Fly the Flag Campaign

Nope, doesn't matter if you are Catholic, Lutheran, Southern Baptist or Independent, Methodist, etc, etc. Jesus said ALL who believe on me will have everlasting life.

You don't even have to belong to a church. Accept Jesus as your personal saviour...PERSONAL.

All churches are simply a mechanism to bring together persons with similar beliefs. Now, do some churches teach things that make this harder to do...yes. Do some churches espouse doctrine that actually drives away those who might be saved..yes. Do some churches teach that you do NOT have to accept Jesus, or that you must also be baptized or pay money, or do certain works to be saved...yes.

Does ANY of that change the simple fact that all God wants from you is to accept the sacrifice of his Son for you? NO!!!!

So go on and "claim" that each church requires you to be like them, or that each church thinks they are the only TRUE church. This may be for some churches, but for a fundementalist chirstian......we just want you to believe in the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Once you do that, join any church that believes that as well and pick one where the day to day doctrine 1) does not contradict that and 2) you feel most comfortable.

You see, once you are saved, you are sealed for all eternity. You cannot lose your salvation. While you may live in a manner that is not right in God's eyes (all a matter of degree because none of us are w/o sin...no, not one), the way you live will be reflected in your reward in heaven. NOT PUNISHMENT, there is only one punishment, but the degree of your reward. Me, the simple fac that I will be in heaven is sufficient (at the moment..but I am trying)

So, don't lump me into your self defined christian basket. Remember God's word that to the unbeliever, it is all foolishness and you must believe before you can understand.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify myself better.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarinJohn @ Sep 11 2006, 08:51 AM) [snapback]317728[/snapback]</div>

Thanks for your good words, John. It's nice to know I am not alone.

BTW, I do not post here to convince our religious or conservative Prius-owning friends. Nothing I say will change Schmika's mind, or fshagan's, or Dr. Berman's. I post here so that others who share our views, and read the far-right party line, will know that they are not alone in embracing reason against religion, tolerance against xenophobia.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Sep 11 2006, 08:52 AM) [snapback]317730[/snapback]</div>

Sounds to me like you are saying that all Moslems, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, traditional Native Americans, traditional Africans, Confiucians, Taoists, and all other non-Christians are excluded. Defining your "saved' group a bit more broadly than some other Christians does not change your exclusivist attitude.

And this once-saved-always-saved thing sounds like a pretty convenient way to discard everything Jesus taught about how to live your life. Why did Jesus bother to tell people how to live, if all that mattered was that they believe in him?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Sep 11 2006, 10:52 AM) [snapback]317730[/snapback]</div>

As long as you're not Gay.

As long as you're not Pro-Choice.

And it would help if you voted Republican.

 

Back to the original topic...

[attachmentid=4985]

Best regards,
NoSpam

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Sep 11 2006, 07:40 PM) [snapback]318044[/snapback]</div>

Now THAT is not true....just your opinion...no more valid than that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Sep 11 2006, 09:19 PM) [snapback]318106[/snapback]</div>

Perhaps not for you. And I commend you for that.

But I've met Fundamentalist Christians. And if you're Gay, Pro-choice or a "Liberal" you're Satan incarnate. You're evil and you're going to hell.

Even if you do believe in the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Because if you truly believed in the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ then you wouldn't be Gay, Pro-choice or Liberal. So you obviously don't believe and thus you are damned.

BTW it is impossible to have a rational conversation with these people. They have selective hearing or something.

Oh, and they quote scriptures a lot to prove their points. And it's always Paul.

Thankfully one has been transferred from my work site.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 11 2006, 05:37 PM) [snapback]317962[/snapback]</div>

A big thank you from me too, Daniel. Your eloquence and patience are greatly appreciated.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 9 2006, 11:19 PM) [snapback]317208[/snapback]</div>

And how many have died making war since? How much of our national wealth have we wasted? Learn from history: the Romans, Kings of Spain, Brittish, Germany. All imperialist empires crumble.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Sep 11 2006, 04:40 PM) [snapback]318044[/snapback]</div>

There are many Christians who do not hate gays. But the anti-gay movement is exclusively or almost exclusively conservative Christian, and its only argument, other than some nonsense about "tradition," is that Paul said gay sex is bad.

On the other hand, Jesus said that if you have two shirts you should give one to someone who has none.

Pick and choose. Of course, as I and others have commented elsewhere, Fundamentalist Christians and Bible-thumpers generally, like to quote selected passages from Paul while putting a gag order on Jesus entirely. Of course, they have some very slick arguments for why Paul is a higher authority than Jesus. But what it comes down to is that they are Paulists.

Caveat: The above does not apply to all Christians. I know plenty who are not homophobes, and there are whole denominations, such as the Congregational UCC, who marry and ordain gays. But the driving force behind homophobia is conservative Christianity. Public opinion won't let them lynch black folks anymore, and they need somebody to hate, so now its "queers."

 

This photo is from a 9/11 Memorial dedication today.

[attachmentid=4986]

This is what a firefighter has to say about 9/11!

Best regards,
NoSpam

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 11 2006, 07:29 AM) [snapback]317677[/snapback]</div>

People can believe what they want to believe. It is their actions that matter, right? It is when a Christian tells a Muslim that he really doesn't worship God, but a pagan moon-God (one of the current slanders by people in the Christian community that have decided to do exactly what you do: re-define words so they mean something to them only, and not to the rest of humanity).

Christianity is, for the most part, an exclusionary religion with an established theology that has developed over 2,000 years. It is no surprise that Christians feel theirs is the right and only path. That, in itself, is not offensive. But it can be communicated offensively, and I agree with you, it is done far too often.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 11 2006, 07:29 AM) [snapback]317677[/snapback]</div>

Your conceit is that you simply re-define the words the way you want to be. Lenin was, by all accounts, a communist. Stalin was the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Pol Pot was a communist. They all claimed the title, and they are all recognized as being communists. You can define the words to make yourself feel better if you want to, but it doesn't change the fact that every article on these men in encyclopedias, on-line "wikipedias" and scholarly articles calls them exactly what they were: communists.

I'll accept that Torqumenda and the other folks of the Spanish Inquisition were Christians. I'll accept that Bob Jones, Pat Robertson, Daniel Berrigan, Pope Pius IX (or whoever the Nazi sympathizer was) are Christians. I don't try to equivocate and call them "false Christians".

What I am pointing out is that if you spent more time looking in a mirror than pointing fingers at Christians, you might see the similarity to your argument ("true communism") and the very people you criticize.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Sep 11 2006, 07:54 PM) [snapback]318120[/snapback]</div>

There is no Christian denomination that teaches that kind of bigotry. Even the most conservative teach that the only unforgiveable sin is non-belief (some add a few others to that, but being gay, pro-choice or even, gasp, a democrat is not on the list). Most of the conservative denominations teach that "gay behaviour" is incompatible with Christian life, but so is cohabitation before marraige, gluttony, or any other sin.

The reason Paul is quoted so much is that he is the author of most of the Epistles, books that specifically treated issues within the fledging church, and his writings are filled with doctrinal and explanatory material. Jesus didn't write anything down, so we don't have his "original words". The four Gospels were not even written solely by his Apostles, even in a traditional sense: we ascribe Matthew and John to the Apostles, but Mark was younger and was not an Apostle. Luke, likewise, was not one of the 12. Luke is traditionally the author of the Book of Acts. The synoptic gospels and Acts are primarily "histories" (in the first century sense of that word) and the Gospel of John is a spiritualized account that is less "history" and more about the nature of God.

The remaining books are traditionally ascribed to James, Peter, John and Jude, but are very short, and not detailed in the "do it this way" mode. Paul's epistles stand as the bulk of the practical, day to day advice that we can consider.

The slander against Paul is simply a way to get out of the tough work of reading and understanding what these men meant when they wrote their accounts. It is intellectual laziness to pull a quote out of context and apply it to your modern belief without some understanding of the context and original meaning. It is no wonder that the sworn enemies of Christians employ that tactic, as Christians have become expert at it to claim a "promise", oppose women in positions of leadership, or some other claptrap.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 11 2006, 09:02 PM) [snapback]318134[/snapback]</div>

Paul did not say that.

If you're talking about Romans 1, read it in context. He is not talking about gay people, but about people who descend into ever-deeper spirals of decadence, with lying, cheating, sexual deviancy and eventually murder added to their "accounts". That doesn't sound like any of the gay people I know. The lazy study of that scripture pulls the homosexual content out of context, as if THAT was the main problem. It is not; it is the progression from self-indulgence to eventual murder.

And just for kicks, keep reading into Chapter 2, and find words you, as an anti-Paul crusader, will find very surprising.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 11 2006, 09:57 PM) [snapback]318158[/snapback]</div>

And your conceit is that because I praise the utopian version of communism advocated by Karl Marx, in which there is no coercive government and people share voluntarily, that I am somehow supporting people who embraced a diametrically-opposite form of government which has come to be called by the same name.

It is a low argument to attack someone based on the circumstance that a single word happens to have such completely different definitions for different people.

I will admit that for some people, the word communism refers to a violent and totalitarian form of government. But I ask you to admit that I have never praised or advocated that form of government and that my humanist, pacifist philosophy has nothing whatsoever to do with such people or governments, even though I have praised a philosophy, diametrically opposed to theirs, which, due to the vagaries of language, and quarrels about definitions, shares a common name.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 11 2006, 10:17 PM) [snapback]318161[/snapback]</div>

You are right! I like this quote. Paul seems to be opposed, as I am, to our modern court system.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 14 2006, 06:52 AM) [snapback]319446[/snapback]</div>

You have praised other communists, such as Angela Davis, so my confusion is understandable. But I'll accept your qualification and explanation.

Not all communists are evil, murderous, mass killers. Just the ones who got power.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 14 2006, 06:52 AM) [snapback]319446[/snapback]</div>

OK, I apologize for linking you to the mass murderers. However, for the vast majority of people, your re-definition of terms is not very useful.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Sep 14 2006, 06:52 AM) [snapback]319446[/snapback]</div>

*sigh*. Not at all. Although I suspect right before the axe fell, he may have had a problem with Rome's legal system. But, you missed the point, I think. Those chapter breaks and verse numbers are not the natural breaks in the text in the NT. The primary proof-text for the anti-gay crowd in all of Christiandom only works if you stop at the end of chapter 1. If you read on, chapter 2 condemns those who judge the kind of people described in chapter 1.

So even IF chapter 1 was speaking about today's gay couples (which it isn't), any Christian who condemns them based on the description in chapter 1 is made just like them. In other words, "Pat Robertson is filthy sodomite" would be a fair thing to say next time Robertson rails against the "gay agenda" and uses Romans chapter 1 as the proof text.

Paul has gotten a bad rap. He isn't at all what the critics say he is when you use the rules of interpetation to read him. Context, context, context.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 14 2006, 08:56 PM) [snapback]319905[/snapback]</div>

I think we've come to some points of agreement here, so rather than belabor the remaining disagreements, I'll shake hands and move on to other threads.

*shakes hands*