President Bush got what he wanted, as Congress passed a war-funding bill without a timetable for withdrawal. But unless there is significant progress in Iraq in the next few months, he can expect an even bigger battle when this funding runs out on Sept. 30. And the majority of Americans won’t be on his side. In fact, they already aren’t. The latest New York Times/CBS News poll found support for the war at its lowest level yet, with 61 percent of Americans saying that we should have stayed out of Iraq and 76 percent believing things are going badly there. Most Americans also support a timetable for withdrawal, with 63 percent saying the United States should set a date for withdrawing troops from Iraq sometime in 2008. How long can a war continue if the public doesn’t support it?
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
- ProudMan on Too many exemptions
118 Comments
Well DOH!
That is outrageous. How many more must die for this hair brained scheme?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html
HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20Subject: National Continuity PolicyPurpose(1) This directive establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. This policy establishes “National Essential Functions,” prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55825
Bush grants presidency extraordinary powersDirective for emergencies apparently gives authority without congressional oversight
Posted: May 23, 20071:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.comPresident Bush has signed a directive granting extraordinary powers to the office of the president in the event of a declared national emergency, apparently without congressional approval or oversight.The “”http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html“” was signed May 9, notes Jerome R. Corsi in a “/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55824″.It was issued with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive.The directive establishes under the office of the president a new national continuity coordinator whose job is to make plans for “National Essential Functions” of all federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president’s directives in the event of a national emergency.”Catastrophic emergency” is loosely defined as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.”
Corsi says the president can assume the power to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over.The directive says the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, currently “http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060223-5.html“, would be designated as the national continuity coordinator.Corsi says the directive makes no attempt to reconcile the powers created for the national continuity coordinator with the “http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sec_50_00001621—-000-.html“, which requires that such proclamation “shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register.”A Congressional Research Service study notes the National Emergency Act sets up Congress as a balance empowered to “modify, rescind, or render dormant” such emergency authority if Congress believes the president has acted inappropriately.But the new directive appears to supersede the National Emergency Act by creating the new position of national continuity coordinator without any specific act of Congress authorizing the position, Corsi says.The directive also makes no reference to Congress and its language appears to negate any requirement that the president submit to Congress a determination that a national emergency exists.It suggests instead that the powers of the directive can be implemented without any congressional approval or oversight.Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke affirmed to Corsi the Homeland Security Department would implement the requirements of the order under Townsend’s direction.The White House declined to comment on the directive
Surge? How about we untie our military’s hands and let them get busy killing and capturing terrorists at a pace they have not been allowed to show us or the world? That would be a surge.
The problem with your suggestion Parkay is that old saying “They all look the same to me”.In Iraq we are the aliens, most of our soldiers do not speak or understand Arabic. I recently saw a documentary about Iraq where our soldiers raided a suspected bomb making group. They did find a couple of cars that were being fitted with bombs, but it was not until the documentary makers actually had someone that speaks Arabic listen. That it was discovered that the Iraqis soldiers that accompanied our troops afterwards were talking about knowing of even larger cashes of bombs and weapons that they had no intention of telling the Americans about. They were carrying on the conversations with in feet of American soldiers. They can not readily tell the Iraqis from any other Middle easterners, whom make up most of the Al-Qaeda in Iraq.
That is why I feel more confidence that the Sunnis in the Anbar Providence will be more effective against Al-Qaeda then we will be. They will have better intelligence they we do and can tell the foreigners from the natives.
No Parkay, the “kill them all and let God sort them out” approach might be more effective. But I am afraid that the effect of killing all of those we are suppose to be there to protect would have a less then desirable affect.
“How about we untie our military’s hands”
How are their hands tied, Parkay?
Just let the military kill all the damn towel-head moose-limbs. They all worship a false god anyway!
“They all worship a false god anyway!”
THAT TEARS IT.. BIN LADEN SEEMS TO HAVE INTERNET ACCESS!
For those that have not done any research on Islam, the Muslims worship the God of Abraham, the same one that it worshipped by Jews and Christians.
They merely see the prophets differently.
That was an extremely idiotic post, Butter, after all, there are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. Do you propose killing them all?
Apparently only the one wearing towel on their head WS LoL
They are not towels, Dub Dog, they are linens, like a pillowcase or sheet.
That is why some are called little sheet heads.
(Groan!!!!!!!!!!!!)
LoL
I will have you know I am often called a sheet head and never I say never wear a sheet on my head! You think maybe I am misunderstanding exactly what they are calling me?
WS Clark (Mr I have read the entire Bible and do you want to have a scripture war…)
The Muslims worship the same God as the Christians?
I am afraid not.
Christians worship Jesus. Christians believe that Jesus is the son of God part of the Trinity of the Holy Spirt, Jesus, and God the Father.
Muslims and Jews do not accept Jesus as anything more than a prophet.
To say we all worship the “same” God is disingenuous.
If you reject Jesus as being part of God then you no longer worship the “same” God as Christians do.
Fortunately the power to wage war and lead the military is invested with the President and not the whim of the public.
Ok, I’m going to step out of character here for a minute. My sis sent this to me and I wanted to share it with all of my friends, Liberal and Conservative.
Let’s not forget what it’s all about…
http://www.youtube.com/p.swf?video_id=ervaMPt4Ha0&eurl=&iurl=http%3A//img.youtube.com/vi/ervaMPt4Ha0/2.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskKa12c_oRoPyL2bDFS5wZds&autoplay=1
That is a good one XXX. It has been circulated for a while now.
I like it.
“WS Clark (Mr I have read the entire Bible and do you want to have a scripture war…)”
And as I have said before, Nathan, (sigh) I have also read the Bible cover to cover, twice.
If you want to play semantics, yes the Christians worship Jesus, as the Son of God.
The reference was to God, and all three monotheistic religions that originated in the Middle East worship the same God of Abraham.
We have been through this before, Nathan. You are just looking for a fight and have chosen to dissect a word to make your case.
It’s a losing effort on your part.
The Bible you read has an Old Testament, does it not, Nathan? The God of the Old Testament is usually referred to as the God of Abraham, is He not, Nathan? The Jews and the Muslims, along with the Christians recognize and worship the God of Abraham, do they not, Nathan?
Why are you looking for a fight?
If you want to play dueling scriptures, Nathan, I am more than capable. I would venture to say that I have spent more time in my life in church and in study than you have.
If you want to play – bring it on.
(sigh, here we go again.)
Fortunately the power to wage war and lead the military is invested with the President and not the whim of the public.—Fortunately congress has the power to fund the war and we don’t care what it takes, congress will do what the majority of Americans want or they will be finding themselves new jobs in 08
nathan,
Sorry, you’re a little confused…Jews also don’t accept Christian theology. baased on your stance, they also don’t worship the same God. Similarly,
“Some, like the Society of Friends (Quakers) and Christian Unitarians, may reject all doctrinal or creedal tests of true faith. Others, like the restorationist Churches of Christ, in keeping with a distinctive understanding of “Scripture alone,” say that since the doctrine of the Trinity is not clearly articulated in the Bible, it cannot be required for salvation. Still others may look to church tradition and say that there has always been a Christian tradition that faithfully followed Jesus without such a doctrine. They point out that the Trinitarian doctrine, which they see as being steeped in Greek philosophical distinctions, was not clearly articulated for some centuries after Christ.”
Do they not believe in thsame God as Christians??
The concept of the Trinity is what one might call an “implied” one. Nowhere is there any explicit statement in the Bible that God has 3 manifestations. In fact that conclusion is “interpolated”….the scripturwes speak of YAHWEH (1), the scriptures speak of the spirit (2), Christians believe Jesus to be the LOGOS (3).
“Criticisms of Trinitarian doctrine
Nontrinitarians commonly refer to the following points in objection to Trinitarian teaching.
* That it does not follow the strict monotheism found in Judaism and the Old Testament, of which Jesus claimed to have fulfilled.* That it is an invention of early Christian church fathers, such as Tertullian.* That it is paradoxical and therefore not in line with reason.* That it reflects the influence of pagan religions, some of which have divine triads of their own.* That the doctrine contradicts the Holy Scriptures, such as when Jesus states that the Father is greater than he is, or the Pauline theology: “Yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him.”[34]* That the doctrine relies almost entirely on non-Biblical terminology. Some notable examples include: Trinity, Three-in-one, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost, Person in relation to anyone other than Jesus Christ being the image of God’s person (hypostasis).* That the scriptural support for the doctrine is implicit at best. For example, the New Testament refers to the Father and the Son together much more often than to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the word “Trinity” doesn’t appear in the Bible.”
Nathan, you seem tied up with mechanics and nomenclature. Everyone who believe in a god or gods believes in the same thing. What is different is the manner in which those beliefs are elucidated. I’m sure you’ll say that one must accept Jesus as a personal savior. What if I took Jesus’ name out of the NT and substituted “Joe”. I then distribute the altered Bibles to people who know nothing of Christianity. They would say that you need to say that “Joe” is your personal savior, even though the core belief is the same!!!
Try to accept people for the good that they do. These good acts are all manifestations of God, however yo want to describe Him.
“Fortunately the power to wage war”
No president can wage war without the approval of Congress. If Congress authorizes war, they can also de-authorize the same.
The president may not spend money on his own, it has to be appropriated by Congress. This Congress was failed miserably by giving Bush another blank check through September.
It won’t happen again.
For those who cannot still enjoy the joys of this great county:
“O God, our Heavenly Father, we remember before Thee this day,those who laid down their lives in the service of their country.
We remember their courage and devotion to the Sovereign and the country they served.
We pray that their labours be not in vain but that their spirit may live on in us and the generations to come.
We pray that liberty, truth and love may spread over all the world ’til war shall cease to be.We remember our brethren who are in sickness or distress.
We remember the widows and other dependants.
We dedicate ourselves to Thy service in the name of those whose memory we revere.
We ask this in the name of our Lord.” “Amen
We cannot leave Iraq. As much as the Democrats crow about it, even they know that we have to stay which is why they funded the war and will again in September and for as long as it takes for us to have victory. We have to win this thing and failure is not an option here. You don’t even wanna think about what will happen if we fail and Iraq becomes a failed state.
Iraq already is a failed state, Kev. The only question is how much more American lives are going to be lost and how much more American treasure is going to be spent?
We are no closer to “victory” in Iraq today than we were four years ago.
Off topic (sorry), but I can’t resist:? ? ? ?”They all worship a false god anyway!”
THAT TEARS IT.. BIN LADEN SEEMS TO HAVE INTERNET ACCESS!Posted by: writerdog | May 25, 2007 at 03:58 PM? ? ? ?
Ok mister you owe me an iMac!!!
>still laughing<
We cannot leave Iraq
Why not? Oh you mean we can’t leave because of the oil.
GWB seems to have changed his mind — yesterday he said we’d leave if the Iraqi government asked us ….
What happened to protecting our interests in the middle east?
Mary Matalin (if nothing else ya got to enjoy her for the comic relief she and hubby provide) was on MSNBC live this morning with Jim Cramer — reminding us again how great the economy is , and what a great leader GWB has been in keeping it growing …The economy was doing pretty well if I remember under Clinton, and he didn’t need a war to provide the props ….
and then she went on with the bogey man rant about terror and there vs here etc she was damn near crying like Sen. Boner yesterday ,,,, and in the middle of it she said in essence paraphrasing “… those people (Dems and liberals) need to realize that Iraq is sitting on the worlds 2nd largest pool of oil and we need that to compete with China …”
…. but it’s never been about oil? LOL
Prior to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, the nation’s intelligence services warned the president that a military invasion of Iraq would fuel Islamist extremism and provide an opportunity for al Qaeda and Iran to exploit post-invasion disorder there, according to a new report released Friday.
The report undercuts several of President Bush’s key justifications for invading Iraq and exposes the extent to which the chaos the US currently finds itself in was predicted with often chilling accuracy.
“Today’s report shows that the intelligence community gave the administration plenty of warning about the difficulites we would face if the decision was made to go to war,” said Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which released the report. In a prepared statement, Rockefeller continued, “These dire warnings were widely distributed at the highest levels of government, and it’s clear that the administration didn’t plan for any of them.”
The 229-page report, which includes declassified pre-war intelligence estimates, was posted Friday on the Intelligence Committee’s Web site.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/
I forgot to mention the report that was released today is the long awaited Phase 2 that Pat Roberts dragged his feet on.
Is anyone stupid enough to believe we or really the Afghans chased OBL to Iraq? Because he went to Pakistan were he trains, plans and recruits. Bush drew a line in the sand and I guess the line was, were al Qaeda could find a safe zone. When Bush started talking about a country that lets terrorist stay, a country that has WMDs, and we should be afraid and we should do something about it I thought he was talking about Pakistan a country that really has WMDs a country where OBL has a safe haven but instead he was talking about Iraq a country with maybe ties to terrorist a country that maybe has WMDs so instead of fighting the real threat (the chicken sh*&) took us to a maybe threat. And still OBL trains, plans, recruits, and splits in our faces. (For a man who does not think about OBL he sure bring his name up a lot lately but the idiot still ties it to Iraq instead of Pakistan)For you unpatriotic ass&*%#s who believe the right thing was to go after a maybe threat instead of a real threat. If we are attacked here, it will be your fault, but you all hate America anyways.
When GW says that after 9/11 thing changed, if that means that we are turning off liberties light, if that means fencing our selfs in, if that means if you look at us cross you get the horns, then that means America is lost and the terrorist win. Bush had/has a plan for a never ending war in Iraq, OBL had/has a plan for a never ending war in Iraq. What is really going on?
“Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.”
That quote is from Adolph Hitler, a leader that preyed on the fear of his countrymen rather than appeal to reason.
Muslims, Christians and Jews ALL worship the same God, the God of Abraham. Long before the ancestry diverges into the lineage that brought us Jesus, through the King the Old Testament said was cursed, long before Mohammed arose from the desert sands – there was Abraham.
All three religions lead to Abraham – and his God. That doesn’t make them the same now, of course, but it creates a common starting point.
Interestingly, the Muslims I’ve spoken to see our Christian view of the “triune God” (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) as inconsistent with One God.
They’re right–it takes a mystical, not a rational, understanding.
But without question, the God they call Allah is the same one we translate as Jehovah–the same one the ancient Hebrews refused to utter out loud because the name was too holy: YHWH, the tetragrammaton, “the eternal One.”
The idea of the trinity is the most ridiculous farce ever created.
But it came from a catholic, so what do you expect. I think they’re all nuts.
I realize they all have the same starting place, but according to Christians, God just up and changed his mind about everything with Jesus. By rights, God WAS brutal in the old testament. If you choose to believe in the bible.
IF you do choose to believe in the bible, really Muslims are much more like those in the days that the bible was written. So are they closer to the real God? Gee, I’d hope not.
Jesus was very liberal, he changed the idea of what God was about. I don’t think he was the son of God, but he had fantastic ideas about how the world should be.
This is the very basis for why I don’t believe in the whole Bible/Christianity/Religion thing.
Capn A- which is why most of the name Jehovah was taken out of the most popular bibles…right?
Certainly, Jesus himself prayed to the One God when he quoted Psalm 22 on the Cross “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabach-thani?”
Hebrew-Aramaic “El” is similar to Arabic “ilah.” Al ilah = The God.
Jehovah is an incorrect Christian translation of Yahweh.
P_Mom–
Yup, that’s my understanding too.
Jehovah is just a Greek-Latin pronunciation (probably mis-proununciation) of YHVH.
Interestingly enough, the name Jesus is also an incorrect translation from the ancient Aramaic language. Properly, it should be Joshua. Jesus/Joshua also wasn’t born in Bethlehem, or he would have been known as Jesus of Bethlehem.
It’s funny that all of the translations of the Bible have left us with a great number of distortions.
political_mom,
Yes, you’re right. Jesus was not a typical Jew. Pharisaic Judaism predominant in Jerusalem at the temple stressed purity, cleanliness, exclusivity, and a picture of God as judgmental and stern, to say the least.
Jesus was brought up near Nazareth and Capernaum where pharisaic customs were much weaker. He did a lot of meditating and developed a picture of God as a loving father. And just like a father, he saw God as wanting the best for his children, even when they were “prodigal”. His later views were somewhat radicalized by his association with John the baptist, who really had a conception of God as stern and wrathful.
In any event, it apeears that Jesus only ever referred to himself as “Son of Man” – from the OT prophetic books – and ambiguous at best. His disciples began to call him the Messiah, which, unfortunately, he didn’t dissuade them from doing. They then modified the whole course of his life history to make it agree with the OT prophecies about the Messiah. Only several decades later did Jesus start to become identifies as God incarnate.
You can’t blame the Catholics for the Trinity though. At the time of the development of this doctrine, there was only one church – the Christian church. Many Protestant denominations still keep the doctrine of the Trinity, as attested to by Nathan’s post above.
Lots of “liberal” Christian churches are reformulating their thoughts on who Jesus was. Have you ever read Marcus Borg? I’d highly recommend him.
WSClark,
Sorry I missed your post before I posted mine. Seems I kind of repeated you. Sorry.
Not a problem, BFAH, I appreciate your posts – well thought out stuff.
Just as Dios is Spanish for God so Allah is Arabic for God. It is my understanding that the Priests in the Christian churches in Bethlehem pray to Allah.
Also, Jusus and Mary are both mentioned on the Quran; Jesus as one of the line of Prophets leading up to the final Prophet. Muhammed.
I have seen a lot of comment about the fact that Muslims do not eat pork and eat a lot of lamb. So do Jews; pork is prohibited in the Old Testamant. Lamb is common among all religious groups in the Middle East; I have often had lamb (along with other traditional itmes) at a Seder supper.
One of the ancient names for God in Hebrew was “El”….lots of things were dedicated to him, as indicated by “el” at the end: Isra-EL, Dani-EL, Micha-EL, Rapha-EL, Samu-EL, etc. Since Arabic and Hebrew are both Semitic languages, they have a lot in common…EL becomes ALLAH in Arabic. Many Christian churches in the Middle East use Arabic as the language of the liturgy…like the Maronites and Melkites of Lebanon and Syria. So, when they use the word “Allah” for God, they are not specifically referring to the Islamic “God” so to speak.
In fact the sign of the cross in Arabic is:
Ismal Ab, wul Ibn, waroo Idoos, Amen.
Ab = Abba = fatherIbn = Son, etc.
I might add that Arabic and Hebrew are similar languages. the sad irony here is just how similar these Abrhamaics are.
Interetingly, on tiahrts straw poll the other night, the votes on whether the U.S. should set a withdraw date, the figures were reversed. But then again, we’re talking about Kansans voting it tiahrts poll!I can see why they don’t want to set a ’surrrender date’, as at the signing ceremony, we have no idea who the co-signatories would be; Shiites;Sunnis, or Al-Quida. Would we have to meet with all three simultaneously? Or would that turn in to a blood bath. No Surrender Date!
I have no argument that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all share the same history to a point.
However, that doesn’t disprove that Christians worship Christ while Jews and Muslims do not.
We simply do no worship the same God when Christians believe Jesus to be God.
WS Clark,
Where are you getting your information on the translation of the name Jesus from?
What is the point in discussing anything with you, Nathan?
According to you, anyone that disagrees with you is a dupe, a liar or a traitor.
My source is a scholarly analysis of the Bible by a CHRISTIAN theologian.
But what is your point – you are just going to blow some more smoke as to how you are a better person because you are such a good Christian and you are Holier-Than-Anyone else and anyone that denies your supreme claim to the understanding of the Bible is a pagan that will surely rot in Hell.
Right?
So what is the point of discussing it with you?
WS Clark,
Are you back to playing the victim on being called a traitor again?
I have never said I was a better person than anyone. I don’t recall ever saying that on this blog ever.
When I see people saying something about Christianity which is contrary to it, I like to interject.
It has nothing to do with being better than anyone or being holier.
You were trying to imply that Christians, Muslims, and Jews all worship the same God.
Which is simply not true. You could go into any Christian church in this town and I bet you over 80 percent of the people you ask would tell you that.
I give you 20 percent because quite frankly there are many Christians who don’t study all that much.
I walked away from Christianity twenty years ago because of people like you, Nathan, and I will be god damned if I am going to put up with your insults and condescending attitude on this subject.
Look it up for yourself, god damn it.
Suddenly the thread has turned to and away from religious studies. :D
“You were trying to imply that Christians, Muslims, and Jews all worship the same God.”
Bullshit. That is absolute bullshit and furthermore, you know it.
The origins of all THREE monotheistic religions originating in the Middle East is the God of Abraham.
God damn it, you know EXACTLY what I was saying, but you have to pull your smug little Republican “I know better” bullshit.
As I said, it is people JUST LIKE YOU, that made me walk away from Christianity.
You right wing holier-than-thou types have destroyed Christianity for many people. You are not what Jesus was about. You are not what Christianity is about. You disgrace Christianity. You bastardize Christianity. You and your ilk have destroyed Christianity.
You make me sick.
Go to Hell, Republican.
WS Clark,
A person or people shouldn’t drive you away from Christ.
Being a Christian is about following Christ, not liking his followers.
If you truly loved and worshiped Christ why would someone like me be able to drive you away?
You said in your post earlier:
“For those that have not done any research on Islam, the Muslims worship the God of Abraham, the same one that it worshipped by Jews and Christians.
They merely see the prophets differently.”
If you didn’t mean to say that we all worship the same God, then simply say so. Your post following mine didn’t make it much clearer that you didn’t think or were trying to say otherwise.
No need to get all upset and start the name calling.
The Holy Trinity may date back to the pagans, who believed the Goddess was three-in-one, so to speak, much like Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Maiden, Mother, and Crone are the three stages of womanhood.
Nathan,
Your theology is pretty simple-minded. Let me quote to you from the catechism of the Roman catholic Church. I’m not Catholic and I’m sure you’re not….but these guys have had about 2,000 years to think about the issue.
43 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.”332
844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:
Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333
845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son’s Church. the Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. the Church is “the world reconciled.” She is that bark which “in the full sail of the Lord’s cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world.” According to another image dear to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah’s ark, which alone saves from the flood.334
“Outside the Church there is no salvation”
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”338
“No need to get all upset and start the name calling.”
On your very first post of WV Blog, in almost the first sentence, you called Linda Inks a dupe, implying that she could not think for herself.
Now you want to claim purity when it comes to the blog? No name calling?
You first. Heal yourself before you direct another to the doctor.
“Being a Christian is about following Christ, not liking his followers.”
I would be disgusted to have to call myself a member of the same religion as you and your ilk. I would rather be a pagan and burn in Hell than to be associated with a religion that you, and the likes of you, follow.
You are all about hatred and insults. You are all about demeaning your fellow man. You are all about deciding what rules who should follow. You are all about being better than everyone else because you CLAIM to be the one true follower of Christ.
You have turned Jesus’ love into hatred for your fellow man.
You make me want to puke.
WS Clark,
Did I miss something?
We have long moved on from the instantspot happenings and you are acting like I just ran over your dog on purpose.
I did not claim purity.
So far it is you who is continuing on the insult meltdown.
Typical, altough it had been awhile since I have seen you do this. I was hoping you had gotten better. I guess not.
Do you act like this and say these things in front of your Grand Daughter?
BFAH,
Simple-minded. A bit harsh I think.
Well of course you do…you’re judging yourself by you own standards. We all do it. The trick is to be able to step out of yourself and see how others view you. Do you notice that a lot of people find you vexing, obtuse, and maybe a little too far out in right field? Again, we all have a tendency to ignore the feedback…but it’s worth at least a little self-reflection on why you generate the responses you do.
Oh well….
My granddaughter is absolutely none of your business, Nathan.
None. You are not even worthy of mentioning her name. Do not bring her or my grandson up again. They are not your concern. I am sure that they would hate you as I do if they ever came within ten feet of you.
Aside from that, you know damned well that you claim the “Holier Than Thou” mantle and you do it every day.
You disgrace Christianity. You disgrace the teachings of Christ. You disgrace the meaning of the Sermon on the Mount and Beatitudes.
You disgrace what was once a great spiritual source of inspiration.
You disgrace it because YOUR faith is rooted in hate and condescension.
That was not what Jesus was about.
You know that, but you pretend to be a follower because it gives you false grounds for your discrimination. You are nothing more than a snake handler.
You would not know the log in your own eye if it was the size of a Sequoia.
You make me sick.
Way to go Fitz., Libby deserves at least three years, with a little luck, he might do 2, until his pardon comes down. Give him a little time to reflect on whether holding his tongue is worth it.Prosecutor asks up to 3 years in jail for Libby By Will DunhamFri May 25, 6:34 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney’s unremorseful former top aide should be sentenced to 2 1/2 to 3 years in prison for perjury and obstruction of justice in a case linked to the Bush administration’s handling of the Iraq war, the special prosecutor in the case said on Friday.
ADVERTISEMENTLewis “Scooter” Libby, Cheney’s former chief of staff, was convicted in March on four of five counts in the investigation into who blew the cover of CIA analyst Valerie Plame, whose husband was an outspoken Iraq war critic.
“Mr. Libby, a high-ranking public official and experienced lawyer, lied repeatedly and blatantly about matters at the heart of a criminal investigation concerning the disclosure of a covert intelligence officer’s identity,” Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wrote in court documents.
“He has expressed no remorse, no acceptance of responsibility, and no recognition that there is anything he should have done differently — either with respect to his false statements and testimony, or his role in providing reporters with classified information about Ms. Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA,” Fitzgerald added.
The Libby charges grew out of an investigation into the leak of Plame’s identity in 2003 after her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the administration of manipulating intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to build its case for war.
Fitzgerald also rejected arguments by Libby’s supporters that the case was based on politics.
Fitzgerald asked U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton to send Libby to prison for between 30 and 37 months. Sentencing is due on June 5.
‘TELL THE TRUTH’
“Mr. Libby’s prosecution was based not upon politics but upon his own conduct,” Fitzgerald added, “as well as upon a principle fundamental to preserving our judicial system’s independence from politics: that any witness, whatever his political affiliation, whatever his views on any policy or national issue, whether he works in the White House or drives a truck to earn a living, must tell the truth when he raises his hand and takes an oath in a judicial proceeding, or gives a statement to federal law enforcement officers.”
No charges have been brought against anyone for the actual leaks to journalists about Plame. Federal law makes it a crime to knowingly reveal the identity of a covert agent.
Critics of President George W. Bush have seized on the Libby conviction as illustrating heavy-handed White House tactics to blunt a war critic, and accused the administration of hypocrisy over its promises of clean government.
The conviction was one of a series of setbacks for Bush’s war policies, including flawed intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, failing to anticipate and then contain an insurgency and sectarian violence, detainee abuse, and substandard treatment of some U.S. troops wounded in combat.
(Additional reporting by James Vicini)
:D
Go to Hell, Republican.
WS Clark,
Would you say that in front of your Granddaughter?
As I said, Nathan, my granddaughter is none of your business. She adores me and I am sure she would absolutely hate a hypocrite like you if her mother would allow her within a hundred feet of you.
You might think that you are being really witty bringing up my granddaughter, but there is no doubt in my mind that she would be as disgusted with you as I am.
Contrary to your self imagine as some sort of wonderful human being, Nathan, there is a large portion of the human race than finds you absolutely disgusting and wants nothing to do with you.
You might think that I am joking, but you make people sick.
I know that I would rather listen to endless hours of fingernails on chalkboards in stereo before I would agree to spend a minute with you.
That is how sick you make me.
:D
WS Clark,
Would your granddaughter adore you if you acted like you do on this blog in front of her?
That is the most intelligent thing you have said in months, Republican.
But go to Hell anyway.
As I said, Nathan, my granddaughter adores me and she is off limits to you.
Your fascination with her is bordering on perversion, boy.
You need to back off before you get into trouble.
Apparently Nathan, you do not recognize that there are appropriate times for children to be present and time that they should not be viewing what is going on.
For instance, I do not think that it would be appropriate if my granddaughter was present while I was engaged in sexual activities with my girlfriend.
It would be appropriate if my granddaughter helped me cook dinner tomorrow.
It would be appropriate if my granddaughter helped me paint her new bedroom.
It would not be appropriate if she watched the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan with me.
I hate to break this to you, but there are thing that are appropriate for adults and things that are appropriate for children.
Some of us know the difference.
For example, when I tell Republican to go to Hell, it does not involve my granddaughter.
When I say that you are a flaming hypocrite, it does not involve my granddaughter.
Easy for an adult to understand, Nathan. You should try it some time.
Being an adult, that is.
Okay, let’s drop the familial topics and just cut to the chase.
Sure, the 3 Big religions can all claim the same God – but that was very early on – and the differences since the split(s) – are astronomical.
I, like WS, left Christianity long ago – and for many years I was angry because I felt ‘duped.’
But I think we all need to get past that to see what large-scale effect today’s religions have on society in general.
There is no denying that Christianity has some pretty dark roots, but for the last couple hundred years, has moved into a much more ‘enlightened’ phase. This phase has brought freedom to former slaves, charity to the down-trodden, care for the fatherless and widows. It has brought us laws that have elevated humanity.
Yes, there have been those, like Hitler, who abused the story of Christ – who used only the negative words – and discarded the ones he did not want to abide by.
What PM and Capn try to do – to denounce Christianity because they don’t accept the doctrine of the triune God is like comparing apples and oranges. It’s a small thing – insignificant in the big picture. As long as they believe Jesus existed in ANY form, they are still Christians when it comes to differentiating between religions.
Islam has some good tenets, but it has not moved into a humane treatment of its members IN SPITE OF those tenets.
While the Old Testament tells us not to ’suffer a witch to live,’ we no longer take out those we suspect and burn them. In fact, our military recently began to allow pagan insignia on tombstones.
Contrast that with public ‘death contracts’ put out for those who speak out against Islam and you begin to see the problem.
Muslims are not bad people. But their religion is way behind Christianity, Buddhism, and some others, in terms of humane progress.
Hey – where’s the Open Thread this morning?
The bottom line here is – the Muslim mindset is not changing quickly enough for us to expect they will move into the 21st century if we will just leave them alone. They won’t. They have shown they view the progressives who do not adhere to their religious fervor – as infidels. And in current Muslim thought – infidels are good for only one thing – sending to their maker.
Of course this war is about oil. But not because we want to steal it and put it in our SUV’s. Because we cannot allow the oil to fall under the control of the very people who have sworn to annihilate the free world. That is akin to handing Al Qaeda a blank check to purchase their weapons.
If we leave Iraq before we counter the insurgency – we will be back.
And when we go back the battle of today will seem like child’s play compared to the massive war we will need to fight.
A showdown between Islam and the free world is coming. We ARE going to fight it.
The only question remaining is whether we will do it as we are now – or if it will be a nuclear event.
What we choose now – will determine that.
Choose wisely. Your children’s future is in the balance.
“We cannot leave Iraq
Why not? Oh you mean we can’t leave because of the oil. ”
Anybody that is HONEST abouyt this will tell you that oil is a large part of the whole middle east thing. If there was not any oil there, we would probably regard the middle east much as we do Africa- only intervening in the most dire of human castastrophies. But oil is very important to our economy and to the world economy and we have to keep it flowing.
GS,”we cannot allow the oil to fall under the control of the very people who have sworn to annihilate the free world.”
“A showdown between Islam and the free world is coming. We ARE going to fight it.”
Right and right! Oil is a strategic commodity and we can’t allow Islamic radicals to control it. If that happened we’d have 2 choices; either go back and take control of it, or watch our society crumble.
Islam is diametrically opposed to Christianity and our western way of life. Islam is NOT a religion of peace. they’re not going to peacefully co-exist with us; they consider us a threat, and rightly so.
The “War” is not what I have a problem with. It’s the way it was sold and the way it’s been mismanaged.
I still say the nuclear option should be considered. A few tactical weapons would end the war and show them we mean business. Use a small device in Anbar province to show them we mean business. Then issue an ultimatum.
In answer to the next terrorist attack, we vaporize Medina. If there’s another terrorist attack after that, we leave Mecca a smoking glowing hole in the sand.
But that’s just my opinion.
XXX,You really want to provoke a nuclear exchange between christianity and Islam? Remembering, of course that there are more of them than of you, and they have control of enough of the world’s petroleum to bring this country to economic ruin in a matter of weeks?
I saw on the news that Sadr has political control of the shiite population and is reaching out to the Sunnis. As soon as we leave, and there’s no way we can sustain there indefinitely, Iraq will ally with Iran. This is what Bush policy has wrought!
I’m aghast that people honestly believe that resources of distant nations are America’s by right or might. Nuking Mecca and Medina for oil?
XXX, you’re kidding, right? Or would you seriously murder five million people (the combined populations) with blast and fallout and the subsequent starvation and disease, just so you can buy $3 or $2 or $5 or whatever gasoline?
I’m appalled. I’m disgusted. How is it that seemingly rational people can be so overwhelmingly murderous over what is ultimately a trivial issue? How can you advocate a crime on the scale of the Holocaust?
Anyone who advocates nuclear war for anything other than the most final and extreme defense of this nation is, quite frankly, evil. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Jed,”You really want to provoke a nuclear exchange between christianity and Islam?”
I don’t think it would be much of an exchange. And I’m not advocating planet killers, just the small stuff. We wouldn’t want to mess up the oil fields to the point we couldn’t go into them.
I’m not aware of any nation in the middle east besides Israel that has nuclear arms. Who’s going to step in? China?
And Tom,”XXX, you’re kidding, right? Or would you seriously murder five million people (the combined populations) with blast and fallout and the subsequent starvation and disease, just so you can buy $3 or $2 or $5 or whatever gasoline?”
Show me where I said that. What I said was:”In answer to the next terrorist attack, we vaporize Medina. If there’s another terrorist attack after that, we leave Mecca a smoking glowing hole in the sand.”
You miss the part about “In answer to the next terrorist attack”, huh?
Let’s do real SHOCK AND AWE.
XXX,
So, after the next abortion clinic bombing or doctor/staff murder, let’s nuke Falwell’s Liberty University, or perhaps the hometown of the bomber. Eric Robert Rudolph was born in Merrit Island, FL – so let’s nuke NASA.
You’re insane.
“Or would you seriously murder five million people (the combined populations) with blast and fallout and the subsequent starvation and disease, just so you can buy $3 or $2 or $5 or whatever gasoline?”————–
I think you’ve missed the point here. We don’t NEED the oil, per se, we NEED to keep the billions of dollars it will generate OUT OF TERRORIST hands.
It’s really that simple.
Wasn’t that the basis of the failed Oil for Food United Nations Program? To keep Saddam from using the oil proceeds to make good on his promise to attack the West?
XXX brings up a valuable point. A couple of well-placed big bombs and this entire fiasco could be over – just that quickly.
Looking back on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that’s just what happened.
Tom – we can continue in a long-term, dragged-out war and will there really be any less people killed?
XXX was correct. The war HAS been mismanaged. We should have gone in with a big show of force and not allowed the dissent to rise as it has now.
But, Tom, until we draw a line in the sand (no pun intended,) this will drag on for years and years, all the while our own nation is divided.
This is a battle that we have no option but to fight.
If not now – then later.
“So, after the next abortion clinic bombing or doctor/staff murder, let’s nuke Falwell’s Liberty University, or perhaps the hometown of the bomber. Eric Robert Rudolph was born in Merrit Island, FL – so let’s nuke NASA.”————–
Those are not even close as analogies.
The laws, alone, in our nation will seek out and punish those who commit this violence.
How can you compare that to terrorist groups that PAY the families of suicide bombers for killing innocents?
Can you not see the difference?
Because your inability to see it – is what is causing our lack of resolve in this war.
Tracy had this on his blog. Just for literalists like nathan.
Bible verses that even fundamentalists don’t take literally…Here are some verses which come directly from the Bible that even fundamentalists do not take literally for today, proving that they selectively pick and choose verses out of context which justify their pre-existing prejudice against gay and lesbian people.
Take a look for yourself…
“Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says.” (1 Corinthians 14:34)This verse says that women can’t speak in church. Period. It is completely ignored today. Applying this verse to the modern day church would be ancient, absurd and nonsensical.When it comes to the verses about homosexuality, however, fundamentalists suddenly insist that they must be interpreted literally, word for word!When it comes to this verse, however, they admit the facts. They acknowledge that it was only meant for that day.
The truth is that the Apostle Paul wrote this verse because, during his time, women and men sat on opposite sides of the church aisle. Women would yell questions across the aisle to their husbands, causing a disruption of the service.
It would be all too easy for a fundamentalist who disliked women to use this verse to exclude women from participating in the service, just as fundamentalists who dislike gay people currently misuse those seemingly anti-gay scriptures to exclude people who are gay.Realizing that a particular scripture was only relevant for its time (and should not be applied literally to our modern day) is an interpretational option that is conveniently ignored when it comes to the verses which discuss homosexuality.”Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her as a covering.” (1 Corinthians 11:13-15)Upon visiting any fundamentalist church, you will discover that more than a few women have short haircuts. This verse, however, indicates that women should have long hair, as their “head must be covered.”It has a familiar ring to it, doesn’t it? Arab fundamentalists require women to put a veil over their heads and punish them if they do not. The fact of the matter is that the length of your hair has nothing to do with your spiritual condition.”If any man takes a wife, and goes in on her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin…” (Deuteronomy 22:13,14)”But if … evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones…” (Deuteronomy 22:20,21)If a man discovers that a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night, all the men in town can murder her by flinging stones at her young female body as she screams in pain.Is this the word of God? Hardly.The command to stone to death a young girl who is not proven to be a virgin on her wedding night is simply an ugly man-made rule of murder that found its way into the Biblical text.WHY are fundamentalists so afraid to admit the obvious, that such verses like the one listed above are simply not the Word of God? How mature is one’s faith if one cannot even admit that a verse which commands that young girls be stoned to death isn’t the Word of God?Here are the facts . . .The belief in Biblical times was that if a woman was indeed a virgin, she would bleed on her wedding night because her first sexual intercourse would result in the breaking of the hymen, the thin tissue that covers the vagina. This blood was considered the “evidence” of her virginity that the scripture speaks of.Medical science has since discovered that the hymen is often already broken in many young girls because of their participation in athletic sports and things like horseback riding.
Quite tragically, this indicates that many girls who actually were virgins on their wedding night were nonetheless stoned to death because they were ignorant of this scientific fact. Little did many young girls in Biblical times know that their wedding nights would end in their own murder.”If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched.” (Mark 9:43)While fundamentalists insist (due to their pre-existing bigotry) that all seemingly anti-gay scriptures be taken literally, without exception, they admit that the above verse was not meant to be taken literally even though the words above were spoken by Jesus Himself.This proves that fundamentalists are willing to say that certain scriptures weren’t meant to be believed literally, even those which contain the actual words of Jesus Christ!”One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the congregation of the Lord.” (Deuteronomy 23:2)If you were born to an unwed mother, the Bible says that you shouldn’t be allowed in church.
Do “Bible-believing” fundamentalists follow this rule? Nope. They acknowledge that this verse was meant for a different time.Yes, even fundamentalists acknowledge that certain scriptures were only meant to be applied to the particular time and place in which they were written.When it comes to those scripture verses which seem to speak against homosexuality, however, they suddenly and indignantly demand that every word be followed to the letter and applied to our modern day!
The idea of refusing membership in the church to a child born to an unwed mother is seen as being unreasonable today, even though the scripture instructs it. The idea of quoting scripture to abuse people who are gay and lesbian is just as unreasonable and antiquated.”Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ.” (Ephesians 6:5)”Slaves, obey your human masters in everything; don’t work only while being watched, in order to please men, but work wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord.” (Colossians 3:22)”Slaves are to be submissive to their masters in everything, and to be well-pleasing, not talking back .” (Titus 2:9)”Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel. ” (1 Peter 2:18)Slaves should obey their masters? Hardly. Slavery was one of the most offensive institutions to ever befall humanity. Sadly, the scriptures condoned it, and, as you can see from the above verses, demanded that slaves obey their masters…even cruel ones.
Are those verses the “Word of God?” Of course not. They are merely reflective of cultural biases which found their way into the Biblical text.”So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avengeditself its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stoppedin the middle of the sky and delayed going down for about a full day.” (Joshua 10:13 NIV)
The great astronomer Galileo was jailed by religious authorities when he asserted that the Earth revolved around the sun, and not the other way around, as the above verse suggests. If the Bible were the “inerrant, literal Word of God,” as people like Jerry Falwell claim, surely God would have known that it was the Earth, and not the sun which had stopped.In February of 1616, religious authorities asked a commission of theologians, known as the Qualifiers, about Galileo’s claim that the Sun is at the center of the planets’ motions and does not move, and that the Earth is not at the center and does move.On February 24, 1616, the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the idea that the Sun is stationary is “foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts many places the sense of Holy Scripture…”.ConclusionWhen it comes to the scriptural verses which seem to be against homosexuality, fundamentalists boldly declare their belief in the “infallible, inerrant Word of God”, demanding that every single word be taken literally, without exception.
But when it comes to the awkward verses listed above, they become much less sure of themselves. So much less sure, in fact, that they don’t follow what their own Bible says.”Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”(Matthew 22:37-40)
KFG — AMEN!!!
KFG,
“Bible verses that even fundamentalists don’t take literally…”
First of all, your definition of literally and that of Christians who interpret the Bible literally is completely different.
When we say we take the Bible literally that doesn’t mean we ignore context or the Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How of Bible Verses.
When we say we take the Bible literally we mean that what the Bible says is the inerrant word of God.
Of course, those who wish only to discredit the Bible or attack those whom they disagree with will dig up some verse where it is obviously a parable to say:
“look they don’t really take it literally!”
That is the most absurd way of trying to discuss the Bible with any form of intelligence. Which is about all you did KFG.
The Bible is a collection of over 66 books written by 40 authors over 1500 years.
Each chapter, book, verse has a specific story to tell.
They were written at different times within different contexts.
To study the Bible you must look at the context, who the author was, just like you would any other historic text.
There are many significant things which KFG completely glosses over when you start jumping from New Testament to Old Testament, like our relationship with God, when seh tries to quote verses from both in making one point.
ksfarmgrrl
The world is flat and has four corners, like Nathan’s head.
So lets break this down point by point:
“Here are some verses which come directly from the Bible that even fundamentalists do not take literally for today, proving that they selectively pick and choose verses out of context which justify their pre-existing prejudice against gay and lesbian people.”
Well, here KFG reveals her true intentions.
This is not about taking verses literally or not.
This is not about selectively choosing which verses to follow or not.
This is not about taking verses out of context.
This is about homosexuality as KFG reveals in the last part of her claim:
“…their pre-existing prejudice against gay and lesbian people.”
So right there, KFG really only had one agenda here. That was to discredit the Bible because she disagrees with what it says about homosexuality.
Instead of discussing the actual verses which deal with the subject of homosexuality she chooses instead to take the indirect route of attacking the Bible in whole or those who interpret it “literally.”
Why is that?
Could it be because it is hard to refute the simplist of language which clearly says:
1 Corinthians 6:8-10
8 Instead, you yourselves cheat and do wrong, and you do this to your brothers.
9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
This has nothing to do with a preconcieved prejudice.
“10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
Well, that lets out “you know who.”
“When we say we take the Bible literally that doesn’t mean we ignore context or the Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How of Bible Verses.”
No, oh hell no, of course you dont.
Just when it concerns gay people.
And Nathan, I didnt write it, just my intro about getting it from Tracy’s blog. So it is NOT only my agenda.
And I believe I posted things christians are hypocritical about OTHER than gay people. But I noticed you only focused on the gay parts.
And what a HUGE surprise that you say “CONTEXT! CONTEXT!” Except the verses concerning gay folks.
Nathan, I think you say more about YOUR dominionist agenda than anything else.
I just love christians who take the bible literally. Except when they dont….
The stance Christians take regarding Homosexuality as sin is based on more than the verses which directly say it is wrong.
The Bible holds a consistent theme of Man and Woman being created for one another.
This begins with the creation of man and woman and hwo God describes their complimetnary nature.
Throughout the Bible man and womans relationship is discussed and Gods intention for man and woman to become one flesh is evident.
We were designed by God and intended by God to be Man and Woman not Man and Man and Woman and Woman.
It is contradictory by not only Natures design but Gods as well.
The actual verses which throughtout the Bible paint the picture of Homosexuality being a sin only further bring the picture together.
This is not some simple cherry picking that Christians do to satisfy their “preconcieved” notion of hating homosexuals.
Actually, we don’t hate them at all.
KFG and many others simply love to say that we hate them because we refer to their lifestyle as sin or don’t support a state sanctioning of their life style.
That is the equivalent of saying a parent hates their child because they spank them when they do something wrong.
It is out of love we preach the truth of the Bible because we see someone in a life of sin.
homosexuals are welcome in our churches and we do not preach hate towards them.
Of course this doesn’t stop KFG and others from their cries of how much we hate homosexuals when that is a complete lie.
Just keep posting on the subject nathan. That’s the best arguement against you. Your own words and attitudes.
“Jesus, save me from your followers”.
And spare me your “love” and your condemnation of my sin.
Look to your own lives first. Now go run and play nathan. I’m sure terry fox and phred phelps need you for something…
KFG,
If your problem is with the way Christians interpret the Bible concerning homosexuality then why do you not address those verses and doctrines directly?
Instead you keep going back to the claim of literalists not taking the entire Bible literally to try some roundabout way of discrediting them.
You are going at this backwards.
If you disagree with what the Bible says about homosexuality you should show us why you think the Bible is wrong.
Of course you don’t do this. You do your typical KFG mantra of
Obsucre and Obsfuscate
Anybody here have a real degree in Theology?? Or, read the Biblical languages of Greek or Hebrew??
KFG — You might find a few refreshing breezes on one of the following —
http://www.ucc.orgORhttp://www.uua.org
If I knew how to get hold of you, I could tell you a bit more than those two web sites as well…
Blah blah blah.
If it is true that we should “know them by their love”…
I aint seeing it. In any stripe.
Sorry Chas. I know you are trying to help, but I’m not playing Lucy and Charlie Brown with the football with christians anymore.
We do know you. By your actions, your words, and your deeds. Everytime nathan posts, he makes that point perfectly clear.
If he’s the example, I think I’ll just keep moving along.
And you know chas, that he is indeed the classic example of the toxicity of religion.
Sorry, not YOU chas, but you in the sense of christians. Exactly how many ways are there to interpret the actions and words of the christian taliban?
KFG — Unfortunately, Nathan’s type is SEEN as the “usual” type when it comes to Christians… SOME of us would like to take our religion BACK from those who choose to use it to “shut folks out” in those ways…
Unfortunately, not enough folks are listening to us anymore… Too many think Falwell is the typical example of “christian” leadership…
I see that – as you say – as a form of Christian Taliban… And I dont like it much…
“SOME of us would like to take our religion BACK from those who choose to use it to “shut folks out” in those ways…”—————-
Oh, give me a break?
Since WHEN was Christianity inclusive?
It’s become more and more liberal as the centuries passed – not less.
You haven’t cornered the market on morality anymore than the fundies have.
BTW – do either of the churches you cited believe in the Immaculate Conception?
Ummm I didnt know that the Immaculate Conception was a hot item any longer… But, no I dont believe either of them do…
And, by the way… You missed my point again, as USUAL… I was saying that SOME of us are doing our best to make the Church MORE open and MORE inclusive — not less… MORE liberal, not less… Get it???
However, I know some in both of those denominations who still have a faint remembrance of the Immaculate REception!!! LOL
Well, homosexuals fare better under current Christian beliefs than they would under Sharia Law, where they would receive fifty lashes, or left to starve…..
Of course, those radical Muslims punish adulterers (especially women) the same way.
But they get to have sex with prisoners and slaves. That’s okay. Probably figure they own them, or something.
Anyway, there is the story of Jonathon and David in the Old Testament that appears to be a gay love affair – and I don’t believe it was actually condemned in that text – but I could be wrong…no, when have I ever been wrong?
lol
Hmmm – I guess I thought some Congrgationalists still taught the I.C. Some leftover Roman Catholic hangup, or something.
But you DID say “take back.”
So I had to correct you.
I didn’t want you to say that in mixed company and get embarrassed. You can thank me later.
“the story of Jonathon and David in the Old Testament that appears to be a gay love affair -”
Yes, that argument is made by some, but normally not accepted by the fundamentalists or literalists…
Personally, I tend to feel it was a gay love affair…
However, GS, I was not referring explicitly to just gays/lesbians in the Church… The entire attitude of the Church needs to be more Open and Affirming of ALL people… no matter who they are, or where they are on their journey…
And, BTW, the Immaculate Conception is an old doctrine, basically Catholic/Orthodox, that has to do with a belief about the birth of Mary/Maria/Merriam, the mother of Jesus… My denomination has NEVER had a belief in that Doctrine… Nor do most protestants that I am aware of either…
And, BTW, there is NO biblical condemnation of Lot’s Daughters for their incestuos relationship with their drunken father after Sodom and Gomorrah either…
There are many such instances that would be soundly condemned by nearly ALL of Christianity today…
Farmie – I’m going to help you out here. If you want to argue against Christian dogma when it comes to homosexuality, you can effectively throw adultery up in their faces.
Adultery, like homosexuality, is one of those things the Bible calls immoral. Fundies like to say gays are going to hell, if they die before changing their ways. It’s that old ‘living in sin’ thingy. No time to repent… However, you can point out that adulterers who die ALSO without repenting their sin – are going to be in the hot place, too.
Doesn’t sound like much, but read Matthew, he explains that a person can get divorced BUT he CANNOT remarry. If he remarries – he is an ADULTERER.
That means anyone living in a second or third marriage is ‘living in sin.’
The churches (except some very strict ones) no longer teach that because over half their congregation would then be damned – and the money would stop flowing in.
Anyway – I think that’s a better argument.
Take it or leave it as you please.
GS — You are right… There arent too many denominations that ban members for being married following divorces… However, there are a number of clergy that I have encountered who will not perform a “wedding” for a couple where one or both have been divorced…
I have performed several marriages for folks who have run into that “problem” — Ironically, they can still JOIN those churches, and of course, TITHE to them… just not get married in them… Go figure!!
You all have a great holiday weekend!! and have FUN!!!
Chas, the only reason I asked is because an old friend who is a Congregationalist spouts the doctrine of Immaculate Conception. I know it’s the conception of Mary, not Jesus, but I wondered how it got in her church.
Besides Lot’s daughters, there are more incestuous relationships in the Bible and even polygamous ones.
What bothers me is that you can’t ignore the bad – and just keep the good.
The bad is there.
I’d just as soon discard all of it.
No one can convince me that Jesus was all-loving when He calls the Jews the children of the Devil, or where, in the lesser-known version of the Parable of Talents he proceeds (at the end) to tell his followers to bring the Jews (those who won’t allow Him to reign over them) to him – and slay them.
Doesn’t work for me.
I understand that Christianity is MUCH better than Islam – and I understand that most of its followers are good people, but I, personally opted out a long time ago.
I have a long history with Theology and those days I happily trample upon the memory of – and take off my shoes when I enter the abode.
Chas – you have a great weekend, too.
I just love the irony.
People who do not worship Jesus, do not follow Jesus, and do not think he is their savior sitting here telling me how I am the one perverting him and his message?
Wow…
GS — As for a Congregationalist Church even KNOWING about the Immaculate Conception is amazing… let alone anybody actually teaching it…
It is basically a rather obscure and ignorant doctrine, and was mostly used on ignorant populations…
“What bothers me is that you can’t ignore the bad – and just keep the good. The bad is there.”
Yes, GS, that is also true… I am not one who would advocate ignoring the bad… I prefer to use it as a teaching tool… to point out the dangers of blind acceptance of things like literalistic, and fundamentalistic interpretations of a very OLD book.
BTW, GS — The Parable of Talents, to which you make reference, is considered by most Biblical Scholars now days as a redactive insert later in the 1st or even early 2nd centuries… The textual critical points of the Greek text dont fit the rest of the “author’s” linguage usage.
Bush has cut an run plans on the drawing board. He plans on cutting the number of troops in Iraq when his party is running in the 08 elections! Nothing political about this war.
“No one can convince me that Jesus was all-loving when He calls the Jews the children of the Devil, or where, in the lesser-known version of the Parable of Talents he proceeds (at the end) to tell his followers to bring the Jews (those who won’t allow Him to reign over them) to him – and slay them”.
GS: I’m not sure where you are getting your scriptural interpretations. For instance you interpret the parable of the talents to refer to the Jews who won’t follow Jesus. That is erroneous. There is no evidence that that is the meaning of the parable. It is not Jesus speaking. It is the king, in the context of the parable.
And in regard to Jesus calling the Jews the “children of the devil”, you are going to have to show me that. Jesus was himself, of course, a Jew. Now he didn’t think much of the Pharisees ( who were, of course, Jews) and called them probably a lot worse. That is a far cry from your assertion.
So if you really have problems with those scriptures, they offend your sense of right and wrong, the scriptures are not the problem.
And GS. Where do you suppose your sense of right and wrong came from?
The Ten Commandments
I am the Lord your GodThou shalt have no other gods before meThou shalt not make for yourself an idolThou shalt not make wrongful use of the name of your GodRemember the Sabbath and keep it holyHonor Thy Mother and FatherThou shalt not murderThou shalt not commit adulteryThou shalt not stealThou shalt not bear false witnessThou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wifeThou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house.
All of these “commandments” are the same for virtually every religion, every society and every culture. They are by no means unique.
The point is, morality does not originate from Bible verses, it is present is every society in the same way.
WS: You get points deducted for going of topic. But you get them right back for quoting the Bible. The answer to my question is, of course, God.
How He chose to reveal Himself and His plan of salvation is another matter.