Faith and Politics

Whom would I hire? I don't know I would have to take that to prayer, we never know why the Lord sends a person to our path, it may be Gods will that we are the one person whom He has planned to reach the heart of the someone weather they be gay, atheist or muslin or a kid. It is will of God that we must be open to and try our best to follow. Often we allow our sinful self to let prejudiced and fear cause us to go ever so slightly off the path that we are being lead By God. Often this will be a great challenge for us to do, it may go against our simple understanding but it is still in His plan,, we need to heed his word. We need to always go to prayer and be open to his voice.

You said, "If you are against abortion and gay rights, why vote for a candidate who is for them? does not make sense to me!" I ask would have voted for the man who was elected to take Kennedy's position?

He has done a nude centerfold, and has been said to say he will not go against the abortion rights. How is it that he could have gotten the Christian vote? I do not know the candidates in that race nor claim to, I only bring this to light because to narrowly set our guide lines to two or three main sins to attack will eliminate many God fearing honorable candidates, and possibly allow a dishonorable person who was smart enough to say the right things, to play the game just right in and cause harm to us. We need to look at the big picture rather than just the narrow one politicians like to manipulate us with, allowing them to sneak other just as important and may even more damaging issues through.

The example above is not intended to say he is a good or bad person for the position, I only know what I've heard on TV, and have not done any research on either of the people who ran.

Yes we do need to keep faith in all aspects of our lives, but we need also to trust God to guide us pass any prejudiced we may have that blind us to his will.

The Jewish people hold a special place in God's plan which will be fulfilled at his due time.

I would not have a problem with a Jewish candidate as long as as he had biblical principles .

Michael:

So what is the definition of a person having biblical principles; and what other people would have those biblical principles that are not Christian beside Jews?

Michaelbell,

In most cases, the majority of Businesses Christian or not would hire the younger Christian kid (but not if they know him) because they don't want to hire anyone who is over qualified and a threat of telling the boss how to run his business. They want to train someone who doesn't know the business and teach him what they want him to know and do.

If the business was doing great and help was needed now to lighten the work load I would hire someone who is qualified to do the work. It would also show that I was an equal opportunity employer.

If I let Atheists, Muslims and blatant (what ever that is meaning here) homosexuals in my place of business to buy from me, then why not employ them, if they are trust worthy.

Look at who Jesus chose to be his disciples: Fishermen, a Tax Collector, a man who doubted Jesus until he was resurrected, Judas (a devil) and 7 other unknowns.

Jesus surrounded himself with people from all walks of life and the only people who judged him were the hypocrites - Pharisees.

If the customers recognize me as a good Christian and my employees aren't disrespectful to the customers, I see no problems hiring non Christians.

Unless we do a Hi-Tech in depth back ground check on all employees, we may never know what they are or who they worship or what they do outside of their job.

Your last line says it all!

You have to live by Faith and let it control your life... not talking about religious faith, but Faith in God.

Of course, right now, if anyone has a business and can hire anyone, they pretty much can choose who they want to hire from 10% or more of the unemployed U.S. Population.

Christians are in a political turmoil these days. We vote anti abortion yet vote to kill thousands of young men and women in an unjustified war. Our churches enjoy tax free status and we vote for candidates who vote for higher taxes. We are silent and allow prayer in public schools to be abolished. Bible reading is no longer accepted. I know a Christian lawyer who is opposed to any public display of Christian beliefs or practices and discrimination against homosexuals. It is sad to say, we have been slowly brainwashed to accept these things as normal. How I wish for 1950.....

When you go to work or get a job I believe as long as you follow the rules were you work and do a good job and get to work on time then what you do or how you believe when you leave work is up to you and no one else. Everyone has a right to believe in who they want and live a life that they enjoy. God made us all different and he loves us no matter what. I guess I would hire the 3 that knew how to do the job.

If I want to stay in business in the US, then I have to consider the labor laws, including those that state you cannot discriminate on the bases of race, sex, age, religion, or sexual preference. I would hire the most qualified and deserving candidate for the job.

And doesn't Jesus tell us to love everyone as our brother, not just the Christian kid? In fact, Jesus would tell you to hire the Muslim, Gay, and/or Atheist in order to try and lead them to the Lord by your actions, love, and sharing of His word on a daily basis in the workplace. The law does not state that a business owner cannot share a story of his experiences with God's love with a co-worker in a non-government company, and if I am wrong on this please correct me...I've been out of the HR business for nearly six years, so the laws may have changed.

Please forgive my saying so Michael, but you seem to carry a lot of hate and loathing for certain types of people (prejudice)...again, doesn't Jesus tell us to love all His sheep, not just the so-called Christians? A true Christian dislikes the behavior, but not the person. A true Christian tries to show that person that his/her behavior is wrong and share the Word of God with that person if they will let them. A true Christian does not cast a stone.

Let us go out [into the world] and be fishers of men...

It is not that I have a hatred for certain kind of people, as far as discriminating goes I believe everyone does it to some level, or if a person is turned down for something that excuse is used.

I have a stuttering problem at times so if I applied for a job where speaking a lot was involved and I was denied, would I think that I was being discriminated against, probably.

I was just saying that a " Christian based business" hiring a controversial employee may not be good for business.

I know Obama says he is not Muslim, but if he would of ran for office in full Muslim garments, would he have got elected?

YOU SAID ---""I know Obama says he is not Muslim, but if he would of ran for office in full Muslim garments, would he have got elected?""

What kinda of manure is this? You continue to try to sway people to think he is Muslim,( and many other rumors you refuse to back up with any factual sources) and continue your mission of hate against him. You continue to stoop as low as you can, don't you? You insist on continuing to be plagued by the sin of bringing false witness against a fellow man. This has come up before, show us where you get your so called facts about this. You can not, you seem for some reason to think that you have the ability to judge a persons heart in relation to where they stand with he Lord. Tell me who has given you that right?

Your lack of facts to back your claim / insinuation give you the appearance of a true blooded false witness here to promote the work of the devil in the name of Our Lord. But I do not have the right to judge you do I? It is easy to twist words and pass rumors, as you have repeatedly shown. Muslin garb would no more make him a Muslim that a minister's robe would make you a creditable minister. Costumes don't change the hearts of a person. And it is our Lord's job to judge our hearts not yours.

So come on lets try this again, explain to us and post any references you need to back why you continue to use this spew this kind of manure?

You do not have to like him, but that does not make it right to pass rumors, use facts, with references , to prove any point your out to make. Spread your hate with honor, if you can.

:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

Mt 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Mt 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Mt 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

Mt 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

Mt 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Michaelbell,

Just hire the saints you want to work in your church and don't advertise help wanted.

Then put up a sign outside your church saying, "Sinners not welcome!"

You might want to think about another sign that says, "Adults Only!" You don't want babies crying while you are trying to give your sermon or children wrestling around in the pews disturbing others during the service.

Perry Stone said last night, from experience, that when someone leaves the church they ALWAYS take two, three or four other people with them.

You may need another sign that says, "No Curiosity Seekers!" You can't afford to lose your congregation to outsiders.

I haven't read of any laws against those signs yet.

However, Shelbyville is or has already enforced a new sign law concerning those ugly signs!

Wait a minute! Ugly Signs?

Doesn't that come under discriminating against advertising, signs or appearances or companies?

Our local government isn't Prejudice against a harmless sign is it or discriminating against sign companies, which is against the TN State Constitution?

See: Tennessee State Constitution

ARTICLE XI, Section 8:

General or special law

State Legislators can not make any laws for or against individual persons or companies unless they are applied to all individuals or companies.

This is violated all the time by our State Legislators and the TN State Supreme Court Justices, which are suppose to catch these errors before they become laws!

But can't they continue to be forgiven? You know, once saved always saved by his blood?

Hmmmn. I'm not Christian, yet I'd wager that in that setting, ie: employee at a Christian-based business, nobody would know unless they paid close attention. As it is, most people don't really know my spiritual inclinations - I mean people that have known me for years.

I know some good people locally who think that I'm an atheist; some who think I'm Wiccan; some who think I'm Christian; and a very very very few who have any inkling as to what my hat IS exactly. :p

I've shopped for gifts at New Covenant before, collect crosses and crucifixes, have three crucifixes in my bedroom, have my NIV Bible within six inches of me at the moment, carry a wooden cross and an agate inlaid with a cross in my wallet, have tarot cards blessed by a Catholic priest and a Benedictan monk, attended a Lutheran grade school and a Catholic high school, have had more Bible study than most people who have grown up in the Bible Belt, and count in my family a former nun and a priest, and in my grandmother's family a few Baptist ministers from the Hills of Kentucky. "In the Light" is one of my favorite songs, I like to sing choir & gospel, and both Appalachian and "Negro" spirituals. And if I know you are Christian, and seem to be seeking spiritual guidance, I can direct you to passages and lessons that will help to strengthen your resolve, and your personal beliefs.

A person that is truly comfortable in their own faith, and their spiritual path, recognizes that spirituality is a personal relationship between the individual and whatever they recognize as being responsible for their existence. And being comfortable with their faith, and having found peace in it, they accept that every person has a right to have THEIR personal relationship unchallenged; whatever the answer is, it will speak to each of us in its own unique way. That won't make it any less real, or any less true.

So your atheist and your Muslim are equally worthy of being hired - if they will respect the beliefs of your Christian patrons, and not try to foster their own beliefs onto others. In fact, it will impress Christian leaders in the community that you are progressive, and encourage healthy discussion; and from a stewardship P.O.V., it may allow the atheist and Muslim an opportunity to critically explore their own personal beliefs, and become open to your spiritual viewpoints. Or it'll make them laugh - you can't really be certain, there.

As for the gay guy, you never stated if he was Christian or not.

The kid I'd be hesitant to hire, as he likely lacks the wisdom to offer sound counsel to patrons, and steer them towards products that are both good for their spiritual development, and protecting their financial standing as well. After all, as a spiritual man myself, I wouldn't want to encourage anyone to spend beyond their means, just to purchase "words of wisdom".

And referencing "words of wisdom", and regarding the various types of people you seem abject to hiring, the best advice is "Let it Be, Let it Be."

@Cherokee2 - I'm easy enough to spot in-town. Tend to go out everywhere wearing a black "medicine hat" - for lack of a better description; and I'm just over six feet tall. Krogers, Wal-Mart, auction house - can't miss me. Say "hi" if you want to - I'm personable, but speak more informally than I write.

Relative to the topic, part of my P.O.V. from this thread actually comes from working for Northcutt Surveying years ago. Steve is Church of Christ, as was his Party Chief at the time (Jimmy). Everybody working there was a "by the book" Christian; and largely Church of Christ; they knew I am not. I was hired on knowing nothing (like the kid in your example) about surveying, but coming in with a degree (though not in that industry), showing my capacity to learn; and cursory experience with my previous employer, having been on one of the recovery teams in 2003 for the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster (Flight STS-107).

The skills I learned from Northcutt made me a value to later surveying firms (an industry hit HARD by the current economy), and assisted me in my industry while conducting Phase I environmental investigations. The conversations with Jimmy in the field appealed to my interest in theology, nurtured by my mother, who spent a year in the convent in her youth.

It was noted on many occasions that I've surveyed that I have sharp analysis skills, am more fit than I look at first glance, notice things that other people miss, and by my peers that I seemed to be maturing emotionally and spiritually from the experience. Indeed, I credit that industry for making me appreciate the serenity of nature more, and finding peace from my spiritual perspective.

Likewise, inviting others into your fold with different spiritual (and even lifestyle) perspectives is the best way to enrich your life experience, as it's interactive. That doesn't mean you need to ascribe or convert to their ways of thinking - just that you really listen to what they're saying, and civilly discuss with them why you hold a different opinion; preferably without making judgment calls.

Faith isn't even supposed to be about proof and logic, anyways; it's ideally about what you believe, for you, to be a spiritual truth - even when confronted by your rational mind that it likely isn't true - empirically speaking.

I like Michael's tagline, "A man getting to the roots of his faith"; and I like the hat. We would probably pass for 'related' side by side. I admire that he's standing up for his beliefs; even if I disagree with their application, in this specific blog.

I've enjoyed quantumcat's insights. LiveforLight is just quote-mining the Bible - never saw a reason for doing that; if one actually has something to say, they should say it in their own words. Especially to a Christian audience, that in theory already has heard those scriptures before... And the writings of Unique-Lies seem to be focused on anti-establishment, down-with-government extremism; the first post seeming to reinforce Michael's POV, the second one nay-saying it, and the third trying to debate a tenet of Christianity that has various interpretations.

The best discussions are those that are actually discussed, and not escalated to lectures or attacks. After-all, we are less likely to be receptive to another's perspective when we feel that they are attacking our own; it makes us defensive.

Your best bet; as a Christian wanting to "save" the atheist, Muslim or homosexual applicant; is to hire them to work at your Christian-based business. Then they will be influenced, and perhaps inspired, by the way they see Christian employees and patrons interacting, if different than how their peers interact. And perhaps you will get an opportunity to see the unique, positive contributions they are able to offer to your Christian business; to better serve your Christian patrons; that they attained through the life path that "God" has had them on up to and until they met you. And perhaps thereafter.

After all, they know you're a Christian-based business; they applied for the position; and you feel they fulfill all of the requirements to work for you - so they must have related experience. AND an interest in serving your customer base.

One would assume that being a Christian-based business, the applicants understand that they are not to be trying to address non-Christian issues with your patrons. If this business were Michael's, I'd advise hiring the "openly homosexual", as he may self-identify as being Christian - whether or not you agree with him calling himself that. And in that case, he has homosexual friends who likely self-identify as being Christian, and will bring their business to you for being open-minded and accepting of their right to worship God, too, as gays.

LiveforLight is just quote-mining the Bible - never saw a reason for doing that; if one actually has something to say, they should say it in their own words.

-- Posted by Analytical Mindset on Wed, Jan 27, 2010, at 1:33 PM

I have posted my own words numerous times and the result is usually division conjecture and argumentative. In a religious discussion, I wish to be exactly as my savior Jesus, therefore I post his words that speak to me in these particular situations.

I would welcome others to post HIS words as well.

He has the words of life. We have.....our words. Many of which I agree with many I do not. I do not wish to contribute to division in religious matters of my own accord.

That is my reason.

Analytical Mindset posted

I think I feel what you are saying; but what I meant is that I don't see where it brings extra value, in a religious discussion, to quote any scripture.

---------------

The value of quoting scripture in a religious discussion to me is obvious.

Analytical Mindset posted

But just copying the text doesn't bring anything to the discussion; you haven't even introduced the text properly, as "On the topic of XYZ, I look to these passages:"; state quotes; "To me this speaks to XYZ in that it ABC."

I did, for instance, find it interesting that you chose to quote Matthew Chapter 9, and then Chapter 5; I suppose 7 wasn't in keeping with the message you wished to convey in limiting your selection?

-------------------

I believe pasting the scripture does bring something to the discussion, especially in a religous blog, otherwise we would not be discussing it.

I agree the readers are educated and most likely have read the scriptures for themselves.

Posting what to me is relevant, should prompt another reader to search the relevance of the known scripture in their own heart.

I credit them, and the holy spirit, with being able to tie issue XYZ with logic ABC.

Your point is well taken however, and I am glad you point out about chapter 7 which I included in its' entirety since it is very relevant to this discussion.

The scriptures that come to mind prompt me to search for keywords which I search, read, and post.

Mt 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Mt 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Mt 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Mt 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

Mt 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Mt 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Mt 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

Mt 7:8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

Mt 7:9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

Mt 7:10 Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

Mt 7:11 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Mt 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Mt 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Mt 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Mt 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Mt 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Mt 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

Mt 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Mt 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Mt 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Mt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Mt 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

Mt 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Mt 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

Mt 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

Mt 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

Mt 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

Mt 7:28 And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:

Mt 7:29 For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.

It is in HIS authority that I post HIS words.

Thanks for your insights;

quantumcat,

I first read that as "occultists", and was very confused - lol! I'm thinking 2am is not the best time for me to be reading this, much more posting to it.

LiveforLight,

Let me rephrase that; in a discussion where it's relevant to quote scripture, I can see where it could add extra value; where people were asking for quotes.

But Michael's post on this thread was about his principles, and how he applies his understanding of Christianity, and what it means to be a Christian. And he was positing a situation in which.. well, rehash should be unnecessary.

In this situation, I don't see where extra value is added by quoting passages, and not offering why you feel they add extra value. Note I didn't say intrinsic value; it was a specific supposition.

I also intentionally did not quote the entire passage, with which you nonetheless felt the need to spam the blog. Sometimes you do more to get people to read something by giving reference to it, than by transcribing the whole account yourself.

And I don't really feel you understood the point of why I referenced that chapter of Matthew...

When you 'regurgitate' a reel of passages onto the screen, the tendency will be for people to ignore what you write - and then they might miss something truly insightful, as they're already established their habit in skimming past what appears to be adding less value. To be clear, I'm not meaning this as an attack, or to discourage you posting passages; it's actually meant to foster a stronger "tone" to how you endeavor to get your point across.

As an atheist Buddhist friend once noted, I'll never criticize someone with a strong fundamentalist Christian P.O.V. for feeling the need to shove scriptures down my throat; I don't understand the rationalization, but I understand the intent. If your belief is 100% that the "hell concept" is a factual place, and you 100% believe that I will go there if I don't acquire your personal understanding of God, then what kind of jerk (he used a stronger word) would that make you if you did NOT do your best to educate me as to your P.O.V.?

Rather, I'm attempting to help you build tools that will allow you to better reach the ears of what is presumably your intended target on this thread - any atheists, Muslims or open homosexuals now fuming about Michael's thought-exercise; and the implications thereof. If all you seek to reach are people that already know and accept your P.O.V. 100%, then this "Quote mining" approach has no value at all.

Back to quantumcat,

I have toyed with the idea of trying to informally start a group for the rational discussion of various spiritual-related topics, and finding common ground at which to impress progressive changes to the thoughts that govern our community. But I always fall short of pursuing it, for a number of reasons; not the least of which being location, interest, and the ability of the average person to maintain a civil discussion when they feel their beliefs are being attacked. And, in certain topics, when their beliefs actually ARE attacked - challenged, really; but most people, again, seem to view challenges to their faith as personal attacks.

And when I speak to challenging personal spiritual views, I'm speaking to atheists, Muslims, Christians (gay or otherwise), Wiccans, agnostics, animists, Buddhists, scientists, etc.; as most people have never critically challenged their own beliefs enough to truly understand to what, they themselves, are attesting when they self-associate to a particular group-think.

For instance, it amazes me the number of self-professed atheists who point to the Big Bang as proof that a God was unnecessary to create reality; but are oblivious to the FACT that it was a Jesuit priest (ie: Catholic; ie: Christian) who first introduced the concept to the world. It was a man of God, seeking to understand the infinite complexity of the creation event-point, who formed that hypothesis.

To say nothing of Mendelson, the Father of Genetics...

Okay, I'm skating the edge of the thread's topic, and should just go to bed now. *yawns*

P.S.: On a personal note, I have not herein stated that I believe the origin of this reality was the Big Bang OR Creationism; I have intentionally avoiding making such a statement; I'm speaking to the (lack of) critical thinking that should be applied to all rationalizations concerning matters of spiritual (or scientific) understanding; regardless of what may or may not be factual; and understanding that "Faith" only can exist where there is no "Proof".

"I know Obama says he is not Muslim, but if he would of ran for office in full Muslim garments, would he have got elected?"

you are one funny guy, michaelbell. i have to admit that i never knew there were official muslim garments. do they have to be licensed by the NFL?

that aside, while we are at it, lets put joe biden in one of those suits like the guy on quaker oats, john mccain in lederhosen, and sarah palin in a "naughty maid" outfit.

that aside, while we are at it, lets put joe biden in one of those suits like the guy on quaker oats, john mccain in lederhosen, and sarah palin in a "naughty maid" outfit.

-- Posted by lazarus on Thu, Jan 28, 2010, at 8:11 AM

lazarus,

That's funny also.

I must opine that the first two (joe biden and john mccain) would be at a disadvantage capturing votes. But the third one is a different story. I would vote for her in a " "naughty maid" outfit. I would vote twice for her out of it. :))))

Analytical Mindset,

As for the writings of Unique-Lies seeming to be focused on anti-establishment, down-with-government extremism; again, I tell it like it is revealed to me.

I have spent years studying supreme court decisions that interpret the United States Constitution. I know what my rights are and that is more than I can say about most Americans. For some reason they believe the government can do no wrong yet will admit that the government screws up everything it gets its hand on.

The U. S. Constitution and the laws made in pursuant thereof is The Supreme Law of the Land.

Our Country must recognize this Common Law, but only if you know how to use it. Our Country uses the "Color of Law" to arrest us which is a violation of the your rights if you know where to find the law in title 18 U.S. Codes.

I do not teach law because that is against the law.

I can tell you where to read something if anyone is interested. The supreme court says the government can not tax property. That is a Direct Tax and can not be taxed.

That means if you live in your own home you shouldn't have to pay any taxes on your home.

Now read the Tennessee State Constitution, Article II, Section 28. Property taxation; gross receipts tax; income from stocks and bonds

(c) Residential Property, to be assessed at twenty-five (25%) percent of its value, ((provided that residential property containing two (2) or more rental units is hereby defined as industrial and commercial property)); and

(d) Farm Property, to be assessed at twenty-five (25%) percent of its value.

((House trailers, mobile homes, and all other similar movable structures used for commercial, industrial, or residential purposes)) shall be assessed as Real Property as an improvement to the land where located.

No where does it say you have to pay taxes on the home you live in unless it contains (2) or more rental units defined as industrial and commercial property or you live in a mobile home etc. used as residential purpose.

IMPORTANT NOTE:

I would not advise anyone to stop paying taxes on their property unless they know a lot about law.

It most cases it is much easier and less heartbreaking to just pay the tax and move forward.

I only mention this because the Gov is stealing money from you. They deserve to be exposed.

Law, just like Christianity, is a brainwashing stale mate. It works both ways. Supreme law vs Color of Law. Color of law is the winning law because it is the Statutory law that the courts use over the Law of the Land.

The longer I live,the gladder I am that I'm not *quite* smart enough to rely on all these rituals and academic exercises.

What I do with my politics,my faith and my buying dollar are pretty much the same.

First,I get to know a person (or Person),second,I decide I can trust him with my interests,third,I buy whatever he's selling because everything in my experience says that's to our mutual benefit.

I don't reccommend anything or anyone to others until I've had a positive experience with it myself.

Even then,I know that people have to make their own investigations based on their own needs.

I grew up (well,got older,anyhow) in the church and with a family that believed in God.

I made a study of church history,theology and comparative religion.

That said,my personal faith was formed by quiet times with the Lord as I'd walk through the woods or play with my critters.

During those times and as a result of those hours,I've had no doubt that God was real.

(He'd let me know that He believed in me,too.)

I've gained more just being around people exploring their own faith quest (or just going about the business of life) than I've ever done with the dry,mechanical,generic orthodoxies that some seem to prefer.

I've nothing against the more codified approach to God.

I've nothing against cookbooks or those who use them.

But,some do better with "take-this-and-nuke-it" meals and drive-throughs and some do better with tossing everything in the fridge into a skillet and seeing what happens.

("Uh..Bubba? Maybe we better take that Goofy Glue outta there afore it gets hot.")

No one approach is going to resonate with all people at all times.

The trick is to keep people involved with the process.

Let kids read comics.

Let folks use "just add water" mixes.

Let folks find their belief systems on the same channel they find carpet cleaner,make-up,fake diamonds and diet aids.

Leave "My Way" to the night club crooners or folks may take the highway away from where they need to be and never complete the journey that could bring them so much wisdom and enrichment.

As for the best way to proselytize,I've found its the same as the best form of revenge.

Live well and people may want a taste of what you have.

When *they* come to YOU,your sale's half-done already.

Respect people enough to believe that they can recognize a truth and incorporate it into their lives and there's no need to write people off because they haven't resolved their lives in exactly the same pattern and at the same pace as everyone else.

Some truths are sweet. Some are bitter or have a bit of a kick.

But,few truths will be fully digested if they are forced down people's throats or served with no variety or awareness of what a person needs to be fed.

Have the griddle hot to serve the hungry a juicy steak but listen to the Holy Spirit when advised that the baby might do better getting its protein from a serving of ice cream before it takes on that tasty slab of beef.

AM,

Your mom is 64?

You ARE a kid.

64 is prime time,barely past puberty. ;)

(Or,"Old enough to know better,young enough to do it anyway.")

Thanks for sharing your resources with all of us.

(And,thank the Dear we don't get so highfalutin' and erudite that we have to include annotated bibliographies and footnotes.)

I meant the OTHER statement. I hate timing-irony. :p

Well, my personal spiritual awakenings were land-surveying and doing recovery work in Louisiana following Hurricane Katrina. Not church volunteer stuff, though; EPA contractor. We did give extra tyveks to a church group we saw, though, as they were going into mildew infested homes with no layer of protection. Lord works in mysterious ways, right? ;)

So yeah, I am still just a kid in many ways - heck, I look about 10 yrs younger than I am, so I've been blessed in that regard.

If you're in that generation, I'm very interested in picking your brain for the theological research you've conducted. :)

Thank you.

I'd like to know you (and your mom),too-if I don't already.

I may start letting some people know who I am.

(Some have already figured out my identity.)

But,as I've said before,I've run into toooo many uh... *interesting* people to want to invite stalkers to make my acquaintance.

(Plus,I think my opinions would sound better coming from an Ellie Lite,Silence Dogood,Sally the Dog or quantumcat than they would from plain old me.)

Ack, last one - I semi-promise!

"I would that my views, and my words, would align completely with Christs'. I found no faults whatsoever in any of his teachings.

-- Posted by Liveforlight on Thu, Jan 28, 2010, at 1:03 PM"

You appear articulate and insightful enough, when you choose to write out your thoughts. Just would like to see more of what you think, and you have learned, applied to the discussion than simply pulling quotes into the thread.

You can align your views, and your words, without copying His. And I agree - the teachings are of value, even if people disagree as to the historical accuracy thereof. The words are still intrinsically valuable; more so in how they influence others to both think and act.

Personally, I'm more interested in your perspective; your understanding of those words; in how you apply them in practice, than in how well you can search and insert them into a topic.

quantumcat, I'm sure you just gave me a hint, but I'm really not that well connected to people. I know a few select families that are related to half of Bedford County, but I don't know all these people personally. I can give the same email I shared on Topix: dream AT springmail DOT com

From there I can write you from one I actually check more than quarterly.

Anybody may write me, frankly; if you choose to do it in next 3 days, I may actually SEE it. :p

*backs away from Unique-Lies*

I just read your posts in the Christmas thread... you have serious disinformation issues... and yes, your agenda is... "off"... the Watchtower isn't the only source of information, you know... you may wish to stick to anti-establishment topics, and stay away from religion...

LiveforLight, mainly, is who I wanted to note in this comment: you really DO have good thoughts to share, as evidenced in that other thread. I don't need to agree with them to appreciate the thoughts behind them. Personally, I'd like to see more stuff like that, in this thread.

If there is a Divinity out there nitpicking our little words, and using that as a basis to whether or not we get to live with Him after we die, I'm sure he will accept the occasionally misaligned concept - after all, 75% of what's quote mined in the average sermon I've heard, is not aligned with the passages before and after the excerpted quote. In many cases I have had to suppress laughter, as the passage after the quoted section speaks directly to the opposite of what the preacher is saying is meant by that quote. And then expounds on it for the sermon entire.

(I did say, "semi-promise"...)

Analytical Mindset,

We the People who were born in this great Country of North America were endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights.

We the People are the Sovereignty in this Country, not the Government. The Limited powers of the Federal Government is listed in Article 1 Section 8. of the U.S. Constitution.

The Tennessee State Constitution also says that the people are the Sovereignty in Article I, § 1. Powers of people

That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper.

This does not mean every person in the state. Only the people who were born in the continental United States, Alaska and Hawaii were endowed by our creator with these inalienable Rights.

Any one else who comes to this Country receives Civil Rights which are granted by the Governments, Both Federal(Central Government) and state governments AND Equal Protection of the Law (Color of Law) guaranteed by the 14th amendment.

For example: The Constitutions say we the sovereignty have a right to bear arms. That is our right. We need no permits or licenses. It is a right and the Government can not place a fee or charge on a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution because it is the Supreme Law of the Land.

However, all these 14th amendment citizens ( foreigners, original Slaves, people of the U.S. Territories even though they have a U.S. Citizenship, they do not have the same Constitutional Rights as We the People because God only endowed the people who were and are born in this Country. Our Government doesn't recognize outsiders as part of the Sovereignty of this country. These people gave up any Sovereignty they in their Countries when they told the 14th Amendment Citizenship Oath.

Now the secret:

Both Congress and state Legislators must legislate according to the U.S. Constitution when legislating for the Sovereign People of the state.

However, when Congress or state Legislators are Legislating for the 14th Amendment citizens who are citizens of our Central Government and under its exclusive jursidiction they can make any laws they want to without Constitutional restrictions and limitations.

These U.S Citizens are citizens of the United States and citizens of the state in which they reside.

Their Constitutional rights are Civil Rights, equal Protection of the law, right to vote and the latest rights added like rights of victims etc..

I won't get into civil rights but I will say that they do not hold up against Sovereign rights of the People.

The Supreme Court has ruled that there is no authority higher than the Sovereignty.

Now this IS the Truth according to the Supreme Court Justices, however every lawyer in America will tell you that is not true because they are officers of the court and only know the Color of Law. They can not practice or I should say Use Common Law to defend their clients, so they have no need to study Supreme Law of the Land.

they use Statutory Law or Business laws. The Uniform Commercial Code.

Unique-Lies, that was COMPLETELY off-topic; I am disinclined to read it in its entirety. Get your own blog, if you want that; I'll send over friends that like to discuss politics; I'm more interested in spirituality - it's where I have more personal experience. I'm funny that way... that said, I found the ignorance of this highly amusing:

"We the People who were born in this great Country of North America were endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights.

We the People are the Sovereignty in this Country, not the Government. The Limited powers of the Federal Government is listed in Article 1 Section 8. of the U.S. Constitution."

A) "North America" includes Canada and Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America); geology rocks! (Yes, Geology; it's related to the continental shelf, not its geography...)

B) I find it amusing that you do not acknowledge the rights endowed by Creator to the indigenous "People who were born in this great Country of North America" long before they were supplanted by the Government of the United States of America; which has since modernized its own rules to befit a changing socio- and political landscape.

If you are so concerned with original inalienable rights, the Seven Nations might be interested in hearing your ideas of how to use the Constitution to do so. They have lawyers; I'm sure they'd appreciate your input in helping them to steer their focus to laws that will return North America to the direction set out for it by the Creator when given to His people born here.

(You can't look at American Government without looking at American History.)

QC, I want to hear your studies precisely BECAUSE they are from an era predating computerized repositories of (dis-)information. It has gotten to the point that I know people who will argue the accuracy of a scholastic journal by pointing to where some blogger online recently posted a (non-peer reviewed) opinion to the contrary - and offer the latter as proof debunking the former.

I am still ashamed that while I have bought a book by Merton that I still think looks really interesting, six months later I have not made the time to read it. :p

O.k.

I'm confuzzelated.

Did God give everyone rights and the secular governments pick and choose which rights get recognized and when?

Or has God only given rights to select people in select circumstances?

(Are there people with inalienable rights who can't exercise them because they don't know they exist or they are impeded by those over them?)

I'd suppose there are a few "alienable" rights that Man provides in addition to our birthrights.

I'd say we could render unto Caesar our human-derived laws but let's not render or restrict the freedoms given to all by the Creator even before the United States existed.

Man can argue over the status of someone born in an embassy,on a plane or ship,while the parents were away from their homeland or when a place was or was not part of the Union.

If we recognize God as the only Sovreign entity worth discussing,then His endowments (not our takes on them) are all that are pertinent.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but I have qualms about limiting God to borders or timelines or anything added by finite beings.

When in doubt,we might treat everyone as if they had the rights of a Person born in a manger far away in time and space from the original thirteen colonies or any of the areas annexed at a later date.

Politics, money, and religion. All three are fuel for the fire of division.

My first inclination at this blog was, WOW!!Michael really wants to stir the pot with a name like FAITH AND POLITICS and a hypothetical descrimination case??

I think the main point is:

Do the applicants know you are a Christian? Does this business exist to promote Christ? If so, and the applicants are aware of that, and ready to do the job anyway, why would they not be hired?

Of course, in todays world, you may need some letter or contract stating that they are aware of these things in order to prevent a later lawsuit claiming a hostile work environment (the money facture).

Lu 16:8 And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.

Lu 16:9 And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.

Their incentive for wanting the job is their own, just as ours is for wanting to be Christlike.

Mt 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

So as a business is this a gathering operation or scattering operation?

Mt 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Thanks,AM.

It was delicious. :)

Unique-Lies, that was COMPLETELY off-topic; I am disinclined to read it in its entirety. Get your own blog, if you want that; I'll send over friends that like to discuss politics; I'm more interested in spirituality - it's where I have more personal experience. I'm funny that way... that said, I found the ignorance of this highly amusing:

I just read your posts in the Christmas thread... you have serious disinformation issues... and yes, your agenda is... "off"... the Watchtower isn't the only source of information, you know... you may wish to stick to anti-establishment topics, and stay away from religion...

-- Posted by Analytical Mindset on Thu, Jan 28, 2010, at 1:45 PM

Looks like uniquelies has met another arrogant, prideful, boasting know it all almost just like him.

Should be interesting.

Your ad hominem attack does nothing to discredit, challenge or improve on anything that I have stated. If you have a point to make, please share it and enlighten us.

Posted by Analytical Mindset on Thu, Jan 28, 2010, at 5:56 PM

I made my point knothead. :)))

somecommonsense,

So your point was, in fact, that you had none.

Trying to bait me with name calling is a waste of your time.

I would hire the folks that were qualified. Jesus hung out with sinners, not the righteous ones. I would be a blessing to those who needed me and qualified to work.

somecommonsense,

So, still no actual point to be made. Please call attention to these specific instances that support your position.

Ironically, the paragraph IMMEDIATELY following the one you just quoted:

"In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments."

You quoted me out of context, and in true trolling behavior, pasted this as your sole comment:

"Looks like uniquelies has met another arrogant, prideful, boasting know it all almost just like him.

Should be interesting."

The implication is that my contributions to the conversation have as much merit as what is felt Unique-Lies contributes.

When I invited you to expound on your assertion and demonstrate where my behavior has resembled such, you balked, backpedaled, and found a quote from a gentleman in Ireland who unlikely would share your assertion. I suppose, if that email account is still active, we may find out - I have invited him to check out this little discussion.

Yes, I am ignoring your sarcasm and challenges to my intelligence. It's the Internet. It really doesn't matter to me what you think; though your attempts to discredit me without anything of substance implies that you see me as a potential "threat" to your positions.

Personally, I hope the T-G removes all of this detracted, off-topic nonsense. :p

Analytical Mindset,

The name Karen Armstrong does ring a bell, so your mother may be right. I have only read that one book by her, so i know nothing of her prior views. Thank you for the suggested reading, I will try to find them and read them.

somecommonsense,

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that such an insightful post almost 2 hrs later is because you had other stuff to do. Awesome.

Again, rather than give baseless claims of where I have "done nothing much short of blast half the people on here. Whether it's their user name, the subject of their post, their use of scripture, etc., etc., etc."; provide specific examples.

I'm still awaiting your examples to support your previous claims, as well; and the response to the rebuttal of your claim in defense of your prior ad hominem attacks (this one being subsequent to it).

For the record, I have never boastfully claimed to come across to everybody as an educated writer. Please show where I have stated that?

And even better, try sticking to the topic. Or are you one of those people (rhetorical question; we already know the answer) who seeks to debate the person versus the topic?

I know, I know; you feel you are proving your point because I replied. *yawn*

Do you have anything at all pertinent to this thread with which to enlighten us?

The only thing I have "blasted", as you claim, is posts that are completely off-topic, erroneous in their principal arguments, or contribute absolutely nothing to the quality of the conversation.

I am blatantly ignoring silly things like typos, poor grammar and inconsistency of thought; I will note misdirection, misinformation and unclear statements.

What precisely do you see as a problem with that? (Other than describing your own posts, that is...)

The only thing I have "blasted", as you claim, is posts that are completely off-topic, erroneous in their principal arguments, or contribute absolutely nothing to the quality of the conversation.

Posted by Analytical Mindset on Thu, Jan 28, 2010, at 8:56 PM

completely off-topic?

erroneous in their principal arguments??

contribute absolutely nothing to the quality of the conversation????

Oh, I see, according to your "educated" opinion I presume......he hehe....like it is the authority on the subject.

somecommonsense,

So, still nothing.

The topic is clear; so it's clear when something is "off-topic".

"Erroneous" means something is in error, which is an objective term; "opinion" is subjective. For instance, 'North America' is not = to 'United States of America'.

"contribute" and "Quality" = "add value". For instance, your off-topic, erroneous posts contribute nothing of to the quality of the on-topic conversation.

Objectively.

Not subjectively; which would be opinion.

I have never stated that I'm an authority on this topic; if I were, I would not solicit the input of others on it, nor ask to pick quantumcat's brain for her experiences.

It'd be awesome if you'd just provide an example of even one of your baseless claims, rather than copying/pasting quotes out of context, and sprinkling in accusatory judgments.

Rather than list every false assumption you have attributed to me, to avoid actually stating an on-topic position, I will close with this point:

Other than draw additional attention to your apparent deficiency in reading for comprehension, following a conversation, or making a statement pertinent to the thread; what exactly have you contributed of value (to your perspective) in the on-topic discussion, by your poor attempts to provoke an emotional response in me?

(wonders when the discussion switched from Obama to "Yo Mama".

Are we going to have to get up before dawn to watch y'all have a duel down by the bandstand-or are y'all going to demonstrate the decorum and charity we associate with serious blogs and mature people?

I don't see AM threatening my job as the pseudointellectual blowhard on here.

If he's used big words and big concepts,it could be because he respects the people on here enough to expect them to rise to a challenge rather than be too short on ordnance to engage in a battle of wits.

Unless I've missed something,his harshest statements have reccommended ways that people might make their points more effectively and in a more appropriate context.

For instance,I think I know where LiveforLight is coming from but I could get Biblical quotes from an online robot.

What we can't get elsewhere is the excitement,joy and reverence that makes LiveforLight want to share Christ's message in a pure,uncompromising and unadulterated form.

As I understand it,LiveforLight doesn't want to be pilloried for ideas encumbered by human limitations.

Instead,God is allowed to speak for Himself,by Himself.

That's all well and good but we are fortunate that we can access God's Word about anywhere,anytime.

We don't have such a ready access to the unique perspective of one individual.

God has expressed Himself through LiveforLight in a way that He can't and won't do through anyone else.

What I hear Analytical Mindset saying (and I agree) is that we want to hear the rare and special insights that people have-even if they think that what they have to offer is too limited or would incite negative reactions.

The way I figure it,none of us would be here (on this blog,in this universe,whatever...) if we weren't equipped to make a positive contribution.

It doesn't hurt for a little hot air to be let out of our egoes when necessary but it's no sin to ask people to reach beyond their comfort zone and achieve their goals in a new,perhaps better,way.

(We can always say "Thanks,but no,thanks.")

I haven't seen enough evidence of arrogant,patronizing,self-congratulatory attitudes among the candid,self-deprecating,curious and constructively criticizing dialogs I've witnessed in conjunction with certain parties.

Maybe,they present different facets offline that elicit negative responses.

But,here,so long as folks,at least,go through the motions of caring about the topics and respecting what each blogger can bring to the discussions,we might take them at face value and assume that they intend to make our conversations meatier and more rewarding.

(When that's not the case,it becomes evident sooner or later.)

Maybe,we have people here who do know things we need to be aware of.

Maybe,there will be people we need to teach.

Nothing will be gained if folks decide that *anyone* is too dumb or too smug or too whatever to be a resource,a mentor,a recipient of our help or any other kind of participant in this blog.

Like the tomes in the hypothetical bookstore,no one will know what they might accomplish if they aren't given the chance to open up and let people see just what they hold inside.

Have a safe and happy weekend,all.

Quote mining has its place but as I alluded to earlier,anyone can tell us what Christ said centuries ago.

Only we can reveal how He is touching our lives today,how that is shaping us and its significance for our lives.

I think you do yourself and us a disservice if you presume that God is not still Creating and doing great works in us and through us.

YES,let us see the brilliance of the apostles as they were influenced by the Holy Spirit.

But,give us a glimpse of the Light you live for as it shines from within you.

(We KNOW it's there.)

How can God pour out blessings even into a too-small bushel basket if a person has it turned upside down to hide his beacon?

No one's asking you to stop sharing the truth God has preserved through the ages.

Just think about whether He's still speaking and He's given you (as much as Michael or anyone else) a message that will remain unheard if you don't voice it.

Aaron and Moses held back.

So did all those ordinary men in the Upper Room.

Let the Holy Spirit give you YOUR story as you come forth with God's story.

Pentecost may have begun a while back but the flame that ignited souls and tongues then still warms us and keeps the predators away.

It matters not whether you have the tongue (or keyboard) of angels.

You have the mind of Christ and the heart of the Holy Ghost.

What more could you need to serve and honor God than what you already have: Their once and future Words and your present actions?

What I hear Analytical Mindset saying (and I agree) is that we want to hear the rare and special insights that people have-even if they think that what they have to offer is too limited or would incite negative reactions.

Posted by quantumcat on Fri, Jan 29, 2010, at 1:40 AM

Quantumcat,

What I sense and hear is that you think Analytical Mindset and quantumcat are the rare and special insight.

Perhaps Analytical Mindset needs to take the advise he gave to uniquelies and get his own blog where you can tell him it "taste good" in your own cute little one line statements. You ever heard of a paragraph?

I believe Liveforlight, uniquelies, somecommonsense, etc., etc,. have just as much right to bring forth their post in their own way as you two do thinking you are the "rare and special insight" posters.

Of coarse that is just my opinion of what I hear stated in my own way.

If and when you choose to add more to your output,it'll be because you and the Lord decided on that together.

Your listening to Him is what attracts your readers in the first place.

Your work is not returning void.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Fri, Jan 29, 2010, at 9:30 AM

Thanks, but all the credit goes to God, it is his word that has the value. If mine has value, it is only because of the value of his, already in place.

Mt 13:3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;

Mt 13:4 And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:

Mt 13:5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:

Mt 13:6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.

Mt 13:7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:

Mt 13:8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.

Mt 13:9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

My work is merely as the dirt where his seed grows. My works are nothing without his seed. I strive to simply be "good ground" (requires a little weeding from time to time) performing the works of dirt for the "good seed".

A lowly place...DIRT that is,,, but what a beautiful garden when the seed blooms.:)

Wow, somecommonsense is REALLY going to hate these next posts, then; T-G didn't let me post it all at once.

For the record, I do have a blog; I simply feel this is a better way to reach the people that matter to me in this conversation: my community, the place where I live. Not some random strangers 1,000 miles or more from the people with whom I interact daily.

It is amusing, though, scs, that you continue to attack, and still don't offer up anything as evidence. You may not like what others have to say, myself included, but at least it's on topic. My only issue with unique-lies, in that quote you mined (ironically), was that his ramblings against the government, that had nothing to do with the thread, are better suited somewhere else.

As a person interested in discussing the issues, raised by Michael Bell, in introducing the topic.

Irony defined:

"What I sense and hear is that you think Analytical Mindset and quantumcat are the rare and special insight.

Perhaps Analytical Mindset needs to take the advise he gave to uniquelies and get his own blog where you can tell him it "taste good" in your own cute little one line statements. You ever heard of a paragraph?

I believe Liveforlight, uniquelies, somecommonsense, etc., etc,. have just as much right to bring forth their post in their own way as you two do thinking you are the "rare and special insight" posters.

Of coarse that is just my opinion of what I hear stated in my own way.

-- Posted by somecommonsense on Fri, Jan 29, 2010, at 8:52 AM"

Only one of those 'paragraphs' had two lines versus one...

As for what QC wrote, she was encouraging LfL to write more of his/her own words versus quote mining, as LfL's own words are a "rare and special insight" that the rest of us won't have - as we don't have the life-experiences of Lfl.

(This is not further irony, as I'm not the one who was criticizing the use of one-lined paragraphs; a literary device.)

Reading for comprehension isn't really your strong point, is it...?

LfL,

I think women everywhere may be insulted to know that I am not one, then! LOL!

And no problem - it WAS rather long!

You remind me a bit, in your posts, of a gentleman from West Virginia that I used to converse with on Topix. He had begun all his posts initially as a holy-roller type, and would quote mine incessantly - the thread was "prove there is a god" - so he felt the best way to do this was to provide quotes declaring what served as evidence for him.

Over time he adapted to the thread, and while never backing down from his convictions, realized that he taught more in sharing his stories and experiences than by quoting scriptures - as you can't offer as evidence to someone a book they don't believe is the Word of God; it's circular.

I enjoyed his conversations immensely.

And defended him against hard-lined atheists that wanted to bash his right to believe as he chooses.

Lacking a formal education, he grew up working the coal mines, as his father and grandfather did before him. His perspective is truly interesting.

And that's where I'm coming from, is encouraging you to share how knowing God has helped you in your life, and how that knowledge would guide you to act in the given hypothetical situation by Michael. As I do believe that all worship is towards the same universal constant; the master equation; I really have no problem with anyone choosing to pursue that belief in whatever manner they desire. I'd just like to see them apply it with a better understanding of the spirituality to which they claim membership. :)

In a nutshell...

PS: Sure, it snows on the day my dad is flying in to visit... ;p Because, you know, its all about me...

I see 99.8% of everyones' words "off topic"

I see 99.99% of mine as "off topic".

I'm not complaining, just pointing out that over 99% of the words posted on here did not answer the question that Michael Bell originated and asked for comments on.

Below is the question which is the topic to stay on:

----------------------

For example I will ask a question and please give your honest answerers.

If you owned a Christian based business and you had one job opening and 4 applicants , 3 who were well qualified, but were a Atheist, a Muslim, a blatant homosexual, now these 3 were well qualified for tithe position as far as that goes and would exceed all expectations, but the fourth applicant was a Christian kid who you knew, but was not all that qualified for the job , but eager to learn, which would you hire ?, and which would be best for your business?

----------------------

Again, I am not complaining, but rather trying to show that the ones that like to blast others because of not "being on topic" are the most guilty of the condemnation.

Michael Bell did not ask us where we were from, where we worked, how many crucifixes in our bedrooms, someones opinion on users' names, whether we liked scriptures posted (mined) or not, anything about tantalum-180 or Greer Garson, if we enjoyed Teddy Bart's Roundtable, if we were familiar with Mendelson, if our mom recommends an author named Marcus Borg, if we know a Benedictan monk named Bro. David Stendl-Rast, what county we are related to half of, if we were interested in a Freudian slip-of-the-tongue to someones' own writing style, if the name Karen Armstrong rings a bell, if AM is threatening anyones' job as the pseudointellectual blowhard, what time we are picking our father up, how AM tastes, blah, blah, blahblah, blah.....etc., etc.

I do however agree with Analytical Mindset on one thing that he posted -> -> ......" Personally, I hope the T-G removes all of this detracted, off-topic nonsense."

But I have to wonder....why would someone want almost everything they posted removed????

Mr. Bell,

Now that I have addressed the two pride-full characters above let me answer your question. I think you should toss a coin on who to hire if they are all four equally qualified.

I also would like to add that if you were a lazy Christian employer you might give preference to the Christian application. He is already converted and required little effort from the Christian employer. The other three might require more effort on your part presenting and explaining the Good News (Gospel) to.

Throughout the Bible only one reference sticks out in my mind made to outcasting or discriminating against someone in reference to religion. And actually it is the Christian that is to be cast out from the church if found to be in unrepentant sin. The unsaved, whether homosexual, Buddist, aetheist, etc., are to be welcomed in the assembly of a church. I think similar attitudes should be in the everyday workplace.

Analytical Mindset ,

I have to paste your post:

I just read your posts in the Christmas thread... you have serious disinformation issues... and yes, your agenda is... "off"... the Watchtower isn't the only source of information, you know... you may wish to stick to anti-establishment topics, and stay away from religion...

Please explain my serious disinformation issues! (Maybe you can direct me to a more reliable source than the King James Bible, Law Libraries, Supreme Courts and the Constitutions) If you have read any of my posts you would know that I do not study or get my information from the Watchtower. I get my information straight from the KJV Bible. Blessed Assurance is the one who reads and keeps up with the Watchtower. You are reading what others are accusing me of doing then judging me and not the source saying it.

My agenda has nothing to do with the Watchtower! I have a mind of my own and know how to use it. I get into enough trouble on my own without being accused of what others say.

As for your comment on sticking to anti-establishment...

Let's start with the definition.

anti-establishment:

opposed to or working against the existing power structure or mores, as of society or government.

I am sure anti-establishment would also apply to churches as well, since in a way they represent a power structure or religious society.

I am an anti-establishment Sovereign when it comes to churches teaching Unique-Lies about the Bible scriptures.

I am also an anti-establishment Sovereign when it comes to the Unique-Lies the Government puts out.

I am more Patriotic than most laid back, do nothing American citizens. This is my Country and the U.S. Government doesn't have any right to sell us out to the One World Order. It can sell out all the 14th amendment citizens it wants to because they are owned by the U.S. but we the people are the sovereignty over the U.S. Government. Governments were established to protect our constitution and our rights. President Bush said the U.S. Constitution was just a %*^%#@ piece of paper.

I can not fight the government with their armies, but I can surely expose their Unique-Lies!

If you are referring to the One World Order I often speak of or the Washington Post article, who cares? I don't need to read the Washington Post or any of their articles to know about the One World Order. I have known about that for over 30 years.

You have commented to others saying you like it when people just explain in their own words and thoughts, instead of just pasting the information from the source word for word, yet you tell me I am misinformed and anti-establishment when I don't include my source.

Damned if you do and Damned if you don't!

If you watched President Obama's State of the Union Speech, I think you will agree that he said nothing but Unique- Lies. He didn't say anything, but what he was told to say. He is just a Puppet owned by the puppet masters. Everything President Obama said, he was reading on 2 teleprompters which was written by others.

He lowered Taxes for ??? He gave millions of jobs to ??? What did he say about bring home the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan??? He was more concerned with Health Care issues.

Personally, I don't give a damn about Health Care! Who is it going to help? Only the rich. You pay all your life for health insurance and when you need it, it doesn't cover what you need it for, It is Bankrupt and doesn't have to give you a dime of your money back. It takes your money to pay for and gives you nothing in return. I have heard right here on TV where people in TN have been dropped when they needed their insurance company to pick up the tab. Other lost everything they had because the insurance company couldn't or wouldn't pay off and the people had to.

It is just something else the Government can spend money on and give nothing in return. With health care in the USA it will only come down to forced inoculations and forced evacuations to FEMA Relocation Centers where everyone will come under FEMA's Control.

Just for the hell of it read these Executive Orders.

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/fema.htm

A series of Executive Orders (EO) was used to create FEMA. It does not matter whether an EO is Constitutional or not, it becomes a law simply by being published in the Federal Registry. These orders go around Congress.

These EOs make complete common sense if applied as legislated for helping in matters of emergencies, but given to a run away Government and its departments, well you can see where it will go!

somecommonsense,

"Michael Bell did not ask us ... blah, blah, blahblah, blah.....etc., etc."

True; but most of those things you see as irrelevant tied into the conversation, and were used to illustrate a point in addressing the question he DID raise. Did your comments ever do that?

"I do however agree with Analytical Mindset on one thing that he posted -> -> ......" Personally, I hope the T-G removes all of this detracted, off-topic nonsense."

But I have to wonder....why would someone want almost everything they posted removed????

Why not? I'm not so horribly attached to my words that I feel they need to be around into perpetuity, after the point has already been made and digested.

Just like I didn't get upset when they removed all of our comments off the news topics.

As it turns out, however, per an e-mail from Mr. Carney, going off-topic is not a violation of the T.o.S. as they are currently written. So, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter either way. I was thinking of Topix; my apologies for that.

Oh my spammy stars and garters:

(That last post was to Blessed Assurance; missed the dedication...)

Unique-Lies

"If you have read any of my posts you would know that I do not study or get my information from the Watchtower. I get my information straight from the KJV Bible. Blessed Assurance is the one who reads and keeps up with the Watchtower. You are reading what others are accusing me of doing then judging me and not the source saying it."

No, you are right; that was sloppy on my part. I took at face-value when someone else said you are Jehovah's Witness, and having had some bad experiences with them in the past, let it cloud my response. Much the same way I would if someone were said to be a Scientologist. There are very few 'religions' which I have personal intolerance for; they are two of them. I'm not perfect. I can admit when I'm wrong, though.

"You have commented to others saying you like it when people just explain in their own words and thoughts, instead of just pasting the information from the source word for word, yet you tell me I am misinformed and anti-establishment when I don't include my source."

It wasn't about your source; it was about stuff that didn't seem on-base; especially equating the USA with North America. Okay, granted that was pretty retentive on my part; I knew what you meant. But I felt argumentative on that one. I realize later that I shouldn't chastise someone not reading my long diatribes if I'm not reading theirs. I don't agree with most of what you interpret into those issues, but it is interesting and thought provoking. (Even if a little off-topic... :p) WOuld like to see you tie it into Michael's question, though...

"These EOs make complete common sense if applied as legislated for helping in matters of emergencies, but given to a run away Government and its departments, well you can see where it will go!"

I do agree that policies that are made law outside of the system of checks and balances does irritate me; just don't know enough about it to contribute anything useful or insightful.

You do know that sentence implies that I stated I was not a Christian (which I did not state) prior to posting the application of scriptures to homosexuality, as you think you're educated, do you not...?

Posted by Analytical Mindset on Fri, Jan 29, 2010, at 7:39 PM

Analytical Mindset,

You appear to be quite of an unanalytical mindset with timing and dates. Below is the order of the post you "did" make:

----------

Hmmmn. I'm not Christian, yet I'd wager that in that setting....

Posted by Analytical Mindset on Wed, Jan 27, 2010, at 5:57 AM

Applied to homosexuality, one could say that it is permissible to be gay; that such is keeping with one's God given free will, and the capacity to love and accept all people. That when two gay men share an act of love through sex, as they are both housing the Holy Spirit, they are still sharing in that spirit in a way that is not immoral; that is not excessive.

Posted by Analytical Mindset on Fri, Jan 29, 2010, at 10:42 AM

------------

Overlooking your ignorance of factual statements you "did" make and your incorrect assumptive timing of them my point still remains, you are ignorant of interpreting simple Scriptural meanings.

Your ignorance and "serious disinformation issues" leads me to suggest perhaps you should take the advice you gave uniquelies and........... "stay away from religion..."

Oh my spammy stars and garters:

Posted by Analytical Mindset on Fri, Jan 29, 2010, at 7:43 PM

Let's try it again.

Uh...that sounds so....deeeeelicate.

Analytical Mindset,

I am lost for words and don't know what to say!

I was expecting a long tongue lashing in response to my defense.

You seemed intelligent to me with your writings and very matter of fact responses.

You have proven to me that you are intelligent indeed and not afraid to say when you jumped the gun in your decisions or may have made a mistake. It takes a good person to admit when he is wrong or may be wrong.

I hesitate to admit when I think I may be wrong because someone always goes to the archives to bring it up over and over again. I do admit my error or at least admit I may be wrong until I can prove otherwise.

You wanted to know how my comments applied to the Christmas Blog.

It is hard to stay on one topic on Michael's Blog because he lists many things in his opening blog, not just one question or topic.

If you will notice, Michael Bell doesn't respond much to his blogs. He just changes them when people get tired of them, or they get pulled.

For example:

The Merry CHRISTmas or Holiday Season Blog.

1. what to call the Holiday

2. The Christmas gift of Salvation through Christ

3. Say Merry Christmas and God Bless whether they like it or not

4. Christmas tree or Holiday tree

5. So called President is not a Christian

6. Prays Obama will be converted to Christ

7. force the hiring of homosexuals, cross dressers, trans-sexual, and gender confused people.

8. forced to take bibles off of their desk

9. Things might offend homosexual co - workers

10. fired for objecting to pro- gay sensitivity training

11. Christian businesses have even been fined.

12.ENDA makes the federal government a full partner in imposing immorality and attacking religious freedoms in the workplace.

13. cascade of anti- Christian laws attacking faith, marriage, freedom, and our families.

14. repeal the ban on the military ban on open homosexual behavior in the service

15. attempt to define biblical values as bigotry and silence the biblical view of marriage and sin

16. Obama "My commitment to you is unwavering.... "

17. faith based opposition to immoral sexual behavior

18. a case in which religious freedom should win

19. She stated that gay sex is morally good

20. silencing Christian's at Christmas and then silencing them everywhere else

21. The nation claims to have a 160 million bible Christians

22. it is time we stand up!

23. a preacher states that all the Christian's have gone into the closet (wonder if that is a Unique-Lie)

24. nation is going back to paganism and secularism

25. Merry Christmas and God Bless all!

26. if that offends so be it!

Must I assume that there is only one TOPIC in this blog when I see and count at least 26 topics that can be talked about at length?

Hard to stay on-Topic or should I say stay on-one-Topic?

These Topics demand information on or about legalities as to whether they are in violation of state laws or Constitutions.

Not discriminating against gays does not include taking other rights away from people who are not gay. These answers would include laws, and laws apply ONLY to certain people if you know the law and your rights.

With that in mind, I feel that just about everything I post in any of Michael Bell's blogs is acceptable as applying to his blogs.

Unique-Lies,

I'm beginning, with repetitious exposure, to understand how your thought-responses process. So that makes it a little easier to find the value inside the writings.

"With that in mind, I feel that just about everything I post in any of Michael Bell's blogs is acceptable as applying to his blogs."

I did actually chuckle a few times reading that post - and yes, I can see the irony inherent in your argument. :D I suppose that if one is habitually off-topic, it actually IS on-topic to randomly jump from one topic to another.

In fact, going through that list, it looks like THIS topic is just a continuation of that one, to some degree, but taking out the "holiday" related aspects of it.

"I was expecting a long tongue lashing in response to my defense."

Not my style. Some of what I post is intentionally: inflammatory, controversial, adversarial, introspective or critical. The goal is always to get people to think, examine their positions, research the opposition (me, in this case), and present a strong, sound defense of their position. When someone does that, the only appropriate response is to acknowledge their effort, and thank them for rising to the challenge. :)

Otherwise it's just arguing for the sake of arguing; not debating.

MY BIG ERROR so far: This is not a debate. I should not be using debate-normative tactics on a community blog. That has caused a bit of confusion, and unnecessary conflict. :p

(It is valid, for instance, in an open debate to post assertively; to assume correctness in your position; and to make statements that you know are inherently flawed, as the burden of proof is on the respondent to the proposed clause.)

I personally use the tools of debate to get people to better understand their own position, and communicate it. Well, most people; some are just too caught up in themselves and their own cleverness to answer simple challenges to think... :p

"It takes a good person to admit when he is wrong or may be wrong."

Eh, it's just easier to tell the truth than keep track of all the lies; backpedaling is a form of lying. You caught me in an error (being of judgment); best thing to do is acknowledge it.

"23. a preacher states that all the Christian's have gone into the closet (wonder if that is a Unique-Lie)"

Didn't he right before that statement say something about there being 160 million Christians in the United States, or something like that? If 160 million Christians could fit into that same closet (as he suggested), wouldn't that imply there were 160 million homosexuals in the United States? I haven't checked the numbers of claimed gays in the USA, so I didn't bother to comment on that at the time. :)

LfL,

I don't agree with your conclusions, or interpretations, but I respect the way that you have presented them.

I think that a lot of people who have grown up where I did, make the assumption (as it has been our experience) that ALL fundamentalist are "fundies"; that is, self-righteous, sanctimonious, Bible-thumping blowhards. (No, seriously; that IS the stereotype...)

The stuff that you write that both introduces the quotes, and reinforces them in your conclusion, are actually well-written (the points of contention notwithstanding). And they are thoughtful in that you aren't completely dictating the conclusion; to some degree you are leaving it up to the reader to make the conclusion for you - though you've paved the way for it well.

I think that's what QC meant in saying that you have a unique way of being inspired by God; a way different than another might be so inspired.

I'm a conservative-liberal; but a liberal nonetheless. So I naturally look for messages in the scriptures that support equality to all mankind. And ways to apply the scriptures to this end.

To the way I was brought up, the letters to the Corinthians are written sermons. They were not written to be God's literal word; they were written to deliver home a message; to inspire change in a far-away congregation.

But you supported well, I thought, why you don't think the scriptures allow for that; in this instance.

As for the Christlike thing, I'd submit that it is possible to employ subterfuge, and still do God's work.

Even an atheist does God's work, if what he does brings others closer to God - and to Christ.

I'm really liking the tone the blog has taken in these wee hours.

(I find it much more productive than when folks go after one another like Ben Grimm and the Yancy Street Gang.)

Unique Lies,

There may have been more gays in DC than you guessed but the majority knew how to be decorous and respectful.

Were there no ill-mannered heterosexuals after you?

It can be unpleasant and disconcerting when pushy people of any persuasion impose upon a person.

"Horndogs",scam artists,those who troll for the vulnerable to lure into cults,etc. seem to lack respect for themselves and the people they target.

It's all too easy to get the impression that one attracts losers when the rude and insensitive single one out for their attention.

But,even angels have been selected as victims so the tacky crowd (like most of the enemy's minions) are "equal opportunity destroyers".

When it comes to matters of sexuality,we tend to find fault with the presence of the erotic (who someone may desire) when problems arise from the absence of agape (seeing individuals as more than a means of gratifying oneself,honoring their well-being as one would wish to be respected).

I self-identify as a liberal because I get queasy about putting people into little boxes.

If we all fall short and all require repentance and redemption,do we need to obsess about how we and our neighbors are limited or turn our attention to the unlimited Grace that's been put at our disposal?

As I've said before,God can not only change our flaws for something better,He can change the "right" parts of our life,too.

We have little need to judge how "good" we are and how we need to be perfected.

We have even less need to critique the other fellow.

All that is mandatory is turning our lives over to God and letting HIM determine the course of our lives.

We forget that we are His creation and have been given free will (even if we use that will to reject all that He has offered us).

We fail to recognize that we are MORE (not less) free and ourselves when we are under His direction.

While there is a place for examining individual ailments of the spirit,we do not so much suffer from the presence of sin as the absence of Grace.

We don't remove cold or dark or hunger.

We add warmth and light and nourishment.

We are prone to focus on real or imagined symptoms *instead* of taking the tonic that will bring comfort and vigor even to the healthiest among us and even to those unaware of what healing they require.

Thank you!

I agree with what you say.

We tend to forget that He gives us privileges and responsibilities in proportion to one another and our development.

We can only make ourselves bigger in God's eyes by growing-not trying to cut down everything and everyone else so they look small.

Believing in God can be the second greatest pleasure we will ever know.

The first,as you are well aware,is His belief in us.

We might well treat the other parts of God's creation better if we learned to love Him more and realized that HIS treasure (His universe,His people...) is our wealth,too,because we are His partners and heirs.

Looking out for the other person is not only right and required,it's self-preservation.

When they prosper,we benefit,as well.

When they are damaged,we suffer,too.

Each of us is a conduit for a piece of God and the blessings within it.

The more outlets there are and the better they function,the better off we are.

I don't think God minds us wanting to help Him with His garden or even help His crops and blossoms.

But,we can't always tell the wheat from the tares until they grow a bit.

(Plus,He is Lord of goats and tares,too.)

It's safer for us to nurture everything in the garden (inhibiting the bad by increasing the good) even if that might encourage something that's a liability.

We run the risk of destroying something that could produce great fruit when it's grown if we haul out the Weed-eaters,torches and broad spectrum herbicides just to be _sure_ we've eradicated all vermin,blights and weeds.

Like most assistants,we'll do fine if we follow instructions and watch what He's doing and make a point to do likewise.

I self-identify as a liberal because I get queasy about putting people into little boxes.

Posted by quantumcat on Sat, Jan 30, 2010, at 7:32 AM

Even God is not comfortable putting people in little boxes. I think He just uses two big boxes. I think Mathew has a couple of verses descibing the two boxes:

32And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

The deceptor will promote and tell us their are many boxes along the many broad paths and that it is "okay' to be in this box or that box or even another box over there.

I see it rather simply. The sheep go in the box (figuratively) on the right side and the goats into the box on the left.

There are only two main big boxes worth focusing on along the path of life. Perhaps your queasiness could be eliminated if you remember even the little boxes will be put in one of two big boxes. Leave your subjects out of the little boxes and warn them instead of the big bad box on the left.

Be not deceived, neither deceive others, there are but two big boxes and the packer sits in the middle of both seperating.

Indeed BA Satan tries to take Christs place. We have to know the difference between the diamond and the cubic-zirconia.

2co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

2co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

2co 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works

Sorry to mine a few scriptures in front of you but that it just what I was lead to do. Do your complaining to my Shepherd if it bothers anyone :)

-- Posted by Blessed Assurance on Sat, Jan 30, 2010, at 11:16 AM

Bother me? NO WAY! Thats what the shepherd feeds his sheep. Keep digging out those tasty golden nuggets;)

Good works that bare fruit. How great those seeds are, Thanks be to the sower.

Is this snow not beautiful? WOW!! Sorry, I slipped off topic:) LOL Must be the ice. Slippery slope it seems.

Be blessed and enjoy the day the Lord has made.

P.S...I hope the ripe fruit I just released from my veins was a good work in God's eyes. It should be since you know not what hand it comes from. Or at least ways, the hand thinks it is hid and properly working as instructed.

Is the tree still able to produce good fruit?

If so,let the rotten fruit be set aside to feed the wildlife or become humus.

Let the fruit that has not matured ripen awhile lest it give a belly-ache to those who would be too eager to swallow it.

The tree that promises wholesome nourishment when it is dead inside will be made to reveal that it is no more than a stick so that those who hunger will not be deceived.

Even then,it can be put to good use.

When it is cast upon the fire,all that is foul and useless is eradicated but its energy cannot be destroyed.

It is released as warmth and light.

Even so,where we see only ruin,God sees how he will thwart the forces of despite and reclaim that which is His.

Where Man sees only what form one takes (sheep or goat) or where we stand (Left or Right),God sees the heart.

A kid raised in the wild who seeks to be fed alongside the sheep and who follows the Shepherd may not be told "I will not be your Master. Go away from my flock."

It may be allowed to give of its milk and hair or even its flesh in exchange for its care.

The sheep that runs from the Shepherd may race into the jaws of a predator.

If Christ is on the right hand of the Father,would not the Father be on Jesus' left?

We might be foolish to seek grapes amid thorns or figs of thistles but sweet berries can be found amid brambles and roses among thorns as surely as salvation can come from crucifiction and the greatest joy and glory come from the worst despair and infamy.

We should ignore the little boxes because they often bear labels that don't reflect their contents.

We might even bypass the two big boxes.

If we were to find the One Box that holds the finest Gift ever bestowed and say "Let us come within this Box. Make us a part of that Gift!" then we might see our lives transformed into a beautiful Present.

P.S.

Most of the trees I know weren't great in the fruit producing department.

They had to have a Graft from the best Tree around and produce according to Its nature to have much value.

Those who have deep roots in the right places,have had such a scion added unto them and enjoy Living Water and the Light of the Son become so much more than they might have been on their own.

The ultimate Gardener has fixed it so people need not see what kind of tree they were in the begining.

They are identified by the fruit they bear,instead.

Their seed is irrelevant.

Their rootstock,their standard, serves to support the Graft.

Damage they have received is repaired and they produce fruit faster than they would have otherwise.

This has become the only way many fruits are ever grown.

(The method also works when applied to nuts.)

LMAO!!!!!

Blessed Assurance,

I apologize that I have threatened your delicate understanding of spirituality and God that you feel I must be Satan for suggesting how someone COULD interpret a SERMON if they were so inclined. Yes, you caught me; I am Satan. And clearly, as you have judged me to be so, and revealed me to be so, you must be God; for that is only His place to judge - or did I misrepresent something else in that?

I note that you still have yet to address anything I have misquoted (as I have not), or misinterpreted (I suggested an alternative, applied to modern socio-political changes).

I know, I'm not supposed to reference books here, but try "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism", by John Shelby Spong; pg 7 of the paperback:

"The issue of homosexuality is another reality in sexual thinking and practice that places pressure on the Holy Scripture. Once again, this prejudice is so deep, so widely assumed to be self-evident, that all major churches have in the past simply quoted the Bible to justify their continued oppression and rejection of gay and lesbian persons. The Sodom and Gomorrah story is cited uncritically to be a biblical account, and therefore a justification, of God's condemnation of this behavior. Yet a closer reading of this narrative reveals it to be a strange story involving hospitality laws in a nomadic society that our world of superhighways, bright lights, and chain motels cannot even imagine. It is a story about gang rape, which cannot ever be anything but evil. It is a narrative that expresses violent malevolence toward women that few people today, even among the fundamentalists, would be eager to condone."

If challenging you to think, but not misquoting or misrepresenting as fact any fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, is a sign of being associated with Satan, you may be horribly grieved by the caliber of fellows you might meet if you attain your perception of Heaven.

Who are you to judge my intents, my beliefs, or my actions? :)

It is sad that you have so much animosity towards me for words that suggest that God may not wish condemnation of homosexuals; but rather that Paul (the minister to the Corinthians) wrote a sermon that spoke to such things, and which the Roman Catholic Church incorporated into the Bible to support the message of the time of Christ (and 70 years thereafter) which it wished to communicate as being the true and correct Word of God. If you wish to truly have a conversation about "Faith and Politics", as in the onset of this blog, it really is necessary to understand the political role the Church held in that time period, and what their objectives were in selecting which books would be included as Canon, and which would not.

If you detest words so much that suggest a possible way to accept homosexuals in the community without giving up an identity of being faithful Christians; I can only imagine how much more you hold for those in your community that actually ARE homosexual. Should it be decidedly proven (though I argue that there are both those born to it, and those that choose to it) that there is a genetic expression that gives rise to one being gay, will you accept that God must have wanted those people to be born homosexual? Or will you argue that it happened outside of his design in-utero?

(I still don't understand why the gay community would WANT to prove that they are the result of a recessive genetic mutation that if widespread would impact the viability of the human race, but oh well... that's people for you... it basically says, "We are for a scientific explanation, and applying Darwinism and evolution; which also means, by application of Survival of the Fittest permutations, we are not the fittest of the species.. hey... waitasecond... that's not what we meant to say.... crap....")

I'm just saying...

I am concerned that some here feel the need to attack the writer, as if that in any way dilutes the strength of the words written to this virtual page. And then lack the fortitude or integrity to back up their statements, or answer to reasonable requests for clarification.

Very simple one: are Christians the only ones qualified to speak to Christian spiritual interpretations; and then, if so, what is the definition of a "Christian"?

I accept that this will remain unanswered, and for whatever silly reason I will likely be further lambasted for it. I don't understand the logic to that tactic.

But I'm mostly done commenting to this thread; as I don't see where I can add more to my thoughts on the topic than I already have; and the majority of the posts adversarial to it are seeking to discredit me, rather than discuss the issue itself that bothers them so much.

"Much like some posters on here who know scripture quite well..."

At least you finally acknowledge that I know the scriptures well; thank you. :p

"Satan himself did not perform much better in the Garden on Eve."

Wait.... you accept a complete, and total, LITERAL translation and application to the ENTIRE Bible...? Eeeesssshhhh... Yeah, if I'd known that, I wouldn't have even -tried- something as 'revolutionary' as suggesting the gay thing...

"I suggest that for a true atheist, eternal damnation and suffering would best be served by being forced to spend eternity in God's presence, plying Him with praises and worship. That to someone whose soul-identity is based on the adamant assuredness that God does not exist, torment is knowing absolutely and for eternity that He does.

Ergo, an atheist goes to Heaven".

-- Posted by Analytical Mindset on Mon, Feb 1, 2010, at 1:44 AM

Logically speaking, once an atheist is in the presence of God, he can no longer deny the existence of God, and, he would have to acknowledge that all of his previous assumptions of heaven and hell were wrong. So, it stands to reason that the (a)theist would be grateful to escape the the eternal damnation that he now knows is real.

""I know, I'm not supposed to reference books here, but try "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism", by John Shelby Spong; pg 7 of the paperback:

"The issue of homosexuality is another reality in sexual thinking and practice that places pressure on the Holy Scripture. Once again, this prejudice is so deep, so widely assumed to be self-evident, that all major churches have in the past simply quoted the Bible to justify their continued oppression and rejection of gay and lesbian persons. The Sodom and Gomorrah story is cited uncritically to be a biblical account, and therefore a justification, of God's condemnation of this behavior. Yet a closer reading of this narrative reveals it to be a strange story involving hospitality laws in a nomadic society that our world of superhighways, bright lights, and chain motels cannot even imagine. It is a story about gang rape, which cannot ever be anything but evil. It is a narrative that expresses violent malevolence toward women that few people today, even among the fundamentalists, would be eager to condone."

If you just read the passage of Genesis 19:1-9, it may be remotely possible to think it is about "hospitality laws", and, it is a story of gang rape, at leas attempted gang rape. I am not sure where the malevolence against women comes in, unless you are referring of course to Lot's offering up of his daughters to the men. (Which, I could not fathom myself doing, and admit to have no understanding of why he would do such a thing for the sake of hospitality)

However, God did not decide to destroy Sodom solely because of these things. Sodom's sin is pure wickedness, which includes the above mentioned, as well as all of the other things God considers to be wicked, homosexuality being one of them. These are just some of the details we read about just before the city is destroyed. Interestingly enough, an attempted homosexual gang rape is one of the details revealed.

The bible tells us that Sodom was wicked before Lot became a citizen: "Now the men of Sodom were wicked and greatly sinning against the Lord" Genesis 13:13 (NIV)

"Yeah... I see you missed the point, entirely. That's okay".

-- Posted by Analytical Mindset on Mon, Feb 1, 2010, at 5:22 AM

Well...your tree was a little incomplete, I thought I would fill it in for you. :)

Blessed Assurance,

Laughing my ass off is overreacting to your silly assertion? That's funny in its own right. :D

If I misunderstood anything, it was because of what you yourself stated:

"True, but keep in mind even the great deceptor uses God's word in his deception. It is usually used but slightly twisted to create deception.

Much like some posters on here who know scripture quite well but will "slightly" and almost unnoticeably change a few meaningful words in their comments or interpretation of it to convey a different meaning. It is so sly and crafty that careful attention has to be paid to notice the deception. But, after all, that is the mark of quality deception.

One of the most recent examples of deception presented in the usual calm, easy, gentle and subtle tradition of the great deceptor is the comment someone posted that read....

-----------

"Applied to homosexuality, one could say that it is permissible to be gay; that such is keeping with one's God given free will, and the capacity to love and accept all people. That when two gay men share an act of love through sex, as they are both housing the Holy Spirit, they are still sharing in that spirit in a way that is not immoral; that is not excessive."

------------

Satan himself did not perform much better in the Garden on Eve.

-- Posted by Blessed Assurance on Sat, Jan 30, 2010, at 9:23 AM"

There are three elements to what you say that belie your OWN deception in these posts, and that you are now backpedaling (read: lying) to remove yourself from the associated derision:

1) You have stated clearly that you believe my intent in my posts was to be deceptive, and misrepresent the Word of God;

whereas the use of the term "could", and the way I both introduced and have discussed it, makes it clear it was a philosophical divergence, to discuss a way one might read the passage and appeal to both a fundamentalist Christian view and a homosexual-accepting Christian view.

2) You noted that Satan himself did not perform much better in the Garden of Eden in whispering his deceptions to Eve;

This clearly states, actually, that you feel I was being on par, if not more, with the deception ascribed to Biblical Satan (in whom the Jews do not believe exists)in getting Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Your current statement is a result of realizing that you are not God, and not in the place to judge people in God's stead - unless they're homosexuals.

3) Your own intent to deceive, as evidenced by your own contradictory statements concerning what you've historically said, and misapplying adjectives to what I've said - without supporting those assertions;

I did not make a deceptive twist of viewpoint on homosexuality, especially as 'deception' requires in its definition that such be my intent - which circularly brings us back to you knowing and judging my intents, as the action itself is not evidence of deception; you did not imply that it was influenced by the workings of Satan, you implied that it was like something Satan itself had done to poor unsuspecting Eve; and you blatantly refuse to answer even the most basic of challenges to previous unfounded assertions, as you at least DO understand that answering them will further reveal that your intent has been to deride versus inspire, yourself.

Midnight Rider,

Believe what you want; the logic tree was not incomplete, for the stated supposition, with the limited non-applicability of Dogma. If we suspend Dogma, and apply to it an antitheist (which is what most Christians incorrectly think an atheist means when they say they don't believe that gods exist), such person when confronted with God would acknowledge that it was infinitely more powerful than humanity, but would not agree that makes it "god"; just a sentient entity MUCH higher on the predatory food chain. All hell would prove is that it enjoys torturing people to convince them that since they are being tormented, it must have been God. That is, that it's some intergalactic malevolent force with a need for persecution, and a pathological craving for validation by beings that are in all way inferior to its own self. Which is a silly way to view a God, imo.

For the record, and this is a major digression, I realize; the Bible speaks to the existence of other Gods, but that the Jewish God is infinitely more powerful than any of they. Doesn't that mean that the Bible proves that other gods exist? Or was it not literal ONLY in those passages?

From the book of Genesis "other gods" were mentioned 63 times in the KJV bible and 65 times in the NIV bible. Most of the time Baal was the false god referred to the most.

Deuteronomy 32:16-17 (King James Version)

16 They provoked him to jealousy with strange gods, with abominations provoked they him to anger.

17 They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.

Deut 32:21

21 They made me jealous by what is no god

and angered me with their worthless idols.

I will make them envious by those who are not a people;

I will make them angry by a nation that has no understanding.

In Deut 32:21 God says they made me jealous by what is no god...

God is admitting that these gods did not exist but were only idols of devils that kept popping up. God said the people didn't even know these gods they worshiped and these alleged gods couldn't talk or answer them in any way.

So we see that these false gods didn't really exist, but the people thought they did and made idol to worship them. God tell us not to worship idols because there are no other gods, except for devils. Satan being the devil, is the God of this world.

MORE ABOUT EVIL sent from God:

Judges 9:23 (New International Version)

23 God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the citizens of Shechem, who acted treacherously against Abimelech

1 Samuel 16:14-23

God sent an evil spirit to torment Saul. Saul had David play his harp so the evil spirit would leave Saul alone.

PS:

Some of you sound like this guy:

http://www.angelfire.com/on4/calebhamer/...

The difference is, that's Satire.

Dear God, I sure hope it is, anyways; nobody could take the Bible as literally as HE claims to on those pages!!!

It's only amusing to me, here, as it's relevant to the discussion on homosexuality and being a good evangelical Christian.

I mean, this guy is SERIOUSLY funny!

But I know for a fact that some will read it and be convinced he's serious. There's just no way...

:D

Anal,

Yes. I have to admit it was very funny but at the same time very factual and serious.

LOL,

I had not read the ENTIRE site. :) There's only so much laughing I can take at one time.

And no, he's poking fun at those that seriously think such things. It's sarcasm, raised to the art of satire; and very well done, at that.

If you can read that and identify with it as true, and find nothing wrong with anything he says, you may be one of the groups at which he's poking fun.

But just in case he's right, don't drive a Ford Mercury - otherwise you'll go to hell!!!

:D