More church divisions: 9-30-09
September 30, 2009
Since shortly after the start of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th Century, the Protestant world has been dividing and dividing and dividing.
Atomized is a pretty accurate description, and some of us Christians think it must break the sacred heart of Jesus, who, as recorded in John 17, once prayed that we all "may be one."
The dividing continues in many denominations, including my own, the Presbyterian Church (USA).
This recent story from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America will serve today as an example. It describes a large church in Arizona that has decided to leave the ELCA and Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ, an association of 197 congregations in the United States.
The Arizona church cited several reasons for the split, but my guess is the most important had to do with action taken by the 2009 ELCA Churchwide Assembly on the topic of human sexuality. As an ELCA press release describes it, "The assembly approved a series of proposals to change ministry policies, including a change to allow Lutherans in lifelong, publicly accountable, monogamous same-gender relationships to serve as ELCA associates in ministry, clergy, deaconesses and diaconal ministers." (My opinion is that it was a laudable, long-overdue action.)
Well, whatever the reason for the split, I find such decisions sad and evidence of an unwillingness to find peace and harmony with people who disagree with you. I am not saying there never is a good reason for leaving a faith community. I can think of several good reasons.
But what's happened in Protestantism is similar to no-fault divorce. It's easy for petulant people to pick up their marbles and walk away instead of doing the hard work of finding ways to reconcile differences or to live in community even when differences have not been reconciled.
It's a terrible model for the world -- a model the Christian church should be ashamed of.
(The graphic here today is from http://home.comcast.net/~DiazStudents/MiddleAgesChurchDivisions.jpg)
* * *
YET ANOTHER COURT CASE ON RELIGION
Ah, the courts and religion. Seems as if there will never be an end to cases about faith that wind up in our judicial system. One the U.S. Supreme Court will have to decide has to do with a cross on federal land. Click here for the Washington Post story. On the whole, I think it's a good thing that some of these cases wind up in our court system. It shows that we Americans value religious freedom and the concept of separation of church and state. That doesn't mean I always agree with what the courts decide, but better the decisions be made there than by armed individuals facing one another.
Bill, your cute little chart of course tends to misrepresent the situation.
The common factor here is that they all accept Jesus Christ; the real division is not between Christians who have disagreements...after all Christians admit that they are sinners...but between those who accept Him and those who don't.
Of course, the Lord has given them Free Will to make that choice; my problem is with those who repeatedly tell others that they would deny others the right to make that choice by telling them to SHUT UP and DIE and the governments who do exactly that when they have the power.
And even more dishonorable are those who collaborate with them and facilitate their efforts.
Now, I know you know this. Uh, whose side is it you are on again?
Posted by: Will Graham | September 30, 2009 at 06:31 AM
"It's easy for petulant people to pick up their marbles and walk away instead of doing the hard work of finding ways to reconcile differences or to live in community even when differences have not been reconciled."
To Live in Community. There are No Divisions in a High Tech Society of Equal Male and Female Clone Helpmeets. Spare the rod and spoil the child, is not a problem on a High Tech Equal Clone Planet, with Eternal Physical Life After Birth.
There are No Children. Only Equal Male and Female Clone Helpmeets make up the Society, of One Lifestyle of Equality, Agape Love, One Government, No Marriage (joining in sex) or Giving in Marriage. Clones do not Marry, have Sex, or Reproduce Children. The Two are One in Genetics and Physical Makeup.
This is Similar to the Lifestyle of our Astronauts, in our iss, only No Helpmeet Clones. This same Equal Sharing Lifestyle is on Planets of High Tech Reproduced Male and Female Clone Helpmeets.
As Celibate Jesus said, there is no marriage (joining, in sex) nor giving in marriage in the Kingdom of Heaven. They do have Eternal Physical Life After Birth, on Planets and in Spaceships.
The Equal Society have the High Tech for Reproduction of Human Clone Helpmeets, and Regeneration, or the Reproduction of the Same Clone, if a death happens. So once a limit of Humans needed to keep a Planet Healthy, they do Colonize more Planets, like they did Earth.
Genesis 1:26. KJV. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish..fowl..cattle, and over all the earth.."
Posted by: Dolores Lear | September 30, 2009 at 06:50 AM
I suppose we will be treated to testimonies from Cole today about his "undisclosed location" bible study and the great questions he peppered the unsuspecting participants with!
Of course, the studies are always secret, which is suspect in itself since the atheists freely use this space to advertise all their other propaganda activities.
This of course has a great advantage, because it lets Cole and his buddies make any claims they want about their stellar performance at the studies.
Now they may brag about recording and taping, but seem to forget that recordings and tapes can be EDITED. Remember the tape Iggy made of Bill at the Community of Reason Meeting when Iggy asked Bill...brilliantly and insightfully...about the FSM!
He had it up on YOU TUBE for months! If was great!
Only one problem.
He left out Bills answer.
So, when they podcast, etc., a show of interviews, etc., keep in mind the power of EDITING.
After all, major media does it all the time. Why not our atheist propagandists?
(Oh, and as an aside, I see they are pushing local atheists Darrell Ray's pitiful book about religion being a virus...this is of course copied from Richard Dawkins.
There was another group who was famous for terming their main target a BACILLUS.
Can anyone guess who that was?)
Posted by: Will Graham | September 30, 2009 at 06:54 AM
Some remarks in the 1980s was there are were some people, that wanted to try to Start Greening the Universe's Planets.
But on our Planet of Body Birth Humans, with Generation Birth, Death, and Rebirth, we are trying to Kill our Green Home Planet, Colonized by our High Tech Human Ancestors.
And One Equal Diet for All was given. No meat with the blood in it. And the food, is Vegetarian or Vegan, like is stated in Genesis to the Adam and Eve Colony, and again After the Noah Flood. This type of food is compatible for Space Travel also.
Genesis 1:29. "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed: to you it shall be for meat."
Genesis 9:4. "But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, Shall ye not eat.
Humans Know there are many verses are about not eating the meat with blood in it, which turned into a Religious Sacrifice. Even our bread and wine, is supposed to represent Blood.
Humans do not need to Kill the trees to eat the fruit.
God/Us also said 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'.
Exercise is part of the Lifestyle, and Equal Work Ethics for All Jobs. Robots will do many of the mundane jobs, usually done by the poor Humans on a Body Birth Planet.
So the Heaven recorded in Scripture and Myth is High Tech Science Eternal Physical Life 'After Birth' in Heaven, which are Planets and Spaceships, not Life? After Death in Heaven/Life Elements.
Eternal Life, After Birth, Literally, is for High Tech Equal Male and Female Clone Helpmeets, not for Unequal Body Birth Mates and Children, After Death.
Posted by: Dolores Lear | September 30, 2009 at 06:58 AM
Bill wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>.Well, whatever the reason for the split, I find such decisions sad and evidence of an unwillingness to find peace and harmony with people who disagree with you. I am not saying there never is a good reason for leaving a faith community. I can think of several good reasons. But what's happened in Protestantism is similar to no-fault divorce. It's easy for petulant people to pick up their marbles and walk away instead of doing the hard work of finding ways to reconcile differences or to live in community even when differences have not been reconciled.
Goes to show you that "psychologically" and "evolutionary" the "will to power/domination/outcompete" and "preserve" your own "memes/beliefs" and "maintain mental equilibrium" is real and happening.
When you have 33,000+ denominations of Christianity, you are bound to have splits. You will have Southern Baptists who are "sure without a shadow of a doubt" they are going to heaven (like one of them told me on Moday during the Bible study) while saying in the next sentence that many "so called Christians" in his church will not go and he will not meet them in heaven.
This kind of "assinine" religious stupidity is what actually is one of the things that splits Christianity. Then society itself, education level of followers, personal experiences, development of science/medicine, ever changing political situation in America and the world.
The fact that ELCA now allows openly gay and committed Lutherans be in preaching positions is a "quantum leap" in the "irrational" belief system. I believe they understood "irrationality" of their beliefs and clash with "reality" on this particular position and slowly morphing Christianity/evolving it before our eyes.
The new "gender neutral" Bible with 3,000+ removal of "sexist" references is the next step. Next thing you know Xianity will be taught in comics like it is to little kids.
Bill wrote>>>>>>>>It's a terrible model for the world -- a model the Christian church should be ashamed of.
I don't think Xians should be ashamed of the "freethinking" split - it proves in my opinion that human mind is "never" constrained by the chains of "dogma" (be it communistic or religious) and is a testament to the triumph of human thinking and "spirit" so to speak.
I say, the more denominations, the better. The more "wedge" issues there are, the freer this country is.
Posted by: IGGY - www.KCFreeThinkers.org | September 30, 2009 at 07:26 AM
JT posted yesterday, “When you see a 60-year-old burned out old hippy type with long gray hair hair, a stoned look, and all the other trappings of rebellion, you know that they've spent their life asking, "How far south can I go without crossing the line." Well, the answer is, "Hell." That's how far south someone can go without crossing the line. Without ever crossing a line, someone's heart can be become irreparably hardened toward "How do I get around God's law and human law?" That's not looking to do the right thing, and that's a path to Hell.
You are acting like god. You are judging. Isn’t that suppose to be your god’s job. But it isn’t, it’s your religion, your biblical book that claims that. Your book says that god will do the judging and that you should stay out of it.
When you agree that society can’t be better, then America is in trouble. Laws and fairness changed in the 60s because we protested for change and fairness as we are now. For god and country is disappearing. It’s all for our country, which I strongly believe in and am proud to live in.
How far south is hell, JT? Makes sense it would be in the bible belt.
I have noticed people like you, JT, when you are in the corner with little rebuttal, you belittle what I look like. Well, your god made me the way I am.
Over the years I have seen lots of Xs do the same thing. It must be insecurity. You are acting like little children. I suppose that makes some kind of sense; your god speaks to you as children.
Time to grow up, don’t you think?
I think your biblical god should take responsibility and do his own killing and raping instead of ordering people to do it. This shows me people created god; not god created people. continued
Posted by: memberofKCFreeThinkers.org | September 30, 2009 at 08:47 AM
When I was young, because of my hair and beard, my grandmother said I looked like St Paul. The next visit she said I looked like jesus (Whatever those two imposters looked like). I told my mom the next visit I’ll look like god. She slapped me (a teasing slap) and it sure straightened me right up!
True story, but I doubt you will believe me. You believe in fairy tales. I loved my grandmother even though she was misled. I blame religion for that, not god. The two have nothing in common.
Susan posted yesterday, “Just Thinking, respect begets respect (I suppose you'll see that as just another platitude, huh?). It makes so sense to say, "I'm on a mission to teach my child respect, and it's so important I'll even cross the line by disrespecting my child's bodily integrity by hitting him, just to show him he needs to respect authority."
It's like you're saying that sometimes parents have to sacrifice one value to uphold another. You don't think we should decide up front that we'll "never" do something? Do you think it's too extreme to say you'll never hit your wife?
Good point, Susan! I loved the rest of your post: Posted by: Susan | September 29, 2009 at 08:49 PM
Peace For the Sake of Goodness Cole
Posted by: memberofKCFreeThinkers.org | September 30, 2009 at 08:48 AM
Its amusing that KC"Free"Thinker qualifies so many of his own words in "quotation marks" in that 7:26 am post.
Looks like he is starting to realize that his own words are BS and the claims he is making are pure speculation.
Posted by: adam harrison | September 30, 2009 at 08:49 AM
Bill, I do see your point in comparing switching faith communities (or denominations or local churches) to divorce.
I think that as long as both spouses are truly interested in bridging their gaps and working things out together, divorce is usually a bad idea. But what if one spouse completely disregards the feelings of the other? Isn't willing to talk about anything or seek counsel? Just makes choices unilaterally (without consulting the spouse), even choices that powerfully affect their spouse and children?
I think there are strong possibilities for 2 people in a marriage to grow together and adapt to one another (if they both care about the marriage). With local faith communities, sometimes this is possible and sometimes it isn't. I think that's because with religion, you're not just interacting with the people you worship and serve with -- there is also doctrine, and a hierarchy.
I sincerely don't want to spend the rest of my life church-hopping. So at this point I'm trying to find a place where my family and I can keep growing, where there is room for a variety of points of view. 'Cause I sure don't have a problem with breaking bread with someone who sees things differently from me -- my only problem is when there's an attempt to suppress opposing views (of course I'm not talking about one person rudely taking over a class from the teacher, or interrupting a sermon -- just respectful discussion).
Maybe we can find this room to grow in an Episcopal church. I was very interested when an Episcopalian lady online shared how as a young person she'd asked her teacher how anyone could know for sure that Jesus never married, and her teacher said there are some theologians who feel there's strong evidence that He WAS married, and some who feel there's a strong case that He WASN'T -- and her teacher just gave her a book list for both sides and told her to make up her own mind.
Posted by: Susan | September 30, 2009 at 08:49 AM
Dolores, from yesterday, when I talked about eternal life I was expressing my belief that we have a soul that lives on forever, which is just temporarily housed within our current body.
Bill, one interesting thing about division is that people on opposite sides of the divide often accuse the other side of being the one that split. I.e. I imagine the people and churches that are now breaking away from the ELCA feel the ELCA was being "divisive" through becoming more inclusive.
I was born in 1964, so I remember a time (when I was young) when some Christians openly-expressed a modified form of the "separate but equal" ideals of racial segregation, in that black-white marriages were frowned upon. These marriages were seen as "divisive," even though the critics admitted they weren't expressly condemned by Scripture, because they felt young people needed to be sensitive to the "sensitivities" of racist people.
Change is always going to cause discomfort to some people who are not personally-affected by the exclusion of a marginalized group, and feel quite comfortalble with the way things are, thankyouverymuch.
What's really funny (and sad) is when people ask God to take them "out of their comfort zone" -- but they're not so sure that's what they wanted when it really happens.
Posted by: Susan | September 30, 2009 at 09:17 AM
Read the early church fathers and you will find that they were Catholic. St Ignatius was installed as the Bishop of Antioch by the apostles Peter and Paul actually 'coined' the term in his letter to the Smyrnaeans. So the 'Early Christians' line should say 'Catholic Christians' since that's their term. The early church fathers were fighting 'heresy' from the beginning evidenced by the Council of Nicaea condemning Arianism in 325 (where we get the Nicene Creed).
The original protestant, Martin Luther had this to say about this topic: "If Christ had not intrusted all power to one man the church would not have been perfect because there would have been no order and each one would have been able to say he was led by the holy spirit. This is what the heretics did. Christ therefore wills his power be exercised by one man, the Pope, to whom he has committed it. He has made this power so strong that he looses all the powers of Hell itself against it so it becomes clearer that this power is really from God and not from man. Whoever breaks away from this unity and order of power let them not boast for they know not what evil they do."
Posted by: trapblock | September 30, 2009 at 09:27 AM
Humans, whether High Tech Born Equal Clone Helpmeets, or Body Birth Unequal Mates and Children, they are all made of GODs Eternal Life Elements, in a Universe made of GODs Elements.
When Gods Universe Elements get out of Balance, the Life on the Planets of a Universe are included when their Universe Collapses and make a new Universe. This is the Eternal Life of Universes, and the Life Elements that make Physical Life.
Elements do not Die, they just change forms.
The High Tech Human Species, keep their High Tech Science, to Renew their Physical Bodies, with GODs Elements, and have Eternal Physical Life on Planets and in Spaceships.
And with their High Tech can Escape the Collapse of their Universe, and travel to another Universe. This is the Eternal Physical Life After Birth of God/Us in Genesis, our High Tech Human Ancestors, that Colonized Physical Life on Earth.
Humans that Fall to Heterosexual Body Birth with Children, have Generation Birth, Death and Rebirth. They continue this Killer Lifestyle, until their Planet Dies, unless they Evolve to Balanced High Tech Reproduction, and Spaceship travel to escape the Death of their Planet, Solar System, Galaxy, or Universe.
Eternal Physical Life is for Living High Tech Purebred Human Clone Helpmeets, on Planets and in Spaceships.
Otherwise the Human Mates and Children Elements, do Collapse when their Universe does, and then again they have the Chance to again Evolve up to High Tech Science Birth and Eternal Universe Life After Birth.
The Collapse of the Universe is the Hell of Religion. But the Elements are not lost Forever, but are used again for a New Balanced Universe.
Posted by: Dolores Lear | September 30, 2009 at 09:28 AM
Some of the splits were justified, especially the Protestant split from the Roman Catholic Church. That split was over fundamental issues of salvation. The Catholic Church had perverted salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ into something that was no longer recognizable.
But many splits occur when people don't like what the Church legitimately has to say. When Henry VIII split off the Church of England because of his selfish indulgences, then you can bet that God did not honor that split. The Church of England is all but dead now, too, which is undoubtedly the fruit of that event.
There are many people today who treat Church as a consumer activity. They lie back, sprawl out and command, "Church me." They'll be hyper-critical of the Church as a consumer might be in a store, but they don't really want to pick up a broom or a mop and get busy when the back room needs cleaned out. God won't bless that attitude either.
There are those who don't stop shopping until they find people with juuuussssttt the right attitudes in that Church, which makes their own attitude a bad one. If they find a Church with juuuuussssstttt the right attitudes, then I don't know why that Church would want such a person in their congregation. You see, they don't think about both sides of the coin. They're consumers. There are not enough Bible Study teachers for the children, and that they'll complain about. But they won't *be* a Sunday School teacher. They're consumers.
JFK once said, "Ask not what your country can do for *you*, but ask what *you* can do for your country." Too many people adopt a consumer approach to God and Country. They're only worried about what they can get out of it. Freedom becomes the right to shop, instead of participating.
Posted by: Just Thinking | September 30, 2009 at 09:56 AM
I bought a copy of Dawkins new book, The Greatest Show on Earth, even though I was pretty certain it wouldn't provide me with much new evidence or support for evolution that I didn't already know. I'm about 1/4 through, and so far it's meeting my expectations. Lots of good information (most of it well documented elsewhere), and some good connections and explanations of the details. Although most of it is not new to me, it's great that he's included information from as recently as this year (Lenski's E. coli experiment, for example).
Because Dawkins set out to write a book only explaining the evidence, there is almost no anti-religiousness apparent in the book. He does take several pot-shots at people who are ignorant (willfully or not) of the evidence available, but it isn't overwhelming or distracting from the overall narrative (at least so far in my reading).
I'm curious to know if any of the Goldstein Squad (including Master Jim) has gotten a copy of this book, and if so, what their views of it are. In the interest of fairness and openness, I would prefer to meet face-to-face and discuss it, rather than be limited to short comments here. I will be at the Border's at 91st and Metcalf (where I met with Master Jim before) on Saturday evening from 6:00-9:00 PM.
That should give everyone time to show up (even if the "kids" want to take in a movie later). I'll be willing to talk about evolution, evidence and science, but if you want to discuss religion and/or atheism, that's fine too.
Oh, and if you haven't gotten a copy yet, I'm sure the store will have several available to purchase!
Posted by: Chuck Lunney | September 30, 2009 at 10:06 AM
The reason for this split is obvious. We have been talking about this for some time. This is the only way Christianity will survive any longer. Eventually 500-1000yrs from now, whatever time frame, Xs then won’t even recognize Xs of the 21 century.
Xs are morphing toward fairness. This is how a civilized society will survive.
Will posted, “Now, I know you know this. Uh, whose side is it you are on again?”
It’s always about ‘sides’ with you. I have noticed that with Xs. You know, the herd mentality. And each herd is correct and the other X herd is wrong and going to hell.
When we nonreligious get together and discuss, we think independently and when we disagree we don’t condemn each other to Christianity (which would be our equivalent to hell). We simply move on, still friends.
Will, if you don’t like how Bill runs his site, don’t post here.
JT, in this next video this man speaks on the bible and mentions god wants rebellious teenagers killed. That is your god. You agree? Perhaps through your weird logic this will save the teenager from tortures of hell.
Why do Christians believe in God? (Ask a question series)
Richard Dawkins: The Good Book And The Changing Moral Zeitgeist (2/2)
Peace For the Sake of Goodness Cole
Posted by: memberofKCFreeThinkers.org | September 30, 2009 at 10:11 AM
"Freethinking" to some members of KCFreeThinkers.org is the freedom to play senseless and harmful pranks, such as threatening suicide online. Freethinking to some means "This is a free country -- I can do what I want." And what they clearly want to do is skirt the law, skirt common decency, and use their freedom as an excuse to attack and harass others.
Freedom is a valuable thing that many died to give us in this country. Freedom is not the right to do whatever you please. Freedom is the freedom to do what is *right*. Freedom to worship God. Freedom to believe in God. Freedom to freely associate. Freedom to assemble in groups such as a Church. Freedom to speak the Truth.
Freedom does not include the right to harass others, as some seem to think that it does. That was *never* intended by those who died to give us the freedom to do what is *right*. Freedom is not some license to constantly push at the laws, looking for loopholes and other deficiencies in some quest for cheap thrills and publicity stunts. Those who practice freedom in this way want to see freedom destroyed.
God is a God of order, not one of chaos and disorder. Those who use freedom as a right to create chaos and destruction are working against what is right, what is good. They're out to destroy, and never to build up. Lawlesness becomes the theme of anyone who proudly proclaims, "This is a free country -- I can do what I want." It's much different than asking, "What is the *right* thing to do?"
Posted by: Just Thinking | September 30, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Jesus=egg as an insurance policy in Christianity. Oh, yes, he dies just like a young animal in this video.
Have you ever thought why there are "three" gods in Christianity/Judaism and perhpas even one more Satan?
I think this is a good insurance policy for survival of "polytheistic" religion turn "monotheistic" in the times of many gods and attracting converts and "surviving?"
A short 3 min video to illustrate the point - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWM62Pa2Wc8
I actually wonder if the Christian History Deniers on this blog understand that "bitching" about someone's appearance (pony tale, hair color, weight, height, receeding hair line) is actually "bitching" at their god's creation?
Ouch... The space alien Yahwheh must be getting angry and Jesus turning in his grave.
Posted by: IGGY - www.KCFreeThinkers.org | September 30, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Cole, you have a problem with people being on "sides"?
You say you can disagree with people and still be friends?
Really?!? Is that why you call us Psychotic and tell us to crawl under a rock? (Which means we will die.)
SOME FRIEND YOU ARE! Hahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: adam harrison | September 30, 2009 at 11:56 AM
Chuck, we all got Dawkins book when it first came out and have been going through it. ("Master Jim"...LOL!...keeps us well supplied with just about unlimited reading material through his Amazon account!)
I quite agree, not much new information here; as you may know though, my problem with mainstream evolutionary theory is not the science...scientific theories are provisional anyway...but with the philosophical conclusions (such as evolutionary theory leading to atheism because it allows him to be "intellectually fulfilled", etc.) that Dawkins draws from it.
But I disagree that there is no anti religiousness in the book; he starts right out by equating creationists with Holocaust deniers with is simple an old debaters trick of "poisoning the well" and probably a false analogy.
As for Borders; we might be able to meet, but we may have some things going.
(By the way, Dawkins elsewhere gives some examples of some things that could...in principle...falsify evolution.)
So can you give some examples of some things that could falsify your atheism...in principle... given your apparent belief that mindless processes can explain our present existence?
Posted by: adam harrison | September 30, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Christian History Denier adamh wrote>>>>>>>>>> You say you can disagree with people and still be friends? Is that why you call us Psychotic and tell us to crawl under a rock? (Which means we will die.)
I don't know if Cole would say any of you Christian History Deniers are his friends? - first off, he never met any of you crazies in person, he doesn't know who you are. I dare say that even Susan who Cole met a few times is not his friend but rather aquainance, so this is an irrelevant point.
Being friends requires "understanding" of each other's position and "respect" on a personal level - with you crazy Christian History Deniers there is no understanding, hence you cannot be friends with him. Cole may have respect for you as individual and your rights but maynot have respect for your crazy delusional ideas of Christianity which to him is not a barrier to be friends with people. How would you know unless you meet him in person?
This must be so painful on the brain of the crazy to understand that if you crawl under a rock you have the following options - shut up and live under it, not shut up and live under it, shut up and get out of it every now and then or just get under the rock for sleep, you can also chose to die under the rock if you want to physically, or you can just die under the rock mentally and combination of whatever options you want.
The crazies have a choice - free will so to speak, not just one. Even when they are "put" under the rock forcefully, they still have the same choices and it's up to them in a morally relativistic manner to chose how they are going to behave, not up to those who put them under the rock or tell them to crawl under the rock and shut up.
If Christian History Deniers say crawling under a rock means they'll die (looks like they mean physcially) I don't really feel I have the right to tell them not to die or do anything to prevent them from dying on their own. More power to the Christian History Deniers to die physically , this will also cause them to die spiritually so to speak. Two birds are killed with one stone.
So, Christian History Deniers, why don't you crawl under the rock and we'll see how you are doing? Maybe you can start another blog where you'll be not bitching about Bill's position all the time?
Posted by: IGGY - www.KCFreeThinkers.org | September 30, 2009 at 12:31 PM
You seem to have a problem with authority, namely that you fail to recognize that because authority figures are not perfect, that doing the right thing sometimes requires rebellion. If you don't teach your kids the difference between a caring authority and a selfish, invalid authority then they may fall victim to the latter. Here are some examples of good disobedience:
1- German families helping the Jews escape Nazi Germany were rebelling for a good cause.
2- The small minority of subjects in Stanley Milgram's experiment on obedience who refused to follow orders to increase the "shocks" and discontinued the experiment - they rebelled for a good cause.
3- Underground railroad. People helping slaves escape the South to freedom.
4- The Civil Rights movement employed the use of civil disobedience to fight segregation laws. They'd go to a segregated establishment and deliberately sit in the "wrong" section. It was a very effective tool for furthering the cause.
5- Abused children brave enough to turn in their abusive parents.
6- Abused women protecting themselves and/or their kids by getting rid of an abusive spouse. It may be true that divorce always hurts kids but being abused hurts them much worse.
7- The US War for Independence (against the British)- the ultimate rebellion against authority without which the USA would not exist! Our country was founded on rebellion. Where is your patriotism? :)
8- Um...didn't Jesus rebel against the Roman authorities of his time? (Come to think of it, isn't he usually depicted with long hair as well?)
Posted by: Lynne - www.kcfreethinkers.org | September 30, 2009 at 12:32 PM
I re-read the old posts. Nobody threatened suicide. It was a hypothetical question. I'm sorry but anybody who doesn't understand the difference between a suicide threat and a hypothetical question has a very serious reading comprehension problem. Go take English 101 or something. Seriously.
Posted by: Lynne - www.kcfreethinkers.org | September 30, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Cole, your actions, your appearance, and your lifestyle judge you. I don't need to do that. You are a person who leads a group of "recovering" Christians, but likes to crash Bible Studies. Hmmmm ... I think your actions speak quite clearly about who you are, and the road you're on. Your unkempt appearance and aging hippy look is certainly consistent with your subversive, rebellious actions and attitudes, too.
Just recently I was reminded of the aging hippy crowd who proudly declared their lawlessness, "This is a free country -- I can do what I want." MacKenzie Phillips, daughter of John Phillips, lead singer of the The Mamas & the Papas, told us in an interview about the consentual sexual relationship that she and her father had, and how her own father first shot her up at the age of 10. And the story of how Mick Jagger waited until the day of her 18th birthday to seduce her was another touching story, too. Another case of someone who asks, "What I can get away with?" instead of "What is the right thing to do." That's where lawlessness leads.
It wasn't until MacKenzie became pregnant, probably with her father's child, that she realized just how far wrong she had gone in exploring personal "freedom" and "freethinking." The abortion that she had, which her father paid for, was a final wake-up call for her.
Some people are good at hiding who they are. They skirt around the law, they skirt around common decency, but they are who they are. Even if they don't break a single societal rule, they can still be headed straight for Hell. But as long as you're alive, there's always time to change the path you're on.
Posted by: Just Thinking | September 30, 2009 at 12:49 PM
With all due respect, Martin Luther wouldn't recognize what some people call church today. Martin Luther was a Catholic and I doubt he had any idea his questioning would lead to 30-40K different interpretations of the Gospel. He had a tremendous devotion to Our Lady and believed in 'confession' until his death.
The very first Christians participated in the Mass which is evidenced everywhere in their writing. This is the same Mass we celebrate today and will forever until the end of time. St Justin Martyr (around 150 AD) writes to the emperor: "On the day dedicated to the sun, they gather in common. As long as time permits the memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read. Then the presider gives a warning that you should follow these good examples. Then we all rise and offer prayers, then bread is brought forward with wine. Then the presider gives thanks and the people respond and give their ascent with 'Amen'. Then there is the distribution to each and the participation in the Eucharisitc elements, which are also sent to the deacon to those who are absent."
There was the Mass before there was a Bible. There was a church that spread through the entire known world (Roman Empire) before that same church produced the Bible. This is how they worshipped then and how we worship today.
Posted by: trapblock | September 30, 2009 at 01:14 PM
When the famous British split from Rome occurred, it wasn't because of Henry VIII'S "selfish indulgences" (JT?), or marrying Anne Boleyn, (although producing sons rather than daughters was much on his mind !) nor was it because of fundamental differences over salvation, as Martin Luther's influence had extended to the British Isles by that time.
The people of England had been chafing for sometime under the heavy taxation imposed on them from Rome and Henry himself said that his subjects were only "Scarce his subjects and half his subjects."
He also had an eye on the church owned land and the rich coffers of the monasteries, to help fill the royal treasury.
That particular controversy, over who should own and tax English lands (the Roman church or the Kings and English landlords) had been going on since the signing of the Magna Carta.
Henry never stopped being a Catholic, he was in fact a very religious man and had written a book on the Sacraments which was so well thought of by the Pope that he had dubbed Henry with the title Defender of the Faith.
Posted by: Red Biddy | September 30, 2009 at 01:30 PM