Racism (ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-)
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
One of my biggest pet peeves out there today has to be people/groups who cry foul over everything and anything. They go about this by almost intentionally misusing and abusing terminology. There is a tendency to shout out loud about somebody's/group's infraction against them. It is then taken a step further by manipulating media with these "words of accusation" in order that they might gain public sympathy thru media sensationalism.
The reality, quite often, is overshadowed by the "I'm a victim" statement as opposed to actual circumstance. Media swallow up the supposed offence against the "victim" without doing any real investigation to determine if, at all, the offence ever took place.
For example, we often see many people who disagree or who refuse to recognize a gay marriage due to a personal conviction, labelled by their supposed "victims" as homophobe's. Are they really? How do the accuser's know whether or not these "phobes" have gay friends, family, and co-workers whom they feel deeply for. Even love. They simply have a differing view on homosexuality. Does the term "Homophobe", as it is defined, actually apply?
Another word thrown around loosley these days is "Racism". Take the story of Winnipeg's Kim Houle who recently accused leadership at Church of the Rock of discriminating against her.
Her story begins when she recently moved into a Habitat for Humanity home in July and was asked to perform, along with eight of her kids and grandkids, at the organization's volunteer appreciation night which was to take place at the Church that the organization had booked. Her performance was going to be a Native Spiritual dance where she and her kids/grandkids were to dress in their traditional garb. The day the event was to take place, Houle was informed they could not perform because their spiritual dance did not align with the church's policies. (An "oversite" on the part of Habitat who was obligated to inform the church of all performers prior to the event, not the day of)
A policy that the church is entitled to have. However, ask yourself the question, "Would a church be allowed to have a legal and binding policy that outright states that certain races are not allowed"? Although I do not personally attend Church of the Rock I can attest that almost all church's have a policy in place for the sake of protection from discriminatory suit's. Not based on race either. They are often very similiar in content. I believe I would be quite accurate in assuming the policy in this case stated that the church, which is the sanctuary where Christ alone is worshiped, cannot permit "acts of worship" to accomodate other beliefs. It would demonstrate a "Universal" acceptance that all paths lead to Heaven/God and that would be contrary to the core tenets of the Christian faith. To allow such an event would make a contradictory statement that the church embraces all "Faith's" which it does not. It embraces all people. Which brings me to the crux of all this.
Houle stated, "I was very angry, I was really hurt to have to explain to my kids that this prejudice is still going on,". She later went on to say, "the church reminded her that aboriginal people are still not free from racism and prejudice".
I do sincerely sympathise with her hurt but was she racially targeted? The invite to the event still stood. She was never once told "I am sorry Ms. Houle but you cannot attend tonites event because your skin is brown" or "Because you are an aboriginal". That would have been racist. Her initial reaction is understandable. To be angry, but to accuse of racism when there really is no grounds to support it is irresponsible. It is even more irresponsible for media to report it as such but, as usual, the media had to feed off of it. Winnipeg Sun reporter, Julie Horbal, sensaltionalised her story with the opening scathing words:
"Kim Houle is still struggling to explain the harsh realities of discrimination to her children and grandchildren"
I reversed the situation in my thoughts to try and get a better perspective. I recall some of my native friends, who have become Christians, sharing with me how they still attend sweat lodges. On occasion, there have been times where they were told by certain elders of a particular lodge that although they were welcome the "said" lodge only recognised Native spirituality and that they could leave their Christian faith at the door. As I put myself in their shoes, imagining attending a sweat lodge and being told I could not acknowledge Jesus Christ, I began to get a better appreciation for Kim's case.
However, if such an event took place, would I feel that it was due to racism? To answer that honestly, I must first recognise the realtiy that the lodge is there to honor the tenets of the Native beliefs. If I could not exercise my faith in it, I am under no obligation to attend, am I? Would I be hurt if I was turned away? Admittedly, yes. But would I feel I was discriminated against based on my race? Absolutley not. Where would they have said that I could not attend because I am a "Paleface"? I would be welcome as long as I respected and honored their practices in the lodge. If that was a problem for me, which it would be, rather then cry foul, I need to show respect for them as a people to do as they see fit within the tenets of their beliefs. Whether I agree or not. But for me to cry "Racism" is to make an issue where there is none.
So in the case of Kim Houle, the scenario itself, I believe, was mishandled by the Habitat 4 Humanity for first not communicating with the church early on regarding their policies. But keep in mind tha Kim was never once refused entry into the sanctuary because she happens to be Native. The claim of racism is a ludicrous one. As I stated earlier, I am not a member of the Church of the Rock, but I have attended a couple of the services there. The amount of skin color and ethnicity of that congregation would put the multi cultural community to shame. They just happen to all be Christians. But no one has ever been discriminated against based on race. The word, in this case, was used irrationally in what I believe to be the heat of the moment.
If we are to truly consider ourselves a tolerant melting pot of cultures then we must not allow ourselves to portray the "victim of oppression" by playing the all to accessible "Race" card. Especially where it is clearly not applicable.
Until next time...
26 comments:
I think the confusion in this situation is that whom ever asked Houle to perform considers her "Spiritual dance" an act of entertainment and why wouldn't they? They probably go to Pow Wow's, hear the term regalia and pay a couple of bucks for Indian tacos on the weekend.
Houle is probably let down because her feelings over the dance are are confused with feelings of wanting to celebrate the creator through dance and wanting to share that celebration with others. She is probably unable to distinguish between religion and spirituality.
But the reality is that "their spiritual dance did not align with the church's policies" and why should it? Racism? I think not. Ignorance? Definitely.
A church should be empowered to control which events take place under its purvue - within the law.
Houle should be able to do her dance any where within her pervue - within the law.
My house and this church are two examples of places not under Houle's pervue.
The church should be able to say "you can't do that dance here." They should not be able to say "people like you (indicating race) can't come to this church." However, in the U.S. I believe that Native Americans can restrict attendance to many places, ceremonies, and activities to Native Americans. For example, in Hawaii there is at least one island where you must be a "Hawaiian" by birth to visit or live on said island.
Queen Bee!!!
It is so nice to have you stop in :)
"I think the confusion in this situation is that whom ever asked Houle to perform considers her "Spiritual dance" an act of entertainment"
My thoughts as well.
"They probably go to Pow Wow's, hear the term regalia and pay a couple of bucks for Indian tacos on the weekend."
LOL Too true. Especially in Manitoba..eh?
"But the reality is that "their spiritual dance did not align with the church's policies" and why should it? Racism? I think not. Ignorance?"
I think more clarity was required and more notice. Perhaps had notice been given in ample time the situation would have allowed for discussion on what Kim desired to present and understanding.
If it was still considered to be in conflict with church then maybe something else could ave been aranged.
I also understand the Church's position as well (of course). While Kim wanted to celebrate before the "Creator" if the church believe's that is another god other then then the one they worship (Jesus Christ)then, from their perspective, it would be an offense to God.
It actually reminded me of the Camp Arnes (A Christian camp) debacle out here with a local gay and lesbian organisation who wanted to rent out their facitilies. The camp had no problem renting them out just for the sake of camping and having a good time BUT they(the camp) too had a policy that stated that no events that promoted lifestyles and other faith's contrary to the Judeo Christian beliefs of the camp were permitted.
In other words, all could come, nobody had to convert (it is a choice), but one must respect the "values" of the camp.
Hope you can see the analogy i am trying to present.
Anon,
Thanks for you input. I agree with your points.
Interesting fact you brought up about Hawaii. I was not aware of that one.
Ms Houle was discriminated against, not because of race, but because of religion. It is unfortunate that The HFH representatives were overly tolerant and didn't perceive a performance of a native dance as being a threat to the Christian god.
(Poor omnipotent being that he supposedly is.) I gather that this ceremony was at this particular church because it was somehow involved in the HFH project which afforded Ms Houle and her family a home? And the family's "performance" was a way of saying "Thank-you"?
If the aboriginal peoples are the only ones who practice the religion Ms Houle and her family were going to share with the Rock Church, then I can understand how she equates the discrimination she received as racism. But as TIO explains, the Rock folk accept all comers as long as they kiss the feet of Christ and no one else. Otherwise, you may sit and observe, but don't open your mouth, and don't wear the colors of your deity in their building.
Anonymous: the church has been saying for years "you can't do that dance here" to Anishnabe all over the world. They sadly have been also saying "people like you (indicating race) can't come to this church unless you believe what we think is the right way to think"
To be honest if I was Houle, I would write Habitat for Humanity a nice thank you card and call it a day. I might even throw in a couple of pictures hand done by my kids and grandkids.
I'm also actually surprised that HFH would even a line themselves with ANY church.
Kaen,
Glad to see you haven't lost your edge old girl :) Now to address your rant.
Ms Houle was discriminated against, not because of race, but because of religion.
Had nothing to do with religion either.
It is unfortunate that The HFH representatives were overly tolerant and didn't perceive a performance of a native dance as being a threat to the Christian god.
A threat? I don't believe that it was ever viewed in that context. More like the church leadership viewed it as disrespectful to God to permit (What they percieved) as a dance to "spirits" they do not acknowledge.
the family's "performance" was a way of saying "Thank-you"?
I agree that it in fact was.
then I can understand how she equates the discrimination she received as racism
I still do not see how you can possibly "Equate" the two. There was clearly no racism involved.
the Rock folk accept all comers as long as they kiss the feet of Christ and no one else
You really need to get past your red steam clouds of frustration, re-read, and open your mind to some understanding here.
No one at the church ever once said/forced anyone to "kiss the feet. All are welcome, nobody HAS TOO believe or accept their Christian teachings, the position of the church, as I understand it, was that they do not loan out there sanctuary for other's to worship deity's/gods they do not recognize. It would be a form of descration.
I don't for one moment feel God take's it as any threat as to who He is.
Look at it as a form of spiritual adultery only from a physical stand point. A married couple "comes together" in their own sanctuary (Bedroom) If one of them were to bring someone else into that bedroom for some hanky panky, unbeknownst to the other partner, it would be an utter act of betrayal and a desecration not only of their wedding vows but of their marriage bed.
Can you at least gain an understanding of where a church comes from? these policies are not racist, nor do they actually force anyone who does attend to become a believer in Christ, it just simply states they will not accept "New age Universalism" which accepts bows it's knees to all faith's.
Habitat 4 humanity was required to review all performers with the church prior to the event. They neglected too. It is possible, had time allowed, there could have been some educational moments for the church board like maybe, Kim just wanted to do a native dance that was not going to promote worship of other gods (which is what I suspect) The lack of time to further investigate due to H$H's negligence is what caused this whole debacle.
The bottom line, and the original content of this article, was this did not happen because of racism.
Queen,
I'm also actually surprised that HFH would even a line themselves with ANY church.
Well, first off they did not align themselves, they wanted to use their facilities.
BUT I ask you this, why would you be surprised if they did? The H4H was founded by Christians and a lot of those "behind the scenes" are Christians themselves. One of their first and most well know volunteer's was former President Jimmy Carter, another self professing Christian.
I don't find it surprising in that sense just like I don't find it surprising when I see them align themselves with their other sponsors.
ITO: Your right, I forgot that HFH loved Jesus and remembered after I hit publish comment and then thought I'd wait till you brought it up/call me on it, to tell you about my forgetful mind and quicky clicking. :)
TIO
How can you say it had nothing to do with religion and then say this:
they do not loan out there sanctuary for other's to worship deity's/gods they do not recognize. It would be a form of descration.
I don't for one moment feel God take's it as any threat as to who He is.
Then he shouldn't mind a little homage-paying to whatever spirits Houle intended to honor, since she honors them on other grounds at other times and supposedly *he* created those other grounds as well as the church she was invited to perform in.
Look at it as a form of spiritual adultery only from a physical stand point.
Oh poo. I know of churches that did big-screen projections of the Superbowl in their buildings. What's that got to do with spirituality? I know of a church that sponsored a womanless beauty pageant as a fundraiser.
This spiritual adultery crap is just a cover for "we ain't lettin' you in if we don't approve of you."
It's turned on and off like a convenient faucet.
Can you at least gain an understanding of where a church comes from?
Yep. From the close-minded and intolerant position of our way or the highway--to hell.
I still do not see how you can possibly "Equate" the two. There was clearly no racism involved.
I didn't say I equated the two. I said I could understand how Ms Houle could feel that way. Apparently this ain't the first horse she's ridden in this rodeo. This is one of the things that angers me about Christians. They are always so quick to cry "persecution!" even though their religion is the most pervasive on the North American continent. Yet they cannot recognize it and vehemently deny it when they turn the tables and treat peoples of other beliefs the way they feel they have been unjustly treated.
It's not racism; it's church policy. It's not discrimination; it's adherence to god's holy word.
We don't hate the sinner; just the sin. It's not intolerance if it's christians doing it.
Yeah, H4H dropped the ball on getting the clearance on the performers. They owe Ms Houle and maybe some others an apology. But like I said, maybe they never ran into the problem before of a church balking at someone thanking them.
Karen,
How can you say it had nothing to do with religion
Easy. Their decision was made on "Faith" based policies not religious ritualism. Your concept of religion is far different from mine so when you apply the word I consider the definition of it. This was not a "religious" decision. This was a decision based on their convictions. I don't actually expect you to understand that.
Then he shouldn't mind a little homage-paying to whatever spirits Houle intended to honor
You make no sense with this statement. Just because I said He would not feel threatened (and why should He, He is God) does not somehow obligate Him to pay homage to false deity's. That would contradict His commandment "Thou shalt have no other gods"
I know of churches that did big-screen projections of the Superbowl in their buildings. What's that got to do with spirituality?
Apples and oranges. You just said it yourself, what has it do with spirituality? A football game is a game. Where is the church in conflict with watching a game? It does not give glory to other spirit's/god's. It's a GAME! Worshiping other god's is a conflict with the teachings of the church.
This spiritual adultery crap is just a cover for "we ain't lettin' you in if we don't approve of you."
I used it as an analogy. One you obviously did not bother to consider. Your also painting with a broad brush by making the assumption that this person would never be welcome (that may be the case in some church's) but in this case the person was welcome, she did NOT have too "put up or shut up" by worshiping Christ, and she was not told too renounce her beliefs. She was simply told they could be practiced in a sanctuary that recognizes only one God, that being Christ. I am quite surprised that has not resonated with you yet. Are you suggesting that church's, many that are often accused of hypocrisy, should now practice it further?
Yep. From the close-minded and intolerant position of our way or the highway--to hell.
Close minded because it will not conform to secular/your thinking? Intolerant because it will not bend by cloaking the reality of what, yes we do believe, is a Hell that awaits those who reject salvation? The church may be adamant in it's beliefs but one is not forced to accept it. Intolerance is for those who would preach "tolerance" and then display the opposite by condemning those who believe something other then the mainstream. Kind of like what you are doing :)
I didn't say I equated the two. I said I could understand how Ms Houle could feel that way.
Alright, you stepped into her shoes suggesting how she equated the two. But you agreed with her offering an explanation which leads me to believe there is some level of agreement that racism was a factor from your angle. If it was, show me where, otherwise she even she is wrong in equating the two.
You take some hard shot's at Christianity (which essentially is a shot at me) and I have had to endure from many other's over the last decade but I do not run around crying "verbal abuse", "emotional scarring" and "Persecution". Under the laws of the politically correct, I might just have a case. Only they do not recognize one's freedom of religion...they just pretend they do.
It's not racism; it's church policy. It's not discrimination; it's adherence to god's holy word.We don't hate the sinner; just the sin.
You have it so far...
It's not intolerance if it's christians doing it.
Actually it is intolerance and it is to be displayed. If you call me intolerant because I will not allow someone to come into my sanctuary to bring glory/worship/praise to other/their god/s IN MY CHURCH where Christ is the only God recognized call me intolerant till the cows come home because I would not even dispute it. I will not tolerate the acknowledgement of "other" spirits/gods. How could I possibly lay claim to being a Christian then, when you know as well as I, that Christianity is inclusive, accepting no other belief's in other gods. But that was never the point to all this was it? Kim was not racially discriminated against at all. And there really is no way to equate any of it.
But like I said, maybe they never ran into the problem before of a church balking at someone thanking them.
I guess it depends on the thank you. If one wants to get up and say thank you, by all means, regardless of one's beliefs, do so. If you want to go into someone's sanctuary, dismiss their God to acknowledge your own, outside of the building, by all means do so. But to expect a place that obviously does not believe the same as you, to walk in to their place of worship and do just that show's a weakness in their faith by allowing it and act of insulting by the other for thinking it should be OK.
I would not walk into a Native sweat lodge expecting them to be "tolerant" of my Christian ways, IN THEIR SANCTUARY. That is their place of worship and I have 2 choices. Stay or leave. But crying racism would not be one of them. Neither would I cry intolerance because I am open minded enough to recognize that that is their way.
Y'all,
-A legitimate Christian (yes I'm saying that there are many CINOS "Christians in Name Only" who aren't really Christian) would probably be most inclined to have non-Christians and generally wicked people around.
What?!? Yup, read the Bible--
Mat 9:13: "I am not come to call the righteous, but the sinners to repentance."
Insofar as I am a Christian in more than just the nominal-social sense of the term, I'm pretty appalled at such sorts of acts against non-Christians. Pagans need Christ a lot more urgently than Christians do and any true Christian would want every non-Christian to come to their Christian church.
In Acts we see the Apostles reasoning with various peoples on why Christianity is the most reasonable religion. Christians aren't afraid of rain dances.
-But brushing aside any theological or Canonic arguments against "banning non-Christians from churches", there are some problems with this claim of racism as it is presented.
We see to have a bundling issue here. We ought to separate things out. Language, skin color, and religion are different things and it isn't fair or legitimate to bundle them unless we could bundle other things with them. Bundling can go on and on; we could bundle religion (fundamentalist Pseudo-Christianity) with military aims (bombing abortion clinics and establishing an Aryan super-state). I could, of course, also make a similar match with Islam or whatever religion we wanted.
If you want bundled benefits, you ought to take the bundled costs. I have considered this problem myself in that I am a proud Southerner (United States South), and in claiming all of the Southern virtues, I can't honestly write off all of the moral quagmires that the American South has made for itself (slavery, racism). I take the costs and shame that arise from the identity.
If I call myself a Southerner, all of those bigoted rednecks fall into my camp. I have to deal with them and work to enlighten them with the virtues of ethnic, racial, and linguistic equality.
In the case of these natives, what comes with the slippery slope of bundling? They'd be tent-building neolithic barbarians for starters. They don't want that and I don't want that.
My logic on the issue is: They shouldn't bundle their religion into their race.
Nog,
You nailed it. Jesus hung out with unsavory people with problems. GO JESUS!!!
Grump
Nog,
A legitimate Christian....would probably be most inclined to have non-Christians and generally wicked people around.
Like Grump, I agree. How else could they be reached if we didn't focus on building relationships with them.
I'm pretty appalled at such sorts of acts against non-Christians.
Nog, I think you missed the boat on this one. Although I am fully supportive of building relationships with the "Pagans" (as you so put it) and I do live out my faith doing just that, I denote by the tone of your writing that where the Christian physically goes to worship God at the altar (that being their home church) you are suggesting we should be opening it up for others to also join in by worshiping their own gods? Do you not see that as sacrilege? Or how about hypocritical? How do you win them for Christ when you eliminate Him from the picture by tolerating the worship of other gods in your own sanctuary?
I am curious....do you think that Jesus would have given His blessing to the "Heathen" to come and worship Satan in the synagogues, just so He would not offend them? Would He have attempted to reach out and build a relationship with them? Of course He would. And that was the example that He set. But He would never tolerate the worshiping a mish mosh of other gods. He was quite protective over His Father's house. Remember the money changers?
In the case of Kim, she was in no way treated disrespectfully or rejected. She was simply told that her "faith", which was in conflict with the church's biblically based doctrinal beliefs, could not be practiced inside the walls of their altar/temple. She was never told WHAT to believe or what NOT to believe. She was NEVER told she was not welcome. She was NOT rejected as a person.
If I have understood you correctly (maybe I have not) I fear you are bordering on "New Age Universalism". A path that embraces "all paths" to God. A teaching that is in direct conflict with the scriptures. (Acts 4:12)
Christians aren't afraid of rain dances.
Again I agree. I am married to an Aboriginal and am quite familiar with some of their teachings. Thru no influence of my own (as I was not a Christian when I met my wife) she left her Native spirituality teachings to follow Christ. She still holds on to her roots and some traditions but also acknowledges that there is a number of teachings/beliefs that would cause her to compromise her Christianity. It is those areas she avoids.
With regards to this particular story, she understands both positions but agrees that no racism took place.
But brushing aside any theological or Canonic arguments against "banning non-Christians from churches",
Again I remind, you she was not banned because she was not a Christian. She was only told that she could not come up to the place of worship to worship her own god. She was still welcome to attend the event and any future services. She was NEVER banned.
TIO and Y'all,
I'm definitely in agreement with you, TIO, on the whole absurdity of this family's claim of racial discrimination. And pagan, Christian, or pseudo-Christian, it was the Church' property.
I also agree with you, TIO, in opposing any sort of "Universalism". There's one God and one True Faith. Everyone else is just out of luck.
I do, though, lament the lack of "apostleship" amongst modern "Christian" groups. I would hope that Christians would be more confrontational, in a gentle way, than they seem to be at this point. If the True God is the God of the Christians/Jews, her (sorry, I occasionally use the feminine for God to entertain myself) followers shouldn't have any problem reading the Koran, Vedas, whatever and then going to those respective groups, or inviting them over to their Churches and PROVE that Jesus IS the Christ. I don't see why it would be impossible. There are more sophisticated and logical reasons why Christianity is the One True Theology than "Jesus is love because the Bible says so". Christianity, rightly understood, is far more rational than most give it credit for.
And, TIO, I think that we generally agree on this whole "bigotry accusations" malarkey. Some accusations are true, but it seems that, increasingly, they're just a special legal privilege that "potential victims of discrimination" get when they get fired, arrested, &c for a host of legitimate reasons.
A great truth of the matter is that "potentially litigious" people are just that much less valuable as employees, patrons, and guests. It's an extra cost for doing business with them.
How can you say it had nothing to do with religion
Easy. Their decision was made on "Faith" based policies not religious ritualism.
Faith based policies have nothing to do with religion?
This was not a "religious" decision. This was a decision based on their convictions.
Their convictions have nothing to do with their religion?
I don't actually expect you to understand that.
Then perhaps you should try to explain, rather than simply dismissing me.
Then he shouldn't mind a little homage-paying to whatever spirits Houle intended to honor
You make no sense with this statement.
Let me elaborate.
Houle practices her religion somewhere. You say your god is the god of everything, so when Houle practice her religion and does her celebratory dance complete with regalia in a field or a longhouse or whatever, she is still technically honoring other gods before your god on HIS TERRITORY.
He obviously has NO PROBLEM with that since she hasn't been stricken down or otherwise punished.
However, the people of this church , at their whim, er, on their convictions, said she could not do the same thing in their building because it violates their code. They presume to speak for the being that has no problem with the same thing outside the walls of their sanctuary. OK Fine. It's their playground, they can make the rules. But Ms Houle had been invited, and no matter who had done the inviting, the people who were disinviting her should have apologized profusely for the terrible mistake in communications.
They could have opted to let her perform outside the church instead.
A football game is a game. Where is the church in conflict with watching a game? It does not give glory to other spirit's/god's. It's a GAME!
It's idol worship. plain and simple. You're using a church, a sacred sanctuary to glorify overpaid men chasing a ball around the grass. You think that's what god wanted you to do with his church?
Your also painting with a broad brush by making the assumption that this person would never be welcome
I didn't say that. I'm only talking about the single time this woman was invited to this place, then told she was only welcome under certain circumstances after she showed up. Yes, it was H4H's mistake, but it was ALSO very poor handling by the church itself.
Intolerance is for those who would preach "tolerance" and then display the opposite by condemning those who believe something other then the mainstream. Kind of like what you are doing :)
Right back atcha buddy. With your talk against universalism, you've got little room to wiggle.
But you agreed with her offering an explanation which leads me to believe there is some level of agreement that racism was a factor from your angle. If it was, show me where, otherwise she even she is wrong in equating the two.
I'm only guessing, but it appears that the race and religion seem to be inexorably united in this case, at least as far as Ms Houle seems to feel. If you disrespect her religion, you are disrespecting her race, and vice versa. Is this religion unique to this tribe of people?
You take some hard shot's at Christianity (which essentially is a shot at me) and I have had to endure from many other's over the last decade but I do not run around crying "verbal abuse", "emotional scarring" and "Persecution".
There are plenty of others who are playing the persecution card on your behalf, not to worry.
AS for freedom of religion, that also means freedom from. And I'll stop taking shots at Christianity when it stays in the church and out of the public square. Until then, I'll feel free to call hypocrite when I see one.
How could I possibly lay claim to being a Christian then, when you know as well as I, that Christianity is inclusive, accepting no other belief's in other gods.
Um, that would be exclusive. Inclusive means you include others. Wouldn't that be nice and kind?
If you want to go into someone's sanctuary, dismiss their God to acknowledge your own, outside of the building, by all means do so.
See, I don't think Houle meant to be dismissive or insulting of your god by demonstrating a dance to her god. I think she was being inclusive. Her god was big enough to honor your god, but your people were not big enough to see that your god was honorable enough to accept the offering.
Your god just said have no other gods BEFORE me. Your god still would have come first in his own sanctuary.
And you know, if you welcome visitors in, but don't insist that they acknowledge and pray to Jesus during the service, you know that silently they're going to be praying to their own gods when the opportunity arises, right? So all this self-righteousness about sacrilege is just for the comfort of the congregation, cos as you surely know, god hears who those others are praying to silently.
Karen,
How can you say it had nothing to do with religion
I thought I explained it when I said Your concept of religion is far different from mine so when you apply the word I consider the definition of it. No ritualism involved. Not even "man made" laws. The "policies" are purely for legal reason's. A direct result of having to live in a secular society. A protective barrier put in place so that the church can live with conviction without constantly being threatened with lawsuits every time they exercise their individual choice/right to "Faith".
Their convictions have nothing to do with their religion?
No. It has to do with the tenets of their "Faith". As religion is defined:
1.) An organized system or institution of belief based upon the traditions of men instead of the pursuit of friendship with God. 2.) The act of playing church, exchanging internal truths for external performance; substituting spiritual realties with carnal rituals.
I was not dismissing you I simply cannot explain it anymore then I have. By the way you often respond I only mean it with sincerity (not condescendingly) that you will not comprehend the angle I am coming from. These people did not come to their conclusion due to "religion". They live with a sincere conviction, by what they have read in the scriptures, not what man wrote (laws) outside of the Bible. You can't fault them for that.
she is still technically honoring other gods before your god on HIS TERRITORY.
He obviously has NO PROBLEM with that since she hasn't been stricken down or otherwise punished.
You obviously do not comprehend His Grace and allowance for Freewill.
They presume to speak for the being that has no problem with the same thing outside the walls of their sanctuary.
Who said He didn't? I still can't believe that you are encouraging Christians to be hypocrites by allowing the worship of other gods in a place specifically designed for them to go and worship the God of the Bible??? You are constantly stating "separation of church and state", so are we supposed to stay inside the walls yet embrace and even welcome worldly values and worship of other gods?
the people who were disinviting her should have apologized profusely for the terrible mistake in communications.
She was NOT disinvited. Just like she was NOT racially discriminated against.
It's idol worship. plain and simple.
LOL Are you completely off your rocker? Do you even know what idol worship is? My Winnipeg Blue Bombers (CFL our version of NFL up here) are in the Grey Cup championship this Sunday. I am ecstatic!!! And I will be cheering them all they way. In fact, there are many Christians who play on the team. I worship NONE of them as people, the game in no way replaces my faith or my God. If I had to miss the game, so be it. Your really pulling at straws on this one. TV is just a technology. In the ancient days they just walked over to the good ole' coliseum for entertainment. Was that idol worship too? It can be used and abused. But watching a friggin football game??? Worshiping another god and watching a sport are two completely separate items that are worlds apart. You really crack me up sometimes.
You think that's what god wanted you to do with his church?
Yes! How do you know that these men did not invite unsaved friends and were able to use the facility, thru a sports game, as a means/tool to build on relationships with the others so tat one day down the road the could earn their trust and share Christ with them. They maintain their integrity without compromising their faith by "worshipping" or "allowing" other gods in the church. As long as the church is used in such a manner where even up to date technology's can be used as an instrument to build those bridges, No, I do not believe that God has a problem with it.
I am rather amazed at how the atheist is quick to pass judgement :)
Right back atcha buddy. With your talk against universalism, you've got little room to wiggle.
Not looking for any. As you are well aware, I have no problem with being branded as intolerant :) I am rather use to it. The day I compromise and flip flop like a fish out of water with a mish mosh of unstable values and ideals is the day I will need to re-evaluate and take some serious inventory of myself.
If you disrespect her religion, you are disrespecting her race,
I would re-think that statement. Christianity is worldwide and encompasses Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Orientals, aboriginals, east Indians, etc. Considering your views on Christianity (which often suggest you have no respect for) that would make you the biggest bigoted racist on planet Earth. Now I don't actually believe that but if that is your take then you set yourself up.
Is this religion unique to this tribe of people?
I will say Yes in the sense that it is a "Racial" religion. Which is odd considering Christianity embraces all regardless of color but somehow were the "racists" in this case. Go figure!!!
that also means freedom from. And I'll stop taking shots at Christianity when it stays in the church and out of the public square. Until then, I'll feel free to call hypocrite when I see one.
Ahh yes, the ever tolerant view of an atheistic, secular humanist. I must keep my beliefs/values inside a wall well the one "without" a faith/belief can express (impose) their own views/values upon the rest of us. Do you not see the hypocrisy in your own statement? If I told you to keep your "beliefs" behind a wall you would call me intolerant. Yet you do exactly that!
Um, that would be exclusive. Inclusive means you include others.
(sheepish grin) That was an embarrassing flub on my part. Thanks for the correction.
See, I don't think Houle meant to be dismissive or insulting of your god by demonstrating a dance to her god.
I don't either. Finally we agree on something.
I think she was being inclusive.
She was. But we are Christians and we are not that way. And we should not have to apologize for that. Most Christians are not even rude about it. Neither are we offended when someone like Ms. Houle wants to "perform" for her god. We simply say "No thank you. Not in our church, want to go for coffee?"
Her god was big enough to honor your god,
Our God recognizes no other god. Therefore no honor is received.
but your people were not big enough to see that your god was honorable enough to accept the offering.
No, my people were bold/big enough to stand firm in their faith not too allow an offering they strongly felt would be an insult to our God. If Ms. Houle were making an offering to God that is one thing but if her dance was to "another" god how is it even considered an offering to our God????
Your god just said have no other gods BEFORE me. Your god still would have come first in his own sanctuary.
He also said that "I am a jealous God and will not share my temple with no others".
You sure seem to know how He feels, which is odd considering you also state He does not exist. More hypocrisy on the atheists part? (Just a light jab, let's not go at it over this)
And you know, if you welcome visitors in, but don't insist that they acknowledge and pray to Jesus during the service, you know that silently they're going to be praying to their own gods when the opportunity arises, right?
Yes I do. But that is for God to deal with. I do not see their prayers. However, if I welcome them to the front of the church so they can pray to their god now I am making a public statement that I don't "actually accept" the Biblical view that their is only one God. I am then, rightly so, accused of hypocrisy.
god hears who those others are praying to silently.
God hears those who are praying to Him silently. There you go again, acknowledging how God hears our prayers. Neat how you say He hears when apparently He is not there. :)
) An organized system or institution of belief based upon the traditions of men instead of the pursuit of friendship with God. 2.) The act of playing church, exchanging internal truths for external performance; substituting spiritual realties with carnal rituals.
How truly bizarre! Okay. You've got me there. Our takes on religion are indeed very far apart. Though I've got to say your version seems to diminish the whole sanctity deal, IMO.
You obviously do not comprehend His Grace and allowance for Freewill.
Um, I said, it was obvious HE had no problem with it, only the people of the church did.
Who said He didn't?
He did, by not saying anything.
are we supposed to stay inside the walls yet embrace and even welcome worldly values and worship of other gods?
Yes, stay within the walls. You didn't have any problem embracing worldly values in the form of football, so what's the big deal? I don't know what other worldly values you're talking about. No one said you had to worship other gods, but you could be inclusive and welcome others, no strings attached.
She was NOT disinvited. Just like she was NOT racially discriminated against.
Oh, well when you explain it that way, how can I disagree?
Worshiping another god and watching a sport are two completely separate items that are worlds apart. You really crack me up sometimes
There are gods of this world too ya know. Like money, and power. And whether you want to admit it or not, football represents both, and there are a lot of people who take football more seriously than any spiritual god. There are even christians who believe that watching tv is evil, so don't be so quick to laugh at my idol worship idea. Yeah, it's a stretch, but maybe not so much as you'd like to think.
If you disrespect her religion, you are disrespecting her race,
I meant this as the universal "you", not you personally. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Is this religion unique to this tribe of people?
I will say Yes in the sense that it is a "Racial" religion.
Then I would say she was correct in feeling she was being discriminated against racially, for her race and religion are inseparable, and she was definitely discriminated against for her religion.
Do you not see the hypocrisy in your own statement? If I told you to keep your "beliefs" behind a wall you would call me intolerant. Yet you do exactly that!
My beliefs allow for the protection of your beliefs also. Except for the ongoing discussion about the new atheism, with the books by HItchens, Dawkins, Harris, etc, where are my beliefs not behind the wall? Where does it say anywhere "There are no gods." ? Secularism allows for a position of neutrality.
Our God recognizes no other god. Therefore no honor is received.
Then why does it pronounce that you shall have no other gods before it? It must know there are other gods out there. Or do you mean that it knows they are there but ignores or disdains them?
If Ms. Houle were making an offering to God that is one thing but if her dance was to "another" god how is it even considered an offering to our God????
Think of it in terms of the Little Drummer Boy. He had no gift to bring, so he played his drum. She had no gift to bring, so she danced. Usually, the dance was to her god. But on this occasion, the dance would have been to your god.
He also said that "I am a jealous God and will not share my temple with no others".
He would have flunked kindergarten. Learning to share is very important. And this is your role model?
You sure seem to know how He feels, which is odd considering you also state He does not exist. More hypocrisy on the atheists part? (Just a light jab, let's not go at it over this)
Don't forget, I grew up with this nonsense. I still maintain he doesn't exist, but for the sake of conversation have to speak as though he does at times.
God hears those who are praying to Him silently. There you go again, acknowledging how God hears our prayers. Neat how you say He hears when apparently He is not there. :)
Ah, I was just "playing church". :)
BTW Why doesn't god heal amputees?
Karen,
Um, I said, it was obvious HE had no problem with it, only the people of the church did.
And I was trying to get across to you that the people of the church did not make it up on their own. It is quite a Biblical stance to take when it is believed that someone wants to enter the church to give worship to another god. I think you are already knowledgeable enough in scripture to know that God opposes the "mixing" of faiths especially when the said Tabernacle/sanctuary was built for a place to go and worship Him.
He did, by not saying anything.
Extremely presumptuous on your part. You can't validate it based on an assumption.
Yes, stay within the walls. You didn't have any problem embracing worldly values in the form of football
Hang on there, we're not friggin' Hutterites secluded to the colony. Worldly values are those that directly fly in rebellion to God's. I.E. Gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, fornication, adultery, lying, cheating, stealing, etc. Football does not cross any ethical lines that cause a Christian to "fall into sin". It is just a good ole' fun game. UNLESS of course the said believer was so dedicated to the sport that football literally took over his/her life to the point that God (and family/friends) took a backseat in their life during regular and playoff season.
No one said you had to worship other gods, but you could be inclusive and welcome others, no strings attached.
You seem to keep missing me on this one. A true Bible believing church does in fact welcome others with no "strings attached" such as the visitor MUST convert. However, that is not a logical line of reasoning for us to say "Well, let us compromise our firm belief that there is only one true God by allowing them into our sanctuary's to worship other gods" That completely defies the purpose behind Christ's great commission.
A classical example of this was a few years ago while my motorcycle club was holding it's Sunday evening "Biker" church service, a lesbian couple walked in the doors. They informed of us that they had been rejected by other church's and would we welcome them. We told them they were absolutely welcome but that was not too be taken as an acceptance of their sexual lifestyle. They were told that our belief is based in the scriptures that God says homosexuality is sin. Period. And we were not going to change our doctrinal beliefs to accommodate them. We also told them that we really do not preach a whole lot on homosexuality but it does come up from time to time and that we were not going "walk on glass" around the subject if it should arise.
So my point in that example is that well the church does (and should) welcome all it should not have to do so at the cost of actually committing hypocrisy by compromising what they believe to be true and God honoring. If people do not like what God has to offer, then He has allowed them freedom to walk away. But I feel it is rather imposing for other's to walk in and just expect the church to simply compromise itself, and therefore compromise itself before God, so others can have warm and fuzzy feelings about their sinfulness.
Oh, well when you explain it that way, how can I disagree?
Glad to see you finally conceded on that one ;)
There are gods of this world too ya know. Like money, and power.
Agreed and that is in fact a Biblical truth, however it is also dependent on the heart of the individual. A wealthy Christian who gives much of his financial resources on behalf of God to worthy causes would not fall under that category. As long as he worships God first and only he is certainly not guilty of worshiping his money because he uses it wisely in accordance with God's will. Not for selfish reasons. Nor for power or status. He can be wealthy without the attitude of "Pursuit". What we pursue is what we worship.
And whether you want to admit it or not, football represents both, and there are a lot of people who take football more seriously than any spiritual god.
I can easily admit it. But what has that got to do with a church that wants to watch the big game? Unless they begin canceling service's and outreach missions in order to watch every single game without skipping a beat, I see no harm and no "worship" of the game.
There are even christians who believe that watching tv is evil,
And I think they are ridiculous. While TV can certainly be used to promote unhealthy attitudes and ungodliness it can most certainly be used for the opposite as well. Tuning out the world does nothing to help it.
I meant this as the universal "you", not you personally. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I actually did not take it personally. I understood it the way you intended.
Then I would say she was correct in feeling she was being discriminated against racially, for her race and religion are inseparable, and she was definitely discriminated against for her religion.
And I would continue to disagree. Prove racism. And back to my original point, she can most certainly become a Christian and be welcomed into the fold regardless of ethnicity BUT because of my skin color (Caucasian) I cannot join hers. Just who is the racist? Not that I am implying such but it seems to be a case of finger pointing without first looking deep into the mirror.
My beliefs allow for the protection of your beliefs also.
Well, now, that is highly debatable.
Then why does it pronounce that you shall have no other gods before it? It must know there are other gods out there.
You said it yourself earlier when you mentioned money and power. What we devote ourselves too (time, money, energy, etc.) it is that which we worship. It does not mean there are actually "other" gods such as in the context of Greek mythology but rather in a metaphorical sense. Scripture refers to Satan as the "god" of this world while not actually acknowledging any form of deity within him. Just that many, by their own choice, renounce God, enslave themselves to Satan and sin and therefore have chosen him to be their god.
But on this occasion, the dance would have been to your god.
If that were the case then I would venture a guess that there would not have been an issue in the first place.
He would have flunked kindergarten. Learning to share is very important. And this is your role model?
Shared? Try sacrifice. A better role model then the one you offer up.
BTW Why doesn't god heal amputees?
I am surprised you haven't got an "evolutionary" response for you own question. BTW who says He hasn't? I recall when Christ picked up the ear and put it back on one of the Roman guard's after Peter lopped it off in he garden of Gethsemane. Chances are you wouldn't believe it unless you saw it anyway, right? :)
Tio
And I was trying to get across to you that the people of the church did not make it up on their own. It is quite a Biblical stance to take when it is believed that someone wants to enter the church to give worship to another god.
And I thought you said it didn't have anything to do with religion?
Extremely presumptuous on your part. You can't validate it based on an assumption.
Okay. What were his exact words on the subject? Tell me what he said or did to show his disapproval, contemporaneously, and directly related to Ms. Houle's regular practicing of her religion before him in a natural setting.
Hang on there, we're not friggin' Hutterites secluded to the colony. Worldly values are those that directly fly in rebellion to God's.
It's all a matter of interpretation and perception, and varies from sect to sect. Another reason to keep religion in the home or the church and not inflict the public with all the confusing contradictions.
So my point in that example is that well the church does (and should) welcome all it should not have to do so at the cost of actually committing hypocrisy by compromising what they believe to be true and God honoring.
Does that mean that in your church a murderer would not receive pastor/congregant confidentiality if the guilty man just walked in off the street and confessed to your preacher?
If people do not like what God has to offer, then He has allowed them freedom to walk away.
If only the rest of you would do the same!
Prove racism.
Obviously, I can't. I don't have enough information or facts about what was said by whom and in what toe, etc. So I will just have to agree to disagree with you.
My beliefs allow for the protection of your beliefs also.
Well, now, that is highly debatable.
You don't think SOCAS protects religious belief? I also believe in your right to believe as you do. But you're probably right, after that, we pretty much part company.
It does not mean there are actually "other" gods such as in the context of Greek mythology but rather in a metaphorical sense.
Um, that was written in OT times when "other gods" were being worshipped, so how do you know for sure that it was meant stictly in a metaphorical sense?
Scripture refers to Satan as the "god" of this world while not actually acknowledging any form of deity within him.
I don't understand this. What does "any form of deity" mean? What characteristics are needed to be a god/deity?
Shared? Try sacrifice. A better role model then the one you offer up.
One who can die and come back to life sacrifices nothing. One who dies and only dies sacrifices all.
Who is the role model you think I offer?
I am surprised you haven't got an "evolutionary" response for you own question. BTW who says He hasn't?
Evolution has got a better track record of spontaneous regrowth of
amputated tissue.
Jesus replacing the ear is another gospel contradiction, if I remember correctly. They don't all mention it. In fact I think the ones that say anything just say Jesus healed the man's wound. That doesn't necessarily mean he put the ear back on. But anyway, even if he did, why won't he heal amputees anymore?
Karen,
And I thought you said it didn't have anything to do with religion?
Uncle! I give up trying to explain the difference between religion and relationship. Atheist's can even be "religious". What they cannot experience is a relationship with "nothing". I acknowledge they are many "in the church" who have are "religious". They believe (or at least claim too) in God but have no relationship with Him. They concern themselves more with outward appearances of holiness rather then where God looks which is inward. Anyways, I am done on this one. Next?
Okay. What were his exact words on the subject? Tell me what he said or did to show his disapproval, contemporaneously, and directly related to Ms. Houle's regular practicing of her religion before him in a natural setting.
Typical. The onus is on me to validate while you can continue to speak on assumption. Your familiar with the teachings and you should have enough head knowledge of the scriptures to know exactly what God has to say about entertaining the worship of "other" gods in His sanctuary.
So let me throw it right back at ya sister, show me where God encourages us, not only to invite, but even welcome the worship of other gods in His church.
Another reason to keep religion in the home or the church and not inflict the public with all the confusing contradictions.
Do you ever feel like a hypocrite? I don't suppose we could just keep atheism in the home as well. They seem to be quite good at their own contradictions since imposing their own morality is far more confusing when all truth is relevant in their world.
But I guess in your world of "rights" yours should have preference over mine, correct? Now that's equality for ya. ;)
Does that mean that in your church a murderer would not receive pastor/congregant confidentiality if the guilty man just walked in off the street and confessed to your preacher?
That is correct. I do not attend one of those "religious" denominations where confession of sin is with your local priests. The scriptures clearly state that ONLY Christ can absolve sins and that we must confess our sins to God. Then we are encouraged to share them with a close/select group of friends for the purpose of accountability. No where in scripture does it state that a another man (I don't care if he wears a collar and sit's in a booth) can absolve another man of his sin.
Now, back to your original question. As I have been involved with counseling myself, the individual is told up front that if anything is revealed that is detrimental to the safety/health of him/herself or other's or they are responsible for a horrendous crime, then we are obligated to report that to the necessary authorities. If they "hint" they have caused someone harm they would be encouraged to (of course renounce the sin/repent) and make the record clean by dealing with the matter. I hope this lends some clarity.
Obviously, I can't. I don't have enough information or facts about what was said by whom and in what toe, etc. So I will just have to agree to disagree with you.
Oddly enough, and I just found this out a few days ago, it turns out my best friend's wife (who is aboriginal and very involved in their community) just happens to know the woman and holds her in high regard. I asked her what her thoughts were on the matter. From her perspective (and I trust she had even more insight then either you or I) she agrees that racism was not a factor and feels her friend "reacted".
I also believe in your right to believe as you do.
If you truly believed that then why would you take such an totalitarian view that I must keep my beliefs in the home? I mean, you seem to have no problem with your right to freedom of expression by renouncing God in a public manner yet you seem to feel I should keep my mouth shut (except within the confines of my home) to exercise the very same right you say you support! See what I was saying earlier on how much more confusing the atheist is?
Um, that was written in OT times when "other gods" were being worshipped, so how do you know for sure that it was meant strictly in a metaphorical sense?
Scriptures say that what we worship is our God. That does not make it necessarily an actual god. For some, their stomach is their god. That is also written. Yet we both know that an actual stomach is just a stomach. But when one gives so much attention and reverence to it (gluttony) they are practicing that form of worship.
I don't understand this. What does "any form of deity" mean? What characteristics are needed to be a god/deity?
Obviously nothing we would experience as just a mortal human. A supernatural being with supernatural abilities. An all knowing, all being, all present higher being. Eternal. Does that help?
One who can die and come back to life sacrifices nothing.
Really? You think? Would you suffer brutal beatings to the point where you were unrecognizable and then suffer an agonizing death nailed to a crucifix for people who hate you? You think that is nothing? You make it sound like Christ just walked into the coffin, got comfortable and woke up three days later.
One who dies and only dies sacrifices all.
How about one who dies for something he did not do? You sin, I sin, Christ had no sin in Him yet He was charged with our crimes and paid that ultimate price. No sacrifice? I beg to differ.
Who is the role model you think I offer?
Probably miserable deluded old farts like Dawkins and Darwin. LOL (OK, I am being a little antagonizing)
Evolution has got a better track record of spontaneous regrowth of
amputated tissue.
We've been down this path many a time. Micro my dear, not Macro. ID's and evolutionists have no disagreement on the micro level.
Jesus replacing the ear is another gospel contradiction, if I remember correctly. They don't all mention it.
No it's not. Just because one does not mention it does not make the one that does a contradiction. If one declared it "never" happened or some other body part, like a leg was cut off, then you have a case. There is nothing to contradict when it is simply not mentioned. That does not mean it never took place. The other's spoke of it. Some described it more vividly but that does not show a contradiction.
It is no different then 4 people standing on a street corner watching a car accident unfold. One remembers more vividly how the blue car ran the red light. One remembers more vividly how the green truck broad sided it. One remembers more vividly the passenger getting thrown from the vehicle. One remembers more vividly the flying debris of the impact and the horrible noises that followed. Yet, not a single statement would contradict the event that took place.
But anyway, even if he did, why won't he heal amputees anymore?
How do you know He doesn't? You or I may never have witnessed it ourselves but that does not mean He is not doing it in other places in the world.. Maybe even in our own backyards and we are simply not aware. I certainly know He is capable.
I will share a true story with you of His healing. Take it as you so choose but I have never lied to you. When my older son was 4 years old my wife accidentally closed the car door on his hand, NOT his fingers, his entire hand. Did he ever scream. She opened the door to reveal a hand that was, for all intense purposes. pretty mangled. She did the only instinctive thing she could think of. She prayed over his hand. Right before her eyes the hand literally healed up and my little boys tears dried. She took him to the hospital for an observation. Everything was in perfect form. My wife said that there was absolutely no doubt in her mind that the bones in his hand were broken. That is a miracle healing.
Does it happen all the time? Yes. Does it happen every time? No. I don't believe it is because God runs out of "power juice" but, for His own sovereign reasons, (which are too much for us to fathom) He chooses when He will and when He won't. Don't ask me to explain that, I can only testify of Him. He is far to great for me to explain. You say it never happens but how many times in your life has someone tried to share a story of God's healing and you have dismissed them in your mind before they even got the words out of their mouths. How do you know the story is not true?
Tio
So let me throw it right back at ya sister, show me where God encourages us, not only to invite, but even welcome the worship of other gods in His church.
I found this interesting, and was bringing it to share before I even knew you had responded to my last post:
English historian Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum ("Ecclesiastic History of the English People") contains a letter from Pope Gregory I to Saint Mellitus, who was then on his way to England to conduct missionary work among the pagan Anglo-Saxons. Pope Gregory suggested that converting heathens would go easier if they were allowed to retain the outward forms of their traditional pagan practices and traditions, while recasting those traditions spiritually towards the Christian God instead of to their pagan "devils": "to the end that, whilst some gratifications are outwardly permitted them, they may the more easily consent to the inward consolations of the grace of God"."
I figure you'll probably reject that out of hand, because it involves a catholic pope and you're not catholic. But this was in the 6th century, before there was anything but catholics. And the pope, as I'm sure you know, supposedly is infallible and has god's ear. So isn't it interesting that the thing you find so hypocritical, the blending of practices, was actually used to convert people to Christianity?
To get back to your question though, yes I am aware of what god says about worshipping other gods, but I recall no mention of "in his sanctuary." Can you cite a verse for me?
I have just been having this discussion with another conservative christian about the laws handed down in Exodus. Worshiping of any other god is punishable by death. So are you going to kill Ms. Houle? Or are you going to backtrack, like this other guy did, and say, well those laws were directed toward the Israelites! You can't have it both ways. If you're going to use the laws of the old testament as what you say you live by, then you should be using all of them, not cherry-picking the ones you like.
Also, I asked you what god has said or done contemporaneously-by that I mean NOW, not 2000+ years ago. IF he has a problem with this woman doing her ritual ANYWHERE (which is still before him, since he is everywhere), why has he not struck her down? Are you saying that god approves the worship of other gods as long as it's not in a building dedicated to him?
Do you ever feel like a hypocrite?
I'd be lying if I said I've never felt that way, but I don't feel it in respect to this.
I don't suppose we could just keep atheism in the home as well. They seem to be quite good at their own contradictions since imposing their own morality is far more confusing when all truth is relevant in their world.
Expand on that please. I thought atheists didn't have any morality to impose on others? Aren't we without a moral compass? I asked you before to show me where there are examples of atheism being forced somewhere and you ignored it. There are no billboards proclaiming "There are no gods!"
Atheists don't begin a meal with friends by saying, "Oh, by the way, we don't find any evidence to beleive in gods, so we don't thank any before we eat." We don't have a moment of silence to ponder the idea of there not being any gods. We don't stand on street corners yelling "Hey! Try atheism!"
Just what atheism aren't we keeping at home? If you mean by me coming here to discuss things with you, fine. I'll leave. If it oppresses you or bothers you that I speak my mind, I'll stick to the atheist blogs.
But I guess in your world of "rights" yours should have preference over mine, correct? Now that's equality for ya. ;)
It's easy to joke with a wink and a smile about something YOU have and the other person doesn't, isn't it.
The scriptures clearly state that ONLY Christ can absolve sins and that we must confess our sins to God.
I thought Christ HAD already absolved our sins. (original) New ones have to be repented to god or son. That's the way I learned it. But then I was raised Lutheran, just a hair's breadth away from those nasty catholics you don't like.
I hope this lends some clarity.
Sheds some light, yes.
From her perspective (and I trust she had even more insight then either you or I) she agrees that racism was not a factor and feels her friend "reacted".
OK. Whatever. I'm tired of arguing the issue.
Obviously nothing we would experience as just a mortal human. A supernatural being with supernatural abilities. An all knowing, all being, all present higher being. Eternal. Does that help?
But Satan does have supernatural qualities. He was an angel. He rules over hell, which is eternal, so presumably he is too.
I really don't recall where we were going with this.
One who can die and come back to life sacrifices nothing.
Really? You think? Would you suffer brutal beatings to the point where you were unrecognizable and then suffer an agonizing death nailed to a crucifix for people who hate you? You think that is nothing? You make it sound like Christ just walked into the coffin, got comfortable and woke up three days later.
Yes, really, I think. If you can come back to life over and over again, you can be ground up in a mulching machine, and 3 days later, good as new.
Look, after what I suffered as a child, and after some of the stories I've read about what other children have suffered, I have no sympathy for Christ. Assuming he lived and died according to the story, he chose to be a martyr. Now there were thousands of men who died on crosses just like he did, with no thought of coming back to life again. Why do you single out his suffering as so heroic? How do you know that some of those other people weren't innocent also?
And he had chances to escape or evade the whole thing, but again, he chose it. That's the thing. Your god is so blood-thirsty. There is no good reason why there had to be a blood atonement for sin. God is all powerful and all knowing. Mighty and smart. Surely he could have come up with a better plan.
One who dies and only dies sacrifices all.
How about one who dies for something he did not do? You sin, I sin, Christ had no sin in Him yet He was charged with our crimes and paid that ultimate price. No sacrifice? I beg to differ.
First of all, I don't buy that original sin crap. I didn't even buy that when I was a believer. I was always getting into trouble over that. I think we have been through this before. You don't blame all the kids for the mistake one made, especially generations to come, and especially when you set the kid up to make the mistake in the first place.
Second, if he had died and stayed dead, then yeah, I'd agree it was a sacrifice. But when I cut my nails, I'm not sacrificing them, they'll grow back.
Jesus replacing the ear is another gospel contradiction, if I remember correctly. They don't all mention it.
No it's not. Just because one does not mention it does not make the one that does a contradiction.
It is no different then 4 people standing on a street corner watching a car accident unfold. One remembers more vividly how the blue car ran the red light. One remembers more vividly how the green truck broad sided it.
Eh, seems like seeing an ear get cut off and miraculously put back on would be worth mentioning in every account! It's only supposed to be the last miracle Christ performed. But since these guys didn't bother to write anything down for decades, and may have been
'shrooming at the time, (or was that Paul?) it's a wonder they got their stories straight on anything.
But anyway, even if he did, why won't he heal amputees anymore?
How do you know He doesn't? You or I may never have witnessed it ourselves but that does not mean He is not doing it in other places in the world..
Oh, come on. If it happened, the world would hear about it.
I will share a true story with you of His healing.
Nice story. Not nice that your son got hurt, but nice that it turned out well. I'm sure you're sincere in believing that it was a miracle.
I hope for your kids' sakes that if they are involved in anything more serious, your wife will (quickly)at some point have the presence of mind to quit praying and call 911, or whatever the Canadian equivalent is.
I'm sure your wife thought the bones were broken, but they were probably not. She was more likely having a heightened reaction to the boy's crying, coupled with guilt over closing the door on his hand.
I'm very glad she took him to the hospital to be checked out.
You say it never happens but how many times in your life has someone tried to share a story of God's healing and you have dismissed them in your mind before they even got the words out of their mouths. How do you know the story is not true?
The story may be true, like yours, but that does not mean I need to chalk it up to a miracle. For every story in which prayer works, there are a million in which it didn't. And for those that worked, the evidence is only anecdotal. Not a very good track record for a miracle worker.
Karen,
My apologies for such a delayed response. This is, of course, a very busy time of year for me and the family. I will get back to you on this in a few days.
Have a Merry Christmas and BTW my cholesterol levels have dropped by 3 points from 8.4 to 5.4. Still on the high side but a lot better. So far I have lost 40 pounds in the process. Cool huh?
Tio
Very cool. Good for you! Merry/Happy!
Karen,
But this was in the 6th century, before there was anything but catholics.
??? There were more then just "Catholics" I do recall they eventually inspired Martin Luther and the reformation movement. If there were only Catholics then the evangelical/born again/Christians could never have experienced a resurgence as they would not have been around to resurface. Remember it was the Catholics of that day that drove the Christian church under ground.
And the pope, as I'm sure you know, supposedly is infallible and has god's ear.
Yeah right! That's according to Catholicism not according to scripture. Anyone who cries out to God (in acknowledgement and genuine repentance) has His ear.
So isn't it interesting that the thing you find so hypocritical, the blending of practices, was actually used to convert people to Christianity?
Not at all. Look at the history of the Roman Catholic church. It was formed by the Roman government of the day as a means to "control" the masses of converted Christians. The more the Roman government persecuted the Christians the more they grew in numbers. So they formed the Catholic church as a means of control by creating a doctrine (Catholicism) which has teachings not only not found in scripture but some that contradicts, appointed their own to head up the church, and essentially institutionalized the masses. So I would disagree that they were converted to Christianity. They were converted into submitting into a "religion" of population control.
I am sure you would agree that the Catholic church over the centuries has been quite a controversial church. What you presented is just another question mark.
but I recall no mention of "in his sanctuary." Can you cite a verse for me?
Do you recall Christ's reaction towards the marketer's in the temple who were "worshiping" the god of money?
Or are you going to backtrack, like this other guy did, and say, well those laws were directed toward the Israelites! You can't have it both ways. If you're going to use the laws of the old testament as what you say you live by, then you should be using all of them, not cherry-picking the ones you like.
Actually, I did not use the laws of the OT. However, in that same OT it was prophesied many hundreds of years prior that God would establish a New covenant with His people by which all could come to Him. When the New covenant was established thru Christ there was now no need for sin sacrifice as Christ was the ultimate. That being said, the abolition of sacrificial laws did not prevent the transcendence of moral law. That was evident in Christ's continuous message of honoring the commandments and also the fact that He challenged those who were living immorally.
Also, I asked you what god has said or done contemporaneously-by that I mean NOW, not 2000+ years ago.
If I understand this question correctly, you are asking me what He is saying today? Not 2,000 years ago? It is written that "He is the same yesterday, today, and forever". I would suggest that when it comes to His moral law, nothing has changed regardless of time passage.
why has he not struck her down?
Again, it goes back to mercy and grace. If He struck everyone down who sinned none of us would make it past the age of 5. Stop confusing Him with allah.
Are you saying that god approves the worship of other gods as long as it's not in a building dedicated to him?
Not approves, allows. It called Freewill. Just like He allows you the same freedom to reject Him.
I thought atheists didn't have any morality to impose on others?
By their own words and position on moral relativity, technically they don't BUT they still do.
Aren't we without a moral compass?
Which begs the question how you can make any determination of what is right and wrong.
I asked you before to show me where there are examples of atheism being forced somewhere and you ignored it. There are no billboards proclaiming "There are no gods!"
I did not answer because there are too many bunny trails on this thread BUT OK. Let's begin with the public school systems. Atheists felt it violated their "rights" to not believe in God so they imposed (and thru forceful petitioning of the courts) their "belief" in a non existent of God to have public prayer removed. This also included the removal of the Ten commandments from many courthouses. Brief examples but nonetheless quite worthy of your consideration.
You often espouse your support of my right to believe in the God of my choosing but feel I should keep it to myself? You say that atheists have not removed that from me? What have they achieved? In order to for them to feel "religion" is not imposing it's morality on atheists they impose their own morality by removing our freedom to express ours. Tsk, tsk, how oppressive. If I didn't know any better I would think I was dealing with religious zealots.
As far as billboards are concerned "The Golden Compass" sure is seeing a lot of them these days.
We don't have a moment of silence to ponder the idea of there not being any gods.
Yes you do! How on earth could you have come to the conclusion in your mind that there is no god if you did not have those moments to contemplate them. The fact that you continuously debate there is no god clearly suggests that you are often meditating on His non existence.
We don't stand on street corners yelling "Hey! Try atheism!"
Wait just a minute. You have atheist conventions, gatherings, clubs/associations, movies books, websites, protests "religious" gatherings, whine in the courts over the offense taken every time someone prays, etc. Yeah you guys are pretty silent, almost took no notice of you ;)
Just what atheism aren't we keeping at home?
See above response.
If you mean by me coming here to discuss things with you, fine. I'll leave.
Puhleeeeeze, don't insult me Karen. You have said a lot of things directed at my God that many sites would have booted you for. I have always had free discussion and never once deleted a comment of yours even if I found it some what out of line. I have never silenced you and instead always welcomed you. If you leave it will be because you chose to not because I drove you off into the sunset.
You are sounding a little whiny right now. Have a bad day?
If it oppresses you or bothers you that I speak my mind, I'll stick to the atheist blogs.
As stated, I welcome diverse views but I am under no obligation to agree with your views and I am entitled to challenge them just as you are to mine. Sticking to atheist blogs? Now that's keeping an open mind. Stick solely to your own should be an enlightening experience. You guys can talk about how "we" think without actually discussing it with us.
Ever notice Karen, I have far more atheist and left leaning bloggers then I do right wing Christians? There must be a reason for that.
just a hair's breadth away from those nasty catholics you don't like.
Whoa, I never said I don't like them. I disagree with their doctrine. I have been encouraged over the years to see there is a rather large movement of evangelism beginning to take place in the catholic church. I have a few friends who I would not refer to as Catholics but as Christians attending a Catholic church.
OK. Whatever. I'm tired of arguing the issue.
Fine by me but this was the actual content of the post. I am done with all the other bunny trails....for now.
But Satan does have supernatural qualities. He was an angel. He rules over hell, which is eternal, so presumably he is too.
I really don't recall where we were going with this.
Neither do I. I was referring to God not Satan on this response. Whatever, will call a tie
on this one.
3 days later, good as new.
Good as new? He still had the scars on His resurrected body!
he chose to be a martyr.
No, He chose you. He did not have to die. In His eyes you were worth the price.
Why do you single out his suffering as so heroic?
Because they were sinners just like you and I whose deaths could not atone for our sins. I would presume that most of them were found guilty of crimes as well. Christ was not guilty of any charges. Even Pilate washed his hands of the whole debacle.
How do you know that some of those other people weren't innocent also?
I don't. I am not suggesting they deserved to die when I say they still were sinful when they died. Their death was not warranted but at the same time it could not have atoned for my sin.
Eh, seems like seeing an ear get cut off and miraculously put back on would be worth mentioning in every account!
You recall the words of the apostle John when he said if they were to record the many miracles that Christ performed there would not be enough books to contain them.
Oh, come on. If it happened, the world would hear about it.
So you would believe it then if the "world" reported it? I highly doubt that. I am quite sure you would question it if the miracle happened right before your eyes.
I'm sure your wife thought the bones were broken, but they were probably not. She was more likely having a heightened reaction to the boy's crying, coupled with guilt over closing the door on his hand.
Oh for Pete sakes Karen your response was so predictable. But your right, my wife was just an emotional wreck. It must have been the blood and the big hole in my kid's hand for her to be seeing more then what was there. (FYI, I would have been the train wreck, my wife is extremely calm under crisis, I assure you the situation happened as accurately as she portrayed it so please do not make up excuses for it)
I shared that with you and you scrutinize it so why share it with the world? They would not give it the time of day. The world does not want miracles because then it would have to acknowledge God and that would mean they would have to held accountable for sin. And they don't want that! Right?
TIO
It's getting very difficult to remember the thread of our conversation when it is spread out over so much time. Please excuse my teflon brain if I leave something out.
??? There were more then just "Catholics" I do recall they eventually inspired Martin Luther and the reformation movement.
Luther (that ass, I did a biography on him in school)came much later. If you look at a timeline of religion, you'll see this is before the big split.
So they formed the Catholic church as a means of control by creating a doctrine (Catholicism) which has teachings not only not found in scripture but some that contradicts
Perhaps these contradictions can be found in the books thrown out by the Council of Nicea?
I am sure you would agree that the Catholic church over the centuries has been quite a controversial church.
To be sure.
Do you recall Christ's reaction towards the marketer's in the temple who were "worshiping" the god of money?
Of course. It would seem many churches nowadays have forgotten it.
Actually, I did not use the laws of the OT.
Were we not talking about the commandment that says not to have any other gods before me? That is OT.
It is written that "He is the same yesterday, today, and forever".
But he isn't. He used to be interactive. Now he's not.
Again, it goes back to mercy and grace. If He struck everyone down who sinned none of us would make it past the age of 5. Stop confusing Him with allah.
Hell, none of us would even be born!
Again, another change from OT behavior. (OK, that's hyperbole, he didn't kill EVERYONE who sinned, but he was pretty kill-happy.) Not the same yesterday , today, forever.
Not approves, allows. It called Freewill. Just like He allows you the same freedom to reject Him.
Gotcha. He's territorial over his buildings. That's all I was asking.
I thought atheists didn't have any morality to impose on others?
By their own words and position on moral relativity, technically they don't BUT they still do.
Aren't we without a moral compass?
Which begs the question how you can make any determination of what is right and wrong.
You do realize all atheists aren't moral relativists, right? And my definition of moral relativism is that morals change over time and social constructs.
The moral compass was a rhetorical question, since I do indeed think I have one. But since you asked, I abide man-made laws. Generally, I try to treat people as I would like to be treated. Much of it is common sense.
Let's begin with the public school systems. Atheists felt it violated their "rights" to not believe in God so they imposed (and thru forceful petitioning of the courts) their "belief" in a non existent of God to have public prayer removed. This also included the removal of the Ten commandments from many courthouses.
Prayer has not been removed from schools. Only the publicly led prayer by a state official has been removed. Kids -and adults can pray in school whenever they want, privately.
Removal of the 10 Cs from courthouses is a simple affirmation of SOCAS. Do you want the government to come and put the tax code or any other legislation on the walls of your church?
You often espouse your support of my right to believe in the God of my choosing but feel I should keep it to myself? You say that atheists have not removed that from me? What have they achieved? In order to for them to feel "religion" is not imposing it's morality on atheists they impose their own morality by removing our freedom to express ours. Tsk, tsk, how oppressive. If I didn't know any better I would think I was dealing with religious zealots.
You have the freedom to worship and the freedom to express. No one is being carted off and thrown in jail for making the sign of the cross or saying "God bless you" in public. There are churches on nearly every street corner. Why do you want to occupy the schools and the courts and the government offices, which should be neutral territory? Why must the nonbeliever not receive any respite from the onslaught of religion in even these corners of the world, where, in OUR country at least, they are supposed to be secular?
As far as billboards are concerned "The Golden Compass" sure is seeing a lot of them these days.
I haven't seen any. But I constantly see ones that purport to be God talking to me along the highways.
Yes you do! How on earth could you have come to the conclusion in your mind that there is no god if you did not have those moments to contemplate them.
I meant we don't announce moments of silence to think about the nonexistence of god, when clearly the moment of silence in schools has been inserted to replace a time for prayer. And I think you knew that.
Wait just a minute. You have atheist conventions, gatherings, clubs/associations, movies books, websites, protests "religious" gatherings, whine in the courts over the offense taken every time someone prays, etc. Yeah you guys are pretty silent, almost took no notice of you ;)
Ever notice how many people attend those conventions? You make it seem like we're a huge, organized movement. We are growing in number, it's true! (Hooray!) Much of it thanks to the internet, and thanks to the books by Dennet, Dawkins, Harris, etc. But we're still pretty much pariahs and made out to be villains for being outspoken. Just as you have done.
Puhleeeeeze, don't insult me Karen. You have said a lot of things directed at my God that many sites would have booted you for.
Didn't mean to be insulting. Really. Since you hadn't answered the question before, I didn't know.
I realize some of my comments are over the top. I guess having rejected the same brand of religion makes me feel I have license to abuse it. Maybe it's the latent rage I feel for it because of its association to the abuse I suffered. At any rate, I should not direct it at you, and I apologize.
And I will try, try, to curb my tendencies toward same. You might want to just give me a good smack to remind me, if I need it.
You are sounding a little whiny right now. Have a bad day?
I have no idea. It was too long ago. Could be.
Ever notice Karen, I have far more atheist and left leaning bloggers then I do right wing Christians? There must be a reason for that.
The right wingers are pussies who are scared off by your tats. ;)
I have a few friends who I would not refer to as Catholics but as Christians attending a Catholic church.
Why the distinction? Do they not follow all the RC Doctrine?
Good as new? He still had the scars on His resurrected body!
You're going to quibble about scars when he was up walking around after being *dead*?
No, He chose you. He did not have to die. In His eyes you were worth the price.
Well, he should have asked first. I would have said, "No thanks, I'll pay my own debts, and the sins that are supposed to be on me from birth are bogus." Seriously, I don't want anyone to die for me. And I don't want any forever after.
Their death was not warranted but at the same time it could not have atoned for my sin.
But that's just it...how can you have sin just for being born? That is such a miscarriage of justice, that original sin thing. I don't understand why believers just accept that. It's so arbitrary and unnecessary and unimaginary.
You recall the words of the apostle John when he said if they were to record the many miracles that Christ performed there would not be enough books to contain them.
Better to record them than to be left wondering. Especially if they had been recorded by outside sources. If he's really performed that many miracles, you'd think he'd have had many more followers. He'd have been besieged.
So you would believe it then if the "world" reported it? I highly doubt that. I am quite sure you would question it if the miracle happened right before your eyes.
If it happened before my eyes, I would do everything possible to record and substantiate it immediately.
It must have been the blood and the big hole in my kid's hand for her to be seeing more then what was there.
You didn't say anything about a big hole in his hand the first time. How big a hole? Where in his hand? Are you saying this just closed up, spontaneously, and healed without scarring or bruising? And the blood went away? Did your wife tell the people at the hospital about the hole? What did they say?
If the hole did just close up on its own, then I would say that is indeed a weird happening. I would say "WOW" to it, but I would not say "God".
I shared that with you and you scrutinize it so why share it with the world?
I am a skeptic, what did you think I would do with it? Simply accept it as a miracle because I consider you a friend? Did you not expect me to be honest about it?
Post a Comment