BS: Christian segregationism, 2011

Subject: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack Campin
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 08:12 AM

Kentucky church bans mixed-race couples from membership:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/01/kentucky-church-bans-interracial-couples

clarification added to the title
moderator

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 08:35 AM

Sadly it is such actions that are NOT Christian and get true Christians a bad name.... satan is laughing his socks off!!

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 09:43 AM

Let's face it - they are a bunch of idiots. It's a tiny rural church of about 40 or 50 members and a total of 15 people took part in the vote. I know that in the eyes of many Mudcatters that's positive proof that all Christians and all churchs are bad. But please don't try to make the argument that this has anything to do with mainstream churchs or religion in general.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 09:45 AM

Come to think of it - even the title of this thread is way off base and misleading. Prejudicial in fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 09:49 AM

It is extraordinary that The Guardian thinks its UK readers need to know all about this.
Am I being paranoid, or are Christians being singled out for bad copy?

Subject: RE: BS: "Some" Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 10:03 AM

You are most assuredly being paranoid, as per usual.

This bunch of assholes are being "singled out" for being assholes, and for hypocritically claiming to be "Christians".

Sadly, they are not alone, but part of a growing number of fundagelical "Christians"[sic] perpetrating a wide range of idiocies.

Subject: RE: BS: "Some" Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 10:25 AM

"Sadly, they are not alone, but part of a growing number of fundagelical "Christians"[sic] perpetrating a wide range of idiocies."

And you have some facts to back that up - or is it just a personal belief? Just because the papers are able to track down and report on the anomalies doesn't make it a growing trend. Rev Phelps and his hoard are not indicative of the average church member in America.

Subject: RE: BS: "Some" Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack Campin
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 10:31 AM

Why doesn't the mod who changed the title of this thread (I did NOT write "Some") just delete the whole damn thread and ban me from mebership, while they're at it?

It was bloody obvious what I meant. It was also obvious that this kind of thing has a LONG history within Christianity, is ANYTHING BUT an isolated incident, and has been the de facto practice in an informal way in sizable parts of the Christian world to the present day. Most of the churches that do it aren't stupid enough to put it in writing in the minutes; they just make would-be members uncomfortable enough that they won't come back if their faces don't fit.

I tried googling for pictures relating to "Kentucky church congregation". Spot the missing ethnicities:

http://www.neonopc.org/
http://www.madisonvillechurchofchrist.org/
First Christian Church, Murray, KY
Glasgow Baptist Church, KY


This magazine article has 13 pictures of Baptist church gatherings. All but one are all-white.

Baptist Courier

Obviously they aren't all like that, but I didn't have to try very hard to find those and I am not presenting a highly selective picture. This isn't just about a bunch of cranks. Don't kid on there isn't real issue here.

Subject: RE: BS: WIDESPREAD Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack Campin
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 10:34 AM

I just saw that last article of mine had the mealy-mouthed mod's change in the title. Let's be a bit more explicit, then.

Subject: RE: BS: "Some" Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 10:35 AM

Greg,of course they should be singled out, but is it an issue of international importance.
A tiny rural church in the backwoods of Kentucky?
Fifteen voted.
My suspicion is that, in the pages of The Guardian and similar, it is open season on throwing dirt at Christians just now.

Subject: RE: BS: "Some" Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 11:42 AM

Jack,

I've been to many places in the Appalachian Mountains, in the Carolinas, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, and Virginia quite a few times in the past few years. Except in the larger centers like Asheville, NC and Roanoke VA, You don't see many people there who are not white. I think this is for mostly for economic reasons. There are not a lot of jobs in small Mountain towns. Note that I have not traveled as much in Kentucky, but I doubt it is any different. The guy the nine people voted to ban was not a local. He is from Africa. I don't think it wise to assume racism, just because you see no people of color in the pictures.

Subject: RE: BS: "Some" Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 12:37 PM

but is it an issue of international importance.

Yes.

A tiny rural church in the backwoods of Kentucky?

Ah, but then it ISN'T just this one, tiny church, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: "Some" Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 12:43 PM

Er, yes it is.
And just nine people.
Hold the front page!

Subject: RE: BS:
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 12:49 PM

Christian bigotry here in the UK on a huge scale: -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8929111/Tory-MPs-try-to-stop-civil-partnerships-in-places-of-worship.html

Subject: RE: BS: "Some" Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Paul Burke
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 12:57 PM

Of course they are Christians. There is no such thing as "unChristian behaviour", and an Xxxist of any sort IS one if he/ she CLAIMS to be one.

But look at the history. What beats me is why those who believe in the teachings of the guru Jesus, as told in the Gospels, want to be associated in any way with Christianity.

Subject: RE: BS: "Some" Christian segregationism, 2011
From: ranger1
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 01:03 PM

My two cents, not that anyone is going to give a rat's ass: Yes, what that one church in Kentucky did was morally wrong. However, it does seem to be just as small-minded to make the sweeping statement that all Christians are that way.

And keep in mind that I'm not a Christian.

Subject: RE: BS: "Some" Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 01:06 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.
as to race the kentucky church is way out.there is only one race,- the human race though some have held that the black "races"were less evolved .but that is certainly not a biblical position.

Subject: RE: BS: "Some" Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 01:16 PM

'Melvin Thomson the church member who crafted the vote' declares he isn't racist... Reminds me of the advocates of apartheid in South Africa, who always maintained they weren't racist, they just liked to keep the races apart! I don't know of any verses in the Bible which comment on mixed race partnerships, let alone forbid them, but perhaps I haven't read enough. My local C of E village church welcomed with open arms myself and my black husband. We are both involved in many ways with the church, and my husband isn't even a Christian, he's a Muslim. The Bishop of Norwich gave my husband a lovely blessing at the altar during Communion one Sunday. I've never heard of any British Christian church banning mixed race couples, it would be extraordinary and disgraceful. I don't believe any congregation here would tolerate such bigotry. Please don't judge us by this strange and tiny minority.

Subject: RE: BS: "Some" Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 01:26 PM

Many churches have defacto segregation - parishoners choose where they are most comfortable - you'll find a lot of African American churches in those communities (in particular, look for the A.M.E. in the name).

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: "Some" Christian segregationism, 2011
From: pdq
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 01:32 PM

How many White attendees were there at Jeramiah Wright's church?

Subject: RE: BS: "Some" Christian segregationism, 2011
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 01:40 PM

Jack, as the "mealy-mouthed mod" to whom you refer, I added a clarification to the title as is a mod's prerogative. Your title seemed, to me, a broad generalisation, and, like ranger1, I am not Christian, so no bias.

kat - mod

Subject: RE: BS: "Some" Christian segregationism, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 01:41 PM

Why weren't the quote marks put on "Christian", since I don't think many Christians would count them as worthy the name?

Subject: RE: BS: "Some" Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 01:44 PM

Good point McGrath. And the words Christian and segregation don't belong together IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: "Some" Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 01:59 PM

... to make the sweeping statement that all Christians are that way.

Which no one has done.

Subject: RE: BS: "Some" Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 02:11 PM

Greg, Yes and no. No one has said "all" but sweeping generalizations have been made.

>>It was bloody obvious what I meant. It was also obvious that this kind of thing has a LONG history within Christianity, is ANYTHING BUT an isolated incident, and has been the de facto practice in an informal way in sizable parts of the Christian world to the present day. Most of the churches that do it aren't stupid enough to put it in writing in the minutes; they just make would-be members uncomfortable enough that they won't come back if their faces don't fit.<<

Subject: RE: BS: "Some" Christian segregationism, 2011
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 02:17 PM

Okay, I give up. I'll take out "some" and leave it as the original. Fight it out as you will.

As for quotation marks on Christian...we are not that intuitive, McGrath!

As to Christian and segregation...reflects an opinion, in the title or not. More to debate about, eh?:-)

kat - mod

Subject: RE: BS: "Some" Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 02:17 PM

Fifteen people vote for a bigoted measure and ALL Christians are to blame?

Take a good look in a mirror if you want to see what a bigot looks like!!

Without going into my own religious beliefs—or lack thereof!—there is a church within a few blocks of where I live that distinguishes itself by its welcoming policy and the level of its public service to the community, which include serving free meals daily and searching out free or low-cost housing for people on their beam's end. And all this without having to "pay for the soup by listening to a sermon." In fact, there are five churches in this part of the city who cooperate in this endeavor.

This particular church, Central Lutheran Church of the Holy Trinity, has two pastors, one a young woman, and the other, a very large black man who wears a gold earring.

This from Central Lutheran's website:

. . . we are located in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Seattle. We hope you will take a look around and learn a bit about us and then choose to visit us in person on a Sunday morning. As you visit us here or in person, you'll learn that we are a vibrant faith community passionate about justice and sharing God's love for all people. We are a place where you can engage questions of faith and explore life's deeper meaning. We're a place where you can find community and support. We're a place where you'll find great music and joyful worship. Gay, straight, single, married, young or old, you are welcome here and we look forward to meeting you.

Central Lutheran, as are the other five churches I mentioned, are signatories to the "Affirmation of Welcome," which, in part, reads as follows:

As a community of God striving to be inclusive and open to diversity, we, the members of Central Lutheran Church, welcome all people to join us as we struggle to better understand the mysteries of God's teaching and purposes for us. Although our world can seem to be a place of alienation and brokenness, Christ calls us to reconciliation and wholeness. We are challenged by Christ to care for, to love, to understand and to listen to each other, regardless of our race, age, gender, marital status, physical and mental abilities, sexual/affectional orientation, national origin, or economic status. We celebrate the special gifts that each has to bring!

This church provides office space for the national headquarters of the Lutheran Peace Fellowship. My wife was Northwest Regional Director for something like twelve years and she did such an effective job that they decided to move the national headquarters here! The church has participated in demonstrations for a number of causes, and it has conducted several same-sex marriage ceremonies (whether state law choses to recognize them or not).

Take a look at Central Lutheran's web site.   HERE.   On the "about us" page, the three little girls in the center photo would probably give that Kentucky church wall-eyed fits!

When someone starts lambasting all Christians for the idiocy of some individual churches—or blames all Muslims for the hate-filled behavior of some—or accepts without question stereotypes of Jews without knowing any Jews, it tends to get my dander up!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 02:21 PM

The philosophical question is when does prejudice (objectionable) become learning from experience (desirable survival trait)?

Subject: RE: BS: "Some" Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 02:21 PM

Long article but worth the read.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 02:34 PM

Kat, I thought you were kind to Jack in doing what you did. You could have accepted his gracious offer.

"Why doesn't the mod who changed the title of this thread (I did NOT write "Some") just delete the whole damn thread and ban me from mebership, while they're at it?"

Even when you said "broad generalization" you were being kind. When to said "some" you were being kind. It was nine people.

To accurately describe the incident, it should be "BS:9 ban mixed couples in KY church.

Or even better, mudcatter demonstrates lack of perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 02:35 PM

"How many White attendees were there at Jeramiah Wright's church? "

As many as want to be there, I would guess.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 03:22 PM

Sometimes I envy the Muslims. They have only one simple creed:

There is no god but God, and Muhammad is his prophet.

If you can say that sincerely, you're a Muslim. If you can't, you aren't. Muslims argue about a lot of things, but they don't get into arguments about who is a Muslim and who isn't.

Christians have tried making creeds. There's a bunch of them: the Nicene Creed, the Apostles' Creed, the Chalcedonian Creed, Athanasian Creed, and more. On top of that, they have various Confessions of Faith, Catechisms, manifestos and what-not. None of them are simple, and your everyday Christian doesn't pay much attention to them anyway.

A long, long time ago, I got into a long series of discussions with a conservative Christian minister about doctrine. He was trying to convert me. I had married a woman who was nominally a member of his church, although she had her private doubts. He failed to convince me to join, but I did take him seriously and I learned some things from him.

He produced lots of Bible verses to support the idea that the essence of Christianity is this: Christ died for your sins. If you believe that, you're a Christian—regardless of what other crazy things you might believe. And if you don't believe that, you're not a Christian, regardless of how high an esteem you might have for Jesus and his teachings.

Ironically, I accepted his definition, and consequently decided I was not a Christian. I have maintained that position for 40+ years, and I see no reason to change it.

So, to all you who want to argue whether the members of the Gulnare Free Will Baptist Church are "true Christians" or not—I ask: Do they believe that Christ died for their sins? If they do, they're Christians. If they don't, they're not. It's that simple. Case closed.

Oh, I realize that won't put an end to the arguments. But hopefully it will change the terms of the argument to something that makes more sense to everybody.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 03:48 PM

Here in Charlotte, NC, they have "Christian private schools" which are de facto segregated... No blacks in most of them...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 03:53 PM

"Do they believe that Christ died for their sins? If they do, they're Christians. If they don't, they're not."

Sorry, Jack, it's not that simple and the case is most definitely not closed. That's ONE minister's interpretation of what Christianity is all about. Granted, there are a number of denominations that adhere to this, but not all! Not by a long sight!

This does NOT determine who is a Christian and who is not.

And I think you'll find that Islam is not anywhere near as simple as you seem to think it is. I've talked with a few Muslims of my acquaintance and they are just as splintered as Chistians are. God, Allah, or Big Daddy didn't make Himself (or Herself, in case it's Big Mama) all that clear on the matter, so pronouncements along that line tell you more about the person making the pronouncement than they do about the religion.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Stringsinger
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 03:54 PM

Bigotry and racism has to be isolated as human behavior that is sociopathic regardless from whence it comes. Segregation implies that there are those who are not worthy of
human compassion; those practicing segregation are dysfunctional people.

This sets aside religious, political or ideological considerations.

"Some" people behave in a mean manner regardless of what they profess to believe.

Oddly enough, some of this meanness becomes institutionalized when dysfunctional
people get together.

Look at what's going on today in our Capitalistic system and this behavior will come of no surprise to anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 03:56 PM

Sorry. Not Jack. Jim.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 03:59 PM

"Oddly enough, some of this meanness becomes institutionalized when dysfunctional people get together."

Beware the power of stupid people in large groups!

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 04:43 PM

Actually to me the schism in that little church seems more aimed at keeping that one couple out that anything else. Maybe the reporter should have asked the 9 if they were "petty" instead of "racist."

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Amos
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 04:50 PM

IS it just an obtuse delight in fractiousness? Or has it really not sunk in that any word can have multiple meanings, and arguing them against each other is an exercise in wheel-spinology?

FOr example, a Christian can be someone who follows the teachings or philosophy attributed to Christ as presented in the King James bible OR someone who follows all the teachings of Christ, including those that were expurgated during the formative centuries of the various churches and orghanizations. OR it can mean "someone who belongs to a group calling itself Christian, regardless of its actual tenets".

Maybe we should use less ambiguous words.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 04:51 PM

I'm sure the 9 would say that they were just following God's orders.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: gnu
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 05:08 PM

Just when ya think things are getting better. Sad indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,999
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 05:12 PM

They'll announce something or other by Monday, I'm pretty sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 05:17 PM

Fundamental to Christianity, as to Islam, is the principle that all human beings are essentially equal.

People who don't accept this may hold on to the name, but they are fooling themselves. They shouldn't be allowed to fool anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: artbrooks
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 05:47 PM

Free Will Baptists are not exactly mainstream Christians. This was in the article the OP cited - the last paragraph. The person quoted is the Executive Secretary of the sect:

"It's been a non-issue with us," Burden said, adding that many interracial couples attend Free Will Baptist churches. He said the Pike County church acted on its own. Burden said the association can move to strip the local church of its affiliation with the national denomination if it's not resolved.

A slow news day in the UK, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 06:05 PM

Pastor At Kentucky Church That Banned Interracial Couples Calls For Vote To Reverse Decision

'The lead pastor at the Kentucky church that banned interracial couples from becoming members or participating in certain worship activities now expects that ban to be overturned. Gulnare Free Will Baptist Church, a small congregation in Pike County, Kentucky, voted to ban such couples Sunday, months after a former pastor originally drafted a resolution decreeing the policy.

'But after outrage from local residents, local religious leaders, and the National Association of Free Will Baptists, current pastor Stacy Stepp told the Appalachian News-Express that he expected state and national Free Will Baptist officials to overturn the ban. He has also called for a new vote on the matter, perhaps as early as this Sunday, according to the Lexington Herald-Leader. The ban was instituted in a 9-6 vote of church members Sunday, though much of the 40-member crowd abstained. "We're going to get it resolved," Stepp said.'

More at the link.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 08:31 PM

Where, McGrath, do you get that idea? Is the old testament not part of the bible?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 11:36 PM

Where indeed? I agree, Richard. + the NT for that matter ~~ "render unto Caesar...?"

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 11:40 PM

... and, re Islam ~ surely what you say, Kevin, denies the 'humanity' of women?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Dec 11 - 11:42 PM

'People who don't accept this may hold on to the name, but they are fooling themselves'
,.,.,

& who are you to say? What of the 'many mansions, eh?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Allan Conn
Date: 03 Dec 11 - 03:42 AM

"If you can say that sincerely, you're a Muslim. If you can't, you aren't. Muslims argue about a lot of things, but they don't get into arguments about who is a Muslim and who isn't."

I don't think that holds water though. I can recall talk show after talk show where Moslems members in the audience were denying that the London bombers were Moslems - yet the bombers themselves believed they were acting in the name of the said religion. Similar frictions within the religion! Likewise they split into factions within the religion itself. There is much sectarian conflict in certain countries between Sunnis and Shia etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Penny S.
Date: 03 Dec 11 - 05:16 AM

Pete, the point about the legislation in this country is that no religious group may marry same sex couples if they want to. You suggested that "gay churches" could. They can't. Not in terms of the national civil partnership. It is forbidden for there to be any religious content to the ceremony, or for it to take place in a religious building, even where the religion or denomination concerned is happy for it to be done there. This applies to, for example, Quakers and Reform Judaism, who are constrained from following their beliefs by other religious groups who do not accept those beliefs and impose theirs on them. The best that can be done is a blessing afterwards. But this imposes a division between people which those religious groups do not themselves perceive. It is not right, or proper, or fair, for one set of religious groups to enforce their beliefs on another. If the law were changed, no religion would be forced to carry out ceremonies they believed to be wrong.
At the least the Free Will Baptists did not extend their vote to other churches.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Dec 11 - 05:25 AM

Discrimination.

2 Samuel 1:20

"Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph"

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Dec 11 - 08:15 AM

the daughters of the uncircumcised

What a name for a band!!

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Dec 11 - 10:01 AM

Or indeed "Pillar of Salt" for a male band (even if that was what happened to Lot's wife).

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Amos
Date: 03 Dec 11 - 10:50 AM

Hell, most successful bands are surrounded by the daughters of Philistines.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Dec 11 - 11:57 AM

How's "render unto Caesar" particularly relevant here?

(Leaving aside the point that "render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar" served to neatly sidestep the trick question that evoked the words.)
......................

Muslims argue about a lot of things, but they don't get into arguments about who is a Muslim and who isn't

They do actually - for example, one of the elements in the present trouble in Syria is that the Alawite sect, to which the ruling regime is associated, should be counted as Muslims or pagans.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Penny S.
Date: 03 Dec 11 - 12:05 PM

I hear that the legislation is now through with regards to places that do want to be able to carry out religious civil partnerships.

As to render unto Caesar, they were on Temple grounds where there should have been no Roman coin anyway, and to a good Jew, everything is God's. It wasn't just a sidestep.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Dec 11 - 12:09 PM

-- all human beings are essentially equal.

People who don't accept this may hold on to the name, but they are fooling themselves.--

was you summary of the Xtn message, Kevin. Where, please, does any concept such as that of a "Caesar" fit into this? I am aware of the trick question & the background to the quote: but the concept of someone who must be rendered to with the things that are his does not, SFAICS, fit into your above epitomising hypothesis.

I can't indeed, see how any religion which is in any of its avatars episcopal, papal, or hierarchical in any way at all, can fit your asseveration; which frankly appears nonsensical to me.

I am not a practising Christian, of course; my default position is atheist: but I have been, & am, tho born and brought up Jewish, a baptised and confirmed member of the Anglican Communion. FWIW!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,josepp
Date: 03 Dec 11 - 12:09 PM

>>>If you can say that sincerely, you're a Muslim. If you can't, you aren't. Muslims argue about a lot of things, but they don't get into arguments about who is a Muslim and who isn't.<<<

Oh, really?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 03 Dec 11 - 03:29 PM

"render unto Caesar...?"

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"

I think there is a differentiation between this world and God's kingdom of Heaven.

I don't think that Christ teaches that there is or that there will be equality in this world and I do not believe that contradicts the belief that people are equal in the eyes of God.

The "ruler of this world" is Satan after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 03 Dec 11 - 04:05 PM

Josepp: "Oh, really?"

Yes, really.

I could look up the references for you, but I really think you should take some responsibility for educating yourself. Try googling "First pillar of Islam" or "Muslim declaration of faith" or "conversion to Islam" or "Introduction to Islam" or "There is no god but God." It won't take you long to get there.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 03 Dec 11 - 05:15 PM

penny-i may be missing something but i did,nt understand your point-maybe a confusion between marraige and civil partnerships as per richards post/link title.either way either ceremony should not be obligotory for churches who in conscience do not wish to. does that not amount to discrimination against christians?.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 03 Dec 11 - 05:51 PM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Dec 11 - 05:58 PM

There are people who, for whatever reason, have strong opinions about race. These people 'tend' to then rationalize that opinion to fit with their religion...or even LACK of religion.
They do what I call "throwing the dart, then drawing the bullseye around it."... make their strained logic fit what they already believe.
They can be of any religion or no religion....prejudice & bigotry are eclectic, even when percentages seem to be higher in certain areas. After all, people who DO have strong opinions often congregate and find ways...formal or not... to exclude those whom they are uncomfortable about. The church Don Firth notes makes a special effort to NOT exclude, but some churches either don't bother, or haven't ever been faced with the decision - as seems to be the case with this small place.

It IS possible to detect trends and make some generalizations, but it is all too easy to find your own generalization becoming too easy an answer and falling into the same fallacy as those you criticize.

Rather than simply applying a label to a group, it is safer to decry an attitude and comment on sad examples of that attitude without 'implying' that it applies to a specific group.


It ain't easy....I know I tend to think of Texas as a place I could not live...but I know too many Texans who do NOT make me uncomfortable....and Christians, too!

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.

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 - 12:14 PM

Looked at any British coins recently? Now you know who trousers all your taxes?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law.

I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. ... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Law and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

Anonymous

Humbly submitted for your enlightenment and edification.

Don Firth

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: 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: 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: 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: frogprince
Date: 05 Dec 11 - 05:03 PM

...abomination...

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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,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: 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 - 01:16 PM

nice soundbite greg!

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 11:23 PM

check out this facebook page. The dude (or dude ette) makes some good points.

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: frogprince
Date: 07 Dec 11 - 07:22 PM

No problem, Pete; that's stated fairly.

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: 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: 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,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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Dec 11 - 10:23 AM

Not all opinions are created equal.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Musket
Date: 09 Dec 11 - 11:35 AM

Nothing "Christian" about bigotry. Ask any Gay Christian. or any female Christian. Or any male Christian who is uncomfortable with people cherry picking scripture in order to be sanctimonious about an odious viewpoint.

I have no problem with you believing the bible literally. I have a mate who believes anybody richer than him is a bastard and anybody poorer than him isn't trying hard enough. On the other hand, I have a mate who believes he can pull by smiling inanely at a woman. Bugger manages it too, bless him.

No, you believe what you want to believe. I believe in Sheffield Wednesday although my faith has been tested over the last few years.

But in the same way I don't expect you to sing on our kop, don't expect me to sing in your church. Or in other words, once your view affects others, stop it... It isn't nice and it isn't clever.

Anybody would think there was a God after all, the way some people rattle on.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Dec 11 - 07:01 PM

jack-seems in generalizations we are in accord.but maybe in the specifics not so much.all i can venture to say is that i would not abuse anyone and would greet them whether they were hetero or homosexual.
jesus did speak of forming judgments
beware of false prophets....
by their fruits you shall know them matt 7v15ff-just down the page from "judge not.."
not clear how not agreeing with paul is not cherry picking the bible-rejecting the bits of scripture you disagree with?
i would be interested as to how much of the bible you do accept.
i would suggest that women in the early church were much better off than those in the grecoroman world in general.i am not sure which text you think teaches that woman is the servant of man,though there is teaching on the role of both genders and their responsibilities to each other,-revolutionary in its time IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Dec 11 - 07:18 PM

"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

If you do not believe in the above but you do believe in

"Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

You are cherry picking. You are choosing the follow the guidance that suits you. Paul was a man with faults like the rest of us. He was not a license for modern bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 10 Dec 11 - 07:01 AM

Why cherry pick anything? Most of us or claim to have the ability to make rational decisions and morality comes from the evolutionary convenience of altruism.

Never have got on with the idea of creating Gods in order to answer questions we can't figure out for ourselves. The bible is a man made set of stories, nobody seems to disagree with that, or at least anybody capable of thinking rationally, so why get all hot and bothered over different forms of escapism?

If you hate gays, hate women, hate black people, then no problem. It follows that I will hate you, or perhaps pity you and I suspect many others on this thread may think similarly. But to invoke the same bible that nice old ladies hold dear as your excuse, that's despicable.
And cherry picking.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Dec 11 - 09:29 AM

Jesus is credited with saying, "It is written...but this is what I say" - that is, quoting the "Bible" as he knew it in his day, and disagreeing with some of it. He also made it plain that he didn't accept the Old Testament standard of capital punishment for a moral lapse. More often, Jesus quoted the Hebrew Scriptures approvingly.
I've quoted the Bible to support a point too, but it's been years since I've done so thinking that I'd "proved" my point that way by
quoting an infallible source.

It's easy enough to say that the brutality of the Old Testament was the way God chose to deal with man in a prior "dispensation". Easy enough if you are willing to accept a god who thought it was a good idea for a woman to be forced into marriage with her rapist, and a god who rewarded a man because he would have slaughtered his son "because God told me to". I'm much more comfortable saying that a lot of the Old Testament content reflects the primitive concepts of God and his ways common to people of the period. Perhaps that was a prior "dispensation" in the moral consciousness of man.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: frogprince
Date: 10 Dec 11 - 09:42 AM

Incidental thought: I would challange anyone to find more than a very small fraction of dispensationalists who would not object to the removal of a diplay of the ten commandments from a civic building.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Dec 11 - 11:43 AM

jack-admittedly looking at this text in isolation a case could be made for womens servitude to men.it is unclear as to what their silence in church means since a few chapters earlier we find that women were praying and prophesying in church.
being"in subjection to their own husbands" is not demeaning      -Christ is spoken of,and of placing himself under the submission of the father
-husbands are called to love their wives as Christ loved the church ie sacrificially.
i notice that my suggestion of the greater position given to women in the NT church was not challenged!?
in short i do accept both texts you quote-as well as any others which may illucidate those.

note to steaming willie
i recognize your rejection of scripture as Gods word to us,but the discussion relates to jack since i understand he is a believer of some description that however is not fundamentalist.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Dec 11 - 12:15 PM

frogprince-i cant claim to have definitive answers to the things you raise as to the OT.A lot of things that probably seemed normative to ancients seem barbaric to our modern sensitivities .i can understand why you are not comfortable with it.without going into great discussion,i would just venture that the mosaic law [which i do accept as from God]was superior to other ancient codes.some of the provisions of OT law while seemingly very hard to our modern context were probably more understandable in their own time, and perhaps you have read some expositors who have conveyed this better than i could.
thanks for the civil way you state your position-pete

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Dec 11 - 12:46 PM

I have a pretty simple way of looking at it.

Biblical Commandments and teaching attributed to God and to Jesus I take as the Word of God. The rest of it I take interpretations of men doing their best for their time. The bible does not shirk from pointing out the flaws of its heroes. So we have the Ten Commandments, Love thy Neighbor, Love God, and Jesus' sermons. Paul was a man dealing with specific issues in his own day. He should be taken with a grain of salt. As also should a legal code developed while trying to shepherd an unruly mob of former slaves through the desert.

I don't agree with posting biblical commandments on public buildings. I believe that the Gospel should be spread in a loving way and not by force.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 11:20 AM

"I've quoted the Bible to support a point too, but it's been years since I've done so thinking that I'd "proved" my point that way by
quoting an infallible source."

In the city centre, the other day, a bloke with a microphone claimed that the Bible had saved more drug addicts than Richard Dawkins.

I didn't know that Richard Dawkins took an interest in saving drug addicts ... you learn something new every day, don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 11:25 AM

No Richard Dawkins is in the business of eroding the faith that might save a drug addict.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 11:43 AM

"No Richard Dawkins is in the business of eroding the faith that might save a drug addict."

But I thought he was in the business of promoting science, logic and rationality ... silly me!

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 12:07 PM

He is in the business of tearing down religion, not promoting science.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 12:13 PM

Has everybody in this discussion forgotten that God, if such there be, did not stop short after creating Christians, in fact he didn't even create Christians.

God, as the creator of all things would be responsible for Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and all the minor religions, as well as agnostics and atheists, and somewhere in there would be the group which grew out of Jews, Romans and others, and came to be called Christians, based on the teachings and identity of a prophet.

Such an all loving deity would hardly be likely to select a small minority of the human race, declare them as his chosen people and all the rest second class humans.

No folks, we created God in our own image, black, white, yellow etc, according the lottery of evolution and location, and none of us can sanely claim to have the one true example.

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 12:35 PM

"He is in the business of tearing down religion, not promoting science."

If I remember correctly Dawkins questions the special status that religions enjoy within our societies. If someone tells you that he is possession of absolute truth, as a result of his interpretation of some ancient text of dubious provenance, that should not entitle him to any particular respect or special privileges.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 12:47 PM

is that none except you and your evaluation of other peoples faith ,don!?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 12:52 PM

Dawkins is a scientist, and a good one.
That does not make him better placed than anyone else to pronounce on the existence of God.

Don, all the Christians I have ever met believe that humans were created by the process of evolution.
They were not created as "Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and all the minor religions, as well as agnostics and atheists."

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 12:59 PM

jack-we certainly agree as to dawkins agenda though in fairness to him ,he does like to get some prominent churchmen allied with him though admitting that they are compromisers of the faith they profess.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 01:22 PM

The books Dawkins is famous for are not scientific. They are anti-religion polemics. He is a bigot in that he blames the worst of religion on all of religion rather than recognizing that there are good and bad in all persuasions. He calls fascism and communism religion so that he can make the ridiculous argument that atheists to not start wars.

He makes his living going on show's like Bill Mahers and running down religion to sell his books.

Brian Greene And Neil Tyson Degrassi promote science, Richard Dawkins is a professional shit disturber.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: frogprince
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 01:36 PM

"all the Christians I have ever met believe that humans were created by the process of evolution."
My jaw about dropped when I read that; I really wish I could say the same thing. It may be true of the majority of the Christians in the area where I live here in the U.S., but it's damnably hard to establish a really reliable percentage, and the numbers of vocal anti-evoulutionists can be disheartening and frightening. The disconnect between beliefs here and in the U.K. is apparently greater than I ever realized.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 03:06 PM

I am sure any UK Christian here will have the same experience as me Frogprince.

Dawkins did write "The Selfish Gene" .

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 03:49 PM

""Don, all the Christians I have ever met believe that humans were created by the process of evolution.
They were not created as "Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and all the minor religions, as well as agnostics and atheists.""

1. You obviously don't know about Creationists.

2. I didn't say he created them, the reverse in fact. What I said was that he would have been (assuming he existed) responsible for their presence on this planet, where they created him in their own image according to their colour an location.

Please try to read what is actually being said!!

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

""is that none except you and your evaluation of other peoples faith ,don!?""

No Pete, my faith and my prayers are between me and the one whom I consider my maker, unsullied by the agendas of men, frocked, turbanned or whatever, who profess to have the inside track to the Creator.

You make your own choices and I have nothing to say about YOUR beliefs until you try to make them MY beliefs.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 03:53 PM

"Dawkins is a scientist, and a good one.
That does not make him better placed than anyone else to pronounce on the existence of God."

Absolutely correct! Prof. Dawkins will know that it is logically impossible to 'prove a negative'. So no-one can say,"there is no God". Nevertheless, to talk or act in the name of God a scientist is entitled to insist that, first, you have to prove that He exists. But those of a religious persuasion prefer to bypass all that and smugly tell us that they have 'faith' in the existence of God and can, hence, speak and act in His name. To add insult to injury they also demand respect and special status!

It's high time that someone told them to "get lost!" I am pleased that Dawkins has done so!

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 03:55 PM

I know all about Creationists Don.
I have just never met any, apart from some Jehova's witnesses.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 04:36 PM

""all the Christians I have ever met believe that humans were created by the process of evolution"

I've never met any who'd disagree with that either. The thing is, it appears the USA really is in a strange place in these matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,999
Date: 11 Dec 11 - 04:46 PM

God made it, Darwin explained it.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Musket
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 04:36 AM

Not sure that Dawkins is "out to prove God doesn't exist." I've always been of the opinion that as a scientist he is rightly angry when people stifle scientific advance by weaving in superstition. He is out, if I read him rightly, to say that theological debate has no place in science which is another thing entirely. As a genes specialist, he has demonstrated that it is in the interest of our genes to exhibit what we would call moral traits, which makes the case for excluding superstition from science, as the only feasible reason for taking faith into account is the moral compass that old men in pointy hats claim is their territory. (Funny though, I don't follow them or their ideas, yet I seem to refrain from pillaging, raping and whatever they reckon a Godless society does.)

I share his frustration, but at the same time feel he is becoming embroiled in a rational versus surreal argument. That too can stifle the progress of scientific discovery by being a distraction.

We seem to have created God in our image. Having also given this God character omnipotence and other big cheese attributes, it is a bit vain to then compare him to us? Just one of the reasons I smile indulgently when our evangelical friends start rationalising their wonderful group delusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 04:48 AM

Not sure that Dawkins is "out to prove God doesn't exist."

He does promote atheism, as in his book "The God Delusion."

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 05:48 AM

"He does promote atheism, as in his book "The God Delusion.""

I would have to re-read the book to find out whether that is true or not. Nevertheless, I would struggle to find a reason, in this day and age, why I should take anyone who believes in a lot of mumbo-jumbo seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 06:07 AM

Matin Luther King?
JFK?
Obama?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 06:27 AM

As usual I agree with McGrath - but I am alarmed to find myself again agreeing with a certain amount of what Mither has said ie "Not sure that Dawkins is "out to prove God doesn't exist." I've always been of the opinion that as a scientist he is rightly angry when people stifle scientific advance by weaving in superstition. He is out, if I read him rightly, to say that theological debate has no place in science which is another thing entirely. As a genes specialist, he has demonstrated that it is in the interest of our genes to exhibit what we would call moral traits, which makes the case for excluding superstition from science, as the only feasible reason for taking faith into account is the moral compass that old men in pointy hats claim is their territory. (Funny though, I don't follow them or their ideas, yet I seem to refrain from pillaging, raping and whatever they reckon a Godless society does.)

I share his frustration,"

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 08:01 AM

"Not sure that Dawkins is "out to prove God doesn't exist."

He had a whole book and book tour where he called belief in God a delusion. He has spent a lot of time arguing the point. What would it take to make you "sure?"

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 08:03 AM

Well, if evolution is insufficiently evidenced to be regarded as certain...

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 08:09 AM

Well that makes sense. Intellectually challenged religious fanatics question the theory of evolution so you question the intent of Richard Dawkins.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 10:53 AM

""He had a whole book and book tour where he called belief in God a delusion. He has spent a lot of time arguing the point. What would it take to make you "sure?"""

In other words, he expressed his opinion, and gave a (possibly over long) rationale to explain the logical process by which he arrived at that opinion.

If he is open to castigation and ridicule for doing exactly what we are doing right now (some us with rather more logic than others), we might as well pack it in.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 11:04 AM

""Matin Luther King?
JFK?
Obama?""

If that is intended as an answer to Shimrod's ""Nevertheless, I would struggle to find a reason, in this day and age, why I should take anyone who believes in a lot of mumbo-jumbo seriously."" it is more than somewhat disingenuous.

I think you already know that Shimrod was saying that he could not take them seriously on that subject.

History is full of men who were at genius level on one subject of interest to them, and often quite whacky on other subjects.

Anyway, since you have chosen three political figures........isn't religion banned, by the US Constitution, from influencing government actions, and if so, shouldn't your examples have done what they did without invoking it?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 11:10 AM

Yes Don, but I would argue that they are all worthy of being taken seriously, despite their deeply held "mumbo-jumbo" belief.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 02:05 PM

Yes, the three figures you cite have all made a difference on the world stage. But if I had the opportunity to speak to one of them, and he told me that he was, in part, motivated by his religious beliefs then I would probably hear him out, nod politely and change the subject as soon as possible. I just don't believe that religious faith is a prerequisite for doing great things.

But, more fundamentally, the faithful believe that they are in possession of 'absolute truth' and that this truth is contained in ancient texts of dubious or obscure provenance. I see nothing wrong in subjecting such beliefs to scrutiny - especially if the holders of the beliefs demand respect or special privileges.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 02:29 PM

so whats wrong with subjecting the evolutionary story to the same scrutiny.if theories were not examined we would still have defunct theories held by former scientists from centuries past.many scientists disbelieve darwinism and they may be a minority compared to those willing and eager to accept evolutionism,-just as galileo was in the minority with the scientists of his time.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 02:43 PM

What has 'theology' ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has 'theology' ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all?

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/richard_dawkins_2.html#ixzz1gLp5Pwpg

A universe with a God would look quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different. So the most basic claims of religion are scientific. Religion is a scientific theory.
Richard Dawkins

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.
Richard Dawkins

Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that.
Richard Dawkins

One of the things that is wrong with religion is that it teaches us to be satisfied with answers which are not really answers at all.
Richard Dawkins

Personally, I rather look forward to a computer program winning the world chess championship. Humanity needs a lesson in humility.
Richard Dawkins

Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time.
Richard Dawkins

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/richard_dawkins.html#ixzz1gLqNvos8

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 02:59 PM

"so whats wrong with subjecting the evolutionary story to the same scrutiny."

Nothing - it has been subjected to scrutiny and will continue to be subjected to scrutiny! The difference between scientific theories and religious 'truths' is that the former are, in some sense, always provisional and never absolute.

And J-t-S I cannot see how you can possibly object to any of those quotes from Dawkins - they all seem perfectly reasonable to me (although I'm not sure I understand the one about 'A Universe with God' etc. - I will have to think about it).

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 03:05 PM

Shimrod are you being deliberately obtuse to take the piss with me?

This is the point I have been making about Dawkins.

"He is in the business of tearing down religion, not promoting science."

I believe that the quotes support that opinion.
You agreeing with the quotes is not relevant to that point.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 12 Dec 11 - 05:52 PM

Yes, J-t-S, I agree with you, in some of Dawkins's books and public pronouncements he has been highly critical of religion but in other books e.g. 'The Selfish Gene' and its successors, and no doubt in his academic work, he has amply demonstrated his scientific credentials.

Your Dawkins quotes represent powerful criticisms of religion and the religious outlook. They are so powerful because they are so logical and so reasonable - and I think that they should have been made long ago. I don't doubt, though, that those truisms will make many people who are committed to religion, and who have a religious outlook, very uncomfortable.

I'm not surprised that the city centre preacher, who I mentioned further up the thread, invoked the name of Dawkins in his stupid harangue!

Even so I'm not sure that Dawkins wants to do anything so dramatic as to "tear down religion". But I think that he does want to lessen its power and influence within human societies ... and I'm right behind him!

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 11 - 03:05 AM

Shimrod,
I just don't believe that religious faith is a prerequisite for doing great things.
Nor do I.

But, more fundamentally, the faithful believe that they are in possession of 'absolute truth' and that this truth is contained in ancient texts of dubious or obscure provenance.

Only some believers.
Be wary of those who display certainty.
Most of us constantly have doubts. Faith is not easy.

I see nothing wrong in subjecting such beliefs to scrutiny - especially if the holders of the beliefs demand respect or special privileges.
I agree completely, and would add that no-one has the right never to be challenged or offended.

Dawkins' quote "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."

It teaches no such thing.
People of faith have given us some of the greatest insights.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Penny S.
Date: 13 Dec 11 - 05:24 AM

To return to a previous diversion, there is a member of the House of Lords now seeking to overthrow the passed amendment about religions that want to be able to being able to carry out civil partnership ceremonies.

It muddies the distinction, and must be stopped.

Alternatively, partnerships between sisters living together should be registerable for taxation reasons.

The matter comes up on Thursdsy. I really think it is atrocious that one religious group seeks to bind in secular law other groups which do not accept its definitions.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Dec 11 - 05:36 AM

..isn't religion banned, by the US Constitution, from influencing government actions

No. The Constitution merely excludes the state from establishing an official church. That's rather different. In fact if anything, it's the other way round - the government is restricted from influencing religious actrivities.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Musket
Date: 13 Dec 11 - 07:34 AM

Like I said, Dawkins is not out to prove a God doesn't exist. He merely feels the argument has no place in scientific debate.

Now... his views on religion are somewhat strong. But as I said, he is not out to prove a God doesn't exist. If you read his works, and I have read just about the lot, you will see he is most taken, as many of us are, by Einstein, who I will paraphrase, not to twist it, but can't be arsed to find the exact quote;

"I am not an atheist. That would mean accepting chaos. The laws of physics hold in every event, and so if f=ma today yesterday, today and tomorrow, it cannot be chaos, and so atheism falls at the first hurdle."

Dawkins has issues, like any rational person, with accepting one or more of the flavours of established religions. I note that he has no issue with Einstein's take on atheism.

I suppose Dawkins and I have something in common if I can be bold enough to make comparisons between my fuddled brain and the insight of a genius; neither of us would segregate based on genetic makeup.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 13 Dec 11 - 07:53 AM

Keith A.,

I think that I should make it absolutely clear that I, personally, don't want to "tear down religion" or anything so dramatic! "Live and let live" is my motto - tolerance and sympathy are important human characteristics. I can't speak for Richard Dawkins - but I doubt that he wants to "tear down religion" either. But I am glad that you and I agree that no area of human activity should be above criticism.

I also think that, at this stage in human history, we need to keep our outlook on the Universe, and our place in it, as flexible as possible. The scientific discoveries in physics, cosmology, astronomy, biology etc., etc. are comming thick and fast now - what an exciting time to be alive!

Unfortunately some (but by no means all) religious groups have made, and are still making, a habit of attempting to impose their views on others. Penny S. has given an example above - and as she puts it: "I really think it is atrocious that one religious group seeks to bind in secular law other groups which do not accept its definitions."

Subject: RE: BS: Christian segregationism, 2011
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Dec 11 - 08:07 AM

what an exciting time to be alive!

I am a Science teacher, and cover evolution and the origin of the Universe.
I try to make them see how lucky they are to be given this extraordinary knowledge.
In the past, many would have willingly given up all they had to know these secrets.