Conservative "Christians" in Tennessee

[JonathanQ]

Some "Christians" seem to be getting all the press for their despicable behavior toward gays and others. They are disgusting. I also know some Christians who at their own expense go to scenes of disasters around the world to help. They demand nothing, not even conversions. They are simply being obedient to Christ's teachings to care for the poor and needy. Some are distributing food to the starving in areas of extreme danger. Again, no demands or "deals" to obtain the food. There are thousands of these folks, and I can't find fault with them. Lumping the good and the bad together serves no purpose, and is a greater reflection on the critic than the criticized.
Christ said nothing against homosexuality, even if citing the Law, which he abolished.

 

[deleted157868]

I feel like it has come to the point where the "militant" atheists have actually become more annoying then the preachy catholics. I feel like they want someone to express their belief in god, (or something of that nature) so they can jump all over them with their arguments against religion, and arguments disproving god. They live for it.

Atheism has truly become the "popped collar" of the internet


This is coming from someone who does not believe in god or religion too, but I refuse to lump myself with Atheists for the reasons listed above.

 

[chrimbo]

As JonathanQ and other posters have implied, I think the danger here is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's as dangerous to judge Christianity based on the actions of one newsworthy individual, as it is to for me to draw conclusions about all America from the posting of one American.

My personal view (and placing me in the firing line, perhaps, if SpoLLe is to be believed ;-) is that

actual science perform[ing] real miracles

has taken us little further in answering the big questions about the purpose of life and death than the religious beliefs from the time of:

iron age goat herders

That said, I think Phil makes a very valid point about far too few people (Christians and otherwise) being properly conversant with the books of the Bible, and indeed about the contradictions and confusions within. I'd personally see them as inevitabilities in any historical book, though, and my biggest fear would be again to write off the key message of the gospels based on the flawed and fallible nature of the individuals who recorded the history.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

For some reason "good" people that i have met have a higher moral ground religious based or not and they recognize evil and denounce it. So much more can be said on this topic.

anyway my thoughts. hope it stirs more.

A good point. The most important aspect of which is that real morality has ZERO correlation to religious belief.

There are people who believe who are good, and people who believe who are evil. There are non-believers who are good, and those that are evil.

Ergo, the effect of religion on "providing" people with a positive moral framework is zero.

However, It can correctly be pointed out that Religious belief DOES have a strong correlation with acts of violence, far moreso than being non-religious.

That is, in that religion is given a 'free pass' in our cultures, and automatic respect it had neither earned nor returned, it acts as a shelter, and basis of excuse for acts that would, otherwise, be universally condemned.

When a Fatwa was sworn out against Rushdie, and then another against a Danish newspaper and its editors- religious leaders all over the world FAILED to condemn this hooliganism in another religion... instead implying that blasphemers should 'expect' this kind of outrage for insulting someone else's delusions.

When Dr Tiller was murdered in his own christian church, by another christian, there was no hue and cry from Christian leaders expounding on how this was wrong... the overall reaction ranging from the act being 'extreme', but 'well intentioned, to loud protestations of its righteousness.

What does it take to get reasonably decent people to ENDORSE a murder?

It takes faith in God... and the cultural "hands off' over any foolishness with the name Jesus stapled to it.

While I disagree that everything is black and white... Some things are shades of gray, in that they have Both good and evil consequences.

And I do not think people are in general, all one or the other. The problem is that we can not always know the long term consequences of our position and our actions.
Defending tradition keeps us from tearing down cultural practices that have proven functional over time... but that same mindset prevents us from abandoning a prejudice or inequity that is plainly evil.

Thru all of the complexities of becoming a better culture over time... there is one force that, for thousands of years, has tended to enable otherwise decent people to excuse, endorse and engage in unspeakable horrors, and hatreds.

That force is religion.

One of the commandments is that thou shalt not take the Lord thy God's name in Vain.

Most people think this refers to swearing. It doesn't

The old time Jews thought it meant you could not utter the name of God without limiting God... which is closer to the truth... but still misses the mark.

Vain, in this context does not mean useless, or fruitless....

It means that you ought not to represent that YOU a lowly mortal, have knowledge of God, or God's purposes, or God's preferences.

The ultimate vanity is for ANY person to claim to know what God wants, or to speak for God.

Its basically an admonition that ANY religion, is a false religion. Anyone telling you what God wants you to do is doing so for their OWN aggrandizement, out of their own sense of vanity.

Religion is evil. It is Vanity made dogmatic.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

I'd personally see them as inevitabilities in any historical book, though, and my biggest fear would be again to write off the key message of the gospels based on the flawed and fallible nature of the individuals who recorded the history.

The primary difference being that "any historical book"s are not being held up as the absolutist dictates of a despotic 'Creator' who intends to punish those who do not believe and reward those who do.

What other history book do you see people willing to murder others over?
What factions of die-hard History buffs are striving to take over the government and have their views on history written into the laws that govern even those who don't agree?

Maybe the Civil War re-inactors who think the South should have won are likely to oppose de-segregation and affirmative action.... but I don't see them trying to take over school boards to press an educational agenda force feeding that perspective to other people's school children...


I think you mistake the key message of the Gospels. Read them carefully...
Jesus actually said a lot of messed up nonsense...
And MUCH of the gospels are faked.... passages added on long after Jesus was dead... like the story of the stoning of the adulteress.... which all Biblical scholars of any repute agree was added hundreds of years later.

People tend to imagine that Jesus said all kinds of likable stuff... that he was a kinder and gentler guy... but it was Jesus who introduced the idea of eternal damnation... the Jewish people never had that idea before him.

What Christians Claim to find in the Bible, actually isn't even in there.

It comes from their OWN INATE SENSE of morality... the sense that most human beings develop as children before they can even talk.
The sense of fairness, and affection, and getting along with others that ALL social animals must develop simply to operate as a society.

Religion CLAIMS to have given us something we all had long before we even had religion.

And they offer a reward, or a punishment, that they never actually have to even deliver.

Its an Authoritarian scam. And that's all it is.

 

[monel]

This is coming from someone who does not believe in god or religion too, but I refuse to lump myself with Atheists ...

Too late. But at least you're not a preachy Catholic

 

[DQSundae]

In the article, it doesn't identify any denomination. There are a lot of people who start a church, call themselves pastors and find other ignorant people to follow their teachings. Many of these people have little or no formal education in Theology. They make it up as they go and interpret the scriptures from their own warped views. There are often lots of dirty little scandals that pop up around these so called churches and the men who lead them. Not surprising the that pastor was arrested for stealing. Sadly, this kind of thing happens all over the country.

Surely the son must have known how severe his father's reaction to him bringing his boyfriend to church would be. What a screwed up family.

Whether you are a believer in Christ or not, His message was one of love, forgiveness and redemption for all. He didn't preach hate and violence.

 

[Frnkd213]

In the article, it doesn't identify any denomination. There are a lot of people who start a church, call themselves pastors and find other ignorant people to follow their teachings. Many of these people have little or no formal education in Theology. They make it up as they go and interpret the scriptures from their own warped views. There are often lots of dirty little scandals that pop up around these so called churches and the men who lead them. Not surprising the that pastor was arrested for stealing. Sadly, this kind of thing happens all over the country.

Surely the son must have known how severe his father's reaction to him bringing his boyfriend to church would be. What a screwed up family.

Whether you are a believer in Christ or not, His message was one of love, forgiveness and redemption for all. He didn't preach hate and violence.

I found it a little hard to read your post and watch your avitar. LOL
but I did get your message the second time around.

 

[houtx48]

Yeah because the Bible makes so much sense everybody should rush right out and do whatever the 600 different versions say.

 

[wappingite]

I just want to know who in the Bible was hung. Otherwise, it goes on the shelf containing folklore next to Grimm's Fairy Tales. There is just no way to reconcile Homosexuality with Christianity. Religion by nature is dogmatic and rigid, the rules have been set and are clear. I only want "freedom from religion".

 

[matelalique]

Growing up in South Africa with its odd racial views, and a strong protestant religious component propping those up, and being white and Catholic, and viewing those opinions as odd, while benefiting from them .... yes, there is a confusion, and I tease it out as follows:

There is fundamental good, and accepted knowledge. Beliefs should bow to those.

Humanitarianism/Secular humanism/ethics/morality: That which is self evident that is good for the Earth (or just humans depending on your perspective) - best summed up by Christ with "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". This covers theft, murder, bigotry, cheating within an agreed monogamous relationship ....

Science: That which has been studied, debated and accepted. The scientific community should do this without the ethical and religious community making uneducated comments.

Religion/myth: Things you just accept, or read, or have been passed down.

If you distil every major religion down, you find a beautiful "secular humanism" - a belief in the fundamental good of others, the need to respect neighbours, respect for property, and the need to contribute in some way to your community, and (Sandusky hear this) a strong incentive not to hurt those who are defenseless. Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Jains, and even atheists agree on these major "pillars".

Religions do not accept science, but intelligent adeherents to all religions actually do - we are all happy using plastics, microwave ovens, cellphones, and yet bizzarely the non-commercial science is ridiculed by various people, who think that if you can't get an IPhone, then it comes from the devil.

Then there is the rest - and there are some grey areas. Circumcision was the "uncontroversial" issue in the 1st century, and that is why Paul mentions that in Romans vs women covering their heads and other things going on that he was upset by.

Ultimately, if common sense (does it hurt anyone), and science concur, then when religion disagrees (the earth is flat/homosexuals are evil) flags should be raised.

I would like to say that whenever common sense and science agree it is obviously correct, but I suspect that in the 900s women were weaker, and science showed that they were, so it was logical that they should be inferiorly employed.

This is a bit rambling - I apologise. My point is that religious views should be judged within the context of common sense and objectivity, and they should be thrown out if they are truly stupid. Opposition to homosexuality, women's rights, etc etc, should all be viewed in this light, and there should eb a far louder outcry when this sort of crap happens.

 

[Calboner]

One of the commandments is that thou shalt not take the Lord thy God's name in Vain.

Most people think this refers to swearing. It doesn't

The old time Jews thought it meant you could not utter the name of God without limiting God... which is closer to the truth... but still misses the mark.

Vain, in this context does not mean useless, or fruitless....

It means that you ought not to represent that YOU a lowly mortal, have knowledge of God, or God's purposes, or God's preferences.

The ultimate vanity is for ANY person to claim to know what God wants, or to speak for God.

Its basically an admonition that ANY religion, is a false religion. Anyone telling you what God wants you to do is doing so for their OWN aggrandizement, out of their own sense of vanity.

However one might wish that such thoughts were implied by the passages of the Hebrew Bible in question, such an explication of the phrase "take the name of YHVH in vain" does not agree with anything that I have ever read about it. According to the scholarly literature that I have read, the passage concerns the swearing of oaths. For instance, the Jewish Study Bible (Oxford University Press, 2004) renders Exodus 20.7 and Deuteronomy 5.11 as "You shall not swear falsely by the name of the LORD your God; for the LORD will not clear one who swears falsely by His name," and has these comments on the respective passages:

[On Exodus 20.7:] Assertions in court, in public affairs, and even in ordinary conversation were often backed up with conditional self-curses that would take effect if the swearer's assertion were false or his promise unfulfilled. . . . The swearer proved his sincerity by invoking punishment from God, who cannot be deceived or evaded. A false oath would show contempt for God by implying that the swearer does not fear his punishment. (149)

[On Deuteronomy 5.11:] The intent is to prohibit careless use of the divine name in the context of swearing an oath ("May God do X to me unless I do Y"); such oaths were viewed as dangerous and legally binding (see Judg. 11.29–40). (377)

Similarly, in The New Oxford Annotated Bible (OUP, 2001), The New Revised Standard Version has "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not acquit anyone who misuses his name," and the first occurrence is explicated thus: "A prohibition of the misuse of the divine name in magic, divination, or false swearing (Lev. 19.12)" (111; the second occurrence has only a reference to the comment on the first).

 

[B_patrickmcc]

Seems to me by generalizing and all christians, you show the same bias and ignorance as those that generalize and condemn all gays. My church has welcomed gays and lesbians for years, and has performed hundreds of same sex marriages. All are welcome.

 

[D_Terry_Tugnuts]

The first few words of the link tell you all you ever needed to know about monotheistic religion - "pastor orders his flock...". The 'religions of the book' are simply power-trips for some very disturbed individuals to exert their will on gullible people, oh, and make a bit of money out of them while doing that, naturally. It is generally acknowledged by experts in the field of mental illness that the inventors of the two great monotheistic religions, "Saint" Paul and Mohammed had problems, to put it mildly.

The biblical Jesus is a conflation of two individuals; a radical preacher and a 'freedom fighter' who happened to share the same name and live at roughly the same time. Scholarship shows the koran was written by several different people over a period of a couple of hundred years, and like the bible is very selective about the original texts left out. So much for 'the word of god'. All 'god' in his various guises seems to have brought his people is never-ending suffering, intolerance and sudden, painful deaths. The equally mythical Cthulhu could do no worse than god/jehovah/allah - thank you, O great one!

People should reject such silly, intolerant religions and think for themselves, but given the amount of foolish and vulnerable individuals around, that's not likely to happen, to the glee of priests and their equivalents around the world. Amen.

 

[Frnkd213]

The first few words of the link tell you all you ever needed to know about monotheistic religion - "pastor orders his flock...". The 'religions of the book' are simply power-trips for some very disturbed individuals to exert their will on gullible people, oh, and make a bit of money out of them while doing that, naturally. It is generally acknowledged by experts in the field of mental illness that the inventors of the two great monotheistic religions, "Saint" Paul and Mohammed had problems, to put it mildly.

The biblical Jesus is a conflation of two individuals; a radical preacher and a 'freedom fighter' who happened to share the same name and live at roughly the same time. Scholarship shows the koran was written by several different people over a period of a couple of hundred years, and like the bible is very selective about the original texts left out. So much for 'the word of god'. All 'god' in his various guises seems to have brought his people is never-ending suffering, intolerance and sudden, painful deaths. The equally mythical Cthulhu could do no worse than god/jehovah/allah - thank you, O great one!

People should reject such silly, intolerant religions and think for themselves, but given the amount of foolish and vulnerable individuals around, that's not likely to happen, to the glee of priests and their equivalents around the world. Amen.

For some reason I like your message and the way it was said. As I believe that there is a universal power that science and logic try to define, that mystery will always be there. What "priests and their equivalents (another term I like)" try to do is make it appear as if they have possesed this power and that they are the intermediaries, the chosen ones as it may to lead their flock to where ever or what ever it is they have been told to go. BS plain and simple.

Every person, human being has the capability to tap into the universal power tht exist within themselves. Why? because we are part of the universe. There is this impression that many western and some eastern religions try to give that man is separate from this and live in this world apart from all other things, living or nonliving.
this is not new age. I don't try to escape in meditation and find out what it is or tap into through an escapism belief. Rather I try to live each day consciously making my thoughts, words, and deeds in harmony with it. In that sense I act not react to my life. Take control and be responsible for its outcome. i find being happy because I am influences others to become the same. I am not an Oprah "secret" follower or believer, as I have know this before it was revealed by her. My eyes are open to opportunity not closed in isolation and condemnation.

Don't want to seem preachy but I had to acknowlede that the poster had a message that was important. People need to question and take control and responsibility for their lives. There is no predestined life that we have to accept, rather we are living the effects of causes made in the past. Make new causes for a different future.

In a way as much as Herman Caine may sound cold and elitest, BTW I am not a fan of his, what he said does make sense when taken in what I stated above, not exactly but in essence "If you do not have a job, or are not wealthy, blame yourself".

Hope this makes sense. PM me if you want more thoughts

 

[B_circin867]

Having lived in TN for a number of years, circumcision is practised at a high level, whether Evangelicals or not.

 

[D_Sal_Manilla]

whats wrong with middle america???

 

[Mercurygirl]

Yet another example causing me to marvel that ANY person who is homosexual would choose to ascribe to a religion that specifically cites their orientation as an abomination...

There are Other Magical Sky Daddies that people can pretend are their best friends that are less overt in their fostering of hatred and violence than christianity.

Or... take a big step forward into the adult world of not believing that shit ignorant goat herders had the world all figured out long before folks knew the Earth went around the sun.

Religion is not moral. It is not defensible. It is nothing but a means for making one group feel special and entitled over other groups. It actively foments hatred and violence, and strives to exert an authoritarian tyranny on those who do not willingly submit to its dictates.

READ the damn bible. Jesus was a dick. And, yes, he hated fags.
Its no surprise that those who believe in this nonsense search thru scripture for rationales to endorse their own prejudices, jealousies, covetousness and hatreds.

No, he did not. It's obvious you've never read the new testament. You're fighting hate and ignorance with more of the same. In all beliefs, groups, be they political or religious you're going to find extremist who will twist doctrine (as the pastor in this case has) to garner hatred of groups, a person, to promote themselves, power, within their misguided flock/organization.

For the record, I'm an agnostic.

 

[simbablk]

No, he did not. It's obvious you've never read the new testament. You're fighting hate and ignorance with more of the same. In all beliefs, groups, be they political or religious you're going to find extremist who will twist doctrine (as the pastor in this case has) to garner hatred of groups, a person, to promote themselves, power, within their misguided flock/organization.

For the record, I'm an agnostic.

Thank you!


Simba

 

[Silvertip]

... Religion is not moral. It is not defensible. It is nothing but a means for making one group feel special and entitled over other groups. ...

I disagree. Religion seems to have been with man since prehistory and it has historically been a means to offer protection to man for that which he could not understand. It is human nature to fear that which is not known and man has always strived to explain that which he didn't understand. In prehistoric days there were fire gods, thunder gods, flood gods, drought gods, you name it. And the believers would pray to those gods and even offer up sacrifices in the belief that it would provide the environmental outcome they preferred. Religion has always been a way to ease those human concerns and that, quite simply, is its genesis.

Call it a crutch, if you will, but it nonetheless has allowed countless believers to live good, productive, comfortable lives free of worry. It is my belief that it has also had the drawback of preventing those same believers from ever achieving a completely open mind. In this modern world, with so much of our physical lives understood and explained, religious faith continues to give comfort against the unknown ... in this case, what happens to the human animal/soul after death. This is the final big mystery and one that will likely never be answered by man. As long as that remains a mystery religion will flourish.

... It actively foments hatred and violence, and strives to exert an authoritarian tyranny on those who do not willingly submit to its dictates. ...

That may be true of Islam, I am not well enough versed in the text of the Qur'an to know, but I certainly don't believe it is true of Christianity (the religion associated with this thread.) I have read modern English versions of the New Testament and haven't noticed any glaring fomentations of hatred and violence. And, according to what the "moderate" Muslims tell us of Islam, the same might be said of the Qur'an ... again, I'm not well enough versed on that text to offer a sensible opinion.

But, going well beyond one's individual faith and one's choice of holy text, what the two religions of Christianity and Islam have demonstrated very clearly is that both the writings of the Bible and the Qur'an are complex and equivocal. As such, the various sects of Christianity and the divisions of Islam are free to interpret the "word of God" to justify their own political and social imperatives. And on a more local level (such as in Frutiland, Tennessee) individual churches and mosques can grind their own axes in whatever fashion they wish, all in the name of God. There are many glaring examples of Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Shia, Sufi and Sunni abuses of the "word of God" to justify fomenting all manner of hate and violence .... up to and including full scale warfare.

As for exerting authoritarian tyranny on nonbelievers, neither the Bible the Qur'an nor the faith in those holy writings does so. All they do is offer a less than desirable afterlife for infidels; and if the infidel does not believe their theological predictions to be true it's no harm/no foul, sticks and stones, etc. Again, this authoritarian tyranny "in the name of God" is being exerted only by the political organizations (Christian sects, Muslim divisions, churches, mosques) that are immorally taking advantage of the faithful's gullibility to promote their own particular social and political agenda.

So recognize religion and faith as eternal features of the human experience and don't blame either of them for the ills of this world. But, please, always do understand that organized religion can be a potential threat to everything that is moral and just.