 |
|
|
|
 Are church teachings on homosexuality driving millennials away from faith?
March 31st, 2014
02:18 PM ET
How evangelicals won a war and lost a generation
(CNN) - On March 24, World Vision announced that the U.S. branch of the popular humanitarian organization would no longer discriminate against employees in same-sex marriages. It was a decision that surprised many but one that made sense, given the organization’s ecumenical nature. But on March 26, World Vision President Richard Stearns reversed the decision, stating, “our board acknowledged that the policy change we made was a mistake.” Supporters helped the aid group “see that with more clarity,” Stearns added, “and we’re asking you to forgive us for that mistake.” So what happened within those 48 hours to cause such a sudden reversal? The Evangelical Machine kicked into gear. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said the decision pointed to “disaster,” and the Assemblies of God denomination encouraged its members to pull their financial support from the organization. Evangelicals took to Twitter and Facebook to threaten to stop sending money to their sponsored children unless World Vision reversed course. Within a day of the initial announcement, more than 2,000 children sponsored by World Vision lost their financial support. And with more and more individuals, churches and organizations threatening to do the same, the charity stood to lose millions of dollars in aid that would otherwise reach the poor, sick, hungry and displaced people World Vision serves. So World Vision reversed course. Stearns told The New York Times that some people, satisfied with the reversal, have called World Vision headquarters to ask, “Can I have my child back?” as though needy children are expendable bargaining chips in the culture war against gay and lesbian people. Many of us who grew up evangelical watched with horror as these events unfolded. As a longtime supporter of World Vision, I encouraged readers of my blog to pick up some of the dropped sponsorships after the initial decision. I then felt betrayed when World Vision backtracked, though I urged my readers not to play the same game but to keep supporting their sponsored children, who are of course at no fault in any of this. But most of all, the situation put into stark, unsettling relief just how misaligned evangelical priorities have become. When Christians declare that they would rather withhold aid from people who need it than serve alongside gays and lesbians helping to provide that aid, something is wrong. There is a disproportionate focus on homosexuality that consistently dehumanizes, stigmatizes and marginalizes gay and lesbian people and, at least in this case, prioritizes the culture war against them over and against the important work of caring for the poor. Evangelicals insist that they are simply fighting to preserve “biblical marriage,” but if this were actually about “biblical marriage,” then we would also be discussing the charity’s policy around divorce. But we’re not. Furthermore, Scripture itself teaches that when we clothe and feed those in need, we clothe and feed Christ himself, and when we withhold care from those in need, we withhold it from Christ himself (Matthew 25:31-46). Why are the few passages about homosexuality accepted uncritically, without regard to context or culture, but the many about poverty so easily discarded? As I grieved with my (mostly 20- and 30-something) readers over this ugly and embarrassing situation, I heard a similar refrain over and over again: “I don’t think I’m an evangelical anymore. I want to follow Jesus, but I can’t be a part of this.” I feel the same way. Whether it’s over the denial of evolutionary science, continued opposition to gender equality in the church, an unhealthy alliance between religion and politics or the obsession with opposing gay marriage, evangelicalism is losing a generation to the culture wars. A recent survey from Public Religion Research Institute revealed that nearly one-third of millennials who left their childhood faith did so because of “negative teachings” or “negative treatment” of gay and lesbian people. Christians can disagree about what the Bible says (or doesn’t say) about same-sex marriage. This is not an issue of orthodoxy. But when we begin using child sponsorships as bargaining tools in our debates, we’ve lost the way of Jesus. So my question for those evangelicals is this: Is it worth it? Is a “victory” against gay marriage really worth leaving thousands of needy children without financial support? Is a “victory” against gay marriage worth losing more young people to cynicism regarding the church? Is a “victory” against gay marriage worth perpetuating the idea that evangelical Christians are at war with LGBT people? And is a “victory” against gay marriage worth drowning out that quiet but persistent internal voice that asks, "what if we get this wrong?" I, for one, am tired of arguing. I’m tired of trying to defend evangelicalism when its leaders behave indefensibly. I’m going AWOL on evangelicalism's culture wars so I can get back to following Jesus among its many refugees: LGBT people, women called to ministry, artists, science-lovers, misfits, sinners, doubters, thinkers and “the least of these.” I’m ready to stop waging war and start washing feet. Rachel Held Evans is the author of "Evolving in Monkey Town" and "A Year of Biblical Womanhood." She blogs at rachelheldevans.com. The views expressed in this column belong to Rachel Held Evans.
« Previous entryDoes God have a prayer in Hollywood?
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
Opinion by Rachel Held Evans, special to CNN
"I’m going AWOL on evangelicalism's culture wars so I can get back to following Jesus among its many refugees: LGBT people, women called to ministry, artists, science-lovers, misfits, sinners, doubters, thinkers and “the least of these.”"
+++ or you could follow those people without jesus. apply Occam's razor, cut away what isn't necessary. jesus is unnecessary. remove him from the equation and it functions just as well. you don't need to mix fiction into non-fiction.
Bootyfunk,
Do you believe in the historical Jesus?
There is not a shred of evidence that a Yeshua ben Josef (Jesus of Nazareth) ever existed. Since there are so many historical contradictions in the gospels and Paul said he never met him, yet invented Paulianity (or rather Chrstianity) anyway, (he siad he got his gospel "from no man") with his hallucination as his reference, there really is no way to determine any actual historical differences among Philo's Jesus, Jesus of Gemala, Simon of Perea, and all the other wandering apocalyptic miracle-working, dead and resurrected, sons of the gods, messiah figures.
"One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate." – Bart Ehrman quote shown in his debate with Michael Liconia ("Ehrman vs. Licona (2009)") on YouTube.
New Testament critic and historian Bart Ehrman indicates that the credal statement in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 can be traced to 1 year after the cross. I have included the verses below.
1 Corinthians 15:-7
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,
If you would like more info on this I would suggest watching "The Resurrection Argument That Changed a Generation of Scholars – Gary Habermas at UCSB" on YouTube.
Habermas is an historian from a second rate school with NO DEGREE in Ancient Near Eastern Culture and Literature, yet pretends to know about it. He is a fraud. There is NOTHING certain about Jebus. See ANYTHING Dr. Richard Carrier, who IS an expert on ancient history has demonstrated. Saying "there is nothing so certain" is evidence of nothing. Show u the evidence or shut up. Paul was a believer. ANYTHING he says in not credible. There was no trial. The Sanhedrin was NEVER ONCE in all of history called into session on Passover weekend. Never. Matthew says a zombie army invaded Jerusalem. Hahaha. The gospels can't even get the day and the time the same in the story they cooked up about the passion and death. Sorry. Your cult is based on a fable. Paul also admitted he was a liar. The Church Father admitted THEY were liars. Lying for Jebus. How quaint.
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous supersti.tion, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multi.tude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind" – Tacitus, Annals. Written about 116 A.D.
Reblogged this on Sky Pilot .
So?
Science works because scientists are skeptical of science. It is the best way humans have devised to minimize the probability of fooling ourselves. Inst'itutions that deal with topics that aren't supposed to be opinion and don't use the scientific method should be held much more suspect.
Just today, a firm had to report they found falsified data in a stem cell paper. The data looked strange and they followed up and self reported.
The problem is when the scientific method is inconclusive, such as whether or not there is a God, and when certain people use that information to come to a conclusion that there is no God anyway, they are claiming to use the scientific method and thus claiming to have their facts straight when in reality their claim isn't even established fact to begin with.
"thus claiming to have their facts straight "
Who claims to have their "facts" straight in this scenario?
Well, if no one is really claiming to have their facts straight then there shouldn't be anyone claiming that God or the Bible or anything religious for that matter to be fiction.
The bible is real. It is a book written by multiple authors over centuries. It was edited, revised and translated for centuries with different parts of it being emphasized and deprecated over time.
There is nothing factual to suggest that it is any way divine, so by the same fact-based measures, how can it be anything but a storybook, unless you imagine it to be so?
Perhaps you can discuss then the basis for morality? I can't seem to get a reply from you tonight on this.
Do you believe Hitler was morally wrong even though he thought what he did was morally good? If so, why?
I don't think the existence or non-existence of God is something that anyone can be "factual" about.
Well, it is a fact that there is no actual (factual, objective, independent, verifiable, physical, etc.) evidence for any god, but I do understand that the lack of evidence is not definitive.
Yes, I agree.
Just like there is also no verifiable evidence that there is no such God or divine creator also, yet somehow that doesn't stop certain people from making any claim, when in order to be scientifically objective one should not jump to any such conclusions on either side of the argument when it come to the question whether or not there is a God.
"one should not jump to any such conclusions on either side of the argument
Agreed. Which is why it is pointless to claim that there is a God.
In any other domain, after the time and effort invested to prove a hypotheses (gods exist in this case) with zero positive results, the hypotheses would have been discarded. But no, religion gets a free pass and facts rarely matter.
there is as much evidence that my left nut is god as there is for the christian god.
The existence of objective morality is evidence for God.
truthfollower01,
Still STUMPED after all this time?
Where do the morals come from that tell Christians that God is WRONG to support slavery, discriminations, and beating children?
Oooops.
Please respond to my response to your slavery accusation when you get a chance.
truthfollower01,
STILL STUMPED.
STILL NO ANSWER.
Still trying to AVOID EMBARASSING YOURSELF with an honest answer.
Obviously on atheism there is no moral problem with any of these anyway since objective morality doesn't exist. As atheistic professor of philosophy Michael Ruse has commented concerning the objectivity, "ethics are illusory".
Observer,
"STILL NO ANSWER"
I already answered multiple times to your slavery accusation in Exodus. Did you read any of them? If so, what did you think?
observer
truthfollower01,
You admit that selling a six-year-old daughter to a complete stranger for use as a slave is acceptable at times to your morals. Obviously, MANY Christians find this to be HORRENDOUS.
Where do the morals come from that tell Christians that God is WRONG to support slavery, discriminations, and beating children?
Keep stalling. You aren't fooling ANYONE.
There is no evidence for any "objective morality" mush less it being evidence for a deity. All cultural norms are explained by Evolution,and are vastly different in different cultures. There is no "absolute" morality. All morality is situaltionally dependent.
Is it moral to take a life ? Ask a soldier.
Observer,
Since I answered your Exodus question, why is anything you think offensive actually morally wrong?
Bucky,
If Hitler thought the Holocaust was morally good, was he wrong? If so, why?
truthfollower01,
There's no record that Hitler ever supported selling 6-year-old girls to strangers for slaves like YOUR MORALS.
You don't seem like the best person to talk about MORALS.
Perhaps you can share why if Hitler thought what he was doing was morally good, he was wrong if you believe so?
Is Richard Dawkins wrong when he says, " “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” If so, why?
The question is irrelevant and nonsensical. Hitler was a Catholic. Morality does not come from the gods, which you wouod know IF you ever took Anthropology 101. I suppose they don't teach that in Babble College.
"The problem is when the scientific method is inconclusive, such as whether or not there is a God"
No, the problem is people like you believing Science is testing to see if there is a God or not. Science is the examination and attempt to understand our known universe. It examines what we can test and repeat. If you are looking for testing God then you should try out philosophy. You are just mad that so far science has not been able to verify anything supernatural, ever. Sure, it has explained nature that is super, but so far in the careful examination of the known world there hasn't been the slightest hint of proof for God. Now I will admit, they have found no proof against God either, so i'm not going to go slapping the kazoo out of your mouth, but it's a little early to celebrate when your stage is still empty.
Perhaps the most factual, substantive and succinct single sentence I've ever read on the subject.
You think the onus is on atheists to find evidence that God does not exist, instead of on theists to find evidence that he does?
Fine, show me the evidence that Zeus, Odin and Krishna do not exist.
The gods are not the object of ANY "scientific" inquiry. Science is not "inconclusive" about the gods. Science is not even interested in the question. There is no coherent definition of a "god".
OMG, I just won the lottery!
Great! You can use the cash for dead jew zombie cannibal vampire death cult aka christianity deprogramming. And to feed many starving children that your current sky buddies like to ignore.
OH MY GOD!!! ABORT! ABORT!
APRIL FOOL! APRIL FOOL!
As a Christian, you don't cease to be a human being, to the contrary, you celebrate life during and after.
Vic,
I JUST WON FREE GASOLINE FOR LIFE!!!
Vic,
April Fuel !!!
Lol@both of ya....
There is no "after life". Space-time is a dimension ONLY in this universe, as far as we know. "Transitioning" to *after* requires time, (as does everything you say about your deity ... acting, creating, loving, hating etc etc.) If your deity REQUIRES spece-time, as long as she existed, space-time HAD to exist. Oops. She couldn't have "created" spece-time if she requires it. Maybe Vic could buy a clue.
Three numbers and $5.00 means you broke even, but thanks for the update.
"The Evangelical Machine kicked into gear."
Now the liberal machine has kicked into gear to attack Christians...nice how that works both ways.
Lol.
Only a Christian could scream persecution about a story where the real choice was to allow the withdrawal of support from poor children individual gay bashing bigots or remain a bigoted, gay bashing organization.
"by individual gay bashing bigots...."
People who politicize everything just crack me up.
It's so absurd.
Pointing out the contradictions and fallacies about religion is not attacking.
What contradictions and fallacies?
Evangelicals can't allow sinners into their charity organization. I guess they wouldn't have hired King David, Moses, Abraham, or Apostle Paul if they applied.
bostontola
If they allowed sinners into the charities they would not have enough people to preach from the pulpit. Love that Jimmy Swaggart clip.
Everyone sins, but the question is do we allow and support sin as a way of life. Would Christians support and allow open adulterers into their church...no. It is the same as any other sin. It will be excluded.
Are you seriously claiming that every known adulterer, every person known to have had an abortion or every person known to have committed a sin according to your (alleged but never proven) god is being shunned?
Anyone else wonder why Kevvie won't answer the very simple question above?
Nope, we know why.
I see Kevvie is busy chirping away in other threads but hasn't answered the very simple question above. I wonder why?
Open adulterers?
I think you'll find that they do, every Sunday, particularly using Jesus' own definition of adultery.
At the same time there is John 8:7.
Nice way to take it out of context and meaning and using it is an attack. I would explain it to you, but i am sure it would be in vain.
I didn't take anything out of context. Jesus said nothing about being gay. Even if you consider that to be wrong, why would you judge that behavior when ignoring the following behavior which is perfectly acceptable to modern Christians:
Matthew 5
"32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for se.xual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
Anyone openly married to a divorced woman at your church Kev?
Lying is a sin, do you know people who won't lie again? Jesus forgives the repeat sinner doesn't he? Why do you judge?
Why do you judge?
LOL @ kev. Ignores the question, asks the same question.
key2672,
Skip all the HYPOCRISY. Chances are that your place of worship has Christians who are ADULTERERS because they divorced and remarried and you've NEVER told them to divorce and repent.
Get real.
Well divorce is allowed under certain conditions in Christianity. I guess you didn't know that.
kev2672,
(Matt. 5:32) “But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchast-ity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” [Jesus]
I guess you didn't know what JESUS said.
SO how many divorced and remarried women have you told to divorce again and repent?
Number please.
kev – Christians are always saying that everyone is a sinner and that all sins are equally bad to God. If they're all equally bad, why focus on particular ones?
I don't think we do.
Kev, you're lying. You know it, and so does everyone else.
About same se-x intercourse Paul was wrong. It would be simpler for Christians to accept this truth that is in their heart regarding how God has created people. Marriage and family outside of reproduction? This is a lame "functional" argument that assumes that the only relationships worth honoring are based on se-xual reproduction. Never mind step and foster parentage.
Christianity has failed to grow morally because it has, in many segments of its varied society, become un-Christ-like in its legalistic (laws of the head and not the heart) and literalist atti-tude (remember Christ spoke in parables). Beware these false prophets.
Ever wonder why JC spoke in parables? Could it be he was seldom lucid enough to make a coherent statement? The disciples were often perplexed to the point that they stated "What the hell is He talking about."
Jesus spoke in parables because people get stuck in their beliefs and do not really hear or understand what is being said outside of their interpretation. Speaking in parables or metaphor or even riddles forces the listener to either disengage through lack of interest or to engage with their mind more fully because the listener believes that something of value is being said.
Metaphor is, in fact, formative of all of language's concepts both basic and complex, whether scientific or non-technical. To use metaphor then is to attempt to reset assumed or even forgotten metaphorical scaffolding around the basic concepts that a community thinks together with.
My teacher, who was a Father in a Sacred Heart university, appreciated my answer in New Testament class when I said that one of the characteristics of the disciples was their confusion. I think that acceptance of confusion is necessary when trying to get people to stop thinking in an old way and start thinking in a new way.
Desperately seeking sealchan, you are still utterly confused, as are all Christians; I believe what?
Oooh, sealchan's teacher liked one of his answers! How impressive!
Paul wasn't fond of any kind of s3x. He thought it was a distraction from worshipping God. Remember that he, like all the rest of those first Christians, really did believe that the end was coming any day.
And we shouldn't forget, they and every other end-of-times prophet has been wrong. Yes, they will be right one day, most likely because of natural processes (the death of the Sun), not because of some alleged but never proven god throwing a hissy fit.
Paul probably thought that an erection was a sign from Satan and he had to slap it silly.
Or a response to being in the presence of his lord.
Let's be honest.
Marriage (or the equivalent) has been in a lot of societies and predates the spread of Christianity. Let's also be clear. In the past, marriage has rarely been about anything religious. It's mostly been for power and/or wealth. Look at many African (including the Middle East and India) societies, still believe in arranged marriages for children that have never met. Usually this is to expand wealth. European nobility used to inter-marry so much that there are genetic defects in some of the ancestors.
Here is my belief on the subject of marriage, as a Christian.
There are two different "types" of marriage. The legal marriage and the religious marriage. The LGBT community is not looking for the religious marriage. They are looking for the legal recognition of their union with all of the rights thereof typically afforded to straight couples. Marriage, at least from a legal standpoint, still follows what happened before – look at the tax benefits! And the rights to inheritance!
So here is my proposal. Everyone can get married in the legal sense (provided between two consenting adults), but religious organizations have the right to refuse to perform and/or recognize them within their insti.tutions. Sound fair?
Perfectly fair. And I don't think that religious inst!tutions anywhere are being forced to perform services they don't want to. Persons of faith working as civil servants though have to suck it up and do their job, or find another one.
I have always thought that was the best solution anyway.
One cannot get married without a state license anyway.
This statement is awesome...i loved it when i read the hypocrisy. "As a longtime supporter of World Vision, I encouraged readers of my blog to pick up some of the dropped sponsorships after the initial decision. I then felt betrayed when World Vision backtracked, though I urged my readers not to play the same game but to keep supporting their sponsored children, who are of course at no fault in any of this."
Of course Rachael waited until the conservatives weren't supporting the organization, before she said something and obviously very few heeded the call as we all know liberals don't give a whole lot to charity anyway. Why hasn't she been pushing world vision all along or does it just become important when she can attack Christians with a story? Pretty sleazy.
Lol.
Truthiness is a quality characterizing a "truth" that a person making an argument or assertion claims to know intuitively "from the gut" or because it "feels right" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.
Like for example, who gives to charity.
Oh that is not a "gut" feeling nor any other type of feeling. It happens to be statistically true. But like i said earlier...voting for someone to take it from people through law is not charity so that leaves dems out.
Lol.
Are l and O the only keys you have functioning or is that all you can reply with?
Your posts are hilarious. I thought you meant them that way.
If you prefer, I can always replay with HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
For brevity's sake, lol conveys the same idea.
Then by all means don't exhaust yourself.
As long as there are hyper partisan posts that are hilariously hyperbolic, I will keep lol'ing.
Good for you.
What don't you understand about "being a longtime supporter"? Why are trying to make this a liberal/dem issue? You wouldn't be trying to deflect attention away from bigoted evangelical christians, would you?
"What don't you understand about "being a longtime supporter"? Why are trying to make this a liberal/dem issue? You wouldn't be trying to deflect attention away from bigoted evangelical christians, would you?"
Right...so she waited until she could use it against conservatives before she began prompting her readers to donate? Evidently not very enthusiastic supporter then. There are conservative and liberal Christians...did i write dem in that post? Bigoted...well there you go. That is the go to answer for those with no argument.
She says she's been a long time supporter of WV – what evidence do you have that she has never encouraged others to donate previously. You mentioned dems in another post making a similar point about who donates the most.
http://worldvisionmagazine.org/story/confessions-child-sponsorship-skeptic
So, yeah, go somewhere else with that crap.
Well good for her.
That's an interesting way to say "I was wrong then."
Did you read that article?
"When I was invited by World Vision to travel to Cochabamba, Bolivia, for a week to help raise awareness about child sponsorship through my blog, I confess I was a little skeptical. The phrase child sponsorship brought to mind a movie star in a TV commercial, kneeling beside a child and pleading, “If you can just save one life, won’t it be worth it?”
Notice she was invited first of all. She clearly stated she was skeptical so this idea she has been some kind of advocate for WV is nonsense. She is simply using this event to attack the church. BTW, in reading the article; can you give me an atheist or liberal group who performs such activity as this Christian one?
The article dates to 2011, and you were wrong. Objectively.
What does it matter who invited whom? She was a skeptic, she went to Bolivia in *2011* and she changed her view – she encouraged others to donate. When bigoted believers stopped donating, she encouraged her blog followers to donate *more*.
yeah... i bet the more part didn't work out.
Not that it matters in the context of this thread as you or just "ducking and diving" 'cause you can't bring yourself to say "I was wrong!" but I, and many others, give to non-religious based charitable organizations via richarddawkins.net.
I think I'll use "Akira's" tactic...LOL.
I don't have any data to know whether her actions led to more donations or if new donors stayed after WV reverted to their bigoted ways, and neither do you, I bet. It appears that she said and tried to do the right thing – do you have any evidence at all that she is lying? Or are you making stuff up, counter to your alleged but never proven god's alleged commandments? Are you pure enough to attend your cult's services?
And this is a little bizarre – a committed atheist is defending a christian to another christian! Why are you so insistent on attacking a fellow believer?
hotairace 6m
"I don’t have any data to know whether her actions led to more donations or if new donors stayed after WV reverted to their bigoted ways, and neither do you, I bet."
Their bigoted ways...you know everything you say after that statement is pretty much pointless.
"It appears that she said and tried to do the right thing – do you have any evidence at all that she is lying? Or are you making stuff up, counter to your alleged but never proven god’s alleged commandments?"
See...pointless.
"Are you pure enough to attend your cult’s services?"
One doesn't have to be pure and i am not sure where you got that. As far as living a sinful lifestyle...that will be accepted in no church...well at least one i would not attend.
"And this is a little bizarre – a committed atheist is defending a christian to another christian! Why are you so insistent on attacking a fellow believer?"
Well who says she is a Christian? I would be very surprised if she would say the Bible is true, that Jesus was the son of God, nor would i expect her to agree he was risen from the dead. I also would bet she would say all religions lead to God. I don't know that for a fact, but i bet i am right.
Let's see, WV admitted they discriminate against LGBTs, but that's not bigoted behavior. And Rachael HE says she is a follower of a Jesus Christ but that's not good enough for you.
Again I ask, why your irrational, baseless attack on Ms. HE?
hotairace 10m
"Let’s see, WV admitted they discriminate against LGBTs,"
They disagree and think it wrong so they are discriminating? I think pedophilia is wrong, but according to you that would be discrimination.
"but that’s not bigoted behavior."
No..no more than you disagreeing with Christians is bigoted.
"And Rachael HE says she is a follower of a Jesus Christ but that’s not good enough for you."
It doesn't matter what i think only God. I am simply saying if she were to meet the criteria a stated then i would have a problem believing she was one..or at the least a very uninformed one. I know she makes light of the old testament, so i am skeptical of her Christianity or she knows very little about it.
"Again I ask, why your irrational, baseless attack on Ms. HE?"
ms. Who?
"Well who says she is a Christian?
I see it's not enough for you that she does.
She shares all kinds of her thoughts at http://rachelheldevans.com/
No...people say they are all kinds of things...we kinda view actions and statements.
Kevvie, you are truly dense.
WV decided to change their discriminatory practices but reverted due to external pressure and donors holding children hostage.
Pedophilia is a sickness and a crime – being gay is not.
You claim to be a Babble Humper but your actions against Ms. Rachael Held Evan (Ms. HE) say otherwise.
kev2672
"I think pedophilia is wrong, but according to you that would be discrimination."
Pedophilia has a VICTIM. Being gay doesn't.
THINK.
Depends on your definition of victim now doesn't it. Think.
Why would you doubt she's a Christian, "kev"?
Because she obviously doesn't believe the Bible. That is kind of a clue.
No Christian believes the whole bible, kev. You'd still be stoning people for working on the sabbath and burning witches if you did.
Another person who knows nothing about the Bible...very nice.
LOL, another person who assumes that one who doesn't believe the bible has never read the bible. Very stupid.
"Very stupid" Ah...the old liberal tactic. Call names when you have no argument.
Liberal tactic? LOL. Assuming things about people you don't know is stupid no matter what your political bent.
No argument? You assumed that I haven't read the bible. I've read and studied it for more than fifty years, in several languages. That was a stupid assumption you made about me.
Assuming that someone who disagrees with the bible hasn't read the bible is stupid.
You never heard of liberal or conservative Christians? Interesting for one of your scholarship.
LOL way to miss the point, kev. Liberal or conservative, making assumptions about people you don't know is stupid.
kev2672 says:
"Depends on your definition of victim now doesn’t it. Think."
Kev thinks children that have been raped are not victims.
And this is why kev lost the internet today.
Right...you get you idea of right and wrong from society don't you? Well if society decided it was acceptable then they wouldn't be victims right? The ancient Greeks certainly didn't think so.
So I am presently watching the congress committee into the GM recall on the ignition switch defect in millions of small cars; I happen to own one of those cars and just yesterday received a letter on what to do until the dealer fixes the problem. But GM ignored the problem for over a decade causing many accidents and more than a dozen deaths, collateral damage, I guess. To tie this into the article, religions are the biggest service industry in the world. Power and money, not much different than any other big business. So the WV has to kowtow to the religion in order to protect the children, the evangelist crowd just blackmailing a charity to impose their will. Nothing changes, hypocrisy rules.
Us this the one where GM tells you not to have too many keys on your keychain? Our dealership doesn't even have the damn part necessary.
No tie in to the article; just wanted to say their temporary fix to to problem sounds ridiculous...
Akira
Lucky for me that I have an alternative, the next time the cars come out of the garage it will be to the dealership when the parts are available.
Wish I had that option.
I just think that their "in the meantime" patch is to not have a heavy keychain...I was cracking up at how ludicrous it was...now I can't play school janitor for a while...lol
Here's a thought experiment:
The world gives evangelical and fundamentalist Christians their own country. It has good natural resources. Come back in 100 years and see how that country is doing. They can gather round and denounce science all they want.
It would be fun to see how they fare against the modern world, where they can't ride the coat tails of the scientifically minded population. My guess is that they would be a backwards culture with a poor economy and very little influence in the world. Yes, there would be pockets of advancement, but they would not be competi'tive overall.
As it is, the rest of our population keeps them afloat with the exact science that they denounce.
Sam Harris makes a similar point in "The End of Faith":
"If oil were to become worthless, the dysfunction of the most prominent Muslim societies would suddenly grow as conspi.cuous as the sun. Muslims might then come to see the wisdom of moderating their thinking on a wide variety of subjects."
Good point, fundamentalist Muslim experiment has been performed. No reason to expect a different result with fundamentalist Christians.
bostontola
It has already been done, the country is Afghanistan.
That is a pretty ignorant "thought experiment." So because one is Christian then they deny science and so on. Evidently you don't get out much or know very little about science and those who have furthered it in history.
Lol.
Please read the first sentence if the experiment definition better, I didn't say Christians, I said evangelical and fundamentalist Christians. Oh, how can a thought experiment be ignorant?
Easy...your's is a prime example.
kev,
A person can be ignorant, how can a thought experiment be ignorant? A thought experiment is not alive, much less conscious.
Do you mean like in the dark ages?
Where Europe was under the control of christians who killed people for heresy and the middle east made advances in math and science?
The experiment has already occurred, the test ground was a place called the United States of America. Perhaps you're familiar with the region?
Wrong, ddeevv. This is not a fundamentalist, evangelical country. It's a secular republic.
Boston,
Good observetion. At times, it is wise to think with your heart instead of your mind.
This article contains several sad, but false assumptions- first, that World Vision is the only method to supporting children. It would be like saying boycotting Chick-Fil-A is killing the chicken industry- when in fact you could go to the countless other fast food restaurants that serve chicken sandwiches. There's no data to say that Christians who withheld support from World Vision did not take that money and support other organizations or sponsor a child through another group. One should have a choice of which organization to go through and where their money is going without being accused of starving the children, regardless of belief. Secondly and more importantly, the writer speaks with a broad brush on the conservative position without being one herself, and she doesn't depict that side of the argument accurately. I think both sides of any argument are often guilty of this rhetoric, but this is no exception. The writer can't just say it's not about the pursuit of biblical marriage for conservatives and make it so. Because for some it really is. Whether someone believes that marriage represents Christ and the church and is the cornerstone of the Christian faith, or they believe there is no God and therefore all is allowed, there should be tolerance and religious freedom to believe what you believe, and do with your money as your beliefs dictate. If anything, everyone should be advocating the right to make these decisions on either side of the fence without being shamed by the public media. It seems that the lack of tolerance seems to be coming more and more from those who advocate tolerance.
I think that withdrawing support for hungry children because the thought that a LGBT person may be involved with the distribution is pretty intolerant.
But hey, I hate the thought of starving kids.
Thanks for being a "Christ's advocate," as it were. I don't think withdrawing support was the best approach here, but if there's a hard pushback of Christians against the culture it's because the culture has pushed them pretty hard as well. What person with any sort of platform can express a belief for a traditional, biblical picture of marriage without being maligned as someone who hates? The "tolerant" have lifted "tolerance" up higher than even a worldview where someone is allowed to love a sinner and hate a sin. Evangelicals aren't the only ones at fault here. Humans, being humans, have responded the way humans do when threatened, on both sides – and it will take both sides if we are to get away from each other's throats and find common ground.
If god made adam first, and eve was an afterthought, then why did he make adam with a pen.is?
I'm still working on how an omniscient being has an afterthought.
the bible is full of his afterthoughts and plan changes and resets.
And then there's "free will" ... if he has "a plan", then how can he give anyone free will?
I don't get how you can call it free will when there are 2 choices, 1 of which is eternal, infinite pain. Since when is a choice under duress free?
and why bother with an 'Adam' at all... I would've just created a bunch of Eve's and called it a day
And are we to believe that gender didn't exist in the animal world unti then either? After all it would seem a bit of an oversite if god gave every other animal on the planet a mate and not the one he created special.
Surely that appendage was "intelligently designed"? You know it's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, etc.
The afterthought doesn't quite measure up to the rest of the rationalizations.
But Eve was made with Adam's rib, so "she" was genetically a male. It actually was Adam and Steve.
So is World Vision going to give back any of the donations they've received from LGBT people?
"But when we begin using child sponsorships as bargaining tools in our debates, we’ve lost the way of Jesus."
Couldn't have said it better.
"we’ve lost the way of Jesus".
Isn't that the whole thing wrapped into a few words, nobody knows what Jesus wants. The bibles are self contradictory, allegorical, morally obsolete, and have factual errors. That's why there are 10's of thousands of Christian sects, each certain they know "the way of Jesus". They are so certain that they attack other Christian sects, calling them apostate or worse.
Wake up.
amen!
What culture war? This is silly, this lady is suffering from anxiety/hysteria she is near Panic, because her trust is not real. Those who really, really Trust in God and in Jesus Christ God's Only Son WILL NOT Panic. All others WILL Panic.
Medicate yourself already.
This is my favorite, 1 Christian asserting superiority over another Christian.
His Panic provides the bonus, judgment over another Christian. Judgment is mine sayeth His Panic.
LET's Religiosity Law #5 – The highest form of ignorance... is one dumbass Christian telling another dumbass Christian that they are not really Christian... because (insert whatever dumbass thing they believe differentiates them from each other)…
I have a sneaking susp'icion that His Panic is an atheist that is having fun with us all. The schtick is so absurd that a canard is more likely than it being a sincere argument.
I have also suspected that...
nah ... I suspect he's just not very evolved.
I have suspected that too... The His-panic schtick is lame
Boston, his other two sock puppets, Salero and EX Catholic, are one schtick ponies, also.
And stop panicking!
Sounds like only those who really, really trust in god have a copy of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy".
What panic? The article seems quite reasonable and well thought out. It was World Vision who panicked when the oh-so-Christian evangelicals pulled their support because WV decided to hire "sinners."
Hey, let's at least we be consistent, shall we? Shouldn't World Vision also decline to hire adulterers (Lev. 20:10), or those who eat shellfish (Lev. 11:10), or sow their fields with two kinds of seed (Lev 19:19), or trim their hair or beards (Lev. 19:27)? And that's just for starters.
Why do Christians keep speaking about what jesus said?
More importantly, when God said, "Let there be light." Who was He talking too?
He was talking to all of the other gods...it was a surprise party for Zeus.
The inhabitants of z8_GND_5296 (13.1 gigalight-years (4.0×109 pc) from Earth)?
Believers keep speaking what Jesus says because, The Word of God is the most powerful thing that exists!
In the beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself.
2 He was present originally with God. 3 All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being.
The Word of God is seed. You plant it in your heart, in your Spirit, and it takes root, grows and become a very fruitful tree. That's the awesome Power of the Word [of God].
newman.
Your bible is just as likely the word of satan as it is any of the gods...most likely it is just the word of ignorant men.
You may continue choose to follow satans word if you like...That's exactly what he wants you to do.
As I've said, words are powerful, and words are seed, so bear that in mind re: the seeds of scorn, disdain, mockery, perversion etc. that you are sowing.
Therefore,
Do not be deceived and deluded and misled; God will not allow Himself to be sneered at (scorned, disdained, or mocked [g]by mere pretensions or professions, or by His precepts being set aside.) [He inevitably deludes himself who attempts to delude God.] For whatever a man sows, that and [h]that only is what he will reap.
8 For he who sows to his own flesh (lower nature, sensuality) will from the flesh reap decay and ruin and destruction, but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life
exactly newman. That's is exactly what Satan wants you to believe. For all you know, you are falling for Satan's greatest deception.
But you do not believe and trust and rely on Me [Jesus] because you do not belong to My fold [you are no sheep of Mine].
The sheep that are My own hear and are listening to My voice; and I know them, and they follow Me.
And I give them eternal life, and they shall never lose it or perish throughout the ages. [To all eterni.ty they shall never by any means be destroyed.] And no one is able to sna.tch them out of My hand.
Friend, I am known by Father. I am the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus. I hear the voice of Father, and the voice of another I do not listen to.
I pray you do likewise, because [sa.tan/the devil] "The thief comes only in order to steal and ki.ll and destroy."
There is safety in secret place of the Most High.
newman
First Ja is the god of the rastafarians, he is the most high.
second, how is quoting from your satan inspired book helping?
new-man
"His precepts being set aside"
That can be a good thing. Slavery is over and HYPOCRITICAL discriminations like those against gays are nearing their end.
"There is safety in secret place of the Most High."
I would stay away from anyone who said that to me. I'd especially not let them get me alone.
Sounds like a far-fetched and unlikely story
"The word of god is the most powerful thing that exists."
First of all, it doesn't exist. Second of all, if it did exist, it's certainly not very powerful considering most people think it's crazy.
God's Word is not dependent on what you think it is or isn't.
Actually, yes, gods word is absolutely dependant upon what I think or don't think. It is a figment of your imagination – you can imagine it however you want and I can imagine it however I want (although I don't waste time doing this – I'd rather imagine things that are more interesting).
How are you newman?
Likewise, God's Word is not dependant on what you think it is or isn't. Works both ways newman you are not the supreme judge or are you in your little mind?
"God's Word"
We know it was written by man and thus there is no evidence to show a god had any hand in those writings.
"Word" = "Logos" in Greek. You may want to look up the concept sometime and ask yourself why a jew from palestine would use Greek rhetorical and philosophical devices?
and what is REMA?
Probably because the author of the Gospel of John (whoever he was, but probably not the disciple by that name) was writing for a Greek-speaking community and MAKING IT UP to further his own agenda, which was surprisingly Gnostic in nature. I'd be willing to bet Jesus never said anything of the sort, and if he did, it was in Aramaic.
"and what is REMA?"
A genus of moths? The primary language of New Guinea? Help me out here cause I have NO idea what you are referring to.
"I’m going AWOL on evangelicalism’s culture wars so I can get back to following Jesus among its many refugees: LGBT people, women called to ministry, artists, science-lovers, misfits, sinners, doubters, thinkers and “the least of these.”
I am still wondering where Jesus told us to embrace and celebrate sin? That certainly seems to be what you are suggesting. And the idea this is the only charity in town is pure nonsense. BTW...try some stats on how much liberals give verses conservatives? Oh getting the government to take money for charity doesn't count, because certainly you know forced charity is no charity at all.
First, it is "versus".
Second, i'd just like to wave at you as you and the rest of the religious morons in this country drift on their ever sinking island of self righteousness. Toodles! You will not be missed, we have a lot to accomplish this next century and we certainly don't need a bunch of morons getting in the way of progress. You are welcome to sit in the back while you worryabout some illusory afterlife, the rest of us will work on better life for everyone here and now.
You mean " worry about?" What progress would you be referring to?
Equal rights for all would be one point of progress that the religious are fighting tooth and nail against. They can't accept being equal to other people who don't suck their Gods balls the same way they do, it would be totally embarrassing! He does have balls I assume since you all refer to "him" as a "he".
Equal rights for all? You surely don't believe that do you? So all ideas deserve equal treatment and rights? The rest of your diatribe is really not worth discussing but of course your liberal so that pretty much covers it all.
see, they have been misled into thinking more information (which the Bible spoke of – explosion of knowledge in the last days) is the same as "progress".
This universe is governed by Physical Laws as well as Spiritual Laws.
And one such Spiritual Law is, when one sows to the flesh – the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, wrath, strife, envy, murder, drunkenness etc.
and when one sows to the flesh they bring destruction to the earth.
So knowing this, tell me how progress is being made, when man keeps sowing to the flesh?
It's revelation from God that leads to progress.
newman
There is nothing showing anything "spiritual" exists, so you presuppose the "spiritual", then you presuppose "laws" for that "spirit".
What do you have showing anything "spiritual" is real...it is just based on your belief.
Satan really has his hooks in you doesn't he, you spouting the words from satans book and all.
"This universe is governed by Physical Laws as well as Spiritual Laws."
You might as well claim "This universe is governed by Physical Laws as well as Murphy's Laws."
or maybe "This universe is governed by Physical Laws as well as Superstltious Laws."
Don't throw that salt over your shoulder! Don't walk under a ladder! Knock on wood!
when one doesn't know about a particular thing, the best thing to do is to keep quiet, lest you be thought for the highly opinionated yet ignorant soul that you are?
Father, bless them with Godly Spiritual Benah wisdom, revelation, and a humble heart to receive from you.
when one doesn't know about a particular thing, the best thing to do is to keep quiet, lest you be thought for the highly opinionated yet ignorant soul that you are.
Father, bless them with Godly Spiritual Benah wisdom, revelation, and a humble heart to receive from you.
"You might as well claim "This universe is governed by Physical Laws as well as Murphy's Laws." "
You might be onto something there.
newman
"when one doesn't know about a particular thing, the best thing to do is to keep quiet, lest you be thought for the highly opinionated yet ignorant soul that you are."
And yet you keep spouting from your book of dubious origin. Satan is having a field day with you.
Perhaps, since you have NO IDEA if any gods were involved or if satan was involved, or anything along those lines, you have no idea if it has any bearing on reality, you should take your own advised and be quiet. If not, you could well be speaking for Satan.
Do you feel you KNOW more about god than other people, new-man?
"I am still wondering where Jesus told us to embrace and celebrate sin? "
Of course Christians have never agreed with one another over "sin".
from Bible.org:
The history of the acceptance of 2 Peter into the New Testament canon has all the grace of a college hazing event. This epistle was examined, prayed over, considered, and debated more than any other New Testament book—including Revelation.
The rejection of Peter as the writer of 2 Peter is by far the most common opinion today. In fact, the view of the pseudonymity of the epistle is almost universal.
Of course it is in Peter 2 that we find the alleged stamp of approval from Peter for Paul's rants as "Scripture".
Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth. –Thomas Jefferson
You realize this isn't about politics, right? There are religious idiots who are liberals and conservatives. This is about religious idiots of all political affiliations.
I believe she is referring to Jesus Christ's Public Ministry mentioned in Luke 4:14-44 of which is:
Luke 4:17-21
"17 And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book and found the place where it was written,
18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor.
He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives,
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set free those who are oppressed,
19 To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.”
20 And He closed the book, gave it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him. 21 And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”" (NASB)
Jesus (or Luke) doesn't faithfully quote Isaiah 61 here, does he?
"I am still wondering where Jesus told us to embrace and celebrate sin?"
I am wondering where Jesus said anything at all about LGBT folks at all. Chapter and verse, please?
Nobody is talking about celebrating sin.
Rachel Evan is characterizing the LGBT people amongst the victims of Evangelicalism's cultural wars.
And do you feel that the LGBT community is NOT victim of this evangelical charade, Vic
Doesn't Evangelicalism demonize everything outside of its own culture as the things of "the world" that they must separate themselves from? It's a war between other cultures, which offer different values and ideas, and theirs, isn't it?
So then anything Jesus didn't specifically mention is permissible then?
Didn't seem important enough to Jesus to even comment about it; but He had plenty to say about heteros. Guess it wasn't as important to him as it seems to be to you.
Yeah...he didn't say a lot about it, because it is already prohibited.
kev2672
"Yeah...he didn't say a lot about it, because it is already prohibited.'
lol. EVER read a Bible? Did Jesus talk about PROHIBITED things like HETEROS engaging in ADULTERY?
Get serious. Read a Bible SOMEDAY.
"lol. EVER read a Bible? Did Jesus talk about PROHIBITED things like HETEROS engaging in ADULTERY?"
Yeah he did...so?
kev2672
"Yeah he did...so?"
So it shows that your earlier statement "he didn't say a lot about it, because it is already prohibited." was CLUELESS.
I'm going to call Poe on this one. Either this is a regular poster who is just messing around, or a new guy doing the same, the answers aren't jibing...like his answer that the victims of pedophilia aren't really victims.
In any case, I don't think this person is sincere...so whatever.
Did i say victims of pedophilia aren't really victims? Oh right...you have no argument so you resort to fallacy.
kev2672
Lots of things were prohibited during Jesus' time, but he made a point several times to challenge the thinking that pious observance of the OT Law wasn't required anymore. That's what he butted heads with the Pharisees about, right? Almost all Christians dismiss strict observance on OT Law, so why is this the one exception?
Well first of all distinguishing between the laws of the old testament is vital. Jesus never dismissed old testament laws unless you can show he did so. He was concerned with their application and the hypocrisy of those applying them. As far as I know thou shalt not kill is still applicable don't you think? How about thou shalt not steal...is that still applicable? You get the idea.
"Victims of pedophilia"
Kev's answer: depends in your definition of victim.
Do you never read what you write, kev? No fallacy there. You're tacitly saying that victims of pedophilia arent victims.
Of course i am not. My point is exactly that if society decides right and wrong as i am sure you believe, then pedophilia could be viewed as acceptable. Wouldn't you agree.
Society might say pedophilia is ok but is there a likely probability it might? No, not likely, not like the god of The Babble that did/does actually condone nasty behavior such as stoning for adultery which you have defended. You have zero actual evidence for your alleged god and only scare tactics when arguing about morality.
Well the ancient Geeks and Romans had no problem with it. Probability...ow ridiculous. I defended stoning? Maybe post a quote where i said as much? As for "zero evidence;" what would be the required evidence?
You did not defend stoning – you excused adultery that carries a penalty of stoning.
Actual evidence, you know, physical, verifiable, independent, objective, non-hearsay, anything that would suffice the scientific method or the justice system's rules of evidence.
Re the ancient Greeks, surely you can come up with more recent examples of poor group decision making. Such as the RCC deciding to systemically cover up child abuse. Originally such errors are corrected and the guilty exposed but not the RCC who continues to obstruct justice. I trust secular legislatures way more than the alleged but never proven god of The Babble or any of its local cults.
Aren't Christians always bragging that Jesus hung around, ate with, and traveled with "sinners" and other outcasts?
The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.”
Matthew 11:19
I find it interesting that Jesus did drink real, alcoholic wine, and even created it out of water as his first recorded miracle, but most evangelicals consider drinking a grievous sin.
I wonder why it was okay for Jesus to be a "drunkard", but the thought of doing charity work side by side with a gay person fills them with horror.
When the imbibing of alcohol, that most in our society engage in freely without engaging their brains to think for themselves on the significance of such a crucial topic (including evangelicals), is the reason for the destruction of many lives in a myriad of ways, do you think it's responsible, mature or loving to do so, kudlak?
Just because one of the Pharisees referred to Jesus as a drunkard and a glutton does not mean He was one.
Ginny
Just because a book tells you that Jesus is a man-god, or a savior, does not mean he was. Likely he was nothing but a man, with a huge amount of embellishment to stories of him. Myths and legends grow around any public figure, like George Washingtom throwing a dollar across a river...it never happened.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_DIWinaKhI&w=640&h=360]
newman....this guy has an HONORARY doctorate from a religious group...big deal...amounts to the same as toilet paper.
I take tissue with that comment. I mean I take issue with that comment. There's no comparison. Toilet paper is useful and a lot of work goes into making it.
To be fair to this man, he does have some impressive credentials including a Distinguished Flying Cross, so I don't mean to belittle the man, just the fake degree that makes anyone think he is an authority on "god"
He is also a graduate of the internationally known Tuskegee Inst.itute in Tuskegee, Alabama (now Tuskegee University), where Booker T. Washington’s and George Washington Carver’s legacies of leadership and invention permeated the environment.
Dr. Winston served for six years as a fighter pilot in the United States Air Force, where his extraordinary achievement in aerial flight earned him The Distinguished Flying Cross, The Air Medal for performance in combat, and the Squadron Top Gun Award.
After completing his military service, Dr. Winston joined the IBM Corporation as a marketing representative. His exceptional managerial and relational skills rapidly earned him several promotions within the organization. Before he resigned in 1985 to enter full-time ministry, he was a regional marketing manager in IBM’s Midwest Region.
yes newman, he does have some impressive credentials, just not the fake doctorate.
I bet his colleagues would be embarrassed by his comment on hurricanes and tsunamis.
Do you really believe there were no hurricanes or tsunamis before The Curse?
hotairace
Curses do not work, I repeat do not work, the same as prayer or Theo Phileo would not be able to post on this blog.
Agreed! But the charlatan shaman in the video made a very definitive statement and I'm curious to know if his idiot followers actually believe it, so I had to mention The Curse.
hotairace
Depends on the curse I guess. Doris maybe be more authoritative on the subject. It has only inconvenienced me from time to time.
newman: please answer hotairace's question.
Seems new-man is just a typical christian doofus – posting something that is supposed to be representative of their beliefs and then running and hiding from simple questions.
How is it that those considered fools in ancient times, are now today's "wise-men".
The Bible said that everything was backwards. Smart people were stupid and vice versa. Really logical.
We have learned a lot since then.
Back then, before scientific thinking started to discover the real causes of things, everyone believed some god or other caused everything. So, of course, if you rejected the idea of any gods existing you wouldn't have an alternative idea of what was causing things. You really would have looked like a fool then, but things are pretty much exactly opposite today. Nowadays, it's the fool who rejects the truth that science reveals to us, and accepts as truth things without any supporting evidence.
Ever hear of the emperor's new clothes? Same idea.
Yup. With the "Emperor" being the Church, his new clothes being the validity of the Church's claims, and the Emperor's subjects being the parishioners and even clergy who dare not question that validity.
I’m a conservative Christian woman wondering if CNN would hire me… or I’d really rather work for Green Peace. I’m sure they aren’t worried about what type of person I am and as an employee I’d like a salary comparable to my fellow employees. I have every right to work for either company. I care about the environment. I have qualifications ! Freedom I love it!