News, sports, politics, blogs and forums for Hutchinson, Minnnesota • (320) 587-5000

Motorbuys • Real Estate • myMarketplace.mn • Coupons

Advertising

Advertising

News » Faith

Lutherans to consider major changes in church teaching and practices

Submitted by webmaster on August 7, 2009 - 3:15pm.
» Read similar stories filed under:

The Crow River Area chapter of the Word Alone Network, a group composed of area Evangelical Lutheran Church of America churches and members, is opposed to several proposals on the agenda at the ELCA’s 2009 Churchwide Assembly.

The biennial nationwide assembly of the ELCA, consisting of more than 1,000 delegates and church leaders, will meet at the Minneapolis Convention Center Aug. 17-23.

The major issue on the agenda is a sexuality statement titled “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust.” The statement was prepared by a church task force, and is now being offered for passage to the delegation.

The concern of many members is that the proposal represents a major departure from centuries of adherence to the Scriptural authority for sexual intimacy. Opponents say the statement disregards the Biblical standard that sexual relations are reserved for one man and one woman in a lifelong commitment to God and each other.

In addition to the proposed sexuality statement, the ELCA delegation will also consider four related Church Council recommendations:

1) that congregations recognize same-sex relationships as valid;

Advertisement. Article continues below.

2) that people living in same-sex relationships be eligible to be ordained and serve as ministers;

3) that all ELCA members will respect differing convictions on these matters; and

4) that constitutional changes implementing these decisions be developed.

Renewal and reform groups of ELCA church members are voicing their dismay over this statement and these recommendations, and are asking delegates to defeat passage of these documents. These church members believe that the proposed recommendations undermine the authority of the Bible as the basis for the teachings and practices of the Christian Church, and speak in complete defiance of God’s word and commands.


Gee, I hope they hurry and...

Back to page top

Gee, I hope they hurry and decide on these issues. God is about ready to release His updated Bible for this century and He wants to know how He should address homosexuality and marriage. He wants to make sure all of His ordinances are tolerant and accepted by society today. He's really into opinion and He realizes that people won't change so He may as well go with the flow. He was just kidding about that whole, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever" stuff in Hebrews 13:8. He also realizes that todays church leaders know much better than He as to what He meant when He said, "For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due" (Romans 1:26,27). Yup, God is waiting for the voting results so make sure you include Him in your next newsletter.


Submitted by just1opinion on August 7, 2009 - 8:31pm.

JustOne, you are absolutely...

Back to page top

JustOne, you are absolutely correct...how can people be so arrogant to think that they can twist the Bible to adjust to today's lifestyles? What happened to pure contextual interpretation and application of the Biblical teachings? Are some churches so desperate for new members that they will make absurd changes/statements like this? I'm just hoping that some people will realize that there is only one Bible that was given to us by God and that "today's edition" is a farce. Topics like this just demonstrate how confused people are getting... it is very sad! Again, great posting!!!


Submitted by fiscallyconservative on August 7, 2009 - 11:07pm.

Pure contextual...

Back to page top

Pure contextual interpretation and application of the Biblical teachings? How is that possible when contradictions, redactions, and anachronisms are so rampant? Every individual's or group's interpretation of scripture is colored by experience, background, authority figures, etc. Even fundamentalist and literalist Christians disagree on the messages. Many discard old testament laws that seem antiquated, but insist the old testament "10 Commandments" (or 16 Commandments from Deuteronomy 5, or the 15 from Exodus 34 (Jaweh likes the smell of burnt flesh!)) are a good moral code. My point is that everything you think the Bible teaches you is in the book, but you or your authority figures have chosen which messages to accept and which to ignore. Surely, any person in modern America who followed Jesus' command to sell all possessions and have no thought for tomorrow would be considered irresponsible and possibly mentally ill. Similarly, many Christians are called more by the messages of compassion and redemption and feel that specific Biblical admonitions against sexual and dietary practices are probably just a relic of Bronze Age human thinking that was thought to be important by the Bible's authors, but does not reflect the true message of Jesus or Jaweh.


Submitted by darwinball on August 8, 2009 - 6:23am.

Your statements seem to...

Back to page top

Your statements seem to enhance the points of the other contributors to this argument. They are stating exactly what you stated, "your authority figures have chosen which messages to accept and which to ignore."

However, I think your underlying premise is that everyone interprets the Bible their own way so no one can judge. Therefore I will address that.

You propose a contradiction between Deut 5, Ex. 34 and Ex. 20, where the 10 Commandments are first mentioned. However, if one really studies each passage they will find Ex. 20 to be the account of the original 10 Commandments. Exodus 34 is the account of the second 10 Commandments which were needed after Moses broke the first set and there are only 10 not 15. Deuteronomy 5, and actually the entire book, is the review of the statutes and commands God had given Moses, not just the 10 Commandments. Therefore it is not a specific listing of the 10 Commandments so whether there are more than 10 or not is inconsequential.

The mental impairment you associate with the teachings of Jesus were taken completely out of context. Jesus' command to the rich, young ruler to sell all, was not an all encompassing command to all his followers. If the rest of the dialogue in Matthew 19 is studied you would find Jesus pointing out the one thing that would keep this man from having what he asked for, "eternal life." It was an individualized answer based on the question posed to Jesus. The lesson of Matthew 6, which includes taking "no thought for tomorrow", is a lesson on worry, not an endorsement of giddy irresponsibility. He also concludes His statements by saying if we seek fisrt the kingdom of God, all these things we worry about for tomorrow will be provided. Interestingly studies by the American Heart Association have shown those who worry less are healthier. I think Jesus was on to something.

For the dietary practices, Jesus, the Apostles Peter and Paul address these issues in Matthew 15, Acts 10, Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 10. Each basically states that God does not look at what food someone eats but rather the actions of their life. You might say this is a representation of the schizophrenia but in the Old Testament God's reason for instructing the people to eat a certain way was so they would not assimilate with the other nations who were sacrificing to and following idols. The sexual admonitions that you suggest I believe have been addressed by others here using Romans 1 as the authority. So, the specifics of your claim about sexual admonitions are unclear to me.

I doubt that anyone who truly studies these scriptures in their context can relegate them to some “Bronze Age human thinking”. I rather propose that it is those who take your approach who have devalued the scriptures and tried to make them of no effect. This is the opposition against the stance by the ECLA. It is not a debate about scriptural interpretation but rather the ECLA bowing to the colored ideology of today’s culture.


Submitted by Charlie Maricle on August 8, 2009 - 1:21pm.

You try to refute the...

Back to page top

You try to refute the premise that each Christian picks bible passages to bolster their personal beliefs by listing the ones that coincide with your views. It still seems the bottom line of your reasoning is that everyone interprets the Bible their own way, but only your interpretation is the right one.

The Bible is a big book of multiple choice, or as some refer to it: a rorschach test for the morally impaired (whatever you want to justify, it's in there.)


Submitted by darwinball on August 11, 2009 - 5:51am.

I don’t refute the idea...

Back to page top

I don’t refute the idea that Christians today have a tendency to pick and choose what they want to out of the Bible. I am saying that practice is wrong by everyone who does it. However, I have not interpreted anything. The scriptures I have cited and rely on are fairly clear. To put any other thought process into it is a selfish and inaccurate way to analyze the Bible. I have allowed the Bible to speak for itself, none of my thoughts or opinions involved.

The bottom line to my reasoning is the Bible says what it says, only humans want to devalue it by whatever means they can, i.e. questioning historical accuracy, finding “redactions and contradictions”, citing translational inconsistency. I have yet to see a multiple choice way to get to heaven in the Bible. I also have yet to see a multiple choice thought process about the choice of homosexuality.

But then by your own statement you are using the Bible to justify homosexuality by using the Rorschach test. However, even the Rorschach test has a definitive answer, no matter what the person sees. So the question is, does it matter what you see if the Bible is absolute? If it is not absolute then what have I lost by seeing it as such?


Submitted by Charlie Maricle on August 11, 2009 - 10:44pm.

I don't use the Bible to...

Back to page top

I don't use the Bible to justify anything...it's just an old book that has had a great influence on world history. Homosexuality doesn't need justifying. It just is.

I don't see how it is possible to be a literalist with respect to Bible texts and not engage in interpretation. You said that Jesus' admonition against hording worldly possessions doesn't apply to anyone but the subject of his speech. How do you know that? Doesn't he also state the need to shed possessions in the sermon on the mount? Don't those words apply to all Christians?


Submitted by darwinball on August 12, 2009 - 5:19pm.

The only thing you not using...

Back to page top

The only thing you not using the Bible for anything does, is preclude you from entering your opinion on the original subject, which was the ELCA’s possible sanctioning of the homosexual practice. The idea of allowing homosexuality into the Lutheran faith obviously needs justifying otherwise there would be no meeting or vote on it. You are correct the act of homosexuality just is. But the fact that it is contrary to the Bible Lutherans have used for many years means there must be some justification for the act of abandoning scripture to please a small group of people or be perceived as politically correct.

The idea of being a literalist is directly opposed to the idea of interpretation. However, if you pick one or two scriptures out of the Bible you might need to ascribe to interpretation. I didn’t say Jesus admonished the rich, young ruler about hording earthly possessions; that is your interpretation. I said, Jesus answered the man’s question but did not make it a blanket statement. My basis for this is that Jesus always ministered to people individually based upon their needs. His sermons were meant to cover everyone who heard them, both present and future. But when He ministered to sick or hungry people He always did it based upon their individual need. This is not interpretation; it is simply, understanding what is written in the Bible.

Your assessment of the Sermon on the Mount has no reference so I can not accurately address you specific thoughts. However, from reading those passages of scripture I do not find the idea of “shedding possessions”. He speaks about giving and He also speaks about storing up treasures in heaven, not on earth. This I literally agree with. It is more important to store up treasures in heaven. However, the words “lay up treasures” speak to something more along your interpretation of hording things for oneself and ignoring the lack of others. So I literally take the word "treasures" to mean what it says and therefore take Jesus at His word and believe that these words “apply to all Christians”. But even if I don’t believe these words apply to all Christians does not mean my opinion affects the validity of Jesus’ statement. Even if I refuse to give and I do horde money and possessions does not make me right and Jesus wrong. But your logic seeks to validate the Lutheran leadership to make the words and opinions of man greater than the Word of God. That seems a bit foolish especially since the Lutherans base their belief system on the Word of God.


Submitted by Charlie Maricle on August 13, 2009 - 5:59pm.

"God is the same yesterday...

Back to page top

"God is the same yesterday today, always" Wonder what they will do with that? How easy it is to forget God is not subject to time/space. 100 years ago, today it is all the same to God and God's expectations for us have not changed either. It seems to me God gave us the bible so we would stop reinventing the "faith" wheel. It hasn't worked. With enough time and human selfishness evolving we can talk ourselves into anything!!


Submitted by arcy on August 8, 2009 - 7:11am.

Darwin's comment is very...

Back to page top

Darwin's comment is very intersting...

What evidence do you have Darwin that the Bible is unreliable / full of redactions, etc?


Submitted by morristhecat on August 8, 2009 - 7:42am.

I consider the modern text...

Back to page top

I consider the modern text unreliable as far as being an accurate transcription of what was written in the first two centuries of Christianity. None of the original documents exist, so everything remaining is at least subject to copying errors, translation errors, and revisions that were inserted for theological reasons. Some passages in the later Gospels, for example, seem to have been altered to conform to what Mark wrote. These passages sometimes seem to be clumsily written in a contrasting style from the rest of the author's work and these are considered clues that they are likely not original. There were many issues the early church wanted to emphasize or remove from the new testament. Some omissions are probably simple copying errors, some items were removed to conform to what church leaders of the time wanted followers to believe.

A widely held belief that Jesus was a resident of Nazareth has recently been questioned as it appears Nazareth did not exist at the time.

From a meta perspective, the most important part of the Bible to Christian believers are the Gospels. These are accounts of quite extraordinary events and are told in the testimonial style, like an eyewitness account. We now know that these accounts were not written by apostles of Jesus or anyone who experienced the events first-hand. It seems unlikely that any of us should choose to base our world view on heresay or second-hand evidence.


Submitted by darwinball on August 11, 2009 - 6:30am.

Wow! So what was it like to...

Back to page top

Wow! So what was it like to be an eye witness to the big bang and tadpoles turning into humans?


Submitted by just1opinion on August 11, 2009 - 9:46am.

My world view regarding...

Back to page top

My world view regarding religion is that every claim about supernatural powers that has been presented to me has been unconvincing and utterly lacking any evidence to prove its truth.

Atheism has no dogma, but most atheists accept that the natural world is what is knowable, and that we can explore the natural world to learn about its nature. We can use observation and experimentation to make hypotheses about the universe and how it works, then if the evidence so leads we can formulate theories to explain how processes work. The theory of evolution by natural selection is very well evidenced, but when new material is discovered, science is ALWAYS open to revision, in fact the highest honor in science is to upset the apple cart and show that a previous theory was errant. This system is logical and based in observable reality. It is wholly different from a system of ancient text tells us what to believe. I understand that many prefer the authoritarian system, but I find naturalism much more intellectually satisfying.


Submitted by darwinball on August 12, 2009 - 5:41am.

Be careful trying to...

Back to page top

Be careful trying to understand the minds of Gods. You may be fooled by their intentions.


Submitted by Tjmartin on August 8, 2009 - 8:51am.

Mr. D. You made me smile...

Back to page top

Mr. D. You made me smile this morning! I love getting bible lessons from an atheist. The bottom line is, there is zero possibility the bible the endorses what the ELCA is attempting to force on its members today. The ONLY way you can support such a move would be to discard the Bible, Old & New Testament. Denominations have a way of changing doctrine to align with how they want to live, but the Bible, like God, does not change with the times.


Submitted by Raymond Norton on August 8, 2009 - 9:08am.

Really? Nothing that the...

Back to page top

Really? Nothing that the Bible prohibits is permitted today? How about eating meat with blood or fat in it, disobeying your slave master, tattooing, women speaking in church, wearing clothing associated with the other gender, working on the sabbath, planting more than one type of seed in a field, clipping the edges of your beard or the sides of your hair, being or consulting a psychic, blood transfusions, interracial marriage, charging interest on loans, sex during menstruation, ......


Submitted by darwinball on August 10, 2009 - 6:58am.

Our Baptism makes us one...

Back to page top

Our Baptism makes us one with God. What people think about our relationships is up to them, how God judges us is up to him/her. I am one of God's gay creations and he loves me and will judge me by my life time experience. To the extent I love and care for others will be noted. How he judges me for who I love I don't know, but I tend to think I will get points for loving rather than hating or judging others.

Have a good day!


Submitted by Just Thinking on August 8, 2009 - 1:43pm.

Really?? God judges us by...

Back to page top

Really?? God judges us by our life experiences?? Then why even have the Bible? If He is using a different yardstick to measure all of us how could that ever be fair? What if the police did that? Well, I watched a race today so it's ok for me to drive 90 mph down main street based on my life experience and how that influenced me? Also, good works apart from God's word are meaningless. Our baptism is an outward sign of a internal heart change signifying the death of an old lifestyle and the resurrection of a new life where Jesus lives through us. That new life is to strive to reflect Christs teachings, not just of love but of righteousness according to the word of God. While we cannot be righteous on our own by accepting Christ as our Lord and Savior, through Him, it is possible. Oh, and the comment about being one of God's gay creations...since He does nothing apart from His Word, can you give me scripture references backing the fact that God created homosexuality? According to the scripture I quoted above and several others regarding homosexual lifestyles, He says it is vile and an abomination. Why would God create something He hates? Yes, He loves all (homosexuals, murderers, liars) but He hates the lifestyle.


Submitted by just1opinion on August 8, 2009 - 2:52pm.

Unfortunately, your...

Back to page top

Unfortunately, your understanding of God is not based upon any Biblical principle.

No baptism makes us one with God. According to 1 John chapters 2 and 4 the things that make us one with God are, abiding in and demonstrating His truth and His love.

God judges everything, including our relationships, according to His word. Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6:8-10 are fairly clear descriptions of how God will judge relationships.

God did not create anything gay in Genesis 1 and 2. Romans 1 gives a very comprehensive lesson on where homosexuality came from. While He does love everyone that does not mean He loves our actions when those actions are directly opposed to His will and directions.

My love for others will only be noted if I have accepted and kept God's commandments. God's acceptance is not a merit system; there are no points. He accepts us when we acknowledge Him above all things, including our ideas and who we want to be with, and make Him the Lord of our life according to Romans 10:9-10. This is not hate of a person. It is the standard God has clearly laid out in His Word. It is our choice to believe it or reject it. We then bear the consequences of our choice.


Submitted by Charlie Maricle on August 8, 2009 - 3:14pm.

Whether or not you think God...

Back to page top

Whether or not you think God created anything gay when he poofed the Universe into existence, there are gay humans (and animals) on Earth now and there is no rational reason to prohibit their being gay and acting on their gay-ness. You do not have to love their behavior, but please consider: When did you decide to be heterosexual? If your Bible made heterosexual relations a sin, would you refrain from the practice and restrict yourself to homosexuality?


Submitted by darwinball on August 10, 2009 - 6:42am.

Yes, there are gay humans...

Back to page top

Yes, there are gay humans today but that does not make the practice right or that He created them that way. If we follow your reasoning then we would have to say that since there are murderers, God must have made them that way and we cannot judge their behavior as evil. Therefore if we then say there is no rational reasoning to prohibit homosexuality, then we must also say there is no rational reasoning to prohibit murder. However, I would assume most rational humans would shy away from that reasoning. Besides this reasoning, since we have made the Bible our foundational document in this debate, the reason to prohibit being gay comes from Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6:8-10. I think the idea that God said it’s evil is a rational enough reason for anyone.

If God had said heterosexuality is evil, no matter what I believe or want to do regarding that subject, I either must obey His commands or I will suffer the consequences of my actions. Those consequences might not be something I like but I can not blame God for the choices I make. This is a standard that not only applies to homosexuals but all people no matter what sin they commit.


Submitted by Charlie Maricle on August 11, 2009 - 10:07pm.

Please continue to obey your...

Back to page top

Please continue to obey your God. If you are unable to judge the correctness of actions on your own and feel the consequences of homosex are on a par with the consequences of murder, then by all means PLEASE keep obeying your God. But feel free to eat shellfish and mix fibers. Those rules are clearly not intended for us because we judge them to be archaic and unnecessary.

No, you can't blame God for the consequences of your actions or any choice you make. But you can use your brain to judge whether what you think your God is telling you makes sense. You can choose to discard the beliefs that harm people in the real world.


Submitted by darwinball on August 12, 2009 - 5:24am.

No one is able to judge...

Back to page top

No one is able to judge correctness of actions unless there is a definition for correctness. Your logic postulates that standards shift based upon how humans categorize different actions and their "correctness". Therefore, instead of an objective viewpoint on the matter, we as humans want to justify what our brains tell us should be justified. But if a human brain is used to judge whether what “God is telling you makes sense” then we have replaced God.

I am not “thinking up” any of the facts I am laying out about homosexuality. The Bible has said it, clearly and undisputedly. The dietary correlation you desire has no bearing because it has been nullified by God’s actions of presenting Jesus Christ to the world not just the Jewish race. You are ignoring the intended purpose for God’s dietary ordinances to the Jews and disregarding the obvious shift of God’s requirements for those who are not Jewish after Jesus died. This is clearly stated in the scriptures previously referenced.

So, you can blame me for my “interpretations” and inability to judge actions based upon your biased scale of justice but if my interpretations of justice and correctness do not match yours, am I the one who is wrong? What authority has been administered to you to say that my obedience of the Bible harms people in the “real world”? And before you cite all the wars and inquisitions in history, those are not obedience of the scriptures but rather obedience of interpretations like yours.


Submitted by Charlie Maricle on August 13, 2009 - 5:56pm.

I would never suggest that...

Back to page top

I would never suggest that other people should use my standards to judge. I would, however urge everyone to make rational judgements based upon observable reality and draw their own conclusions. I am not able to understand why believers want to be told what is right or wrong instead of deciding based on consequences in the real world.

I have read the passages you cited and am not able to see where the text says that old testament rules are void for non-Jews.

I do not blame religious beliefs for the crusades or inquisitions. Heinous acts and wonderful selfless acts are done every day by people of all faiths and by people of no faith. Religion was certainly used to justify some of these, but luckily for humanity most people do not interpret their Bibles literally. I hope the same will be true of the Quran someday, too.


Submitted by darwinball on August 13, 2009 - 8:14pm.

Whether I use yours or my...

Back to page top

Whether I use yours or my own "rational judgments" I am doomed to failure because I only have limited understanding. Observable reality will only cause people to draw conclusions based upon selfish desires or flawed thinking. If consequences caused right and wrong behavior then there would be no repeat criminals. If humans could make an accurate judgment based upon the real world, our judicial system would be flawless. But our decision-making skills stink and our government, both past and present, is a prime example.

But since you like the idea of "rational judgments", let's use those to critique your "Old Testament rules" issue.

First, I never said all Old Testament rules are void. I have only counter-argued your premise that since Christians don’t follow the dietary guidelines of the Old Testament then we are subjectively following the “rules” we want and telling others to as well. However, when you read the statements by Jesus in Matthew 15:3-10, you see that He says the food we eat is not what causes defilement in our life but the words we speak. Well, if those Old Testament rules were that if we eat pork we sin, then Jesus was in direct contradiction to God’s commands. However, we see the context He is speaking in when He has already stated in verse 6, “Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition”. We then move to Peter’s experience in Acts 10, where God commands him to eat things that, as a devote Jew, he is forbidden to eat by this same God. Is God confused? According to you, yes. But when we go on to see that the only way God was going to be able to reach the Roman soldier Peter would later preach to with His gospel was to break Peter’s staunch stance against mingling with those things and people considered “unclean”. Paul expounds upon this in Romans 14:14 by saying, “I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.” This, of course, was pertinent for Paul to say because some Romans were being told they had to follow all those Old Testament rules to be saved. But this obsession with what to eat and what not to eat was taking the focus off of living for Jesus and putting it on living for rules. Paul sums up the whole issue in Romans 14:20, “Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food.” Therefore, I have the ability to justly say based upon the literal Biblical scripture, I have not sinned because I ate a hot dog today, but those who practice homosexuality have sinned.


Submitted by Charlie Maricle on August 13, 2009 - 10:22pm.

Thanks for the explanation...

Back to page top

Thanks for the explanation and references to specific quotations. I've never been able to figure out where folks got the idea that some Biblical rules were not important anymore. Still, if the rules were not important, why would God have told scribes to write them in the Bible in the first place? Is the message really that if the rule is not in your tradition or if you don't consider something unclean then it's okay? Sounds very subjective. Dietary guidelines are just an easy example of Bible rules that seem archaic or silly. How about mixing fibers or crops, beating your slaves but not to the extent that they die within three days, or the rule that if you rape a woman you must pay her father and marry her? Are there similar exemptions?

To figure out how to behave, I am using my own rational judgments, informed by the wisdom of previous generations and the morality that has evolved in humans. The existing philosophies and legal codes and my own observable realities all inform my decision-making.

Consequences, narrowly defined as punishment through imprisonment, do not control behavior perfectly. It would be silly to say the threat of incarceration is the only consequence considered by criminals. They may also be considering the consequence that they will be unable to afford the drugs they are addicted to if they don't steal some money, for example.

I consider consequences of policies in terms of what is likely to bring the most good to the most people while causing the least harm to others. A busy intersection needs a stop sign or traffic light even though it will inconvenience the people who need to stop. Their needs are subjugated to our concern for the death and damage that would occur at the intersection without controls. See? No need to consult any scripture.


Submitted by darwinball on August 14, 2009 - 6:20am.

It seems as though you are...

Back to page top

It seems as though you are still failing to grasp the entirety of Bible. The Old Testament rules were for the Jewish people to follow for the specific purpose of avoiding co-mingling with the other nations and becoming like them, i.e. worshipping other gods, following other laws. This was to be an example to those who accepted Jesus in the New Testament to not live like the rest of the world lives but live according to Christ’s standard. This might be where the confusion is. Before Christ, the Law of Moses was the standard for everyone who wanted to follow God. When Christ came, He replaced the Law of Moses as that standard, not rendering it useless or void but rather replacing human actions as Savior. Now He is our “way, truth, and life”. This has nothing to do with tradition or subjectivity but rather a complete acceptance and understanding of God’s true plan.

Again, your fixation on the dietary portion of the Old Testament is misguided. The rest of the “rules” you refer to have no reference associated with them so I will refrain from answering until you provide those.

The idea that morality is evolving is ludicrous. Morality has degraded right before our eyes in the past 20 – 50 years. Even non-Christian sources of news have commented on this occurrence. Still, no human’s decision-making abilities alone will obtain the gifts of God offered in the Bible. Therefore, if we rely on ourselves the best that can happen is we struggle in this life with no hope for anything else.

Now, your logic for abandoning scripture is a clear indication that human rational can be the authority for moral behavior. Let’s use your traffic light example. What if someone refuses to acknowledge that “inconvenience”? What if they continuously speed right through the intersection? Do we then say, “Well, they have their reasons for doing what they do. We can’t definitively say they are wrong because maybe they were raised differently, or maybe they interpret the sign differently”? No, instead, we say, “This is the law. A respected authority has set it up with a single purpose. Your opinion about it doesn’t matter and we don’t care that you are inconvenienced.”

If we assign this logic to morality, human’s are cast aside as the authority because of the discrepancy of opinions. Meaning since we all interpret morality, our stop sign, differently we cannot be the final say as to the definition of that sign. A higher authority must be the one who sets the sign in place and says “your needs are subjugated” to my definition of life and safety that would not occur “without controls” despite the fact you are inconvenienced. Your own logic points us toward God because He is the one higher authority on morals that exists. He is the person who sets up the sign. Without Him, the sign holds no significance to anyone.


Submitted by Charlie Maricle on August 14, 2009 - 9:41pm.

The stop sign is a societal,...

Back to page top

The stop sign is a societal, communal model of behavior control. The citizens through their elected officials have decided to place a traffic control device because its utility far outweighs the inconvenience and restriction of freedom. Most people will conform because they recognize the value of the signs purpose, not because of fear of punishment. Absolutely no supernatural beings are required in this process.

By evolution of morality I didn't mean changes we can observe in the short term. I was referring to evolution through natural selection, the biological underpinnings of morality. Humans and our closest primate relatives have social behaviors, such as heirarchies, altruism, sense of fairness, competitiveness, and kindness/love programmed into our brains. A theist might say God put them there, while evolutionary biologists trace their development alongside the physical evolution of creatures.

The explanation about the "Law of Moses" still sounds like a "pick and choose" scenario. Aren't the ten commandments (whichever version you choose) still considered important for Christians to follow today? I have read the passages about "God's law written in ordinance" vs. "God's law written in stone" Does this mean that the stone tablet version (second set) that Moses carved is the only Old Testament principle that's valid? The creation story, the flood, exodus, Sodom...not important?

The Bible passages I asked about were Deuteronomy 22:29 (if a man rapes a virgin he shall pay 50 shekels to her father and marry her for life) and Leviticus 19:19 and Deut. 22:9 (do not mix seeds). Maybe the one about crops is a warning about genetic engineering, although I think hybrid sweet corn is awesome. The one about being forced to marry your rape victim, however, is just disgusting and unconscionable for a God or a person to impose on anyone, anywhere at any time.

An omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God should have been able to write a book that any human could understand and if the book becomes filled with contradiction and commandments that are only for some other people at some other time He or She could certainly provide an updated text to clear things up.

I think that if you are interested in seeing Christianity as an atheist does, you should pick up some texts from competing religions, study them thoroughly, talk to believers in these other faiths, see how convinced they are that they hold the truth...and see if you still disbelieve in their Gods and religions. I think you are an atheist with respect to all gods except the Biblical Jaweh one.


Submitted by darwinball on August 15, 2009 - 6:49am.

I understand your use of the...

Back to page top

I understand your use of the stop sign, but even in your explanation you require an authority figure, “the citizens through their elected officials”. However, if I were to make up a new sign and throw it up at the intersection outside my house, should anyone obey it? I don’t think anyone would because 1) there is no authority behind it and 2) everyone would have a different interpretation for what it means. This is like our trying to humanly reason moral questions. It is impossible for us to reason among ourselves because no one is an authority on the matter. God alone holds the authority on morality because He is the only objective party available. Also, I am not claiming we need divine input to install traffic signs; however we do need divine input on questions of a more moral nature like homosexuality. It is interesting you are prefectly content with a man-made stop sign being a behavior control but not okay with a God-made behavior control.

If morality is a biological underpinning of humanity why am I still teaching my children kindness? Why do we still have to teach anyone moral concepts? If everyone has morality, crime would be either nonexistent or on its way to extinction due to our evolution. If our closest primate relatives took years to evolve into us and morality evolved with them, why do we still deal with immorality at all. You cannot say it is a religious construct because you already have argued it is an evolutionary process. I think the scientists might have got this one wrong.

Maybe the explanation I gave is a pick and choose gospel. But it is not me doing the picking, it is God. If His plan is the way it is why would I say, "God you can't do that because it might look picky"? It's His plan, just like it's the "elected officials" plan to put up whatever traffic control devices are needed. I don't have to like it or understand it but hey, that's how it is. Yes, the 10 Commandments, creation, flood, exodus and events at Sodom are important. I have never said they weren’t. I have argued that your fixation with them renders Jesus Christ useless. If we were all totally able to fulfill the law, ordinances, commandments and anything else you have read about, by ourselves, Jesus is not needed. God planned it this way so that we would be drawn to Him and would see that we are useless without Him. Instead humanistic thinking has taken over our lives so that instead we believe that any God that is must update His methodology to meet my own personal demands and if He doesn’t then He isn’t real. Sounds like your “inconvenience” is outweighing your “concern for the death and damage that would occur” in a life “without controls”.

Now, your Bible passages are interesting. Your seed reference seems to be taken out of context the entire verse reads, “Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.” So my thinking is “different kinds of animals” means sheep and horses. If I continue with this logic I can identify God’s intention of not mixing corn and potatoes. This is significantly different than crossing different types of the same kind of seed. But Deuteronomy 22:29 is exactly as you say. Yet if we take that verse without understanding the society during that portion of history and reading a few verses up we lack a context. Deuteronomy 22:25-29 says, “But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her. If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.” What's interesting is that He clarifies in verse 25, that the woman cried out but does not give that designation to the woman in verses 28-29. . Also, interesting is the idea that perhaps this is a preventative measure. Perhaps the guy would think twice about raping her if he knew for the rest of his life he would be with her. Of course, we understand that during this part of history women had no rights. But your desire to chastise God for not jerking the Israelites into 20th century thinking of equality seems a bit hypocritical when you are saying the this “omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God” shouldn’t be telling people who they should have a relationship with.

I am interested as to why an atheist would have an opinion about Christianity at all. Why study something you don’t believe in? It seems by giving it time you are giving it validity. I don’t need to study the other religions to believe that they have as full a conviction as mine. I simply have found the answer and want them to know Him too.


Submitted by Charlie Maricle on August 15, 2009 - 10:54pm.

I am interested in...

Back to page top

I am interested in Christianity because of its profound effect on the history of western civilization and the effect it has today on my American culture. I think that people should strive toward critical thinking and consider observable reality instead of divine or supernatural guidance when they make decisions about life on Earth. I also question Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Jaenism, etc. Of course I value the freedom of people to practice and live their beliefs to the fullest extent possible, but do not think laws should be based upon religious beliefs. I want people to think about what they believe and their reasons for believing.

I "pick on" the Bible because it seems so broad and disjointed that the contradictions and nonsense stories render it useless as a guide to morality. Your faith seems very strong as does your confidence that you have pecked the right one. I admire your certainty but don't understand how you picked your religion from the selection that exists.

Evolutionary ethics only account for some of human behavior. The rest is from our family, society, teachers, etc. Criminals are outliers in our society, not the mainstream. There have always been wide variations in human behavior and social science tends to follow broad generalizations in the mainstream.

The stop sign is not effective because of the authority behind it. It's effective because most people recognize the importance to everyone's safety (including their own) to have a system of traffic control.


Submitted by darwinball on August 16, 2009 - 10:44am.

I agree that people should...

Back to page top

I agree that people should think critically about their decisions. However, if this critical thinking brings us to a divine answer why is that answer discounted? If we refute “divine or supernatural guidance” as noncritical or unreal, don’t we prejudice ourselves against a possible answer to all the questions we have? I also “value the freedom of people to practice and live their beliefs to the fullest extent possible”, however, as your stop sign example shows us, sometimes that answer is not something everyone will agree with or find convenient. However, I would argue that all laws, from both the legislature and courts, are based upon religious beliefs whether they be Christian, atheistic, or altruistic. Yes, let people think about what they believe and if that reasonable process leads them to Christ, that decision is just as critically valid as yours.

Perhaps the Bible does seem “broad and disjointed” to you. I believe it safe to say that evolution and atheism seem the same way to some also. I will say that I was raised within a highly religious structure, i.e. regular church attendance, religious based schooling. However, I walked away from all those things. I attended a state school nearby and began to develop a thinking much like yours. I began to doubt the reasonableness and critical thinking ability of Christianity. I was raised to live by faith alone to the effect of alienating and even discounting the mind as almost evil. However, through my own studies and input from sources like Ravi Zacharias, I have found that following Christ not only saves my soul it touches my mind as well. When Jesus freed me from sin, He also freed my mind to completely understand how following Him is the only belief that makes sense. From there, my experience of peace, joy and miraculous healings in mine and my family's lives further cement the reality of Jesus to me.

If evolutionary ethics only accounts for some human behavior, it fails to account for all the variations which exist. Therefore it comes up short in certain instances. If it fails to cover everything, why would I aspire to believe that it is the answer? If the answer is "still to come" because the evolutionary process is not complete, why are the complexities of the Bible seen as "nonsense stories" simply because you don't understand them? But if it is filled with truth instead of stories it can be taken as an objective source for morality. Then everyone can be confident in the stability God has provided for us. In your system criminals may be classified as outliers only if we have a very strict definition of criminal. If we classify a criminal as anyone who breaks the law, everyone who has gone over the speed limit qualifies, whether they are caught or not. This means that criminals are not outliers but really the “mainstream”. If the mainstream is suddenly found to have switched places with the outliers, your social science has suddenly been flipped on its head. However, if we place a different definition on the word "criminal" then justice is skewed because our definition of crime is inconsistent. With this inconsistency the best social scientists can produce is circular reasoning without answers. However, since everyone is initially considered criminal in God's system, we are able to have confidence in and receive His answer to this criminality and accept Jesus as the only one who can help us out of our life of crime.

Neither the law nor the stop sign are set up because everyone understands or agrees with them. If you take the authority of the law away from the stop sign what do you have? A nice, shiny sign no one pays attention to. If people were not concerned with getting a ticket, which is means of punishment only authority possesses, no one would pay attention to any traffic control sign. This is evidenced by the training that goes into driver's education. Your philosophy of this social behavior is utopian at best.


Submitted by Charlie Maricle on August 17, 2009 - 12:39am.

Wow. This post seems...

Back to page top

Wow. This post seems designed to confirm all the criticisms of Christianity at once. Your system seems to be a god created by people, and highly misanthropic people at that! The very idea that babies are born evil and need to be saved by submitting their will to a supernatural authority is anti-humanistic and just plain self-loathing. Most people just want to live in their society, get along with their neighbors, enjoy their family and friends, and avoid pain as much as possible. No supernatural authority figures required. People have the power to do this on their own. Our own nation, established in a completely god-free document, the Constitution, has functioned pretty well with a mix of guaranteed individual liberties tempered with government authority (of the people).

Driver's education classes don't teach people to avoid getting tickets, they teach how to operate a motor vehicle safely and responsibly. You seem to think that everyone is just yearning to do evil, destructive things if not for the fear of punishment. I can't deny that people defy rules, but as stated before, the consequences of some actions are much greater than others. I wouldn't put all occasional speeders or weed-smokers in the same category of evil as child-rapers or doctor assassins.

Yes, atheism is a broad category: the rejection of supernatural claims about the way the Universe works. There is no dogma, no sacred text, no unifying issues.

Evolution, however, is a well-evidenced scientific fact. The theory that natural selection is the mechanism for evolution is well established also and is not too difficult to understand. It requires interpretation of actual physical evidence, but is by no means as complicated or contradictory as the Bible texts.

Many Christians seem able to compartmentalize their brains to deal rationally with some aspects of life while maintaining the idea of supernaturalism with respect to some issues. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, is a superlative scientist at work, following nothing but observable reality; but when he leaves the lab, he's an evangelical Christian. I don't understand such a bifurcated life, but it seems to work for some.

Evolutionary ethics are similar to evolution in general: there are broad variations. The variations (mutations) that are beneficial get replicated in future generations, resulting in changes over time.

I may seem to espouse an overall theme of "I'm right, religious people are wrong." I'm not really that arrogant. I simply want everyone to examine their own ideas and think about the implications of their world-view. As a person who has never really believed in the supernatural (other than a brief period of fascination with UFO abductions, Bermuda Triangle mysteries, etc. in my teen years) I don't quite understand the process of believing something intangible. Do you decide to pretend to believe until it becomes "second nature" or does belief suddenly hit you like a bolt? You are clearly a very intelligent person and I have gained a lot of respect for you through this conversation. Still I must wonder whether your bleak view of human nature is a product of your Christian thought or if it's the other way around.


Submitted by darwinball on August 17, 2009 - 9:16am.

DB, when you look in your...

Back to page top

DB, when you look in your atheist (and evolution) handbook, what does it say about the fundamental building block of evolution? How was the first "cell" created? Did it just magically appear? For that matter, how was Earth created? Did it "evolve" from something like Mars and eventually became supportive of life? Did aliens drop off a flask of fertilized water? My scientific brain can understand the evolution of animals within specific species, etc. (hybridization, etc.) but I've never been able to grasp the theory that we (the human race) could "evolve" from a spec of dust to our current form. There are just too many complexities for chance and evolution to address. The "randomness" of evolution just doesn't cut it for me. My vote goes for the creation of our world and I have to thank God for that! In my mind, there is much more logical support for that theory than that of an evolutionary path. Unless you believe in aliens...

Plus, if I keep responding to this thread, it will get so skinny that nothing else can be said on this topic... that will make a bunch of people happy I'm sure! I call it the "squeeze play". It is my virtual version of a filibuster...


Submitted by fiscallyconservative on August 17, 2009 - 2:54pm.

See....it just keeps getting...

Back to page top

See....it just keeps getting skinnier and skinnier... like infinity and beyond!!!! :)


Submitted by fiscallyconservative on August 17, 2009 - 2:56pm.

Yeah this does get skinnier...

Back to page top

Yeah this does get skinnier


Submitted by darwinball on August 18, 2009 - 9:18am.

and skinnier...

Back to page top

and skinnier


Submitted by darwinball on August 18, 2009 - 9:19am.

Atheism is just the...

Back to page top

Atheism is just the rejection of theistic claims. There is no dogma or handbook. Many atheists hold a view that the observable natural world is all there is, but that isn't required. There are no atheist handbooks that are similar to sacred scripture; for me the closest thing to a sacred text is the US Constitution, a secular agreement for self-government and protection of liberty.

Evolution is the change of living things over time, and does not address the origins of life. Most naturalists or materialists believe life on Earth started through abiogenesis, which has been partially replicated in laboratories, or through extraterrestrial matter coming to Earth.

The creation of the planet Earth along with the others is thought to be from the explosion of supernovas which form stars like our sun and the planets around them. We can see this process happening in other areas of the universe right now.

The only randomness in evolution is where mutations occur, but sometimes these mutations prove to be beneficial and are replicated. This is natural selection, which is theorized to be the mechanism for evolution.

I would ask those who think a god or gods exist: How do we know whether or not something exists? Do fireflies exist? We have very good visual, physical, entymological evidence that they do. Do fairies exist? Many people used to think so, but a lack of tangible, physical evidence has led most to abandon that position. How do the standards that we all use to determine "existence" apply to unseen, unspeaking, non-odorous, untouchable deities?


Submitted by darwinball on August 18, 2009 - 9:17am.

I will answer the questions...

Back to page top

I will answer the questions in the last portion of this post since I believe the rest has been addressed at a previous time or would lead to a very skinny dialogue that will be had at a less-skinny time.

First, I think everyone will agree the standard for proving existence is based upon the item to be proven. For example, I prove fireflies exist much differently than I prove Julius Caesar existed? Therefore, since I cannot prove Caesar existed through visual, physical or entomological evidence, I must find other evidence. Now I am correlating the way I prove Caesar exists and the way I prove God exists to a certain extent. The acceptable proof of both are in historical writings. However, the historical evidence that has been given to prove God’s existence has been relegated to religious babblings and lore. Interestingly the same sources that relegate that evidence to subjective religious faith, will objectively define gravity as factually existing. Do we have any visual, verbal, odious, or tangible evidence that a thing called gravity exists? Can you bring me a pile of gravity to prove gravity’s existence? Can you call gravity on the phone so I can talk to it to know that it exists? Yet, the argument is, we know gravity exists because we can see the effects of gravity. We see the apple fall from the tree so we know something caused it to go down instead of up. Why is that standard not available to God? Why am I not allowed to say, a law of gravity exists and since I know laws are not available without a law-giver, I must say something caused the law of gravity? Why are people allowed to say, gravity exists because its effects are seen but God does not exist because the effects attributable to Him we have decided to attribute to something else? It sounds like a subjective standard of existence established only by those who want the standard to meet or enhance their rejection of God.


Submitted by Charlie Maricle on August 20, 2009 - 10:33pm.

How have my comments lead to...

Back to page top

How have my comments lead to a God created by people? I will admit that the Bible’s message is very anti-humanistic but it is not self-loathing because there is an answer which completes the inadequacies of the self. I am one of those that want to “live in their society, get along with their neighbors, enjoy their family and friends, and avoid pain as much as possible. However, humans are highly unqualified to do those things on their own. If we were truly capable of achieving all these things, would we not have done it by now? If we can not do it, should we not seek assistance to achieve them? Despite the effectiveness of the Constitution there is still pain and people not getting along with one another. However, I will say that most people are selfish enough to only be concerned if they have those things you mentioned.

I am not saying that people yearn to do evil. I cannot judge intentions. I am saying people do evil, which is irrefutable. Punishment is the only man-made force available to keep people from doing destructive things. Education, rehabilitation and any other psychotherapeutic endeavor has failed to prevent people from doing destructive things. Your classification of punishment is accurate if we are speaking only in natural terms. We as humans must place crimes into degrees of punishment to place a greater deterrence on those more serious crimes. However, if there is punishment there is a crime, whether it be child molestation or smoking weed. So, whether we want to say one is more serious than the other does not mean it broke a law more than the other. So if God has laws and we have broken them, which everyone does because no one is perfect, how is it wrong to say God has the right to classify us as criminal? You conveniently ignored the answer to the entire problem. God made a way of escape from this difficult classification. Yes it takes surrender, but haven’t you already surrendered your rights to the good of everyone else. You are willing to inconvenience yourself for people but not for God who is infinitely better than any person. Even some of those you are sacrificing for will disregard the “good of everyone” and go their own way. But God who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were “classified as criminals” gave us the grace to be saved. This is our hope and answer. However, the natural system has no intrinsic hope or answer to change the individual to regard the good of others.

I will refrain from beginning an argument on evolution here due the concern of someone getting cutoff by our “virtual filibuster”. However, I will ask these questions: If the evolutionary principles are so easily understandable, how come interpretation is needed? Who established the evolutionary principles and with what authority did they establish them? How come scientists are allowed interpretation of evidence but Christians are not? And how do the “variations/mutations” know what is beneficial so that those are replicated and not the unbeneficial ones? I don’t expect an answer to these because this discussion would take us severely off the current topic.

However, I will ask for an answer to these questions: What is the implication of your worldview? If it is right, shouldn’t everyone espouse that belief? If the belief is not for everyone, are you not excluding some from being right? You seem to be arguing the very point that religious people are wrong to believe they are right. If they are wrong there must be a right. However, if right has been relegated to whatever each person believes, everyone else is wrong because they don’t believe just like that person. There is your bleak view of life. Bleakness only comes from an absence of hope. Hope is the expectation one has from faith. But if we have faith in nothing, hope dissipates and bleakness is the result. Therefore, while on the surface my view may seem bleak the reality is the answer in my view is exceedingly above whatever could be imagined.

While I appreciate your respect for my intelligence, I would trade it instantly to know that your heart has turned to the saving grace of God.


Submitted by Charlie Maricle on August 20, 2009 - 10:13pm.

Christianity is not a simple...

Back to page top

Christianity is not a simple faith. Those that think they understand the Bible without investing hundreds, if not thousands of hours, of reading, discussion, studying, etc. are often confused about its true meaning. There are many scriptures that work together to form the true Word of God. So, to understand the pure Word, one must invest the necessary time. It is my guess that most of today's Christians (myself included) truly do not understand every detail of God's word. This is why many Christians participate in Bible studies on a regular basis.

People in today's society like to take shortcuts and use "clips" to back their beliefs. They often take these "clips" and use them out of context. As I have said before, ANYONE can take the Bible and make it support almost any belief. It is only those that truly understand the full context of each book, verse, etc. that have a grasp on its true meaning.

I believe that God meant to make the Bible complicated so we would continue to study it and to really understand His teachings. The devil, on the other hand, uses this complexity to lead people to believe that everything is easy and "anything goes".

The Bible IS truly pure and the Word is clear to those that take the time to understand it. Anyone that believes that works alone are the path to His kingdom is truly confused and need to invest a few more hours understanding His Word.


Submitted by fiscallyconservative on August 8, 2009 - 3:10pm.

My points exactly, up until...

Back to page top

My points exactly, up until the part where you say it's possible by studying hard enough to reach the one, true interpretation of God's will. That's dangerous thinking that has led to much human tragedy.


Submitted by darwinball on August 10, 2009 - 6:37am.

I'm curious Darwinball...how...

Back to page top

I'm curious Darwinball...how many hours have you spent studying the Bible? Do you understand the true context of all the scriptures? Are your beliefs based on your understanding of the Bible or are they based on what others have told you?


Submitted by fiscallyconservative on August 8, 2009 - 3:19pm.

It would be impossible to...

Back to page top

It would be impossible to say how many hours in my life have been devoted to bible study. I'd guess 300-500. I doubt it is possible for any human to understand the true context of all the scriptures. My beliefs about the Bible are from my own reading, the opinions of scholars, theologians, critics and everyday Christians "in the pews" telling me what they think about scripture. I can't figure out how anyone can claim their interpretation is correct and everyone else's is faulty.

I have never been a believer in supernatural miracles or in an authoritarian system of human morals, so my reading of the Bible is as an influential but deeply flawed, seriously disjointed book of ancient parables and history-influenced myths (old half) followed by a heavily edited and revised story of the founding of the Christian faith in the Bronze Age (new half).

The teachings and rules of Christian churches over the past two millenia have evolved to a point where no Christian from ancient times would recognize much that is taught and/or tolerated today. Clearly some in the ELCA would like to revisit the issue of how homosexual Lutherans are to be treated. You can disagree with their proposals all you want, but I can't see why these issues should not be given a hearing.


Submitted by darwinball on August 10, 2009 - 6:34am.

For the message of the cross...

Back to page top

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “ I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” (1 Corinthians 1:18,19)


Submitted by just1opinion on August 10, 2009 - 9:24am.

Correct. 2 Tim 2:15...

Back to page top

Correct. 2 Tim 2:15 encourages us to study the Word of God, not just read it, so we can rightly divide and understand the Word of God.


Submitted by just1opinion on August 8, 2009 - 3:37pm.

Most arguments get lost when...

Back to page top

Most arguments get lost when people start speaking in platitudes, and broad brush strokes. If we stay on topic, according to the editorial, then even a 5 year old could understand what the Bible says in the Old and New Testament concerning this subject. I think about 10 minutes of study should do it for most people.


Submitted by Raymond Norton on August 10, 2009 - 10:06am.

Mr. Norton, yes, those of us...

Back to page top

Mr. Norton, yes, those of us that have taken the time to study the Bible and visit with those that know Hebrew, Greek, etc., and those that are true scholars of this wonderful book know that things are relatively simple for Christians. We have a fairly good understanding of what should and shouldn't be done. We've all seen it before...when someone wants to do something that we know to be anti-Biblical, they often use the complexity of the Bible to justify their position. They make global statements like "scholars are unsure as to the validity of the Bible and its origin..." (paraphrasing). DB is arguing with the wrong group as those of us that are Christians understand (very clearly) how simple it is to become a member of His Kingdom. Those that choose to follow the complex path and challenge God from every angle might find it fairly easy to find a one-way ticket to hell. Of course, they won't know it until they get there. And, I bet they won't be able to tell anyone when they get there!


Submitted by fiscallyconservative on August 10, 2009 - 12:32pm.

Darwinball, you make me more...

Back to page top

Darwinball, you make me more proud to be a gay Christian! It's always bothered me when people say that their interpretation of the bible is the correct one. It's different for everyone. I've always thought of the bible as a guide book, not a rule book. I do agree that a church does not have to recognize a same-sex marriage, or have people living in a same-sex relationship serve as ministers, it all depends on how the church interprets what they teach, that is a right that the church has. I also agree that people have the right to a same-sex marriage, but it doesn't have to be with a church.


Submitted by cricketboy on August 10, 2009 - 12:33pm.

I have pretty much stopped...

Back to page top

I have pretty much stopped attending church and have not given a dime to the church for years because as I age I find most "Christians" to be hypocrites and very intolerant of people with rational and different thoughts from their own. I do know a few good, caring Christians but for the most part, I find that people who don't attend church regularily are more tolerant and compassionate to others. I was raised as a Lutheran and worshipped a lot as a child but I am getting less tolerant myself, less tolerant of others of ANY religion that thinks theirs is the ONLY one, (way too many in the world to make that claim) and most of the world's ills are due to that thinking. Religion usually causes more problems than it solves. Religion also raises too many questions with no answers. I am not saying their is no God, but there is no way ANY one religion is correct so quit using it as a tool to rule society. Even within the Christian communities, Catholic, Baptist, Lutherans, etc. the discrepanies are enormous. So I will end with this thought, if you invoke God or the Bible to make laws or judgements about others, your argument will not carry any weight with me.


Submitted by charlie_horse113 on August 11, 2009 - 8:31am.

Great idea. Of course you...

Back to page top

Great idea. Of course you need to be warned that those same hypocrites you are trying to avoid in church run the grocery stores, gas stations, medical clinics, factories, health clubs, etc. So if you are really trying to avoid hypocrites you may want to avoid those places as well.


Submitted by just1opinion on August 11, 2009 - 9:41am.

Not sure what that means but...

Back to page top

Not sure what that means but I can deal with business people in their venues. If they don't deal fairly with me there they lose business so I don't worry too much about poor behavior there. It is funny but in business they will treat people well so they can make a living. It is their needing to control people's private lives that gets to me.


Submitted by charlie_horse113 on August 11, 2009 - 11:06am.

What I meant is that if...

Back to page top

What I meant is that if people are hypocrites then they are hypocrites no matter where they are. So if you are trying to avoid associating with hypocrites you have to avoid them everywhere, not just in church. I find it funny when people use the hypocrite excuse. For the most part, people in churches want to do what is right and at least they are in an environment where there is a chance of the truth getting in and bringing change to their lives. But the people that don't even go are blatantly disobeying the Bible.
So who is worse?


Submitted by just1opinion on August 11, 2009 - 4:15pm.

You can't disobey the Bible...

Back to page top

You can't disobey the Bible if you don't think it is the be all to end all. I find the most Christians are hypocritical because they worship and preach love and tolerance and for the most part unless you subscribe to their very narrow piece of the religious pie, they have no time for you. That is the type of hypocrite I am talking about. I don't want a group of people telling me what kind of sex to have and who I can have it with. I don't want them deciding the number of children I have or telling me how to handle private issues. They want government to stay out of their lives but find it ok to run mine. They want the government out of their church issues but want their church issues to be written as law. Just go to church, live your principles but don't tell me that only your way is right for me.


Submitted by charlie_horse113 on August 11, 2009 - 4:52pm.

got it...well, I'll leave...

Back to page top

got it...well, I'll leave you alone and never preach to you again. I will pray for you but I'll never witness to you in any way. I am grieved that you have such a negative view of Christianity. I also find it sad that you criticize me and other Christians for picking and choosing certain doctrines or scriptures and expecting you to live by them and you do the same thing by picking love and tolerance as what we are to do everything around. It is obvious you have been hurt in the past by a religious person, group or organization. My desire and prayer for you is that at some point you are able to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and understand that you are judged based on your relationship with Him and not how other people fall short in their walk.


Submitted by just1opinion on August 11, 2009 - 8:38pm.

Charlie...some of us are...

Back to page top

Charlie...some of us are just so darn excited to be a child of our Lord and we want to tell everyone about it! Let me tell ya, when I was a child, I feared the end of my life. I now look forward to old age as it means that I'm that much closer to spending eternity with Jesus. Please don't group all of us into the "extreme" category as most of us mean well and we would welcome you as a friend with humble and open arms. Yes, as with any large group, there are bad "apples" and sometimes they taste so bad that you think the whole tree is poisoned. Try another tree someday and you might find that there are some really good-tasting apples! :)


Submitted by fiscallyconservative on August 11, 2009 - 9:33pm.

Interesting point. Why...

Back to page top

Interesting point. Why would a believing Christian choose to stay on Earth when heaven is waiting? As one who believes that this life is probably all there is, my time alive on the planet seems infinitely more meaningful because I know it will end. On the same note, why is Judas considered a villain by Christians? Seems to me he should be the hero for sending Jesus to his destiny.


Submitted by darwinball on August 12, 2009 - 5:30am.

Advertising

Advertising

Recent comments

Advertising

Advertising

Who's new

  • Laura Bennett
  • Watson
  • akdeal
  • Mike Lokken
  • mbinder

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 350 guests online.

Today's Poll

Submitted by Cindy Novak Ardolf on March 17, 2010 - 8:58am.
» Read similar stories filed under:

Advertising