 |
|
|
|
|
June 4th, 2012
05:43 PM ET
We don't teach hate, says church where anti-homosexual song filmedBy Ismael Estrada, CNN Greensburg, Indiana (CNN) - About 20 protesters gathered on Sunday outside the Apostolic Truth Tabernacle here to voice opposition to a viral online video that was taped in the church and shows a young child singing song with lyrics that offer a harsh message for homosexuals. The video, which surfaced on YouTube last week, shows a child in front of the congregation, singing "I know that God is right, and somebody's wrong... ain't no homo going to make it to heaven." The congregation erupts in applause at those lines, which the unidentified boy repeats as the pastor looks on. At another point in the video a voice is heard shouting,"That’s my boy." CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories In the first Sunday service since the video surfaced, congregants arrived to the church as protesters jeered them over the video. A church leader, who would not give his name, told CNN that journalists were not allowed inside the church and declined to offer anyone from church leadership to comment on the video. The leader said that he needed to be cautious about letting outsiders into the church because it had received threats over the video and asked CNN to leave the premises. Church videos with harsh words for gays go viral online The local sheriff's office said the church had not reported any verifiable threats. No one answered the door at the home of Jeff Sangl, the church's pastor. The video of the singing boy was the latest in a string of viral anti-gay videos that have surfaced from independent churches. Those videos have been resoundingly condemned by religious leaders, even by conservatives who believe homosexual sex is a sin. The Apostolic Truth Tabernacle posted a statement on its website that says in part: "The Pastor and members of Apostolic Truth Tabernacle do not condone, teach, or practice hate of any person for any reason.” The pastor's son, Josh Sangl, told CNN his father was away on vacation and that there was much more to the video than we were being told, though he wouldn’t elaborate. The majority of the church members wouldn’t comment about the controversy or respond to questions about the parents of the young boy. Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter "I think it's blown out of proportion, you know," said Robert Kirby, who is not a church member but was attending Sunday's church service in support of his daughter, who teaches Sunday School there. "They love everybody. "They don't love sin though," he said. "It's all in the Bible." soundoff (3,151 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Next »
« Previous entryPope Benedict signals trip to United States in 2015
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Church choirs say he who sings prays twice. Does this song mean they hate twice as much?
Yeah, they don't preach hate. They just sing hate.
So what are you teaching about religioun? You seem to have pretty strong feelings towards them and their differing opinion. Isn't that hate? Just asking, not challenging you.
There's nothing wrong with hate when it's focused at the right targets. I hate adherents to the Abrahamic faiths because I think it's wrong to follow a man who sees nothing wrong with infanticide.
I don't think it's right to hate gays though, because two guys or girls banging each other doesn't do any harm to anybody.
The difference in my mind is that I'm ok letting you believe whatever crackpot fairy tales you want as long as you aren't hurting others or infringing on their rights. It's when you use your freedoms to infringe on the freedoms of others that we have a problem.
So you are saying hate is ok as long as it meets your agenda?
Because I bring to the table of our society a differing set a values that I would like to see established it is ok to hate. Instead of allowing the Government we have in place make those decisions you want to silence all opposition? Sounds kind of like the very thing you are complaining about.
By the way, I know my spelling sucks, so no need to point that out.
Excuses, excuses. People can claim all they want that they didn't mean what they say, but they said what they said so obviously they meant it.
Had the church not agreed with the song, they would have immediately grabbed the kid and whacked him upside the head for saying those things. The fact that they cheered him singing is all the proof one needs to show, once again, the hatred and intolerance perpetrated by religion.
So are you saying you would not cheer a song that was anti-religous? I am asking, not trying to call you out.
PPLRWRD, hating religion (a thing) really isn't on par with hating actual living, breathing human beings.
I would not cheer a song that suggested that church goers should suffer infinite torture for eternity. Though my regard for people that would laugh at and support the same punishment for millions of my fellow humans is on par with my regard for the KKK.
But religious is a life style choice too unless you can reference me a nonbiased source that proves the gay gene.
So you are butt hurt because someone said something you don't believe exists will cast you into a place you don't believe exists?
I already know what you are going to say. "No I am upset that you are trying too impose your fairy tale moral standards on others.". But is not the purpose of social structures? To establish normal behavior perameters for all to live by to create a safer environment. So the church, temple, shrine are not hatefull, rather they are trying to establish what they believe is right and you are trying to establish what you believe is right. So really the whole topic is one of moral standards and not of hate. Now I might hate gays (I don't but I am getting close for the fact they call me hatefull, not because of their lifestyles so much as because of their life styles) that doesn't mean all Christians are haters. It simply means they disagree with you.
Typing from ipho meant not because of their lifestyles so much as their accusations of hate
And you are disregarding the first amendment. You cannot legislate on religious grounds alone.
Actually you can't legislate on religious grounds at all. But people legislate and the will bring their personal beliefs to the table whe establishing laws religous or not
@Bethany:
You Said: "I don't hide behind the book I stand firmly upon it and its teachings and it says gays are evil!"
Since most of your christians fail to learn the history of your bible and religion, I will educate you briefly.
Your bible, the one you call the "word of god", was written by 30+ different people over 1500+ years, created to fill an agenda, to control people. Then, other MEN came and edited the book to fit their agendas, control and money. The fact you put your faith in a bunch of fallible human beings is not only laughable but sincerely irresponsible.
But if God is real, just hypothetically, wouldn't it be arguable that Satan was too? And if Satan is real, wouldn't he do all he could to confuse the teachings and writings of God? But then, if God was real, wouldn't he guide you to the real path if you actually listened to him. You know, Trust in the Lord with all thine heart and lean not on to thine own understanding, in all thine ways acknowledge him and he will direct thine paths. So if he was directing your paths don't you think you would be o.k. But humans are not to famous for listening to others and tend to walk their own path so wouldn't it be reasonable to say that most of the problems we have are human induced. So if humans are inducing most of the problems wouldn't it be reasonable to say that humans can't be trusted in what they teach. Which, if that were the case wouldn't the best advice be we all shut up and listen. Just hypothetically of course.
I have a question: if your eternal soul goes to heaven after you die, where was it before you were born?
Where were you physically before you were born?
no
I keep seeing people throwing out arguements about how "science proves gay life is good" or "religioun proves gay life is bad" but I have yet to see the actuall evidence listed. I wish one side or the other would stop calling the other stupid and just lay out why they believe what they believe in a normal intellectual conversation. Here, I will start. I believe gay lifestyle is wrong. My reasons:
On the religous side: The Bible states "A man shall not lay with a man as with a women." Deu 18:22 (I am shooting from the hip on that verse number so don't jump me if my numbers are wrong" The Koran and Buddism teach the same.
On the scientific side: Male bodies were not structurally evolved to be capatipal with male bodies. Same with females.
The reproductive system works male on female only.
No were in nature is it normal for a male to mate with another male or female with female. The only time you see such behavior is in a display of dominance.
Opposite ends of a magnet attract, similiar ends repulse.
Two male puzzle pieces don't fit together.
Male and female personallities are typically different and that difference balances itself (http://todayhealth.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/04/9957971-men-women-really-do-have-big-personality-differences?lite). There are more secular pyhological posts that say the same thing. I know this is probably going to be the most disputed point.
Male on male relationships is physically damaging, female on female relationships has a greater risk of disease transmital. http://home60515.com/4.html.
Now, I am trying to have a real conversation here so I ensured my references for the scientific debate are secular sources and not christian or otherwise religously affiliated. Please, I would like to hear real points that contradict my views so I can expand my knowledge, not just insults and "you are stupid" comments. I already know a lot of people probably will think I am stupid, that is why I am asking for enlightenment.
PPLRWRD..I tend to agree with your post completely. It seems that the conclusion is that only Christians or the religi©us feel being gay is wrong or unn@tural, that is not the case. However if w€ do consider the religi©us side of this issue it is view as a sin and unn@tural. If we consider evoluti©n then it does not lend itself to survival of the sp€cies. It has been stated as fact that one is born that way however upon further res€arch on identical twin studi€s, that is not the case. If one was b©rn that way sci€ntist expected to see 100% of identical twins (m@les) would both be g@y. They are not. It has a higger incidence that the average rate of percentages but no where close to 100%. This alone serves to prove that it can not be attributed to events in the w©mb. Also as you stated we can not rely on animals behavior as any sort of reference point in regards to behavi©r for many reasons. One being that animals act on insticts unlike people. My post is not intended to be a relig©us vs athie$t agrument, it is just a viewpoint and reply to previous posts.
@ PPLRWRD – Hômosèxuality is an innate orientation. You are born with your orientation set. Being born gay is no more wrong than being born left-handed. Being born gay is perfectly natural. 1500+ species of mammals, fish, birds, insects, etc., exhibit hômosèxuality. The theory of evolution handles being born gay quite nicely.
Using H.O.M.E. as a source shows you are being intellectuially dishonest. This is a right-wing fundamentalist hate group.
Perhaps you should spend more time cracking open science journals, and less time listening to the "Pastor Dave's" of the worls. The problem is that "Pastor Dave" is just as scientifically ignorant as you are.
@PPLRWRD
You sound exactly like a guy I knew in High school...
Both very preachy...
Both very pushy...
Both very stupid...
But that is besides the point. It is not your place to judge. It is not your place to criticize others choices. Only "God" can do that, not you, not the pastor, not anyone. By your own words Humans don't listen, so maybe you should look back and read your bible and not cast the first stone.
Christ sent a message of love, and accepting others, not judgment.
You live your life, and let others live theirs. Live and let live. Why do you not understand that?
Oh, and giving links to stories to prove your argument can go both ways. (ie. http://www.gspaulscienceofreligion.com/ ; http://www.hds.harvard.edu/news-events/harvard-divinity-bulletin/articles/does-religion-cause-violence ; etc)
So get of the high horse and let it go
@PP
"On the scientific side: Male bodies were not structurally evolved to be capatipal with male bodies. Same with females."
Your point? Human bodies weren't structurally evolved to sit in an office chair for 8 hours a day. One of the things that makes us human is that we can multipurpose tools. Just because something wasn't "intended" doesn't mean it's wrong.
mema wrote, "If we consider evoluti©n then it does not lend itself to survival of the sp€cies. It has been stated as fact that one is born that way however upon further res€arch on identical twin studi€s, that is not the case. If one was b©rn that way sci€ntist expected to see 100% of identical twins (m@les) would both be g@y. They are not."
With this, mema again demonstrates his/her profound scientific ignorance. First of all, even monozygotic twins can and do have difference in DNA, and more importantly, in how specific genes are expressed.
Also monozygotic twins can undergo vastly different hormonal courses in utero. Monzygotics can share placentas, or have separate placentas. They can have the same or separate amniotic sacs.
Again, perhaps if you spent more time cracking open science journals, and less time being lied to by the "Pastor Dave's" of the world, perhaps you would make posts filled with scientific errors.
@PPLRWRD
On the religous side: The Bible states "A man shall not lay with a man as with a women." Deu 18:22 (I am shooting from the hip on that verse number so don't jump me if my numbers are wrong" The Koran and Buddism teach the same.
Not all religions teach that being gay is wrong. And I believe you are wrong about Buddhism. I know at least one practicing Buddhist who is gay.
On the scientific side: Male bodies were not structurally evolved to be capatipal with male bodies. Same with females.
If that is true, why is the prostate located where it is, and why does it provide s.e.xual pleasure?
The reproductive system works male on female only.
This is a tired argument, particularly in a society where scientific knowledge allows for procreation outside of the traditional reproductive system, not to mention the population problem we already have. A gay couple that desires children have to work harder to get them, and are more committed to being parents than the 16 year old down the street who forgot to take her birth control pills a few days in a row.
No were in nature is it normal for a male to mate with another male or female with female. The only time you see such behavior is in a display of dominance.
Actually, this is untrue. There have been numerous doc.umented cases of same gender mating in multiple species...and not just in a display of dominance, but in actual life-mate kind of ways. A little research would show you this.
Opposite ends of a magnet attract, similiar ends repulse.
Two male puzzle pieces don't fit together.
Seriously?
Male and female personallities are typically different and that difference balances itself
In theory maybe, in practice? Not so much. Personally, I've been told that many of my personality traits are very "male"...and I promise you I am 100% female. My approach to s.e.xual relationships, friendships, shopping, clothing and many other things skew very much toward what our society would tell us is the "male" perspective.
The thing is, gender is a societal construct. What we perceive as the "man's role" and the "woman's role" are things that have been built within our culture. It is artificial, in that it is not born within us, it is taught to us from a very young age.
Male on male relationships is physically damaging, female on female relationships has a greater risk of disease transmital. http://home60515.com/4.html.
Male on Male s.e.xual relationships are not physically damaging, unless the two men involved are not prepping properly (which can be a problem even with a man and a woman). I don't know who thinks female on female relationships have a greater risk of disease, when you consider that there is a much smaller amount of fluid transfer involved, and it is in the fluid transfer that disease is spread. Any source that tells you that, clearly has not thoroughly investigated the matter.
Haxor, so because I disagree with you I am pushy. I am trying to have a real conversation with you to learn and all you are doing is insulting. God does teach mercy and love and not to judge. But if you were about to walk off a cliff wouldn't you want me to warn you? I think you are walking off a cliff, so I am telling you. If you don't want me to keep telling you cool, I won't, doesn't mean I won't warn others. If they tell me they don't want to hear it, cool, I will leave them be too. In the end you are right, if God is real he will do all the judging. Now, actually contribute something to the conversation besides insults please.
Alverant, you are right the human body was not intended to sit in a chair for eight hours, yet we do. Probably the reason we have an 33% obesity rate in the country. Just saying.
Only for the eyes of the Apostolic Truth Tabernacle:
The Apostles' Creed 2011: (updated by yours truly and based on the studies of historians and theologians of the past 200 years)
Should I believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
human-created, spirit state of bliss called heaven??
I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)
Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,
He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
Jerusalem.
Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
many semi-fiction writers. A descent into Hell, a bodily resurrection
and ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.
Amen
(references used are available upon request)
=================================================================================
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
LittleHero
Lets get one thing out of the way – I'm anti-theist.
Your post is one of the most obnoxiously arrogant posts I've read in quite some time. I quote:
"I have an IQ of around 140 and like most other high IQ people, I have problems socializing with "average" people. The normal range of IQ for humans is 70-130 with 95% of the population falling into that range. The IQ of a smart dog is estimated to be 30, so me talking to a person on the low end of the IQ scale is like a normal person talking to a dog. I will have no greater chance of convincing someone that heaven can't exist than I will teach my dog to play poker. I only hope that fellow like-minded people will try to "sweep" the footprints that these idiots are leaving in "our" universe. They certainly have been stomping around lately."
I finished pretty much top of the class in medical school. I was intensivist for many years and have been a lung transplant physician for 15 years, have a PhD and an MD, I'm a member of Royal College of Physicians, Royal Australasian College of Physicians and the Joint Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine and have sat some of the the toughest professional exams in medicine and I have no problem in conversing with persons 'on the low end of the IQ scale or anyone else for that matter'.
I would hazard a guess that your inability to converse with people of lower intellect is more likely to reflect issues related to your personality (I'm being nice here) than your 'godlike intelligence' – no disrespect.
People who quote their IQ and use it imply some sort of superiority are:
Quite obviously narcissistic and often not as smart as they think they are.
None of your arguments for the non-existence of God are remotely original by the way.
Hmmm, I have some pretty good conversations with my dog, he's a good listener and non judgmental.
Religion is the cancer of the mind
Religion has been and continues to be used as a tool of oppression, hatred, discrimination. As well as hindering any and all forms of social and scientific progress.
The downfall of the human race will be due to religion.
That sounds very communist.
100 million dead because atheistic leaders choices.
And you say religion is dangerous? You live a life of denial
"And you say religion is dangerous? You live a life of denial"
LOL like religion isn't responsible for death and destruction. get real. Crusades, the holocaust, and even in the middle east today is all responsible for death and destruction.
Those folks were not killed because of atheism. They were killed because those rulers were power-mad despots. You might as well be claiming that Stalin was right-handed, so that was why he killed all those people – and then claim this proves all right-handed people are evil.
There is no heaven for anyone to go to. Including that stupid kid singing the song.
That is exactly what churches teach
Not true. Profile much?
Wrong Greg! Any group that uses the buybull to teach young minds that something is wrong when science has evidence to say it is natural, is teaching hate.
How wrong you are Greg
It's one thing for society to tolerate perverted behavior. It becomes a big problem though, when society is forced to endorse it. It is still politically correct to define marriage as a union of two people of the opposite gender, as it has always been throughout history. That doesn't keep people with a mental illness from enjoying each others company.
Perverted behavior? Where is the proof outside of the buybull that being gay is wrong?
Does being a bigot based on 2000 year old stories make you feel good?
"It's one thing for society to tolerate perverted behavior. It becomes a big problem though, when society is forced to endorse it."
No kidding. Time to revoke tax free status for churches.
"It is still politically correct to define marriage as a union of two people of the opposite gender, as it has always been throughout history."
Not true. History has also accepted one man with several women.
"That doesn't keep people with a mental illness from enjoying each others company."
Hence the popularity of churches
Saying someone will go to hell is about the most hateful thing you can do.
And its prideful and judgemental. Both grevious sins
Why is it that people want someone to bate?
I think these so called Christians should be fenced in
Tell you what, we need to make a Good Song from the following Scripture for them to sing! This gets more to the heart of matters. I bet it would go viral on YouTube!! "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman." - 1 CORINTHIANS 7:1 KJV.
Looks like they decided that the rule about not bearing false witness doesn't apply either....claiming threats when none have been made.
The wicked flee the light and I think these folks know they are wicked down deep and now they run from the light of exposure of their nasty, hate-filled dogma.
They can have their version of god, I'll take my chances elsewhere.
you have no clue. you are breaking a commandment yourself – false accusation.
The KKK claims they don't promote hate, either.... and as far as they're concerned, they don't. Subjectively, of course. If you never considered a group of people to be human to begin with then treating them inhumanely isn't hate, it's common sense. You probably won't convince people who don't already share your viewpoint that that's anything but trite crap, though, Kirby.
We should def define marriage more stringently...
If you're an adulterer...cant marry again.
If you beat your spouse or partner...cant marry
If you spew hate and bigotry....cant get married
Beat your kids....cant get married
Two loving people...no matter who they are....THAT'S a real marraige
why do you limit it to two? what about three? or more? do you have a phobia against one person marrying more than one?
greg: as long as they are adults, i got no problem with polygamy
Just as in the bible, God destroyed Sodom and Gomorra because the men laid with men, so is God going to destroy the world today after he comes to take his church to heaven. The Bible says that in the last days will it be like Sodom and Gomorra, well, take a look around, men marrying men and women marrying women. Of course God love the person but he hates the sin and of course the gays, if they don't turn around will not make it to heaven. It's not hate, it's a fact, no matter what anyone says. God loved Solomon but when he disobeyed God and sinned, he was punished, so will be EVERY Gay and Lesiban in this world. Just because church preached the truth and it made people upset, sounds like what happened when Jesus preached the truth and he was cruicified. Praise the Lord and keep teaching and preaching the truth.
Funny how god didn't have a problem with Lot getting drunk and screwing his daughters.
Here w€ go, using an example from bible to make a a point. Which is fine if you understand the principles involved but if not it comes across as grasping. During Lots time it was crucial to have a male to carry on the fanily name for one. Lot hims€lf did not get intoxi©ated rather his daughters tricked him, possibly because he would have not had relations with them otherwise. They were held up in a cave and were not sure they would ever be free from hideing. That fear along with lot not having a m@le heir influenced his daughters acti©ns. If y©u use a biblical account perhaps try using it with all the particulars involved and with an understanding of the account and the ideals of that time.
There are no facts in religion. It is all a bunch of made up garbage. Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc, etc. Who is right? Who are you going to believe? one believes what one is told as a child.....that is all. life on earth is the result of the evolutionary process.....nothing more or less. We should all do the best we can., trying not to hurt others. It has nothing to do with religion.
That church is not preaching the truth – just their version of the truth – there are many version sof god's truth and not all are the same. Each group of the religious have their own truth and it does not extend to other people.
I would prefer that God come and take you fools up to heaven and leave the rest of us alone.
Ezekiel 16:49 Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
Nope. Nothing about being gay in there at all. In fact, that verse perfectly describes each and every ignorant, fundiot, talibangelical tea bagger out there.
Why do you cretins lie?
S.Lutz..First off I was not raised the relig©n I practice today. Second there have been way too many archeological fi ds that verify people and places and events from the bible. That is way way more evid€nce than ev©lutionary theory offers. If we evolved along with every other living thing then where are the billions of tr@nsitionary f©ssils?! D©nt make excus€s, where are they! Third just as in $cience the©ry if enough information lends itself to the th€ory it is refered to as f@ct, well I have enough information along with actual finds that pr©ve my belief$ for me. Yes me! Thats all that matters. W€ can each evaluate the informati©n presented and dr@w ©ur own coclusions. For mys€lf and millions (billions) of others, it has everything to do with relgi©n. It is why w€ are here and exist. Its a FACT for me. Y©u need not agree.
@Mema
There are countless examples of transitional fossils. If you haven't seen them, you simply aren't looking.
Tiktaalik is a fascinating one to start with.
As for archeological evidence – just becuase there is evidence that a place existed, that doesn't mean the people and events depicted in a story also took place.
Do you think the Iliad is true? It references real places.
Archaeologists have unearthed plenty of evidence suggesting that Gilgamesh was a real person and Uruk a real place.
Does that mean that we should believe the Epic of Gilgamesh is true and he was a demi-god who ruled for 125 years?
That story is much older than the Bible, so it must be literally true!
mema wrote, "During Lots time it was crucial to have a male to carry on the fanily name for one"
So it's more important to have a male heir than not commit incest. You'd think an omnipotent omniscient god could have easily said, "Thou shalt not diddle your daughter".
Mema
For mys€lf and millions (billions) of others, it has everything to do with relgi©n. It is why w€ are here and exist. Its a FACT for me. Y©u need not agree
------------
But, that doesn't make it a FACT, that makes it your OPINION. Fine that you have it, but it doesn't mean you're correct.