The Religion Thread

[Vrede too]

War on Hinduism:

To: laura-dupont@ccisd.net,charlie-pond@ccisd.net,grsmith@ccisd.net,hhughes@ccisd.net,epolsen@ccisd.net
(Contact Us)

Re: Mom Outraged After 7-Year-Old Comes Home From School With (henna) Tattoo

Y'all took the high road by apologizing for not being more descriptive, kudos, but it seems like the problem is entirely the Mom's disinterest in school communications, both parents' ignorance about something very well known, Dad's laziness when faced with something he's ignorant about, their utter inability to creatively come up with hand-hiding holiday pics, Mom going full Henny Penny over what would be a fun story for most families, and Mom's not so hidden bigotry.

That's how it is these days - one's screw ups are always someone else's fault.

Thanks for your cultural diversity education.

Peace on Earth,

[Seth Milner]

The closet I see ...

I see another "closet". Freudian slip?
A Vrede too fail: you forgot your famous (sic)

... in that chart that would be considered fundamental is the Church of God of Cleveland, TN who show only a 22% increase, the lowest of all.

[/quote]
Ummm, there are two charts, "Evangelical Protestant" is listed in the 1st chart, there are several fundamentalist churches listed in the 2nd chart and the Church of God of Cleveland, TN increase in acceptance of homosexuality is 3%, not your "22%".
Yep, read that one wrong.

You fail simple arithmetic,
1 + 1 isn't three?
honesty,
You mean like cross my heart hope to die honest injun honesty?
religion
So says the religious scholar.
and accuracy,
yep.
again.
Of course. The world's foremost authority on any and everything just told me so. [/quote]

[O Really]

Am I the only one who thinks the "Church of God of Cleveland" is really funny?

[Seth Milner]

Am I the only one who thinks the "Church of God of Cleveland" is really funny?

That's why I was sure to write Church of God of Cleveland, TN. To Be technical though, it's a district thing. So yeah, as of right now, until your peers join in, you're the only one.

[Vrede too]

Am I the only one who thinks the "Church of God of Cleveland" is really funny?

I still remember a trucker that picked me up hitchhiking nearly 40 years ago calling it "The Mistake by the Lake".

[Seth Milner]

I see mostly churches that are members of associations or conventions or whatever they're called. No fundamental or independent religions or denominations are listed.

That's would be a pair point - if you only looked at the second graph. The first graph DOES include Catholics and other major denominations. The story is the same; acceptance of homosexuality has risen dramatically over a mere seven years.
Independent and/or fundamental churches such as many Baptist, Methodist, COG don't show up on the "radar" of opinion charts and/or graphs because they AREN"T part of organized denominations.

That matches data from other sources too. Here in Canada the single largest Protestant denomination, the United Church, has endorsed and performed same-sex marriages since even before the starting date on those graphs. The increase in acceptance is the same in most if not all other western countries. Ireland for example, an almost entirely Catholic country, which recently approved same-sex marriage in a country-wide referendum.

It's generally believed that the question regarding one's religion was a major reason the right-wing religious backed Conservative Party here in Canada did away with the extended census questionnaire. Not because they thought it was a privacy issue, but because they didn't like the long-term trend. It's harder to get politicians to heed the wishes of the fundamentalists when polls show them disappearing. (The Liberals are bringing the extended census questionnaire back.)

The closest I see in that chart that would be considered fundamental is the Church of God of Cleveland, TN who show only a 22% increase, the lowest of all.

There will always be outliers. There will always be those who cling to old bigotries.
Bigotries. What an asinine thought. It's their religious beliefs. Bigot and homophobe are favorite words of the homosexual agenda.

The Mormon church still considered blacks to be subhuman even when Mitt Romney was preaching for it.
Each to their own, I suppose. That doesn't mean all LDS members harbor the same views.

and as long as it's in their church by-laws, it's legal.

Well sure. No-one argues against it being legal. They're free to preach whatever they want,
It's not preaching they're concerned with. They're taking steps to defend themselves against homosexuals suing them for refusing to marry them.

just like some Christian organizations still preach white supremacy and many (including the Church of God of Cleveland) don't allow women in higher church positions.
I can't argue for or against that; but I said there were over-zealous beliefs.

It's only a problem when they try to use government positions to dictate their policies to others, or their companies that deal with the general public to refuse services to women, non-whites, etc.
Examples?

Mr. B has a valid argument though: "Just because someone calls themselves a Christian. . . . " He's correct if 'Christian' is defined by what I've read in the Bible.

[billy.pilgrim]

Where are churches being sues for refusing to marry people

[O Really]

Mr. B has a valid argument though: "Just because someone calls themselves a Christian. . . . " He's correct if 'Christian' is defined by what I've read in the Bible.

Nope. The entrance requirements are very low, and are largely self-expressed. If you say you are, you are. Likewise, no matter how often you go to church, if you say you aren't, you aren't.

Now to be a member of the Church of Body Modification, you've got to have a public and permanent commitment.

[billy.pilgrim]

Rather than all the whining about inserting religious belies into every government function, the basic principles of FSM demand the separation od pasta and plate.

[billy.pilgrim]

bb has a valid argument though: "Just because someone calls themselves a muslim. . . . " He's correct if 'muslim' is defined by what I've read in the koran.

[Vrede too]

Mr. B has a valid argument though: "Just because someone calls themselves a Christian. . . . " He's correct if 'Christian' is defined by what I've read in the Bible.

So, that's what the tolerant Christian majority can legitimately say about bigots like you and Mr.B. Thanks for clearing that up.

[rstrong]

Independent and/or fundamental churches such as many Baptist, Methodist, COG don't show up on the "radar" of opinion charts and/or graphs because they AREN"T part of organized denominations.

This does nothing to stop them from being polled.

There will always be outliers. There will always be those who cling to old bigotries.

Bigotries. What an asinine thought. It's their religious beliefs. Bigot and homophobe are favorite words of the homosexual agenda.

Oh grow up, you childish little shit. When a church teaches that blacks are subhuman - as some still do and many used to - including that of the most recent Republican presidential candidate WHILE he was preaching for it - some still do - that is indeed bigotry. Doing the same for women and homosexuals makes no difference.

Funny how, as usual, you defend the bigots' right voice their opinions but object to the opinions of those who disagree.

The Mormon church still considered blacks to be subhuman even when Mitt Romney was preaching for it.

Each to their own, I suppose. That doesn't mean all LDS members harbor the same views.

One could make the same claim about today's fundamentalists. As in "just because their church policy opposes homosexuality, not all their members harbor the same views." Shall we casually dismiss their church policies too?

No-one argues against it being legal. They're free to preach whatever they want,

It's not preaching they're concerned with. They're taking steps to defend themselves against homosexuals suing them for refusing to marry them.

There are no such lawsuits. They're a victim of their own paranoia.

Here in Canada we've had same-sex marriage country-wide for over a decade. Churches are under no obligation to endorse or perform or recognize same-sex marriages. There haven't been any such lawsuits, nor any sign that anyone on the pro same-sex marriage side wants it any other way. Nor is there any such sign in the US.

[Vrede too]

... Oh grow up, you childish little shit....

Ah, the start of so, so many posts to Seth Milner.

It's not preaching they're concerned with. They're taking steps to defend themselves against homosexuals suing them for refusing to marry them.

There are no such lawsuits. They're a victim of their own paranoia....

What, paranoid crybaby Seth Milner bore sinful false witness again? Say it ain't so.

[Seth Milner]

Where are churches being sues for refusing to marry people

Don't know of any. The churches' changing their by-laws is to prevent possible future litigation. For instance, a wedding chapel cannot refuse to marry homosexuals because it is not an established church; an established church with membership can draw up a set of church by-laws spelling out their religious beliefs. The largest majority of independent churches believe that the God they worship ordained marriage to be between a man and a woman, so that is written into their by-laws that they will not perform same-sex marriages nor allow an avowed homosexual to hold a church office. If a homosexual couple approaches that churches' leadership demanding to be married, the courts cannot force them to do so, nor can the homosexuals sue for damages claiming their rights were violated. I've had some dealings with some of these churches, and they take their Biblical beliefs pretty seriously; no "bigotry" involved.

[Seth Milner]

Mr. B has a valid argument though: "Just because someone calls themselves a Christian. . . . " He's correct if 'Christian' is defined by what I've read in the Bible.

Nope. The entrance requirements are very low, and are largely self-expressed. If you say you are, you are.
Nope. I can say I'm the president, the pope, or God's gift to women; because I say that, that don't make me what I say I am.

Likewise, no matter how often you go to church, if you say you aren't, you aren't.
Ummm, true that; but regardless whether you go to church or not, I would think holding oneself to those requirements involves a sincere commitment. If you hold yourself to those commitments, you are. If you don't hold yourself to those commitments, you aren't.

[Seth Milner]

Mr. B has a valid argument though: "Just because someone calls themselves a Christian. . . . " He's correct if 'Christian' is defined by what I've read in the Bible.

So, that's what the tolerant Christian majority can legitimately say about bigots like you and Mr.B. Thanks for clearing that up.

It is what it is. I'm not a bigot though; or Christian; or homosexual; or a condescending idiot like you and rstrong.

[Seth Milner]

Oh grow up, you childish little shit. When a church teaches that blacks are subhuman - as some still do and many used to - including that of the most recent Republican presidential candidate WHILE he was preaching for it - some still do - that is indeed bigotry. Doing the same for women and homosexuals makes no difference.

Funny how, as usual, you defend the bigots' right voice their opinions but object to the opinions of those who disagree.
Oh grow up yourself, you big childish shit. When's the last time you hauled your ass into a church and sat down long enough to know what was being said? Wait, I know, how could I forget?? You read it on the Internet! How silly of me to forget that!

The Mormon church still considered blacks to be subhuman even when Mitt Romney was preaching for it.

Each to their own, I suppose. That doesn't mean all LDS members harbor the same views.

One could make the same claim about today's fundamentalists.
They could; if they had a clue as to what is being spoken or taught in a fundamental church. Oh wait, you have a friend of a friend who goes to church; they told you. Cleared that up.

As in "just because their church policy opposes homosexuality, not all their members harbor the same views." Shall we casually dismiss their church policies too?
It's none of my business what their policies are; unless I was a member in any particular church; why is it yours? You've got your largest United whatever you said it was in Canada, why are you so ass-puckered about the churches here?

No-one argues against it being legal. They're free to preach whatever they want,

It's not preaching they're concerned with. They're taking steps to defend themselves against homosexuals suing them for refusing to marry them.

There are no such lawsuits. They're a victim of their own paranoia.
Didn't say there were any lawsuits. They're probably not even paranoid because they've now got their ass covered. Given an opportunity though, some $$$-eyed homosexual will try to legally extort money from a church for refusing them "service".

Here in Canada we've had same-sex marriage country-wide for over a decade.
Glad you and hubby are happy. The U.S. has always known our northern neighbors were, let's say, "different".

Churches are under no obligation to endorse or perform or recognize same-sex marriages.
They're not in the USA either, the Land of the Offended. Given the chance though, without by-laws, that privilege would have been contested. The baker had to make the cake.

There haven't been any such lawsuits, nor any sign that anyone on the pro same-sex marriage side wants it any other way. Nor is there any such sign in the US.
I didn't say there were. I said the possibility has been thwarted before it could have been contested.

[O Really]

Nope. The entrance requirements are very low, and are largely self-expressed. If you say you are, you are.
Nope. I can say I'm the president, the pope, or God's gift to women; because I say that, that don't make me what I say I am.

[/color]

[/quote]
Nope. The President and the Pope have very specific requirements. According to many quotes and interpretations of any of the main Christian Bibles, the only requirement is belief and faith in Jesus Christ. The problem with the Mr.B's of the world is that they have their own list of actions (not specified in the Bible) that they determine constitutes being a "real" Christian. Human requirements; human "evidence" of belief; worldly rituals. None of it is part of Jesus' own requirements.

If you say you believe and you don't, then one would expect God to know and send you to Hell for an afterlife. But no human can tell whether you believe or not.

[rstrong]

Mr. B has a valid argument though: "Just because someone calls themselves a Christian. . . . " He's correct if 'Christian' is defined by what I've read in the Bible.

Unless you stick to just the specific Mr.B-approved bits of the Bible, that applies to Mr.B too. To simplify his Biblical cherry-picking he claims that the Old Testament has nothing to do with Christianity. As for the New Testament he considers only some pages to be sacrosanct and others to be simply ignored.

He has his own personal beliefs and phobias, expects Christianity to follow, and casually dismisses it when it doesn't.

It is what it is. I'm not a bigot though; or Christian; or homosexual; or a condescending idiot like you, billy pilgrim, and rstrong.

Not that I expect you to do anything but evade the question:

Do you honestly believe that churches that endorsed slavery - as Christian beliefs, citing the "Curse of Ham" - were not bigoted? How about Mitt Romney's church when it considered blacks to be subhuman - same religious justification - when he was preaching for it? How about today's churches that still preach it? Is there any difference between that and the same treatment of those whom God made homosexual?

Churches are free to do so. The rest of us are free to express OUR opinion regarding their beliefs and practices. That you exclusively defend only their side, makes your "I'm not a bigot though" claim seem... like about your usual level of honesty.

[Seth Milner]

Nope. The President and the Pope have very specific requirements.
Being God's gift to women don't?

According to many quotes and interpretations of any of the main Christian Bibles, the only requirement is belief and faith in Jesus Christ. The problem with the Mr.B's of the world is that they have their own list of actions (not specified in the Bible) that they determine constitutes being a "real" Christian. Human requirements; human "evidence" of belief; worldly rituals. None of it is part of Jesus' own requirements.

If you say you believe and you don't, then one would expect God to know and send you to Hell for an afterlife. But no human can tell whether you believe or not.
I'm thinking about that knowing someone by the their fruits. If someone says they're Christian and you witness them stealing or cheating on their spouse, does that mean that in their heart, they're still (or ever was) a Christian? I still think Mr. B had a valid point.
(I'm getting in over my head, but this is interesting debate -- -- with you.)