View Full Version : Black pastors seek gay marriage ban amid family issues
Gawain of Orkeny
08-09-2005, 01:51
Black pastors seek gay marriage ban amid family issues
Star Parker (archive)
August 8, 2005 | printer friendly version Print | email to a friend Recommend to a friend
I've been in Dallas for the last few days attending a conference on the state of the black family convened by the Not On My Watch Coalition and the Cornerstone Baptist Church. The coalition is a group of 40 black pastors, representing congregations numbering in the tens of thousands throughout the state of Texas, who support the Federal Marriage Amendment.
The conference concluded with a 10 point resolution pointed toward encouraging behavior in our communities aimed at the task of reconstituting the black family unit.
Nine of the 10 points aim exclusively at an internal re-focusing in communities on education and mentoring on the importance of traditional moral behavior in matters of sex and marriage. We are talking here about moral ABCs such as discouraging pre-marital sex and cohabitation, emphasizing the importance of marriage fidelity and the role of the community in providing support, such as male mentoring for our many fatherless children.
The single point in the resolution that turned outside and looked toward the political arena was the endorsement of the Federal Marriage Amendment.
There is a general feeling in this community that they have been let down in Washington. A good portion of the million and a half blacks that voted Republican in 2004 did so because of the prospect of leadership on the marriage amendment. However, after the presidential election discussion of this issue by our political leaders became as hard to find as icicles on a hot August afternoon in Washington.
And the one representative from the Bush Administration scheduled to appear on a panel at this Dallas conference pulled out in order to appear at a meeting of the overwhelmingly left leaning National Association of Black Journalists.
Meanwhile, while these black pastors were convening in Dallas, in my own home state the California Supreme Court issued a ruling laying another rung in the ladder leading to national legal recognition of gay marriage. The court in California ruled unanimously that "A business that extends benefits to spouses it denies to registered domestic partners engages in impermissible marital status discrimination."
This was the first case probing the scope of California's domestic partner law which took effect this year, granting domestic partners most of the rights of spouses under state law.
The black church community is feeling an ever-increasing sense of futility on this issue. Judge Robert Bork has painted a compelling picture of the inevitability of the national legalization of gay marriage if there is no marriage amendment. We are watching the scenario he painted play out prophetically.
A CNN / Gallup poll done in May showed 56 percent opposition to legalization of gay marriage and 53 percent in support of the marriage amendment. Yet the values of the American people and the democratic process have been hijacked by left leaning elitist liberal judges. What we are watching in America today is a convergence of our courts and Hollywood.
It's also becoming increasingly clear that although that there may be some cameo appearances by politicians stating support for the marriage amendment, behind close doors the political establishment is resigned to what they view as inevitable. There will be no serious political capital spent here.
Blacks have polled consistently higher than national averages in opposition to the sanctioning of gay marriage. Why do we care so much and why do we feel an increasing sense of being abandoned?
Why, I sometimes hear, is a community with such clear and immediate problems with education, employment and crime so obsessed with this issue? Are there that many black gay couples wanting wedding vows that black pastors should be taking valuable time from their daily responsibilities to become political activists for a federal marriage amendment?
The germane point that these black pastors understand is that the black community is the most exposed to and most likely to be injured by the problems of the nation as a whole. When America gets a cold, the black community gets pneumonia.
White America's problem is a loss of moral grounding and gradual erosion of its family structure. Black America's problem is rebuilding a family structure that has already collapsed.
Our pastors preach abstinence, marriage and fidelity on Sunday morning and fatherless black children go to their public schools on Monday morning where adolescent sexual activity is condoned as a fact of life and boys and girls are put into sex classes together and receive instruction on how to use condoms.
Black pastors know that the battle for rebuilding the black family defines the future of black America. If this battle is lost, blacks will become a permanent American underclass.
The moral relativism which increasingly defines American culture is now defining every institution of our society _ our schools, our large corporations and our media. Our families are our only firewall.
The support of the black community for the federal marriage amendment reduces to one word. Survival.
Star Parker is president of the Coalition on Urban Renewal and Education and author of the newly released book 'Uncle Sam's Plantation.'
Look at this again
Nine of the 10 points aim exclusively at an internal re-focusing in communities on education and mentoring on the importance of traditional moral behavior in matters of sex and marriage. We are talking here about moral ABCs such as discouraging pre-marital sex and cohabitation, emphasizing the importance of marriage fidelity and the role of the community in providing support, such as male mentoring for our many fatherless children.
How can she hope to advance such an atiquated and clearly wrong agenda?
Steppe Merc
08-09-2005, 01:55
People are afraid of change, to answer your question. And those things do seem antiquated and foolish, IMO, at least most of it.
Elitist liberal judges? Heck, I'm as angry with many judges desicions as conservatives are!
Es Arkajae
08-09-2005, 10:45
It is not antiquated nor is it 'wrong'.
Whats more as far as most are concerned homosexuality as well as being disgusting and deviate behaviour is morally reprehensible according to the worlds major religions and the moral standards of most of the planet.
If you're going to argue in support of homosexual 'causes' and actually expect to get anywhere it may help you if you avoid arrogantly terming your opponents moral beliefs as 'antiquated' especially when YOU are in the minority.
One sometimes wonders who gets to decide what is 'antiquated' and what isn't if not the majority? Since when did homosexuals and their supporters get the monopoly on deciding what is 'wrong' as far as legislation goes and what isn't?
Both sides have their differing opinions and both sides try to use legislation and political processes to try and have their sides views reflected in legislation and elsewhere.
Samurai Waki
08-09-2005, 11:23
I could honestly care less wether gays marry or not. I think her "agenda" is a bit skewed, I'd be more concerned about my communities health and family structure if I was living in such a condition rather than worry about gays marrying. You can't really kill two birds with one stone in this case.
Ja'chyra
08-09-2005, 11:26
If you're going to argue in support of homosexual 'causes' and actually expect to get anywhere it may help you if you avoid arrogantly terming your opponents moral beliefs as 'antiquated' especially when YOU are in the minority..
Lol, so G's in the minority, says who? As far as I'm aware most people don't care anymore.
Whats more as far as most are concerned homosexuality as well as being disgusting and deviate behaviour is morally reprehensible according to the worlds major religions and the moral standards of most of the planet.
Again, rubbish, while I'm not gay and feel that the ACT of having sex with another man is disgusting if someone is gay it's none of my business, don't try and tar everyone with your homophobic brush.
As for religions getting involved, who cares, not me anyway. Do you think because you go to some building on a Sunday and murmur prayers to something that may or may not be there (and that's me being generous to avoid the whole believe in God thing) that you are somehow better than me? Or better able to judge right from wrong? Don't try and impose your moral standards on others, especially when they're crap.
rasoforos
08-09-2005, 11:41
It is not antiquated nor is it 'wrong'.
Whats more as far as most are concerned homosexuality as well as being disgusting and deviate behaviour is morally reprehensible according to the worlds major religions and the moral standards of most of the planet.
What is disgusting is to hear such an attitute being heard. Who are you to judge what is disgusting in sex? Did you discover it or did you write the official manual?
Try to keep such intollerant rants to yourself please.
Once again I will quote the old wise proverb:
"If a cucumber doesnt grow up your ass, let if grow free" :bow:
Look at this again
How can she hope to advance such an atiquated and clearly wrong agenda?
you are incorrect. there is nothing wrong with that agenda at all. to do anything other than that would be to promote a wrong agenda
it doesn't matter how "antiquated" something seems. wrong is wrong, and does not change over time.
if 99.9% of the Earth's population believed that a wrongful act was not wrong, then that in no way would change the fact that that act is wrong
public opinion is 100% irrelevant to what "should" or "should not" be occurring
Es Arkajae
08-09-2005, 13:13
What is disgusting is to hear such an attitute being heard. Who are you to judge what is disgusting in sex? Did you discover it or did you write the official manual?
Try to keep such intollerant rants to yourself please.
Once again I will quote the old wise proverb:
"If a cucumber doesnt grow up your ass, let if grow free" :bow:
I see no 'rant' in this thread and i have a better idea for both you and Ja'chyra.
You should both learn how to read.
Ja'chyra YES people supporting homosexual 'causes' are in the minority, if you were to take a poll of people supporting stuff such as gay marriage and adoption in Western countries overall you would most likely find the majority opposed.
If you were to take polls in the rest of the world you would find the majority overwhelmingly opposed. If the thought of this troubles you so much then maybe you should stay off the internet and avoid going outside where reality may intrude upon your comfort zone.
As regards 'homophobia' I find that people who like to bleat about 'homophobia' are usually intolerant and ignorant people who have the gall to talk about free thought and open mindedness and yet happily deride anyone holding a contrary opinion to themselves as 'bigots' or 'hate mongerers' or 'homophobes'.
What is even more amusing is that I did not even GIVE my opinion in this thread, nowhere have I stated my stance on the matter in here. What I have done is pointed out how silly it is for a minority view to go around calling selected moral viewpoints of the majority of the population that they don't like 'antiquated' and 'wrong'.
Oh and on religions Ja'chyra, the majority of the planet are religious and their religions to a greater or lesser extent do affect their moral outlook on life in important ways. That you like to blow this off as somehow insignificant just because you apparently happen to dislike religion is yet more evidence of your own bigotry and ignorance that has been displayed so far in this thread.
Rasoforos you find me pointing out the likely majority of the planets opinion on homosexuality disgusting merely because it is being heard?
Are you then the type of person who would deny others the right to voice or have their viewpoints heard because you don't agree with them?, or do you merely believe in censoring any contrary opinions or facts that you also don't like?
As I pointed out, both sides of the argument attempt to influence the democratic governments that they live under into supporting or furthering their agendas or viewpoints.
As for religions getting involved, who cares, not me anyway. Do you think because you go to some building on a Sunday and murmur prayers to something that may or may not be there (and that's me being generous to avoid the whole believe in God thing) that you are somehow better than me? Or better able to judge right from wrong? Don't try and impose your moral standards on others, especially when they're crap.
those who are living in something beyond their own natural human nature (which is inherently evil, by the way) certainly are able to judge right and wrong better than anyone who is not
the moral standards to which you refer are not "crap"
and why is it that you can impose your moral standards - or more aptly - utter lack thereof - on everyone else?
this is a flawed argument despite it's common use. you and those who agree with you are trying shove the standard that "being gay is A-OK" down the throats of everyone who does not agree with you. so remember, the blade cuts both ways and that argument can just as equally be applied to your side of the agenda.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
08-09-2005, 13:41
I just want to wish good luck to anybody trying to fix the collapse of black society: they need all the help they can get.
I chose to ignore the stuff about homosexuality (otherwise known as the main point of the thread).
Ja'chyra
08-09-2005, 13:43
I would say this sentence makes it a rant
homosexuality as well as being disgusting and deviate behaviour is morally reprehensible according to the worlds major religions
Ja'chyra YES people supporting homosexual 'causes' are in the minority, if you were to take a poll of people supporting stuff such as gay marriage and adoption in Western countries overall you would most likely find the majority opposed.
And I say again that you're wrong, the vast majority don't care either way.
As regards 'homophobia' I find that people who like to bleat about 'homophobia' are usually intolerant and ignorant people who have the gall to talk about free thought and open mindedness and yet happily deride anyone holding a contrary opinion to themselves as 'bigots' or 'hate mongerers' or 'homophobes'.
Aye, whatever, unlike you I don't get upset when a faceless person calls me names.
Oh and on religions Ja'chyra, the majority of the planet are religious and their religions to a greater or lesser extent do affect their moral outlook on life in important ways. That you like to blow this off as somehow insignificant just because you apparently happen to dislike religion is yet more evidence of your own bigotry and ignorance that has been displayed so far in this thread.
No, I blow it off, by the way that means something totally different over here, because reilgion doesn't somehow make you morally superior or give you greater insight. How is this bigotted anyway, you can feel free to do what you like until it starts imposing on me.
Nav
those who are living in something beyond their own natural human nature (which is inherently evil, by the way) certainly are able to judge right and wrong better than anyone who is not
and why is it that you can impose your moral standards - or more aptly - utter lack thereof - on everyone else?
2 insults in one post, well done.
As for the first, human nature is inherently evil? If I didn't know better I'd say you were taking the mick, but if you think you are inherently evil then you have some issues, I don't. I think I am inherently neither good or evil, it is my actions that deteremine what I am.
So you think religious people are better able to judge right from wrong? So, what exactly makes you wiser when you go to church. If you want to believe in the make believe then go right ahead but don't try and impose those pipe dreams on me. Anyway, I take it you're a christian, isn't it against all christains to force anything on anyone, persuade maybe but forcing isn't allowed.
Laslty, utter lack of moral standards, lol, pathetic, who are you to make that judgement of me?
KukriKhan
08-09-2005, 14:12
GENERAL ADMONITION: to all. As soon as a poster uses the word "you" in a sentence, he/she invites more intense scrutiny of content - most objectionable content is aimed at another member using 'you'.
Most posts here have remained general in nature, and tried to embrace the subject (Black US clergy trying to direct their congregation's course). Some recent posts have tip-toed over the line into personal insult. No one here can or is forcing anything on anyone else here - except the Moderators, trying to gently 'force' civility and decorum on all.
Preview your language before submission. Thank you.
Please carry on.
and why is it that you can impose your moral standards - or more aptly - utter lack thereof - on everyone else?
this is a flawed argument despite it's common use. you and those who agree with you are trying shove the standard that "being gay is A-OK" down the throats of everyone who does not agree with you. so remember, the blade cuts both ways and that argument can just as equally be applied to your side of the agenda.
allowing people to do what they want to do is not imposing your moral position(or lack of it to use your terms) on anyone else...the only way that it would be so is if there was a law the imposed that people assumed a gay lifestyle.
the law should state that everyone can life his or her life anyway they want....that is not "imposing" anything...it´s completelly the oposite.
Es Arkajae
08-09-2005, 15:21
I would say this sentence makes it a rant
I hereby accept your full and complete concession.
:snip: ~Kukri
Here is my comment in its entirety
"Whats more as far as most are concerned homosexuality as well as being disgusting and deviate behaviour is morally reprehensible according to the worlds major religions and the moral standards of most of the planet."
I think its fairly obvious how you creatively edited that to suit your whims.
As a final note you haven't seen me upset, this forum is a veritable playground compared to the places I usuallly post so don't go flattering yourself on that count. ~:)
why are we arguing about something that is fundamentally NATURAL(hetrosexuality) vs what is entirely UNNATURAL(homosexuality)
to me there is no argument, and those who like to support the perversion of nature, i say, go and seriously think about why on earth you are taking that stance, if we all did as nature intended none of these "problems" would arise
btw the first person to try explain to me how homosexuality is natural will get my sincerest befudledment, as if nature intended us to be homosexual, then M/M and F/F would be capable of reproduction. its seriously a lust/desire feulled perversion, seeking ot fullfil ones OWN lusts, and in a world where sexual morality is taking a downturn, we will oly see mroe and more perversions like this. in 20 years time i await the Bestiality rights movment...
scooter_the_shooter
08-09-2005, 15:54
Well said Alrowan!
why are we arguing about something that is fundamentally NATURAL(hetrosexuality) vs what is entirely UNNATURAL(homosexuality)
to me there is no argument, and those who like to support the perversion of nature, i say, go and seriously think about why on earth you are taking that stance, if we all did as nature intended none of these "problems" would arise
btw the first person to try explain to me how homosexuality is natural will get my sincerest befudledment, as if nature intended us to be homosexual, then M/M and F/F would be capable of reproduction. its seriously a lust/desire feulled perversion, seeking ot fullfil ones OWN lusts, and in a world where sexual morality is taking a downturn, we will oly see mroe and more perversions like this. in 20 years time i await the Bestiality rights movment...
you´ll get no oposition from me in considering homosexuality unnatural.....and i´ve never stated anywere that i consider it otherside.
but these people are what they are....unnatural as it might be, and they have in my view the right to behave as they [] see fit.
scooter_the_shooter
08-09-2005, 15:56
In america they have the same rights as hetero people; No one is stopping them from marrying a member of the opposite sex.
you are incorrect. there is nothing wrong with that agenda at all. to do anything other than that would be to promote a wrong agenda
it doesn't matter how "antiquated" something seems. wrong is wrong, and does not change over time.
if 99.9% of the Earth's population believed that a wrongful act was not wrong, then that in no way would change the fact that that act is wrong
public opinion is 100% irrelevant to what "should" or "should not" be occurring
You really should have though that threw more. Because if what's wrong is wrong and doesn't change over time was true than Women's rights, the abolition of slavery, democracy, and even christianity are wrong things that need to go. Your trying to go back 50-60 years and say that moreality should never have changed from then onwards. Problem is that's never going to be feasable, or even possible.
Steppe Merc
08-09-2005, 16:21
Excellent point, lars573. :bow:
Folks, just something I think needs to be cleared up: I think Gawain was being very sarcastic with his question.
This in particular is just stupid, IMO:
We are talking here about moral ABCs such as discouraging pre-marital sex and cohabitation
Talk about old fashioned. Who cares if people live with their lovers before they are married? Sexual morality IMO, has no right to be in any sort of state's agenda. It is a personal thing, unless it violates laws.
scooter_the_shooter
08-09-2005, 16:27
Whats wrong with christians :furious3:
The best quote Pierre Elliott Trudeau had, was as follows. "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." This was his justification for the de-criminalizing of being homosexual in the 60's. I statement I wholehearted agree with.
Whats wrong with christians
Nothing so long as they leave me alone, and stop trying to put their values into law. All I did was continue Navaoros's logical agruement. Because at one time christianity was considered a wrong (from a spiritual point of view), backward, violent, and corrupting eastern cult.
Whats wrong with christians :furious3:
dont worry, at least we wont have to put up wiht him for eternity, last i heared only christians got eternal life, the rest have to suffer with lars' jabbering ~D
ok so that was ow, but he had it coming :p
rasoforos
08-09-2005, 16:36
why are we arguing about something that is fundamentally NATURAL(hetrosexuality) vs what is entirely UNNATURAL(homosexuality)
to me there is no argument, and those who like to support the perversion of nature, i say, go and seriously think about why on earth you are taking that stance, if we all did as nature intended none of these "problems" would arise
btw the first person to try explain to me how homosexuality is natural will get my sincerest befudledment, as if nature intended us to be homosexual, then M/M and F/F would be capable of reproduction. its seriously a lust/desire feulled perversion, seeking ot fullfil ones OWN lusts, and in a world where sexual morality is taking a downturn, we will oly see mroe and more perversions like this. in 20 years time i await the Bestiality rights movment...
Living in houses and driving cars is unnatural, cooked food is unnatural, humans in space is unnatural, talking to people 1000 miles away is unnatural, having servived an apendix infection is unnatural. Sexual variety is unnatural...
...and in the end, when people mix religion into this 'natural' in it you get the good old 'missionary only' and 'females are not supposed to enjoy sex' nonsence ~D
It is our nature to enjoy a variety of things unlike any species before us, and its in the nature of every person to enjoy differend things. Religion has tried to make identical sheep out of people, it succeeded for a while, and now is failing miserably.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-09-2005, 16:44
Talk about old fashioned. Who cares if people live with their lovers before they are married?
I do. This is the problem today not enough people care. Morality is now up to the individual to decide.
Sexual morality IMO, has no right to be in any sort of state's agenda.
Here I agree and so did the founding fathers. Why do you think they thought a religous peoples were needed for democracy to work. It was because they didnt want to have to legislate such things but that the people would take cae of it themselves. What igborant and backwardss is ignoring the benifits that this way of life has shown over hundreds if not thousands of years.
The best quote Pierre Elliott Trudeau had, was as follows. "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." This was his justification for the de-criminalizing of being homosexual in the 60's. I statement I wholehearted agree with.
This has nothing to do with marriage.The state does have the right to decide who it will grant marriage licenses to. Also by this thinking beastiality, pedophlia and incest are none of the governments buissness.
Folks, just something I think needs to be cleared up: I think Gawain was being very sarcastic with his question.
What do you mean. You all know Im in favor of decadence? ~D
you are incorrect. there is nothing wrong with that agenda at all. to do anything other than that would be to promote a wrong agenda
Nav dont you recognose sarcasim when you see it. Surely you must know me better. Her agenda is exactly what needs to be done.
religeon might make sheep, but im not religeous, merelfy faithful
I live in the world, but am not of this world, my home is elsewhere, im just here for a bit of work before im due home so to speak.
And if u want the religous veiw, not the "natural" veiw, god created man AND women, not man and man, or woman and woman. and he gave us our bits uniqe with reason, and also created the feelings that we get when we use these tools as intended. i mean why is it a man can only get pleasure by sticking his part into a hole, and women by filling thier hole with a man shaped bit... (keeping this as G rated as possible), could it be that our organs were designed for a specific purpose? isnt that radical!
that and God commanded men not to have sexual relations with other men, and same for women, it is a sin, and like all sin the penalty is death, yet if we accept christs gift of forgivness, then we will live eternal life. and heck no-one is perfect, we have all sinned and fallen short of the mark, so if we all want this eternal life we need to accept christ. Liars, murderers, homosexuals, myself, we are all sinners, all in the same boat, unless we accep his gift of forgivness
anyway, enough preaching for now :p
Ironside
08-09-2005, 16:49
In america they have the same rights as hetero people; No one is stopping them from marrying a member of the opposite sex.
I never really understood that argument. If you allow gay marriage, then no one is stopping you from marrying a member of the same sex. Then you lump it in a say that the gays gets special previlegies, wich is false (well Gawain does IIRC). Point is?
In other words god has stead fastly refused to support his product after release by not patching a major bug in our programming. ~;)
Steppe Merc
08-09-2005, 16:51
What I don't understand is why the black church assumes that they should have any say. They're just religous leaders, they shouldn't have any say about the marriage amedment or anything at all political.
Here I agree and so did the founding fathers. Why do you think they thought a religous peoples were needed for democracy to work. It was because they didnt want to have to legislate such things but that the people would take cae of it themselves. What igborant and backwardss is ignoring the benifits that this way of life has shown over hundreds if not thousands of years.
How is it benificial? Everything must change evantually. Why cling to things that are not superior in any way except that they are religously accepted? I mean having multiple wives for kings and other leaders and even their subjects had shown great benifets for hundreds if not thousands of years, but it doesn't mean that everyone should have a harem, or that way is the best way.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-09-2005, 16:58
Then you lump it in a say that the gays gets special previlegies, wich is false (well Gawain does IIRC). Point is?
Its not false its the truth. Would I have to be gay to marry another man? If so then they are getting special privleges if not whats the meaning of marriage? What we are saying is that there is no law in the US that denies gays the ability to marry.
What I don't understand is why the black church assumes that they should have any say. They're just religous leaders, they shouldn't have any say about the marriage amedment or anything at all political.
This is the problem with many on the left and most secularists today. How does being a christain take away your right to push the agenda you believe in? This is insane.
rasoforos
08-09-2005, 17:00
religeon might make sheep, but im not religeous, merelfy faithful
I live in the world, but am not of this world, my home is elsewhere, im just here for a bit of work before im due home so to speak.
And if u want the religous veiw, not the "natural" veiw, god created man AND women, not man and man, or woman and woman. and he gave us our bits uniqe with reason, and also created the feelings that we get when we use these tools as intended. i mean why is it a man can only get pleasure by sticking his part into a hole, and women by filling thier hole with a man shaped bit... (keeping this as G rated as possible), could it be that our organs were designed for a specific purpose? isnt that radical!
that and God commanded men not to have sexual relations with other men, and same for women, it is a sin, and like all sin the penalty is death, yet if we accept christs gift of forgivness, then we will live eternal life. and heck no-one is perfect, we have all sinned and fallen short of the mark, so if we all want this eternal life we need to accept christ. Liars, murderers, homosexuals, myself, we are all sinners, all in the same boat, unless we accep his gift of forgivness
anyway, enough preaching for now :p
Yeah yeah but all that is from a religious ground. Its all good and well in a theocracy but in a free country it is just plain nonsence.
Also it takes some things for granted while its ommiting others. Infanticide is also advocated by God on occasions as well as revenge. The inferiority of women is clearly stated and slavery appears as something so natural that the original text mentions people as 'slaves of God'. If we were to take all thats in the bible as granted then it would be a very bad world indeed.
I dont want to argue. I have stated my oppinion. If you need to asnwer do so but I will leave it here. ~:cheers:
Steppe Merc
08-09-2005, 17:02
It doesn't. But it's not just a Christian doing this, or a bunch of Christians. It is a church. If a bunch of people from church wanted to lobby something, go ahead. But by involving the whole church and the church leader, that crosses the line between citizens getting involved in religon.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-09-2005, 17:07
It doesn't. But it's not just a Christian doing this, or a bunch of Christians. It is a church. If a bunch of people from church wanted to lobby something, go ahead. But by involving the whole church and the church leader, that crosses the line between citizens getting involved in religon.
But its ok for secualrist pro abortion people. Again tell me how does religion turn your ideas to shite and worthlessness? There is no line between citizens getting involved in religon. We are all citizens so are you saying religous people should not be citizens?
heh interesting skew you have there, though i wonder how much u actually know of the bible to claim any of this?
time to rebut one by one with ease, the Infanticide you might be talking of is the passover? well lets look at it this way, here we have a people taking on the results of thier irresponsible leader who refused to listen to God when he spoke through moses, actions = consequence, and we must all accept the responsibility for our actions , there is a lesson in ithis too
revenge in the bible is not revenge born of hate it is justice, there is no revenge, God clearly states his case in the bible and the cause of his punnishment on those who are disobedient
women are not classed as inferior at all, please read a little more :p they are in fact told to obey thier husbands, but husbands are also told to respect thier wives. In a traditional relationship this is good, as the husband is the provider for the family, the wife the caretaker of the household. If and when women chose to question the mans judgment marrige fails and falls apart. Though on the other side of the coin, a man MUST be responsible for the results of all his decisions regarding his family and his wife/life. too bad man is never responsible today eh? *points his finger a little*
and this literal translation to slaves of god is about as phoney as the reasons for the war in iraq, the literal translation is actually to become ministers of gods word, and to minister is to serve, hence servants of god, never is it mentioned we are slaves.
anyway, i love to see people try to rip at christians and the authenticity of the bible etc, most have read like 2 passages, ignored the context and blurted out some obscure nonsense :p
It doesn't. But it's not just a Christian doing this, or a bunch of Christians. It is a church. If a bunch of people from church wanted to lobby something, go ahead. But by involving the whole church and the church leader, that crosses the line between citizens getting involved in religon.
hahahahahaha well all a church is, is a body of christians, members of the same club so to speak...
so let me ask you this, if you are involved in a political party, you cant lobby because the political party is just like a religeon, with thier ideal as thier god, therefore its as much a religeon as christianity!
you cant exlude a body of peoples opinions just because they get thier moral judgment from somewhere, if you did the whole democratic system would colapse, as no-one would have the right to say anything
BTW, FYI
re·li·gion Audio pronunciation of "religion" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.
1.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Steppe Merc
08-09-2005, 17:16
Alrowan, the idea of women obeying points strongly that they are inferior, and that is wrong. All sexs are equal, to continue to push the old fashioned male provide is not only foolish, it is sexist.
But its ok for secualrist pro abortion people. Again tell me how does religion turn your ideas to shite and worthlessness? There is no line between citizens getting involved in religon. We are all citizens so are you saying religous people should not be citizens?
I'm saying that they shouldn't push their ideas that are based soley on religon on people. Religous pushes are often restrictive for everyone, while most of the things that they oppose has absouletly no effect on them, and is none of their business.
Alrowan, are you trying to tell me that every last single church member believes exactly what their pastors are saying? Every single one?
i never said anywhere all church people beleive what thier pastors are saying, i am saying that all christians believe what God is saying through his word. If a pastors teaching doesnt line up with the gospel, then he is a false teacher, and breaking some of Gods strictest laws
I'm saying that they shouldn't push their ideas that are based soley on religon on people. Religous pushes are often restrictive for everyone, while most of the things that they oppose has absouletly no effect on them, and is none of their business.
a bit like the gay marrige movment, its a religous push (as defined by definintion 4) that is restrictive (to gays) and is opposed to the lack of legal and RELIGiOUS aknowledgment of thier unions...
hmm why do gays so desperatly want to be married? as far as i know marrige is a religious institution adopted by the state, and yet the gays biggest opposition is religious groups...?!?
what they should be pushing for is a "civil union" act, where they can be legally accepted as a legally entitled relationship for tax purposes etc.
or they can just do as mormons and scientologists did, and make thier own phoney religion, then have them accept the union of gays, heck it IS america after all, stranger things have happened
Goofball
08-09-2005, 18:02
anyway, i love to see people try to rip at christians and the authenticity of the bible etc, most have read like 2 passages, ignored the context and blurted out some obscure nonsense :p
And I love it when Christians try to win arguments by quoting the Bible. Dr. Seuss's collected works contain much more relevant commentary on morality and human interaction than that old bunch of fairy tales.
scooter_the_shooter
08-09-2005, 18:08
Don't worry about what the atheist say...they laugh now but once they stand before the lord they won't be.
aye, kind of ironic though, spend thier whole lives trying to disprove this that and everything, yet in the end they finally realise they were wrong all along. shame the devil cclaims so many, but deciet is his tool
Byzantine Prince
08-09-2005, 18:18
Ah yes... the lord... ~D
You mean the same lord that in according to the Bible, condones the killing of homosexuals? That lord? Or is it the one the one that blesses the ones with slaves? I really hope it's not this one. ~:) Because, I kid you not, those are provable with quotes from the Bible.
I think I'll be happy if I go hell. Most people there will be rational and hopefully liberal. We'll party like it's 1989! ~D
I think I'll be happy if I go hell. Most people there will be rational and hopefully liberal. We'll party like it's 1989! ~D
assuming you know what hell is...
its reffered to as the pit, also a place of utter lonliness, so get comfortable living in utter lonliness, cus thats what will happen, for eternity...
Steppe Merc
08-09-2005, 19:01
Hell is an interesting idea. Most of what we think of it came from later Christians, as opposed to the actual written dogma. As well as Dante's inferno...
i never said anywhere all church people beleive what thier pastors are saying, i am saying that all christians believe what God is saying through his word. If a pastors teaching doesnt line up with the gospel, then he is a false teacher, and breaking some of Gods strictest laws
That's not what I'm talking about. The people mentioned in the articale are religous leaders representing their churches. Does every last on of their church members agree 100% what they say, all of the time? It's not like they were elected by the church members to speak for them.
or they can just do as mormons and scientologists did, and make thier own phoney religion, then have them accept the union of gays, heck it IS america after all, stranger things have happened
Phoney religon? As opposed to a not phoney one?
Gawain of Orkeny
08-09-2005, 19:09
That's not what I'm talking about. The people mentioned in the articale are religous leaders representing their churches. Does every last on of their church members agree 100% what they say, all of the time? It's not like they were elected by the church members to speak for them.
Do you think that the members of the church are then forced to vote as their leaders say or be excommunicated? What is your point here?
Steppe Merc
08-09-2005, 19:12
My point is is that the Church is not just like a club of political friends. If so, then they would all have had the same political ideals, which is not so. Thus, I don't think that the pastor has the right to speak for their church, rather as just a random person.
This in particular is what I mean:
The coalition is a group of 40 black pastors, representing congregations numbering in the tens of thousands throughout the state of Texas, who support the Federal Marriage Amendment.
Gawain of Orkeny
08-09-2005, 19:14
Thus, I don't think that the pastor has the right to speak for their church, rather as just a random person.
Their speaking TO their church not FOR it.
Steppe Merc
08-09-2005, 19:21
Well that isn't much better. How can they talk about politics in church? Aren't they just supposed to talk about god and the bible and stuff?
If they did it outside of church that would be fine, but religous instutiutions themselves shouldn't get itself involved in politics. Religous people can, and should, but not in the actual church.
Don Corleone
08-09-2005, 19:21
My point is is that the Church is not just like a club of political friends. If so, then they would all have had the same political ideals, which is not so. Thus, I don't think that the pastor has the right to speak for their church, rather as just a random person.
This in particular is what I mean:
Steppe, 9 times out of 10, I find a lot of merit in what you have to say. But in this one, you're way off base. Of course a minister has the right to speak on behalf of the spiritual beliefs of his congregation. This would be like saying that the president of NOW has no right to speak on behalf of feminists (let alone she claims to speak on behalf of all women). This is why it's very important to most Christians which church they belong to. We spend a lot of time settling in and finding the right fit, so that when my minister stands up and says "All people at St. Timothy's back me on this", she's right.
Don Corleone
08-09-2005, 19:25
Well that isn't much better. How can they talk about politics in church? Aren't they just supposed to talk about god and the bible and stuff?
If they did it outside of church that would be fine, but religous instutiutions themselves shouldn't get itself involved in politics. Religous people can, and should, but not in the actual church.
This is even worse! Now you're claiming we Christians have to maintain a religious life and and everyday life, and we have to keep the two separate. If you believe in a God, that WILL impact your life and your views on ordinary affairs, I hate to break it to you. This idea that anybody who believes in an a reality beyond this one must recuse themself from politics or political discussions is very dangerous and is the precise reason WHY the founding fathers put Freedom OF religion into the first ammendment. Who are you to say "well, you kooks make me nervous with your beliefs, so if you believe in anything, you're not allowed to participate in our republic"?
Steppe Merc
08-09-2005, 19:27
No, I just don't think Church is the part where they should be talking about it, that's all.
Don Corleone
08-09-2005, 19:34
Okay, well, I don't think coffee houses or student unions is where they should be talking about politics. So if you bar my right to discuss politics at my church, I will bar your right to discuss politics at your coffee house and in your student union.
This all stems from the fact that the Left fears religion, because you buy the hype that Christians are 100% Republican. Far from it. Christ would identify with neither the Republican nor the Democratic party. Many Christians DO NOT vote Republican, in fact, in banning religiously inclined people from politics, you'd lose as many voters as you'd gain. Who do you think the Sojourners, and most urban Catholics for that matter, vote for?
Steppe Merc
08-09-2005, 19:37
Well in coffee houses and in student unions, I believe there can be descenting opinons. In a church, unless someone is going to stand up and argue with the minister about politics, it's just one person's view, possibely presented as fact. Perhaps it doesn't matter that much, but it's not quite the same (I think).
Though I do sort of see what you are saying.
Don Corleone
08-09-2005, 19:45
Steppe, repeat after me. Not all Christian churches are outreach programs of Bob Jones University. I have a hispanic woman as my minister, and I go to a Methodist church, for crying out loud. About as mainstream as you can get. You have to stop thinking that you have the inside scoop on what churches are like, because you clearly don't. You've bought the media's deception hook, line and sinker. The political debates at my church get more contentious than anyplace else I've ever been, including here in the .org! I'd consider it rude to take a poll, but I would guess there's more Democrats than Republicans at my church, but neither are in a minority, and neither are particularly shy about their views.
Steppe Merc
08-09-2005, 20:23
Ok, so I was wrong in my view of churches. ~;)
I still am uncomfortable about laws that are based soley off of religon (yes, I know it is possible to oppose gay marriage on a non religous purpose). But that's me.
PanzerJaeger
08-09-2005, 22:36
By Goof,
And I love it when Christians try to win arguments by quoting the Bible. Dr. Seuss's collected works contain much more relevant commentary on morality and human interaction than that old bunch of fairy tales.
Thats pretty insulting..
You really think Dr. Seuss' books contain more morality than the ten commandments and the teachings of Jesus. I dont care if your Christian or not, Jesus' teachings were very moral, no?
And where do you think Dr. Seuss got his perceptions of morality? You dont think they might be based on judeo-christian teachings do you?
Azi Tohak
08-09-2005, 23:46
Nope PJ, Dr. Seuss got his morals from eating green eggs and ham.
(Now if that won't screw with your mind, I don't know what will!)
I still am uncomfortable about laws that are based soley off of religon (yes, I know it is possible to oppose gay marriage on a non religous purpose). But that's me.
So what laws do you propose that don't have to do with religion? Heck, I'll even narrow it down... what laws would you like that have nothing to do with the 10 commandments?
Azi
Goofball
08-10-2005, 00:19
By Goof,
Thats pretty insulting..
You really think Dr. Seuss' books contain more morality than the ten commandments and the teachings of Jesus. I dont care if your Christian or not, Jesus' teachings were very moral, no?
According to Christian morality they were.
But since you ask, for the most part I agree with what JC had to say. But I wasn't just referring to the New Testament, I was also referring to the Old. When you combine the two, you get very confusing and mixed messages. For example: on the one hand you have fire and brimstone and all that eye for an eye/tooth for a tooth crap; on the other hand you have Jesus telling you to love your enemy.
No, in all seriousness, I think Dr. Seuss books form a much better guide to living a good life than the Bible. They hit on just about everything: caring for the environment, diversity, the value of individuality, and the list goes on.
And where do you think Dr. Seuss got his perceptions of morality? You dont think they might be based on judeo-christian teachings do you?
I do not think so, PJ old sod;:no:
Geisel's ideas didn't come from God.:angel:
Secular humanism was more his thing,~:grouphug:
it made his bell go Ding! Ding! Ding!:rolleyes3:
Thrown off the school paper because of women and juice,:kiss2: :barrel:
he began using the pen-name of "Seuss.":hat:
His later stories were ahead of their time,:beatnik2:
and many believed they were a crime.:stop:
No, I do not think, PJ old sod,:thumbsdown:
that the good Doctor's ideas came from God...~;)
Hehe...
^Best comeback ever. It beats out, "That's because your Welsh."
most peoiple who dont understand the bible dont see at all how god remains unchanged through its entire course, fire and brimstone on one hand you say? love your enemy on the other?
God holds the right to judgment, and he jugdes those who do wrong, we will all in fact be jugded at the end of the age, so i guess you better start making excuses. As for jesus' teachings they were there for humanity to get back in the right with God, but were only really useful for those who accepted him as thier saviour, as righteousness is the only thing that will save anyone from gods wrath. But because he loved us, he sent Jesus that we might have that chance, otherwise we all deserve to be wiped off the face of the earth
Big King Sanctaphrax
08-10-2005, 02:22
Don't worry about what the atheist say...they laugh now but once they stand before the lord they won't be.
Even if I had conclusive proof that he did exist, bending the knee to a judgemental and murderous higher being just isn't my style.
Steppe Merc
08-10-2005, 03:42
The Big King hit it right on. If there was a God, he doesn't deserve my worship if he destroyed all most all of humanity because he didn't like how they were running things.
Ironside
08-10-2005, 08:22
Its not false its the truth. Would I have to be gay to marry another man? If so then they are getting special privleges if not whats the meaning of marriage? What we are saying is that there is no law in the US that denies gays the ability to marry.
Gah! This thread grows too fast for me.
But anyway you'll need to be exactly as gay to marry someone of the same sex as you need to be straight for marry someone of the opposite sex.
The point of marriage is nowadays a statement of love and commitment.
As it's for you, from a state view only about children IIRC, would you then deny a straight couple marrying if thier too old to procreate? As the point of that marriage is?
Alrowan what about God's messing with the pharao? He forces the pharao to say no to Moses and then punishes pharao's people because pharao says no. Fair judge? I think not.
Always wondered about that part.
they did enslave the israelistes for hundreds of years...
Ja'chyra
08-10-2005, 11:02
God holds the right to judgment, and he jugdes those who do wrong, we will all in fact be jugded at the end of the age, so i guess you better start making excuses.
Or maybe when you are lying on your death bed, hopefully many years from now you will look back and wish you had done something worthwhile with all the time you spent at church or reading the bible.
Ironside
08-10-2005, 16:55
they did enslave the israelistes for hundreds of years...
And the method used for revenge is weird to say the least. :dizzy2:
Don Corleone
08-10-2005, 18:14
Or maybe when you are lying on your death bed, hopefully many years from now you will look back and wish you had done something worthwhile with all the time you spent at church or reading the bible.
Look, I'm going to be the bigger man and force myself to believe this comes from a certain amount of ignorance about what people who attend church on a regular basis or read the bible regularly do with their lives.
But please, do not presume to declare that attending church or reading the bible is a waste of time if you want those of us who do to respect the way you choose to live your life. I would put my life's accomplishments up against any secular humanists and, guess what.... I attend church weekly and read the bible daily.
Ja'chyra
08-10-2005, 18:36
So what exactly was different in Alrowans post Don?
It's ok for him to say that we need to start thinking of excuses but not ok for me to say going to church is a waste of time?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.