" say it's wrong.
Couldn't have said it better.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
IPLAW:
The side arguing for greater freedom is not requiring the religous right to give anything up. I dont believe I have heard an abortion advocate argue that religous person should be forced to abort a fetus for the health of the mother. One side seeks to stop an activity they do not like, the other side seeks to keep the activity legal for those that so choose while NOT requiring those opposed to partake. In my view, it is not the same.
Enforcement of my views may indeed preclude the enforcement of yours, but will not impede your actions on moral grounds nor attempt to tell you the right way to think. Merely prohibit you from impeding the actions of others on moral grounds. I believe there is a difference, and it is more than a fine distinction.
The side that allows an action isn't necessarily the correct one simply because they do so under the guise of expanding "freedom." There are groups that advocate the sexualization of kids which argue on the grounds that it expands the individual's "freedoms." I know this point is a bit ethereal, so I digress. I think we've discussed this before. Hell, you may have been in my Jurisprudence class and heard me ranting before.[:D]
Call it what you want, it's still nothing more than your version of morality and how you see things. The fact that the majority agrees with you makes it convenient to say that it's nothing more than societal consensus. The fact is, your morality just happens to be en vogue now. The right place at the right time, socially, so to speak...
<Conan wrote:
Where it gets especially nauseating for me is when you have an RR candidate like Anna Falling, who ran for county commissioner, that was spouting off about being pro-life and against same-sex marriage. That was trying to buy votes with an "endorsement from God" and were totally irrelevant views in relation to the job she was running for and did nothing to help me determine how she would perform her duties if elected.
<end clip>
Thank you, Conan. You've coalesced what I've been trying to say for years.
It seems there are are endless candidates who harp about how they are Christians. I'm happy they have found a religion they're comfortable with, but I don't see how it is relevant to how they're going to do their jobs. It's akin to hiring a Christian to fix your broken water pipes instead of a professionally trained plumber.
There's another thing that rankles me: these Shepherd's Guides phone books that supposedly list Christian businesses. If I want someone to install a new water heater in my home, whether he's a Christian is immaterial. It's whether he can do the job properly. Shepherd's Guides don't help in figuring this out.
quote:
There's another thing that rankles me: these Shepherd's Guides phone books that supposedly list Christian businesses.
[}:)] My wife and I laughed when we saw this a month or two ago. I have one in my home so I know who not to call...
I've been tempted to start The Jihadist Guide for those discriminating Muslims in the community who want their sinks fixed by a guy who wears a suicide belt instead of a tool belt.
Jesus was a carpenter though, so I may rethink the next time I need new cabinets.
Children are not, by definition, capable of making life choices. They are not FREE to do many of the things we take for granted. So I dont think the child molestation example fits in to the conversation (as you hinted at).
I am a bit put back that you fail to see a difference between:
1) Forced imposition of a view
and 2) Refusal to allow imposition.
One is requiring or forbidding a group to act and the other imposes nothing on non-actors. To me, there is a world of difference. The difference is as bold as "Women must cover their faces" and "you must allow women to cover their face."
It may be my version of morality, but as I stated above, the imposition therein does not prohibit your actions unless such actions interfere with the rights of another. That's my entire basic philosophy - do whatever the hell you want do as long as it isn't interfering with the rights of anyone else.
bah gotta run...
RW, Tulsa historically votes for Republican candidates for the Senate, HOR, and President, so I like to have say all the way through the primary process, otherwise Independent would be a reasonible option for me. I identify with a lot of Republican ideals, however, I don't care for the far right CCR faction. IMO, it's made things like the Foley "scandal" much larger than it was. Notice there have never been any charges brought after over seven months of "investigation."? I think the far CCR over-estimates how many of us moderate Republicans really care if they are Christian or not.
I have been thoroughly hosed by some businesses advertised as Christian-owned. I've never called one advertised as athiest-owned so I don't know how they conduct business. [;)]
The tired old saying of "If you have to tell someone, likely you aren't" applies. The Shepherd's guide is just someone else profiteering off God, IMO.
IP- hysterical as always! [;)]
Have you heard about the Atheist prayer line?
You call and no one answers.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
There's another thing that rankles me: these Shepherd's Guides phone books that supposedly list Christian businesses. If I want someone to install a new water heater in my home, whether he's a Christian is immaterial. It's whether he can do the job properly. Shepherd's Guides don't help in figuring this out.
Some people only buy from christian businesses which is also the only place they put the books.
I don't use it, you don't have to either.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
There's another thing that rankles me: these Shepherd's Guides phone books that supposedly list Christian businesses. If I want someone to install a new water heater in my home, whether he's a Christian is immaterial. It's whether he can do the job properly. Shepherd's Guides don't help in figuring this out.
Some people only buy from christian businesses which is also the only place they put the books.
I don't use it, you don't have to either.
In my days living in the Tulsa area and just as I was starting out in the Cosmetology game, I once knew this very attractive woman, truly a sight for any man to behold, she looked that good. She had this beautiful mane of long, frizzed blonde hair, and if you were a stylist, you'd give your eye teeth to service her.
And so one day, marvelling over her 'do, I asked who was responsible for maintaining it, and she said that a Christian hairstylist kept it up for her. And since it was clear that I probably wasn't going to get the job of servicing her, I referred her to my lady. She asked if she was Christian, I couldn't answer since we never talked religion while cutting my hair. She said that she would only go to a Christian hairstylist.
I had to scratch my head over that one, even now. Is this to say that a Christian hairstylist may have some creative edge over, say, an atheist hairstylist? Any ideas?
I suppose one can assume a Christian hair stylist wont instill the seed of Satan into ones head? Not sure.
Basically, I view such things as an extension of the "I'm right, you're wrong... I don't even want to associate with you" mentality. I could care less what they publish or who she choses to give her business to, I just think its narrow minded and refuse to participate. Its as if they are doing something wrong by not being Christian.
I also dont support any institution because it caters to a particular race (ie. I wont give to the Black Scholarship Fund, the Jewish Rights Fund, or the Womens Equality Society). I chose to support organizations that care more about merit than a particular belief, skin color, or background.
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
In my days living in the Tulsa area and just as I was starting out in the Cosmetology game, I once knew this very attractive woman, truly a sight for any man to behold, she looked that good. She had this beautiful mane of long, frizzed blonde hair, and if you were a stylist, you'd give your eye teeth to service her.
Sounds like any man would have liked to ser....
Ah, nevermind, this is a wholesome thread.
quote:
Basically, I view such things as an extension of the "I'm right, you're wrong... I don't even want to associate with you" mentality. I could care less what they publish or who she choses to give her business to, I just think its narrow minded and refuse to participate. Its as if they are doing something wrong by not being Christian.
It's not that at all. It's roughly like hiring a fellow frat brother's company to do business with your's. It's shallow, but no real nefarious motives.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Basically, I view such things as an extension of the "I'm right, you're wrong... I don't even want to associate with you" mentality. I could care less what they publish or who she choses to give her business to, I just think its narrow minded and refuse to participate. Its as if they are doing something wrong by not being Christian.
It's not that at all. It's roughly like hiring a fellow frat brother's company to do business with your's. It's shallow, but no real nefarious motives.
I agree up to a point, as for doing business amongst one's own social set (some folks feel they gotta keep it all in one camp), but in some cases, there is perhaps an underside to it.
When I lived in the Tulsa area-especially during the 1980's as a teen-there was a function known as the Christian Business Show, and as a lark, I checked it out. And I saw that in so many cases, the "Christian" aspect was little better than a marketing gimmick, because beyond the word "Christian," there was nothing much that set it apart from a regular business. If anything, it would seem that one would be paying a little more for those same goods and services.
IP, if I were to hire a Frat buddy it would be because I had a personal relation with them. An extension might be to hire someone that is in the same club because you think membership proves them superior - your frat brother must be the best to be in your frat. That works for some groups, but certainly not one that constitutes billions of people.
I suppose we will not know without inquiring with her as to the motive, but I feel confident that at least part of her rational would lend itself to my interpretation.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
IP, if I were to hire a Frat buddy it would be because I had a personal relation with them. An extension might be to hire someone that is in the same club because you think membership proves them superior - your frat brother must be the best to be in your frat. That works for some groups, but certainly not one that constitutes billions of people.
I suppose we will not know without inquiring with her as to the motive, but I feel confident that at least part of her rational would lend itself to my interpretation.
Here is a good example. My cousin was a Sigma Nu at UofH in Houston. He just got a job with a local company just because the guy that owned the company was a Sigma Nu from Stoolwater. It's nothing but a social club, and from 30+ years of off again, on again church attendance, that's what most churches are...
At least that's what I think...
That would be very persuasive if it was THE same church. But belief in the same gods is such a vast club that it hardly seems applicable. Bah, not that important. I can understand the reasoning behind the frat boy thing much more than the god thing I guess...
What really pisses me off with the Christian right is the way they deal with deal people within the Christian faith who have difference of opinions. As in, not ramming social conservatism down your throat or viewing everything in black and white.
Batesline (//%22http://www.batesline.com/archives/003168.html%22)
See what Master Bates had to say about the Episcopal Church on batesline. I'm no theologian, but does he not imply that the Episcopal Church are worshipping the angels of Satan? Is not seeing the good works that the Episcopal Church does through God as Satanic the ultimate sin?
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
What really pisses me off with the Christian right is the way they deal with deal people within the Christian faith who have difference of opinions. As in, not ramming social conservatism down your throat or viewing everything in black and white.
Batesline (//%22http://www.batesline.com/archives/003168.html%22)
See what Master Bates had to say about the Episcopal Church on batesline. I'm no theologian, but does he not imply that the Episcopal Church are worshipping the angels of Satan? Is not seeing the good works that the Episcopal Church does through God as Satanic the ultimate sin?
I don't think he's saying they are satanists, just pointing out a few episcopals that are not in agreement with the publicized precepts of the episcopalian faith.
Just sounds like the GOB network is working full force in that church to me.
I grew up Episcopal, bouncing between St. John's & Trinity. After attending and practicing Christianity of other faiths, I left the Episcopal Church for good in my mid- '20's. I don't have a clue what the EC philosophy is these days, all I know is it quit working for me about 20 years ago. Far as I was concerned the only part of "spiritual" that existed in the Episcopal Church was "ritual". I also found the gospel preached in more charismatic faiths to be too punitive.
One thing I'm certain has happened in the last 100 years within the Christian faith is man is demanding God bend to man's will, instead of man obeying His will.
I don't presently attend a church. I know where my faith is, have a personal relationship with God, and that's what it's really all about in the first place. The various sects of Christianity are merely paths to get to a personal relationship with God. That's why there are so many different faiths. A singular denomination obviously doesn't appeal to everyone, otherwise there would have never been a split from Catholocism (I realize there's a lot that goes into that, but for the sake of brevity...) and then all the subsequent splits within protestantism.
I don't feel it's up to men to judge who is and isn't worthy of God's grace, I've seen too much human judgement in church, and I've seen the gospel bastardized through various interpretations of men and women of the cloth who seem to have only their well-being in mind.
I figure if someone wears their Christianity on their sleeve to gain public office or gain my business, then they really don't have many merits which would justify my vote or my business in the first place.
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by si_uk_lon_ok
What really pisses me off with the Christian right is the way they deal with deal people within the Christian faith who have difference of opinions. As in, not ramming social conservatism down your throat or viewing everything in black and white.
Batesline (//%22http://www.batesline.com/archives/003168.html%22)
See what Master Bates had to say about the Episcopal Church on batesline. I'm no theologian, but does he not imply that the Episcopal Church are worshipping the angels of Satan? Is not seeing the good works that the Episcopal Church does through God as Satanic the ultimate sin?
I don't think he's saying they are satanists, just pointing out a few episcopals that are not in agreement with the publicized precepts of the episcopalian faith.
Just sounds like the GOB network is working full force in that church to me.
quote:
The female head of a church with a practicing homosexual bishop planning to "marry" his lover, a church that could accept into seminary the adulterous homosexual governor of New Jersey, a church that embraces splitting open babies' skulls and vacuuming their brains out, is complaining about Nigerian Anglican bishops coming to Virginia this weekend" to formally install the head of a parallel denomination, being a violation of ancient customs.
Well, sodomy and Moloch worship are pretty ancient.
I took the last sentence too literally maybe.
Seems that man indeed makes god in his own image.
Ask a man how or what he believes on any subject. Then a few days later ask him what god thinks. You will most likely find that how he thinks is the way he thinks, god thinks.
If a man is domineering and believes in punishing those who don't believe or behave as he wants. Most likely his god is the same way and he will find a church with others who think similarly. Don't forget he may just as likely do the same thing to himself.
If a person believes in understanding, growing, and patience. Most likely his god is the same way and he will find a church with others who think similarly. Don't forget he may just as likely do the same thing to himself.
Which church or group of people will you find that you would notice the most in society? Which group will tend to have a "louder voice"?
Those may not be the best examples but I hope you get my drift.
A Story:
Gas station between two cities. Man stops there on his way to moving from one city to the next. Asks the old gas attendant what the people in the next city are like. Old man asks, What were the people like where you used to live? Young man says, They were obnoxious and self-centered. Old man says, Well, you will find the people in the next city are the same way.
Later another young man moving from the same city to the next, stops at the same gas station and asks the old man what the people in the next city are like. Old man asks, What were the people like where you used to live? Young man says, They were kind, very giving and helpful. Old man says, Well, you will find the people in the next city are the same way.
I believe that no matter what side you are on, left or right, it can be helpful to consider that everyone is imperfect and can grow. That nobody, on either side, can make you feel inferior or annoy you, unless you give them permission to. That if someone is doing something that annoys you or that you think is wrong, you can either push them away or reach out to help them become better, (thus not someone who is doing something that is wrong). All the while remembering that you yourself are imperfect and may be wrong.
It takes two to tango. You can choose to be the "adult" or better one. Or you can get down in the mud with them and be angry at them.
There is one other thing that I wish people would realize in our society. There are 2 different ways that people use to process the world. Not everyone fits exactly into each camp, but generally speaking people tend to one side or the other.
Way 1. Information goes into the heart first, then into the brain.
Way 2. Information goes into the brain first, then into the heart.
One person tends to feel that something is true, then it.
The other tends to understand it, then believes it and feels it.
These two different types of people have a very hard time "getting" someone who is the opposite of them. They will often disagree and argue and never seem to understand eachother. This is a very good thing to know when dating btw lol.
These different people even tend to use different language when they speak. Remember Bush and Kerry and how they would speak. Bush would say,,, "I feel" and would pound his chest.
Kerry would say "I think" and was very analytical. They very much fit into those opposite camps and you could see that they would look at the other and wonder just what alien planet they had come from. They were talking at each other not too each other. This was largely because they just processed the world completely differently. Their brains literally work differently.
Be aware. People on either side can be right and wrong, thats not what its about, its about how they get to their answers, for they can get the same answers but just not get there the same way. One person trying to understand or explain something to another of the opposite spectrum is going to have a next to impossible time trying to do so for they will be using their way of thinking.
There are 2 books I know of that are basically on the same topic but are written by authors who "process" the world in completely different ways.
The Road Less Traveled, by M. Scott Peck
A Return to Love, by Marianne Williamson.
Depending on which end of the processing spectrum your on, one book you will like reading finding it easy to read and understand, while the other book you may find completely irritating and even intelligible.
Ok psychology lesson and sermon over, pass the plate and please reach deeply into your hearts and donate generously. [:P]
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
In my days living in the Tulsa area and just as I was starting out in the Cosmetology game, I once knew this very attractive woman, truly a sight for any man to behold, she looked that good. She had this beautiful mane of long, frizzed blonde hair, and if you were a stylist, you'd give your eye teeth to service her.
Sounds like any man would have liked to ser....
Ah, nevermind, this is a wholesome thread.
I don't mean that kind of "service."
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
In my days living in the Tulsa area and just as I was starting out in the Cosmetology game, I once knew this very attractive woman, truly a sight for any man to behold, she looked that good. She had this beautiful mane of long, frizzed blonde hair, and if you were a stylist, you'd give your eye teeth to service her.
Sounds like any man would have liked to ser....
Ah, nevermind, this is a wholesome thread.
I don't mean that kind of "service."
I know, but it was wide open and I just had to inflect some pig-headedness into the topic. You painted a great picture with words, when you described this woman, I thought of about three or four that would have fit that physical image to a tee.
Very O/T but since you made the reference about the long, memorable locks I still think of an image from 20 years ago. I was sitting in the old Dunkin' Donuts on South Peoria one Sunday morning drinking coffee and reading the Sunday World. (Since it happened on a Sunday, can we call it semi-on topic? [:P])
This young lady came careening into the parking lot in a black Porsche 356 Speedster with the top down, red curly locks flying at will, with Wayfairers on. Just a vision to behold. Sometimes I wonder if I dreamed it up. Just one of those people, even though you never met, you will never forget. No idea if she was Christian or not, but that really wasn't my point. [}:)]
Artist-quite well written. Though I think you had a case of role-reversal in your comments. Re: Bush/Kerry- liberals generally "feel" and conservatives usually "think". Or at least conservatives think liberals only feel. [;)]
I don't know about that. Seems many on the right, rail against "intellectuals", ivory towers, and liberal professors. Remember how they tried to peg Gore as and intellectual, someone who is not a regular guy like Bush. They would make fun of how he would use high fallutin language. You know how those east coast latte' drinking types are.
But all the while these good ol boy, truck drivin republicans are framing the issues and are smart enough to know that knowing all the facts (or at least looking like you do) was not going to endear you to the average voter. I remember that election and they really pounded Gore on "being smart" and an "intellectual".
In one of those debates I wish he would have said...
So what do you tell your kids when they go to school, don't learn to much or people won't like you? You wont be able to be president. Better to be popular than smart cause thats what wins elections? Odd, when I was young I was taught you should learn as much as you can, you had to be smart to be successful. Is that not the way it is anymore? If you know a lot people will make fun of you?
However just being book smart isn't gonna do ya. People smarts can win over book smarts.
Thats one lesson Republicans have learned well and the Democrats are struggling with.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Artist-quite well written. Though I think you had a case of role-reversal in your comments. Re: Bush/Kerry- liberals generally "feel" and conservatives usually "think". Or at least conservatives think liberals only feel. [;)]
I thinkj liberals think and feel, and conservatives-real conservatives like William F. Buckley or William Kristol-even think. I think right-wingers like Hannity or Ingraham or Limbaugh or Gallagher, they don't tend to think, so much as they tend to emote, cop attitudes, posture and swagger-which some of their audiences confuse for intellectualism.
Hey I'm religious, so I'm right. Let's close this topic since I pretty much summed it up.[:P]
I've always wondered, what are Wayfairers?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
In my days living in the Tulsa area and just as I was starting out in the Cosmetology game, I once knew this very attractive woman, truly a sight for any man to behold, she looked that good. She had this beautiful mane of long, frizzed blonde hair, and if you were a stylist, you'd give your eye teeth to service her.
Sounds like any man would have liked to ser....
Ah, nevermind, this is a wholesome thread.
I don't mean that kind of "service."
I know, but it was wide open and I just had to inflect some pig-headedness into the topic. You painted a great picture with words, when you described this woman, I thought of about three or four that would have fit that physical image to a tee.
Very O/T but since you made the reference about the long, memorable locks I still think of an image from 20 years ago. I was sitting in the old Dunkin' Donuts on South Peoria one Sunday morning drinking coffee and reading the Sunday World. (Since it happened on a Sunday, can we call it semi-on topic? [:P])
This young lady came careening into the parking lot in a black Porsche 356 Speedster with the top down, red curly locks flying at will, with Wayfairers on. Just a vision to behold. Sometimes I wonder if I dreamed it up. Just one of those people, even though you never met, you will never forget. No idea if she was Christian or not, but that really wasn't my point. [}:)]
Well, I must concede that she was FINE, and yes, she did look as if she had stepped from a Van Halen video (it was the 1980s).
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
I've always wondered, what are Wayfairers?
Remember those sunglasses Mazzios gave away back in the 1980's? Haha.
(http://i12.tinypic.com/6bddnr9.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
There's another thing that rankles me: these Shepherd's Guides phone books that supposedly list Christian businesses. If I want someone to install a new water heater in my home, whether he's a Christian is immaterial. It's whether he can do the job properly. Shepherd's Guides don't help in figuring this out.
Some people only buy from christian businesses which is also the only place they put the books.
I don't use it, you don't have to either.
In my days living in the Tulsa area and just as I was starting out in the Cosmetology game, I once knew this very attractive woman, truly a sight for any man to behold, she looked that good. She had this beautiful mane of long, frizzed blonde hair, and if you were a stylist, you'd give your eye teeth to service her.
And so one day, marvelling over her 'do, I asked who was responsible for maintaining it, and she said that a Christian hairstylist kept it up for her. And since it was clear that I probably wasn't going to get the job of servicing her, I referred her to my lady. She asked if she was Christian, I couldn't answer since we never talked religion while cutting my hair. She said that she would only go to a Christian hairstylist.
I had to scratch my head over that one, even now. Is this to say that a Christian hairstylist may have some creative edge over, say, an atheist hairstylist? Any ideas?
It's a superiority complex. This type of xian thinks they're better than non-xians.
quote:
Originally posted by bugo
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
quote:
Originally posted by sgrizzle
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
There's another thing that rankles me: these Shepherd's Guides phone books that supposedly list Christian businesses. If I want someone to install a new water heater in my home, whether he's a Christian is immaterial. It's whether he can do the job properly. Shepherd's Guides don't help in figuring this out.
Some people only buy from christian businesses which is also the only place they put the books.
I don't use it, you don't have to either.
In my days living in the Tulsa area and just as I was starting out in the Cosmetology game, I once knew this very attractive woman, truly a sight for any man to behold, she looked that good. She had this beautiful mane of long, frizzed blonde hair, and if you were a stylist, you'd give your eye teeth to service her.
And so one day, marvelling over her 'do, I asked who was responsible for maintaining it, and she said that a Christian hairstylist kept it up for her. And since it was clear that I probably wasn't going to get the job of servicing her, I referred her to my lady. She asked if she was Christian, I couldn't answer since we never talked religion while cutting my hair. She said that she would only go to a Christian hairstylist.
I had to scratch my head over that one, even now. Is this to say that a Christian hairstylist may have some creative edge over, say, an atheist hairstylist? Any ideas?
It's a superiority complex. This type of xian thinks they're better than non-xians.
Oh, she was friendly enough, it was simply a matter of having a near-neurotic preference for a Christian hairstylist over any other. wonder how one can tell a Christian hairstylist from a non-religious hairstylist? Or a Christian businessperson from a person who is simply in business?
Falwell has ceased to be. Happens in threes?
Yolanda King
She died after giving a speech at an American Heart Association function. Sheesh, how ironic. R.I.P. Miss King.