Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to Why you should care about Ted Haggard
just another liar caught with his pants down
posted by
ladychardonnay
on November 6, 2006 at 7:21 AM
| link to this | reply
the scripture you quoted
is disturbing to many people because it suggests a cessatation of the will and submission to another to provide direction. I believe the writer was saying that to know God you must somehow
surrender yourself. I see how that notion is disturbing and suspicious of course. THis idea has gained its offense through the centuries because millions of people have been duped, tricked, coerced into following malign charismatic personalities. I believe these people were not surrendering from a position of strength, but weakness. A weakness consisting of deficiency of mind and charectar. individuals who have genuinely resigned their wills to "God" from a position of sound mind and strength as a result of a genuine spiritual "awakening" ( or whatever) is vastly smaller in proportion to weaker and/or damaged people
posted by
calmcantey75
on November 5, 2006 at 10:01 PM
| link to this | reply
Gome
Little furry bloggers are so cool! And likely the only way I'm getting to heaven!
posted by
Afzal_Sunny7
on November 5, 2006 at 6:16 PM
| link to this | reply
Actually, the family members of a bad influence do suffer from the bad person's presence. That's only logical. That's why no one should ever adopt or have step parents of the opposite sex.
posted by
Jenasis
on November 5, 2006 at 4:13 PM
| link to this | reply
Blanche. - when such polar divisions exist and the vote itself is an
"against" vote, as much if not moreso than a "for" vote, it can only be hoped that the outcome leaves a working or a workable congress.
posted by
gomedome
on November 5, 2006 at 2:29 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome, come Tuesday, I really hope that the country gets it's act
together and reason prevails over polarized ideology, that is my most fervent prayer.
posted by
Blanche.
on November 5, 2006 at 2:08 PM
| link to this | reply
Blanche. - Once the emotions subside and everyone has retreated to a
safe distance, I wonder if anyone has learned anything from this?
Hypocrisy is a human condition, no bipedal is immune. There are also a host of questions that can be asked of the psychological profile of such a person. Representing and leading the fight against a self defined immorality while engaging in actions that are encompassed by that definition?
posted by
gomedome
on November 5, 2006 at 2:07 PM
| link to this | reply
A-and-B - that's a given, all thinking people will acknowledge this
But we are speaking of one extremely self righteous, accusatory and judgemental dude here.
posted by
gomedome
on November 5, 2006 at 1:59 PM
| link to this | reply
TVBlogger - we are actually saying the same thing
The quote as you see it in this posting is how it is used and interpreted by the New Life Church (the sect founded by Haggard). I've taken it in its entirety from their founding tenets. That's the twisted part, an edited biblical quote used out of context to give it a distinctly different meaning.
posted by
gomedome
on November 5, 2006 at 1:57 PM
| link to this | reply
Maybe no human is spotless.
posted by
A-and-B
on November 5, 2006 at 1:47 PM
| link to this | reply
You know for the most part I agree with you,
but in this case, I believe you may be taking that verse out of context. From what I remember, this line was addressing the traditional beliefs of the time that you could simply buy your way out of your sins either with money or with good deeds. He was refuting that belief not necessarily saying good deeds were unnecessary for a Christian life. And that's part of the problem with the bible -- it's so easy not to know the context in which things were being written.
posted by
TVBlogger
on November 5, 2006 at 1:45 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome, yes, I've noticed and as a Christian myself, I hve to say, "Stand
by your man", does not seem to apply here. Bailing like rats on a ship, more like.
posted by
Blanche.
on November 5, 2006 at 1:19 PM
| link to this | reply