Focus on the Family: Chaps my hide (Page 4)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ive always been curious who really is responsible for the unrest in society. You have those who want to preserve the holy word as it is, and you have others who want to accept everyone and move with the times. The main concept of spirituals and liberals is supposedly to treat everyone as your brother, etc... I think that focus on the family is a good concept, and ive known people who enjoy it, I also know others who are very religion adverse and who are equally good people in life with morals. So I think the labels is what is killing it all. When a "Christian" gets out there and starts condeming, its because they are a crazy christian, and when a non religious person starts condeming, its because they dont have the lord. Again, people are constantly lumped into a whole group, and then the group debates start. I do enjoy my dads favorite line to me and my brother and sister questioning why his disciplining was different for each of us as kids.. "I discipline you differently then each other because you ARE different then each other" amazing concept! In the end though, i say treat yourself as an individual, and if you really dont like how this group or that group is, just dotn choose to be part of it, and if you dont like your job, do something about it instead of complaining about it! thats part of what makes this world work, checks and balances of life. Oh the excitement.. haha Edited by kellc09 2005-12-08 2:45 PM |
|
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Just my two cents worth 1) To argue that because certain people that identify themselves as Christians act irrationally, maliciously, illegally or immorally means that Christianity is a cruel religion is a logcially faulty arguement. As a prosecutor I could use the same arguement about any group. 2) There has been a lot of post regarding old testiment, wrath of God stuff. There is a theological difference between Christians and the Covenant of the Old testiment. It has to do with Christ's statement that he was the embodiement of the new covenant. Thus the covenant of the Old testiment under which the "people" prior to Christ were expected to live was broken and replaced by the new covenant of Jesus Christ. That's why Christians are not obliged to follow the same Mosaic traditions and Lavitical laws as our Jewish brothers. It's the difference between the new covenant and the old. 3) Regarding the boycott by Christian groups, good, bad or indefierent, the 1st Amendment applies equally to the right and the left. A Christian group is as free to boycott a store based upon their beliefs as a "liberal/left" group is to boycott or protest the NRA or a gun manufacturer, or an industrialist based upon their environmental beliefs. 4) My personal belief is that the number of outspoken Christian groups is a direct result of what is perceived by many Christains as an attack upon them by certain individuals and groups that seek to secularize the society. Christians have been hit with this notion of being a Christian requires us to "turn the other cheek", this arguement is often leveld by non-christians as a rhetorical tactic to get Christians to slink back into the woodwork. What you are seeing is a back lash against secular humanism. especially with the development of groups like the Thomas Moore law Center that was created specifically as a counter to the ACLU. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() | ![]() rollinbones -I prefer not to say, nor do i mean to infer what you or people like you think or feel. Fair enough. I reread the thread and realized that it was Renee, that trouble maker ![]() If that is what you think, I don't take offense, but I would like the opportunity to challenge your thinking. The sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church stemmed from a lot of things, but one thing that did not cause it is the Church's dicipline of priestly celibacy. |
![]() ![]() |
Buttercup ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() dontracy - 2005-12-08 3:03 PM I reread the thread and realized that it was Renee, that trouble maker Guilty as charged! Man, is my dad sorry he raised me to be a free-thinker. What was he thinking?! Edited by Renee 2005-12-08 3:05 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Wow...this thread has come a long, long way since noon. Intolerance, religeon, and politics yet again reared their o-so-complicated, entertwined yet not aligned interests, reference exhibit 13: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/08/iran.israel.reut/index.html Have at THAT one. /me ducks. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Buttercup ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Mahmoud loves "Although we don't accept this claim" - (because we choose to be deliberately ignorant for our own politically expedient reasons)... " if we suppose it is true, our question for the Europeans is: is the killing of innocent Jewish people by Hitler the reason for their support to the occupiers of Jerusalem?" he said. - Uhhhh yeah! Collective guilt. "If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe -- like in Germany, Austria or other countries -- to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe and we will support it." - there's this little issue of Jerusalem and how to move this land mass to Europe. Oh yeah, and the land was legally purchased and some of the land acquired as war booty. Oopsy! Add to this the fact that the Zionists would never trust the Europeans with their lives... Snarkiness aside, it's truly tragic to see the Iranians forsake centuries and centuries of traditional Muslim (i.e. Ottoman) respect for and tolerance and protection of Jews. When the European Christians were throwing Jews out of Europe, the Ottoman Empire provided them safe haven and home. Edited by Renee 2005-12-08 3:22 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Extreme Veteran ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ASA22, you make a lot of good points. Thank you. run4yrlif--the various interpretations of the Bible is one of the things that make it so cool! The same passage of the Bible can speak to you in different ways. My best friend and I were comparing notes on Sunday afternoon. Both of our pastors used the same scriptural passage for their sermons (the story of John the Baptist in the Wilderness), but both gave very different sermons. My pastor talked about how when we go through "wilderness times" in our lives, it makes us look more to God and our spirituality. Her pastor talked about how we have to get away from the busy-ness of life and the Christmas season and take time to go into the "wilderness" to seek out God. Both are right! That's what is so cool! Same scripture but two different (and correct) messages. As for submissive women: I have struggled with this one. I am a divorced Christian woman and became so frustrated with pastors who told me to go home and pray that my husband would change.....To be fair, in the book Ephesians, talks about women being submissive to their husbands---but it also says that the husband should be loving and respectful to his wife, just as Christ was to the church. So if the husband is a big jerk, the woman isn't expected to submit to that. And THAT is Biblical! Finally, in regards to the whole advertising thing. I heard the story on NPR. The Ford marketing exec that was interviewed blamed it on a cutback in advertising dollars. It sounds kind of lame, but based on their current economic losses, it is understandable. I work in a advertising agency. A few years ago, one of our clients had to drastically cut their budget so we cut out the specialty publications like the Hispanic and Black newspapers. We figured that with the limited dollars we could still reach most of those audiences through general publications. I had the sales rep from the black newspaper call me up and call me a racist and made all kinds of threats. I was sooooo angry (my God-daughter is bi-racial, for pete's sake!) It was a business decision, but he played the "race card" because he was losing a commission. To make a long story short, I was forced to continue advertising in that paper (even though our budget really couldn't support it) because the business was afraid of this black newspaper calling them racist. So, in my opinion, some of the hoopla over this in the media may just be because the gay magazine lost a big advertising client and they're just trying to publicly shame Ford into advertising in their magazine vs. getting ads based on the quality of their readership. |
![]() ![]() |
Pro![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() ASA22 - 2005-12-08 3:50 PM 4) My personal belief is that the number of outspoken Christian groups is a direct result of what is perceived by many Christains as an attack upon them by certain individuals and groups that seek to secularize the society. Isn't Western society already secular? Shouldn't Western society strive to be as secular as possible, given that the idea is that people of all religions and walks of life live together peacefully? Your right to swing ends where my nose begins, and all that rot? Edited by Opus 2005-12-08 3:27 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Buttercup ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Seems to me they have been fighting to desecularize society since Darwin's theory of evolution really took hold and the Godless Communists scared the heck out of the West. "Under God" was added to the pledge during the Red Scare era, a harbinger of things to come. This reaction from the faaaar right Christians (a minority yet loud group) has been a long time coming. Looking at it historically, I think it's reaching its nadir and the new Silent Majority are the ones sick of the divisive tactics of Fox/FOF/and all those other benignly-named faaaaar right Christian groups. There are so many tolerant, kind, earnest, and good Christians - the vast majority of Christians - Let me amend that (Buddha taught that I must be respectful towards other belief systems). I think that the loudest, most divisive group (of the faaaar right Christian cabal) are the most fearful. They fear that their way is not the dominant way and so they perceive some kind of loss of power - power to evangelize, power to influence societal norms, power to restrict free-thinking (witness their fear of evolution). If only they would look to their own souls, pluck the wood from their own eyes, lead by example rather than leading by haranguing, more people might listen to them and be receptive to Jesus' words instead of being turned off by Dobson's words. Ranting doesn't really win-over many people other than the already agitated. "Society" will be just alright, fear not. Edited by Renee 2005-12-08 3:48 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Master ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Sorry...Too Soon??? |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() rkreuser - 2005-12-08 3:05 PM Wow...this thread has come a long, long way since noon. Intolerance, religeon, and politics yet again reared their o-so-complicated, entertwined yet not aligned interests, reference exhibit 13: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/08/iran.israel.reut/index.html Have at THAT one. /me ducks. And Benjamin Netanyahu may be prime minister again. I'm sure these two guys will get along very well. |
![]() ![]() |
Buttercup ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() harryj - 2005-12-08 4:06 PM rkreuser - 2005-12-08 3:05 PM Wow...this thread has come a long, long way since noon. Intolerance, religeon, and politics yet again reared their o-so-complicated, entertwined yet not aligned interests, reference exhibit 13: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/08/iran.israel.reut/index.html Have at THAT one. /me ducks. And Benjamin Netanyahu may be prime minister again. I'm sure these two guys will get along very well. Isn't that a huuuuuuuuuge stretch? I thought there was virtually no chance of Netanyahu winning? |
![]() ![]() |
Elite![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() run4yrlif - 2005-12-08 11:15 AM I don't think it's possible to be authoritative on the Word of God, unless you're God or Jesus. HIs words were transcribed by man, interpreted and reinterpreted by man in the forms that they exist in today. I think you are making a leap of faith to even assume that it was "God's Words" being transcribed. I don't trust the authors of the Canons anymore than I trust that Jimmy Carter saw a UFO. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Elite![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Renee - 2005-12-08 1:15 PM Jimmy saw a UFO? So he says... http://www.cohenufo.org/Carter/carter_abvtopsec.htm |
|
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]()
I thought there was virtually no chance of Netanyahu winning? He might win control of the Likud party since Sharon is leaving Likud to form the moderate party, Kadima. IF Netanyahu wins control of Likud, his chances of becoming PM are unlikely though. Current thought is Sharon's party will join forces with Labor, where by he would retain the PM post. |
![]() ![]() |
Buttercup ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I thought Sharon and Peres already formed Kadima and the consensus was they would easily win? Has Peres not yet committed? Note to self: read more world news, less BT. Edited by Renee 2005-12-08 4:42 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() I thought Sharon and Peres already formed Kadima and the consensus was they would easily win? Has Peres not yet committed? Yes, Peres has joined Kadima. But that is largely because he lost the election for the chairman's post in the Labor party. Yes, a Kadima/ Labor coalition is the odds on favorite to win the next election. . .BUT Israeli politics are very fluid. Edited by fromer 2005-12-08 4:56 PM |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() drewb8 - 2005-12-08 2:36 PM SMUJD - 2005-12-08 12:30 PM Wow. I drive a blue Subaru, wonder what that says about my politics and intellect? Although it is true that I don't really care what Dobson thinks, I do care about the influence he seems to have with the current administration.Matchman - 2005-12-08 2:18 PM I'm surprised that FOF hasn't raised a huge alarm on Subaru (maybe they have and I'm just not aware). I'm pretty sure Subaru does specific and targeted advertising in the GLBT community. Apparently, lesbians dig Subarus? I will get hugely flamed for this, but what the hell: the average Subaru driver has substantially different politics and intellect than the average Ford driver. Ford is a "heartland of America" car. Subaru is one of those damn imports driven in blue states. More concisely--Subaru drivers probably don't care what Dobson thinks on any issues. BillWho has ever seen a Bush/cheney sticker on a subaru? Sounds like the flipside of "Dead head sticker on a cadillac"..... |
![]() ![]() |
Giver ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() morey1 - 2005-12-08 2:30 PMPlease raise your hand if you are OFFENDED by the term 'Christmas' to describe the upcoming holiday. I'm not, but I can't speak for everyone. I look at it this way. If I'm a business owner, I don't want to offend ANYONE; I want EVERYONE's money. So I'm not going to ailenate non-Christians just for the sake of appeasing Christians. |
|
![]() ![]() |
Champion ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() Think we'll just observe Festivus this year. We'll start tonight with the Airing of Grievances, followed by the Feats of Strength. All Christians, Muslims, Catholics, Homosexuals, Liberal Democrats, yes and even Triathletes are welcome to join in. Bring a dish to pass. Mark |
![]() ![]() |
Elite ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() OK, bottom line. Dodson's an a$$hole. I can say that as a Christian because I do so without malice. Just speaking the truth in love. The truth about him and the love for everyone else. Has anyone mentioned his unwavering support for the Iraq war. He has said that regardless of the circumstances that brought us into that war that he supports it and will NEVER change his mind. Now me and Forrest ain't the smartest puppies on the planet but could someone point out the Christian tenet of war. Can't seem to find it in my red letter edition. Makes one ponder as to "who would Jesus bomb?" Christianity is so easy, (accept Christ as your saviour, love everyone, spread the "good news" So Jim knock it off with your Lev. and Ex. quotes and accept Dodson for what he is , an A44Hole( spoken in love). |
![]() ![]() |
Giver ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() RedCorvette - 2005-12-09 6:23 AM We'll start tonight with the Airing of Grievances, followed by the Feats of Strength. Well, since we've been airing grievances for about 90 posts now, why don't we start in with the feats of strength? I have an unnatural ability to move heavy peices of furniture by myself using my knowledge of mechanical advantage. |
![]() ![]() |
Giver ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | ![]() gullahcracker - 2005-12-09 6:27 AM So Jim knock it off with your Lev. and Ex. quotes and accept Dodson for what he is , an A44Hole( spoken in love). Gullah, we agree. Chistianity is easy. As much as I despise slogans, my faith is bound by continuously asking myself "WWJD?" In my mind Jesus wouldn't marginalize homosexuals. He never said a word (according to scripture) against them. He wouldn't subserviate women. He wouldn't start wars. He might eat some pork ribs. As far as Leviticus goes, I merely used it as an example the way some...many Christians uses it to support their belief that homosexuality is wrong. My point is that if they believe homosexuality is wrong, they should be as vocal about their support of slavery. If you're going to be a fundamentalist, be a fundamentalist. But if you think slavery is wrong, despite the biblical example, free yourself from the shackles of the Old Testament and accept homosexuality for what it is: part of the natural order of things. |
|