Why the Church of Christ in the only true church

[Avatar4321]

Shame this thread has gone so flamage. I really would have liked to have had a conversation with Bass on the merits of his original post.

 

[Shogun]

Does your private message button not work?

 

[Amanda]

What a ridiculous comment. Are you putting gays on the same level as pedophiles and serial killers? Being a pedophile or a serial killer is obviously illegal. Being gay is not.





From the way some christians talk and act, it appears that their moral authority is a vindictive scumbag who doesn't know the meaning of the word love. Why should that awful behavior be excused just because it is the product of religious beliefs?

Sometimes I wonder if you don't actually understand what I've written or you're just going out of your way to be obtuse. The subject was "lifestyle". Should Americans be allowed to pursue ANY lifestyle? I gave examples of life styles I felt were unacceptable to prove that I am in fact intolerant and that it's not necessarily a bad thing.

Pedophilia and serial killing is a "lifestyle"??? Are you fucking kidding me??? Regardless of how you would define "lifestyle" you're still using the slippery slope argument -
"If we condone homosexuality, should we also condone pedophilia and serial killing??"
Your comment was stupid.

If I had any idea who you were referring to or what the alleged behavior was I might try to respond to it, but you were characteristically vague. Oh well.

The alleged behavior I referred to was the way some christians treat homosexuals who have done nothing to christians or anyone else.

I don't know why I ever bother with you, I realized you were intellectually disingenuous a long time ago. I'll try not to make the same mistake in the future.

 

[AVG-JOE]

However it's also pretty specific about homosexuality, and nowhere in the bible does the church condone it.

THe idea of the government forcing a religious organization to marry people who they do not want to is beyond the pale. Churches are often very selective about whom they marry, even heterosexuals. For example, some won't marry non-members, some won't marry people who are divorced, some won't allow people who are co-habiting to become members (and thusly won't marry them). It is the right of the church to determine what they will and won't do within their own organization.

Churches can feel free to discriminate against whomever they want. They are private organizations... of course if they wanted to be truly private businesses and completely above public reproach, they could give up their tax free status, but whatever.

I have yet to meet a gay couple that wouldn't be satisfied with a courthouse ceremony, as long as it came with the legal document that made them a married couple so that if one of them was incapacitated, their parents couldn't swoop in and make all of the decisions.

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

I guess I wouldn't be a truly tolerant Christian because I don't think people have a right to choose ANY lifestyle they want.

Are you truly tolerant, Joe? Do you draw the line at serial killers and pedophiles? I'm guessing you probably do.

It's easy for some reason in this country to take shots at Christians, but I think nearly everyone has some kind of standard that they use, whether it's a holy scripture or a law book or just an inner voice. I don't see why Christians are specifically called out time and time again when the only difference between them and everyone else is the source of their moral authority.

Of course I draw the line prior to allowing killers and child molesters to run amok. I am speaking of consenting adults (emphasis on consenting) obeying the social norms of their community, and trying to live in peace.

I'm seeking to point out intolerance. This thread just happens to be Christian intolerance for the sake of Charlie.

-Joe

I'm sure if those people felt they could come out of the closet and voice their opinions they'd tell you what an intolerant person you are. So my point was: why is where you draw the line inherently better than where someone else draws the line. The pedophiles draw their line too, why are they wrong? And please don't cite the law, that's weak, what is considered pedophilia in this country is NOT in many other parts of the world, so obviously those people are drawing the line in the same place the pedos in this country.

I don't recall if you posted in RGS's thread about incest between consenting adults... did you? If you did can you refresh my memory on that? Where do you draw the line on that? Is it ok, because they are consenting adults, or not?

I don't think this thread should be about "Christian" intolerance, we're all intolerant of something (at least those of us that are sane). I think a better discussion would center around where we derive the moral authority for the lines we draw.

Basically because We, the People have consensus agreement that among our social norms, serial killing and pedophile behaviors will not be tolerated by the public.

If the same percentage of people felt about homosexuality as the percentage of people who feel serial killers aught not to run amok, perhaps it would be illegal too, and left in the closet. When society says "sort of" to the legality of a behavior or lifestyle, that is the worst kind of intolerance.

Shouldn't boundaries and rules (for consenting adults) be clear and fairly applied?

When the best reason given for putting the kabash (or partial kabash) on a particular lifestyle is that "The Bible says so..." shouldn't like 75% or more of us agree that the Bible is more than just a nifty collection of old stories?

-Joe

 

[AVG-JOE]

Hey, I got news for you. I oppose gay marriage.

Want to know something else?

I went to Cedar Point on Father's Day a couple years ago only to find out that it was in fact Gay Day.

Did I leave the park? No.
Did I demand a refund? No.
Did stand in a high place and condemn gays? No.
Did I refuse to ride roller coasters or any other ride with them? No.
Did I refuse to eat in a restaurant full of them? No.
Did I tolerate them and their "activities"? Yes.

The point is that I just simply do not believe that gay marriage is a right.

From my other site if you care:

The Political Hotwire - Search Results

http://www.usmessageboard.com/search.php?searchid=1242674

Weird.

You start off with a statement of intolerance and then go on to prove just how tolerant you can be...

O.k., I'm curious now. Why are you so against gay people getting married if you don't mind socializing with them in a public setting?

-Joe

I don't hate these people nor am I intolerent of them.

I just simply believe that they have no right to modify marriage to their preference.

I have extensively outlined my positions on this in the searches I linked to. They include muiltiple posts from this site and ballot on the issue from me.

My argument is from a strictly legal, societal perspective.

Amanda is right that I too am intolerant on certain subjects, among them murder, so I understand intolerance when I see it. I don't understand how you can consider yourself tolerant on the subject of adult relationships if you believe that some are wrong, even when the participants are consenting - we will have to agree to disagree on that.

Legal means laws; the rules we agree to play the game of life by. Laws are up to us, meaning we have every duty to question them often and every right to change them as we see fit, assuming enough of us agree on how they will change.

You have to understand, I don't believe that any rules to the short game we call 'life' are carved in stone. I understand that there are a lot of people who do, but I have hope in the blossoming of true majority rule making. The rules that make sense to the majority, like 'Thou Shall Not Kill' don't need to be carved in stone, they'll last on paper.

I won't bet on much regarding the future, but I'll bet anyone $1.00 that things will be as different 100 years from now as they were 100 years ago.

-Joe

 

[RodISHI]

Churches can feel free to discriminate against whomever they want. They are private organizations... of course if they wanted to be truly private businesses and completely above public reproach, they could give up their tax free status, but whatever.

If that is the case all organizations of every kind should be taxed. No exception to the rules.

 

[AllieBaba]

There is a whole array of sins that the church doesn't condone. Funny how you people are selective in your crusade against specific sins, eh? Been a while since anyone has seen a christian out trying to criminalize adultery!

I'm baffled. I don't recall anyone trying to criminalize homosexuality.

 

[Avatar4321]

I'm baffled. I don't recall anyone trying to criminalize homosexuality.

Me neither. Though I could see rational arguments to criminalize homosexual behavior.

 

[Amanda]

Of course I draw the line prior to allowing killers and child molesters to run amok. I am speaking of consenting adults (emphasis on consenting) obeying the social norms of their community, and trying to live in peace.

I'm seeking to point out intolerance. This thread just happens to be Christian intolerance for the sake of Charlie.

-Joe

I'm sure if those people felt they could come out of the closet and voice their opinions they'd tell you what an intolerant person you are. So my point was: why is where you draw the line inherently better than where someone else draws the line. The pedophiles draw their line too, why are they wrong? And please don't cite the law, that's weak, what is considered pedophilia in this country is NOT in many other parts of the world, so obviously those people are drawing the line in the same place the pedos in this country.

I don't recall if you posted in RGS's thread about incest between consenting adults... did you? If you did can you refresh my memory on that? Where do you draw the line on that? Is it ok, because they are consenting adults, or not?

I don't think this thread should be about "Christian" intolerance, we're all intolerant of something (at least those of us that are sane). I think a better discussion would center around where we derive the moral authority for the lines we draw.

Basically because We, the People have consensus agreement that among our social norms, serial killing and pedophile behaviors will not be tolerated by the public.

If the same percentage of people felt about homosexuality as the percentage of people who feel serial killers aught not to run amok, perhaps it would be illegal too, and left in the closet. When society says "sort of" to the legality of a behavior or lifestyle, that is the worst kind of intolerance.

Shouldn't boundaries and rules (for consenting adults) be clear and fairly applied?

When the best reason given for putting the kabash (or partial kabash) on a particular lifestyle is that "The Bible says so..." shouldn't like 75% or more of us agree that the Bible is more than just a nifty collection of old stories?

-Joe

Perhaps I'm a fascist because I don't think that just because a majority of people feel a certain way it should make ok. People can be terribly self-serving and self-destructive. Take the threads on the "green movement"... wouldn't we be better off with more conservation and less waste? Of course, but it likely won't happen because a majority of people either just don't care or don't think their contribution to the problem is significant enough to warrant them changing anything. This same kind of logic is applied by people to every facet of our lives. They put their own desire before the good of society. This is why I think the source of moral authority is an important point. A simple majority isn't a source of moral authority except in a default sort of way.

I'm not a Biblical literalist, so I don't think of it as a collection of stories. I think there are larger lessons to be learned but it takes stepping back and looking at the bigger picture. All the major religions of the world contain essentially the same "truths" with perhaps different paths to ultimate salvation... which I think is something people are much too fixated on. The differences are nearly inconsequential, IMO, it's the similarities that we should be focusing on.

BTW, I really was interested on your take on the adult incest thing. Where do you draw the line on that 1?

 

[Bullypulpit]

This is not about homosexuality, if the Bass makes another thread about homosexuality the mods have permission to ban the Bass for 1 week. This thread is about thze Church of Christ, the one and only True Church that is truly of the Bible.

Oh yeah? SEZ WHO?

The Church of the Galactic Spaghetti Monster is to ONE and ONLY TRUE CHURCH!

So there!

So tell me, is the moldy meatball the spirtual enemy of the Galatic Spaghetti Monster??

Verily, it is the antithesis of the Galactic Spaghetti Monster, and is anathema. All bow before the might of the Galactic Spaghetti Monster.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I'm sure if those people felt they could come out of the closet and voice their opinions they'd tell you what an intolerant person you are. So my point was: why is where you draw the line inherently better than where someone else draws the line. The pedophiles draw their line too, why are they wrong? And please don't cite the law, that's weak, what is considered pedophilia in this country is NOT in many other parts of the world, so obviously those people are drawing the line in the same place the pedos in this country.

I don't recall if you posted in RGS's thread about incest between consenting adults... did you? If you did can you refresh my memory on that? Where do you draw the line on that? Is it ok, because they are consenting adults, or not?

I don't think this thread should be about "Christian" intolerance, we're all intolerant of something (at least those of us that are sane). I think a better discussion would center around where we derive the moral authority for the lines we draw.

Basically because We, the People have consensus agreement that among our social norms, serial killing and pedophile behaviors will not be tolerated by the public.

If the same percentage of people felt about homosexuality as the percentage of people who feel serial killers aught not to run amok, perhaps it would be illegal too, and left in the closet. When society says "sort of" to the legality of a behavior or lifestyle, that is the worst kind of intolerance.

Shouldn't boundaries and rules (for consenting adults) be clear and fairly applied?

When the best reason given for putting the kabash (or partial kabash) on a particular lifestyle is that "The Bible says so..." shouldn't like 75% or more of us agree that the Bible is more than just a nifty collection of old stories?

-Joe

Perhaps I'm a fascist because I don't think that just because a majority of people feel a certain way it should make ok. People can be terribly self-serving and self-destructive. Take the threads on the "green movement"... wouldn't we be better off with more conservation and less waste? Of course, but it likely won't happen because a majority of people either just don't care or don't think their contribution to the problem is significant enough to warrant them changing anything. This same kind of logic is applied by people to every facet of our lives. They put their own desire before the good of society. This is why I think the source of moral authority is an important point. A simple majority isn't a source of moral authority except in a default sort of way.

I'm not a Biblical literalist, so I don't think of it as a collection of stories. I think there are larger lessons to be learned but it takes stepping back and looking at the bigger picture. All the major religions of the world contain essentially the same "truths" with perhaps different paths to ultimate salvation... which I think is something people are much too fixated on. The differences are nearly inconsequential, IMO, it's the similarities that we should be focusing on.

BTW, I really was interested on your take on the adult incest thing. Where do you draw the line on that 1?

I don't think you are a fascist Amanda, at least not in the classical sense of a power base pretty much micro managing, by force if necessary, a society.

I too am dismayed, but only somewhat, by the decisions that have been made by 'the majority'. When you look at the big picture of history however and track the evolution of government and society on planet earth, we are, with every crisis, getting better and better at governing ourselves as a species. Can you imagine the odds of being born into circumstances leading to comfort, if not happiness in the 13th century? Pretty slim if you were born into Western Civilization, better perhaps if you were born elsewhere, but the Mayans, Asians, Africans, etc all knew about the concepts of cruelty, enslavement and the enticing power that they can create. Even micro societies like Hawaii had kings and servants. 'Vegas would not give the average Joe very good odds of being born into nobility.

Majority rule is a young concept in governance, and even in America 'majority' has meant the majority of European descendants until just recently. And if we are honest, we will admit that the Europeans and their descendants have a tradition of ethnocentric thinking. There was a time when white wasn't enough, you had to be French too. The Dutch, English, Germans etc all had their moment of power in history - this even carried over the the colonial conquests; prior to the American Civil War, the European descendants called themselves by their state affiliations.

The conquest of the planet by one concept of governing was an inevitable path we had to take for our children to reach the stars, the brutality of the process is entirely human. That being the bad news, the good news is that Western Civilization is poised to complete the process and not by the vehicle of its dominant religion, but by the vehicle of democracy. Which is good, I don't think any of us in the West would be any more interested in seeing our children live under Islamic fundamentalism than those in the East are interested in living under Christian fundamentalism. The bridge is tolerance and democracy or majority rule is the key. This is why my hope lies in the majority rule. The problem for us today is that we, as a species, are still in the learning process and like a toddler who poops his pants and learns from the experience, human society is learning from every 'crisis'. This is why our current melt down is not nearly as painful as the one experienced by our ancestors in the 1930's.

As to my feelings about adult incest... assuming you are asking about sex between siblings, it certainly isn't my cup of tea, my sisters are cool and both are easy on the eyes but, like other good friends I have, sex with them would ruin a good relationship.

I suppose if a brother and sister, who were consenting adults, wanted to marry I would tolerate it as a citizen, unless there was some sort of evidence that those relationships created a burden on society, such as defective children. Things like that have to be considered in the rule making process.

-Joe

 

[Amanda]

Basically because We, the People have consensus agreement that among our social norms, serial killing and pedophile behaviors will not be tolerated by the public.

If the same percentage of people felt about homosexuality as the percentage of people who feel serial killers aught not to run amok, perhaps it would be illegal too, and left in the closet. When society says "sort of" to the legality of a behavior or lifestyle, that is the worst kind of intolerance.

Shouldn't boundaries and rules (for consenting adults) be clear and fairly applied?

When the best reason given for putting the kabash (or partial kabash) on a particular lifestyle is that "The Bible says so..." shouldn't like 75% or more of us agree that the Bible is more than just a nifty collection of old stories?

-Joe

Perhaps I'm a fascist because I don't think that just because a majority of people feel a certain way it should make ok. People can be terribly self-serving and self-destructive. Take the threads on the "green movement"... wouldn't we be better off with more conservation and less waste? Of course, but it likely won't happen because a majority of people either just don't care or don't think their contribution to the problem is significant enough to warrant them changing anything. This same kind of logic is applied by people to every facet of our lives. They put their own desire before the good of society. This is why I think the source of moral authority is an important point. A simple majority isn't a source of moral authority except in a default sort of way.

I'm not a Biblical literalist, so I don't think of it as a collection of stories. I think there are larger lessons to be learned but it takes stepping back and looking at the bigger picture. All the major religions of the world contain essentially the same "truths" with perhaps different paths to ultimate salvation... which I think is something people are much too fixated on. The differences are nearly inconsequential, IMO, it's the similarities that we should be focusing on.

BTW, I really was interested on your take on the adult incest thing. Where do you draw the line on that 1?

I don't think you are a fascist Amanda, at least not in the classical sense of a power base pretty much micro managing, by force if necessary, a society.

I too am dismayed, but only somewhat, by the decisions that have been made by 'the majority'. When you look at the big picture of history however and track the evolution of government and society on planet earth, we are, with every crisis, getting better and better at governing ourselves as a species. Can you imagine the odds of being born into circumstances leading to comfort, if not happiness in the 13th century? Pretty slim if you were born into Western Civilization, better perhaps if you were born elsewhere, but the Mayans, Asians, Africans, etc all knew about the concepts of cruelty, enslavement and the enticing power that they can create. Even micro societies like Hawaii had kings and servants. 'Vegas would not give the average Joe very good odds of being born into nobility.

Majority rule is a young concept in governance, and even in America 'majority' has meant the majority of European descendants until just recently. And if we are honest, we will admit that the Europeans and their descendants have a tradition of ethnocentric thinking. There was a time when white wasn't enough, you had to be French too. The Dutch, English, Germans etc all had their moment of power in history - this even carried over the the colonial conquests; prior to the American Civil War, the European descendants called themselves by their state affiliations.

The conquest of the planet by one concept of governing was an inevitable path we had to take for our children to reach the stars, the brutality of the process is entirely human. That being the bad news, the good news is that Western Civilization is poised to complete the process and not by the vehicle of its dominant religion, but by the vehicle of democracy. Which is good, I don't think any of us in the West would be any more interested in seeing our children live under Islamic fundamentalism than those in the East are interested in living under Christian fundamentalism. The bridge is tolerance and democracy or majority rule is the key. This is why my hope lies in the majority rule. The problem for us today is that we, as a species, are still in the learning process and like a toddler who poops his pants and learns from the experience, human society is learning from every 'crisis'. This is why our current melt down is not nearly as painful as the one experienced by our ancestors in the 1930's.

As to my feelings about adult incest... assuming you are asking about sex between siblings, it certainly isn't my cup of tea, my sisters are cool and both are easy on the eyes but, like other good friends I have, sex with them would ruin a good relationship.

I suppose if a brother and sister, who were consenting adults, wanted to marry I would tolerate it as a citizen, unless there was some sort of evidence that those relationships created a burden on society, such as defective children. Things like that have to be considered in the rule making process.

-Joe

Thank you for taking the time to write a sincere reply, there isn't nearly enough of that here.

 

[YWN666]

Sometimes I wonder if you don't actually understand what I've written or you're just going out of your way to be obtuse. The subject was "lifestyle". Should Americans be allowed to pursue ANY lifestyle? I gave examples of life styles I felt were unacceptable to prove that I am in fact intolerant and that it's not necessarily a bad thing.

Pedophilia and serial killing is a "lifestyle"??? Are you fucking kidding me??? Regardless of how you would define "lifestyle" you're still using the slippery slope argument -
"If we condone homosexuality, should we also condone pedophilia and serial killing??"
Your comment was stupid.

If I had any idea who you were referring to or what the alleged behavior was I might try to respond to it, but you were characteristically vague. Oh well.

The alleged behavior I referred to was the way some christians treat homosexuals who have done nothing to christians or anyone else.

I don't know why I ever bother with you, I realized you were intellectually disingenuous a long time ago. I'll try not to make the same mistake in the future.

You can't answer the question so you run away and blame it on me.

Please explain how you can consider pedophilia and serial killing to be a lifestyle and how you can possibly compare those things to homosexuality. If you think my logic is faulty, then explain why. Your running away tells me thyat I hit the bullsye and you can't respond with anything of substance.

 

[Amanda]

Pedophilia and serial killing is a "lifestyle"??? Are you fucking kidding me??? Regardless of how you would define "lifestyle" you're still using the slippery slope argument -
"If we condone homosexuality, should we also condone pedophilia and serial killing??"
Your comment was stupid.





The alleged behavior I referred to was the way some christians treat homosexuals who have done nothing to christians or anyone else.

I don't know why I ever bother with you, I realized you were intellectually disingenuous a long time ago. I'll try not to make the same mistake in the future.

You can't answer the question so you run away and blame it on me.

Please explain how you can consider pedophilia and serial killing to be a lifestyle and how you can possibly compare those things to homosexuality. If you think my logic is faulty, then explain why. Your running away tells me thyat I hit the bullsye and you can't respond with anything of substance.

I'm not running away, I've already explained it. Since no matter what I write you find a way to misinterpret it, even if it means making up stuff, I'm not bothering. I don't use the ignore feature, but if I did you'd be on my short list.

 

[YWN666]

I don't know why I ever bother with you, I realized you were intellectually disingenuous a long time ago. I'll try not to make the same mistake in the future.

You can't answer the question so you run away and blame it on me.

Please explain how you can consider pedophilia and serial killing to be a lifestyle and how you can possibly compare those things to homosexuality. If you think my logic is faulty, then explain why. Your running away tells me thyat I hit the bullsye and you can't respond with anything of substance.

I'm not running away, I've already explained it. Since no matter what I write you find a way to misinterpret it, even if it means making up stuff, I'm not bothering. I don't use the ignore feature, but if I did you'd be on my short list.

You didn't explain shit, you coward and I didn't make anything up. I called you on your asinine comment and now you're squirming trying to save face. Too late for that.

 

[Amanda]

You can't answer the question so you run away and blame it on me.

Please explain how you can consider pedophilia and serial killing to be a lifestyle and how you can possibly compare those things to homosexuality. If you think my logic is faulty, then explain why. Your running away tells me thyat I hit the bullsye and you can't respond with anything of substance.

I'm not running away, I've already explained it. Since no matter what I write you find a way to misinterpret it, even if it means making up stuff, I'm not bothering. I don't use the ignore feature, but if I did you'd be on my short list.

You didn't explain shit, you coward and I didn't make anything up. I called you on your asinine comment and now you're squirming trying to save face. Too late for that.

Good luck with the smear campaign.

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't know why I ever bother with you, I realized you were intellectually disingenuous a long time ago. I'll try not to make the same mistake in the future.

You can't answer the question so you run away and blame it on me.

Please explain how you can consider pedophilia and serial killing to be a lifestyle and how you can possibly compare those things to homosexuality. If you think my logic is faulty, then explain why. Your running away tells me thyat I hit the bullsye and you can't respond with anything of substance.

I'm not running away, I've already explained it. Since no matter what I write you find a way to misinterpret it, even if it means making up stuff, I'm not bothering. I don't use the ignore feature, but if I did you'd be on my short list.

Is that similar to the short bus?

 

[Amanda]

You can't answer the question so you run away and blame it on me.

Please explain how you can consider pedophilia and serial killing to be a lifestyle and how you can possibly compare those things to homosexuality. If you think my logic is faulty, then explain why. Your running away tells me thyat I hit the bullsye and you can't respond with anything of substance.

I'm not running away, I've already explained it. Since no matter what I write you find a way to misinterpret it, even if it means making up stuff, I'm not bothering. I don't use the ignore feature, but if I did you'd be on my short list.

Is that similar to the short bus?

Actually, I think YWN666 has a lot of potential to add to the discourse. He/she chooses to use his/her mind to cause disruption instead. I think it's a waste, but I can't dictate what other people do for their hobby.

 

[YWN666]

I'm not running away, I've already explained it. Since no matter what I write you find a way to misinterpret it, even if it means making up stuff, I'm not bothering. I don't use the ignore feature, but if I did you'd be on my short list.

You didn't explain shit, you coward and I didn't make anything up. I called you on your asinine comment and now you're squirming trying to save face. Too late for that.

Good luck with the smear campaign.

Nothing I can say will damage you any more than your own evasive behavior. People with integrity stand behind the accusations they make. You should try it sometime.