The Religion Thread

[Bungalow Bill]

Nothing about it being against the law to fall asleep in church.
Not enough room in jails.

[Mr.B]

"...The New Heart Community Church in La Mirada, CA faced a difficult decision in early 2014 when lead pastor Danny Cortez told the congregation that his son, Drew, had come out -- and that he himself no longer agreed with the church's teachings on homosexuality."

He would make a great Democratic president, huh?

"..... the congregation took a vote and elected to.....change its official stance on homosexuality."
"This is a huge step for a Southern Baptist Church!!" he added..."

The church can vote and change anything it wishes; God's stance has not changed despite all the hateful words and thoughts that are slung at Him.
It's happened before, and it continues today.

As far as a "huge step"...they got that right....a "huge" step into deep doo-doo.

[Mr.B]

"North Carolina: It is illegal to have sex in a churchyard."

That brought back a memory of something I haven't thought about in years!

When I was still working, I needed to make a call to my next stop to get more specific directions to their home. I pulled over into a churchyard in Fletcher, because the company had a cardinal rule about cell phone use while driving. As I pulled into the parking lot, I noticed the church had a sort of hidden walkway that was partially blocked by a car parked there. Suddenly this big guy (6' +) came running out from the hidden area.......dressed only in heels, white panties with garter belt and stockings, and a huge white bra! He took off like a bat out of hell in his car with SC plates.

That was weird.

[rstrong]

He would make a great Democratic president, huh?

He set aside his hatred and phobia and supports civil rights.

So, agreed. It also makes him a good Christian, at least by New Testament teachings.

The church can vote and change anything it wishes; God's stance has not changed

Citation....?

Do you have a citation that shows that God opposes homosexuality? Which in context doesn't also require Christians to kill people for trimming their beard and many other common actions, and doesn't champion slavery?

You've been asked this before, and you've only ever evaded the question.

The Christian church shook it's pom-poms for slavery for almost its entire history, backed by a wealth of Biblical teaching on the subject, both Old and New Testament. Even when Mitt Romney was preaching, his version taught that blacks were cursed and inferior.

Has God's stance changed on slavery? On trimming beards, etc?

Don't worry; no-one is expecting an honest answer from you.

And BTW, with reference to major changes in the Bible since the early versions: If you're thumping the King James Bible, the current Catholic Bible or any other version from the last thousand years, then your position **IS** that God's stances change. Some times in big ways.

God's stance has not changed despite all the hateful words and thoughts that are slung at Him.

Despite all the hateful words and thoughts slung in His name by the likes of you.

[Mr.B]

"He would make a great Democratic president, huh?"

"He set aside his hatred and phobia and supports civil rights."
Hatred? Phobia? Do you really know the definition of the words? A dislike for something is far from hatred; phobia is a fear of something.
I don't hate anyone nor am I afraid of them unless they're holding a gun to my head.

"It also makes him a good Christian, at least by New Testament teachings."
The Bible does not mention "good Christian", however it does give the qualifications of being a "good Christian"....none that fit the actions or behavior of those past and present who called/call themselves Christians.

"The church can vote and change anything it wishes; God's stance has not changed"

"Citation....? Do you have a citation that shows that God opposes homosexuality? Which in context doesn't also require Christians to kill people for trimming their beard and many other common actions, and doesn't champion slavery?"
Citation: 1 Corinthians 6:9...."Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind..." Christians are not required to kill someone for trimming their beard, silly; nor we own slaves or advocate slavery. As you were told and are well aware of, those laws were laid down for Jews as punishment. Inasmuch as I didn't write the Bible, it's not up to me to debate it, dispute it, or argue what is right or wrong about it. God said it, I believe it, that settles it.

"You've been asked this before, and you've only ever evaded the question."
I just did....and have before.

"The Christian church shook it's pom-poms for slavery for almost its entire history, backed by a wealth of Biblical teaching on the subject, both Old and New Testament. Even when Mitt Romney was preaching, his version taught that blacks were cursed and inferior."
Like you said...his version.....but give a citation where he preached in support of slavery. You'll have to fill me in, the Mormon Bible is not the same as the Bible I read.

"Has God's stance changed on slavery? On trimming beards, etc?"
What do you think? No don't answer that... "Because the god of this world has made blind the minds of those who have not faith,
so that the light of the good news of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, might not be shine on them."

"And BTW, with reference to major changes in the Bible since the early versions: If you're thumping the King James Bible, the current Catholic Bible or any other version from the last thousand years, then your position **IS** that God's stances change. Some times in big ways."
I don't ascribe or "thump" to any other versions. I found the one that has not been changed to suit the wants and needs of this today's world.
"Revelation 22:18-19, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

"God's stance has not changed despite all the hateful words and thoughts that are slung at Him."

"Despite all the hateful words and thoughts slung in His name by the likes of you."
By the likes of me? Too funny.

[O Really]

Citation: 1 Corinthians 6:9...."Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind..."

Here's a good example of where the literalists run into problems (not that Mr.B is necessarily a literalist). One might assume, given the question to which this quote was cited, that "effeminate" might equate to "homosexual." Could be, but that's not what it says. An effeminate male may or may not be homosexual, and not all homosexuals are effeminate. And lesbians aren't addressed in the quote, so one would assume them to be home free. So to those who are literalists - which is it? "Effeminate", in which case a butch lesbian and a macho gay guy would be OK, or is the content not to be taken literally after all? Feel free to answer on behalf of literalists if you like, Mr.B, even if you aren't one.

[O Really]

Mr.B states that "God's stance has not changed..." but it's hard to go along with that when Jesus' entire life was intended to bring about change. If God wrote the original rules under which the Jews operated, then sent his son down to straighten them out, with a new and different set of rules, it might be considered a change of stance. It can't be both ways - either God changed his rules or either the Old or New Testaments got it wrong.

[Boatrocker]

I haven't heard a word from God on this subject or any other. We have an Old Testament full of stuff that God supposedly whispered in the mental ears of all kinds of mortal men who claimed to have divined such whispers. Much the same as these crazyass folks who swear God told them to drown their own children. So, the Lord God Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth and All the Universe, cannot or will not speak to his creation clearly or distinctly; instead He "inspires" His Word in the ears and styli of aforementioned mortals and then sends you to burn in Hell for all eternity if you don't happen to believe in the veracity of those secondhand Words.

That's the best He can come up with?

[Mr.B]

"I haven't heard a word from God..."
Maybe you haven't been or been wanting to listen.....

"That's the best He can come up with?"
He made you, didn't He?

[Boatrocker]

"I haven't heard a word from God..."
Maybe you haven't been or been wanting to listen.....

Yep, the classic circular logic of believers. Right on cue.
You probly classify me as an atheist, thought I consider myself an agnostic. And, as such, I have spent my whole adult life looking and asking for some Divine Truth. While I have experienced things that may be considered a "nudge" or even a simple twinge of conscience that the spiritually inclined could easily interpret as coming from God, I have heard no whispers in my heart or ears about gays or beards or eating pork or any of that sillyass OT stuff. However, if my conscience is God, I'm okay with that. And my conscience hasn't inspired me to hate or fear or be intolerant.

"If you pray hard enough, water will run uphill. How hard? Why, hard enough to make water run uphill, of course!" Lazarus Long- Time Enough For Love by Robert Heinlein.

[rstrong]

(Broken into several messages to make replies easier.)

"He would make a great Democratic president, huh?"

He set aside his hatred and phobia and supports civil rights.

Hatred? Phobia? Do you really know the definition of the words? A dislike for something is far from hatred; phobia is a fear of something.
I don't hate anyone nor am I afraid of them unless they're holding a gun to my head.

You'd prefer "bigotries?" You, like many other Christians, cherry-pick whichever passages in the Bible match your hatreds/phobias/bigotries, declare those to be "normal", and declare it Christianity.

The largest Protestant denomination in the country supports and performs same-sex marriage. So do the Quakers and many others. Even the Catholic Church supported same-sex unions for a thousand years, from roughly 500AD to 1500AD. You ignore some Biblical rules and select others to thump the Bible over. Their selection isn't less valid than yours; it's simply different.

[rstrong]

"Citation....? Do you have a citation that shows that God opposes homosexuality? Which in context doesn't also require Christians to kill people for trimming their beard and many other common actions, and doesn't champion slavery?"

Citation: 1 Corinthians 6:9...."Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind..." Christians are not required to kill someone for trimming their beard, silly; nor we own slaves or advocate slavery. As you were told and are well aware of, those laws were laid down for Jews as punishment. Inasmuch as I didn't write the Bible, it's not up to me to debate it, dispute it, or argue what is right or wrong about it. God said it, I believe it, that settles it.

Fascinating context there: 1 Corinthians 6, 1-11 is about lawsuits against believers. It's grouping those who launch lawsuits against other Christians with idolaters, adulterers, gays, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers and swindlers.

Paul's epistle to the Corinthians goes on to state: "As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church."

It also requires women to wear head coverings in churches. And makes it clear that a husband has control over his and his wife's body, but the wife doesn't have control over her own body.

While his letter says nothing for or against slavery, Paul's other writings are certainly in context:

Ephesians 6:5 (New American Standard Bible)
Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ

Colossians 3:22 (New American Standard Bible)
Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord.

1 Timothy 6:1 (New American Standard Bible)
All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against.

Again, these are from the same writer, Paul, from New Testament.

So, in context:
- Slavery is still peachy-keen.
- Christians may not launch lawsuits against Christians. That includes lawsuits by god-fearing Christians against Obama.
- Women may not speak in church, and must wear head coverings.
- And of course various Old Testament laws get an endorsement in other parts of the New Testament. For example killing children who speak evil of their mother or father, in Matthew 15. And beating slaves, in Luke 12:47.

Nice try though.

[rstrong]

The Christian church shook it's pom-poms for slavery for almost its entire history, backed by a wealth of Biblical teaching on the subject, both Old and New Testament. Even when Mitt Romney was preaching, his version taught that blacks were cursed and inferior.

Like you said...his version.....but give a citation where he preached in support of slavery. You'll have to fill me in, the Mormon Bible is not the same as the Bible I read.

Biblical rules and teachings on slavery were used all through Christian history to support slavery. The "Curse of Ham" especially, for enslaving blacks. Look it up.

While the Mormon church didn't use "The Curse of Ham" to support slavery in modern times, they taught that black men and women had inherited the curse. They used it to ban ordaining black men to the priesthood, and ban black men and women from taking part in ceremonies in LDS temples.

In 1978 they announced that the ban had, um, er, been lifted as a result of a revelation from God. Mitt Romney was draft-dodging preaching in France a decade before this.

While "the Mormon Bible is not the same as the Bible [you] read", there's a whole lot of different Bibles versions out there. The King James version is a wonderful translation, but it was politically motivated and plenty of passages were edited out. Different branches of the Christian church consider different gospels to be canon. The Mormon Church isn't alone in this.

Mormonism is certainly a main-stream branch Christianity in America. The Republican Party - which represents itself as the defenders of Christianity - chose a Mormon as their leader in 2012. Even Liberty University - where the College Democrats club was banned because you can't be a Christian if you're a Democrat - yes, really - endorsed him and invited him to speak there.

[rstrong]

And BTW, with reference to major changes in the Bible since the early versions: If you're thumping the King James Bible, the current Catholic Bible or any other version from the last thousand years, then your position **IS** that God's stances change. Some times in big ways."
I don't ascribe or "thump" to any other versions. I found the one that has not been changed to suit the wants and needs of this today's world.

"Revelation 22:18-19, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

And for this you quote Revelations, written by John of Patmos half a century or so after Jesus.

The (western) New Testament wasn't compiled until the fourth century - some existing books, letters and interpretations declared canon while others were suppressed. Revelations wasn't widely accepted as canon until the fifth century, and by some branches of the church until the 12th century.

The Book of Revelations is much like the Book of Mormon. Written long after Jesus by someone claiming divine revelation.

What does your policy say about Christ's resurrection? We KNOW from looking at early versions of the Gospels found over the years that the Gospel of Mark ended with the women fleeing from the empty tomb... The End, roll credits. The longer ending with Jesus's resurrection still didn't appear in Gospels of Mark 300 years later.

Surely that counts as man adding unto these things? Does your personal Bible "that has not been changed to suit the wants and needs of this today's world" include this change?

What's your belief regarding Sabellianism, Arianism, the Gnostic Gospels or the teachings of Origen - all common in early Christianity, and all edited out over the first 600 years?

Or does God's unchanging policy change with each edit to the Bible?

Or.... What year did He stop accepting edits?

[rstrong]

So the church has a new strategy to end the problem of priests molesting boys....

nj.com: When is a priest not a priest? When he's molesting a child, diocese says in defense of lawsuit

[neoplacebo]

All of this is why I'm not a fan of or participant in organized religion. I think it's the bane of mankind, the root cause of most of the killing, misery, hate, and general malaise from time immemorial. I get particularly incensed when some of these wingnut nutjobs justify their stupidity with religious mumbo jumbo. It's now gotten to the point that I can hardly tell mumbo from jumbo.

[Mr.B]

"...I have heard no whispers in my heart or ears about gays or beards or eating pork or any of that sillyass OT stuff. However, if my conscience is God, I'm okay with that. And my conscience hasn't inspired me to hate or fear or be intolerant."

I too have heard no whispers in my heart or ears about gays or beards or eating pork, wearing two types of clothing, or anything else in the OT that Vrede and rstrong gnash their teeth about. Nothing in my Bible or religious convictions leads me to hate, fear or be intolerant....."gays" are human too. What fails to sink into the liberal-minded heads of our forums partners is that I don't believe that "gay" unions are natural....Biblically or common-sense wise.

That doesn't mean I hate them! <sheesh!>

[O Really]

If not "natural," then that would mean not occurring in nature, i.e., voluntary or intentional. So that's your bottom line. You think people decide to be gay or straight. Just like deciding to be a Christian or Muslim. OK, well if you hold that view despite all the evidence to the contrary, it's easy to understand the, ummmm, "logic" that flows from that assumption.

[O Really]

Even assuming Mr.B were right about "not natural," I can think of a lot of clearly "not natural" situations that are not subjects of government discrimination, or at least are protected from discrimination. I'm pretty sure it's "not natural" to walk around on metal feet, spend ones life in a wheeled device, or receive food through a tube. But we don't keep these people from getting married, and the ADA protects them from discrimination. It's not likely "natural" for people to adorn themselves head to toe with tattoos and piercings and to join the Church of Body Modification, http://uscobm.com/ either, but all those people can marry, as well as practice their religion protected by the First Amendment. So tell me again the logic in allowing the government to legally discriminate against a person because s/he's "not natural."

[Boatrocker]

Alabama-based Life Savers (children's) Ministries

Fail.

Saw that this morning. WTF do people use for brains, sometimes?