Go to THE ECCLESIASTE
- Add a comment
- Go to ODD HOW CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS DEFINE INTOLERANCE
rosie baby
you mean there are children of god and then there are those who aren't?
who isn't a child of god?
posted by
Xeno-x
on October 28, 2004 at 9:50 AM
| link to this | reply
westwend
Never would have guessed that you consider yourself a "Christian"! You don't sound like you are a Child of God.
posted by
RosieV
on October 28, 2004 at 9:40 AM
| link to this | reply
The religious right is nothing new! How familiar does this
the attitude in this passage sound??
"Will you, then, my fellow-citizens, with all this evidence (of atheism)... vote for Mr. X... As to myself, were Mr. X connected with me by the nearest ties of blood, and did I owe him a thousand obligations, I would not, and could not vote for him. No; sooner than stretch forth my hand to place him at the head of the nation "Let mine arms fall from my shoulder blade, and mine arm be broken from the bone."
Author: William Linn, a Dutch Reformed minister in New York City
Guess who "X" was??
Thomas Jefferson.
The more things change, the more they stay the same, except the geographic location of the religious wackos has changed. See this passage:
The religious issue was dragged out, and stirred up flames of hatred and intolerance. Clergymen, mobilizing their heaviest artillery of thunder and brimstone, threatened Christians with all manner of dire consequences if they should vote for the "in fidel" from Virginia. This was particularly true in New England, where the clergy stood like Gibraltar against Jefferson (Jefferson A Great American's Life and Ideas, Mentor Books, 1964, p.116).
posted by
t_rat
on October 26, 2004 at 8:02 PM
| link to this | reply
Westwind
This is your post; however, I would like to discuss something with freerain. I believe you have total rights to your opinions. That is between you and your god or between no one else, just your own self. I have posted several posts that cover the issue of how judgment should be done according to the Bible. The Bible is totally about Jesus. He is covered on the first page. He states in the New Testament that He did not come to do away with the law but to fulfill it. You and I can disagree all we like and it have not effect on our lives; however, if I am speaking about you or your religion (which I won't) I should respect facts. Your facts are not correct. Westwind: I would like to say this about tolerance. All of us all over the world will at times have issues, circumstances, people or behavior that is offensive to us. It is so childish to want everything to satisfy the senses. Since I believe God created the Universes I will opt for those things that are pleasing to him even if I may not like that choice as well. I have a real relationship with Jesus and I have no problem with you living your life as you choose. It is your disallowing me the right to live my life as I choose that rubs me the wrong way. |
| |
posted by
Justi
on October 26, 2004 at 6:14 PM
| link to this | reply
westwend,
I wholeheartedly concur with your ideas of tolerance. I never can get enough of the oversimplification of EVERYTHING WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY or EVERYTHING WRONG WITH THE WORLD goes back to the removal of prayer from public schools. History doesn't substantiate it nor, taken in context with the the social upheavals of the time, does the argument make very much sense. It is merely a focal point for the parochial views of those who somehow believe that American society was ever pure and innocent.
posted by
saul_relative
on October 26, 2004 at 4:22 PM
| link to this | reply
steelerman
i consider this an open forum where there should be free exchange of ideas
we should be firm enough in our beliefs that we can accept differing ideas in response to our own expression of such
posted by
Xeno-x
on October 26, 2004 at 7:16 AM
| link to this | reply
I Hardly...
agree with you on anything Westwend BUT I would like to thank you for never blocking me from making comments on your post unlike Scoop. Thank you! You are a true debator.
posted by
RedStatesMan
on October 25, 2004 at 7:52 PM
| link to this | reply
freerain
like it
posted by
Xeno-x
on October 24, 2004 at 11:26 AM
| link to this | reply
Yes, West, insanity is hard to cure
if the patient doesn't want to be cured. There comes a point where the therapist or physician has to raise up his hands and cut the patient loose. When there is social change, when the old ways of thinking and doing come to light as harmful to others in an immoral sense, like denying human rights or hateful language of inferiority of race, or demonization of other's faith or sexual preferences, than those who believe in the "old ways" often fight unjustly to maintain the "old gaurd" and with contempt for those who are bringing about change and raising the moral value of humanity to higher ground. If our Christian fundy friends were around in the early days of Jesus, before his crucifixion, they would have been on the side of the scribes and pharisees, pointing out the laws and rightness of the ways established and they wouldn't even have seen the transition of faith that Jesus was bringing at the time. In many ways, they are that today. They hold more to the Hebrew laws and writings than to the ways of Jesus--believing that there is only one God and his laws must be obeyed. Jesus did away with the law and gave men a hope in their heart to be free of the sin those laws placed on the Hebrew people--Jesus brought forgiveness and redemption and left the judgement of man to God in heaven, not here on earth. Our funda -- mental believers take the judgement away from God and use the word of God to judge others and structure their closed minded view of the world around it. I say, physician, let go of these insane folk and free yourself from their abuses. In goodness, for your own sake, stop giving them a forum to spred their insanity around it serves their purpose and that just please them to no end.
Peace,
Freerain
posted by
freerain
on October 24, 2004 at 8:50 AM
| link to this | reply
Oh, Real Good...
comment from the Reverend? Kooka. Are you saying that everyone back then was ignorant and now we are so enlightened? well, since you intellectuals think that we are so enlightened and it was just a coincidence that all of these things came about the same and that the removal of God from schools, then why do we have any problems now? The fact is family values and morals have declined rapidly due to the 60's. You can see it in the divorce rate among many other glaring effects. Back in the 50's you did not have kids going to school and shooting several people. You did not have the pregnancy rate of teenagers that you have today, not even close. I can go on and on. However, some people on here believe we are now enlightened, not ignorant and that we are progressive. What a joke. Unicorn, you know what this is don't you? We are now living in the age where good things are seen as bad and bad things are seen as good. Kooka, you are part of the problem.
posted by
RedStatesMan
on October 23, 2004 at 8:51 PM
| link to this | reply
Well, I think that an unmarried man and woman who want marriage should be protected absolutely from anything that stands in the way of their honorable union. That's how I feel about it.
posted by
TARZANA
on October 23, 2004 at 1:59 PM
| link to this | reply
unicorn
Now was that not also about the time of civl rights, Kenndy's death and many, many other things that drastically changed our country. Removing prayer from school was not the cause of the problem, but a result of our people no longer being as ignorant (Or as it is more commonly referred to, as innocent) of reality as we had been. When everything is going through as drastic of changes as the US went through at that time, values change. We are still recovering from it all, but we are much better off now than we were then, unless of course you wish to be only judged by how good of a wife you are and go back to having the racial seperation and so many other issues that could only be there when we live in such ignorance is allowed.
Removing prayer from school had nothing at all to do with the problems. It just happened at the same time everything changed.
posted by
kooka_lives
on October 23, 2004 at 1:56 PM
| link to this | reply
Westwend -
I have no trouble with displaying the 10 Commandments, if we can also display some of the laws from the Koran and sayings from Buddha.
posted by
sannhet
on October 23, 2004 at 9:41 AM
| link to this | reply
I Don't Believe In Cramming My Religious Views...
...down the throats of others, either--but there's a difference between forcing people to worship as we do and having The Ten Commandments displayed in classrooms, courthouses, etc.
Because we live in a multicultural society, perhaps prayertimes led by a teacher might no longer be something we can do in public schools--though I notice that, during some disaster, teachers gather up children and start praying to Jesus while they're all in a group-hug or a circle--but we can have moments of silence, and I see no reason why prayer might not be suggested as one of the activities that can be done at this particular time!
Blessings!
AJ 
posted by
Ainsley_Jo_Phillips
on October 23, 2004 at 7:57 AM
| link to this | reply
I don't
know if you remember that in 1962 they took "God" out of schools, no prayer or God related teaching and the like. It's interesting to note that right after that time, is when problems in school and with children started being much more prominent. It seemed that morals took a nose dive drastically after the elimination of God in school. We see the consequences of a Godless natior every day. It's interesting to note that the Bible warns of these consequences way back in Deuteronomy.
posted by
PastorB
on October 23, 2004 at 7:47 AM
| link to this | reply