Calif. Lawmakers Introduce Resolutions Opposing Prop. 8

mburrell »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Prop 8 is going to do for California (& the US) what Anita Bryant did for South Florida. Where is she these days, anyway?

New Quest for Historical Jesus Draws Skeptics, Scholars

mburrell »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

apostasy

you people just LOVE words like that. how can you be so smugly narrow.

give the Project a chance. don't condemn them just because they do not happen to be 'religious' people. geez...

NJ Commission: State Should Let Gays Marry

mburrell »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

i posted this on the article about the British cardinal, but i think it pertains to comments on this column. maybe some complainers who post here feel they are doing their part to warn about a 'totalitarian' US government that can tell its citizens whom it can or can not marry.

From the other column:

I think the cardinal has put his finger on a point that may be motivating some of the harsher critics of Chrsitianity on this Web site. He wrote: "With the culture, Catholicism and other religion have a conflict because modern British society has a 'dislike of absolutes,' which he suggested stems from a 'revulsion for totalitarianism.'"

That's an interesting way to phrase it. Many people who do not have a religious nature only see the bad that religion has done throughout history. They do not get an inner peace from a religion - though they might find that peace somewhere else. But these people tend to be suspicious of religious proponents' potential to become totalitarian.

It's About Theology, Not Territory

mburrell »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

all us us 'church folk' seem to have caricatures in our heads about people at 'that other church.'

It's About Theology, Not Territory

mburrell »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

that's simply not true, tipique. homosexuals are a small but vocal group in our national church. every day parish life is practically devoid of any arguments over this issue - and all the while the church goes about the kind of nuture and good work that all the churches do. i think people who are not Episcopalians think we are apostate. but in many ways - practical and faithful ways - i see little difference in my church today than when i was growing up in the '50s. so many wonderful Christian people helping the community and each other. it's what Jesus told us to do.

Cardinal: Religion Treated as 'Private Eccentricity' in Britain

mburrell »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:16 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

I think the cardinal has put his finger on a point that may be motivating some of the harsher critics of Chrsitianity (even ones on this Web site). He wrote: "With the culture, Catholicism and other religion have a conflict because modern British society has a 'dislike of absolutes,' which he suggested stems from a 'revulsion for totalitarianism.'"

That's an interesting way to phrase it. Many people who do not have a religious nature only see the bad that religion has done throughout history. They do not get an inner peace from a religion - though they might find that peace somewhere else. But these people tend to be suspicious of religious proponents' potential to become totalitarian.

NJ Commission: State Should Let Gays Marry

mburrell »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 8:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

and what's 'quaint' about it?

the only thing i can think is that 'humorous' and 'quaint' make weekender feel superior. he has such a preferred vantage point, you understand.

NJ Commission: State Should Let Gays Marry

mburrell »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 8:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

weekender said: "I just think it's quaint (and humorous) that the anti-Christians chose to spend their time making comments on a blog called "Christian Post." Bored with the DailyKos?"

I have no idea what the DailyKos is, but weekender does not understand how dialogue - even argument, clear or murky - helps me to clarify some of these topics in my mind. i may not come out believing the way most "Christians" on this Web site believe, but i do learn from the process. what's humorous about that?

NB: after years of serving on volunteer boards, i finally realized that much of the parlementary procedure is for the benefit of the board members at that meeting. if something positive gets accomplished for the good cause we are 'serving' at the time, so much the better.

NJ Commission: State Should Let Gays Marry

mburrell »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 8:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

it was a typo (i think), but tipique's "a simple-minded naswer" is valuable.

some of the responses on this site are 'naswers' rather than 'answers,' i think - including mine. it might be a contraction of 'nay sayers.' what about it?

i know i have looked back over some text i've posted and then scratched my head. those were naswers, i now see.

useful new word!

Turning the Bible on its Head - Newsweek Goes for Gay Marriage

mburrell »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

correct, believer - but your post (again) should be written thus: mb, while I agree it is wrong to impose my views on others at the same time it is also my responsibility to speak out on matters that [I believe] willfully violate God's standards such as same-sex marriage for at least two reasons, one the [as I believe] moral wrongness of the issue and secondly [as I believe] the consequences of the violation of those godly morals to both those who practice it and to us as a nation. If we as a nation allow people to willfully violate [what I believe are] God's moral standards we will eventually pay a price for it as the nation of Israel did when they allowed people to willfully turn their back on God and God's standards. And while [I believe] God is both patient and longsuffering, [I believe] He is also a just God and will judge us as a nation if we continue to stand by and let people willfully violate His moral standards as [I believe] we are doing with issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage.

That is your belief. (And I agree with you on some of the points. That's MY belief.0 But I can't force anyone else to ascribe to MY beliefs.

re: a later post of yours, most Americans are not looking for "Biblical legs" to stand on. they are talking about civil rights.

I value the Bible. Many people think the scripture is not worth the paper it's prnted on. why should they look for "Biblical legs" to stand one? THEY have no interest in that, no matter HOW strongly YOU believe.

Turning the Bible on its Head - Newsweek Goes for Gay Marriage

mburrell »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:03 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

Daniel Paul: that CA constitution will soon be changed.

NJ Commission: State Should Let Gays Marry

mburrell »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 11:05 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

and so it goes....

and, guess what. a 100 years from now the church of Jesus Christ will be alive and well, thriving, in New Jersey and the entire world and this same-sex fight will look to those people the way some quaint 19th-century theological arguments look to us today.

It's About Theology, Not Territory

mburrell »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 10:55 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

your Christian group is welcome to study that, gratus. scholars and other thoughtful people can study theology and see where Christianity fits in with other religious movements in the world.

Turning the Bible on its Head - Newsweek Goes for Gay Marriage

mburrell »

Wed Dec 10, 2008 10:49 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

believer, your Web site name says it all. you wrote:'mb, considering there is only one true God and He is the God of the Bible, I can say with all certainty that God is opposed to same-sex marriage since it violates His original and only design for marriage....'

you are a believer, and YOU BELIEVE that God is opposed to same-sex marriage. you have every right to believe that. but you have no right to impose your beliefs on others who do not believe as you you - or who don't care about thsi issue one way or the other.

your post might be accurately rewritten: 'mb, considering [that I believe] there is only one true God and He is the God of the Bible, I can say with all certainty that [I believe that] God is opposed to same-sex marriage since it violates His original and only design for marriage....'

that's fine. but - as the old saying goes, your rights stop somewhere between your the end of your fist and the beginning of my nose.

believe and VOTE as you believe. the awkward part for some judges is that they may BELIEVE same-sex marriage is morally wrong, but they cannot read the law in a way that it takes rights away from other people.

i do not want to be married to a man. i hope none of my four children will want to marry a person of the same sex, but it is each one's constitutional right to do so if he/she chooses. our government is not run by the Taliban or the original Puritans of New England or even by the moral majority. thsi government is for everyone, and most of those people are barely interested in this discussion you and i and others are having. they just want to live their American lives in peace - with as littel interference from the government as possible.

Bush Not A Bible Literalist; Talks of Belief in God

mburrell »

Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

personally, i find Gore hard to take, but Clinton and Carter (whatever you think of them as presidents) were real, independent-minded Baptists at least.

Bush Not A Bible Literalist; Talks of Belief in God

mburrell »

Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

believer, i admire Jimmy Carter very much. But he was not a good president. My point is that maybe the US president should not be an evangelical Christian. this warps their view of the world as it really is. that's all i meant.

Bush Not A Bible Literalist; Talks of Belief in God

mburrell »

Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Sen. Rockefeller said that he "does not believe" President Bush reads the books he says he reads. I'm with Rockefeller.

It's About Theology, Not Territory

mburrell »

Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

by "Baptist Faith and Message" do you mean those odious new "creeds?"

we had several missionary friends who lived near us in China who cried when they had to either agree to support those "creeds" or leave the only church they or their families had ever known. but they left anyway.

It's About Theology, Not Territory

mburrell »

Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

believer, plenty of people did 'just start' Baptist churches over the years. many of these eventually came into the SBC. of course, now that the SBC has 'creeds' that are required, maybe no one can 'just start' a Baptist church anymore. those creeds are so un-Baptist!

Turning the Bible on its Head - Newsweek Goes for Gay Marriage

mburrell »

Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:15 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

i think Miller errs when she writes that the Bible does not mention sex between women. but Mohler errs when he states: "At this point the authority of the Bible is reduced to whatever "universal truths" we can distill from its (supposed) horrifyingly backward and oppressive texts."

universal truths CAN be discerned from horrific texts. Check out Flannery O'Connor or William Faulkner.

Mohler's view of the world (from a Southern Baptist church pew) is as restricted as George Bush's view of the world (from a Texas Methodist church pew). the world is bigger and more complex than these two mean realize. Actually, Bush may realize it now, but it's too late for the US or his legacy.