 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 09 Dec 11 - 09:13 AM pete, Love thy neighbor. Judge not lest you be judged Show me where Jesus said that there are exceptions to that and you may have a leg to stand on. .it is clear that discernment and evaluations are not excluded in the command not to be judgemental.would you not judge some things to be wrong. Judge not lest you be judged, refers to judging PEOPLE. As in don't beat them to death with stones for prostitution and adultery. Now if you are saying that you "are discerning" about homosexuality but do not judge and would not punish Gays and indeed that you sincerely try to love then and not show your disapproval, then you and I have reached an accord. As to the dispensation. I don't agree with Paul on the subject of women's rights. I don't agree with his sexual prudishness. Do you believe the woman should be the servant of the man? If the answer is no. You are cherry picking Paul. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 09 Dec 11 - 08:51 AM ian-i was assuming nothing about your sexuality except that you would not be offended even if i had. you,on the other hand seem free to make assumptions about me eg-whether i make any examination of my own faults or not. so as you condemn me for my biblical convictions,it seems that i have committed the unpardonable sin of having a christian worldview!. jack-what dispensationists attempt to do is integrate all the bible into a coherent chronology from origins to end times to eternity which includes the different dealings of God in different dispensations.thus i suggest that the charge of "cherry picking" against them is groundless.on the other hand you clearly are cherrypicking, as it is evident that you dont accept NT teaching on this subject of homosexual behaviour[eg romans 1].it is clear that discernment and evaluations are not excluded in the command not to be judgemental.would you not judge some things to be wrong yourself ? as i intimated to ian,that does not mean i dont recognize i have my own failings-but i dont accept that believing the bible is one of them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 09 Dec 11 - 08:18 AM >>Disagreeing with homosexuality or not is your right.<< I think it is his right. "What your neighbour does with his or her friends is really none of your damned business." Doesn't that apply to opinions held as well as sexuality? Who ever you are referring to has a right to his opinion and to express it as much as you have the right to rebut it. I happen to share your opinion. But I can't say that someone else does not have a right to theirs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: Musket Date: 09 Dec 11 - 05:33 AM Yeah, see what you have done? Bridge rushing (his words) to agree with me! Whoever said the bible didn't bring people together? Mind you, look back and you will see the only reason my sexuality was brought up was that this pete from seven stars bloke seemed to infer that if I said anything complimentary about Gays, there must be a reason for it. It just gets better and better. I always liked Michael Gambon's answer when he was asked about his sexuality. He said he had tried being Gay but he had to give it up as it made his eyes water. I used to sing (and have recently started singing again for no main reason, just think it's a song to be heard) Si Khan's "Curtains of Old Joe's House." My favourite line, although a bit preachy, is "So before you start to criticise the lives that others lead, take a good look in the mirror and be sure of what you see." My experience of our more evangelical brethren is that they are sure of what they see. I recall a thread recently where bigotry was being defined. So here's a belated candidate. Me? I am never sure and seem able to change my mind and support a view that the other day seemed alien to me. See Bridge? Hope for me yet. Although... I'll still take a coffee up to my counting house if it is alright with you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: GUEST,999 Date: 08 Dec 11 - 08:33 PM Disagreeing with homosexuality or not is your right. Just as is disagreeing with heterosexuality, non-sexuality or tri-sexuality. (I'm not sure if tri-sexuality is a real word, but on this thread that likely doesn't matter.) What your neighbour does with his or her friends is really none of your damned business, with the caveat that the parties are of legal age, mostly of sound mind (that sort of thing). Because laws were written and established millenia ago does not mean they pertain today, and the authority of THE CHURCH has waned over the ages--rightfully or not rightfully, your MMV. Tell me why common law marriage between heterosexuals is now recognized by the state (and under law also), but 'common law' is NOT under the law in the case of alternate arrangements? Sounds like Greek democracy to me. Good for some, but NOT all. (I'd like all people to be free, but only within the boundaries we've established. (?? And by who, whom, what and just when were we given this right?)) Clinton is expressing the policy as given to her by her employers--the people elected to ensure the warm shit keeps steaming. Love is not guided by policy, it is decided by inclination, stuff that happens between hears and souls, and social circumstance. I don't mind disagreements--they are part of life and so they happen. But pronouncements about right and wrong based on the writings of ANYONE thousands of years ago have little utility today. Good to think about and consider, but some of you are treating it as though it was the last word!. Fuck, since when? People holding the Bible in one hand and an olive branch in the other will be seen as people holding a book in one hand and an olive branch in the other. People holding two Bibles will be seen as people who have two books and no olive branch. Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances. Tell y'all what: I won't come back from Mt Sanai if y'all don't talk shit. BM |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 08 Dec 11 - 06:23 PM What the dispensationalists are doing, from my point of view at least, and pete can include himself in that group or not as he pleases, is cherry picking the Bible for the parts they agree with. I see it another way. Jesus said, "Love thy neighbor." So I am trying to love my neighbor. He said "judge not, lest you be judged." So I am trying not to judge. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: GUEST,Ebor_Fiddler Date: 08 Dec 11 - 06:08 PM And the odd thing about the "Race" argument, put forward as if all Christians despised black people, is that the fastest growing area for the faith is in Africa! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: Richard Bridge Date: 08 Dec 11 - 08:23 AM Very confusing - I have no idea of Mither's sexuality and don't need one - but I RUSH to agree with him. Anyone condemning homosexuality in thought or deed on religious grounds is a loathsome bigot. Human rights are not just for the humans you like or who pray like you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: GUEST Date: 08 Dec 11 - 07:45 AM "Bible obedience" means what? Picking up an ancient translation of an ancient set of texts and assuming that you can use it as a manual of instruction just like that? I can't do that with actual manuals of instruction written this year. Takes a lot of effort and advice to make sense of them, and to learn how to use them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: Musket Date: 08 Dec 11 - 05:39 AM Without commenting on my sexuality Pete.. Fuck you. I suppose what gets my goat, (I'll tether it to the back of your car given the chance) is how you can decorate bigoted intolerance with the odd "bless you" thrown in to look reasonable. It doesn't wash. You distinguish between bible obedience and current law. Is it me, or does anybody else find such comments disturbing? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: frogprince Date: 07 Dec 11 - 07:22 PM No problem, Pete; that's stated fairly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 07 Dec 11 - 03:22 PM hi jack-ijust re-read my post to you and see i did not clearly express what i had in mind-apologies. what i meant was that frogprince had explained that the teaching that is sometimes called dispensationalism accounts for the transistion of how God relates to us in the NT onwards era as distinct from OT times.i had already noted[but evidently not explained clearly enough]that i understood that frogprince was merely providing information, and not affirming the theology involved.i did not imagine that he was answering a challenge or speaking on my behalf . i hope we are clear now . i hope frogprince is not misrepresented at all by the foregoing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 06 Dec 11 - 11:23 PM check out this facebook page. The dude (or dude ette) makes some good points. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: frogprince Date: 06 Dec 11 - 07:43 PM For some people, dispensationalism is simply "true" because they have heard it from their parents, from every Christian teacher they have learned to respect, or both. I was thinking of people like a professor, a PHD, whom I heard tell a story about an American Indian leader who was responsible for the death of a person who was a witch by the definitions of Indian culture. The victim died because the Old Testament commands that witches be put to death. The professor said that the murder happened because of improper (non-dispensationalist) biblical interpretation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 06 Dec 11 - 04:27 PM "for just one snippet of evidence that they're on the march" Surely you mean for just one snippet of evidence that they're "on the march." Or does the museum include parade grounds? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 06 Dec 11 - 03:19 PM My only query with the thread title is the ism. I'd have thought segregation was enough. As for whether the Kentucky freaks are Christian, surely they are if they say they are, or is there some higher earthly authority that adjudicates these claims? Wesley, for just one snippet of evidence that they're on the march - stateside at least - check out the "Creation" Museum. (The quotes are mine and entirely justified.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: GUEST,olddude Date: 06 Dec 11 - 02:31 PM When they brought the woman caught in the act of adultery to him, they said "she was caught in the very act, the law (old testament) said she is to be stoned" Jesus said "let those of you that have never sinned cast the first stone" they walked away .. He turned to the woman and said is their no one left to condemn you ... No sir .. nor do I go in peace and sin no more. He changed it all ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 06 Dec 11 - 02:30 PM pete. I don't think that frogprince was trying to answer my, "challenge." Did you read this? "The argument has no merit for me, because I see dispensationalism as a clobbered up body of interpretation that exists largely because literalist fundamentalists realize that they have serious problems without it. " Are you saying that you are a literalist fundamentalist applying dispensationalism because you would have serious problems without it? By the way, it was not a challenge. I just wanted to know if the letter had changed your mind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Dec 11 - 02:23 PM "Literal translations" aren't really possible. That just isn't how translations work, and nobody tries to do it that way. For example a truly literal translation would have to preserve the word order of the original, which would read most of the time as complete nonsense. Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek just aren't shaped to adjust into English that way. Half the problem is that you have people who seem to think that it is easy to fully understand a translation, of books originally written using the words and the patterns of thought of a totally different society several thousand years ago, into the words and patterns of thought of a society which in many ways is almost as alien, four hundred years ago. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: ollaimh Date: 06 Dec 11 - 01:37 PM it always worries me to be agreeing with richard bridges--but then this issue doesn;t immediately raise irish issues on which he does not practice the tolerance he oreaches elsewhere. howevern the long history of christianity does not show a lot of tolerance for any group out side the main stream. be it africans who were christianized in the congo and then almost immediately enslaved, or natives in thre americas who were subjected to genocide, or different races or people of non heterosexuality. if you believe in the old testement then i ask, what do you make of a god who in the ten commandments offers to punish transgressors unto the seventh generstion, and says i am the onyy god and syas he's a jealous god--and ashura to hindu/buddhists , or an ahura to zoroastrians.(jealous gods are lesser warring deities) that's either mad or bad. one should not be surprised that such thoughts lead to mad or bad religon. now i believe christ tried to shake off the old mad or bad beliefs with the obvious golden rule and his completely ignoring the law in favour of wisdom and toleration. however most christians are still followint the mad or bad god of the old testement. by the way the native led truth of the genocide group in canada has just dug up the first of likely many bones of children, burried at christian residential school without marking or asknowledgement. those fifty thousand children who died in those schools are beginning to be heard. half of the children who went to those christian schools(anglican, united church and cathlic)died there. hallelullah for christian genocide |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 06 Dec 11 - 01:16 PM nice soundbite greg! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: Greg F. Date: 06 Dec 11 - 01:12 PM ...the biblically ignorant... What about the uncritical biblically brainwashed? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 06 Dec 11 - 01:05 PM well ian-you certainly dont like me having fundamental christian convictions and it seems that is enough to infer that i hate homosexuals .it is not my hobby horse and i did not raise the subject but neither am i intimidated by unsubstantial tirades-but bless you,i wish you well whatever your sexuality is. you know what my "moral compass "is,-what is yours? jack-i note that frogprince has answered your challenge to me,albeit rejecting the theology involved ,and theres no point in me outlining it to current posters. i do think that the open letter is very clever though and i,ve seen it on another thread.it is probably convincing to the biblically ignorant and affirming to the biblically liberal. back to original issue-glad to see it resolved though i would have been more heartened if it had come from bible obedience rather than current law-after all,correct me if mistaken, if i say that at one time not so long ago, it would have been different. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 06 Dec 11 - 10:58 AM If you take every word in the bible literally as some fundamentalist would have us do, what do we learn from the stories of David? That we can kill our best friends to sleep with their wives, but as long as we dance and sing in praise, we are beloved of God? I think too many "Christian" politicians and televangelists behave that way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: GUEST,olddude Date: 06 Dec 11 - 10:18 AM Final thought, free will is the most important thing. It is what makes us different from other creatures. God would not take away free will even from his disciples. It is a mistake to think that every word of Paul or the others was directly from Jesus. Paul was a man and still had his free will. His lessons are good ones, some are just from him. If that wasn't the case then he would be a robot and God doesn't work that way. Man has free will, Paul was a man .. One only has to read the words and the message of Jesus himself to get it ... some of the other stuff is wonderful, some is not. The old testament was written by prophets, they were also men - some things good, some awful. But in the old testament is the Psalms. Beautiful .. Literal translations and assumptions are what leads one out of the right path. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: GUEST,oldude Date: 06 Dec 11 - 10:08 AM The danger in literal translations of the bible is the thinking that the disciples of Christ like Peter or Paul were always talking for Christ. They were writing their message of Christ for the time frame they lived in. Remember even Peter the great disciple of Christ denied he was with Christ three times after Christ was arrested. They were human beings not God ... They have some very good messages that can and should be followed but not everything for one needs to remember they were people like you and I. That is where the conflict always comes in, maybe Thomas Jefferson had it right when he created the Jefferson bible. If Christ didn't say it , it wasn't there. Don't know |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: GUEST,olddude Date: 06 Dec 11 - 09:54 AM It is interesting that the only time Christ ever got angry was at the religious leaders in the Temple. "This is the house of my father and you turned it into a den of thieves" For the message of Christ one only has to look at the only prayer that really counts .. the Our Father ... "as we forgive those who trespass against us" I will never figure out some of the "religious movements" going on today. It is simply the devil, greed and power. Like the money changers in the temple |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: Penny S. Date: 06 Dec 11 - 05:45 AM It's interesting that some of the stuff about the position of women in "Paul" come from epistles attributed to him, but now questioned as being from other writers and interpolated later. (In some cases, the questions arose in the Early church.) This does not apply to Romans, where the homosexuality references occur. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: frogprince Date: 05 Dec 11 - 07:16 PM I give crdit to Paul for saying quite a few inspiring things, and regret that he also said quite a few things that have caused a lot of people a lot of pain. So much comes back to fundamentalist insistence on taking the Bible as authoritative, instead of as an inspirational source to be used with discretion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Dec 11 - 05:08 PM I don't think that Paul fully bought into Jesus' teaching. Perhaps he didn't think the Churches he was preaching to were ready for no exceptions "Love thy Neighbor." He also said a lot about they role of women that is now obsolete. He was a man and a sinner with faults like the rest of us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: frogprince Date: 05 Dec 11 - 05:03 PM ...abomination... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: frogprince Date: 05 Dec 11 - 04:58 PM Actually, fundamentalists have had an answer for the arguments in that letter for a long time. The rules the letter mentions were all applicable under the previous "dispensation" of law. We are currently in the "dispensation" of grace. But Paul let us know that, unlike the rest of the instances cited, the status of homosexuality as an obomination hasn't changed. The argument has no merit for me, because I see dispensationalism as a clobbered up body of interpretation that exists largely because literalist fundamentalists realize that they have serious problems without it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: Don Firth Date: 05 Dec 11 - 04:36 PM Right, Wesley! I had read the "Letter to Dr. Laura" on the internet a couple of years ago. Currently, my wife and I are watching "The West Wing" via our NetFlix subscription (having missed it when it was on the air) and we saw that particular episode just a couple of days ago. That's what brought the letter to mind. Just google "Letter to Dr. Laura" and it's all over the internet. I wonder which came first, the letter or President Bartlet's little riff on "The West Wing?" Good show! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Dec 11 - 03:59 PM >>holding a biblical position is not bigotry.to deny christians the right of conscience is not too clever.i would presume "gay churches" have the right to conduct ceremonies-though i could be mistaken.<< Pete does Don Firth's letter to Dr. Laura address this point of view to your satisfaction. Echoing Dan (Olddude), I would say that if you wish to call yourself a Christian, you have to keep in mind his commandment "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Which in action translates to do onto others as you would have them do onto you. Would you like to be banned from a Church for being gay, another race, for any reason? No? Then don't do it to others. Keep in mind that being a prostitute is surely an equal abomination. Jesus preached to prostitutes and sinners of all manner and treated them with respect. Everyone is a sinner. How many people would be banned from church if they were banned for the sin of not loving their neighbor? Nine people in a small town in Kentucky I would guess. Dan as a point of fact, I do not love myself unconditionally. Do |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: GUEST,Wesley S Date: 05 Dec 11 - 03:52 PM As portrayed on the TV show - "The West Wing: Video here |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: Don Firth Date: 05 Dec 11 - 02:59 PM Sounds like the situation got resolved amicably. #### The following has been kicking around for some time, but it tends to put fundamentalists and Biblical literalists into proper perspective. On her radio show, popular advice purveyor Dr Laura Schlesinger (not a real doctor, by the way, she just "adopted" the title) went into a bigoted rant and quoted verses from the Bible as her source of All Knowledge. This outburst of pomposity elicited the following response in an open letter to Dr. Laura, which was posted on the Internet. Dear Dr. Laura:Humbly submitted for your enlightenment and edification. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: GUEST,Wesley S Date: 05 Dec 11 - 01:15 PM IF anybody cares any more this story came from the Boston Globe: PIKEVILLE, Ky.—An eastern Kentucky church under a firestorm of criticism since members voted to bar mixed-race couples from joining the congregation overturned that decision Sunday, saying it welcomes all believers. Stacy Stepp, pastor of the Gulnare Free Will Baptist Church in Pike County, told The Associated Press that the vote by nine people last week was declared null and void after it was determined that new bylaws can't run contrary to local, state or national laws. He said the proposal was discriminatory, therefore it couldn't be adopted. Stepp said about 30 people who attended church services voted on a new resolution that welcomes "believers into our fellowship regardless of race, creed or color." The issue came up at the tiny all-white Appalachian church after the daughter of church secretary Dean Harville visited over the summer with her boyfriend, who is from Africa, and the two sang for the congregation. Harville said he was approached in August by Melvin Thompson, the church member who crafted the resolution to bar mixed-race couples, and was told that his daughter and her boyfriend were no longer allowed to sing at the church. Thompson has said he is not racist and called the matter an "internal affair." Stepp said the Sandy Valley Conference of Free Will Baptists declared the vote on Thompson's resolution null and void during a meeting on Saturday. He said he told church members on Sunday about the decision and proposed a resolution to promote "peace, love and harmony." He said the resolution to welcome all believers passed with a unanimous vote. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: GUEST,olddude Date: 05 Dec 11 - 12:16 PM To fully call myself a Christian I would have to have the absolute unconditional love for others that, as a human, is a bar set so high that I can only try to get on any portion of the stick. How many of us would say when we knew a group of people were coming to torture and murder us, let them take us, and then say "Father forgive them they don't know what they are doing". Most of us would meet them with overwhelming force and violence. Hate has no place in faith, no place. You cannot use any teaching as a weapon, regardless of religion. it is unthinkable and the exact opposite of the path. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 05 Dec 11 - 12:15 PM What gets me is this. You only need to ask yourself one very simple question to determine whether what you are doing is Christian. Would Jesus approve? Simples! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: Musket Date: 05 Dec 11 - 11:50 AM Some interesting comments here and for that matter some disturbing tripe. Pete from Seven Stars Link says a bit further up that you cannot be a bigot for holding Christian views. There's a good example of tripe. If your view is bigoted, justifying it in the big book of tales just makes the matter worse. it becomes holding a bigoted view and twisting the moral compass of many people to justify that bigotry. And that's disgraceful. I don't always think that laws cover all things equally and in passing laws, politicians sometimes have to fail a few in order to protect the many. (Ok, sometimes the other way around but that's another story...) However, in passing equality laws, it becomes simple. If you offer something to people, you can't let your petty hatred of others get in the way of the service you offer. Hence if you use a bed and breakfast, you expect to be able to use it without being singled out for you choice of lover and without being labelled "militant." I used to prefer brunettes to blonds, that does not make me militant any more than a bloke preferring other blokes. It makes those who wish to discriminate against me all the more needing to be resisted by decent society. Amazing how this thread started about a small place in the States and the disgusting views of 15 people, (not to mention the lack of decency of those who abstained,) and it has progressed into people justifying the act by expressing their own brand of bigotry! I was hoping that the segregationism mentioned here was nothing to do with religion, but reading some of the tripe here, and especially by this Pete character.. It's amazing how you can justify being a bigot just by saying being a Christian makes it alright. Real Christians hopefully disown you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 05 Dec 11 - 11:48 AM ""I follow the teachings of Christ hence I am a Christian. I have never been anything but a friend to everyone here. I didn't just say it, I show it. One size does not fit all and global generalizations are indeed offensive"" I would agree with that Dan. And further, I see no conflict in an atheist following the basic truths as laid out by Jesus being considered Christian in spite of not believing in a deity. For me Christianity isn't about places and formats of worship produced by generations of MEN, it's about one's interaction with the rest of the living things on this planet. You live as a Christian if you love your fellow man, treat others as you would wish to be treated, and above all turn the other cheek, and you can adhere to those and all of Jesus' other basic tenets, whether you believe in God, Allah, the Cosmic Pixie, or none of the above. Similarly, you can spend every Sunday and half your evenings on your knees, but if you go from there to carve up your neighbours in business, or love or hate them according to their colour, creed or sexual oriention, a Christian you most certainly are not! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: GUEST,olddude Date: 05 Dec 11 - 11:37 AM In the rare occasions that I call myself Christian, I do it with the understanding that I try to follow the message of love from Christ. Try is the best we can, for the bar is set so high that only God can hit it. We are human and hence make mistakes ... all of use no matter what walk of life. Try is all we can do ... Oppression in the name of God is unthinkable to me yet it occurs because people have to use something to make themselves better than others. Religion, politics, clubs etc.. all designed for the - look at us - we are better- defect in the human soul. Faith is the exact opposite |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: GUEST,olddude Date: 05 Dec 11 - 11:30 AM I tend to get a bit wary of many who use the term Christian. Most of us that follow the teaching of Christ are not worthy of that term. There is no room for hate of any kind with people of faith. All are welcome no matter what their path in life is. Like anything else, some will band together to use whatever organization to push their own worldly agenda. Use God name or twist teachings to oppress others for their own selfish interests. That is not the God I know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 05 Dec 11 - 10:03 AM penny-seems we have good measure of agreement after all.however i am not totally convinced that no same sex couple would want to push the issue given the more militant section of "gay rights"as IMO the couple wanting to book a double room in a christian run B and B demonstrates Best wishes-pete |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: Penny S. Date: 05 Dec 11 - 04:57 AM Pete, there had been a campaign to continue with it being obligatory for religious groups which wanted to carry out the ceremonies (whatever they were called in law or in their belief) NOT to be able to. I don't think anyone wanted to make it obligatory for religious groups which did not want to to do so, though I know that those who wanted to stop Reform Jews, Quakers etc from doing so were presenting the issue as if allowing them would make it compulsory for everyone else. I can't imagine that any same sex couple would want to have a ceremony in a place which regarded that ceremony as seriously wrong, anyway. I'm glad that legislation now enables religious groups to do what they believe is right, while not forcing anyone else to do what they believe is wrong. Seems sensible to me. I don't think this issue is, anyway, as important as a church banning mixed race marriages, which is what the OP was about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: Don Firth Date: 04 Dec 11 - 04:17 PM Jesus didn't mean just Caesar, the man. He meant government in general. BUT—what slips by a lot of people, including his interrogators, was that he regarded everything and everyone as belonging to God. Including Caesar, governments, and all. It was a weasel answer and Jesus intended it to be so, despite the fact that he spoke (what he considered to be) the truth, fully aware that they wouldn't grasp what he was really saying. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: Stringsinger Date: 04 Dec 11 - 01:16 PM The problem today is that some people are more equal than others. Whenever there is a belief system that is not shared by everyone, you will have a form of segregation and intolerance. Some Christians are more tolerant than others. Some are nice people with good values. Others are hypocrites. This isn't new. What is new however is the justification for this kind of segregation among the fundamentalist Christians claiming their prejudice openly as if it is their right to have it. I am not a Christian but I know the difference between Christians who preach love and understanding and those who preach hatred, violence and segregation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Dec 11 - 12:14 PM Looked at any British coins recently? Now you know who trousers all your taxes? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: MGM·Lion Date: 04 Dec 11 - 10:53 AM No ~ it meant, manifestly, the one whose head was on the coin. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011 From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Dec 11 - 10:16 AM "Caesar" surely there pretty clearly means "Rome", rather than a particular Emperor. As for Jim;s assertion there is no dispute among Muslims as to who is a Muslim, that just isn't the case. There are a number of religious movements that have arisen in Islam which by many Muslims are not accepted as part of Islam. There is a parallel with Christians here, for example when it comes to whether Mormons are seen as Christians. |
