Evangelical Lutheran Church
This letter has not been edited.
Let's raise a toast to the demise of another useless church.
Posted by Charles B on August 23, 2007 02:23 PMWay to go Charlie! I love reading your open-minded elightened posts about someone else's opinion. Much better than someone expressing themselves openly and honestly. I am sorry that you blame God for some hurt in your life. But really, "another useless church"? Come on!
Posted by Christian Conspiracy on August 23, 2007 02:33 PMPurity, chastity, secular humanism, traditional teachings, yep, got all the buzz words.
And that prophetic bit at the end about the days of old. This is it folks, the real end of the world.
Or is this the 500th end of the world?
Anyone can have a gay child, grandchild, sister, brother, aunt etc.
Some religions appear to be growing up.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 23, 2007 02:46 PMthere is more money in opening your doors to everyone instead of excluding certain types.
its just another money grab.
Posted by Fresh on August 23, 2007 03:01 PMFresh: except you can be made to feel like you're part of an exclusive group all the same.
I find if nice that the letter writer talked more in real world consequences rather than what 'God' would do to these "sinners".
Posted by Roger on August 23, 2007 03:10 PMDammit these churches are supposed to tell us who it is OK to hate.
Posted by It's True on August 23, 2007 03:24 PMWe need some better politically correct words for gay.
Instead of calling people gay,how about Happy?
Instead of homosexuality,how about happiness?
So when churches start embracing happiness,then the happy people will have a church to go to.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on August 23, 2007 03:30 PMAnother church decides that judgment is God's realm, assuming he even really does that, and not their's and the people who still want to judge others are miffed.
Another church decides to stop acting like a country club and more like the type of welcoming home that Jesus Christ would have created and the people who call themselves Christians...are miffed.
Frankly, I don't give a damn what churches do or don't do. But I do believe that it's if they choose to play politisc from the pulpit they should not be exempt from taxes and those taxes should be collected RETROACTIVELY.
Church's don't want the government to tell them who they can or can't allowsof in their congregations, but the church's want to influence the government on who they can or cannot treat equally under the law.
I will never believe in a God who would show favor to people who exclude and even hate over people who love regardless of their differences.
AKA lethal Episcopalianitis--when politics replaces religion, membership plunges.
Posted by Hank on August 23, 2007 04:20 PMIf Stuckey is so damn worried about gays, maybe he should spend a little less time in the steamroom at the downtown YMCA.
He's there enough and it ain't for the health benefits.
Posted by on August 23, 2007 04:50 PMBrian
If you're a member of the church gather together all of those with a like mind and lead a re-reformation. If you're not a member, what business is it of yours?
Posted by Trinity on August 23, 2007 04:57 PMThomas - If you "frankly don't give a damn what churches do or don't do" why do you trash them so?
You're sounding a bit like Charles B.
Posted by KW on August 23, 2007 05:02 PMI love it when a church finally grows. Just think of it as progress. The mainstream Christian churches have finally stopped burning witches, apostates and heretics, it has finally accepted that Gallialo was right, that the sun is at the center of the solar system, it is true look it Pope John II did the accepting. Now yet another denomination is coming around to thinking homosexuality is not on par with murder and rape.
Posted by on August 23, 2007 05:56 PMChristian Conspiracy said:
"I am sorry that you blame God for some hurt in your life.... "
Funny stuff. I don't believe in "God" CC, therefore, your little theory doesn't make sense does it?
And by the way, I have a great life.
Posted by Charles B on August 23, 2007 06:03 PMAs a member of the ELCA, I am proud of my church for being tolerant, compassionate, and viewing scripture and the world with reason.
Posted by Warner on August 23, 2007 06:52 PMKW complimented Thomas:
"You're sounding a bit like Charles B"
So there's two of us who are sane..
Posted by Charles B on August 23, 2007 07:28 PMCharles B, you are just as religious as anyone that posts here.
As Webster states: Religion - a personal set or institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices.
The Lord leveled His most stinging rebukes at the "religious" leaders of His day.
As you have clearly stated however, you don't have a relationship with the Lord Jesus.
Posted by skeptical on August 23, 2007 11:16 PMskeptical kept trying:
"Charles B, you are just as religious as anyone that posts here.As Webster states: Religion - a personal set or institutionalized system of attitudes, beliefs, and practices."
By this definition, everyone is "religious", which pretty much renders the designation superfluous no?
"As you have clearly stated however, you don't have a relationship with the Lord Jesus."
I hope not, because he either never existed or he's dead, and who would want a relationship with a corpse?
skep?
Posted by Charles B on August 24, 2007 06:32 AMSkeptical, where have you been lately? Webster is fine but not carved in stone (pun) about religion.
Amazing that human compassion is now called "politics".
Posted by Sharon B. on August 24, 2007 06:47 AMSo tell us then Charles B, why do you feel the need to trash talk about churches every chance you get.?
There's a huge difference between not believing and hatered.
Posted by KW on August 24, 2007 09:05 AMThomas - If you "frankly don't give a damn what churches do or don't do" why do you trash them so?
Posted by KW on August 23, 2007 05:02 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Because I'm tired of them playing politics and trying to undermine and usurp the right of millions of Americans, like myself, to be treated fairly and equally under the law.
Does that answer your question?
I really do not care what the churches in regards to their own memberships, programs, etc.
I totally support their right to exclude anyone they want but they should not be exempted from paying taxes if they engage in politics from the pulpit.
Christiane Amanpour just did a great series called "God's Warriors" and last night they showed a re-run of the christian segment.
It is absolutely frightening to listen to some of these people.
Ron Luce, the founder of Teen Mania Ministries, is a MILITANT fundamentalist. Some of the things he was saying shocked other christians, yet he is the leader of a group that is training thousands of young Americans to follow in his footsteps.
I support the right of anyone to follow whatever faith they choose, but they do not have the right to force that faith on anyone else through the laws of this country.
Keep religion in church and government in the statehouse and we'll have a much more peaceful country. But too many people just won't be happy unless they are telling other people what to do, what they can watch, who they can marry...etc.
But Thomas, there is a relatively finite number of Christians trying to play politics. Most keep their positions on political topics such as homosexuality and abortion withing the congregations.
I would fight to defend the right to speak out against any persons or groups that attmept to infringe on anyones constitutional rights but to attack anyone simply for profession to believe in a faith is a bit overboard, isn't it?
That would be akin to me hating all jews because I know of one rabbi who advocates universal healthcare.
Posted by KW on August 24, 2007 10:55 AMOG - Give me a break. Please, do list the infinite as you claim that are trying to force their beliefs on you.
Do you know how many Christians there are in the US? The number is in the hundreds of millions.
So yes, please list away. I bet you can't get past 100 legitimate orgs that actively lobby congress OR the state legislature.
I can't wait.
Posted by KW on August 24, 2007 12:47 PMKW
You are right when you said that there is a huge difference between not believing and hatred. It looks from the posts that the atheists here have done the same thing that they accuse everyone else of doing. That is lumping all of a group together with stereotypes and misconceptions. Without evaluating all the facts, or acknowledging that perhaps they may be juuussst a little bit biased towards said groups
I stopped reading at Thomas post, to reply.
"Another church decides that judgment is God's realm, assuming he even really does that, and not their's and the people who still want to judge others are miffed.
Another church decides to stop acting like a country club and more like the type of welcoming home that Jesus Christ would have created"
You took the words write off my keyboard.
Believe in religious philosophy, in God or whatever, or not, I think one of THE most appropriate Gospel passages (especially for those that would sit in judgment of anyone) is Mark 2: 13-17
" 13 Once again Jesus went out beside the lake. A large crowd came to him, and he began to teach them. 14 As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him.
15 While Jesus was having dinner at Levi's house, many tax collectors and sinners were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16 When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the sinners and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: "Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?"
17 On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." "
remembering that Christ welcomed all who had faith, I think is the key. I don't even think you need to believe in God, to understand the philosophy that Jesus of Nazareth taught.
Posted by Dan2 on August 24, 2007 01:28 PMCC - That is true. My reference about the Rabbi and healthcare wasn't made up either. I was actually having the conversation with someone who referenced the Rabbi but to bad mouth all of the jewish faith because I don't buy into universal healthcare wouldn't be logical.
Dan2 - Good quote.
Usually when people are trashing the bible they like to point out the inaccuaracies as if the bible was a history book.
In doing this they completely overlook the message and the meaning being taught, which usually includes not understanding the difference between the OT and NT.
Posted by KW on August 24, 2007 01:45 PMCC affirmed KW's nonsense:
"You are right when you said that there is a huge difference between not believing and hatred. It looks from the posts that the atheists here have done the same thing that they accuse everyone else of doing."
There's a difference between hating someone and pointing out that what they believe in boils down to ghosts, magic, and superstition.
You interpret it as hate, because you hate the fact that you can't say anything to defend your utterly fantastic beliefs.
My six year old told me the other day: "If magic isn't real, I don't want to grow up."
Time to grow up and put away childish things before my six year old passes you by.
Posted by Charles B on August 24, 2007 02:17 PMAhh, Charles, what you could learn from your 6 year old.
Magic is real. Magic, be it an illusion, a miracle (as in "it is a miracle she survived that accident"), the mystery of the unknown, is indeed real.
You equate religious faith to ghosts, magic, and superstition. What about philosophy? Would you dismiss, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Hobbes, Newton, Jefferson, et all? Why dismiss the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth?
There is scientific basis for ghosts (energy can be neither created nor destroyed and as such the energy of human life needs to exist on another plane). Most athletes are superstitious (including me, and I haven't played meaningful ball since college).
I understand your point of view. I really do. But to me, why belittle something that to some people, it may be all they have to get them through some of the worst times (even alcoholics, as part of the 12 step program, step 2 is "Come to believe that a Power greater than ourselves may restore us to sanity."). To belittle what works for some as a personal choice, just seems brash (maybe not your intention, but that is the way it comes off).
Now, I fully understand throwing it back in the face of those that would berate you, call you names, or look down upon you as "going to hell" and sit in judgment. Just remember Jesus' "golden rule" Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Or maybe more appropriately now in this age of "meism" treat people as they wish to be treated.
You can still not believe, but why belittle others faith? That seems, well, rather childish, right?
Posted by Dan2 on August 24, 2007 02:46 PMCharles B:
"There's a difference between hating someone and pointing out that what they believe in boils down to ghosts, magic, and superstition."
I see, you take comfort in pointing out what you deem to be childish actions of others without having any real reason for doing so other than to get your jollies.
The funny part is you don't see anything childish in that.
Ask your six year old to explain it to you CB.
Posted by KW on August 24, 2007 03:02 PMI only hate and degrade the religions that have personally hurt me or messed with my life, (Christianity). I especially dislike the Catholic church and nearly all the evangelicals.
They have kept this country from growing up as a society with their attitudes of sex, marriage, gambling, dancing, homosexuality, the place of women, working on Sundaqy, prayer is school, birth control etc. etc. etc.
Every day a little of their influence dies. I just want to live long enough to see it really fade.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 24, 2007 03:09 PMDan 2:
If the words ascribed to Jesus in the Bible are a correct representation, then he's a lunatic.
I'd rather look to more contemporary philosophers, who have expressed the "golden rule" better, with more lucidity, and without all the nonsensical baggage thrown in than did Jesus.
I only bring up religion, and my thoughts on it, when someone else, such as the letter writer, opens the subject.
If true believers find me abrasive, so what? The very fact of their belief implies my eternal damnation for merely being rational and putting proof and intellectual rigor before "faith".
I'm not going to walk on eggshells so their ego's aren't bruised. I want their ego's to be bruised. I do treat them as I would like to be treated, which is to have my feet held to the fire if what I say is a bunch of nonsense (it happens fairly often).
I think religion is a direct threat to humanity, and my fondest wish is for people to give it up so that my six-year old doesn't have to live in a world clouded by superstition and racked by suicide bombings in the name of "God".
As far as the following being a scientific basis for the existence of "ghosts":
"There is scientific basis for ghosts (energy can be neither created nor destroyed and as such the energy of human life needs to exist on another plane)."
No, it isn't.
Posted by Charles B on August 24, 2007 03:19 PMKW said:
"see, you take comfort in pointing out what you deem to be childish actions of others without having any real reason for doing so other than to get your jollies."
Actually, KDubya, I do it for reasons other than to get my "jollies". I've enumerated them clearly and consistently on this forum a number of times, and I know you've read them because you follow me around like a lost puppy who snips at me every time I turn around and try and ascertain to whom you belong.
And of course, I understand why you hate it so; because you are one of those "true believers" that have no rebuttal to my arguments other than to question my motives.
Charles B must be on a mission from God.
Posted by KW on August 24, 2007 04:32 PMKW:
I love that movie...
Posted by Charles B on August 24, 2007 04:41 PMCharles B wrote
I hope not, because he either never existed or he's dead, and who would want a relationship with a corpse?
You normally try to be logical but when denouncing Christ you seem to be a bit emotional.
Hi Sharon, I've been doing a lot of studying and haven't had the time to follow the threads.
You're still my favorite "evangelical-Christian" basher in the whole world. I know, I know, now I'm getting sentimental.
Posted by skeptical on August 24, 2007 07:03 PMKW,
Sorry. I forgot that, as with Jimmy Jones, when you get hold of a new word you are not really asking a question about a subject; but, rather, you are seeing how many ways in which you can put together something that looks as if it were a substantial part of a topic, just to play "gotcha" when your big new word gets overlooked.
I am certainly glad you discovered that, in arithmetic and counting, the word "infinite" means you have to take off your shoes, and even go beyond all ten toes to arrive at a number. And gee, whiz, you certainly are to be congratulated at being able to get all the way up to 100.
Since counting something to find out if it was "'infinite" was the whole object of your question, I am sure you need not bother with any of the rest of my answer - it being way beyond the level of your fixation presently anyway.
Run along to Mommy now, and tell her she needs you. Oh! And you can tell her how you outwitted the Old Grouch as well. I'm certain she'll be proud of you. And the adults can get back to their discussion.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 24, 2007 07:20 PMskeptical projected:
"You normally try to be logical but when denouncing Christ you seem to be a bit emotional."
I think it is you who gets emotional when I tell you what I think about Jesus (not Christ).
Posted by Charles B on August 24, 2007 09:48 PMI think we can all agree that out of the hundreds of millions of Christians on the planet, a small majority is of the fundamentalist type that is being lamented by many on this thread. However, be honest with yourselves and admit that this very small minority of Christians has a vastly disproportionate amount of polictical influence with many conservatives and the Republican party. Their ultra-fundamentalist, theocratic movement is called Dominionism and their true agenda is written and spoken all over the place. They want a total theocracy in this country and that, my friends, is the real threat. All you have to do is listen to some of the more well known fundamentalist preachers:
D. James Kennedy, Pastor of Coral Ridge Ministries, calls on his followers to exercise "godly dominion ... over every aspect ... of human society." At a "Reclaiming America for Christ" conference in February, 2005, Kennedy said:
Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.
Americans must be 'Christocrats" -- citizens of both their country and the Kingdom of God -- the Rev. Rod Parsley told his congregation at the World Harvest Church, located just outside Columbus, Ohio. "And that is not a democracy; that is a theocracy," he said. "That means God is in control, and you are not."
Thankfully, some of their support in Congress was sent packing In the last election, five of the Republican senators who were unseated received whopping scores of 100% from the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family voter scorecards. Those Senators are: Conrad Burns (R-MT), George "Macacca" Allen (R-VA), Rick Santorum (R-PA), James Talent (R-MO), and Mike DeWine (R-OH). Rick Santorum was the number three ranking Republican in the party. Santorum and Allen both had Presidential ambitions. Family Research Council and Focus On The Family are the most politically influential of dominionist organizations.
It's not against the law in this country to be involved in a religion or belief other than Christianity, but if you listen to what these people spew, you'd think it was. I don't knock Christians ever, but I do knock ones with this agenda!
Posted by on August 24, 2007 10:17 PMCharles B
Just curious. You said Jesus (not Christ).
Are you saying that you believe that the prophesied Messiah has not yet manifested Himself or that Jesus lived but was not the prophesied Christ.
You also said that I become emotional..... yes, admittedly so.
I'll say it again...
Religion is nothing more than political agendas masquerading as faith.
Religion is about control.
Faith is about belief.
I have a deep faith in God. I do believe that he planted the seed from which the entire universe and everything in it has grown.
I do not believe that God has a plan for every person. If you believe that, then you must accept that God PLANS for children to suffer and die...that God even plans that some children will never be born. If hurricanes and disease and all the other things that cause humanity to suffer can be dismissed as God's will, then abortion and war and crime should be also.
I believe that God gave birth to the universe and then, like any good parent would, stepped back and let it grow on it's own.
As I said before. I have faith in God. But I REJECT religion. God did not create religon. Man did. Man created religion to oppress, subjugate, control and minimize others.
I also believe that very few people who call themselves religious actually have true faith in God. If they did, they would respect all that he created and cease trying to exclude and exterminate anything and anyone that they find objectionable.
But, I reject religion.
Posted by Thomas on August 24, 2007 11:02 PMskeptical asked:
"Just curious. You said Jesus (not Christ). Are you saying that you believe that the prophesied Messiah has not yet manifested Himself or that Jesus lived but was not the prophesied Christ."
What you offer is a false choice. If Jesus existed- a proposition for which there is scant evidence- then he was mortal.
There has been and will be no "Messiah".
You'll just have to "save" yourself skeptical. I know it's hard not to put the burden of your "salvation" on someone/something else, but once you make the rational decision that you are responsible for your behavior and your conduct in the world it gets easier every day..
Posted by Charles B on August 25, 2007 07:25 AMThomas - Interesting post. I never knew that side of you from reading our previous banters.
My outlook is pretty much the same regarding faith. I was raised in a Chirstian, church going home but have since lost any desire to persue religion although my faith remains strong.
Religion has too many interjections created through various denominations that stray far from what I believe God intended for us.
To me there is never a question of whether or not God exists, but rather, what I can accomplish in my life with this knowledge of his existance.
This outlook also allows me to sleep in on Sundays and catch the morning football games!
Posted by KW on August 25, 2007 08:33 AMTo Brian and to Warner,
I see that we have a lot of people criticizing Christianity and religion generally on this blog. It makes you wonder why they care to participate in a discussion which should be between Christians, really.
Anyway, I'm a former member of the ELCA. I left the denomination in 1996 due to the way they were separating from Scripture already at that time. It's not about "the old ways" and "the new ways." It's about following God's way. Some of my concern had to do with sexuality. Some had to do with the 1993 Re-Imagining Conference which included goddess worship, mocking the Trinity and the blood of Christ, etc. When I read what occurred at the Reimagining Conference, I wept terribly for the church of my youth.
The ELCA for almost two decades now would not be bold enough to take a position on sexuality one way or the other. I think they might be waiting for the conservatives to leave and die out, so they can embrace the liberal theology completely. The term "conservative" does not define someone who says it should be this way because my grandparents did it that way. It defines the person who believes Scripture is complete and authoritative from God. They believe Scripture does not need to be conformed to this world. The ELCA wavered around in "dialouge" about how to interpret God's Word, with the arrogance to think they can discover Scriptural loopholes to divert their Creator's will into their own will. It appears now that they are finally making the politically correct turn.
I think there are many ELCA women who are still active in Re-imagining reunions. Sad heresy if it is so.
Christians should be welcoming, in that they are glad to see people come and hear the Word. Christians cannot, however, embrace what God has called sin, what ever the sin might be. I've struggled with my temper, for instance. I acknowledge it's a sin and repent and ask God to help me resist temptation. That's all He expects of us. To admit we are sinners, seek his forgiveness and turn away from it. As he told the woman who was being stoned, "Go and sin no more." The problem Christians have with homosexuals is not that they are any greater sinner than the rest of them. It's that many homosexuals flaunt it and/or will not take that step and admit their sinfulness and turn from it.
Well, I have to go to a long day at work. I'll check back in the morning.
Posted by Gail K on August 25, 2007 09:56 AM“I believe that God gave birth to the universe and then, like any good parent would, stepped back and let it grow on it's own.” – there you have it, the liberal mentality. No wonder we have so many kids growing up without being able to tell right from wrong. And that’s good parenting? Now you know where this “I can do what ever I want, whenever I feel like it” mentality comes from in many of today’s teenagers. You think about that when you read about the next school shooting, execution style murder, or wonder why every half an hour somebody gets killed in the US.
Posted by Uno on August 25, 2007 10:53 AMGee, OG and Charles, you've got some strange friends here...lol...Charles, are you gonna herd agnostics into those box cars too, for not denouncing God so readily to your liking, or first you gonna start with 156 million Protestants and 70 million Catholics first?
Oh, by the way OG in your beloved Sweden they do have a state established religion, just so you know.
Hello Old Grouch,
I think this discussion is best between Christians, because there are shared points of reference which establish the framework of the issues affecting our faith and life. When someone enters without a common understanding and agreement on the basic tenets of Christianity, it's hard for either party to avoid the "I'm right your're wrong" defensive position. I don't want to put you on the defense with my answers. I will do my best to address your points.
One of the most apparent of your concerns seemed to be about women in the ministry. You would have to ask the ELCA to answer that, because, while there are quite a few Lutheran bodies, I believe the ELCA is the only one which has women ministers.
Now, to the top of your post. I didn't make "assumptions." I made assertions. When I assume something, I speak and write in a more passive tone. I would say, "I think..." this is so.
I am not concerned whether people consider my faith superstitious.
You said,
"You insist that they must accept your superstitions - about themselves and the rest of the world - and when they won't, you blame them for refusing to abandon the truths of science and intelligent research."
Here, I am assuming that by "they" you mean homosexuals. It's so hard to broadbrush people like that Old Grouch. I just don't like to do that. I am sure there are a large number of homosexuals who have no problem with the Christian view of homosexuality. There are Christian homosexuals, and non-Christian homosexuals. There are Christian and non-Christian alcoholics, liars, etc. The difference, as the old bumper sticker goes, is that Christians (by any other brand) are saved.
Now, regarding laws and statutes, personally, I believe in a Laissez-faire government, which needs to stay out of the bedroom, (and out of my wallet.) Employers should have the decision whether or not to offer insurance, etc. People are free to boycott, quit, etc. I hate cigarettes, can't stand them, gag and get watery eyes whenever I smell them lit up anywhere close to me. I wish nobody smoked. But I voted against the tax, because I felt it was just the right thing to do. You have the freedom to boycott the "Jesus Business."
I hope this clarifies my position for you.
Uno said:
"Charles, are you gonna herd agnostics into those box cars too, for not denouncing God so readily to your liking, or first you gonna start with 156 million Protestants and 70 million Catholics first?"
Don't project your genocidal fantasies onto me.
Is anyone around here quite as stupid as you Uno? An American and Keith don't even rise you your level.
Posted by Charles B on August 26, 2007 12:15 AMUno also said:
"No wonder we have so many kids growing up without being able to tell right from wrong."
What's your excuse?
Posted by Charles B on August 26, 2007 12:19 AMUno,
Yes, I am fully well aware they have a State Religion. Back some 60+ years ago, they had a status of Peace and Communion with a number of the Christian Patriarchates as well. That went down the drain when the then Archbishop of Upsala decided to ordain women. But, what does that have to do with anything here?
Gail K,
Sorry. I was using the generic "you", not a personal one. As for points of reference, I have some 70+ years during which I have had opportunity to study - and to belong to - religion. As Uno pointed out, I am often using Sweden as an example in other postings, a "Lutheran" country to all surface purposes.
I am more than well aware of Luther's position, that the soul is merely a dungheap, before accepting HIS version of what the Christian faith ought to be. (Which, in the end, is not altogether his anyway; since most of Lutherism is based on Melanchthon, and those with a far greater understanding of Theology than Luther had.)
As to the matter of women. It is only one of the major areas in which the inconsistency of Lutherism - and all the rest of the Je$u$ Bu$ine$$ as well - is apparent. And, while Missouri and Wisconsin Synods do reject the idea of "ordaining" women, the ELCA is the largest Lutherite group in the U.S.A.
So, I do ask, how is it that you (Lutherites) call homosexuality a "sin" - and refuse to allow homosexuals to become ministers in the group - while at one and the same time flying in the face of a specific Scriptural passage concerning women blathering in the chruches, where that is called a "shame" - in Greek, synonymous with "sin"?
Your personal right to regard something - anything - as "sin", is, of course, your own. And your personal belief system is not open to debate. But, when a body/group that calls itself "christian", and claims to be the ONE that correctly presents the mythology book - indeed, the ONE that "restored it to use, and its proper place in christianity" - and then, in the general spirit of "make it up as you go along" Protestantism picks and chooses its "rules and regulations", I certainly feel that there are some legitimate questions to be answered.
In general, then - with the generic "you" in use - the assumption that homosexuality is a "sin" is, basically a superstition. It is a superstition that is founded upon a few verses in a mythology book, which same mythology book has other "sins" listed in it as well. To insist upon segregating, and discriminating, in dealing with a group, on the basis of a superstitions assingment of "sin" to them, while at one and the same time allowing another group - equally designated as "sinful" (shame) - to preach, teach, and propogate the segregation and discrimination is, simply, hypocricy.
But, hypocircy is the root, foundation, and general practice of the Je$u$ Bu$ine$$ as a whole. So, what's new?
And, what you call "the Christian view of homosexuality" is nothing more than an assumption that the mythology book superstition concerning it is an absolute, which absolute the homosexual person must accept; and one that society as a whole must also take on faith. Which assumption of a superstition I challenge, by way of the well documented facts concerning sexual orientation as presented over the years From Sigmund Freud all the way through to today's writers in psychology.
Again, with the generic "you" in use, it is a matter of simple fact that Lutherism - as with the rest of the Je$u$ Bu$ine$$ insists that homosexuals must accept the superstition that their lifestyle is nothing more than "sin"; and that as such, they are not entitled to the rights that those of "superior morals" - i.e., those who believe in the assumed superstition - have. And, when people of good common sense reject this kind of superstitious nonsense, Lutherism, as with the rest of the Je$u$ Bu$ine$$, acts to denegrate them, and insofar as possible, deprive them of whatever rights they do presently enjoy.
Now, your personal membership in whatever branch of Lutherism you are a member is not at issue. But, since you decided to jump into the discussion with your presentation of "sin", you are open to such reply as anyone might give on the subject.
And, in closing, I might ask, concerning your sentence about the bumper sticker: "Saved" from what? Or is that just another assertion of a superstitious assumption?
You, personally, are certainly entitled to choose whatever form of entertainment you want on Sunday morning, as you pays your money and makes your choice of which road you will use to get to whatever pie in the sky bye and bye you feel there is to enjoy. No one would deny that. And I hope you have a lot of fun on the way.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 26, 2007 07:56 AM“Is anyone around here quite as stupid as you Uno? An American and Keith don't even rise you your level.” –thanks, Charles, coming from you, that’s a compliment.
I’m not the anti-religion fanatic here, you are. I believe that Christians in this country do far more good than bad. So, you think that there is no God. Do you have evidence of that? Atheists like you believe that humans evolved over time from a lower life form, a freak of nature, I believe that we are more than that, even you Charles.
Well, OG, I’m being an agnostic does not stop me from trying to understand why some religions teach certain things. You’re an intelligent man OG, that’s why I find some of your reasoning puzzling. You think that homosexuality is normal. In simple terms, you are here with us because you had a mother and a father, and not because you had two fathers. There is nothing complicated about this. That’s why some religions claim that two men together is unnatural. It takes one man and one woman to produce an offspring, thus the marriage between one man and one woman to take care that offspring. Once again this is basic stuff. A healthy stable productive society is built on these foundations. If you don’t follow these basic rules, that’s when you end up with the mess we have today, like most children born out of wedlock and commitment in the inner cities, producing nothing but generations of children in misery, high crime rate and the endless reliance on government handouts. There is nothing normal about homosexuality, or having 6 wives or husbands, or producing kids from 5 different fathers.
Posted by Uno on August 26, 2007 08:51 AMUno stated:
"I’m not the anti-religion fanatic here, you are."
You're the one who reacted to my views on religion by accusing me of wanting to facilitate a pogrom against 200 million+ Americans.
Wouldn't that be like me saying that you want to send the 20 million+ Americans who are homosexuals to the ovens?
You should rescind your libelous statement or support it with evidence.
"So, you think that there is no God. Do you have evidence of that?"
Have you heard the one about the teapot?
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”-Bertrand Russell
You're the one asserting that there is a God, therefore the burden is on you to prove a positive, not on me to prove a negative.
"Atheists like you believe that humans evolved over time from a lower life form, a freak of nature, I believe that we are more than that, even you Charles."
So you don't believe in evolution?
Need I offer anymore proof of your profound stupidity?
Posted by Charles B on August 26, 2007 09:27 AMI once had a friend tell me that she looked forward to Heaven to be with her grandparents. I asked her "how will you recognize them" Well she said "I certainly know what they look like" and I reminded her that they were 60-70 when she knew them. In Heaven they will choose old bodies? I don`t think so. Everyone will want to be 16. And women who had unknown miscarriages will have tiny little zygotes waiting to spend eternity with them. Will God give those cell clusters adult bodies and brains? Will they get knowledge of civilization and humans without ever living?
To lump sexuality that is not forced with liars, alcoholic etc. is why we hate religion. For what it teaches.
To most Christians, sin=sex.
Homosexuality is as normal as those few people who are asexual, never marry, never have sexual desire. All part of the continuum, because sexual desire, love and sexual relations are individual needs and differ for each person.
And no I am not talking about criminal sexual acts of rape, pedophilia etc.
When religions stop teaching divisiveness and hatred toward others, maybe some of us will respect it more.
And when religious people stop trying to make laws for the rest of us, based on their myth, boy that will be wonderful.
That Old Testament mentioned many abominations, funny the Christians dumped all that and hung on for dear life to the homosexual one.
The folks who made up the Biblical stories and told them to each other around campfires, were sheep and goat herders, wandering in the desert when other civilizations were progressing. These landless pastoral folks had wonderful imaginations.
When the stories were finally written down, in many languages, they became even more fantastical. The Ark, The Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve. Wow, how can a thinking person not believe this stuff. A talking snake, a devil so powerful God can`t manage him, oh sorry, forgot God lets `ol Satan exist to tempt us.
Skeptical, glad to have you back.
Charles, you should know by now that calling me names not gonna work, but it is fun, and you know I’m gonna pay you back. Neither does your teapot theory. I don’t have to go out in space to see that there is more to life than just a series of accidents and statistically impossible events, which created it. That you always throw the burden of proof back at people, to me is only an indication of incompetency on your part. I provided you with proof, by saying “Atheists like you believe that humans evolved over time from a lower life form, a freak of nature”, and you come back with some weak question like “So you don't believe in evolution?”, I’ll clarify this for you, since you’re too lazy to use your own brain cells. That animals adjust to their surroundings and “evolve”, yes I do believe, that life it’s self was stated by a lighting strike, no I don’t, that we evolved somehow from an amoeba (or whatever the latest atheist claim is) into intelligent human beings, no I don’t. You cold gather up the worlds greatest minds a scientists with unlimited budget, and they still couldn’t produce even a single insect from scratch. It would always be missing that unexplainable thing some calls life force.
Posted by Uno on August 26, 2007 10:23 AMHey Sharon, I love your posts, I can tell now when I start to read one that it is yours, I dont always agree with you, in fact at one point, we disagreed vehemently about abortion, but I like your intelligence and you stand up for what you believe in. Thanks for your great posts about religion, I totally agree with you.
Posted by KJ on August 26, 2007 11:29 AMSharon, you make some good points, some of them is part of the reason why I’m not religious, like heaven and hell, and the way it’s applied. There is no question that some parts of any religion is, by design, exists to control people, and spook them into believing in things. But, it does not mean that there is nothing positive in them. In fact the positives far outweighs the negatives. But the negative gets the attention.
I do find this comment puzzling “And when religious people stop trying to make laws for the rest of us, based on their myth, boy that will be wonderful.” – if it was true, abortion would be illegal, homosexuals would be in jail (just like in the Soviet Union) or hanged (like in Iran), but it’s not true is it? Also, doesn’t “trying to make laws for the rest of us” applies to all groups of like minded people? What do you think gun control groups, anti-death penalty groups and countless of others is all about?
Homosexuals got the spotlight because that’s what they where seeking. One doesn’t have to be religious to realize that we already on a slippery slope downwards when it comes to out of control crime, drug abuse, single parenthood, invasion by illegal aliens, children runaways, or kidnapped to be raped, tortured, killed. Shifting the focus and resources from fixing these problems first, to homosexual marriage is a waste, and shouldn’t even be part of the discussion. It’s dividing, controversial and not gonna lead to any quick resolution. There are more pressing issues to deal with, and should be higher priority than two men’s or woman’s ceremonial marriage supported by the state, just so they can get a divorce too, just to add to the already bad statistics of conventional marriage. Besides, sex between two men is sick.
Thank you KJ. These posts can be a real eye opener. I wish no woman ever felt she needed an abortion. I would love to see a way for all unwanted babies to have homes. I also would like to thank the socialist in our country who make WIC ADC and other programs possible so that young mothers can have, and raise their children. if only they had the luxury to be stay at home moms without so much condemnation.
Uno you spend a lot of time on a subject you seem to think we spend too much time on.
Because of the Christian religion, homosexuality and sodomy were illegal until overturned by the Supremes.
Birth control was not legal, businesses had to close on Sunday. I could go on and on but each law has been struck down or is in the process of being eliminated.
Among your list of bad things was single parenthood. Anthropologists list a family, humans included: A female and her dependant offspring. No mention of males. They are add ons from evolution and society.
Uno, do you think anal sex, male and female is sick? How about oral?
Think about that one.
Uno, children often run away from homes where they are physically or sexually abused.
Two thousand years ago, if a man wanted to rape children, he could buy them on the slave market all over the World. We have made amazing progress.
Have a nice Sunday Uno and KJ.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 26, 2007 12:18 PMSharon, please, who are you kidding?
“I also would like to thank the socialist in our country who make WIC ADC and other programs possible so that young mothers can have, and raise their children.” – right, we’ll just pay those welfare queens who have 5 different kids from that many fathers, removing all responsibility from both parties. Is it what it’s all about? Removing responsibility? One also wonders why you’re a staunch supporter of a fatherless system. May be you hate man for one reason or another, I don’t know. I assume from your tone, that to you single motherhood is equals to or better that a mother and father. That’s where we disagree.
There are producers and there are takers. I dislike takers, it’s a negative impact and they most often abuse it, taking advantage of the human compassion in all of us.
Uno most unwed moms have just one baby. Where did I talk about removing responsibility?
Calm down, re-read what I wrote. It is easy to find my opinions from my observations. I don`t support a fatherless system and I don`t support dead beat dads.
Every kid should have a mother, father, nice home, insurance and be Episcopalians and have all 4 grandparents living. Okay?
If not, then how do those not aborted children of unwed moms live? Make mom work? Let her stay home like middle class moms.
The original letter was about "personhood"
Well, that would turn every miscarrage into a crime scene investigation. There are many ways to cause a miscarrage. Any baby born with a problem, could be the moms fault, must have the police in on this.
Uno, how about answering my other questions and talk about the other things I wrote.
I hate violent men who hurt children and women. Okay? Don`t you/
Posted by Sharon B. on August 26, 2007 01:35 PMUno said several really dumb things:
Re: Bertrand Russels "Celestial Teapot" analogy:
"I don’t have to go out in space to see that there is more to life than just a series of accidents and statistically impossible events, which created it (life)."
So basically, you're saying proof isn't necessary for you to "know" something.
I guess that says it all...
Regarding my penchant for wanting proof of outlandish claims before embracing them:
"That you always throw the burden of proof back at people, to me is only an indication of incompetency on your part."
Yes, I throw the burden of proof upon those who make assertions. Just like in a court of law, where the burden of proof is on those who are asserting an individuals guilt.
Regarding his misunderstanding of the word proof:
"I provided you with proof (that evolution isn't responsible for human life), by saying “Atheists like you believe that humans evolved over time from a lower life form, a freak of nature”
Time to crack open a dictionary and look up "proof".
Displaying his ignorance regarding the theory of evolution:
"That animals adjust to their surroundings and “evolve”, yes I do believe, that life it’s self was stated by a lighting strike, no I don’t, that we evolved somehow from an amoeba (or whatever the latest atheist claim is) into intelligent human beings, no I don’t."
Do you know the difference between science and atheism? Have you ever studied the theory of evolution? Why do you conflate evolution with a theory that life was started by a lightening strike?
What is consistent in all your nonsensical statements is that you haven't taken any time to study the subjects upon which you expound, yet you claim to know enough about them to pass judgment on their validity.
This epitomizes the difference between me and you. I embrace my ignorance and understand that there are things I simply don't or can't know. You claim to know things to be true without even a shred of evidence, and even claim that you don't need evidence. You just "know" things.
And then this hairbrained pile of crap:
"You cold gather up the worlds greatest minds a scientists with unlimited budget, and they still couldn’t produce even a single insect from scratch. It would always be missing that unexplainable thing some calls life force."
I reprint the above words, because they are all the evidence anyone should require of your basic ignorance.
And meanwhile, you go on "knowing" things without proof, and science goes about trying to explain the "unexplainable".
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8R4H0Q00&show_article=1
...
Posted by Charles B on August 26, 2007 02:39 PMHey Charles B. I have often heard it said that humans, especially scientists can`t create life. Well, God can`t create polyester either.
What God in his or her right mind would create Pop Tarts?
Posted by Sharon B. on August 26, 2007 02:59 PMOK, Sharon, here is my answers:
“Uno you spend a lot of time on a subject you seem to think we spend too much time on.” – yes, I do.
“Because of the Christian religion, homosexuality and sodomy were illegal until overturned by the Supremes.” – correct. So, Christians don’t rule after all. And, I assume there are plenty of Christians who didn’t follow their own rules anyway.
“Uno, do you think anal sex, male and female is sick? How about oral?” – I thought about that one, long and hard (just kidding!), no I don’t. Only between two or more guys. I just find it repulsive, and don’t think it should have state sanction. Other than that I think gays can do whatever they want, out of sight.
“Uno, children often run away from homes where they are physically or sexually abused.” – I know, and the law must do something about that. No children should be terrorized.
“Two thousand years ago, if a man wanted to rape children, he could buy them on the slave market all over the World. We have made amazing progress.” – unfortunately I have to disagree with you on this. The slave market you mentioned is alive and well, especially in some Asian countries and even in Mexico. The only difference is, it’s been driven underground.
“Uno most unwed moms have just one baby.” – I don’t know this to be a fact, it appears that there are way too many with more than one. In some areas the unwed motherhood is well over half (61% ?) and climbing, I find it alarming.
“Any baby born with a problem, could be the moms fault, must have the police in on this.” – drug and alcohol abuse by a pregnant woman is against the law. The murder of a pregnant woman is double-homicide, so ruled in several cases.
Uno,
You are presuming that just because I - or anyone else for that matter - "came from a mother and a father", that ALL sexual choice is supposed to be limited to procreative activity. This is, indeed, a doctrine in some religions, evolved from a development of Aristotle's philosophical principles of metaphysics, wherein that which was usual and customary became also defined as "natural/normal"
Aristotle made certain fixed statements - which in and of themselves became accepted as "absolutes" on how things were and are. One of these was that the ATOM was the smallest particle that was to be found anywhere in "Nature".
Now, if you wish to hold to that idea, along with other Aristotelian "definitions", as being the basis upon which reality is to be determined today, I certainly cannot deny your right so to do. On the other hand, I find that the quark, meson, proton, electron, etc., are far more matters of FACTS concerning micro-particles than Aristotle's position. But then again, I don't mix superstition and science.
Your right to a religious belief, that homosexuality is, somehow, not "natural", or not "normal", based as it is on premises long disproved by scientific study, is your own. And as you state that this is your belief system, you have made the position un-debateable.
Orgasmic partner preference has been the subject of scientific study for quite a bit over a Century now; and since science does not begin with pre-conceived assumptions designed to arrive at fore-ordained conclusions, the matter of normal/natural is studied in the context of that which pertains to the reality of what a nature - any and all "natures" - can do, and does; and the doing, and having done is then also "normal" to the nature - in potential - though not always put into actin or practice by individuals. Thus, there is a conflict between the totally unscientific use of superstitious assumptions to define "what ought to be" both the behavior and the individual behaving, and the scientific method of working from the evidence as such.
Neither agnosticism nor religion is at issue here. Additionally, what is at issue is the equally unsuported assumption that what you call a "stable society" depends upon holding to the un-examined superstitions as absolutes, and necessary for its existence. Science opposes that position, since the matter IS one of human growth, development, and learning. Thus, the matter of "stable society" is a part of the application of learning to human growth and development. Or, in other words, the concept of "stable society" is always open to the addition of knowledge and evidence; and is not fixed upon previous superstitious assumptions.
That the evidence plainly shows that homosexuality is perfectly normal and natural in a marked percentage of humans is merely a matter of simple fact. That such normality and naturality has a negative effect on "stable society" is nothing more than a supserstitious presumption, without basis in fact.
I have given citations before. The books are there. The scientific papers are there. The evidence is there. And, as I have also said before, those who do not want to learn, won't.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 26, 2007 03:56 PMCharles, you dug yourself a hole and try to claw your way out of it by trying to be insulting, an old strategy usually used in kindergarten and by those who just lost an argument.
That you basically ignore everything around you is a personal problem you have to deal with, Charles.
You said “I don't believe in "God" CC, therefore, your little theory doesn't make sense does it?” – it sounds like a statement of fact to me, Charles, you don’t believe in something so everyone else who does so must be automatically wrong.
Than you backpedal “I embrace my ignorance and understand that there are things I simply don't or can't know.” – well, if you don’t know or can’t know than why are you arguing about it one way or another?
Poor little Uno, completely at a loss for anything to say that wasn't a steaming pile of horse sh*t, could only come up with this feeble bit of nonsense:
"You said “I don't believe in "God" CC, therefore, your little theory doesn't make sense does it?” – it sounds like a statement of fact to me, Charles, you don’t believe in something so everyone else who does so must be automatically wrong."
Here's what "CC" had said that drew the response from me that Uno quoted:
"I am sorry that you blame God for some hurt in your life.... "
The question is, how much more of this public humiliation can Uno take without actually, you know, learning something?
Posted by Charles B on August 26, 2007 05:05 PMGrumpy, Charles B.!----Here I am thinking I’ll be hugging you guys in heaven. Our differences put aside in the presence of our Glorious Savior. The hilarious part is your belief you determine your everlasting destiny (even if it is the cold, hard ground). The journey to faith can be circuitous. Embrace the journey! All will bow! That includes us. Man, I’m hoping the two of you do it willingly.
Posted by kobetabber on August 26, 2007 05:25 PMOld, I don’t remember ever saying that all sexual activity must be limited to pro-creation. I did however said “I just find it repulsive, and don’t think it should have state sanction. Other than that I think gays can do whatever they want, out of sight.” – looks like you find it necessary to put words in my mouth, and claim things I’ve never said, just to try prove your self right.
I’m not gonna be held accountable for what Aristotle said, I can think on my own, thank you. If he believed that the earth was flat, that’s his problem.
Than you said something funny “science does not begin with pre-conceived assumptions designed to arrive at fore-ordained conclusions” – really? And here I thought that to be accurate, you have to make assumptions based on history and experience. For example, when scientist developed the supercollider, they didn’t have a clue as to what to expect? Now, that’s great, just what I wanted to hear today.
And this, “That the evidence plainly shows that homosexuality is perfectly normal and natural in a marked percentage of humans is merely a matter of simple fact.” – just what evidence is that? In a statistical analysis 3%-4% of something is anything but “normal”.
Forgot to sign above
Posted by Uno on August 26, 2007 05:29 PMUno, thanks for the answers. I think fat people having sex is repulsive. We all have our hangups.
Sorry to make you think so much about male/female alternative sex. hope it didn`t upset your day.
Later.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 26, 2007 05:49 PMSharon, that’s all right we guys think about it ..well…a lot. Upset my day? lol Not. Charles try to ruin my day, hasn’t worked yet. Right, Charles?
Later..
Uno:
Here's a simple explanation for you, since you have trouble understanding even the simplest problems of logic:
CC says I blame "God" for the hurt in my life.
I'm an atheist, so I don't believe "God" exists.
I point this out in response to CC, as in: How could I blame a "God" that I don't think exists, for some "hurt" in my life?
From that you extrapolate: "it sounds like a statement of fact to me, Charles, you don’t believe in something so everyone else who does so must be automatically wrong."
Not at all what I meant, or even what it "sounds like" to anyone who isn't as thick as you apparently are..
Then you come back with "You said you didn’t believe in God, now how far is that from saying that there is no God?" Which of course, has nothing to do whatsoever with what CC said, or what my response to CC was.
There's also the fact that you simply move on and forget about all the other idiocies you've littered this thread with (including implying that I want all Christians killed) once they are exposed for- yes- the steaming pile of horsesh*t that they truly are.
And by the way about your continual insinuations that I want to date you, It doesn't bother me in the least that you would imply that I'm gay. I don't think there's anything wrong with being gay, so it's hardly and adequate insult now is it? It still smacks of you protesting just a little too much, some sort of projection or transference.
You think men having sex is icky, and should be kept out of sight right? So how many acts of public sex have you witnessed Uno? It's already illegal to have sex in public, be it gay or straight sex, so what exactly are you lobbying for anyway? The status quo?
Posted by Charles B on August 26, 2007 06:48 PMCharlie
From your link above:
"Bedau figures there are three major hurdles to creating synthetic life:
—A container, or membrane, for the cell to keep bad molecules out, allow good ones, and the ability to multiply.
—A genetic system that controls the functions of the cell, enabling it to reproduce and mutate in response to environmental changes.
—A metabolism that extracts raw materials from the environment as food and then changes it into energy. "
Seems like they need a better architect or master builder to overcome the quandaries...
Posted by on August 26, 2007 06:54 PMCharles, you are full of contradicting statements, that’s why your logic is hard to follow.
With one breath you said:
“As far as the following being a scientific basis for the existence of "ghosts":
"There is scientific basis for ghosts (energy can be neither created nor destroyed and as such the energy of human life needs to exist on another plane)."
No, it isn't.”
Than you said, addressed to me:
“This epitomizes the difference between me and you. I embrace my ignorance and understand that there are things I simply don't or can't know. You claim to know things to be true without even a shred of evidence, and even claim that you don't need evidence. You just "know" things.”
One can only conclude from the exchanges above that you are either an expert in the non-existence of ghosts, or a liar.
Another time you said:
“There has been and will be no "Messiah".” – once again a statement of what you believe to be true, and certainly doesn’t read like you embraced your ignorance, it’s more like you disregarded your own ignorance, and try to come across as a know it all expert, doing the same thing you accused me of doing with.
Uno,
My apologies. You stated your belief system concerning individual behavior; and included the way in which you also believe how what you refer to as a "stable society", is totally bound up in adherance to your beliefs about individual behavior.
My error was in misunderstanding that total interconnection, and interdependent relationship, of the belief-system's concept of the "nature" and "normalcy" of individual behavior as being not just definitive of the individual, but of the whole concept of "stable society" as well.
Your opinions and beliefs are noted accordingly. And again, I apologize for my error in attempting dialogue on matters of belief.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 26, 2007 08:12 PMI'm guessing it was Uno who said:
"Seems like they need a better architect or master builder to overcome the quandaries..."
Or just more time and study....
Posted by Charles B on August 26, 2007 08:13 PMWhen facism comes to this country, it will come wrapped on a flag and carrying a bible.
Some would say it's already here.
Posted by shaupeen on August 26, 2007 08:25 PMUno:
Re: Me being a know it all, and my supposed contradictions.
There are certain propositions so self-evident, and other propositions so lacking in any kind of supporting evidence, that all a sane person can do is live their lives based on certain assumptions.
For instance: There has never been a scintilla of credible evidence for the existence of ghosts, therefore I live my life under the assumption that ghosts don't exist.
There is ample evidence that evolution happens, therefore I live life under the assumption that it does.
When I say I embrace my ignorance, that doesn't mean that I wander around not taking an educated stance on anything, but rather, that I leave open the possibility of having my mind changed based on new evidence.
Whereas you seem to have made your mind up about everything, and childishly cling to your beliefs despite contravening evidence.
Posted by Charles B on August 26, 2007 08:26 PM“Whereas you seem to have made your mind up about everything” – that’s not a description of an Agnostic, is it Charles?
“childishly cling to your beliefs despite contravening evidence.” – contravening evidence, which you failed to provide?
I have to turn in, good night, later..
Posted by Uno on August 26, 2007 08:59 PMDo you believe in HELL? cause thats where all you atheists are going. It doesnt really matter if you believe in it or not, cause the truth is the truth. They recorded voices from hell on some expedition in Siberia where they were digging deep holes (deeper than 2000ft)in the late 70s. SOME atheists may find back their way to GOD and GOD may forgive them. The OTHERS are damned and SATAN WILL FEAST ON THERE SOULS!!!!
Posted by on August 26, 2007 09:08 PMOld Grouch, I’ve just read your reply too, you are a gentlemen.
Good night.
There's no need to take care of the planet. We are living in the end days. Any day now, Jesus is coming back. I doubt that God could have so badly designed our beautiful planet in such a way that it wouldn't last us. Global Warming is just scientific babble designed to get our minds off Jesus.
Just wait until you get to Hell. THEN the real fun starts- but not for you! There are no trees to hug and there is none of your "happy pills" that you take to escape the truth of DEATH! None of that is in HELL! repent HARD! Be for GOD or...YOU'LL BE SORRY!!!!!!!!! You have been warned. Now GET THEE TO JESUS AND BE IN HIS GLORY !!!!!!!!!"
Posted by on August 26, 2007 09:21 PMNo trees in Heaven? But I thought all dogs go to Heaven, boy will they be disappointed. Oh, wait, he said no trees in Hell. Well, that makes sense, they burned them all.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 26, 2007 10:03 PMUno had one last mild retort:
"“Whereas you seem to have made your mind up about everything” – that’s not a description of an Agnostic, is it Charles?"
No, it's a description of you.
Posted by Charles B on August 26, 2007 10:17 PMAnonymous thumper:
Either you're taking the piss, or you need mental help.
So you're either funny to laugh with or at.
"Preacher man'll tell ya, heaven is not on the earth. I know he don't know, what life is really worth..."Posted by Charles B on August 26, 2007 10:21 PM-Bob Marley
Ye have been warned...we shall pray for your eternal souls in the hope that ye finite minds see the light.
Posted by on August 26, 2007 10:49 PMHi again Old Grouch,
Wow! The number of comments have doubled here since I last commented - to you - on Sat. night at 10:55.
Right, Philip Melanchton & Luther were buds. I'm sure they had a rich and intellectual relationship. Can you imagine sitting in with them at one of "Luther's Table Talks?"
The ELCA is indeed the largest Lutheran synod. It's the result of a merger of a few synods in 1987.
You asked,
So, I do ask, how is it that you (Lutherites) call homosexuality a "sin" - and refuse to allow homosexuals to become ministers in the group - while at one and the same time flying in the face of a specific Scriptural passage concerning women blathering in the chruches, where that is called a "shame" - in Greek, synonymous with "sin"?
I announced in my first comment that I have not been a member of the ELCA since 1996. If you google the ELCA, maybe their website will provide answers to women in the ministry. Lutheran synods which don't accept homosexual ministers also do not allow those who have a history of other sexual misconduct. They will also suspend from the ministry any Pastor who has fallen into sin such as alcoholism, etc.
If you're not interested in my personal understanding, then I wonder why we are having a discussion. You can find out what each church believes by exploring the FAQ at their websites.
Conservative Christians hold the Scripture as infallible and bearing the truth which never fails, nor changes in time. I would consider the liberal church bodies are the ones who like to make things up as they go.
You keep lumping women ministers with homosexuality and that has me repeating myself. Conservative churches agree regarding women in the ministry. The ELCA, while it is the largest single body of Lutherans, is not a representive of all Lutherans, which probably, I'm not sure, I'd have to research the stats, collectively outweigh the ELCA in numbers.
You bring the word hypocrite into the discussion. Lots of people use this to intimidate Christians. Okay, I'll bite. I have personally considered a hypocrite as one who says he believes something, but behaves differently. I know lots of people who fit that definition. There are a lot of chameleons in this world. What I know of my fellow Christians is that they (we) put on a prettier face on Sunday, but their faith is not any different on Monday. The world is a very intimidating place, and it's hard for a Christian to stand up against ungodly behavior and mouthy people at work. That doesn't make us unfaithful to the creeds. I will acknowledge though, that there's probably some degree of hypocracy in each of us. That's why we feel a need to go to worship, to hear God's Word, confess our sins and receive strength from one another.
I did not dispute science. There are people with homosexual orientation. There are people who have problems for which science has no answer, merely an offer of comfort. Proof that it exists in the mind does not pale the truth Christians accept about it being sinful to act upon desires. Jesus said that just looking at a woman lustfully is a sin. Only God knows what desires we have. But acting sinfully is ultimately revealing of our thoughts.
I can't speak for everybody. I know there are bigots in every church. But Christians generally aren't picking on homosexuals more than any other sinner. My first comment was clear about that. The problem some active homosexuals have is that they don't admit they are sinners, repent and turn away from their sin. I am going to continue to repeat myself if you ask about that again.
You asked me - "Saved" from what?
I know you ask that rhetorically, because anybody who's lived in the US or similar culture for several decades knows what that means.
Peace,
Gail
Charles B contradicts himself:
"You're the one asserting that there is a God, therefore the burden is on you to prove a positive, not on me to prove a negative."
Thanks for clarifying the rules CB. Please, do provide the evidence for your follwing assertions:
"I hope not, because he (Jesus) either never existed or he's dead, and who would want a relationship with a corpse?"
"Never existed?" As you would normally cry... "PROVE IT."
"I think it is you who gets emotional when I tell you what I think about Jesus (not Christ)."
"Not Christ?" Once again... PROVE IT!
"There has been and will be no "Messiah".
PROVE IT!"
Either follow the rules you (as self elected rules maker) impose upon any who disagree with you or... STFU!
Now will we see your evidence or (most likely) more superficial hypocracy from the guy who has great faith in believing there's no reason to have faith?
Posted by KW on August 27, 2007 09:47 AMThere's no need to take care of the planet. We are living in the end days. Posted by on August 26, 2007 09:19 PM
O joy! Pass the flesh and blood of the bastard. The end days are here. Holy Genocide is around the corner. It is something said for nearly 2000 years since the bastard (illegitimate son of David and Mary [whom he raped "loins of David"] said six times in the Book of the Demon hi-jacked by Muhammand's fan club and called Qu'ran.
It is so appalling that billions of humans believe in one of nine million gods thus explaining that the difference between them and me is that I have one less god than they.
Deicide Corner: “If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated.”
-- Voltaire
Gail K,
Thank you for your reply.
Perhaps you sum up when you write: "Conservative Christians hold the Scripture as infallible and bearing the truth which never fails, nor changes in time."
So, the Earth is flat. The sun, moon, and stars revolve around it. And people should be stoned to death for - among other things, - wearing mixed polyester-cotton garments, since it is a "sin" to mix fibres, and stoning sinners to death is part of the "infallible . . . truth which never fails, nor changes in time."
Thank you for outlining the belief system upon which you seem to base you postings. It is, indeed, the most common one among those who claim to be the spokes-persons for "christianity".
My only response is, I am long accustomed to the whole make-it-up-as-you-go-along - and individually selective concerning contentious portions of "God's word" and/or "God's LAW" - approach of the Je$u$ Bu$ine$$ (Prote$tanti$m), to every aspect of life.
Belief-systems are, by nature, impossible to debate or discuss. They may be accepted or rejected; but, a matter of belief, as such, has no opening, or allowance, for dialogue on matters of contradiction.
Please accept my apologies for mistaking your postings as being part of the general dialogue.
I would, however, in closing point out that your view that "Christians" are not persecuting homosexuals is totally falacious. It is the "Christian" superstition of homosexuality as being "sin" that lies at the root of the attempt to enshrine a novel superstition in the Constitution of the United States, as well as "Christian" bigotry and hatred that led to the passing of the infamous Amendment 2 in Colorado a while back. Just as it is "Christian" superstition that argues that the secular State will, somehow, tumble down and disappear were people given the right to marry their own gender. And, finally, it is "Christian" superstition that states Christianity regards homosexuality as a "sin". Vide: John Boswell, "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe"; just one among many scholarly texts in history that refutes that idea.
The use of quotation marks is intentional.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 27, 2007 10:18 AMKW,
One of the first axioms of Logic: "It is not possible to prove a negative."
Another axiom of Logic: "The burden of proof for any claim concerning the existence of something lies with the person making the claim."
Charles B, is stating a negative; i.e., that Jesus DID NOT exist.. It is not up to him to "prove", nor can he "prove", in Logic.
You (generic, as to anyone,) are claiming that Jesus DID/DOES exist. The burden of "proof" is yours, in making the claim.
Logic, of course, is used in the REAL world; however much Imagination be preferred in LaLa-Oz-Land; and I do believe that Charles posts - at least most of the time - from reality.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 27, 2007 10:31 AMYou could consider joining a religious group that believes the way you believe. If they don't, why try to change their beliefs? Find one that supports yours'. If you believe in The Great Pumpkin, join those who share that belief. Trying to modify a religion to suit your own tastes dilutes the position of that religion. If you're a Catolic but think bitrh control pills are OK, then you are NOT a faithful Catholic. You're something else. Find some other church or start your own if it's that important to you.
Posted by Stan Broyles on August 27, 2007 10:32 AMIncorrect OG. I didn't make the claim of Jesus existing. Don't have to, that's a historical fact.
CB made the claim He didn't exist and I'm just using his own set of rules back on him.
But if I were to use your line of thinking...
Jesus wasn't the son of mortals.
There, since I used my claim in a negative way, does that absolve me of living by Chas's rule of law?
Posted by KW on August 27, 2007 10:46 AMOnly those parts of the Old Testament that deal with sex have been kept. All the others were abrogated by Jesus, Paul etc. Visions, dreams any old way that worked.
Eat oysters, don`t stone people anymore. No more smiting. If a man has sex with a sheep you don`t have to kill either of them.
Christians are stuck with the Old Testament to validate Jesus. Oh boy do they dismiss all that stuff in Leviticus. And that psalm about how good it feels to bash the heads of the little ones, (children of nonbelievers) on stones.
I, as a woman, can not figure out for the life of me why women want to be part of something that treats them like second class citizens. Lesser than men.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 27, 2007 10:52 AMOld Grouch,
Scripture skeptics are stuck in the same mode, pointing out mixed fibers and stoning, etc., regardless of having been told multiple times by Christians that Mosaic laws were types and foreshadows of Messianic fulfillment. Jesus fullfilled the law. He expects us to continue to honor His commandments.
Can you tell me about your experience with Christians who "make it up as they go" and "selectiveness." Where have you encountered this, what setting, etc.? I can only think of liberal denominations which seem to do this.
You said,
"Belief-systems are, by nature, impossible to debate or discuss."
I agree. I believe that faith is a gift from God. We cannot obtain faith without His graciousness. If we ask, we will receive. The conondrum is that it takes faith to ask for faith. He apparently gifts us with enough faith to notice our lack and ask for it! Romans 10:17 says, "So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ."
Personally, I do have a big problem accepting the prospect of homosexual partnerships as an accepted marital institution. Even so, I don't think the government should dictate theologically inspired laws. IOW, I don't think I would want to live in a theocracy. That would be like living in a Muslim country. Nobody can believe differently without being punished, and for those countries, that means death. The US government should authorize laws regarding safety and health, etc. Establishing a theocracy will not create a nation of true Christians. God would laugh at the idea. He takes people on a one-on-one basis. I am not saved by my parents faith, or my husband's faith. I would not be saved because I live in a "Christian nation." I am saved only my my own faith. Spiritually, each individual will eventually answer to a higher authority regarding his or her own life when the time comes.
Thanks again.
Posted by Gail K on August 27, 2007 10:57 AMKW,
You silly kid.
This was my statement:
"I hope not, because he (Jesus) either never existed or he's dead, and who would want a relationship with a corpse?"
If you could comprehend simple English, you'd know that I never said as an absolute that Jesus didn't exist.
See if you can re-read it a couple dozen times and figure out why...
Posted by Charles B on August 27, 2007 11:35 AMKW also claimed:
"I didn't make the claim of Jesus existing. Don't have to, that's a historical fact."
KW, what evidence do you have for the existence of Jesus as anything more than a mythological figure? I'm not saying he didn't exist, but there is certainly no direct incontrovertible evidence that he did.
Considering the pile of contradictions and idiocy that you know as the New Testament wasn't written until a hundred or so years after Jesus supposedly died, it's hardly and open and shut case.
Posted by Charles B on August 27, 2007 11:43 AMAvoidance won't get you out of this one CB. You can dance around that ONE example but what about the rest you so advertantly side stepped?
Please, do grace us again with your blatant, self-admitted socialist hypocracy.
Posted by KW on August 27, 2007 11:46 AMI think Jesus, in the New Testament told people, probably men, to leave their families and follow him. Literally follow him. Thereby leaving their wives and children to fend for themselves in a cruel world run by Romans.
Most Christians have never heard of the "Messianic Period" have never read the term "Cargo Cult" and have no idea how the books for the Bible, and even the particular translations were included.
They take, not only religion, but all this idea that God made sure the book was done right, on faith. What else?
Many say that it is a historical fact that a particular man named Jesus lived and did each and every thing attributed to him in the NT. The fact that scholars know he was an amalgamation or created from the lives of a number of men, is just dismissed, when they even hear it, as atheist propaganda.
The Dead Seal scrolls told a story of near match for Jesus, but about 100 years earlier.
No one has ever found a shred of evidence that any of this happened.
People were literate at the supposed time of Jesus. No stories that match his life have been found anywhere. Not even close.
But what the hell does truth matter when religion gives so much comfort to believers
that they will kill, discriminate and legislate against others.
Just keep it at home in church and in your heads. Keep it out of our lives.
KW,
You silly little joke.
You're asking me to prove that Jesus (if he existed) wasn't the "Messiah"?
How about this KDubya, prove that I'm not the Messiah, at least you know that I really exist.
Posted by Charles B on August 27, 2007 01:06 PMCB you're just like my favorite scene from Holy Grail.
Run away, run away, run away...
You're somehow just not as entertaining as the Python crew.
But with this amount of rehearsal you just might get there someday.
Posted by KW on August 27, 2007 01:12 PMI always liked Wholly Moses. Where Hershal overhears God and Moses and thinks he, Hershal, will get the Jews out of Egypt. He didn`t see Moses, so naturally he thought God was talking to him.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 27, 2007 01:19 PMKW,
I clearly stated that the use of "you" was generic (as to anyone). That's the common enough short-hand when referring to statements as possibly coming from any source.
Now you - in the specific and particular as yourself - have made the statement that the existence of Jesus is "historical fact". In the matter of Logic, the burden of proof now lies with you, insofar as "existence" be concerned.
Do try to stick to the point once in a while.
Beyond the elements of Logic, the rest of your presentation is so confused as to be unanswerable; since the matter of being the "son of mortals" contrasted with "Charles's rule of law" has no Logical relationship to the matter of the Axioms, nor does it have any Logical foundation, or progression, internally or externally, from the rest of the exposition.
Stan Broyles,
As to your major premise, or point, you are quite right. If one want's to go out and start his own, all he has to do is find an auditorium, and have at it. It's generally called "Protestantism", though I most often refer to it as the Je$u$ Bu$ine$$.
I have no idea what you mean further. I did state that a belief-system is not debateable. It can be either accepted or rejected. From time to time I do point out the internal inconsistencies of a formal system - i.e., that found in a cult - or if one prefers to be always PC, a "Church". But to do so, does not imply any idea that the cult and/or its belief system is open to change, modification, or discourse.
I also point out the perfect right anyone has to hold to, and express, any belief-system - formal cult, or individual - while at one and the same time having NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to attempt to make that, or any other, belief system a part of the law; or to attempt to inflict it upon the citizens of this country by Amendment of any Constitution, Federal or State.
Gail K,
I will answer your question concerning my experience. I happen to have been raised Lutherite. Way back, some 60+ years ago, while attending a Lutherite college, I was informed that it was a "sin" to participate in ballroom dancing; a "sin" to go to a movie, or other form of theatrical performance; a "sin" to drink ANY alcohol other than the little shot-glass of communion wine on Sundays when there was a communion - and that even that was now in the process of being re-considered, in favor of unfermented grape juice - and, that by reason of my failure to acknowledge these "sins", I was inelligible to pursue the pre-Seminary course further. Hardly an experience to be found in one of the "liberal denominations", even as they may have existed in that day and age.
Which is sufficient - at least insofar as I be concerned for myself. (And, just a sort of "by the way", the Lutherite group in which I was raised was one involved in forming ELCA.)
Posted by on August 27, 2007 02:00 PMI can prove Jesus the alleged bastard from the Middle East, a product from the "loins of David" does not exist.
No god as cruel as Jehovah, Allah or Jesus Christ can be real. The notion of roasting humans for eternity is such a cruel notion it is make-believe. No god can be as cruel as the bastards aforementioned. Richard Grimes r22037@yahoo Deicide, slayer of gods.
Deicide Corner: “. . . [the profession of the Christian faith is] a system of the grossest hypocrisy, a fashionable villainy, a licensed swindle, cheat, and trick. . .
. . . go to church and chapel, you fools, -- listen to the parson, and shut your eyes, and open your mouths, and see what God will send you.
Never was the day, never, in all the tide of time, in which such mighty efforts were made to keep mankind in ignorance; never were any clergy on earth, Pagan or Papistical, so opposed to the diffusion of knowledge, so desperately afraid of it, and so bitterly hostile to it, as the Protestant clergy, both of the established church, and the dissenters of the present day, in this metropolis.” -- Robert Taylor
Posted by RG Risen Ape on August 27, 2007 02:00 PMDoes anybody have a job here besides me?
Posted by Uno on August 27, 2007 06:17 PMTo Old Grouch I think, (anonymous comment addressed to me at 2:00)
That doesn't sound Lutheran, but more like the Old Church Methodist. Even they aren't that strict anymore. Movies, dancing and age-appropriate, non-abusing alcohol have never been wrong, but I'm fiftysomething. Of course, there are Lutheran synods which are far more conservative than the one I'm in. In fact. I think I belong to the second most liberal of them, all others being more conservative.
Sorry for the deprivations in your youth.
Does anybody have a job here besides me?
Posted by Uno on August 27, 2007 06:17 PM
Haahaa! I don't have time to read everybody's posts. I usually only read and respond to those addressed to me. But this short one caught my eye. I just got home. I do 4 tens a week!
The Christian Church is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, who clearly stated who He is and the authority He carried. Further, He stated the importance of the teachings of the prophets and that He did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. The Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is a sin. There is no getting around it. The Lutheran Church is making a great mistake by accepting the practice of sexual perversion in their denomination. This is in clear violation of the teachings of both the Old Testament and the New Testament.
The point of the “letter to the editor” was to lament how this kind of action will affect those who attend this denomination. Liberalism in the Church is a big problem and has led to the demise of many of the mainline denominations. People who have a grasp on Christianity understand that compromising the Word is the business of fools.
Speaking of which, Charles B., Grumpy, and fellow would be Bible interpreters: For everyone’s sake refrain from engaging in this practice at your own peril. It is plainly obvious you know little if anything about Biblical Study, the logical necessity of a self-existent, eternal being, or the role of the Church in the lives of believers. I’m not saying you’re not smart people, let’s just say this has not been your “field of study”. (Without going through each post, the earlier reference to 1st Corinthians 14 demonstrates my point perfectly.) If you persist there are only two possible outcomes: You’ll look like idiots because the Scriptures will be nonsense to you. Or, you’ll become Christians! (Judging from your posts I’m thinking the later.)
Lastly the Bible does not teach that sexual intimacy is a sin. What the Bible teaches is sexual perversion is a sin (among other things).
Posted by kobetabber on August 28, 2007 04:02 AMkobetabber,
Gee, thank you for the warning - about "interpreting the Bible", that is. Perhaps you might be kind enough to tell me just WHICH Bible I should "interpret at . . . peril".
The Bible (assemblage of manuscripts) adopted by the 5th Oecumencial Council; and in constant use by the Christian Church ever since?
The Bible as translated by William Tyndale (sometimes spelled "Tynsdale") - or at least ascribed to him on the title page?
The bowdlerized version of the Christian Church's Bible put forth by Luther, when he rejected several of the books in favor of his own theories of what Christian Faith is "supposed to be"?
The King James Version?
Or, perhaps, the Rheims-Douay, which contains the whole number of books adopted at the Council; but relies more on the Latin translation made earlier by Jerome of Jerusalem than upon the original languages?
The Revised Standard Version?
The Jerusalem Bible?
Which language am I to "interpret at . . . peril"? Aramaic? Koine Greek? Hebrew? And which particular passages in these languages would, perhaps, be of most "peril" to interpret?
And when it comes to the earliest portions of the collected works, which ones should I "interpret at . . . peril": Those from the Massoretic Text, or those from the Septuagint?
And why, with respect to either or both?
Which is the "correct" one?
And what about the Bible used in the Armenian Church, which still has a Gospel of St. Thomas in its Canon?
Oh, just by the way, since - according to you - I am to bewar of "interpreting", what is the "Canon of Scripture"?
Since - as you fantasize so assertively - this "has not been" (my)field of study"; I am certain you will want to enlighten me, by ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS, SONNY!
Starting with the first one, please. Thereby demonstrating your vastly superior knowledge and capabilities in the area.
Oh! Yes! And please do explain just how the reference to 1st Corinthians, 14:34, and part of 35 "demonstrates (your) point perfectly", Sonny. (That is, if you have any "point" at all in what you have written.)
Come on now! You've taken over the pulpit. Show us your stuff. They've filled the star's role down at Haggard's mega-theatre already. But I'm certain there are still openings for an eager young man who wants to become a $ucce$$ in the Je$u$ Bu$ine$$. And you certainly appear to have the chutzpah necessary to do the job.
Posted by Old Grouch on August 28, 2007 08:32 AMOG - The New International Version (NIV) is the easiest to read. Start with that one.
Posted by KW on August 28, 2007 09:26 AMI thought the J.B. Phillips version was easier to read. I guess Old Grouch made his point.
Posted by Stan Broyles on August 28, 2007 10:42 AMThe Gospel or Book of Mary Magdalene. The book of Judas, all newly found or rediscovered. Hidden away so we wouldn`t know about them.
Bishops and political types pretty much put the King James version together.
Ah well, God kept them all on the right path didn`t he?
Koba, ever taken any college cources in Biblical history? Comparative religion?
If you did you might not be a Christian.
Posted by Sharon B. on August 28, 2007 12:35 PMGrumpy- I can't take the time to answer everything but a truncated answer follows: Both the Massoretic and Septuagint are used in nearly every reliable Bible translation. To demonstrate your 1st Corinthian problem you’ll need to look earlier in the Epistle to understand women were very active in the Corinthian Church. A specific problem in the Church at Corinth is being addressed in Chapter 14. Part of the art of Biblical interpretation is the understanding of both the genre and application of the verse(s) being cited. You failed to place the verse in context and did not bridge the “hermeneutical gap”. For a greater understanding of Holy Scripture, I’d suggest attendance at a local Church in the Reformed tradition (hard to find) or a Conservative Baptist Church. I like conservative Churches and I love modern worship. Considering my age I’m not used to being addressed as “Sonny” but thank you.
By the way I’m very proud of New Hope and the expeditious way they handled Ted Haggard.
I believe in Jesus. I believe in the Bible. I believe in creation. I believe in science. I don’t have a problem.
“And God made man out of the dust of the ground.” Life on earth is carbon based. Carbon is created in the interior of stars by fusion out of lighter elements. Some of these stars explode and scatter their carbon throughout the universe in the form of cosmic rays. Carbon cosmic ray dust is constantly striking the Earth as well as everywhere else in the universe. Scientists have used detectors and done the math and the amount of carbon on the crust of the Earth is explainable to the amount that would have struck Earth from outer space over its life span
God created the universe in 6 days. Well everybody knows a day is relative. An earth day is the amount of time the earth rotates on its axis. Time exists dependent to the relative motion of material objects. God, having created matter and being pure consciousness, is not bound by time. Even the Bible says, “A day is a thousand years”, then later, a day is a year, and of course a day is a day, so the 6 days of creation were epochal times probably close to a couple of billion years each, give or take a few hundred million.
“Let there be Light”. Google the “Era of photon decoupling” Basically the early universe was opaque, and then in a relatively short period of time became lighted.
God spoke the universe into existence. This implies the universe had a beginning, might be expanding, may have perturbations that allowed structure to form and might even say something about vibrating string theory (vocal chords). Of course the Universal Consciousness (God) merely willed the universe into existence and it was manifest, but the phrasing and symbolism of the myth of Genesis has wonderful scientific implications and corresponds nicely with current cosmological theories like the well-accepted “Big Bang”
I could go on and on and I will answer any questions anybody has on evolution, free will, consciousness, the meaning of life, religion. Just ask. I don’t claim to be an expert in anything, I just know that everything is explainable by science and reason and that’s why God gave it to us.
Peace and love, everybody come together, all religions and all people unite as one, the Kingdom of God on earth is nigh, get with the program or be ashamed later. Thanks for reading
Anonymous 7:47, are you A Jehovahs Witness?
Sorry to ask if I'm wrong, but I only read your last couple of paragraphs, and I think they're the only ones with "all the answers," and who believe in "God's Kingdom on earth."
Posted by Gail K on August 28, 2007 08:18 PMNo, Gail. I'm not a Jehovah's Witness. Many Christians believe the coming establishment of God's Kingdom on earth. It will follow the final battle between God and Satan.
Besides, Jehovah's Witnesses don't accept Jesus as part of the Godhead. They don't acknowledge the Holy Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
All the answers are revealed in the Holy Scriptures, even promising us the final answers in God's time.
Thank you for asking.
Posted by on August 28, 2007 08:34 PMThanks Anon, I know JW's don't believe in the Trininty, etc. Thanks for your reply.
Posted by Gail K on August 28, 2007 09:20 PMDaily Devotion - Tuesday, August 28, 2007
The Gospel Has No "Ifs"
God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing [not counting] their trespasses unto them.
(2 Corinthians 5:19 KJV)
The young pastor was preaching eloquently. He was exhorting his congregation in all earnestness and no doubt in all sincerity: "If you will put your trust in Christ, He will save you." He went on to use the word if at least three or four times. This makes salvation conditional.
That is not the proper way to present the Christian Gospel. At best, it is misleading. At worst, it can end only in abysmal despair. There is nothing "if" about the way of salvation. The Gospel of Christ does not contain an "if" clause. The Scriptures tell us in a simple, straightforward declarative sentence, "Christ died for our sins." Again: "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing [not counting] their trespasses unto them."
We are not saved if. We are saved because God in His immeasurable mercy sent His Son into the world to die for your sins and for mine. Our salvation is complete. Christ died. He rose again. We can trust this message. Not "if" but because our Lord has said so.
Author: Herman W. Gockel
A word on that final battle with Satan.
Over 50% of all human conceptions end in spontaneous abortion (miscarriage).
All those tiny souls are available to God/Goddess for the final fight.
Also, many fertilized human eggs fail to implant, more souls for G`s side of the war on Satan.
Theoritically, if Satan got every soul that ever lived on Earth, say 40% of all conceptions, God still gets 60% so out does him.
No way Satan can ever win, so why not call off the battle?
If the odds are even worse for Satan, say 70-30, then why does he bother.?
Posted by Sharon B. on August 29, 2007 07:22 AM