Hate Sermons from the Pulpit

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jul 6 2007, 01:19 PM) [snapback]474102[/snapback]</div>

What is a neocon?

 

Honestly, if giving the truth from the Bible is offensive to some, then I'm all for it. God never wanted to be the type to please the masses. Yes, it's His way, not my way, or your way, or someone else's way.

And TJ, if that's how you feel about the Bible, then with all due respect, what you have said is insulting to God and Jesus Christ. For you to say what you have said is to forget these words, and to forget the divine nature of the written words themselves.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Jul 5 2007, 09:38 PM) [snapback]473789[/snapback]</div>

I had a similar situation with the small church that my parents helped found 30 years ago. Right after the new pastor was voted in he took a big swing in focus. He suddenly had a standard hell and brimstone, "Come to Jesus" sermon that he preached every Sunday morning. In it he would rail against gays, fornicators, adulterers, and anyone that disagreed with his "true" revelation. He would preach this sermon EVERY Sunday even though usually it was only the same 30 people in the congregation.

I have a bit different concern with what some churches preach from the pulpit and that is political messages. I attended a large Southern Baptist Church from 2001 to 2004. During the run-up to the 2004 Presidential election the church would play short movies before the service entitled "We Vote Values" that were produced by the Southern Baptist Convention and distributed to their thousands of member churches. These videos instructed us that certain forces were attacking the very foundation of our society and that we all must register to vote and then vote for candidates that supported the proper positions on key issues as laid out in the videos. They never were so bold as to endorse a specific party or candidate but there was no question as to which party a "good Christian" would support. The Southern Baptist Convention was as bold to hand out pamphlets telling us how to vote on the several proposals offered for vote during that election such as banning same-sex marriage. After a couple of weeks of this I called and pulled my membership. When asked why I explained that I expect my church to teach from the bible and stay out of politics. I also took issue with 7 pastors splitting 1.1 million dollars for their salaries in county with an average family income of $30K.

 

I went to the thread, thought the article was mostly muddled, and went on with my life. You have tricked no one.

That is not a web site I normally read. In fact, I've never been there before. It does look like the site allows a variety of viewpoints.

Not sure how you think you've proven anything beyond that hate speech is hard to define.

God invented sex, but I'm not sure you and Bill Clinton are lined up for those kinds of greetings at the pearly gates. I'll leave that to him, though.

If you've got frustrations in that department in this life, you might want to look into Islam. They think they'll get 76 virgins in the afterlife, making martyrdom nothing more than a sex crime.

Better luck next time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ozyran @ Jul 6 2007, 02:13 PM) [snapback]474144[/snapback]</div>

No, I have not insulted God or Christ. For they gave us intelligence, and the ability to discern. The Bible was written by man. I have (on many occasions), pointed out the flaws in the book. Flaws are of man, not God. If the Bible was divine, then how come it's not in one language? How come it has different versions? How come in 1611 when the KJ came out, the Apocrypha was in it, and by 1720, it was gone, with no reason given? Did God order a re-write?

Frankly, to insult God is to just blindly accept a book because it says so. How ludacris. Would you accept a book written by Stephen King as the Bible, just because it said so? No? Then why accept the Bible as the Truth, just because it says to do so?

I believe in Christ, and God, but I don't believe in a Book. My faith in Him needs no book to justify it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Jul 6 2007, 02:14 PM) [snapback]474146[/snapback]</div>

And I assume that this church, like just about all churches, has tax-exempt status.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Jul 6 2007, 01:23 PM) [snapback]474151[/snapback]</div>

I really appreciate this viewpoint, and wish that the more dogmatically-inclined Christians amongst us would allow themselves the same freedom of thought.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Jul 6 2007, 01:23 PM) [snapback]474151[/snapback]</div>

TJ,

While I respect your views, you have to understand that most Christians are ignorant of what you are saying. One, they haven't even read the bible completely and if they have they haven't read it critically. Most Christians rely on the opinions of what their family and clergy tell them to form their beliefs. These are then backed up by taking choice bits of text picked out to support their belief.

For example, most people believe in the Trinity, or one God in three parts. They then conveniently overlook passages that clearly point to one member being separate from the others. A good example would be the passage that says that no one knows the time of of Christ returning , not even the son, only the father. If they are truely one, how does one know and one doesn't? You have other obvious conflicts like the sermon on the mount were one gospel says Jesus when up the mountain to speak and one says he came down the mountain to speak. You have the Genesis creation stories. Chapter 1 has all the animals were created then man. Chapter 2 has man created and then the animals and God brings them to Adam to name. These are just a few examples that point out that the bible is not perfect and without error.

As you have stated, when you look at earlier versions or versions in other languages, some whole passages and chapters are missing or added. There are many more Gospels and books that are not included in our "offical" bible that were used by various early Christian groups but not accepted as orthodox. Most bible scholars agree that the books in the bible where not written by the people they are attributed to and were written at least a century after the lifetime of Christ. But most people don't know this and don't what to know this. They are happy to blindly believe what they are told.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Jul 6 2007, 01:41 PM) [snapback]474157[/snapback]</div>

Yes. They claim that they are still within the guidelines because they don't support a specific party or candidate.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tempus @ Jul 6 2007, 07:58 AM) [snapback]473981[/snapback]</div>

Absolutely!

Yet the anti-religious zealots would like everyone to believe it is . . .
"Freedom From Religion and Separation of Church From State (but not State from Church)."

To them, any mention of religion by the government should be outlawed . . . unless it is in an effort to crush religion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Jul 6 2007, 03:41 PM) [snapback]474221[/snapback]</div>

You are very correct that any mention of religion by the government should be outlawed. By getting involved in religion or as you call it "mentioning religion" the government is by default supporting one religion over another. Either the government has to give equal time, space, and resources to every religion or stay completely out of religion. Our government has shown that it cannot be unbiased and all inclusive when it comes to religion. Government should stick to governing and preachers should stick to preaching. When you have the government preaching or preachers politicking you have problems.

This is not as you claim an attempt to "crush religion" but simply logically following our constitution in a strict interpretation. Religion is kept in the realm of church and personal life and out of government and law-making.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Jul 6 2007, 12:23 PM) [snapback]474151[/snapback]</div>

As I've said before, most christians want to worship Jesus. They don't, however, want to listen to a damn thing the man said. It's a shame, really. While most of his ideas aren't original, they were very radical in that part of the world at the time (and today too!). There are some good ideas in many religions, but man's darkside poisons the good with a lot of bad. Sadly, most people seemed to be wired for religion (as opposed to spirituality, which is something quite different). They want dogma and they want someone to give it to them. The "hate speech" is just a manipulation of feelings that are already present and wanting to be exploited. If that weren't the case then the speakers would be looking for a new job.

Amen.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Jul 6 2007, 02:58 PM) [snapback]474238[/snapback]</div>

Ooh! Amen to that too!

 

Personally, I've never felt that mainstream Christianity and the encouragement of critical thought are representative of the best aspects of a symbiotic relationship.

I've lost count of the number of times I've read here, "my Pastor told me that..."

Why is it that we often --despite our assertions of individuality-- require another human being to interpret the meaning of our existence for us?

I guess I don't happen to have that requirement; consequently it seems a bit foreign to me to ask someone ---anyone--- "so, how should I feel about (insert the issue)...and why?"

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Jul 6 2007, 01:58 PM) [snapback]474238[/snapback]</div>

So, never again should Native Americans be allowed to perform their dances at public schools or other government properties? :huh:
After all, it IS a religious practice they are performing. <_<

Personally, I do condone it. It is part of our heritage as a country . . . as are all the other religions which make up this great country. It's called being inclusive. If you don't like it, walk away.

But, If religious zealots bastardize their religion to the point where a preacher stands up and says, "It is your duty to kill non-believers" - then I have a problem with that preacher breaking the law. If on the other hand a preacher is saying, "homosexuality or a women who have children out of wedlock is a sin" - SO WHAT!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jul 6 2007, 02:46 PM) [snapback]474160[/snapback]</div>

What if they thought freely and came to a different conclusion from your wishes? Could they still have thought freely?

And about "my pastor says" (which btw I have never read here), when you have car trouble, do you fix it yourself or go to a mechanic? Some pastors know less than my dog, some are completely wrongheaded and some have actually studied, can read in Greek and Hebrew, and are thoughtful people whose opinion is worth consideration.

The pastor should not replace thought, study and prayer, but is a valuable and (sometimes) valid resource.

I respect TJ's opinion concerning the bible, but can't go with him in using it for a doorstop. It is not a textbook, a history book or a cookbook. However, it is the inspired Word of God. It was written down by fallible people and each time it is read it is interpreted by fallible people (including me). I believe you ask God for understanding, and approach it with your mind, heart and an openness to understanding. It should not be worshiped, but is the key to worship and a personal relationship with God.

Two creation stories, two flood stories, etc. have different things to tell us. I don't think you'll find a better picture of the human soul than in the Psalms. Real people. Real emotions. Real God.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jul 6 2007, 05:19 PM) [snapback]474248[/snapback]</div>

You'll change your mind if you read C.S. Lewis, R. C. Sproul (living), Dallas Willard (living), Richard Foster (living), Barbara Brown Taylor (living), Kathleen Norris (living), etc.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(formerVWdriver @ Jul 6 2007, 06:36 PM) [snapback]474312[/snapback]</div>

What a silly, front-loaded, and telegraphic question.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(formerVWdriver @ Jul 6 2007, 06:36 PM) [snapback]474312[/snapback]</div>

I agree; but I'll be that most folks here have chosen a mechanic a *lot* more critically than than the person whom they rely on to provide spiritual maintenance. Also, you're fairly new to the site, aren't you?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(formerVWdriver @ Jul 6 2007, 06:36 PM) [snapback]474312[/snapback]</div>

Frankly, I resent your implication that "if I learned more, I'd come to my senses."

I'm not an atheist, BTW.

That said, shall I give you a list of authors who, some say, refute effectively the worth/purpose of mainstream Western religion as it is currently structured...and then have the *audacity* to tell you that, "if you'd only read their work, you'd come to your senses and forsake God?"

I wouldn't DREAM of doing such a thing.

Consequently, I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from indulging yourself in like behaviour.

The "Real people. Real emotions. Real God." tagline (with full stops, no less, not even lowly commas!!) does sound a bit like the trailer for a new 'family-oriented' movie, though.

Are you in the entertainment business, by chance?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bestmapman @ Jul 6 2007, 12:40 PM) [snapback]474114[/snapback]</div>

neo=new
con=conservative

New Conservative. In contrast to traditional Republicans who were against the government meddling in our bedrooms or taking over the authority of the states, were fiscally conservative, etc.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Jul 6 2007, 10:19 AM) [snapback]474102[/snapback]</div>

<Edited to remove comment>

I suppose I could have worded it differently but I won’t because it fairly reflects what I was thinking at the moment. I may have misunderstood the point of your post but if you’re going to post an article without comment then expect some misunderstandings, wasn’t dbermanmd banned from doing the same thing that you have done repeatedly? BTW the original writer, Mike Ghouse, is not one of my own. His article was posted on the "THE CONSERVATIVE VOICE" and it does not reflect my views nor does it reflects the "THE CONSERVATIVE VOICE" views. I may be mistaken. The Far Left is supporting the Fairness Doctrine, you, I believe are a Far Lefty or at the very least a borderline Far Lefty, therefore, I assume you support the Fairness Doctrine and other methods to squash views and public discourse that is opposite of what you believe in. I believe that this writer is also supporting such methods, I am against those methods.

Perhaps you could just simply answer my questions or is the point of this topic simply to troll for responses so that you can inflict epithet filled, vulgar, intolerant remarks at other posters view points that don’t agree with yours?


Wildkow

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TJandGENESIS @ Jul 6 2007, 11:23 AM) [snapback]474151[/snapback]</div>

How would you know anything at all about Jesus without the Bible? Personally if it was good enough for Jesus to use, "It is written" was his standard and I believe his only response, when tempted by Satan then I believe it is good enough as is. I believe that you do a disservice to the faith you proclaim by discounting the Bible's accuracy and veracity. YMMV as is your right but if your goal is to win people over to Christ then aren't you shooting yourself in the foot? There is plenty of points to pontificate over without seeking out those that ultimately hurt your own cause.

God Bless

Wildkow

 

" I like your Christ, but i don't like your Christians."
Gandhi

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jul 6 2007, 05:49 PM) [snapback]474353[/snapback]</div>

Kow, welcome back from your trip; I hope you saw some magnificent landscapes in perfect weather!

I think your impression of the Fairness Doctrine is a cruel perversion of its actual spirit and intent, which is precisely the opposite of suppression or censorship: it sought to OPEN the broadcast medium to allow the expresson of countering views, not shut down the expression of unpopular opinion. Where it ran into difficulty was not that it sought censorship, but that within the limited bandwidth of conventional broadcasting, trying to accommodate all salient viewpoints could wind up restricting how much time could be devoted to expressing any one viewpoint.

Now one can argue which is worse: monopolizing broadcast bandwidth with one sided speech, or being forced to keep broadcast expressions of viewpoints terse enough to give all salient viewpoints equal airtime - neither option is all rosy. But it is false and disingenuous to characterize the Fairness Doctrine as being suppressive in its spirit.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Jul 6 2007, 05:05 PM) [snapback]474277[/snapback]</div>

Yes

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Jul 6 2007, 05:05 PM) [snapback]474277[/snapback]</div>

I have no problem with a preacher saying "homosexuality or a women who have children out of wedlock is a sin". That's fine, thats what some preachers do. I choose to treat them as raving lunatics.

What I do have a problem with is if that preacher goes and gets elected and says "homosexuality or a women who have children out of wedlock is a sin, we need a law to ban it" That is religion in politics and breaks the separation of church and state. BTW, homosexuality is still against the law in quite a few states as are quite a few heterosexual sexual practices as well.