Far Rider;620201 wrote: To know you is to love you! :-4
You sweet talker, you! :-4
Jerry Falwell has....
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Jerry Falwell has....
Posted by far rider
I'm probably saying stuff Ive said on here before, but I'm gonna try this anyway. There has to be a way for even the most opposed positions to be discussed without attacking the person.
Disagreeing with someone is not the same as attacking them. Rather than thinking about what they believe or just being able to accept that others have a right to a different viewpoint I suspect many religious groups use the accusation as a means of dodging thinking.
posted by far rider
On your comment regarding Mr Falwell I think there is an important distinction to be made. I dont think he attempted to force folks to believe the bible, I think he made good strides for folks who already believe the bible not to be forced to submit to or be exposed to beliefs that were humanistic.
That works both ways. I object to being expected to tolerate religion but at the same time also accept that ideas that challenge religious belief are of lesser value and should not be given equal airing or expression.
Why not have both and let people make up their own minds. What do religious groups have to fear from free thinkers unless it is that if people are allowed to think for themselves they lose their faith? If religious people find anyone challenging their beliefs offensive it's even more offensive to be told you shouldn't challenge them. We don't live in a theocracy and many people have died to ensure that we don't.
Luckily in the UK religious debate is a lot less polarised and passionate. An inherent memory of religious conflict that makes up wary of extremes perhaps.
Like I said before. What would be the point of this forum if we all agreed with each other? If you don't like people arguing about religion or politics look at something else.
What's a sasparillo?
I'm probably saying stuff Ive said on here before, but I'm gonna try this anyway. There has to be a way for even the most opposed positions to be discussed without attacking the person.
Disagreeing with someone is not the same as attacking them. Rather than thinking about what they believe or just being able to accept that others have a right to a different viewpoint I suspect many religious groups use the accusation as a means of dodging thinking.
posted by far rider
On your comment regarding Mr Falwell I think there is an important distinction to be made. I dont think he attempted to force folks to believe the bible, I think he made good strides for folks who already believe the bible not to be forced to submit to or be exposed to beliefs that were humanistic.
That works both ways. I object to being expected to tolerate religion but at the same time also accept that ideas that challenge religious belief are of lesser value and should not be given equal airing or expression.
Why not have both and let people make up their own minds. What do religious groups have to fear from free thinkers unless it is that if people are allowed to think for themselves they lose their faith? If religious people find anyone challenging their beliefs offensive it's even more offensive to be told you shouldn't challenge them. We don't live in a theocracy and many people have died to ensure that we don't.
Luckily in the UK religious debate is a lot less polarised and passionate. An inherent memory of religious conflict that makes up wary of extremes perhaps.
Like I said before. What would be the point of this forum if we all agreed with each other? If you don't like people arguing about religion or politics look at something else.
What's a sasparillo?
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Jerry Falwell has....
gmc;620253 wrote:
What's a sasparillo?
A sarsparilla is a drink kind of like root beer or birch beer. It's tasty.
What's a sasparillo?
A sarsparilla is a drink kind of like root beer or birch beer. It's tasty.
Jerry Falwell has....
posted by far rider
Mostly I dont think that religions are fearful of free thinkers... but I find myself wanting to correct the misconceptions of my religious ideologies that seem most previalent by the freethinking types... I think for the most part the free thinkers have jumped to a conclusion or have been outright lied to regarding the basics of the bible. I'm more often on a correction mode than I am a true debate of ideologies.
Biggest disagreement is whether the bible is the word of god or not. You can't really debate it just agree to respect the others viewpoint and leave it alone.
I think the problems come when an ideology begins to effect others.
Oh yes.
Where I live we have Mormon church next to a free church of Scotland and a pentecostal church. One of the funniest evenings have spent recently at a Burn's supper was watching a Catholic priest and a Church of Scotland minister trying to explain the significance of an orange walk to a visiting American Mormon. The more the whisky flowed the funnier it got especially as the Mormon was clearly beginning to think he was on another planet rather than a different country.
You have to laugh at religious differences so long as you don't laugh at some twit that takes offence.
Mostly I dont think that religions are fearful of free thinkers... but I find myself wanting to correct the misconceptions of my religious ideologies that seem most previalent by the freethinking types... I think for the most part the free thinkers have jumped to a conclusion or have been outright lied to regarding the basics of the bible. I'm more often on a correction mode than I am a true debate of ideologies.
Biggest disagreement is whether the bible is the word of god or not. You can't really debate it just agree to respect the others viewpoint and leave it alone.
I think the problems come when an ideology begins to effect others.
Oh yes.
Where I live we have Mormon church next to a free church of Scotland and a pentecostal church. One of the funniest evenings have spent recently at a Burn's supper was watching a Catholic priest and a Church of Scotland minister trying to explain the significance of an orange walk to a visiting American Mormon. The more the whisky flowed the funnier it got especially as the Mormon was clearly beginning to think he was on another planet rather than a different country.
You have to laugh at religious differences so long as you don't laugh at some twit that takes offence.
Jerry Falwell has....
Far Rider:-6
Yep. LOL
You have not offended me in any way. I certainly have no desire to "fight" with you but have enjoyed the exchange.
While I disagree with you I certainly respect you and your right to your position and intend no personal attack.
I am in agreement here with GMC.
I do think it is very important that all of us accept that fact that there are many points of view in this world and we will not always agree but it would be a dull world if everyone did agree.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Yep. LOL
You have not offended me in any way. I certainly have no desire to "fight" with you but have enjoyed the exchange.
While I disagree with you I certainly respect you and your right to your position and intend no personal attack.
I am in agreement here with GMC.
I do think it is very important that all of us accept that fact that there are many points of view in this world and we will not always agree but it would be a dull world if everyone did agree.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Jerry Falwell has....
Ted;621724 wrote: Far Rider:-6
Yep. LOL
You have not offended me in any way. I certainly have no desire to "fight" with you but have enjoyed the exchange.
While I disagree with you I certainly respect you and your right to your position and intend no personal attack.
I am in agreement here with GMC.
I do think it is very important that all of us accept that fact that there are many points of view in this world and we will not always agree but it would be a dull world if everyone did agree.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I think it would be a great pity if no one argued about religion on this forum just because some people consider it offensive and can't tell the difference between impassioned argument and a personal attack. You and Far rider were hardly indulging in personal attacks on each other-and I suspect each is quite capable of telling the other where to go if you thought that was the case. I suspect of you met face to face you would spend hours arguing with each other and be best of friends. It seems to be a american cultural thing that no one can make "derogatory" remarks about religion. Derogatory seeming to be anything that question the right of the religious to dictate to others.
a wee taster of what the debate is like on the other side of the pond-or at least one wee bit of it.
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/sc ... =823222007
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld ... -headlines
EDINBURGH, Scotland -- Scotland's top Catholic cleric said Thursday that lawmakers who support a decades-old law that made abortions legal should not receive Holy Communion or remain full members of the church.
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid ... =766282007
We've got one church leader trying to combat sectarianism and another reminding everyone why it used to be such an issue in the first place. Religious leaders should not be trying to dictate to politicians who are elected to represent all their constituents not to pursue a religious agenda. I'm not religious but neither do I object to religious believers following their faith as they see fit. But attempts like that to impose their beliefs on others make me angry. It's the sheer hypocrisy of a church that tries to ban sex education in schools, would deny contraceptives even to those not of their faith and protects paedophile priests as if they can see nothing wrong with what they have done.
I know many religious people who I respect, sadly I know even more who use their religion to justify hatred and bigotry. It seems some religious groups think just because they read the bible a certain way they should be able to do what they want to others. Racism used to be justified using the bible with the same passion that it is used to damn homosexuals and anyone else whose lifestyle they find offensive.
Now if the above offends you go away. If you want to debate or disagree with me please do.
Yep. LOL
You have not offended me in any way. I certainly have no desire to "fight" with you but have enjoyed the exchange.
While I disagree with you I certainly respect you and your right to your position and intend no personal attack.
I am in agreement here with GMC.
I do think it is very important that all of us accept that fact that there are many points of view in this world and we will not always agree but it would be a dull world if everyone did agree.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I think it would be a great pity if no one argued about religion on this forum just because some people consider it offensive and can't tell the difference between impassioned argument and a personal attack. You and Far rider were hardly indulging in personal attacks on each other-and I suspect each is quite capable of telling the other where to go if you thought that was the case. I suspect of you met face to face you would spend hours arguing with each other and be best of friends. It seems to be a american cultural thing that no one can make "derogatory" remarks about religion. Derogatory seeming to be anything that question the right of the religious to dictate to others.
a wee taster of what the debate is like on the other side of the pond-or at least one wee bit of it.
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/sc ... =823222007
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld ... -headlines
EDINBURGH, Scotland -- Scotland's top Catholic cleric said Thursday that lawmakers who support a decades-old law that made abortions legal should not receive Holy Communion or remain full members of the church.
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid ... =766282007
We've got one church leader trying to combat sectarianism and another reminding everyone why it used to be such an issue in the first place. Religious leaders should not be trying to dictate to politicians who are elected to represent all their constituents not to pursue a religious agenda. I'm not religious but neither do I object to religious believers following their faith as they see fit. But attempts like that to impose their beliefs on others make me angry. It's the sheer hypocrisy of a church that tries to ban sex education in schools, would deny contraceptives even to those not of their faith and protects paedophile priests as if they can see nothing wrong with what they have done.
I know many religious people who I respect, sadly I know even more who use their religion to justify hatred and bigotry. It seems some religious groups think just because they read the bible a certain way they should be able to do what they want to others. Racism used to be justified using the bible with the same passion that it is used to damn homosexuals and anyone else whose lifestyle they find offensive.
Now if the above offends you go away. If you want to debate or disagree with me please do.
Jerry Falwell has....
randmlaws;613722 wrote: Pinky, I dont believe that u r born queer/gay/homo/ or what ever u want to call them.
And since God is the reason that we are all here in the first place, if he was to make u that when u r born then the bible would not speak against homosexuality and the rest of the filth that has been on this earth since adam and eve disobeyed him.
He has destroyed cities because of the homos, drugs, whores, murderers, adultery, and devil loving people.
I have a brother that is homo and NO HE WAS NOT BORN THAT WAY. He chose that way of life and i pray for him every day. He also agrees that he was not born that way or that he is going to hell if he doesn't change his ways.
So the christian world has lost a person who stood up for what he belived no matter what people said to him or about him....
The least that any of us could do is show some respect for him and his family.
Were you talking about God or Hitler ?
And since God is the reason that we are all here in the first place, if he was to make u that when u r born then the bible would not speak against homosexuality and the rest of the filth that has been on this earth since adam and eve disobeyed him.
He has destroyed cities because of the homos, drugs, whores, murderers, adultery, and devil loving people.
I have a brother that is homo and NO HE WAS NOT BORN THAT WAY. He chose that way of life and i pray for him every day. He also agrees that he was not born that way or that he is going to hell if he doesn't change his ways.
So the christian world has lost a person who stood up for what he belived no matter what people said to him or about him....
The least that any of us could do is show some respect for him and his family.
Were you talking about God or Hitler ?
I AM AWESOME MAN
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Jerry Falwell has....
Nomad;627592 wrote: Were you talking about God or Hitler ?
:yh_worshp
:yh_worshp
Jerry Falwell has....
Far Rider;626968 wrote: Pish-posh...
Argueing is kinda silly to me...
Everybody gets a vote right? Then if majority rules, and the rules violate your religious convictions then you by conviction live out the more stringent and obey the law, where it conflicts with the law then if your serious about your convictions then you suffer the consequences.
If there is enough in one place to change the law to laws that may be religious too, then the majority has ruled.
If an individual sect acts in a manner that prohibits the free liberties of a person then that person doesnt have to stay, we do have religious freedom.
The problem arises when you have a catholic politicians elected by an electorate that are in the main non catholic who is then told by the catholic church that if they support a woman's right to choose they will be excommunicated. The church telling politicians what they should do. Who decides? The church or those who elected him. NB the religion of an MP is not an issue when elected, the archbishop has just made sure it will become one, setting back anti sectarianism by decades.
religious leaders have a right to express an opinion but not to tell elected representatives what they should do. One of the reasons we have a secret ballot is so that people can vote as they see fit without fear. MP's do not have the luxury of secrecy, how they vote is in the public domain. A threat like excommunication is very real to some people.
In an American context, how would you react if the archbishop of America or whatever it is called on all politicians to vote as dictated to by the church or face excommunication. Jerry falwell may have made some such call but at least there is always another protestant church to join.
posted by pinky
Jeez, this is turning into the unkillable thread!
Maybe I'll spam it up a bit, that usually works.
Well, here goes....
ARSE!!!
Why spoil it when people are having fun? Just so Americans reading this will know what you are talking about or indeed out of :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl (sorry, couldn't resist the temptation)
from the Oxford English dictionary American edition.
arse
• noun Brit. vulgar slang a person’s bottom.
— ORIGIN Old English
ass2
• noun North American form of ARSE.
Argueing is kinda silly to me...
Everybody gets a vote right? Then if majority rules, and the rules violate your religious convictions then you by conviction live out the more stringent and obey the law, where it conflicts with the law then if your serious about your convictions then you suffer the consequences.
If there is enough in one place to change the law to laws that may be religious too, then the majority has ruled.
If an individual sect acts in a manner that prohibits the free liberties of a person then that person doesnt have to stay, we do have religious freedom.
The problem arises when you have a catholic politicians elected by an electorate that are in the main non catholic who is then told by the catholic church that if they support a woman's right to choose they will be excommunicated. The church telling politicians what they should do. Who decides? The church or those who elected him. NB the religion of an MP is not an issue when elected, the archbishop has just made sure it will become one, setting back anti sectarianism by decades.
religious leaders have a right to express an opinion but not to tell elected representatives what they should do. One of the reasons we have a secret ballot is so that people can vote as they see fit without fear. MP's do not have the luxury of secrecy, how they vote is in the public domain. A threat like excommunication is very real to some people.
In an American context, how would you react if the archbishop of America or whatever it is called on all politicians to vote as dictated to by the church or face excommunication. Jerry falwell may have made some such call but at least there is always another protestant church to join.
posted by pinky
Jeez, this is turning into the unkillable thread!
Maybe I'll spam it up a bit, that usually works.
Well, here goes....
ARSE!!!
Why spoil it when people are having fun? Just so Americans reading this will know what you are talking about or indeed out of :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl (sorry, couldn't resist the temptation)
from the Oxford English dictionary American edition.
arse
• noun Brit. vulgar slang a person’s bottom.
— ORIGIN Old English
ass2
• noun North American form of ARSE.
Jerry Falwell has....
posted by far rider
There is a fundamental problem with hirarchy in a church, there is none, or shouldn't be according to scripture. The highest 'leadership' office in the new testament church is 'elder' the second is 'deacon'and they are orginized under local assemblies, not a dynamic higherarchy of global authority. Such as in the catholic denomination.
You just put your finger on one of the causes of the sectarian divide. That and the subject of idolatry. But now I'm digressing in to something that is clearly not much of an issue in US politics. Sadly it is in scottish politics.
posted by far rider
To me, if a religion is peaceful and teaches good things then the people will respect that and anyone who embodies those things would be deemed a leader to be respected, hopefully they elect him to leadership in government.
The trouble too many religious leaders like jerry falwell feel they have a right to condemn others that don't share their beliefs or lifestyle and encourage their followers to militate against them. Doesn't matter what it is, homophobia, racism, sectarianism they make hatred of those who are different acceptable and condemning those who go over the score doesn't make them less culpable.
It's a hard line to draw in seeing something you disapprove and can't understand and yet being tolerant enough to leave alone those who follow that lifestyle.
There is a fundamental problem with hirarchy in a church, there is none, or shouldn't be according to scripture. The highest 'leadership' office in the new testament church is 'elder' the second is 'deacon'and they are orginized under local assemblies, not a dynamic higherarchy of global authority. Such as in the catholic denomination.
You just put your finger on one of the causes of the sectarian divide. That and the subject of idolatry. But now I'm digressing in to something that is clearly not much of an issue in US politics. Sadly it is in scottish politics.
posted by far rider
To me, if a religion is peaceful and teaches good things then the people will respect that and anyone who embodies those things would be deemed a leader to be respected, hopefully they elect him to leadership in government.
The trouble too many religious leaders like jerry falwell feel they have a right to condemn others that don't share their beliefs or lifestyle and encourage their followers to militate against them. Doesn't matter what it is, homophobia, racism, sectarianism they make hatred of those who are different acceptable and condemning those who go over the score doesn't make them less culpable.
It's a hard line to draw in seeing something you disapprove and can't understand and yet being tolerant enough to leave alone those who follow that lifestyle.
Jerry Falwell has....
gmc:-6
I am in complete agreement with you. We do not need nor should we tolerate a theocracy.
Far Rider:-6
Yes the majority rules but they must learn to respect the rights of the minority as well.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I am in complete agreement with you. We do not need nor should we tolerate a theocracy.
Far Rider:-6
Yes the majority rules but they must learn to respect the rights of the minority as well.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Jerry Falwell has....
Pinky:-6
Would you mind stirring the pot a little bit? LOL.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Would you mind stirring the pot a little bit? LOL.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Jerry Falwell has....
To introduce a wee bit of history into the mix, the United States of America was designed to be a secular nation.
In support of this contention, I offer Article 11 of the "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary". Thus:-
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
From Annals of the 5th Congress.
In support of this contention, I offer Article 11 of the "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary". Thus:-
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
From Annals of the 5th Congress.
An ye harm none, do what ye will....
Jerry Falwell has....
Far Rider:-6
I draw your attention to the fact that Jesus was not tolerant of the Pharisees when they were trying to use their particular religious convictions to attack the poor, the oppressed, the tax collectors, the prostitutes etc.
Neither was he tolerant of the temple authorities who were using their power over people to feather their own nests.
Neither did Jesus permit his own disciples to use the sword to protect him just before the crucifixion.
Jesus also said that we were to love our enemies and do good to those who hate us.
Jesus did not judge the prostitute nor the swindling tax collector.
It seems to me that Jesus was opposed to all forms of oppression but instead of turning to the sword he made use of non-violent resistance.
We are clearly told not to judge or that we would be judged in the same way. In fact the only person we are to judge is ourselves and no one else.
I am intolerant of intolerance as our Lord was. Falwell cast his judgment on others. He put himself in the place that God alone occupies. Am I judging Falwell. Not at all. I am simply making an observation.
The Didache is quite clear that if we don't like what we see others doing and especially Christians we are simply to not repeat what we don't like. God will be the judge. Our job is to love and lead by example. If others do not follow it is not our problem it is between them and God. Augustine also fell into this trap and denounced even the very sexual act between to married adults as sinful and evil. Of course he had his own hangups and pushed them onto everyone else who would listen.
With some 22 000 Christian denominations which on the earth which ones are correct?
Shalom
Ted:-6
I draw your attention to the fact that Jesus was not tolerant of the Pharisees when they were trying to use their particular religious convictions to attack the poor, the oppressed, the tax collectors, the prostitutes etc.
Neither was he tolerant of the temple authorities who were using their power over people to feather their own nests.
Neither did Jesus permit his own disciples to use the sword to protect him just before the crucifixion.
Jesus also said that we were to love our enemies and do good to those who hate us.
Jesus did not judge the prostitute nor the swindling tax collector.
It seems to me that Jesus was opposed to all forms of oppression but instead of turning to the sword he made use of non-violent resistance.
We are clearly told not to judge or that we would be judged in the same way. In fact the only person we are to judge is ourselves and no one else.
I am intolerant of intolerance as our Lord was. Falwell cast his judgment on others. He put himself in the place that God alone occupies. Am I judging Falwell. Not at all. I am simply making an observation.
The Didache is quite clear that if we don't like what we see others doing and especially Christians we are simply to not repeat what we don't like. God will be the judge. Our job is to love and lead by example. If others do not follow it is not our problem it is between them and God. Augustine also fell into this trap and denounced even the very sexual act between to married adults as sinful and evil. Of course he had his own hangups and pushed them onto everyone else who would listen.
With some 22 000 Christian denominations which on the earth which ones are correct?
Shalom
Ted:-6
Jerry Falwell has....
Far Rider:-6
It is totally impossible for me to condemn Falwell. I am not allowed to be either the judge or the executioner.
If we are to follow in Jesus footsteps it makes no difference who we are. We are called to follow him and even to the cross if necessary. I doubt very much Jesus had the foreknowledge that you would grant unto him. He showed us how we were to live and it is up to us to choose or not as the case may be.
Shalom
Ted:-6
It is totally impossible for me to condemn Falwell. I am not allowed to be either the judge or the executioner.
If we are to follow in Jesus footsteps it makes no difference who we are. We are called to follow him and even to the cross if necessary. I doubt very much Jesus had the foreknowledge that you would grant unto him. He showed us how we were to live and it is up to us to choose or not as the case may be.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Jerry Falwell has....
posted bt far rider
I will take exception to your accusation that Jerry Falwell taught hatred, he did not, nor did he ever advocate hurting anyone.
I only know of Jerry falwell through his condemnation of Tinky Winky, a short term business connection with the Bank of Scotland that caused such an outcry the bank severed the link and this forum. So I do not profess to know what exactly he said. I assume he never advocated violence.
Jerry Falwell eveidently didnt have homosexual sin in him if he was able to speak out agaisnt it so vehemtly.
Why was he (as I presume he was) so obsessed by what goes on between consenting adults?
My contention was that those religious leaders that use religion to condemn a lifestyle they disapprove of make it acceptable to discriminate against those who practice it or even take action against those who just want to be left alone to live their lives as they choose. Be it homosexuality, mixed race marriages, sex before marriage or divorce. take your pick.
Tolerance of others is never as attractive as having a victim to kick for some people. If a religious leader says their dislike is justified because the bible says it is it's not too big a step to see how to some that will justify righteous anger and action. They appeal to the weak minded or those who have not yet learned to make up their own mind.
posted by far rider
ust because they have the right doesnt make it right to choose what they have chosen. And I dont have to agree with it.
Trust me anyway Im in the minority on most of these issues when it comes to morality. Way in the minority.
Do you respect my right to denounce evil as evil, why arent you tolerant of that?
Speaking for myself I would respect your right to do denounce evil just as I will defend mt right to denounce things I consider wrong. Although I would take issue with you that it exists as a force encouraged by satan. But not here.
besides we would end up just not agreeing with each other and leaving it at that.
I would draw a line were you to claim that you and only you had the true definition of what evil is.
ust because they have the right doesnt make it right to choose what they have chosen. And I dont have to agree with it.
No and you are not being forced to. All that is being asked for is the right to have their way of life respected. I don't understand many lifestyles or it's appeal but I am prepared to tolerate others with a different world view so long as they respect that others are entitled to the same consideration. I can't understand religious belief and think it causes a lot of harm in the world but I would not advocate stopping it's practice or condemn it's followers. Thankfully as people become better educated and know more of the world around them the influence of the church (in a generic sense) seems to be on the wane. Although signs of a religious revival are worrying, particularly as religious groups seem to be getting more and more strident in their demands to be heard. Hopefully the day they actually have mass support will never come again.
To see the conflict in the middle east, for example, described as good against evil, good religion against an evil one is thoroughly depressing. Medieval superstition has no place in a 21st century society. But being tolerant and of a liberal (in the true sense of the word) disposition I suspect I will put up with it.
I will take exception to your accusation that Jerry Falwell taught hatred, he did not, nor did he ever advocate hurting anyone.
I only know of Jerry falwell through his condemnation of Tinky Winky, a short term business connection with the Bank of Scotland that caused such an outcry the bank severed the link and this forum. So I do not profess to know what exactly he said. I assume he never advocated violence.
Jerry Falwell eveidently didnt have homosexual sin in him if he was able to speak out agaisnt it so vehemtly.
Why was he (as I presume he was) so obsessed by what goes on between consenting adults?
My contention was that those religious leaders that use religion to condemn a lifestyle they disapprove of make it acceptable to discriminate against those who practice it or even take action against those who just want to be left alone to live their lives as they choose. Be it homosexuality, mixed race marriages, sex before marriage or divorce. take your pick.
Tolerance of others is never as attractive as having a victim to kick for some people. If a religious leader says their dislike is justified because the bible says it is it's not too big a step to see how to some that will justify righteous anger and action. They appeal to the weak minded or those who have not yet learned to make up their own mind.
posted by far rider
ust because they have the right doesnt make it right to choose what they have chosen. And I dont have to agree with it.
Trust me anyway Im in the minority on most of these issues when it comes to morality. Way in the minority.
Do you respect my right to denounce evil as evil, why arent you tolerant of that?
Speaking for myself I would respect your right to do denounce evil just as I will defend mt right to denounce things I consider wrong. Although I would take issue with you that it exists as a force encouraged by satan. But not here.
besides we would end up just not agreeing with each other and leaving it at that.I would draw a line were you to claim that you and only you had the true definition of what evil is.
ust because they have the right doesnt make it right to choose what they have chosen. And I dont have to agree with it.
No and you are not being forced to. All that is being asked for is the right to have their way of life respected. I don't understand many lifestyles or it's appeal but I am prepared to tolerate others with a different world view so long as they respect that others are entitled to the same consideration. I can't understand religious belief and think it causes a lot of harm in the world but I would not advocate stopping it's practice or condemn it's followers. Thankfully as people become better educated and know more of the world around them the influence of the church (in a generic sense) seems to be on the wane. Although signs of a religious revival are worrying, particularly as religious groups seem to be getting more and more strident in their demands to be heard. Hopefully the day they actually have mass support will never come again.
To see the conflict in the middle east, for example, described as good against evil, good religion against an evil one is thoroughly depressing. Medieval superstition has no place in a 21st century society. But being tolerant and of a liberal (in the true sense of the word) disposition I suspect I will put up with it.
Jerry Falwell has....
Far Rider;629522 wrote:
Yet because of their religion (Islam) they have the potential to affect me much more than they already do, and the outlook should we not consider them and take action.
I have to ask myself is it God that drives their religion, and the conclusion I draw is no, not in the least, they are deluded, the whole lot of them, they act out of selfish evil., their own total depravity.
I really do have a problem with this.
Within Islam (in which I do not believe) there is at least as wide a variation as there is within Christianity. There are the intolerant fundamentalists (Shia) and the spiritualists (Sufi) as well as the chapel (Sunni) equivalents.
To say that the whole of Islam is deluded and selfishly evil and depraved is to align yourself with the inquisition. It is so much like the stance of the insurgency with respect to the west that it is beyond a joke.
Compare what you are saying about Islam with what the Islamists are saying about Christians and tell me, without quoting the Bible (because the can just as easily quote the Quaran) that you have right on your side.
Remember, when answering, that the tactics used in any battle are a function of the relative strengths of the two forces at the time, not a function of the competing ideologies.
Yet because of their religion (Islam) they have the potential to affect me much more than they already do, and the outlook should we not consider them and take action.
I have to ask myself is it God that drives their religion, and the conclusion I draw is no, not in the least, they are deluded, the whole lot of them, they act out of selfish evil., their own total depravity.
I really do have a problem with this.
Within Islam (in which I do not believe) there is at least as wide a variation as there is within Christianity. There are the intolerant fundamentalists (Shia) and the spiritualists (Sufi) as well as the chapel (Sunni) equivalents.
To say that the whole of Islam is deluded and selfishly evil and depraved is to align yourself with the inquisition. It is so much like the stance of the insurgency with respect to the west that it is beyond a joke.
Compare what you are saying about Islam with what the Islamists are saying about Christians and tell me, without quoting the Bible (because the can just as easily quote the Quaran) that you have right on your side.
Remember, when answering, that the tactics used in any battle are a function of the relative strengths of the two forces at the time, not a function of the competing ideologies.
Jerry Falwell has....
Far Rider:-6
I don't entirely disagree with some of what you say. Man has screwed up in many places and ways since he gained consciousness.
Bryn is correct in his observation of Islam vs. Christianity. Both of these great faiths began for exactly the same reason and withing a very short space of time historically. "The Great Transformation", Karen Armstrong. The reason they both began was to seek out justice and the betterment of the human race. Just as there are extremists in Islam so there are in Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism etc. No one group holds a monopoly on extremism.
You speak of my reading of many scholarly works. Yep, but out of that reading has developed a religious view that is as consistent as any can be. Every religious faith contains paradox and they just have to be lived with.
You raise the question of the nature of both God and the historical Jesus. In his book "Passion for Creation", Matthew Fox points out quite clearly that any description of definition of God is simply beyond human language. Nothing we can say or do will ever change that. This is supported by many other scholars as well as clergy.
Now to the nature of Jesus. Was he God. No, he was an Eastern Mediterranean Jewish peasant who enjoyed a very special relationship with God and as such had much more wisdom than most of us. He was very much a human being. That some would declare that he was God is a theological statement that like all descriptions of God are beyond human capabilities. As an aside, in ancient days anyone who enjoyed a special relationship with the divine was called a "Son of God". The only words we have with which to tackle the meaning and nature of God are metaphorical.
This Jesus did enjoy a very profound and special relationship with God. He apparently said that I and the Father are one. That whole point of "One" is what all humans hope to achieve, oneness with the divine. I have no problem with this. This is Christian history right from the beginning. In that special relationship he gained a very powerful influence on mankind. In him we see the human manifestation of the true nature of God. The central theme of all of his message was the good news of the coming and arrival of the Kingdom of God. This is a kingdom where God rules and all humans live in peace and harmony not only with God but with each other. It begins here on earth and continues into eternity whatever that means.
If one wants to understand this Jesus one simply has to look at his life and message. He abhorred violence for the most part as I have pointed out in an above post. He resorted to non-violent resistance though there were a few times when he resorted to righteous anger. If we see in this Jesus the fullness of God we do not see a God who promotes war crimes as in Numbers 31 nor do we see a God of vengeance and wrath. We see in Jesus what God expects of us as clearly spelled out in Micah 6:8. We are to "do justice and love kindness and walk humbly with our God.
What many Christians today a speaking of is the risen Christ of Faith. Here we move into the realm of metaphor because we lack the language or the conceptualization abilities. None of this denies the risen Lord but points in a very profound way to the divinity.
We are called to follow his way even to the cross if necessary.
I have no problem with your approach or at least most of it. If you choose to read it literally that is fine with me. Theologically I see no problem. However, in light of modern science, historical research and archaeological research I see the Bible in the metaphorical sense in which it was written. The ancient Hebrews were quite understanding of the metaphorical nature of the Bible. It really only became historical as a result of the reformation some 400 years ago.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I don't entirely disagree with some of what you say. Man has screwed up in many places and ways since he gained consciousness.
Bryn is correct in his observation of Islam vs. Christianity. Both of these great faiths began for exactly the same reason and withing a very short space of time historically. "The Great Transformation", Karen Armstrong. The reason they both began was to seek out justice and the betterment of the human race. Just as there are extremists in Islam so there are in Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism etc. No one group holds a monopoly on extremism.
You speak of my reading of many scholarly works. Yep, but out of that reading has developed a religious view that is as consistent as any can be. Every religious faith contains paradox and they just have to be lived with.
You raise the question of the nature of both God and the historical Jesus. In his book "Passion for Creation", Matthew Fox points out quite clearly that any description of definition of God is simply beyond human language. Nothing we can say or do will ever change that. This is supported by many other scholars as well as clergy.
Now to the nature of Jesus. Was he God. No, he was an Eastern Mediterranean Jewish peasant who enjoyed a very special relationship with God and as such had much more wisdom than most of us. He was very much a human being. That some would declare that he was God is a theological statement that like all descriptions of God are beyond human capabilities. As an aside, in ancient days anyone who enjoyed a special relationship with the divine was called a "Son of God". The only words we have with which to tackle the meaning and nature of God are metaphorical.
This Jesus did enjoy a very profound and special relationship with God. He apparently said that I and the Father are one. That whole point of "One" is what all humans hope to achieve, oneness with the divine. I have no problem with this. This is Christian history right from the beginning. In that special relationship he gained a very powerful influence on mankind. In him we see the human manifestation of the true nature of God. The central theme of all of his message was the good news of the coming and arrival of the Kingdom of God. This is a kingdom where God rules and all humans live in peace and harmony not only with God but with each other. It begins here on earth and continues into eternity whatever that means.
If one wants to understand this Jesus one simply has to look at his life and message. He abhorred violence for the most part as I have pointed out in an above post. He resorted to non-violent resistance though there were a few times when he resorted to righteous anger. If we see in this Jesus the fullness of God we do not see a God who promotes war crimes as in Numbers 31 nor do we see a God of vengeance and wrath. We see in Jesus what God expects of us as clearly spelled out in Micah 6:8. We are to "do justice and love kindness and walk humbly with our God.
What many Christians today a speaking of is the risen Christ of Faith. Here we move into the realm of metaphor because we lack the language or the conceptualization abilities. None of this denies the risen Lord but points in a very profound way to the divinity.
We are called to follow his way even to the cross if necessary.
I have no problem with your approach or at least most of it. If you choose to read it literally that is fine with me. Theologically I see no problem. However, in light of modern science, historical research and archaeological research I see the Bible in the metaphorical sense in which it was written. The ancient Hebrews were quite understanding of the metaphorical nature of the Bible. It really only became historical as a result of the reformation some 400 years ago.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Jerry Falwell has....
Far Rider:-6
Actually I do think we could agree on one point, Jesus is Lord.
Doctrine and dogma are just that man made positions. Neither are of the least importance. What is important is that we live in a developing, loving and transforming relationship with the God as manifested in one Jesus of Nazareth. Such a relationship would manifest itself in action and not just words.
We might even agree on the word "transformation" which replaces the older description of being "born again".
Shalom
Ted:-6
Actually I do think we could agree on one point, Jesus is Lord.
Doctrine and dogma are just that man made positions. Neither are of the least importance. What is important is that we live in a developing, loving and transforming relationship with the God as manifested in one Jesus of Nazareth. Such a relationship would manifest itself in action and not just words.
We might even agree on the word "transformation" which replaces the older description of being "born again".
Shalom
Ted:-6
Jerry Falwell has....
On the naming of God.
Based on a sermon given by Meister Eckhart in the late 13th cent. M. Fox writes "Because God's depths are so shrouded in mystery, God cannot be named. 'No one can really say what God is. . . The ineffable One has no name.' God is 'the unknowable'."
pg. 175, "Passion for Creation", Meister Eckhart.
This was the feeling of the early church and the early church fathers. Our modern knowledge makes the point even more realistic.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Based on a sermon given by Meister Eckhart in the late 13th cent. M. Fox writes "Because God's depths are so shrouded in mystery, God cannot be named. 'No one can really say what God is. . . The ineffable One has no name.' God is 'the unknowable'."
pg. 175, "Passion for Creation", Meister Eckhart.
This was the feeling of the early church and the early church fathers. Our modern knowledge makes the point even more realistic.
Shalom
Ted:-6