dad, i was referring to Franklin Graham, as to Dobson and Falwell they are the ones touted and displayed as spokemen of the christian agenda on a continual basis from Fox News- CNN -MSNBC, and the print media.
An agnostic prayer:
GOD, please protect me from your followers.
maxsdadeo wrote:Remember, PDid, us Christians aren't perfect, we are just forgiven.
About the only people who ever raise the "perfect" question are Christians. I, for one, don't ever have to be reminded that Christians are not perfect. I'm quite satisfied to run across the occasional one who isn't a hypocrite. And I think many non-Christians feel that way.
As for being "forgiven" -- I have to ask, "for what?"
For being human? What does this god of yours have against that? And why does your god have so goddam many petty rules?
When you Christians start that "we are all sinners" bullshit, you say much more about your god than you do about humans, you know!
Quote: And, of course, it beats being damned to hell for eternity.....
1) Any god who would condemn anyone (Saddam or Hitler included) to unrelenting, excruciating torture for all of eternity doesn't deserve to have a capital "G."
2) Anyone pretending to love a god who would condemn people to unrelenting, excruciating torture for all of eternity -- should get an acting award. Fear -- abject fear -- should be the only feelings toward such a preposterous god.
My oh my frank, aren't your panties bunched!!!!
The vitriolic hate filled emotion that you exhibit when talking about religion really detracts from the substance of your argument.
Quote:To acknowledge what you do not know - is a display of strength. To pretend you know what you truly don't - is a display of weakness.
Looking pretty weak there frankie boy.
dys: If you were talking about Graham you were probably talking
about this.
Can you point out the truly objectionable parts?
I can't seem to locate them.
maxsdadeo wrote:My oh my frank, aren't your panties bunched!!!!
The vitriolic hate filled emotion that you exhibit when talking about religion really detracts from the substance of your argument.
Quote:To acknowledge what you do not know - is a display of strength. To pretend you know what you truly don't - is a display of weakness.
Looking pretty weak there frankie boy.
I notice you didn't touch on any of the items I raised -- and instead just decided to throw a personal insult a me. Seems to me that says more about "the substance of my arguments" than my supposedly bunch underwear.
Hey...I understand, Max. I wouldn't want to have to defend your position either.
By the way, I wouldn't put the word "pretty" and anyone else's name in the same sentence if I were you.
The reason I once asked you about your avatar was that I thought it was the picture of a woman -- a rather pretty one at that. And supposedly, you are a man.
Poke at the issue, kids, not at each other, please.
timberlandko wrote:Poke at the issue, kids, not at each other, please.
I wasn't poking her....ah....him, I was.....ahhhh....ahhhh....
Yeah, maybe I was.
Okay, I'm back on target now.
Bush is not the only one
Religious Group Helps Lawmakers With Rent
Sun Apr 20, 4:51 AM ET Add Politics - U. S. Congress to My Yahoo!
By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Six members of Congress live in a $1.1 million Capitol Hill town house that is subsidized by a secretive religious organization, tax records show.
The lawmakers, all Christians, pay low rent to live in the stately red brick, three-story house on C Street, two blocks from the Capitol. It is maintained by a group alternately known as the "Fellowship" and the "Foundation" and brings together world leaders and elected officials through religion.
The Fellowship hosts receptions, luncheons and prayer meetings on the first two floors of the house, which is registered with the Internal Revenue Service (news - web sites) as a church.
The six lawmakers ?- Reps. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn.; Bart Stupak, D-Mich.; Jim DeMint, R-S.C.; Mike Doyle, D-Pa.; and Sens. John Ensign, R-Nev. and Sam Brownback, R-Kan. ?- live in private rooms upstairs.
Rent is $600 a month, DeMint said.
"Our goal is singular ?- and that is to hope that we can assist them in better understandings of the teachings of Christ, and applying it to their jobs," said Richard Carver, a member of the Fellowship's board of directors who served as an assistant secretary of the Air Force during the Reagan administration.
The house, valued at $1.1 million, is owned by the C Street Center, a sister organization of the Fellowship. It received more than $145,000 in Fellowship grants between 1997 and 2000, according to IRS records ?- including $96,400 in 1998 for reducing debt.
Its tenants dine together once a week to discuss religion in their daily lives.
"We do have a Bible study," said DeMint, a Presbyterian who asked to move into the house less than a year ago when there was a vacancy. "Somebody'll share a verse or a thought, but mostly it's more of an accountability group to talk about things that are going on in our lives, and how we're dealing with them."
Few in the Fellowship are willing to talk about its mission.
It organizes the annual National Prayer Breakfast attended by the president, members of Congress and dignitaries from around the world. The group leaves its name off the program, even though it spent $924,373 to host the event in 2001, bringing in $606,292 in proceeds, according to the most recent available IRS records, and pays travel expenses for foreign officials to attend.
Doyle, a Catholic from Pittsburgh who moved to C Street about six years ago, got involved with the Fellowship when he began attending weekly prayer breakfasts in the Capitol as a freshman lawmaker in 1995.
Since then, Doyle has helped organize Fellowship-sponsored youth leadership seminars. He was president of the House Prayer Breakfast in 2000.
"My living arrangements are totally appropriate and within the House rules," said Doyle. "There's no direct correlation between the tenants and the Foundation ?- there are tenants who have absolutely zero involvement, and some do. And there's no benefit to live there, other than the fact that it's convenient."
Other than Doyle and DeMint, current and former lawmakers who have lived in the C Street house refused to comment. "We feel like it's nobody's business but our own," said former Rep. Steve Largent (news, bio, voting record), R-Okla., who lived there before leaving Congress to run unsuccessfully for governor in his home state last year.
That secrecy is unsettling to the Rev. Barry Lynn, a United Church of Christ minister who heads watchdog group Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.
"What concerns people is when you mix religion, political power, and secrecy," Lynn said. "Members of official Washington should always be open and direct about the groups they choose to join, just to dispel any concerns that there's an inappropriate or unconscious agenda in these groups."
Lawmakers living under religion's roof is not necessarily problematic, Lynn said, "as long as there are no sweetheart deals that are being made that could trade low rent for access."
The C Street house is not the only religious-run organization that rents to lawmakers.
The United Methodist Church, for example, leases living quarters to lawmakers at its headquarters at 110 Maryland Avenue in northeast Washington, directly across the street from the Supreme Court and the Capitol. Monthly rent for a one-bedroom apartment starts at $960.
"We consider it part of our mission in the ministry to provide housing for members of Congress," said Jim Winkler, a lobbyist for the church. "There's opportunities for you to talk to them. But we don't approach them and ask for their support for anything."
While the Fellowship wants leaders to use Christ's teachings in their daily work, Carver said the group does not seek to improperly influence its C Street tenants.
"We have no issue in legislation before the Congress, and nor would we," Carver said. "And the idea that we would have any quid-pro-quo is really impossible because there's no quid that we're asking for."
Other than the weekly Bible study dinner, DeMint does not feel like he lives in a religious atmosphere, and said he knows very little about the Fellowship.
"We have a lot of discussions and things like that, but if they want to have influence, they're sure not getting their money's worth," he said.
Well, I agree with Frank, Pdiddle, Dys and others. Jesus may have died for my sins, but I never asked him to. I don't know what I've done that's so wrong, other than to have some basic human wishes that if acted upon in their most basic form would do great harm to many. But a wish and an act are different, and even though I've failed to always control myself, I've pretty much managed to improve as I go along. So I'm mystified and always have been about what Jesus had to die for in the first place. As one of the characters in a play about something about Sister Mary Ignacious (sp?) knowing it all (or something) said, "Why did Jesus have to die? Why couldn't God just forgive us.?" Or something like that. It's a good question.
I know, I know, Timber, I appear to be off topic. But I actually think I'm on. Bush, Ashcroft, Falwell, Robertson, Graham, Dobson, and all the other self appointed keepers of (their) faith all think in terms of sin and punishment. And they fail to recognize that there are others who do not share their perspective on the world. It's fine if they want to believe whatever they choose. But their agendas are not up front. They are using stealth to attempt to coerce the people of the world into doing as they see fit. And the really frightening thing about it is, that they are succeeding at the moment. This is perhaps why some of us have our panties in a wad, Max's Dad.
I've had to put up with this level of coercion and manipulation all my life, believing, (mistakenly, I fear) that if I got out from under the roofs of these fundamentalist, evangelical, literal interpretationalists of the Bible churches, I would be free to live my own life and define myself according to what I believe and feel. Now I find they're out there, trying to coerce us all. And I don't like it.
Yes, I think Bush's religious faith inappropriately dictates policy. I would be as upset if it was the Iatolah (how ever one spells that) or David Koresh. If these people trying to force their religious beliefs on me feel they should be redeemed, then let them. But I prefer to have the opportunity to redeem myself.
When all your advisors heave their plastic
At your feet to convience you of your pain
Trying to prove that your conclusions should be more drastic
Won't you come see me, Queen Jane?
Won't you come see me, Queen Jane?
Now when all the clowns that you have commissioned
have died in battle or in vain
And you're sick of all the repetition
Won't you come see me, Queen Jane?
I don't think Jesus died for our sins -- he died because the Romans wanted him outta there. He was too popular, too much of a political/ideological threat. The "died for our sins" bit was added on later -- a Church hooker: You'd Better Listen To Us Or You'll Go To Hell. It's one thing to be religious or to think the world of Jesus, but you've gotta be a flamin' nutcase to believe in a church.
I'm with Lola -- and am deeply suspicious of churches and their political clout. Am just as deeply against a politician who uses religion as part of his message. Take the gloss of piety away from these guys and they're old fashioned bandits operating at a dangerous level.
Tartarin wrote:I don't think Jesus died for our sins -- he died because the Romans wanted him outta there. He was too popular, too much of a political/ideological threat. The "died for our sins" bit was added on later -- a Church hooker: You'd Better Listen To Us Or You'll Go To Hell. It's one thing to be religious or to think the world of Jesus, but you've gotta be a flamin' nutcase to believe in a church.
I'm with Lola -- and am deeply suspicious of churches and their political clout. Am just as deeply against a politician who uses religion as part of his message. Take the gloss of piety away from these guys and they're old fashioned bandits operating at a dangerous level.
Yeah, but it's soooo much easier to tear down and criticize a particular faith or particular tenets of a faith, than it is to have one yourself. It's sooo much easier to be negative than it is to be positive, also.
Okay, okay. Jesus sucks. gotcha.
Snood -- Who says those who respect Jesus's teachings but suspect Christian churches don't have a faith?
Dys,
Queen Jane would be foolish not to at least consider such a tempting invitation.
Answering Max on Graham
maxsdadeo wrote:dys: If you were talking about Graham you were probably talking
about this.
Can you point out the truly objectionable parts?
I can't seem to locate them.
graham wrote:This nation has been attacked, we've been attacked by men who claim to worship Allah. We have been attacked by a people, a group, in the name of Islam, and the clerics, the religious leaders of Islam have not denounced it.
Max, here is what I think is wrong with this statement by F. Graham. First, he uses the term "a people" which would include all Muslims. I don't think there is universal support among Muslims for terrorism. Even if a large percentage of Muslims do approve of terrorism, that does not mean they actively support it. In other words, I think that if you want to understand what is going on, you have to think in terms of degrees of approval.
Secondly, he says Muslim "clerics ...have not denounced it (terrorism)." This is also not true. Among fundamentalists the approval may be very high, but among others it will vary. In the US disapproval is very high.
Graham and a few others seem to want a crusade against all Muslims. This is a sad mistake.
snood: Please do not consider yourself a "failed Christian" anyone who defends one's faith as strongly as do you isn't failed by a long stretch.
Lola said:
Quote:And they fail to recognize that there are others who do not share their perspective on the world. It's fine if they want to believe whatever they choose.
Lola, it isn't their perspective at all, it is God's perspective. The old saw about them being 10 commandments, not 10 suggestions is certainly applicable here.
One may choose to say that they are not subject to God's law just as they may choose to say that they are not subject to the laws of gravity, both put you in the same result, however.
Tartarin said:
Quote:Who says those who respect Jesus's teachings but suspect Christian churches don't have a faith?
People who say this:
Quote:you've gotta be a flamin' nutcase to believe in a church
that's who.
If you believe you will want to be in the word and be with those who are also in the word.
Those who worship at the church of "me, myself and I" are believing in themself not God.
A great idea for the temporal plane, but not to helpful for the eternal.
Bribery
Lara Jakes, Associated Press writer wrote:WASHINGTON - Six members of Congress live in a $1.1 million Capitol Hill town house that is subsidized by a secretive religious organization, tax records show.
BBB, this certainly smacks of bribery. These six Christian men who are receiving subsidized rent in deluxe accommodations plus other perks would appear to be at least walking a fine ethical line. These right wing Christians demand of others an absolute obedience to the letter of the Christian moral code as conceived of and devised by them. Then they themselves, congressmen sworn to serve their country, turn around and wallow in luxuries provided by religious lobbies hoping that they, the congressmen, will vote the "right" way when the time comes.
Why do I feel so sad every time I think of Washington?
