| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/20/2009 10:32:13 PM | I know this may be only my opinion.... But thats cool.
To me, the Bible is a book that has many great stories and teachings about Christ. Even the things that are said that Christ said are for the most part second hand accounts. There are some great teachings and things to live by. I love studying the Bible and reading the stories. But I don't sit and live my live according to the words verbatim in the scriptures. There are meanings to get from the things written there, but you can't pull one verse out and create a principle to live by. There will be many words other places that will tell you a different story. (again... only my belief)
I go by what I believe Jesus message was. This is one of the reasons why I am not a religious person and don't buy into Dogma and only spiritual. But I don't believe those, that think any Christian of any Religion should be held accountable for anything different than anyone else. Just because someone is Christian and wants to try and live a more Christian like life, doesn't mean they are a hypocrite if they mess up. Everyone messes up...
I'm actually amazed of reading some of the things you said her in this thread tonight Ace.
Seriously.... You don't have to like Sarah Palin... Just like I don't have to like someone like Pelosi... I don't like her politics. But I'm not so bias, that I hate her and ramble on about stupid cr@p about her religion or lack of morals or anything else. I'll talk about those things she does as a Congresswoman.
Again... Hate Palin... But it really isn't all that fair to judge Christians for making mistakes just because they try and live a different kind of life. We all make mistakes.... I know I'm repeating myself... But I'm kind of getting tired of it... It's a disease here in America.
I'm a Christian.... But I don't live my life based on the written word of the Bible... I try and understand what the teachings were, and try the best I can to live the best life I can. I believe when people try and correct Christians with quotes from the Bible are barking up the wrong tree.
OK... so I had something to say... We all have our differences... but we should all be treated the same. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/20/2009 10:37:52 PM | If you guys are going to cite the Bible, then at least please read it first.
Paul told WIVES in Ephesians to be subject to their husbands (I believe that Sarah Palin is doing just that). Paul also told husbands and wives to be subject to each other ---mutual submission out of love, not one lording it over the other.
There are many instances in both the OT and the NT where women were in leadership roles.:
In Judges 4:4 Deborah acted as judge over ALL of Israel--kind of like prime minister and supreme court justice all in one. And God approved!
Luke 2:36-38 Anna was a full time prophetess in the temple at Jerusalem.
John 20:18 The first eye witness to to the resurrection and the first to share it with the men was a woman...She went and got her friends and these women were the first preachers of the resurrection of Christ. And later, Christ rebuked the men for not believing the women.
Acts 16: 13-15 Lydia was a successful business woman and a charter member of the church at Phillipi. She held church in her home.
Phil 4:3 Euodia and Syntyche labored with Paul in sharing the Gospel and he asks another to help them in their work.
Romans 16:3-4 Paul lists the names of 9 women who were in servant/leadership roles of importance. Junia is named as an apostle and most Biblical scholars believe that Junia is a feminine name.
Romans 16:3 Paul names Priscilla and Aquilla together as teachers to the early church. Pricilla's name is listed FIRST in 4 out of the 6 places where they are named.
There are many more examples I could cite.
In Galatians 3:28 the apostle Paul wrote these profound words: " There can be neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male nor female, for you are all ONE in Christ Jesus." Christ came to fulfill the law. God no longer sees the nationality, race, status nor gender when He sees a member of the body of Christ (true believer). He sees CHRIST, for WE are His body now. He is in us and and we are in Him by the Holy Spirit.
God does not care WHO shares the truth. He used a donkey to preach once in the OT. If a donkey can preach, then why not women? He just wants righteousness and truth to be spoken.
Quit judging! For every finger you point at Sarah Palin, you have more pointing back at yourself...
As JackD so rightly said, we all mess up--Christians and non-Christians. That is why we need mercy and God's grace on a daily basis. Planet earth is often not a very friendly place. None of us is ALWAYS right and none of us has ALL of the answers.
Peace.............................. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/20/2009 10:52:57 PM | Actually Ace... If they went after Heretics still... I would be in big trouble.
I'm one who believes that women were suppressed and that Mary played a huge roll (if you know what I mean), I have read a lot of the Gnostic Gospels as well as many other teachings. It only takes doing a little research to know how things played out. The "Book of Stars" this book I'm writing is going thru the history of all this. It was the fourth century, Counsel of Nicea..(Nicene Creed) Augustine of Hippo and his Original Sin idea that started all this off in the direction it went. There were guys like Pelagius who taught Free Will and was attacked by Augustine and later excommunicated for his ideas...This is the same time they burned the Library of Alexandria.. again... and most of the writings there under Emperor Theodosius... and it was when the Nag Hammadi Gnostic Library were buried in Egypt. Anyway... It's all interesting... I do know a lot of people don't study the history of religion and they really should. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/20/2009 11:01:49 PM | I'll make you a deal, Cali,
When Conservatves stop routinely characterizing Liberals as moral defectives and sentimental fools, I'll stop characterizing Palin and others like her as self-righteous hypocrites.
Sound fair? | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/20/2009 11:17:44 PM | Making generalizations and tagging labels on any group of people is foolish.
Why don't we all just stop name calling. I'll go first. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/20/2009 11:19:25 PM | Well said, Cali!
Somebody around here is just a wee bit cranky tonight! LOL!!! | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/21/2009 9:47:31 AM | "how a child behaves or what they do behind their mothers back when they are in their mid to late teens can hardly be blamed on the parents."
I take full and shared responsibility for the people my children have become with their father and stepmother. You betcha. There were and are instructions books and I read them and followed them to the best of my ability and I accept responsibility for the areas in which my best was not good enough. I accept everything that got them to 18. If they had gotten pregnant before 18, it absolutely would have been my responsibility.
this generation of irresponsible parenting is horrid for the health of our children. Parents need to step up and take responsibility and accountability. They are in our care. We will not do it perfectly, but we do have a responsibility to learn how to do it better than our parents did. We are accountable for our failings as parents as reflected in our children's failings.
enough is totally enough with a unwed teen parent claiming their unwed teen parenting and religious teachings of their child did not impact and contribute to their child becoming an unwed teen parent. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/21/2009 9:48:38 AM | BOOMER: You cheated! You didn't name call in the first place!  | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/21/2009 12:00:16 PM | This is a little OT, but not by that much. The illegitimate birth rate in the U.S., from the earliest days until 1960, stayed right around 3% overall, and about 6% for blacks. Today, it's almost 30% overall, and more than 65% for blacks.
Assuming that minors make up the same proportion of all unwed mothers they always have, there are, per capita, about ten times as many parents of those minors in this country as there were before 1960. Have American parents really gotten that much more negligent about supervising their kids? Or did the appearance of the Pill in the '60's encourage people to have sex before marriage?
And what about the fact abortions became much easier to get--and less stigmatized--about the same time? The modern feminist movement has been largely responsible for that. One odd feature of this is that its leading lights were all white, while 36% of the American women who undergo abortions are black. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/21/2009 12:28:44 PM | | I always laugh at the notion that there is a such thing as an "illegitimate child." Sure looks and acts like a child. It's just not a "legitimate" child. No one paid the church to give them a paper so the child is "illegitimate." So, there was never a legitimate child born before the Bibles were written. Wow. Brainwash. I'm amazed the human race survived with nothing but illegitimate children running around. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/21/2009 1:36:21 PM | Skoochie
Illegitimacy or Legitimacy wasn't created by the Bible. Those issues were long before any Bible.
It was based on inheritance... Wether you were the Ruler of Egypt or Ancient China... or anywhere else.... Or just a goat herder... It determined who received the inheritance. It's a much bigger issue than some religious belief. It was part of the reason they treated women as property... Because they had the power to pass down the inheritance, and Man needed to control that power. Sorry, but no brain washing here.
Sure It could cause some groups of people to judge others based on what their belief system is, but it wasn't a creation of Christianity. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/21/2009 2:05:22 PM | Jack,
The modern meaning for "illegitimate child" is a child born out of wed-lock. Plain and simple. Here in the wake of the Prop 8 thread, everyone pretty much accepts that marriage is a religious institution, therefore the church can dictate who is allowed to get married. Marriage is big business for the church. One way to promote the need for marriage, and church revenue, is to demand that everyone must be married to have a child. My assertion was simple, children born out of wed-lock, or "illegitimately," are no lesser of a child than a child whose parents are religious and see a need to get married. Hence, I feel the label "illegitimate" is naive because in prehistoric times there was no religion. Those children seemed to adapt just fine.
Note I never mentioned single parent families. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/21/2009 2:32:39 PM | But Skoochie
Even Cavemen had religion... Sure it was called something else... and practiced in different ways... Praying to the Sun or maybe a water buffalo... who knows? There has been some form of worshiping way before Christianity. And Christianity is so diverse, that people want to lump all Christians into some big ball... and I know... Their are some Christians who feel if you don't believe in God and Christ the way they do, than your really not a Christian.
But you know what... I don't care what anyone else believes.... I only have one judge.... And I am not a judge. Just here cohabiting.
As far as having children out of wedlock... Who are we to judge... who cares if they are Christian and trying to have a different moral outlook than say someone who doesn't care... People still make mistakes... It doesn't make them bad...
I try and teach my son to be responsible and to make sure he keeps his room clean, If I leave some jeans and a shirt laying on the floor... am I a hypocrite... or human? We try and do the best we can... but none of us are perfect. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/21/2009 2:35:27 PM | Skootch,
Firstly, I'm not sure which church you are speaking of, but in the Catholic Church a child born out of wedlock can still be baptized which makes them a member of the church. For instance, my sister had a baby before she was married and the child was baptized into the church community. The parents or parent has to receive instruction just as married parents do, and then the child is welcomed into the community with open and loving hearts. Happens all the time. The child nor the single parent is ostrasized.
Your point that a child is still a child I agree with wholeheartedly, whether the parents are married or not, I just don't get your need to bash an institution that obviously you know little about. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/21/2009 2:41:33 PM | I'm sure cavemen had some sort of belief system. However, I doubt that after clubbing the woman, the man dragged her to the priest for a formal ceremony.
Honestly, that may be the only way I ever get married.
Human. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/21/2009 2:48:59 PM | Barbe,
I don't see where I was bashing the church. I stated a few facts. But, I was careful not to insult people. I'm sorry if you were insulted.
I am aware that single parents have their children baptized and then the child is considered "legitimate." As you said, "and then the child is welcomed into the community with open and loving hearts." I can infer that prior to the baptism the child is considered "illegitimate." It's the monicker I have a problem with. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/21/2009 2:54:07 PM | Marriage is a legal concept, and not always a religious one. Obviously, people can and do get married in civil ceremonies--my own parents were--and no religion is involved.
The Supreme Court's extended the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal rights to people who are illegitimate. The Court's ruled that laws which discriminates between people on the basis of birth legitimacy create a "suspect classification."
When a law does that, the Court gives it "strict scrutiny" when reviewing it. To survive this form of review, the law must be "necessary" for some "compelling" government interest, and "narrowly tailored" to achieve it; and there can't be any less burdensome alternative available. The Court presumes the law doesn't meet these requirements, and the government whose law it is has to prove that it does.
So a law that treated people differently based only on their birth legitimacy could be constitutional, in theory. But it would have to meet all the Court's requirements, which is very unlikely. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/21/2009 2:55:19 PM | I was married 3 times... never in a Church... the last time was in Vegas. But this doesn't mean that those that wish to include their religion in their tying of the knot is anything better or worse in my eyes. It's special for a lot of people to do it in their Church... What's wrong with that? It isn't religion that teaches marriage between a man and a woman... It's someone's values and morals... and you can get those anywhere. I think people make a mistake to try and blame things on someone's church, sure they learn stuff there... But they learn stuff everywhere... and some people in your church learns things you don't learn in other aspects of their lives.
People are People
We are all brain washed on life | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/21/2009 3:01:26 PM |
No one paid the church to give them a paper so the child is "illegitimate." So, there was never a legitimate child born before the Bibles were written. Wow. Brainwash. I'm amazed the human race survived with nothing but illegitimate children running around.
Your assertion that because the church was not "paid" the child is illegitimate is insulting and wrong.
am aware that single parents have their children baptized and then the child is considered "legitimate." As you said, "and then the child is welcomed into the community with open and loving hearts." I can infer that prior to the baptism the child is considered "illegitimate." It's the monicker I have a problem with.
No, actually the child is not considered illegitimate, they just have not been baptized as member of the Catholic Church yet. Baptism makes them a member of the church. It has nothing to do with their legitimacy status. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/21/2009 3:24:58 PM |
Your assertion that because the church was not "paid" the child is illegitimate is insulting and wrong.
It may be the wrong thing to say, but it's true. I rarely hear of wedding ceremonies being done for free. Especially if the ceremony is held inside the church, you're going to pay for it.
Barbe,
Google "illegitimate child." You will find that baptism has little to do with the legal definition of "illegitimate child." It has everthing to do with marriage, which is considered a religious institution. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/21/2009 3:37:43 PM |
marriage, which is considered a religious institution.
Since when? As I said above, all sorts of people get married without any religion at all being involved. The laws on marriage are in the California Code. No mention of religion there. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/21/2009 3:40:18 PM | I understand that meaning very well of illegitimate thank you Skooch, I have no need to google it. Your inference that "the church" is somehow getting rich by blackmailing people to get married to grant legtimacy is what I object to, as that is simply not the case. My point is that baptism not legitimacy makes a child a member of the church.
Of course churches are paid when people get married, their facilities are used, air conditioning, cleaning services, musicians, all have to be paid for. They are hardly getting rich on wedding fees.
| |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/21/2009 4:37:35 PM | Skoochie, some of your prejudices are based on assumptions and very little fact. I can tell of you of MANY weddings done inside of the (or inside of A) church where no fee was charged and no one was paid. I, myself, have conducted such weddings.
According to the state in which you get married, marriage is primarily CIVIL institution, requiring a license to be a legally binding union. Marriage, divorce , births and deaths in any society affect the society as a whole and impacts the disposition of property and the collection of taxes. That is why these events are recorded in the public record. It has nothing to do with religion or religious institutions. Deaths are recorded, births are recorded, divorces are recorded and so are marriages. It is the law.
If people within a society want to have their marriages and the births of their children and the deaths of their loved ones blessed in some religious manner, then they can involve the parties of their particular religious beliefs. This in no way negates the civil aspects of the events.
I believe that the first marriage was performed by God when He gave Eve to Adam. And marriage was blessed by Jesus when he attended the wedding in Canaan, but that does not negate the civil aspect of marriage in our society. | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/21/2009 5:30:22 PM | | My last wedding was done for free inside of a church even --- Maybe thats why it ended in a divorce LOL | |
|
| Letterman v Palin
Posted: 6/21/2009 6:00:09 PM | The laws on marriage are in the California Code. No mention of religion there.
You might want to look it up yourself. Who is legally allowed to perform marriages? Are there many courtrooms with reverneds presiding? It might lead one to believe that the law follows the religious leadership in the area. Of course, anyone is entitled to go through life with blinders on. Head on. I am not about to get into a "yes it is" no it isn't" argument. Religion originated the institution of marriage, and it has been considered "holy matrimony" for the entire duration of this nation. Many courtrooms still make people place their left hand on a Bible before giving testimony. Judges is a book in the Bible. They not only instituted the first marriages. They instituted the first governments. We know whether the chicken came after the egg in this instance. | |
|
Home
login 
