 |
|
|
|
|
December 7th, 2012
04:01 AM ET
Church Threatened Over Muslim Convention(CNN affiliate KTLA) - An Episcopal church in Pasadena has been getting hate mail over its decision to host the annual convention of a Muslim American civil rights group. All Saints Church in Pasadena will host the Muslim Public Affairs Council's 12th annual convention on Dec. 15, which is expected to draw about 1,000 people.
« Previous entryWest Point cadet quits over religion
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
| Part of 
Many times when reading articles about Islam, many of those who post classify all muslims in the worst ways, and they ask "where are all the good Muslims?" or "where are the ones that seek peaceful solutions?" Here is a great example of a group of Muslims and Christians trying to work together and people condemn it. Isn't this the kind of peaceful coordination we want from religious groups?
Excellent point!
1,000 people at a Muslim conference in an Episcopal church? For sure that is 950 more people than they get every Sunday! (But only 850 more than they will get at Christmas)
A place where secularism is accepted, endorsed, and expanded is not at all a church, but is nothing more that an empty building with no life in it. Yes, secular, worldly, because involving groups that believe in other than the true and living God, makes that place not a church, but just another Caesar structure.
Socialist Caesars. It's a mob thang, foretold in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Some go to great lengths to show their idiocy.
the incredible hubris of purporting to speak for god.
the true and living god........pfffft
"the true and living God"
You mean the one that has never been shown to be true....or living?
Jesus loves all of us. If a Christian church can't accomadate human beings who happen follow a different faith, then Christianity is an empty shell, and its followers are hypocrites. True Christians understand the teachings of Jesus, and they try to live by them.
Emperor Constantine, a Caesar, made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire. Every church is a "Caesar structure".
Leif, in americult you have PUblic Servants and Masters. The Masters are the Caesars. The socies bullied the Masters into creatin' a Beast, at the hand of the Servants, that is in charge of everything and it acts with god like powers. It's corruption of a Republic. The socies then corrupted the churches and now blame the churches for being corrupted! Tricky! Tricky! trickY. Course it's all antichrist.
The church of the Christ exists anywhere when two or more true Christians get together. You can pack a building every Sunday with hypocrites and still not have a church.
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." – Mahatma Gandhi
Something attributed falsely to Gandhi and often repeated here.
If so, Chad, that only shows how easily something like that can happen (ahem...).
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." – me
I don't know if I would like your Christ considering the stories about him are essentially made up. Perhaps he was a 1st century version of Benny Hinn or Peter Popoff? Then he'd be a jerk.
The actual quote is attributed to Bara Dada:
"Jesus is ideal and wonderful, but you Christians... you are not like him."
I would prefer Benny Hill to Benny Hinn 🙂
Weirdo, you would have Gandhi in jail on pedophile charges, however not a bad place for pharisees. So go ahead, BOOK HIM.
they are fun to play with.....pompous jacka$$e$
Benny Hill, RIP.
Thames has knockers
Sad that the church is so clueless now. I am sure these poor Episcopalians will make great Dhimmis...
*Eye roll*
No need to worry about followers of hindu Mithra sim , pagan savior ism, hindu Magi's, criminal tricksters hindu's deniers of foundation of America, truth absolute GOD.
what happened goon, why all of sudden pro america rant, like you really care? and who the hell is dog named by GODLESS GOD?
Ooh, 7 intelligent words and then the rest of your comment goes all space cadet. Speak English son...
and you still do not get it, hindu, ignorant of hindu dark ages.
well you were the suspect number one, but then you never know!
hindu, barking dog's do not bite, ignore them and move on on way of truth absolute GOD, If they come in your way, just kick their hind to teach them a lesson.
More evidence of tolerant, loving christians.
the only good christian is a heretic christian, i like these guys
Oh, I am sure it will be a B L A S T ! ! !
i guess that's better then a killing, you know because you Christians are the biggest killers in the world
Actually Islam is the number one killers of humans right now. Before that it was communism and Nazism... Not a Christian in the bunch!
Patton. Nazis were not atheists despite what your pastor told you. Communists did little killing for religious reasons whereas Christians, although currently behind Islam, have a lot of blood on their hands – crusades, inquisition, early USA settlers, etc.
Nazi are christian, even now a day the neo Nazis are christian. never mind that in this war so fare Christians have killed more Muslims then Muslims have killed Christians. even before that manifest destiny was christian doing. not to mention the burning years, how many of my people (pagans) have you killed in the last 1700 years oh i forgot you cant count that because we were never consider human. oh and the bubonic plague in Europe was because of your filth and fear of sin. not one pagan has came down with the disease in those times because we washed our @ss.
trust me you guys are winning the slaughter race
oh and Christians have killed more communist then commies have killed people too
remember our army and our leaders in this county are christian
sure, if hindu's criminals do not like their heads choPped of, they need not to hind, terrorize Muslims, or be ready to pay, if a hindu, criminal likes to play. CHOP, CHOP, CHOP, NO HINDUISM, PROBLEM, NEXT ONE PLEASE.
nothing is new, but back to basics, Episcopal ism is nothing but Islamism, corruption of truth absolute by Sunni magi's, filthy crooks of Egypt and Persia, as it is illustrated from word Episi-cola, compounded, blend of cross ism, pagan ism and corrupted teachings of Islamic'lite to justify Epsi-Cola, or now Pepsi-Cola Mithra ism, atheist savior ism, with a new label Khristianity, having no meanings what so ever, as in Wahhabi fabrication of Jesus, a figure created in shadow of son of blessed Mary to Malinda, fool humanity. my gay ism, my love ism is a holy tradition of my pagan Roadrunner ism, religion of Sunni Magi's, criminal crooks, also known as Papi's, follower of vata, stone called Paris, they claim god came out of Mecca rock and created heaven and earth. Gunda, gangster to be in their original language Avesta, also known as middle Persian. Way of Sunni Magi's , criminal crooks to keep Is Lamb ism, racism of Muhammad criminals alive.
Way to propagate gay ism, filthy goat love ism, living proof of Muhammad's Lucifer ism, self center ism to make Epis-Cola's ignorant's goat mam's filthy dung holy. For more on my thoughts, please attend convention in Episcopal church, and spit on my face
What the hell is THIS fvckery?
language of my country, Daristan, illegality of my father, and his father, and his father, so on
Thanks, that cleared things right up.
hinduism, absurdity of a hindu, ignorant.
It is dardistan, hindu, stupid.
dardistan your heart goon
Christians are why I quit going to church many years ago.
You are the most judgemental and hate filled group I have ever seen.
Your bigotry, blind aggression, and hate of anyone who is different makes you EXACTLY what you claim to be fighting against.
Why were you attending in the first place?
Churches are filled with dumb chicks. They believe things like "just the tip."
America, the land where you can hate anybody you want...Our forefathers fought for that...Right!
Our founding fathers fought for freedom. I'm sure that they were aware that some people would do stupid things with said freedom.
@Portland tony,
Essentially, yes.
Hopefully education and knowledge will win the day, but everyone is free to think what they want, including hate.
We had a TV series up here (Canada) called Little Mosque on the Prairie where the local mosque was in the Anglican church. It showed how both religions could get along as neighbours. At the end of the series the church burned down and it moved into the new mosque. I'm an atheist, but I found that just beautiful.
Only in Canada. You folks up there are much more civilized.
good show
I live on the boarder and crossing over on weekend trips is like viewing America like it was in the 50s; friendly, safe, and neighborly, but without all the racism we had back then. We get their news too and it's nothing like the doom and fear they feed us here. No wonder they're happier.
Ahhh, cant you just feel the love?
You would think that if they worship the same god that they could get along but it just isn't so.
@ Honey Badger who clearly cares...
Christianity: Jesus is God; we're saved by what He did, not what we do
Islam: Allah is God & Jesus is just a man; we're saved by what we do (following Allah's rules)
It's the MOST central thing – and anti.thetical.
Hate emails are horrible – but so is forgetting your what you believe.
Russ
You forgot the most important
Man...created all gods and religions, so arguing between which is "correct" is moot.
Russ,
What Jesus did was not all that impressive if he was god, and there is no reason to think he was.
@ Money:
oh yes, i forgot to include...
atheism: there is no god (or in your case: money is God).
either way, all you are doing is joining the debate by saying:
"my beliefs are better than yours; you should believe like I do"...
EVEN IF you are saying "there is no difference" (esp. when very clearly there is).
Russ
I speak from reality. Men did create the bible, in its current form 66 books by 40 authors( not one of them a "god"), and every other religious doc ument. Men created all religions, and all gods, hundreds of them, and most are no longer even remem bered let alone "worshipped". If you study the orig ins of religions and the orig ins of religious doc uments, it is plain to see. Denying it is to disregard reason.
Russ:
Isn't that what Christians do to other faiths? Even some who share Christianity as a belief, as Chad so adroitly pointed out? ("Episcopalians are morally bankrupt")
@ Cheesemaker: we've had that conversation before. you're purposefully objecting to a straw man.
whether you do or not, Christians believe Jesus was fully God AND fully man. much like a square is a rectangle but a rectangle isn't necessarily a square, God can purposefully limit himself to a human existence. Jesus lived his life with all the limitations of a human. he suffered. it hurt. it was real pain. he did not just say "well, i'm God. that's no big deal."
and much on the contrary, the very nature of the Trinity (3 in 1, 1 in 3), Jesus suffered *uniquely* on the cross. It was not just physical pain, and not even just psychological suffering. He was treated like we deserve... all of us... throughout history... due to our sins. And not only was it categorically different historically, but it was a transcendent suffering as well. Because it was not *merely* a human crying out on the cross. But, in the cry of dereliction ("my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"), the very nature of the Trinity is being exposed to suffering. The eternal love & relationship within God himself was put up as payment for us – something categorically more valuable than us.
Now, I expect all of that is something you scoff at as a non-Christian. but at least if you are going to object, it'd be better to object to things we actually believe rather than straw men in which we do not. Jesus did suffer, he was tempted (really, not just as a facade – "in every way" as we are), and yet he did what we could not – he was without sin.
@ money:
you assume your conclusion from the outset. it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
do you claim to have all knowledge? how can exclude this possibility? especially when we are talking about a transcendent being (one BEYOND physical/space/time boundaries)...
@ Akira: certainly. I don't deny that. I'm simply pointing out that many who believe they are "above the fray" are actually in the middle of it. it's deeply ironic... or sad... probably both.
Russ
Tell me why God had to sacrifice himself to himself to save humanity form the punishment he condemned us to?
Russ
Your argument is the same as my saying "i'm going to live forever." You can't prove I won't, and I could believe I will, but reality is it is EXTREMELY unlikely. Try finding one religion that wasn't created by men.
@ Huebert: God didn't HAVE to do anything. He chose to act.
The better question is: what is he showing about himself?
He doesn't compromise his character.
Forgiveness doesn't come at the expense of justice.
Justice doesn't come w/o the hope of ever receiving mercy.
How can you hold justice & mercy together? They're opposites... unless you see the heart of One who – despite what we've done to ourselves & to Him – would be willing to take the justice we deserve (to show us justice does matter – which is important since He *defines* it by who He is) in such a way that he can extend mercy (also showing us his heart).
Your question assumes God either answers to something higher or would gladly compromise who He is for his goals.
@Russ: I am sorry, but it is your post that is illogical. You have made a claim that your god exists. You must now present evidence supporting your claim for verification. You have not satisfied the burden of proof inherent to your claim, and thus, any other claims based on it are not valid.
Please provide verifiable evidence that your god exists.
@ money:
1) my point is that you are attempting to claim the high ground rationally when it is not on your side.
your only basis for concluding there is no God is your presupposition.
yes, you can criticize me on those grounds – but I'm not the one claiming to be w/o metaphysical presuppositions.
2) I agree that all religion was created by men... if defined as follows:
religion: our attempt to get to the divine
Christianity: God comes to us
that's the issue – as one famous theologian said: who can speak of God but God himself?
@ Eric G:
1) as the famous saying goes: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
you are making an argument from silence.
2) the same case could be posed in return.
you exist. you didn't make yourself. what basis do you have to claim there is no God? an infinite regress – at best?
even the "multiverse" theory begs for the same explanation... where did *that* come from?
do you turn the same lens on yourself? if so, you wouldn't be pressing me with the same problem you have in your own defense.
So if only the deity can speak for the deity, why are there so many mouthpieces running around? If all things need a creator, what created the creator? The 'oh my deity exists outside of blah blah blah' is a horrible, horrible copout.
@Russ: You have still not presented evidence supporting your claim. You are now attempting to shift your burden of proof responsibility. I have made no claims of fact without supporting evidence, and thus have no burden of proof in this conversation.
I will ask you again, please provide verifiable evidence that your god exists. If you do not, then your position is based in one of two possible options.
1. You do not understand what "verifiable evidence" is, which makes your position an argument from ignorance.
2. You do understand, but attempt to avoid your burden of proof, which makes your position an argument from dishonesty.
You really do not want to attempt to use logic in this discussion. You will be called out, and you will be made to look foolish.
@ Damocles: oh i agree. there are terrible lies about. but why do lies preclude the truth?
it's Christmas... why would this be such a big deal? *if it's true*, it changes everything.
here's the harder question: is there such a thing as an unbiased approach to that question? b/c IF it's true, it requires that your entire life recenter around it. can you admit your bias against it even as it's asked?
or to put it as Thomas Nagle at NYU put it:
“I’m talking about something deeper within all of us – the fear of religion itself – I’m speaking from experience, being strongly subject to the spirit myself – I *want* atheism to be true – I am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent & well informed people I know are religious believers – it isn’t that I just don’t believe in God (& therefore naturally hope that my belief is right), I hope there is no God – I don’t want there to be a God – I don’t want the universe to be like that – this cosmic authority problem is not rare – and I doubt that there is anyone who is genuinely indifferent as to whether or not there is a god”
Can you admit even as you ask the question that you are pre-disposed against it from the outset?
@ Eric G:
on the contrary, you certainly have made at least an inference (if not outright claim) for which you have no factual basis – namely that Jesus is not God and/or did not exist.
Considering the co.pious amounts of manuscripts and evidence to the contrary, you DO have a burden of proof upon you. Even the most susp.icious bible scholars admit the clear evidence supports the historical person of Jesus – even those atheist/agnostic scholars who object to the content of the eyewitness accounts.
For more on that...
Bart Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?" Here's the foreword where he debunks your position – as an agnostic.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2012/03/30/the-historical-evidence-of-the-existence-of-jesus-of-nazareth/
per the categorically "embarrassing wealth" of resources available (compared to other ancient doc.uments) & the reliability of the texts:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2012/03/21/an-interview-with-daniel-b-wallace-on-the-new-testament-manuscripts/
and for more exhaustive treatment of the eyewitness accounts themselves:
Richard Bauckham, "Jesus & the Eyewitnesses"
the scholarship is there for those seeking evidence. the burden remains on you.
Russ
Nothing about the sacrifice of Jesus resembles justice. The whole idea is ludicrous. It would be like a judge finding someone guilty then getting up from the bench, slamming his head in a door, and then saying "justice is served". Justice must be on the person who committed the transgression. Justice by proxy is a ridiculous concept.
@ Huebert: so what do you do when justice is more than someone can pay?
how does Bernie Madoff ever *pay* the billions more than he has to give?
how does a mass murderer give back so many lives when he only has one to give?
is that justice? you are assuming everyone can pay their "fair share," so to speak.
but yes, you are rightly being offended by the cross.
Jesus not only shows us how much higher the cost of justice is than we want to admit,
but he simultaneously gives mercy – which is almost incomprehensible for anyone who believes they *deserve* better.
Russ
Justice is a societal construct. We, as a people, agree on what justice is, there is no absolute standard for an invented concept. In the case of mass murders and Madoff, I would say justice is not actually possible.
And I'm not offended by the cross I'm baffled. Baffled, that anyone would ever consider the idea that justice can be served torturing an innocent man, or what ever the hell you want to think of Jesus is. Justice, if possible, must fall on the person committing the crime, otherwise you are just hurting someone else for no reason.
@ Huebert: are you a parent? can you conceive of a love that would be willing to pay for someone else's mistake?
secondly, resti.tution must happen if the offense is to be actually repaid. if i steal a car & wreck it, and the owner comes & says "I forgive you," someone still has to pay for the car. Either he is paying for it by forgiving the debt, or I still owe him. Forgiveness entails paying a debt for someone else. In that regard, we do pay for other people every day.
so no, i do not agree that justice is an 'invented concept' or "societal construct." it is a necessary tool of societal interaction, but it arises out of something inherent to our existence... but again, we disagree on our underlying presuppositions there – and that is the real meat of the debate here.
Russ,
The reason you think I am putting up a straw man is because I am pointing out the absurdities of the Jesus myth. Just because you claim there are not absurdities does not therefor mean the myth makes sense. How can the creator of the universe be tempted with anything? How can the devil DO anything without the implied consent of the all powerful being? Something does no become logical becuase you believe it to be so, and those that point out the inconsistancies are not putting up a straw man, these are reasoned questions to the myth christians claim as "truth".
@ Cheesemaker:
1) it's not a myth.
again, i believe this is a conversation we've had before.
here's CS Lewis (a lifelong myth expert), rather thoroughly, on why the Gospel accounts of Jesus cannot be categorized literarily as myth.
http://orthodox-web.tripod.com/papers/fern_seed.html
a sample:
"I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this. Of this text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage – though it may no doubt contain errors – pretty close up to the facts; nearly as close as Boswell. Or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors, or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative. If it is untrue, it must be narrative of that kind. The reader who doesn't see this has simply not learned to read."
2) a straw man is purposefully misrepresenting another's position for your own gain.
you appear to be objecting that 'God didn't really suffer in Christ because he's God' – which is definitively contrary to what Christians believe and articulate. am i mistaken – or is that your contention?
i'm willing to have the discussion – but my point was: that's not what we believe. and it has been repeatedly stated in that regard for 2000 years. but if you insist on objecting to Christianity along those lines, it'd be good to be aware that you are objecting to a false form of our faith.
now, you are free to object to what Christians believe – but it seems to me it'd be better to accurately describe our position before objecting to a position we don't hold. review what I wrote to you far above about the Trinity. there's plenty there philosophically to debate. but we believe Jesus had a *fully human* existence – and thus he was tempted genuinely tempted, as any human is. because, as Gregory of Nazianzus put so bluntly: "whatever wasn't assumed, wasn't healed." in other words, if Jesus wasn't really tempted in every way as I am (a fully human existence), then he didn't heal our humanity.
CS Lewis is setting up a false dicotomy. Just because he sees no other option, then of course there CAN BE no other option. This is something Christians and Christianity do a lot of. It is essentually the argument from ignorance applied to the gospels. He does the same thing with his "tri-lemma" argument, "Lord, Lunatic or Liar" when there is an obvious 4th option "Legend".
As to your claim of a straw man. I realize christians believe Jesus was fully man and fully god, that does not counter my point the concept is absurd as are many things Christians believe. You can explain to me all day why your neighbor is a "married bachelor", and why you believe it. Your explaination does not overcome the fact that your belief in a "married bachelor" is a contradiction....pointing out the obvious oxymoron is not setting up a "straw man".
@ Cheesemaker:
1) it's not a false dichotomy. he's giving you the literary criteria for a myth & showing – on that basis – why it's not an option. This is not a false dilemma. it's a factual, quantifiable discussion. there are no other so-called "myths" like this – literarily speaking... unless of course, you think 1700 years before modern, realistic, novelistic fiction was developed, 4 virtually unknown writers all developed that genre w/o known predecessors or successors. but if that's the case, now who appears credulous?
read his essay. it's not exhaustive, but it is rather forthright & based in scholarship. even if you disagree, the burden remains to debunk his four central points. and that is why clearly "Legend" (i.e., myth) is not an option alongside the other 3.
2) Jesus the God-man.
a) objecting to a straw man
my first point was that you are constructing a position we don't hold & then mocking it. that is separate from your other point (which I'll take up below). I would hope you would see the futility of that form of debate. otherwise, it begins to simply look like you're purposefully clouding the discussion to avoid getting down to the substance.
b) objecting to the miraculous
are you objecting to the very nature of divinity (that God is bigger than you & can act any way he pleases)? which misses something inherent to the definition of divine/transcendent/metaphysical/etc...
or are you objecting to the miraculous (that God, while being transcendent, still wouldn't act in a transcendent manner)? sort of self-refuting...
or are you objecting just to the particular forms it takes w/in the claims of Christianity?
the latter question draws out my concern: the uniqueness of Christianity lies primarily in grace. but your objection appears to be to the miraculous in general & the very notion of the supernatural/transcendent, which is a broader category.
your questions all assume: how would i do it if i were God? but that only works if there is no god or if you are your own god (or made up your own). and so your own presuppositions preclude the very possibility of the transcendent from the outset – despite the fact that the practical definitions themselves open the door to the things to which you are objecting. it's self-fulfilling.
Russ,
CS Lewis is setting up a position where he is arguing the gospels are relating history or they are myth. That is a false dicotomy because they are not the only options. On top of that he is aking us to just accept his authority on the subject because if we are not as learned as he is we "can't understand" AND anyone who is as learned as he is and doesn't agree with him is just wrong though he does not provide any basis for his assertions other than his authority.
you said "you think 1700 years before modern, realistic, novelistic fiction was developed"
What makes the gospels modern, realistic, novelistic?
I do agree with the fiction part.
As far as the straw man, I said "What Jesus did was not all that impressive if he was god, and there is no reason to think he was." That is stating MY position, NOT YOURS so how could it be a straw man?
As to the miraculous, yes I am objecting to it and I AM using my presupposition that I have never been given any rational reason to believe that supernatural occuances actually happen. Saying you just "presuppose" they do happen and therefore we are on equal ground is again fallacious.
@ Cheesemaker: just saw your response. sorry for the delay. in case you check back...
1) you clearly didn't read his essay. he's not setting up a dichotomy. he gives scholarly reasons why *anyone* (not just scholars) can see that 'myth' is not a correct genre.
along those lines, the reason it's "modern, realistic, novelistic" is b/c of the detail & presentation. no myth/fiction presents itself with superfluous details simply for the sake of 'sounding' real until 1700 years later (for example, you never find Homer having Odysseus row 3 or 3.5 miles out from the cyclops' cave, or that Odysseus caught 153 fish – but you do find that kind of detail throughout the Gospels). it's anachronistic to claim otherwise. the genre is clearly eyewitness accounts (as reported in Luke 1:1-4; 1 Jn.1:1-3; 1 Cor.15:1-3; etc.).
2) yes, it is YOUR presuppositions that the divine cannot self-limit – but that is not Christianity. so...
a) your criticisms here are not of a position Christians actually hold
b) your position is philosophically unnecessary & illogical
to be most pointed, it's the classic "Can God make a rock so big he can't lift it?" it's a misunderstanding of omnipotence. and honestly, the most direct answer a Christian can give is this: God made a nail so hard it pierced him.
but again, you're failing to understand Jesus' humanity. Philippians 2 says he set his glory aside. it doesn't mean he stopped being God, but he took on a fully human existence. philosophically speaking, why can't an omniscient, omnipotent being do that? you have no basis to object to that on philosophical grounds.
3) why does it matter that you presuppose there is no miraculous? b/c you admitted presupposition skews the data. you filter out the obvious. existence itself.
you exist. you didn't make yourself. your choices are: an infinite regress (which still begs the question) or 'multiverses' which still don't explain where *they* came from. it's missing the forest for the trees. you're so busy explaining away religion that you explain away your own answer.
note especially the critique in the 3rd minute here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rK0mjVcmcIo
the American churches days in days out, surrounded with political controversy, gays, lesbians, the same s.ex marriages issues, declaring Mormons cult, koran burning, protesting soldier's funerals with anti-gay messages, have became a place for the three ring circus, not place to worship GOD, attention seekeing goons
plenty of data, but wrong conclusion. Wait, Wait, you might be right!
Episcopalians are morally bankrupt. It doesn't matter what they support. They put gays and women in the pulpit. Now they allow Muslims in the sanctuary. Are there any more ways they can desecrate the props they use to keep up the sham that they are somehow Christian?
Lol. Here we go with one Christian slamming another one. They are all experts in belittling each other.
Let's see, Chad – who was that American again who helped found the Episcopalians in America who said:
During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.
Oh, that's right, of course – it was James Madison, our 4TH POTUS and chief architect of the U.S. Constitution.
Deism and witnessing persecution in their home states, helped our key framers see ugliness that comes out of Christian fundamentalism.
Get with the 21st century, Chad. Your frame of mind is hundreds of years out-of-date and you make yourself look silly to the rest of us civilized human beings.
Chad belongs to the United Church of Hate.
what about altar boys loving priests, are they okay in the sanctuary?
Chad is right. muslims like to go ka-boom. lets start with USS cole, then go on with somalia, 9/11, bombay bombing, ect. ect.
..
Should we take the two world wars as proof that Christians are out to get us?
" ect, ect " pure genius.
Oklahoma City bombing, abortion clinic bombings, murder of abortion doctors, the Inquisition, the crusades, ETC., ETC...
I believe it was your Savior who reportedly said (paraphrased as I don't have my bible here at work):
Before you go digging for that speck in your brother's eye, see to the log in your own.
Don't judge others unless you want me to judge you based on the same measurement.
Love your neighbors as yourself.
Love your enemies and pray for those who hurt you.
Might want to consider that.
Chad,
You are always sure to count the Episcopalians when you want to point out how many christians there are in this country, right?
"Episcopalians are morally bankrupt."
Wow that's a judgmental position to take. Let's start with the (intentionally ironinc) maxim, 'generalizations are always wrong'.
okey so the ect was a spelling mistake.
WW I and WW II were not based on religion.
crusades etc. were soooo long ago
ab0rt1on clinic stuff is peanuts and herre and there not widespread. its not a pattern.
killing cartoonist, planting bomb everywhere, and other forms of acting like angry 8 year old will continue as long as adults tolerate the tantrum thrower. that is what yall are doing. Islam like a out of control kid needs a time out.
morally bankrupt? what an inbred punk.
...
Are you telling me that the Germans weren't Christians who thought they had God on their side?
So, .., Hitler trying to wipe out Jews is different...how?
It can be said that Christianity has done everything you accuse all Muslims of; using different weapons, of course, but the result is the same: death.
Chad is wrong, as are you.
I'll state the obvious for you Chad:
Thier morals make them MORE christian than you, not less.
You are probably the only one who needed someone to say it.
Yall need to learn that being nice to sinners aint what true Christianity is about. Real Christians know its all about the good feeling of self-righteousness. We gotta be able to point out differences in others as "sin" so we can see ourselves as their better. Then we don't feel like losers in the game of Life.
Wow chad, you have the worms in the snake pit all riled up AND judging Christians. Too bad for them they don't qualify............................... "1Cr 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man."
And who threw the first stone of judgment idiot "lol??" ?
So, you think that Jesus would support the writing of hate mail to the Episcopalians because they have opened their arms to fellow human beings who happen to be of a different faith? Really? That is what you think Jesus would want?
I have an idea. They could let atheists attend. Oh...wait....they already have. I have attended services in many churches
of many branches of Christianity. Nobody ever asked me if I was an atheist, or a Muslim, or a Jew....you get the point...I hope. Jesus would have welcomed me.
Jihad
Dhimmi
Jeziya
Kaffir
You do understand, don't you, that google is a verb as well as a noun?
More words,
R@pe, genocide, infantcide, slavery.
the words you mentioned dont apply becuz they are from OLD testament. I looked up dhimmi. dhimmitude was practices as late as a few hundred years ago.
The muslims are a clear and present danger.
.., Isn't the OT part of the Christian Bible? Yes?
Then it applies.
Another that decides what to cherry-pick to support an agenda for bigotry; cracks me up every time.
If the OT does not apply than I submit we can throw out Jesus since he was based on it. Same immoral god, NT and OT.
http://www.dhimmitude.org/index.html
Dots, might want to write that last love letter to your religion now. Seal it with a kiss. I am taking it from you. Can't you feel it slipping away?
wait until convention guest speaker, Mohammad A Dar, Hindu blah blah blah shows up, goons
Shouting from the highest mountain:
WHAT INSTIGATED THE ATTACK ON THE TWIN TOWERS, FLIGHT 93 AND THE PENTAGON?
AND WHAT DRIVES TODAY'S 24/7 MOSQUE/IMAM-PLANNED ACTS OF TERROR AND HORROR?
THE KORAN, MOHAMMED'S BOOK OF DEATH FOR ALL INFIDELS AND MUSLIM DOMINATION OF THE WORLD BY ANY MEANS.
MUSLIMS MUST CLEAN UP THIS BOOK REMOVING SAID PASSAGES ADMITTING THAT THEY ARE BASED ON THE GABRIEL MYTH AND THEREFORE OBVIOUSLY THE HALLUCINATIONS AND/OR LIES OF MOHAMMED.
THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE SAFETY AND LOCATION OF MOSQUES AND WHAT IS TAUGHT THEREIN.
UNTIL THEN, NO MUSLIM CAN BE TRUSTED ANYTIME OR ANYWHERE..................................
" WHAT INSTIGATED THE ATTACK ON THE TWIN TOWERS, FLIGHT 93 AND THE PENTAGON?"
Fundamentalist religious idiots.
Just like our fundamentalist religious idiots who are threatening this church.
The following passages in the koran are for all Muslims:
http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/005.asp et al
o "Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)
o
"Believers, when you encounter the infidels on the march, do not turn your backs to them in flight. If anyone on that day turns his back to them, except it be for tactical reasons...he shall incur the wrath of God and Hell shall be his home..." (Surah 8:12-)
"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme." (Surah 8:36-)
"...make war on the leaders of unbelief...Make war on them: God will chastise them at your hands and humble them. He will grant you victory over them..." (Surah 9:12-)
"Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27-)
"It is He who has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the true Faith [Islam] to make it triumphant over all religions, however much the idolaters [non-Muslims] may dislike it." (Surah 9:31-)
"If you do not fight, He will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men." (Surah 9:37-)
"Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home." (Surah 9:73)
"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)
"Say: 'Praise be to God who has never begotten a son; who has no partner in His Kingdom..." (Surah 17:111)
"'How shall I bear a child,' she [Mary] answered, 'when I am a virgin...?' 'Such is the will of the Lord,' he replied. 'That is no difficult thing for Him...God forbid that He [God[ Himself should beget a son!...Those who say: 'The Lord of Mercy has begotten a son,' preach a monstrous falsehood..." (Surah 19:12-, 29-, 88)
"Fight for the cause of God with the devotion due to Him...He has given you the name of Muslims..." (Surah 22:78-)
"Blessed are the believers...who restrain their carnal desires (except with their wives and slave-girls, for these are lawful to them)...These are the heirs of Paradise..." (Surah 23:1-5-)
"Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Surah 48:29)
"Shall the reward of goodness be anything but good?...Dark-eyed virgins sheltered in their tents...They shall recline on green cushions and fine carpets...Blessed be the name of your Lord..." (Surah 55:52-66-)
Replace a few key words, and you'll have the OT.
A book of hate and bigotry is not confined to Islam.
At least be honest in your prejudice.
Only for the new members of this blog:
Putting the kibosh/”google” on all religion in less than ten seconds: Priceless !!!
• As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Abraham i.e. the foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are non-existent.
• As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Moses i.e the pillars of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have no strength of purpose.
• There was no Gabriel i.e. Islam fails as a religion. Christianity partially fails.
• There was no Easter i.e. Christianity completely fails as a religion.
• There was no Moroni i.e. Mormonism is nothing more than a business cult.
• Sacred/revered cows, monkey gods, castes, reincarnations and therefore Hinduism fails as a religion.
• Fat Buddhas here, skinny Buddhas there, reincarnated/reborn Buddhas everywhere makes for a no on Buddhism.
Added details available upon written request.
A quick search will put the kibosh on any other groups calling themselves a religion.
e.g. Taoism
"The origins of Taoism are unclear. Traditionally, Lao-tzu who lived in the sixth century is regarded as its founder. Its early philosophic foundations and its later beliefs and rituals are two completely different ways of life. Today (1982) Taoism claims 31,286,000 followers.
Legend says that Lao-tzu was immaculately conceived by a shooting star; carried in his mother's womb for eighty-two years; and born a full grown wise old man. "
Then there is this:
Only for new members of this blog:
origin: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482 NY Times review and important enough to reiterate.
New Torah/OT For Modern Minds
“Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. (prob•a•bly
Adverb: Almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell).
The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.
Such startling propositions - the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years - have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity - until now.
The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called "Etz Hayim" ("Tree of Life" in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine doc-ument.
The notion that the Bible is not literally true "is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis," observed David Wolpe, a rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a contributor to "Etz Hayim." But some congregants, he said, "may not like the stark airing of it." Last Passover, in a sermon to 2,200 congregants at his synagogue, Rabbi Wolpe frankly said that "virtually every modern archaeologist" agrees "that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way that it happened, if it happened at all." The rabbi offered what he called a "LITANY OF DISILLUSION”' about the narrative, including contradictions, improbabilities, chronological lapses and the absence of corroborating evidence. In fact, he said, archaeologists digging in the Sinai have "found no trace of the tribes of Israel - not one shard of pottery."
So where is the New koran for Modern Minds?
Anyione want to bet that the hate is not from atheists?
The atheists are too busy trying to ban Christmas Trees in senior apartment buildings.
You're a mean one... Mr. Grinch.
Yep. Christians being Christians.
Santa
Hey, I like my Christmas trees just as much as I like my Halloween decorations. I don't see anything particularly religious about either.
Santa, stop being absurd and get back to work...tick tock.
Santa
Stop watching Faux News. There is no "War on Christmas".
I wonder if the Pagans had news stories about how the Christians were stealing the "soul" out of their "Solstice"?
Blessed are the Cheesemakers
Well, there certainly were many prominent Romans who felt that the Christians were degrading the Empire with their atheism for the traditional gods. Sounds eerily familiar, doesn't it?
Ugly!
Good.
Bad
Flip a coin like SCOTUS.