Congressmen, Faith Leaders to Affirm America's Spiritual Heritage

the Fifth Seal »

Thu May 07, 2009 11:01 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

Separation of Church and State:

This very idea of "separation of Church and State" was begun by Christians (Danbury Baptists) who supported freedom of conscience, and titled by our Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson. This resulted in our Constitution's First Amendment, which clearly states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
The early immigrants were of diverse confessions and many came here to be able to practice their faith freely. Unfortunately, while some colonies were open to religious tolerance, others had established state churches, exactly as the Old World had done. The newly formed government decided that one state faith would divide the nation and it would be better to respect each person's individual beliefs.
George Washington himself said, "All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it were by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."
And I. Beckus, a Baptist minister, said that when "church and state are separate, the effects are happy, and they do not at all interfere with each other: but where they have been confounded together, no tongue nor pen can fully describe the mischiefs that have ensued."
Just as the State is barred from interferring with or influencing religion for the safety of an individual's freedom of conscience, so too should the Church (any church and/or any religious group) be barred from interferring with or influencing the governement for the safety of its just and equal government.
Presidents Obama and Clinton were wise not to issue offical state support of a religion or its practice, though they themselves are both practicing Christians.
As Thomas Jefferson put it, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

Gay NH Bishop to Offer Prayer at Inaugural Event

the Fifth Seal »

Thu Jan 15, 2009 12:07 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

DelightntheLord,

Yes, my name is in reference to the Fifth Seal of the Revelation of St. John, not in hope of, rather willingness to die for faith.

You've said, "Try to read the Bible in the literal sense, then you will not have such problems with involving man's philosphy within it."

What if all the Bible isn't meant to be read literally? Isn't that why Jesus taught in parables? Because he knew that the narrowminded wouldn't understand, including some of his disciples? A literal interpretation isn't the only option, and certainly shouldn't be applied to the entire Bible. However, if that is your preferred method, I suppose your lack of openmindedness, reflection, and the knowledge comes from both is something you'll have to reconcile with God.

Prop. 8 Supporters Want Donors Anonymous

the Fifth Seal »

Wed Jan 14, 2009 1:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I find it humorous that suddenly they're concerned about persecution and rights now that the shoe is on the other foot!
They claim this will prevent them from raising money in the future. Doesn't that touch an underlying issue? Those with money and power will always decide the futures of the rest of us, fair or not.

Gay NH Bishop to Offer Prayer at Inaugural Event

the Fifth Seal »

Wed Jan 14, 2009 12:18 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Online,

Matthew 23 has EVERYTHING to do with the conversation! Because you speak as though YOUR interpretation is the only correct one, YOUR beliefs are the only correct one, and the limited Scriptures YOU read (deemed the only spcriptures by catholic bishops- i.e. men) are the only ones from which we can draw God's word. Maybe God delivers messages outside of the Scriptures. Who are YOU to say what God meant or what God wanted? Are YOU God? Who are YOU to limit his power? Since when did the Almighty bow to his creation? I believe that God still speaks to us today. The Bible is only a fraction of the communication we have with God. In biblical times, marriage was something between two people of the same race and opposite sexes. Then as we grew, our understanding of Scripture grew... and suddenly slavery was no longer acceptable, it was ok for two people of different races to marry.... Now, we're growing again, and our understanding of Scripture is growing as well. Now, it's understandable that two people of the same sex and of different races could share a loving monogamous relationship.

And to those that continue with the ridiculous argument that some are picking and choosing the parts of the Bible they want to believe or practice, aren't you doing the same? You preach for us to follow ALL of God's laws, etc. Yet, I strongly doubt... no I KNOW with all certainty that YOU do not, nor can you, obey and observe all 600+ laws of the Old Testament... not to mention those of the New Testament. Do all women here cover their heads in church? The NT says you should! Do all here refrain from eating pork or doing work on Saturday? The OT says you should! It's funny how suddenly WE are the pickers and choosers. Hmmm... How's that?

Online, let me show you how the text is relevant, since you're having trouble...
Woe to YOU, you hypocrite! You do all you can to exclude people from heaven. You yourselves do not enter because your too busy critizing those who are trying to.
Woe to you, so concerned with making everyone Christian, and when he becomes one, you make him forget all about the most important reason for becoming one.
Woe to you, you observe all the little rules, but you have neglected the more important matters of the law- justice, mercy, and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter without neglecting the former.
You blind guides! You miss the forest for the trees.

Does that help, Online? At least from my standpoint it seems VERY RELEVANT to what some people are saying here.

Gay NH Bishop to Offer Prayer at Inaugural Event

the Fifth Seal »

Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

I quote again, from the mouth of Christ (not from the mouth of Paul, or an Old Testament teacher, but Christ)

Matthew 23:13-24

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath. You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? You also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.' You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it.
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices- mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law- justice, mercy, and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

Sure, all Scripture is God's word, but who decided what was Scripture and what wasn't? What about all the other texts the Catholic bishops who compiled today's Bible felt were against "their" beliefs? What of those Scriptures? Would they not be of God? Just because the Christians who read them or wrote them weren't the powerful, does that make them less sacred, less useful? Let's get educated before we start excluding any understandings that don't fit into our tight little boxes of what we understand.

Gay NH Bishop to Offer Prayer at Inaugural Event

the Fifth Seal »

Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:23 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

Matthew 23:13-24

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath. You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? You also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.' You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it.
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices- mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law- justice, mercy, and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

Gay NH Bishop to Offer Prayer at Inaugural Event

the Fifth Seal »

Mon Jan 12, 2009 11:03 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 4

(Diane626:)The Proverbs passage, direct at Bishop Robinson is irrelevant, but perhaps at the nation... at ANY nation, I could see a point.
Let us not forget that there are a LOT of laws and regulations in the Bible, especially the Old Testament. Obsession with these and how, when, and where to appropriate observe them is just the kind of change that Jesus himself sought to begin. He didn't observe all the laws, working on the Sabbath, etc. There are too many "minor" topics discussed to be observed by any one person, and it's not always the best option to be so rigid, as Jesus showed by healing on the Sabbath. (Arkansaslinck:)If not being able to observe all laws at all times makes someone unqualified to be a leader, wouldn't that make Jesus unqualified?
(Wilderness1:)Lots of things are an "abomination"... gossip, adultery, etc. I find it hard to believe that those that actually cause HARM to another human are somehow less of an abomination that those that cause NO HARM to anyone.
(AussieAndy:) A prayer is a conversation with God. There is no reason why anyone HAS to use the Bible in their prayer. If I'm praying to God for the nation, I can do so by simply saying the things I would like for the nation. The fact that I don't say anything about the Bible doesn't make me less of a Christian.

Gay NH Bishop to Offer Prayer at Inaugural Event

the Fifth Seal »

Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:36 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 5

Ohowy:

First, I don't think any focus of this discussion is on anyone denying what Jesus taught, unless we're denying tolerance, love of our neighbors, or forgiveness. If upholding those things taught by Jesus makes me a liberal, I will happily bear the title. If you are a Christian, following Christ's teachings, then quote his own words and show me that my Savior wants me to tell a woman that she has no right over her own body, or that I should prevent prevent two people from being committed in love to another. There may be miscontrued references althroughout the Bible having to do with these and many other topics, but I will look to you to prove to me that the Christ spoke in his own words against these or any other.

Secondly, I don't recall in any of my previous postings having denied that Jesus died and rose again.

Thirdly, I do not select bits and pieces of the Bible, which is why such minor topics like homosexuality or abortion do not upset me. I see the Bible as a whole, looking at the Greater Message, the Good News. I don't find little issues as difinitive to whether or not a person is a Christian. Don't miss the forest for the trees!

Finally, Bishop Robinson is careful to represent the fact that God, the Essence of all things, encompasses even non-Christians. Whether people are Christians or not, they are still God's children, and deserving of inclusion and invitation to commune with God. I weep for you and for anyone who would wish "great punishment" upon anyone. For you will be judged as you have judged. I feel that Bishop Robinson is sending a wonderful message about how the Christian faith is reconciling with herself. Many Christians are tired of hearing emphasis on death and destruction. What about all the positive lessons from Christ that help build us up as people? Inclusion, tolerance, love...
If "hell" is where people who've loved, tolerated, included, invited, and forgiven go... I'll be happy to hold God's hand on the way there.

Gay NH Bishop to Offer Prayer at Inaugural Event

the Fifth Seal »

Mon Jan 12, 2009 10:15 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

ShuckCreations:

1) Agreed.

2) I feel that Obama is emmulating Jesus as any other Christian would. Name one President who hasn't been rich, and one administration that hasn't imposed taxes. The taxes are how the government pays for things. And you said it yourself, there were donations. I'm sure lots of churches have also accepted donations themselves. What of them? Christ's work?

3) No, not ALL Christians have fundamentalist views, but I feel that more often than not, those who tend to be a little more disagreeable also tend to be of a funamentalist persuasion. Yes, we do have scriptures, but even they could be argued to be incomplete as they were "selected" from the hundreds of books used by the early Christians.

Which leads to the next point...

4) Agreed that Paul was right about the foundation, but he wasn't referring to diversity, rather to divisions. And quite honestly, that's something that would take two-thousand years of undoing history to acheive. Protestants are split from each other, and before that from the Catholic Church, which removed all other earlier Christian groups to establish themselves as dominant and the texts they approve as legitimate. However, there were lots of early Christian groups, and I think Paul was trying to emphasize that we stick to Christ and his teachings as central... the rest is up for debate but no cause for division.

Diversity is beautiful.

Gay NH Bishop to Offer Prayer at Inaugural Event

the Fifth Seal »

Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:46 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

Concern with responses here for two reasons:

1.) Quoting the Bible out of context and placing pieces wherever they might appear to support one's argument is misleading. I challenge all believers to always question the motivations of people who would do such a thing, and to always check the passages yourself. For example, Wilderness1, the text you used is preceeded by "But I am full of the wrath of the Lord, and I cannot hold it in. 'Pour it out on the children in the street and on the young men; both husband and wife will be caught in it, and the old, those weighed down with years." (Jer. 6:11) Is this really the message you're wishing to quote? If so, how is it relevant to our President Elect's inclusion of an obviously well-educated and tolerant religious leader such as Bishop Robinson? And Online4Him, your quote is followed by "He whose walk is blameless is kept safe, but he whose ways are perverse will suddenly fall." (Prov. 28:18) Wouldn't this quote argue the opposite of what your arguing, yet is found in the same chapter? Suppose one would argue that.
I guess anyone using the Bible or any other Scripture out of context could argue anything they wanted. Wouldn't it be better if we left the quoting for topics relevant, and therefore prevent ourselves from misusing something we consider sacred?

2.) I believe our President Elect is doing a good job at creating a peaceful and tolerant environment for all citizens... not unlike a certain "rebel" who welcomed tax collecters and other not-so-popular people into his fold. I think many of the negative responses here could learn a thing or two from Obama, or from the very person he seemingly emmulates, Jesus. There's no doubt in my mind that he is a Christian, and I find it disgraceful that any other so-called Christian would think to exclude him or label him as something else simply because he doesn't conform to that particular persons fundamentalist view.

May God bless our President Elect and our nation.
And may God protect and inspire both spiritual leaders as they show the diversity and balance of today's Christian faith at the inauguration.

Indiana Senate Committee Passes Same-Sex 'Marriage' Ban

the Fifth Seal »

Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:13 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

I apologize for playing advocate here, but...

1.)
a.)The same wonderful rule that prevents the government from interfering with and dictating our beliefs and the way that we worship, is the SAME rule that should protect the government from the church (and it's often pushy followers) -Separation of Church and State- If any of you can point to a logical justification for preventing same-sex marriage that does not stem from conservative Christian doctrine, I will happily support the law already in place. As of yet, the only support for the ban is "[My] God says this..." or "[My] Holy Scriptures say that..."
b.) An "amendment" to our Constitution is unnecessary, and adding one is just a way to take away rights its creation intended to protect.
c.) Putting the issue into a referrendum is even worse. What better a way to oppress minorities than by subjecting their rights or revocation thereof to the decision of the majority? Imagine if we'd left the issue of slavery up to the vote of the population of the Old South. That sounds fair.

2.) Is this really even a concern? How many times does this need to be shot down? Indiana is seeing an exodus of nearly 15% of it's college graduates yearly, a continuous decrease in test scores across the board, and constant cuts to funding. Shouldn't the education of our future generations be more of a concern than whether or not we can repress minorities by forcing our own personal beliefs? Or perhaps the lack of decent healthcare across the state and the losses of life that occur when those without insurance are unable to get the care they require? No, no, no... Instead, we're worried about how people express their love for one another and how we can prevent it? Shame, shame...

If you don't agree with same-sex marriage, then don't marry someone of your sex.

Judge not, lest ye be judged...

... the greatest of these is Love.