Other countries have citizenship rules much like the ones being proposed. Simply being born in a country as the sole criteria of citizenship is actually rare in the world. Most countries require at least one parent to already be a citizen before citizenship is granted. Yet America is not like other countries. We are young and the majority of those who claim citizenship come from families who m...more

Other countries have citizenship rules much like the ones being proposed. Simply being born in a country as the sole criteria of citizenship is actually rare in the world. Most countries require at least one parent to already be a citizen before citizenship is granted.

Yet America is not like other countries. We are young and the majority of those who claim citizenship come from families who migrated here within the last 200-300 years. We were built as a nation on immigrants, a nation of men who desire freedom and democracy regardless of race, religion or gender.

The 14th Amendment is a testimony to American heritage and values. France, Britain, Spain, Sweden, etc are all societies that can claim over 1000 years of naturalized heritage. They have specific races and histories. They are the "old world".

America is the "new world". Which means we have no specific race or genealogy and we do not have over 1000 years of heritage as a people. Only Native Americans can claim such on the soil of the "new world".

Repealing, blocking or changing the 14th Amendment would be a direct betrayal of our founding fathers and the American legacy.less

“Outside [the church], it’s 100 percent God’s domain,” he shared. He explained that believers in the church who reject correction should be judged according to the Bible for the good of all. But out in the world, “God is the one to judge,” he said. “He’s the only one with the power [to do so]; He’s the only one with the authority.” Perfectly stated. This is where most C...more

“Outside [the church], it’s 100 percent God’s domain,” he shared. He explained that believers in the church who reject correction should be judged according to the Bible for the good of all.

But out in the world, “God is the one to judge,” he said. “He’s the only one with the power [to do so]; He’s the only one with the authority.”


Perfectly stated. This is where most Christians go wrong. They have somehow gotten the impression that they must judge the world. We are to judge amongst ourselves, be a light and witness to the world and let God be judge of His world.less

You totally missed the point. This author isn't saying that we NEED to confess in this way, or to our fellow man in any way, for them to be forgiven. He is not advocating some kind of Catholic confession creed here. What he is saying is that Christians tend to do so much finger-pointing at sin in American culture that we come off as holier-than-thou and give non-Christains the impression we th...more

You totally missed the point. This author isn't saying that we NEED to confess in this way, or to our fellow man in any way, for them to be forgiven. He is not advocating some kind of Catholic confession creed here.

What he is saying is that Christians tend to do so much finger-pointing at sin in American culture that we come off as holier-than-thou and give non-Christains the impression we think ourselves better and more perfect than anyone else.

He is saying that if we made an effort to remind the world that we too are sinners and that we know ourselves to be as imperfect and filthy before God as everyone else is that we could improve our national image as Christians. Remind people that we don't think ourselves better, just forgiven.less

If allowing gay marriage under secular law would be a national sin against God, then allowing divorced people to remarry is also a national sin. In truth, allowing anyone but Christian virgins to marry is a national sin under this premise. But we as a nation have made the pledge to live in freedom and peace with our neighbors no matter their religion or creed so in truth the sin lies in breaki...more

If allowing gay marriage under secular law would be a national sin against God, then allowing divorced people to remarry is also a national sin. In truth, allowing anyone but Christian virgins to marry is a national sin under this premise.

But we as a nation have made the pledge to live in freedom and peace with our neighbors no matter their religion or creed so in truth the sin lies in breaking that promise and/or limiting it to only those we 'approve' of.

By being an American who approves of the Constitution and salutes the flag, we have given our word as Christians that we would live in equality and peace with non-Christians. Which is a VERY Christ-like pledge to make.

American Christians sin when they break that promise and exclude certain groups from the pledge of freedom and equality.less

I am so sick of people making the idiotic statement of "I don't care if Christians supposedly have a bad image cause Jesus said they would hate us! So I am proud to perpetuate the bad image Christians continue to foster because that's how its supposed to be!" Reality check folks, the kind of hate Jesus was talking about is the kind of hate Christians suffer in Iraq, China, Pakistan, etc. Church...more

I am so sick of people making the idiotic statement of "I don't care if Christians supposedly have a bad image cause Jesus said they would hate us! So I am proud to perpetuate the bad image Christians continue to foster because that's how its supposed to be!"

Reality check folks, the kind of hate Jesus was talking about is the kind of hate Christians suffer in Iraq, China, Pakistan, etc. Churches blown up, people murdered, preachers jailed for teaching about Christ. THAT is the hate Jesus speaks of.

Jesus said they would hate us because of His name. He did not say they would think we were bigoted, self-righteous, hateful finger-pointers. That was the Pharisees of His time. Self-righteous, holier-than-thou. THAT is the bad image being spoken of. Modern fundamentalist Christians fit the Biblical description of the Jewish religious leaders Jesus spoke against perfectly.

Christians are supposed to be a peculiar people, known by their love for one another and the perpetual joy felt at knowing Jesus lives and understanding what that means. Our Christian founders died in Roman hands with smiles on their faces - as they were torn limb from limb by lions.

What the world sees now is pointing fingers, angry faces and the Roman Catholic-like need to dictate morality through law in an 'our way or the highway' kind of attitude.

The proper way for a Christian to deal with this issue of gays in modern America is to treat them with the same respect and dignity we have been commanded to show ALL mankind, friend or foe. This means you let them have their children, serve them in the public sphere the same you would anyone else, never disallow them jobs, houses, etc.

To refuse them a room in a hostel or the right to legalize, and therefore protect, their family and way of life in the same manner you are allowed is straight from the spirit of darkness.

I am so sick of people reading something like this and claiming the bad image spoken of is the way it is supposed to be.

Jesus said they would hate us because of His name, not because we use His name to act like jerks.less

angelabatey: Hyperionoverseer's name is actually derived from the old Conan the Barbarian comic series. It essentially means medieval overlord. Hyperion is also one of the names of the Twelve Titans from Greek mythology. It is more popularly known in the Conan comic/novel world and considering how fervently 'Christian' he claims to be I would suspect he does not know the Greek mythology con...more

angelabatey: Hyperionoverseer's name is actually derived from the old Conan the Barbarian comic series. It essentially means medieval overlord.

Hyperion is also one of the names of the Twelve Titans from Greek mythology.

It is more popularly known in the Conan comic/novel world and considering how fervently 'Christian' he claims to be I would suspect he does not know the Greek mythology connection.less

We live in a multi-cultural and varied faith-tradition nation driven by consumerism. It would be one thing if a church used the term "Happy Holidays" in order to be PC - that would be wrong. But for our consumer-driven society to advertise to all religious holidays in December is not a slap against Christians, its just business. Hanukkah, Kwanzaa and Winter Solstice are all December holidays u...more

We live in a multi-cultural and varied faith-tradition nation driven by consumerism. It would be one thing if a church used the term "Happy Holidays" in order to be PC - that would be wrong.

But for our consumer-driven society to advertise to all religious holidays in December is not a slap against Christians, its just business. Hanukkah, Kwanzaa and Winter Solstice are all December holidays under different religions.

Wal-Mart is not a Christian business and should not be expected to advertise their wares to only Christians in the month of December. The claim is made that secular forces are behind this wave of "happy holidays" whereas what I see is the Christian church in America trying to force the continued secularization of Christmas by pressuring capitalist entities to wish them a Merry Christmas.

I would prefer all secular areas use nonreligious terms like 'happy holidays' so that Christmas might regain its true meaning when celebrated and stated. I don't want Costco to use the name of Christ to sell goods. Or the occasion of his birth as a way to make a profit.less

I read the Manhattan Declaration when it first came out. It is a concise and plainly written statement detailing certain social positions they held, like on abortion and gays. It is a response to the increasing trend in society, both secular and religious, away from the traditional definitions the Manhattan Declaration lies out. There was nothing hateful or abusive in it. There is a difference ...more

I read the Manhattan Declaration when it first came out. It is a concise and plainly written statement detailing certain social positions they held, like on abortion and gays. It is a response to the increasing trend in society, both secular and religious, away from the traditional definitions the Manhattan Declaration lies out.

There was nothing hateful or abusive in it. There is a difference between taking a stance, making it clear what you think and why - and - being cursed, beaten, harassed and socially abused. I may strongly disagree on both a spiritual and social level with the Declaration but it was not an attack; It was a line drawn in the sand.

The three primary issues discussed - abortion, gay marriage and religious freedom - are the leading subjects in a progressive movement away from the traditional ways of thinking. This is a battle between definitions of moral behavior and the right to express those definitions freely in the public square.

Incidents like this situation are a prime example of the religious oppression increasingly dished out to Christian fundamentalists; the app was shut down because the opinion stated in the document is becoming increasingly unpopular. Unpopular religious belief was oppressed.

In the fight gays wage for the right to be considered equal under secular law, the argument has often been used that you don’t have to like us, approve of us or call us moral beings but you do have to treat us as equal Americans.

Perhaps my community has forgotten that such ideas are a two-way street?xless

Just saw your 'unless by choice' comment in there. That is not what the Bible says. The Bible says that if a Jew cannot pay his fellow Jew what he is owed then that Jew MUST submit to slavery for at most seven years or at least until the debt is repaid by service to the Jew to whom the money is owed. My friend has owed me several hundred dollars for over two years now. It is quite obvious that ...more

Just saw your 'unless by choice' comment in there. That is not what the Bible says. The Bible says that if a Jew cannot pay his fellow Jew what he is owed then that Jew MUST submit to slavery for at most seven years or at least until the debt is repaid by service to the Jew to whom the money is owed.

My friend has owed me several hundred dollars for over two years now. It is quite obvious that he will likely never be able to pay me back. Nice to know that I can take him as a slave and make him work it off. Think the United States courts will be okay with that? Well, as long as I am in complete compliance with God's law then I guess it doesn't matter does it?less

Another quick question for you. Do you think a church who views women as not allowed by God to become pastor should remain in fellowship with one who has a female pastor as the SBC is doing?

So to clarify, you believe that God has no problem whatsoever with you taking a man as a slave if he cannot pay what he owes you as long as you do not abuse him and release him in seven years. Which if you read those passages carefully is actually only talking about fellow Jews. Those same scriptures state that a non-Jew slave taken as a conquered enemy or bought from a non-Jewish bloodline ca...more

So to clarify, you believe that God has no problem whatsoever with you taking a man as a slave if he cannot pay what he owes you as long as you do not abuse him and release him in seven years.

Which if you read those passages carefully is actually only talking about fellow Jews. Those same scriptures state that a non-Jew slave taken as a conquered enemy or bought from a non-Jewish bloodline can remain your slave for as long as you see fit, even if that is until their death. The only slave being released after seven years is the fellow Jew who had no way to pay the debt he owed.

So since the new family of God is now anyone who professes the name of Christ and follows Biblical law properly, you can take a fellow Christian as a slave if he cannot repay his debt to you, just release him during Jubilee. But if they are not followers of Christ then you can keep them as long as you like.

So you agree then that, under the proper circumstances and treatment, it is perfectly moral and within God's plan for you to own another human as a slave. Be it 7 weeks, 7 years, or a lifetime if they refuse to accept Christ and the adoption into the family of God's people. Nothing immoral at all about owning another human being as your slave as long as you do it this way.

Glad you cleared that up for me.less

This is what I am hearing here: As an individual church we believe that God makes Himself clear that women must not have spiritual headship over a man. But we will remain in fellowship with the national SBC because...why? And how does that reconcile with the stance that, as an individual church we believe that God makes Himself clear on the subject of homosexuality and if the SBC does not disfe...more

This is what I am hearing here: As an individual church we believe that God makes Himself clear that women must not have spiritual headship over a man. But we will remain in fellowship with the national SBC because...why?

And how does that reconcile with the stance that, as an individual church we believe that God makes Himself clear on the subject of homosexuality and if the SBC does not disfellowship any church that allows gays to be deacons then we will split with the SBC in order to remain right with God?

Even if the national SBC takes no official stance on female pastors, aren't the individual churches, who feel it to be a violation of scripture to have a woman lead them, being hypocritical or disingenuous by remaining in the SBC even though that means they are in fellowship with female-led churches but yet threaten to leave the SBC if one of the individual churches allow gay deacons?

And by doing this are they not essentially making the statement that they are willing to tolerate certain Biblical violations over others, which then makes the statement that they are willing to accept fellowship with what they consider to be an unGodly church because to not allow the violation in question creates too much contention within the fallible society of man, essentially making God's wishes second to what is popular and unpopular in our society?

Or are they perhaps thinking that even though a woman becoming a pastor is directly against the command of God and how God wanted us to live our lives, her sin and the sin of her congregation is forgivable even though they think they do not sin.

But a gay-affirming church who is in direct violation of how God commanded us to live our lives can never be forgiven for believing that being gay is not a sin.

Why is it ok to go against God's command in the one and not the other? Or is it more about what society considers is acceptable and unacceptable behavior? Are they remaining in fellowship with female-led churches even though their stance is that this is sinful because to do otherwise would cause too much contention within their congregations and societies? But they shun a gay-affirming church only because society will allow them to do so with very little contention? Perhaps one of these sins is greater than the other? Is one of them forgivable and the other not?less

Believer - If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the national arm of the SBC considers the subject of female pastors to be a grey area with no national SBC declaration either way and has taken the stance of allowing each congregation to decide such issues as a church. So the national arm of the SBC takes no position then on the matter of women pastors but does take a clear positio...more

Believer - If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the national arm of the SBC considers the subject of female pastors to be a grey area with no national SBC declaration either way and has taken the stance of allowing each congregation to decide such issues as a church.

So the national arm of the SBC takes no position then on the matter of women pastors but does take a clear position on the subject of homosexuality.

If that IS what you are saying, that I can understand and respect. I was under the impression that the SBC had taken a national stance that women were in Biblical violation if they were allowed to lead a church. I always respect consistency, fairness and honesty even if I do not agree with the position being taken.

One of the reasons you have always been one of my favorites on CP. Your honest, consistent and respectful in your posts.

That being said, I do have to point out that many Christians do not consider the subject of female pastors to be a difference of scriptural interpretation. To many denominations, and individual churches within the SBC itself, the subject is considered a blatant sin and hold the position that female-led congregations are blatantly violating scripture that, to them, speak plainly on the subjecless

Having access to each others email is an excellent way to solidify the trust and protect against temptation in your marriage. Though I am not in a relationship I did have an ex 'find me' on Facebook several months ago. Though I cared about this person and did wonder what their life was like these many years later I also knew that this person was not someone I should be speaking to. Just the fac...more

Having access to each others email is an excellent way to solidify the trust and protect against temptation in your marriage.

Though I am not in a relationship I did have an ex 'find me' on Facebook several months ago. Though I cared about this person and did wonder what their life was like these many years later I also knew that this person was not someone I should be speaking to. Just the fact that I cared clued me in that this was someone who might be a detriment to me because of the kind of person they were and caring for someone means they can get to you in ways a stranger cannot.

I simply did not answer. Keep your Facebook accounts, make sure your spouse knows all your activities on the internet and just ignore anyone from your romantic past. Especially if they were abusive. Such people rarely change and it is not worth risking more abuse to find out.less

Daniel Paul - I agree with the heart of your argument but it is the internet in general that has made sinning easier because of the lack of accountability. Before Facebook there was MySpace and Craigslist and there is a huge amount of easily accessible porn sites, groups that target married people looking for affairs, etc. That is why the program for accountability was created several years ag...more

Daniel Paul - I agree with the heart of your argument but it is the internet in general that has made sinning easier because of the lack of accountability. Before Facebook there was MySpace and Craigslist and there is a huge amount of easily accessible porn sites, groups that target married people looking for affairs, etc.

That is why the program for accountability was created several years ago before Facebook was born. The anonymity of the internet in general, with the ability to sin in such ways right at your fingertips and within your own home, is the primary problem. Facebook is a needle in a haystack that only becomes a temptation when the user allows it to be so.

Blaming Facebook specifically, again, is like blaming the gun for the murder and not the person who pulled the trigger.

Facebook made me do it? No. Made it easier maybe but in the end *I* did it.

You can hide a web page much easier than a video or a magazine. You can exchange emails secretly much easier than phone calls. This issue with the autonomy of the internet and its seductive offer of non-accountability has been a problem for a while now. Which is why the software you are talking about was designed before Facebook was born.less

A team is only as good as its leader, I agree. However that statement puts a lot more responsibility and influence onto a pastor than is realistic. Your statement implies that if the pastor has a good marriage than his congregation will. Or visa versa. All are sinners and fall short of the glory of God, even a pastor. If a pastors church is completely disordered and/or falling apart than you can u...more

A team is only as good as its leader, I agree. However that statement puts a lot more responsibility and influence onto a pastor than is realistic. Your statement implies that if the pastor has a good marriage than his congregation will. Or visa versa. All are sinners and fall short of the glory of God, even a pastor. If a pastors church is completely disordered and/or falling apart than you can usually blame the pastor/leadership. However if this pastor heads a congregation that numbers in the several hundred and he has counseled 15 couples he would likely describe that as 'many couples'. We do not know from the article exactly how many and everyone's idea of 'many' is different.

I realize that Facebook constantly makes suggestions of 'people you may know' and makes it very easy to type in a name from your past to see if they are on Facebook. What the pastor should have done was give a sermon warning his congregation to mind themselves with who they seek, respond to, etc while using Facebook. He should have advised his congregation that connecting with old boyfriends/girlfriends/spouses was never a good idea and that no matter how innocent your intentions are in the beginning that one invites trouble by doing this.

Even before the internet was born it was common knowledge that one does not befriend an ex if one is in another relationship. It causes trouble. Most couples don't even want their spouses to have friends of the opposite gender unless it is done as a couple.

Even at 16 I knew the best way to make my partner jealous was to talk to my ex.less

I do have to disagree with one thing you said, thefollower. I don't care how much a person is 'tempted' even if they never thought they would be when they started, if a person cheats on their spouse they are either completely selfish, stupid or don't really love/respect their spouse, vows and God.

I agree completely. Any spouse with an ounce of respect for their partner and even just a sliver of common sense would not befriend a former love. At the very least a smart person who wanted to reconnect from purely platonic and friendly reasons would ask their spouse how they feel about it before ever responding/connecting and would involve the spouse in every aspect of that communication.

Just to clarify, Believer, you are saying that the official position of the SBC is that a woman is not to have spiritual headship over a man. However if a certain SBC church decides to do so anyway that the SBC will not disfellowship that church. And you are saying that the official position of the SBC is that men and women cannot have intimate/partnered relationships with members of their own...more

Just to clarify, Believer, you are saying that the official position of the SBC is that a woman is not to have spiritual headship over a man. However if a certain SBC church decides to do so anyway that the SBC will not disfellowship that church.

And you are saying that the official position of the SBC is that men and women cannot have intimate/partnered relationships with members of their own gender. However if a certain SBC church decides to accept this behavior that the SBC will disfellowship that church.

Seems a bit inconsistent to me. Either they allow for the autonomy of member churches or they don't. The word 'lukewarm' comes to mind here. Straddling the fence. How can you look at these two situations and not see the hypocrisy?

If the SBC dismembered any church that went against the official position of the SBC then that would be consistent. Picking and choosing which Biblical violations are acceptable and which are not sounds a lot like someone pretending to be God here. Where is the list of Biblical laws that is numbered by the severity of breaking the laws?

And who gets to decide which Biblical violations are acceptable and which are not? How can you claim that certain Biblical violations are 'ok' and some are not?

Considering that allowing a woman to be pastor in violation of Biblical law could potentially endanger the eternal souls of the entire church, one would think that would be more offensive than allowing a homosexual to take on the role of a lesser leadership position. Having a gay deacon might endanger the soul of not only that deacon but every gay-oriented member of the church by giving the impression that being gay is ok. But allowing a woman to be pastor could very likely lead an entire church congregation astray. Surely God had a reason for not wanting a woman to have spiritual headship. What other reason could there be other than the reality that a woman cannot interpret the will of God as a leader and is easily led astray?

The gay deacon would theoretically endanger about 10% of a congregation. A woman pastor would theoretically endanger an entire congregation.

Any ideas as to why the SBC would consider a female pastor more acceptable than a gay deacon? Even if having a gay deacon led an entire congregation to believe being gay is ok by God, it is the act that is the sin not the opinion of it.

Just to clarify for those who may read this that do not know me, I do not believe being gay is a sin nor do I believe that granting a woman the head pastoral role in a church is a sin. I am posing serious questions about the professed beliefs and practices of the SBC. Consistency is one thing, picking and choosing which Biblical violations are acceptable and which are not frankly sounds a lot like assuming the role of God.less

Now that has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever read. A good marriage is not going to be ruined by Facebook and a bad one won't be saved by forcing people to erase their Facebook account. Facebook is a networking site. My friends and I use it to coordinate and recruit volunteers for community projects and dinner parties. It saved my behind by reminding me it was my mother's birthday. ...more

Now that has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever read. A good marriage is not going to be ruined by Facebook and a bad one won't be saved by forcing people to erase their Facebook account.

Facebook is a networking site. My friends and I use it to coordinate and recruit volunteers for community projects and dinner parties. It saved my behind by reminding me it was my mother's birthday.

Someone who is happy in their marriage and in love with their spouse is not going to be seduced into cheating because of Facebook. This pastor is trying to place blame in a false place. A person could run into an old flame at the local supermarket or even on a different networking site. If someone is weak about fidelity then making them erase their Facebook page is not going to change that or stop it. The local barista could flash a suggestive smile and such a person would be tempted.

Facebook does not promote extra-marital behavior. That is like saying that your church leaders cannot go into the local supermarket because too many have run into ex's or flirtatious strangers and was tempted into adultery.

Can we say over-reaction and misplaced blame? Its like trying to charge a gun with murder instead of the person who pulled the trigger.

/facepalmless