Christian "Love" - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 26, 2006

RE: Christian "Love"

Date: Jun 26, 2006

LVN wrote:

Atheist, you know I love you too. However, I think you've about beat this horse to death.

D*mn, LVN, you were the one I was trying to convert. Seriously, I understand, but I found the exchange with Stephen Judd very interesting and that was what extended this thread. There were still some question I hoped Stephen was going to address.

P.S. I hope your church situation is working out for you.

Date: Jun 28, 2006

An article in today's (6/28) NYTimes, "Anglican Plan Threatens Split on Gay Issues" by Laurie Goodstein and Neela Banerjee, does a pretty good job of explaining the repercussions of last week's US Episcopal Church National Convention decisions on the worldwide Anglican Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury suggests a two-tiered relationship with the global church: those in covenant, called "constituent churches" and those non-voting, called "association churches". Unlike the Roman Catholic Pope, the Bishop of Canterbury does not "dictate policy" and this proposal is not set in stone.

I reference the article only because there is much discussion on this issue upthread.

Date: Jun 28, 2006

Early morning reader wrote:

An article in today's (6/28) NYTimes, "Anglican Plan Threatens Split on Gay Issues" by Laurie Goodstein and Neela Banerjee, does a pretty good job of explaining the repercussions of last week's US Episcopal Church National Convention decisions on the worldwide Anglican Communion. The Archbishop of Canterbury suggests a two-tiered relationship with the global church: those in covenant, called "constituent churches" and those non-voting, called "association churches". Unlike the Roman Catholic Pope, the Bishop of Canterbury does not "dictate policy" and this proposal is not set in stone. I reference the article only because there is much discussion on this issue upthread.

Thanks for the "heads up", Early Morning reader. This is what LVN and others were discussing.

NYTimes--Anglican Plan Threatens Split on Gay Issues

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN and NEELA BANERJEE
Published: June 28, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/us/28episcopal.html?hp&ex=1151553600&en=c430e21d859b78d0&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Date: Jun 28, 2006

LVN, Stephen and others:

I don’t want to “beat a dead horse”, as LVN complained earlier, but I have a serious question about the Episcopal Church’s break up. AFAIK, for centuries the Christian Churches considered homosexuality wrong because the Bible said it was an “abomination”. Now in the pass few years (20-30 years?) this interpretation of the Bible has changed for some. From where did this new information come? I know that in the past interpretations of some parts of the Bible changed from literal to metaphorical after scientific knowledge showed logical contradictions. Has scientific knowledge about homosexuality caused this change also? If so, how do theist resolve this with their belief that the Bible is the “word” of a perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing, being. How do theist justify changes in Biblical interpretation without contradicting their belief in the “perfect source”? (The same questions apply to the position of the Church concerning slavery over 2000 years.) Thanks for any information/opinions you can provide on these questions.

p.s. For the record, I have no interest in what consenting adults do in their bedrooms.

Date: Jun 28, 2006

Atheist, I'm just popping in for a moment as I'm dealing with some family illness today. I really don't want to get into this discussion. I'll just repeat that there are many problems in the Episcopal church that have been a long time coming, and some of them have more to do with the WAY things are being done. Interested readers could also reference the Timesonline.uk's religion writer, Ruth Gledhill for a C of E perspective (that's the Times of London.) I also read a blog called titusonenine which is maintained by the Rev. Kendall Harmon, the Canon Theologian of the Diocese of S. Carolina (please bear with me on all this spelling of people's names, I'm writing from memory.) Canon Harmon maintains his own position, but does a good job of posting opposing points of view. The entire text of the ABof Canterbury's message is there.
I do believe a split is coming.

Date: Jun 28, 2006

LVN wrote:

Atheist, I'm just popping in for a moment as I'm dealing with some family illness today. I really don't want to get into this discussion. I'll just repeat that there are many problems in the Episcopal church that have been a long time coming, and some of them have more to do with the WAY things are being done. Interested readers could also reference the Timesonline.uk's religion writer, Ruth Gledhill for a C of E perspective (that's the Times of London.) I also read a blog called titusonenine which is maintained by the Rev. Kendall Harmon, the Canon Theologian of the Diocese of S. Carolina (please bear with me on all this spelling of people's names, I'm writing from memory.) Canon Harmon maintains his own position, but does a good job of posting opposing points of view. The entire text of the ABof Canterbury's message is there. I do believe a split is coming.

I hope your "family illness" isn't serious, LVN. Thanks for the info. I will Google Rev. Harmon and see if any of my questions are discussed.

Date: Jun 29, 2006

H.A. Letter--Marriage debate misses mark

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060629/OPINION03/606290318/1014/OPINION

"But in most of the world's cultures marriage is a legal arrangement not a religious requirement. It is a process to establish property rights and the legal responsibilities of the participants. Sex is a secondary consideration primarily to legitimize offspring and property inheritance.

...Marriage only became a religious issue when the "church" established it as a sacrament."

Date: Jun 29, 2006

Atheist wrote:

. . . AFAIK, for centuries the Christian Churches considered homosexuality wrong because the Bible said it was an “abomination”. . . . If so, how do theist resolve this with their belief that the Bible is the “word” of a perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing, being. How do theist justify changes in Biblical interpretation without contradicting their belief in the “perfect source”? . . .

In an interview (on PBS's Faith and Reason) last Friday night, Salmon Rushdie opined that some atheists spend more time thinking about god than do most believers. He joked about the epitath that read: Thank God, I died an atheist.

People who genuinely consider themselves followers of the Christ have never adhered to a single opinion on anything. Ever. Anything. If you doubt it, go here: Marcion

As far as the "abomination" theory, that's only a rationale for folks who want to use it. See: God Hates Shrimp

Theists are people who believe in some sort of god, not necessarily the one that is reported in Jewish or Christian scripture. Many of the so-called "founding fathers" were not Christians in the sense we typically use the word, but rather were theists who simply believed in some disembodied prime mover who set the universe in motion then more or less abandoned it to run its course.

Similarly, Muslims, Hindus, and countless others would be theists, but would not define "the word" as you have used it. (For that matter, neither would Christians who are familiar with the etymology of "logos"). I think it would only be certain fundamentalist Christians who would hold the views to which you refer. My guess is that very few of them would have changed their opinion regarding homosexuality as "an abomination," but I'll happily let them explain their own belief in that regard.

Date: Jun 29, 2006

ram wrote:

In an interview (on PBS's Faith and Reason) last Friday night, Salmon Rushdie opined that some atheists spend more time thinking about god than do most believers. He joked about the epitath that read: Thank God, I died an atheist. People who genuinely consider themselves followers of the Christ have never adhered to a single opinion on anything. Ever. Anything. If you doubt it, go here: Marcion As far as the "abomination" theory, that's only a rationale for folks who want to use it. See: God Hates Shrimp Theists are people who believe in some sort of god, not necessarily the one that is reported in Jewish or Christian scripture. Many of the so-called "founding fathers" were not Christians in the sense we typically use the word, but rather were theists who simply believed in some disembodied prime mover who set the universe in motion then more or less abandoned it to run its course. Similarly, Muslims, Hindus, and countless others would be theists, but would not define "the word" as you have used it. (For that matter, neither would Christians who are familiar with the etymology of "logos"). I think it would only be certain fundamentalist Christians who would hold the views to which you refer. My guess is that very few of them would have changed their opinion regarding homosexuality as "an abomination," but I'll happily let them explain their own belief in that regard.

Ram, thanks for the great links. I knew about "Shrimp" and "logos", but had not seen the "Marcion" link. I once heard someone say,"There will always be theist, because they believe in "God", a words which means anything you want it to mean". For the atheist, "God" means absolutely nothing or nothingness. My question was really concerning the idea that a "perfect" being communicated the Bible. It sure seems that it can't get a clear message across in spit of it being all powerful. ..... More logical contradictions.

Date: Jul 3, 2006

C.L. Letter--Jesus focused on 'acceptance'

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060703/OPINION02/607030301/1009/OPINION

"In Cal Thomas' column criticizing the Episcopal Church's acceptance of gays and lesbians as equal children of God ("Episcopal leadership turns 'wishy-washy' into a tenet," June 27), he asks simply:

"If homosexual practice is not sin, what is? And how do we know?"

...

"The Episcopal Church's actions are motivated not by a desire not to offend anyone - as Mr. Thomas surmises - but rather to give gay people the option of monogamy, so that the church can bless their efforts to build a God-centered life with the person of their own sex whom they love."

Date: Jul 12, 2006

H.A.--Sister Spirit deserves no praise
http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060712/OPINION03/607120339/1014/OPINION

"People in Mississippi should realize that the people at Camp Sister Spirit, with their "feminist and progressive education" notions, are the vanguard of sin, anti-Christian hatred, the destruction of the traditional family, and the acceptance and proliferation of sexual perversion. Don't be fooled by their outward courtesy. "

Date: Jul 13, 2006

H.A.--Group targets abortion clinic
By Kathleen Baydala

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060713/NEWS01/607130302/1002

"Mississippi could become the first abortion-free state in our country," Benham said. "If it is ... then it sends a message to everyone, and here's the statement: Abortion will come to an end in America when the church of Jesus Christ makes up her mind that it will come to an end and not one second sooner."

Date: Jul 13, 2006

"Mississippi could become the first abortion-free state in our country," Benham said. "If it is ... then it sends a message to everyone, and here's the statement: Abortion will come to an end in America when the church of Jesus Christ makes up her mind that it will come to an end and not one second sooner."

Abortion will not end with the closing of that clinic and\or the passing of a law. However, passing the law would make it illegal. It is similar to laws outlawing guns. Those cities still have gun crimes such as murder. I find it interesting that many who want gun laws because guns kill people want abortion clinics where doctors kill people.

I conclude that those who are killing people do not consider those they kill to be "real people" or they think they just need killing. I get a headache trying to think my way through all of this.

As an aside, Jackson is passing a law that allows homeowners to use deadly force on someone who breaks into their house. This will increase the risk of being a criminal in Jackson.

Date: Jul 13, 2006

Cossack, I thought that was a new law for the whole state.
My own son, who is a tree-hugging liberal, is adamant that I have a gun in my house, given what happened in New Orleans after Katrina. My mom has an arsenal, it's just a matter of choosing my weapon and getting some training. The whole idea makes me very uncomfortable.

Date: Jul 13, 2006

LVN,

You are correct, it will be a state law. I went brain dead again, it happens more often now. I understand your discomfort with a gun. If you did not grow up around them and use them, it will take some adjustment. Although guns are misused, as are cars and other dangerous equipment, they are merely tools. A chainsaw is a tool and mighty dangerous if you get on the wrong end of it. A chain saw and a gun are more dangerous if you do not have some training and get familiar with them. They both make a lot of noise. However, both are real handy in time of need. I am sure that you have received this advice, but I will reiterate it. Go to a professional or a friend that is skilled in the use of guns and the safety procedures. Shooting at a range, or in an unpopulated area will help you get more comfortable. Remember, most people never want to be in a position of having to use a gun for protection, just as they do not want to have a house fire. But having a gun, or a fire extinguisher, in a time of need may make the difference as to your survival. You are fortunate that you have people that care about your safety and are willing to assist you in learning.

As an aside, you do not have to like guns or shooting something to defend yourself. I quit hunting because I have no desire anymore to kill things. However, I would have no problem defending my wife, my children, my friends, my dog, or me with a gun.

Date: Jul 13, 2006

Cossack wrote:

LVN, You are correct, it will be a state law. I went brain dead again, it happens more often now. I understand your discomfort with a gun. If you did not grow up around them and use them, it will take some adjustment. Although guns are misused, as are cars and other dangerous equipment, they are merely tools. A chainsaw is a tool and mighty dangerous if you get on the wrong end of it. A chain saw and a gun are more dangerous if you do not have some training and get familiar with them. They both make a lot of noise. However, both are real handy in time of need. I am sure that you have received this advice, but I will reiterate it. Go to a professional or a friend that is skilled in the use of guns and the safety procedures. Shooting at a range, or in an unpopulated area will help you get more comfortable. Remember, most people never want to be in a position of having to use a gun for protection, just as they do not want to have a house fire. But having a gun, or a fire extinguisher, in a time of need may make the difference as to your survival. You are fortunate that you have people that care about your safety and are willing to assist you in learning. As an aside, you do not have to like guns or shooting something to defend yourself. I quit hunting because I have no desire anymore to kill things. However, I would have no problem defending my wife, my children, my friends, my dog, or me with a gun.

I always worry that someone in the family may lose their temper and grab a gun before they can cool down. At least we could wrestle over a knife, but a hand gun is too fast.

Date: Jul 13, 2006

I always worry that someone in the family may lose their temper and grab a gun before they can cool down. At least we could wrestle over a knife, but a hand gun is too fast.

If your family is that violent, you need to find another family. If your response is hypothetical, you likely will always come up with a reason why someone should not have a gun. Fortunately, we live in a state where each person has a choice. In the pro-criminal states, they want to keep citizens from possessing guns so that the criminal's job is easier and less dangerous.

Date: Jul 13, 2006

Worry wrote:

I always worry that someone in the family may lose their temper and grab a gun before they can cool down. At least we could wrestle over a knife, but a hand gun is too fast.

That's a valid worry. However, it's a different situation for someone who lives alone, which is the whole point of having the thing in the first place.

Cossack, don't be so blase' about this: some years ago, a beloved cousin was shot and killed by his ten-year old brother during an argument. The older boy had training in gun safety, but the younger boy didn't and had no idea what he was really doing.

Date: Jul 13, 2006

LVN,

Cossack, don't be so blase' about this:

I did not mean to come across as blase'. I raised children and have had guns (still do).

When there are children in household, or will be children in the household, extra precaution should always be taken to secure guns and other dangerous things. Having grown up on a farm, I am keenly aware of the many things that can kill you. Not only guns, but machinery, cars and animals. I have had neighbors lose their lives to all three. I was and am of the opinion that you would be at all careless with a weapon; indeed, I envision you as just the opposite.

Date: Jul 13, 2006

LVN wrote:

Worry wrote: I always worry that someone in the family may lose their temper and grab a gun before they can cool down. At least we could wrestle over a knife, but a hand gun is too fast.

That's a valid worry. However, it's a different situation for someone who lives alone, which is the whole point of having the thing in the first place. Cossack, don't be so blase' about this: some years ago, a beloved cousin was shot and killed by his ten-year old brother during an argument. The older boy had training in gun safety, but the younger boy didn't and had no idea what he was really doing.

Good points, LVN. Cossack, besides the children, I also worry about someone becoming depressed and acting too quickly. Yes, I know there are other ways to take your life besides guns, but they usually take more time and that can be an important difference. For the record, I have yet to say anything about banning guns. I only mentioned my worries.

Date: Jul 13, 2006

Since I started this thread, I consider it only proper that I comment on this gun discussion between LVN and Cossack. I have never owned a gun. I always find it odd that so many theists are willing to take another's life to defend their own. I would expect this behavior of atheists. Why are you guys so afraid of meeting your maker?

Shouldn't you welcome this?

Date: Jul 13, 2006

Atheist wrote:

Since I started this thread, I consider it only proper that I comment on this gun discussion between LVN and Cossack. I have never owned a gun. I always find it odd that so many theists are willing to take another's life to defend their own. I would expect this behavior of atheists. Why are you guys so afraid of meeting your maker? Shouldn't you welcome this?

Atheist, first your statement assumes that the theist is not defending the life of another but only them self. None the less, its not necessarily that we theist are afraid to meet our maker, it is likely that we figure that the person we are defending ourselves against is an atheist and thus this person does not consider them self bound by the “thou shall not kill” commandment which is likely why we are having to defend ourself. Unfortunate as it is, at least in this case, sending the atheist off to meet his maker is the surest way of once and for all of proving him wrong on the whole God/no god issue.

Date: Jul 13, 2006

Having a gun is not necessarily about killing people. My grandmother in later years had a shotgun under her bed (no small children in the family by then.) She heard someone at her window one night and parted the curtains slightly with the barrel of the gun. He skedaddled.
I'm not for banning guns, but that doesn't make me less cautious of them. And Atheist, as for the slightly odd suggestion that theists shouldn't mind being killed, there are families left behind, and that is a dreadful thing for one's family to cope with.

Date: Jul 13, 2006

Coast Resident wrote:

Atheist wrote: Since I started this thread, I consider it only proper that I comment on this gun discussion between LVN and Cossack. I have never owned a gun. I always find it odd that so many theists are willing to take another's life to defend their own. I would expect this behavior of atheists. Why are you guys so afraid of meeting your maker? Shouldn't you welcome this?

Atheist, first your statement assumes that the theist is not defending the life of another but only them self. None the less, its not necessarily that we theist are afraid to meet our maker, it is likely that we figure that the person we are defending ourselves against is an atheist and thus this person does not consider them self bound by the “thou shall not kill” commandment which is likely why we are having to defend ourself. Unfortunate as it is, at least in this case, sending the atheist off to meet his maker is the surest way of once and for all of proving him wrong on the whole God/no god issue.

Answered like a true theist, Coast Resident.

If I were a theist, I would want to get to my reward as soon as possible and stop messing around with all this temporary B.S. Maybe you just talk a good game and are not a true theist like those Muslim martyrs.

Date: Jul 13, 2006

Coast Resident wrote:

...we figure that the person we are defending ourselves against is an atheist and thus this person does not consider them self bound by the “thou shall not kill” commandment ...

Oops, I meant to respond to this. We don't need a commandment to tell us "not to murder". Every human society from family, clan, city, state, Nation , etc lives by that rule. It was a necessary rule to form stable societies long before Moses or the Bible. It's an old theist's myth that atheist are less moral than a theist. It has been my experience that they are more moral than the average theist.

Date: Jul 13, 2006

Atheist,

Most of what you say here is clearly conjecture and in my opinion the sort of Atheism you're selling is just as "myth" based as most theists' religion, maybe even more so. I think that sort of makes you a theist, you being the god that we are all supposed to bow down to. So, until you can show us some cold hard facts, I'll just pray to my science gods until someone starts speaking some sense around here.

Thanks for listening.

Yours truly,

anon

Date: Jul 13, 2006

anon wrote:

Atheist, Most of what you say here is clearly conjecture and in my opinion the sort of Atheism you're selling is just as "myth" based as most theists' religion, maybe even more so. I think that sort of makes you a theist, you being the god that we are all supposed to bow down to. So, until you can show us some cold hard facts, I'll just pray to my science gods until someone starts speaking some sense around here. Thanks for listening. Yours truly, anon

Anon, I didn't understand your post. Could you point out what you consider "conjecture" in my previous post? What do you think I'm "selling"? Atheism is just the lack of belief in gods. What is the "myth" on which you claim atheism is based? You asked to see "cold hard facts", but didn't say what the question or subject was. What are "science gods"? I never heard of them. Do you mean rational thought and logic? I'm sorry if I'm dense, but I just didn't follow your thoughts.

Date: Jul 13, 2006

LVN wrote:

... And Atheist, as for the slightly odd suggestion that theists shouldn't mind being killed, there are families left behind, and that is a dreadful thing for one's family to cope with.

I agree with you about those left behind, LVN. This brings to mind another question. How do you view suicide? Just curious.

Date: Jul 13, 2006

Atheist wrote:

LVN wrote:
... And Atheist, as for the slightly odd suggestion that theists shouldn't mind being killed, there are families left behind, and that is a dreadful thing for one's family to cope with.
I agree with you about those left behind, LVN. This brings to mind another question. How do you view suicide? Just curious.

Those I've known who either committed or attempted suicide were profoundly depressed. In those cases, it was the tragic result of an illness. I do know that it is devastating to the families. I can't speak to the situation of people in intractable pain. As a Christian, I believe that my life is not my own to take, but again, I haven't been faced with that situation.