Woman to Woman

By Rodney

January 17, 2005 07:31 AM | Link to this

Diane, are you serious? You stated “If you feel compelled and appreciative of your church’s work, then by all means help it flourish. If you don’t, perhaps they should be doing a better job.” That’s horrid and obviously not the opinion of someone committed to their religion.

Giving to the Church is not like tipping - you don’t do it if the service is good. You do it to help spread the message that you believe in. If you’re Christian, the offering is meant to help spread the Gospel. If you don’t think your church is doing “good enough”, then find another church that is able to reach you. If you don’t want to go to another church, then give your offering to another religious organization.

Point is: the offering isn’t to pay for your entertainment, it’s to spread the Gospel. Give (to help others), or one day you may find eternal life hasn’t been given to you.

By Shanese

January 17, 2005 07:59 AM | Link to this

January 17, 2005 text to be linked

Some celebs who give just may be doing it for free publicity but I think the majority are giving because once they were regular joes with regular bank accounts who wished they could do something financially substantial or fly to a third world country and help deliver medicine or build schools. Now that they are of some financial and celebrity status and have the resources to do it, they are. Even if it is free publicity the money or assistance will do the same thing, give help where help is needed. If you believe in GOD, they will answer to a much higher power on what really motivated them. They will not be blessed if they gave for the wrong reason. That also hold true for tithing. When we speak of tithing we also need to make people aware that some preachers are fleecing their congregations to pay for their new Jacob watch, summer homes, and jets. Let’s not be fooled people, everybody preaching the gospel is not doing GODS work.

By Michael D

January 17, 2005 08:13 AM | Link to this

I think Diane and Shauti have been the victims of the “bad fashion Tsunami.” Ladies…take the day off a update those wardrobes!!

By Randy

January 17, 2005 08:23 AM | Link to this

Rodney, You ask Diane if she is serious, she is, she is the typical secularist who makes church what she wants it to be(a place of rules and regulations and restrictive). Instead of what it is, a place to get closer to the lord and be with others who care about people and are good natured. Its easier for these people to think church is not what they want or need, but for me church is exactly what I need. It’s Great!

By AllabooutME

January 17, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

Diane, people who are in the business of publicity know how publicity is used…natural disasters are such good pr and people who make 27 million in a year need a significant tax deduction…so giving a million slices off their debt, looks really good on your resume, and they can pretend they are as goodly as they act…isnt that where its at? (except at home, note no sizeable donations like millions were sent to say: Florida, Jamacia, Hati etc., after the 4 hurricanes in 2004 by same starlets, presidents and drivers. Indeed Hati a place that needs help the most is on our side of the continent and nobody is helping them…guess there arent good beaches in Hati)

Shaunti: gosh…gee whiz…didnt god create those natural disasters too? so why gve to victims of a disaster when god created the disaster in that area and the victims were INTENDED to be victims because god has a divine plan…this gets into all the little subject-to-interpretation-of-faith dogma about if god is the who tests our faith…should we be so unnaturally giving toward those god is testing at the moment or should we send our 10 percent back to Cobb county to fund textbook sticker mandates? STEP RIGHT UP AND BE HOLY HOLY HOLY… “All he asks is that we give back 10 percent to do his work of outreach and charity.” 10 percent and no guilt…what a payoff…YOU dont even need to do outreach and charity…just have to PAY for it….pay for salvation for 10 percent of your income…did god come up with that number or did the sons of Levi decide it…and now…thanks to modern tv you dont need to go to church…just tithe to televangelists….buy videos of sermons and salvation is YOURS. wow. what a racket.

By Terry

January 17, 2005 09:42 AM | Link to this

And we must relate giving with - Money. That’s the easiest way. Giving money absolves us of any responsibility of genuinely helping those in need!

Take the Homeless - as just one example. If we truly cared about the Homeless - there would be none. There is only a relative few of them as compared to the millions of the rest of us. The solution to their problem would then be simple: Let’s take them in and provide food and shelter - help get them back on their feet. This is an extraordinarily simple solution to the problem.

But we don’t want to be bothered with really helping those that we pretend to care so much about. It’s far easier to donate a few dollars here and there to “help”. Then we can run around telling everyone about how much we “care” - patting ourselves on the back in the self-righteous manner that we are accustomed to.

They’ll still be there next year for us to handout the turkeys on Thanksgiving. And we’ll feel so much better for it!

By Texas

January 17, 2005 09:42 AM | Link to this

Once upon a time there was a rich merchant who had four wives. He loved the fourth wife the most and adorned her with rich robes and treated her to delicacies. He took great care of her and gave her nothing but the best.

He also loved the third wife very much. He was very proud of her and always wanted to show her off to his friends. However, the merchant is always in great fear that she might run away with some other man.

He also, loved his second wife. She is a very considerate person, always patient and in fact is the merchant’s confidante. Whenever the merchant faced some problems, he always turned to his second wife and she would always help him out and tide him through difficult times.

Now, the merchant’s first wife is a very loyal partner and has made great contributions in maintaining his wealth and business as well as taking care of the household. However, the merchant did not love the first wife and although she loved him deeply, he hardly took notice of her.

One day, the merchant fell ill. Before long, he knew that he was going to die soon. He thought of his luxurious life and told himself, “Now I have four wives with me. But when I die, I’ll be alone. How lonely I’ll be!” Thus, he asked the fourth wife, “I loved you most, endowed you with the finest clothing and showered great care over you. Now that I’m dying, will you follow me and keep me company?”

“No way!” replied the fourth wife and she walked away without another word.

The answer cut like a sharp knife right into the merchant’s heart.

The sad merchant then asked the third wife, “I have loved you so much for all my life. Now that I’m dying, will you follow me and keep me company?”

“No!” replied the third wife. “Life is so good over here! I’m going to remarry when you die!” The merchant’s heart sank and turned cold.

He then asked the second wife, “I always turned to you for help and you’ve always helped me out. Now I need your help again. When I die, will you follow me and keep me company?”

“I’m sorry, I can’t help you out this time!” replied the second wife. “At the very most, I can only send you to your grave.” The answer came like a bolt of thunder and the merchant was devastated.

Then a voice called out: “I’ll leave with you. I’ll follow you no matter where you go. “The merchant looked up and there was his first wife.

She was so skinny, almost like she suffered from malnutrition. Greatly grieved, the merchant said, “I should have taken much better care of you while I could have!”

Actually, we all have four wives in our lives…. The fourth wife is our body. No matter how much time and effort we lavish in making it look good, it’ll leave us when we die.

Our third wife? Our possessions, status and wealth. When we die, they all go to others.

The second wife is our family and friends. No matter how close they had been there for us when we’re alive, the furthest they can stay by us is up to the grave.

The first wife is in fact our soul, often neglected in our pursuit of material wealth and sensual pleasure. Guess what? It is actually the only thing that follows us wherever we go. Perhaps it’s a good idea to cultivate and strengthen it NOW rather than to wait until we’re on our death bed to lament.

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Matthew 16:26

And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Thessalonians 5:23

By AD

January 17, 2005 09:46 AM | Link to this

Where is Zack? Silly commentary is needed.

By norman

January 17, 2005 09:47 AM | Link to this

God does not demand the death of a sinner but that he live and PAY.

By Randy

January 17, 2005 10:01 AM | Link to this

Yes Norman, churches are bad they need money to exist. The village idiot(Norman) shows us his wisdom once again.

By Terry

January 17, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this

Speaking of giving - please honor Dr. King today for his enormous contributions to: Civil Rights.

Dr. King led the way in stopping the extraordinary progress by Blacks made between the end of the Civil War and the 1960’s.

I remember him every year for the willing puppet used by the Communist Left to halt the progress of Blacks - that he was.

By Terry

January 17, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this

I know this is not on topic - but just maybe it might divert some of the religious arguments that seem to takeover most of the discussions.

Quote from an AJC article today:

“On the question of race, it’s evident that the sacrifices made by King and others during the struggle for civil rights haven’t been in vain. African-Americans, once denied their full citizenship as a matter of law and culture, have made significant strides since then.”

Here are some of the “significant strides”:

Blacks in America now have a far greater percentage of their population incarcerated - than were prior to the Civil Rights movement.

Black families, who were the most cohesive family unit among all Americans prior to Civil Rights - now have 3 out of 4 children born out of wedlock.

Drugs, which were virtually non-existent in the Black Community prior to Civil Rights - now run rampant in many Black communities.

Illiteracy among Blacks is now much higher than before Civil Rights.

A higher percentage of Blacks are on Welfare than was the case - prior to Civil Rights.

Unemployment among Blacks is higher than before Civil Rights.

A higher percentage of High School drop-outs than before Civil Rights.

Blacks have the highest rate of Aids than any other group.

The suicide rate is higher among Blacks - than before Civil Rights.

Teenage pregnancy is higher than before Civil Rights.

I am not sure how many more “significant strides” the Black Community can endure!

By Randy

January 17, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this

Terry, No offense but Bill Cosby is right.

By Terry

January 17, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

About what?

By Brian Curtis

January 17, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this

To Diane’s point: If your church is not doing good for people, then you certainly shouldn’t give your money and time to them. Moreover, you shouldn’t waste any more time on that church.

The Christian’s duty is to care for the poor and weak in society. If your church doesn’t do that, the question of whether to tithe is irrelevant. You shouldn’t be attending that church at all, let alone giving it money!

By Terry

January 17, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this

Brian,

It might be safe to say, that people who are dissatisfied with their church are not continuing to give money to the church and are probably moving elsewhere. I would imagine that this has always been the case.

By Zack

January 17, 2005 01:04 PM | Link to this

“AD”—I’d expect that comment from someone who obviously is in Norman’s crowd. You all are always making some blanket statement like that.

Giving is like any other postiive thing. It can be done in a manner that looks good on the surface but is really selfishly-intended below it. Heck, someone could change a flat tire for person B and do so simply to impress person C. God sees our motives; other people might or might not suspect them.

As for tithing, God commands us to do it. Yes, we need to find a church that is really doing something for God, not a church that is tolerating, say, abortion, gay marriage, stem-cell research, etc., probably in an attempt to draw more members and therefore increase the weekly offering. Tithe to a church that is standing for the truth, not covering its eyes to it.

By Zack

January 17, 2005 01:18 PM | Link to this

Michael D—You’re out of line in criticizing Diane’s and Shaunti’s outfits. Their outfits are nice.

Terry—You’re trying to divert from the religious arguments?? Did it ever occur to you that the Bible has answers for each one of those problems?

I wonder how many more messes society is going to get itself into before admitting that it’d better get back to the Bible and work on some solutions.

I’ll add this about giving: Even if people give for selfish reasons, at least something good can come out of it. That person later will be held accountable for his selfish intentions.

I was appalled by Target’s decision not to allow The Salvation Army to be outside their stores. I wasn’t surprised, though. After all, Target IS affiliated with Planned Parenthood.

By whiley

January 17, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this

Target IS affiliated with Planned Parenthood?

Then THAT IS WHERE I will spend my money.

Not give it away to any church that only bores us to death with their preaching of sin, using guilt to get people to show up & give up their hard earned cash, stories of the bible over & over & over, singing songs that ALL sound the same, blah blah blah. And if you are dumb enough to feel like you have to give up 10% of your hard earned cash to a church because it’s in some writings that were written thousands of years ago, then that’s just sad.

Isn’t this topic fairly boring? (has giving become a selfish act)

By norman

January 17, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

Whiley: what we need to do is to remove tax-deductibility from contributions to religious bodies, and then to tax churches property tax for the valuable assets they have. Tax enforcement was how the mafia and other criminal organizations were broken. It has worked with Islamic terorist groups mascarading as religious. That will work with the criminal organization of religion.

By Michael D

January 17, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this

Like I said a “bad fashion Tsunami” has swept over our two lovely hosts, Diane and Shuanti. Let the relief effort begin.

By Lyrazel

January 17, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this

No, Wiley, what is so sad is —a vibrant person with a keen intellegent wit like yourself, is not volunteering time beyond shopping. There are kids in Big Brother/Sister who need someone like you, there are homeless shelters where women escaping brutilization and rape would just adore someone who would listen to them, someone who might show them how to use a computer—some disabled man is stuck in an apartment without anyone to talk to…waiting for the Meals On Wheels person to deliver a lunch but wants more just to talk and hold a hand…she/he lives just down your street. Its a boring topic because so many people dont give. Churches now build mega-dome palaces but they dont give mega-bucks because they arent there for charity anymore—you go to big church for feel-good about yourself sermons, but none of the congragation shows up at the Open Door Community shelter to help feed homeless 3 times a day. If the Vatican sold its art collection think of how many could be helped with trillions of dollars in aid.

Rather than give up on charity why not volunteer all those hours spent watching bad tv, surfing for nothing on-line, complaining about all the wrongs of the world. Like so many others I give with my time because I enjoy working with the people and I have met some tremendous people. I enjoy my own life much more and I have been so blessed…so I share my blessings which is more of a joyful reward than money/power/things can ever give me. Great place to start learning to volunteer is any civic charity organization, any religious organization, and medical organizations. The Red Cross is a great way to begin, and it takes only minutes of your precious time to donate blood…not even the amount of time you spend stuck in traffic.

By Whiley

January 17, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

I don’t have time to volunteer for anything due to the fact I have kids.

I do my part by not using drugs, not drinking & driving, not participating in drive by shootings, not robbing anyone, not molesting or murdering. In other words not being a burden on society.

And the only shopping I get to do is grocery. Why don’t you guys volunteer instead of drinking beer at a sports bar? (don’t assume since I’m female all I do is shop)

Why not require all DUI offenders to help with this stuff? There are plenty of those people around.

By TrueBlue

January 17, 2005 04:10 PM | Link to this

Giving is a personal thing. Some say “Tis better to give than receive.” Shhh…don’t tell. You have to find that out on your own.

By James

January 18, 2005 07:37 AM | Link to this

It amazes me how you think the tithe is only to the church. Your tithe may include contributions made to help those nasty sinners too. Many churches use this money to help the preacher buy Rolexes and beach houses. Some ministers are true and honest. Make your choices. Just handing over 10% to a church is not going to save your soul.

And Zack-open minded churches that support gay marriage, stem cell research, etc. are not blind. They have a different world view from yours. The biggest problem with our society is people like you feel you are 100% right all the time. Well, guess what-you are not. Your minister is human. The words in your bible were written/translated by a human. Open your heart to God. Listen to what he is telling you. Don’t just listen to some human tell you what you have to believe. Then, as God instructed-Judge not and Love thy neighbor as thyself. (Yes, I know that is written in the Bible, but I believe it to be true in my heart) God knows your heart. Give as you feel you should. So many churches demand their members harden their hearts. Open up-it’s a big world, and God does not belong to you alone.

By Texas

January 18, 2005 07:51 AM | Link to this

Yes, the bible was written and translated by men, But for those Christians who believe in the Bible, you should also know that those men where inspired by God. In addition, and in reference to that translation by men, What part do you believe is in error and why? Aspire to inspire before you expire!

By Dan

January 18, 2005 08:26 AM | Link to this

Has giving BECOME a selfish act. Not at all, it always was a selfish act and always will be. When people observe others that appear to be worse off than themselves, they may feel some pity or guilt that they like to call compassion. Making a donation eases that feeling and they feel better about themselves. But make no mistake the reason you give is to make yourself feel better.

By Vincent

January 18, 2005 09:04 AM | Link to this

Is this really something we should even talk about? Bush announced on Monday that his “intelligence” reports are telling him Iran is refusing to disarm and they are hiding WMD’s. Uhhhh…….. Let’s see the track record thus far of Bush’s “intelligence” team - 9/11 came and nobody took the blame for missing that cue; Iraq has no WMD’s and we have lost so many lives and crippled so many humans, giving it a number is vile; 140 billion dollars gone; no exit plan for Iraq; and North Korea somehow slipped in six additional nuclear arms that can wipe out LA in a few hours; and now “intelligence” says those evil doers in Iran need to be given a “what for”. Hey, if we “give” Iran a “what for”, is that a selfish act?

By Whiley

January 18, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this

What part do you believe is in error and why?

Well, lets start with the The Da Vinci Code.

By Sheila

January 18, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this

In response to Shaunti’s comment: He says “true religion is caring for the widows and orphans in their distress.â€?

If that were the case then it would be great. But since you go to church on a regular basis then you should know that many times church’s use the money for many other things that do not include widows and orphans. They build huge churches or pay the clergy enormous salaries.

Let’s not fool each other into believing that all the church does is help people who are in need - I assure you in most cases the pastor, priest, rabbi, etc. make a ton more money than those widows and orphans could even imagine.

By Texas

January 18, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this

The Da Vinci Code is not the Bible.

By norman

January 18, 2005 10:01 AM | Link to this

The Da Vinci Code is fiction, and so it the Bible.

By steve

January 18, 2005 10:05 AM | Link to this

Whiley - You do not believe the Bible but you believe the Da Vinci Code is factual? Dan Brown is a gifted novelist, but his facts are far from accurate. Though he claims they at outset of the book that his descriptions of history and rituals are fact, they are far from it. For example, he says, “Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ’s human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike” . You will not find that an ANY respected history book. Constantine did, in a letter to Eusebius, did order the preparation of “fifty copies of the sacred Scriptures.” But nowhere in the letter does he command that any of the gospels be embellished in order to make Jesus appear more godlike.

Like I said, Dan Brown is a gifted novelist, but a lousy historian.

By the way, I always find it interesting that people outside the church think that pastors make too much money. For your information, the televanglists on TV are the exception, not the rule. I am on staff at a very large church, and I can assure, none of the pastoral staff is rich (except for one, but he made his money as an executive with Bellsouth before becoming a pastor!!)

By ROBIN

January 18, 2005 10:10 AM | Link to this

Shaunti, very well said your example on the power of giving is right on the money. Yes we do have those who give for the wrong reason, but i do belive that we have some really good people in the world who thinks of the well being of others. Thank you so much also for the break down in paying tithes alot of people dont really understand excellent.

By norman

January 18, 2005 10:23 AM | Link to this

The Da Vinci Code is a novel, based little on history and a lot on a certain wishful thinking about the Gnostic gospels found in Egypt in the 20th Century. It appeals to those suspicious about the Church and its teachings, all the standard churches. The Bible is a collection of books over a period of some 800 years written by many different people. It includes history, propaganda, ideology, poetry, moral teaching, and wisdom literature, as well as apocalyptic delusion stemming from disappointment about the absence of God in human affairs. The Bible is only marginally more believable than the Da Vinci Code. the Bible is a work of literature, splendid as the Illiad and the Bhaghavad Gita and perhaps the Koran. Inspiring reading but nothing therein to be considered infallible or coming from some god.

Those who constantly quote the Bible are basically frightened that there may be no objective meaning in the universe; they need some God to tell them what is real. But they have no basis for believing one alleged God over another, one scriptural volume over another. If one person quotes the Bible, another can quote a Buddhist book, another the Koran, and why not the Illiad?

Religion is the desperate attempt of people to kill their pain. In Marx’s misunderstood words, the opium of the people.

By lozen

January 18, 2005 11:14 AM | Link to this

Vincent, I agree. Weapons of mass distraction…While our neighbor’s children are dying and being maimed in Iraq, a war based on a total and complete lie, let’s debate “has giving become a selfish act?” When they finally tell us they’re not looking for WMD anymore because, guess what?, there really were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all, let’s talk all day about Brad and Jennifer breaking up. When GW is asked if all of this has caused his credibility to suffer and he says “Saddam Hussein was an evil man.” He doesn’t even apologize for lying to us. Remember the trucks outside the buildings that Powell showed to prove they were moving WMD? Lies, it was all lies. So the tv networks spend hours on the Michael Jackson trial! And here we debate this important topic. And Terry your comments about Martin Luther King are so untrue. This incredible man taught love, caring for your neighbor, rich people taking care of poor people - just the same stuff Jesus taught!

By norman

January 18, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

Just before he killed himself in prison in Nuremberg Marshall Hermann Goering told the international court that it was not hard to get people to go to war. All that was needed was consistent propaganda, the identification of an enemy, and government encouragement. The Germans were thus led to support a war which brought them defeat and ignominy. I am worried that it is not hard to do the same with the American people. Karl Rove, Bush, Cheney, and the other criminals in DC have succeeded thus far in hoodwinking a majority of American voters. Those of us not wanting a fascistoid republic had better get mobilized to bring Bushism down.

By lozen

January 18, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this

Yes Terry it’s been all of 40 years since black people in this country marched, were beaten and killed and thrown in jail, their churches blown up, little girls murdered in church, and a loving, courageous leader shot down by some coward just for the simple civil rights that should have always been theirs. It’s been 40 years and the black community has problems just as do all communities. I don’t know where you’re getting your “facts” and I question your “facts”. MLK and the civil rights movement did not cause the problems you cite. The deterioration of the family applies to both white, black and all other ethnic groups. Drugs were practically nonexistent in the white community prior to 1960 but now run rampant. You ignore the gains of the civil rights movement and speak only of the problems which leads me to believe you just might be a racist!

By Akeya

January 18, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this

In my opinion, giving is rarely altruistic.
It’s usually peppered with a healthy dose of making yourself feel good by doing something for others. But is there anything really wrong with that, as long as those in need are assisted?
Hmmm…

Terry- it seems to me that you are saying that Blacks were better off before the Civil Rights movement of the 60s. Am I incorrect in what I am thinking? It amazes me that you have not cited other reasons for the increase in these problems after the CRM, as any good statistician would do.

By Michael D

January 18, 2005 12:29 PM | Link to this

You people need to Stop all this bickering and GET TO WORK!!!!

By lozen

January 18, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this

Michael D., Stop trying to interrupt grown ups or we’ll have to give you a good spanking!

By lozen

January 18, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

It’s a slow day on this board so, taking a tack from Texas, here’s a long, long thing written by a minister about marriage esp. for Zack, Chuck, and Randy:

I confess. I have some major problems. First, I read. Second, I read the Bible. Third, I actually study the Bible. Fourth, I read “Context,” the Martin Marty commentary on religion and culture. Articles from his December 2004, edition have motivated me to organize and write my own commentary about Biblical marriage. These days we hear a lot about maintaining traditional marriage. The people who talk this way end up making some reference to the Bible. Each time I hear this kind of talk, I suspect that 1.) The person does not read the Bible, 2.) The person certainly does not study the Bible and 3.) Possibly the person does not read. First, we should recognize how marriage worked in the Bible. Marriage was a union between a man and one or more women. Let’s face it. The biggest names of the Old Testament were polygamists - Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon. A man owned as many women as he could afford. He owned them in three categories. He owned wives, he owned concubines and he owned slaves. He regularly had intercourse with all the women he owned. He had children by all the women he owned. Second, adultery was punishable by death. When the Ten Commandments were given, the commandment about adultery had a specific meaning. Adultery occurred when a man had sexual intercourse with a woman he did not own. The sin was not against the woman, not even against his favorite wife. The sin was against the man who owned the woman. It was a very serious matter. The Mosaic law is very clear. Adultery was punishable by death. To have sexual intercourse with an unowned woman was also serious. The punishment was simple. He had to marry her. By this standard, Bill Clinton’s punishment would not be impeachment. He would have been forced to marry Monica. Move over, Hillary. Third, divorce is prohibited. What you got is what you get. Jesus really came down hard on this one. The Old Testament allowed a man, if he was unhappy with his wife, to get rid of her by writing a bill of divorcement. However, Jesus rejected that and said that no divorce is allowed, ever! I know a lot of men who would like to exercise the Old Testament standard. However, Jesus did not hesitate to say “but I say unto you” when he disagreed with Old Testament standards. He cut no one any slack. Divorce was out! Fourth, women had no say about the selection of a husband. In fact, she did not have a say about much of anything. A woman was owned by her father until title was transferred to a husband. The deal was between two men. Women were property. A woman’s place in society was set by the man who owned her. This arrangement is defined in the Old Testament property codes in the book of Leviticus. The truth is that the standards for marriage, which are usually identified with Christians, have been constantly evolving for thousands of years. In more than 45 years of pastoral responsibilities, I have not known a single person, man or woman, who would commit to Biblical standards for marriage. In my ponderings, I have wondered just how a marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution would be worded to fulfill the Bible traditions and standards for marriage. I can’t get anything to work. I have concluded that the idea of a marriage amendment should be dropped. Life would be so much simpler if I stopped reading.

The Rev. Howard Bess

By Whiley

January 18, 2005 02:23 PM | Link to this

A man owned as many women as he could afford.

THAT’S one of the many reasons I don’t take the bible too seriously. Why would any woman?

By Randy

January 18, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

I talked to my brother last night, a guy from our home town, who 25 years ago was dealing drugs, very negative on church and Jesus, has now accepted Jesus as his lord and savior and is driving the Church bus. Things come around and there is hope for all of those who don’t know Jesus in a personal way, even you Norman. Also, Jane Roe was on Hannity and Colmes last night, she is the lady that got abortion legal in 1973 Roe V Wade. Now she is a Christian and is putting forth a amendment to reverse the decision and have abortion(murder of innocents)reversed. Praise the lord.

By Steve

January 18, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this

Lozen, I know we are getting off subject here, but I would like to make a short response to your post if I may.

The man who wrote that is an extremely liberal minister in Alaska and he was writing in support of gay marriage. However, his arguement displays very poor hermeneutics. He spoke of the need to keep Bible passages in their proper context (I agree - very important!), however he then violated this principle himself.

One thing about the people in the Bible we need to keep in mind. The Bible is brutally honest about them. Yes, polygamy was very common in those times. Many of the heroes of the faith had multiples wives. The Bible also makes it very clear that God designed marriage to be one man and one woman for a lifetime. Remember, when it comes to the narratives in the Bible, we get to see the warts and all. Just because men had multiple wives does not mean that God approved of it. King David had Bathsheba’s husband murdered. Does that mean God approves of murder? Of course not.

Now, what was the original topic?…

By norman

January 18, 2005 04:14 PM | Link to this

Commone! God has nothing to do with the Bible.

By Whiley

January 18, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this

Randy, that’s really sad about Jane Roe. She was harassed & frightened & made to feel bad. Now she can’t think for herself & feels love from people that embrace her only because she was the poster child for abortion rights. How great a triumph for the religious right to convert Jane Roe. They don’t care about her, they care about winning. That isn’t charity, that’s cruel. And they certainly don’t do anyone a favor with their anti abortion nonsense. If they really truly cared about the “unborn” they would focus on creating a safe available birth control for all. And why doesn’t every church have an orphanage attached to their very large buildings?

So what exactly does one do to accept Jesus Christ? What exactly does that mean? And how much of my hard earned paycheck do I have to fork over to belong to this club?

By mit

January 18, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this

show me where it says god designed marriage to be one man and one woman. there was no such thing in biblical times they all had more than one wife. fanatics are the only people who read and relate bibical text word for word and you see what they do. i don’t know one preacher who follows the bible word for word. if that was the case why is everyone on here fine about divorce? fine with giving your child(ern) away? or fine with killing for jesus?

By lozen

January 18, 2005 05:22 PM | Link to this

Hey Steve, Do I care that someone has labeled Rev. Bess a liberal? Nope. Do I care that he was arguing for gay marriage? Nope. I think if people want to get married they should be able to get married, whether they’re green or polka dot or gay or aliens. It’s just none of my business. Is what he says accurate or not? Did all the bible patriarchs have many wives, concubines and slaves? Did Yahweh tell them it was wrong and punish them for doing so? Is what you say accurate or not? Where exactly in the bible does god make it plain that marriage was only for one man and one woman? I’ve never read that. I believe from my study of the bible that what Rev. Bess says is true. It’s true that women were owned by men all their lives, first father, then husband, then oldest son if she survived her husband. That was fine with Yahweh and that’s one reason I don’t like him. Neither Yahweh nor Jesus ever said slavery was wrong; I decided that for myself! Yahweh was more concerned with not eating pork and not allowing the mentally ill into the temple! It is true that the meaning of marriage has changed many times over the past 2,000 years. It will continue to change over the next 2,000 years. In 50 years people will look back on the whole debate about gay marriage the way we look back on laws that kept blacks and whites from marrying 50 years ago.

By Texas

January 19, 2005 07:41 AM | Link to this

“If I were the Prince of Darkness, I would want to engulf the whole world in darkness. And I would have one-third of the real estate and four-fifths of the population, but I wouldn’t be happy until I had the ripest apple on the tree.”

So I’d set about, however necessary, to take over the United States.

I’d subvert the churches first; I’d begin with a campaign of whispers.

With the wisdom of a serpent I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: “Do as you please.”

To the youth I would whisper, “The Bible is a myth.”

I would convince them that man made God instead of the other way around.

I would confide that what’s bad is good and what’s good is “square.” In the ears of the young married I would whisper that work is debasing, that cocktail parties are good for you.

And to the old I would teach to pray after me: “Our Father, who art in Washington…”

And then I’d get organized; I’d educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting, so that everything else would appear dull and uninteresting.

I’d threaten television with dirtier movies and vice versa.

I’d peddle narcotics to whom I could; I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction; I’d tranquilize the rest with pills.

If I were the Devil I’d soon have families at war with themselves, churches at war with themselves, and nations at war with themselves; until each in its turn was consumed. And with promises of higher ratings I’d have mesmerizing media fanning the flames.

If I were the Devil I’d encourage schools to refine young intellects but neglect to discipline emotions: let those run wild. Before you know it, you’d have to have drug-sniffing dogs and metal detector at every school house door. Within a decade I’d have prisons overflowing.

With flattery and promises of power I would get the courts to do what I construe as against God and in favor of pornography.

I’d designate an atheist to front for me before the highest courts and I’d get the preachers to say, “She’s right.” Thus, I could evict God from the courthouse, then from the school house, and then from the Houses of Congress.

And in His own churches I would substitute psychology for religion and deify science. I would lure priests and pastors into misusing boys, girls, and church money.

If I were the Devil I would make the symbol of Easter an egg and the symbol of Christmas a bottle.

If I were the Devil I’d take from those who have and give it to those who want it, until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious.

What’ll you bet that I couldn’t get whole States to promote gambling as the way to get rich?

I would caution against extremes: in hard work, in patriotism, and in moral conduct.

I would convince the youth that marriage is old-fashioned, but swinging is more fun; that what you see on television is the way to be; and thus I could undress you in public and I could lure you into bed where there are diseases for which there is no cure.

Then I would separate families, putting children in uniform, women in coal mines and objectors in slave-labor camps.

In other words, if I were the Devil, I’d just keep doing what I’m doing now — it’s working.

[ Paul Harvey — from Jim and Paula ]

By Terry

January 19, 2005 08:19 AM | Link to this

Lozen,

“Yes Terry it’s been all of 40 years since black people in this country marched, were beaten and killed and thrown in jail, their churches blown up, little girls murdered in church, and a loving, courageous leader shot down by some coward just for the simple civil rights that should have always been theirs.”

No, black people did not march. A relative few did - and the vast majority of those were teenagers. Most black adults of the time disapproved of it. There were very, very few blacks just “beaten and killed” - and those responsible should have (and many did) pay the ultimate price for it. And neither were “little girls” murdered in church. A church bombing in Birmingham that did take the lives of a few little girls - was tragic indeed. But to paint a picture of “little girls being murdered in church” in such a way that it insinuates widespread and mass killings of little girls - is preposterous.

Martin Luther King Jr. was not “courageous” - and you can’t point to anything he ever did that would attest to it. MLK was really a nobody that the Media made a hero because he was their puppet-for-cause. Malcolm X could draw more attention and bigger crowds in the black community on an hour’s notice - than that MLK bunch could in weeks of planning. But the Media had no use for Malcolm and so they portrayed him as an outcast and a rebel.

“It’s been 40 years and the black community has problems just as do all communities. I don’t know where you’re getting your “factsâ€? and I question your “factsâ€?.”

Where do I get my facts? It’s called living, observing and participating in the real world. But if you want documentation just come to the AJC everyday and there will be an article about many of the local Black Leaders - citing the very things I mentioned. It’s all around you - just take a look!

“MLK and the civil rights movement did not cause the problems you cite.”

The Civil Rights movement is what stopped the progress by Blacks. Civil Rights was created specfically for that purpose. Blacks had made more progress in 100 years than all the rest of us since the nation’s founding and they were getting too close to being a part of mainstream society - so the Left had to stop it!

The rest of what you wrote was just more of the same willingness to ignore the obvious in order to uphold some sanctimonious notion that makes you feel good about yourself. And you need to take a much deeper look at who the real racists are - it’s certainly not me!

By Whiley

January 19, 2005 08:25 AM | Link to this

Ya whatever “control, control, guilt, guilt” how much money do you want Texas?

I don’t care what anyone thinks of when I donate & where I donate. Ya do what you can when you can. And because you want to not because your soul is being verbally threatened.

By Texas

January 19, 2005 08:58 AM | Link to this

Whiley, I don’t want your money. I only wish you Love. I hope you find someday, as Randy has pointed out, true peace. The message of Faith is Love, and I wish you Love. Your donations are just that. I believe you will be rewarded in Heaven by your actions on this earth. I don’t think your soul is in jeopardy if you give or don’t give. God is all for-giving. It’s between you and Him. May God Bless You

By Vincent

January 19, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this

This is the best free entertainment in Atlanta. Shaunti & Dianne, thank you for posing a question without a religious reference. And thank you everybody for turning it into another installment of “HIS Life to Live”.

By Terry

January 19, 2005 09:17 AM | Link to this

Lozen,

Let me point out one other thing to you.

Step back and take a close look at what the whole Civil Rights idea is. Not the fanciful wording of the legislation or the self-righteous and utopian proclamations of it - but the realistic and pragmatic application of it.

To begin with - Civil Rights was created expressly for Blacks”. All this flowery rhetoric about the inclusion of *all people - is just babble by those who are self-important and want to be praised for their display of supposed wisdom, concern and compassion. But wipe away all the pap - and it’s ALL about Blacks.

And what has the pratical application of Civil Rights been? By design, it has taken one race of people and convinced them that the whole world is against them because of the color of their skin. It has influenced one race of people to believe that Federal laws and regulations will bring them equality. It has taken away the self-reliance and self-confidence of an entire race of people and replaced that with the notion that they just need to exist in order to be re-paid for all wrongs of the past. The nonsensical notion of: Equality. It has created the idea that Blacks are to be forever identified by their color and that their color places them in a group which is to be guided as a whole - without regard to their own merits as an individual.

I could go on and on about this…but what should be obvious to all - is that Blacks have been made a segregated race within our society. Not a part of our society. The fact that Blacks exist among us and have all these supposed rights on paper - does not constitute inclusion in the real sense.

It was meant to be this way by those real racists who could not accept the idea that Blacks were rapidly becoming an integral part of this society just like everyone else. The racists devised Civil Rights as the mechanism to keep them out - and have continually gone around tooting their own horn for being the saintly protectors of the Blacks. While our society is too busy and ignorant to know the difference.

By Boscoe

January 19, 2005 10:12 AM | Link to this

Terry, God is not all forgiving. You have a false security that all is forgiven. But is this not sheer insanity in sin to believe that you may offend your God and break His rules and enter? Do not fall for the error created by satan through mankind that all will be saved in the end. Many have passed over the veil, never having this opportunity to make amends, and have been sent to the darkest pit of hell. “In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin.” - Ecclesiasticus 7:40

By norman

January 19, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this

Well I was wondering where that inqusitor from Hell, Boscoe, was. He is back with wisdom from the medieval blackness.

I bet he was chagrined to find himself with a black archbishop of Atlanta. Don’t worry, he will be equal opportunity pedaphile protector.

By Boscoe

January 19, 2005 10:23 AM | Link to this

Terry, well said! That’s exactly why those members of the black community that excell are torn down by those supposedly there to uphold Civil Rights for the entire race. Hi Norman. I only came back because I miss you too!

By Shell

January 19, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this

Some people do give selflessly; I was raised (in a good PA home!) to give unto others or do for others w/no thought of recompense. Many people of the rich and or influencial do give as good pr. Many companies do give as good pr. It sickens me to give and tell. Just do the deed! Home Depot is good for that. Walmart does it too. They give to the community but their goal is to get a foothold in that community. They put up their stores and destroy the fabric of local businesses. Yes, some people do feel bad and do give, that’s fine. We are human. I don’t think that feeling bad about someone else’s situation is a bad thing. Not doing anything to help is the worst thing.

By lozen

January 19, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this

Hi Terry, You say, “And what has the pratical application of Civil Rights been? By design, it has taken one race of people and convinced them that the whole world is against them because of the color of their skin.” Don’t you think maybe the segregation, lynchings, ‘whites only’ drinking fountains, lunchcounters and restrooms, second rate education of blacks, having to sit in the back of the bus and then give up your seat to a white man if you were a black woman (like Rosa Parks) had already done that before the civil rights movement? I do.

By lozen

January 19, 2005 11:11 AM | Link to this

Boscoe, “Many have passed over the veil, never having this opportunity to make amends, and have been sent to the darkest pit of hell”. How in the world do you presume to know this?

By Terry

January 19, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this

Lozen,

I don’t see the same thing you do.

When the Civil War ended - Segregation was mandated to the South. Yet, when you take a look at the decades that followed - Whites and Blacks were coming closer together.

I don’t see it as Rosa Parks sitting in the back of the bus. I see the normal and natural progression of things that made it possible for her to get on the bus - period. And it wasn’t Federal Laws that were responsible for this - it was the natural coming together of people for people who it was once demanded that they be separate.

I don’t see Blacks being relegated to the back of the lunch room, I see the incredible and natural progress which got Blacks into the restaurant - in the first place. Again, this did not happen because of Federal Laws.

Yes, lynchings and the like did take place - but you have to put it into perspective. These things were done to a relative few - by a relative few. All we needed to have done, was to have imposed swift and harsh punishment to those who were responsible.

I have no doubt that if we would have simply addressed the real problems where they really occurred and let the natural progression of things continue to go uninterrupted, Blacks and Whites would have melted into a true integrated society via the natural progression of things - and no one would have noticed!

But this didn’t happen - take a good look around you today! This didn’t happen because there were people who did not want this to happen! These people are the real racists in our society - and they’ve gotten away with it! They’ve convinced millions of people that it is the guy with the Confederate Flag or someone who uses the N-Word or some other such silly accusations - as being the “racists” among us. That’s just plain nonsense. The real racists in our society are those who have created an environment where Blacks as a whole are far more segregated today - than they ever were before the advent of: Civil Rights.

Ignore the rhetoric of today and the legend of the past. If you look at the tremendous progress of Blacks before the 1960’s and look at the ever-declining Black Community today - how can any reasoned person conclude that Civil Rights was responsible for some imaginary progress…?

By Boscoe

January 19, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this

Lozen, keep in mind that this was said in reply to the statement that “God is all forgiving”. This having been said, it is a dogma of the Church that God cast satan into hell. The Bible also tells us that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. I think it’s resonable to assume that those that do not follow God’s will are cast out or destroyed. This is hardly a characteristic of an all forgiving God. Likewise, those that follow satan’s will are also cast out. Those that live their life offending God and suddenly come to their end without the opportunity to make amends to God…..well I don’t think it’s difficult to assume what happens to them. This also, is something taught by the Church.

By Boscoe

January 19, 2005 12:19 PM | Link to this

Norman, to bad your atheist buddy Michael Newdow had to waste countless tax payer dollars just to be told NO again! I see the ACLU was nowhere to be found for this case. I thought they were staunch supporters of this principal. Why is it that the ACLU only takes on small towns that can’t afford the ACLU legal bills?

By Akeya

January 19, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this

Jane Roe’s name is Norma McCorvey, and I’ve met her. She’s not wrapped very tight.

Terry- you need to read your textbooks again. But then, the textbooks here in Georgia are probably too old to be taken seriously.

Had it not been for the Civil Rights movement and its residual effects, I would not be sitting here giving my opinion without being hunted down, beaten, and possibly raped for being an uppity n*.

I also could not afford the opportunity to go to lunch daily with my coworkers (most of whom are white) without being questioned or thrown out of the restaurant while my coworkers are harrassed for cohorting with blacks and being n* lovers.

In what world have you been living?

By Randy

January 19, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this

Whiley, I just read your post from yesterday, it doesn’t cost you anything to accept Jesus as your lord and savior, it is a free gift. You just have to accept it. What happends is you may feel so great after accepting his gift you want to help others know the same thing, that is where effort comes into play. God Bless!

By Randy

January 19, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this

Whiley, There should be no guilt associated with accepting Jesus as your lord and savior, its the same king of love you felt towards your mother when you were a baby. His love is unconditional and your can be also. He gives you a gift(eternal salvation and life) and you accept it. He can’t look at sin and we are all sinful. I know I am.

By Whiley

January 19, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this

What exactly does accepting Jesus Christ as my savior technically mean? I don’t get anything out of going to church, don’t take the bible so seriously, although I believe a good portion of the bible really did happen as it’s written today. (stories get changed over the years/centuries) I don’t think some of religious rules/views are logical to me. And I certainly don’t want to bother anybody else & try to convert anyone from what they believe. Anyone or group that declares war in the name of God is completely insane. I really have no interest in sitting in church listening to sermons based on an afterlife we have NO PROOF of what it’s all about. I don’t think we are supposed to know. Can you honestly think that “God” set this whole universe up & created sinful humans only to imply that the only way to have an afterlife is to “believe” in his son? That he created his son only to die for our sins? What’s the point of making THOSE rules? How logical is that? That we have blind faith in primitive writings that from a time when we were very illogical & backward? Why does “God” require that we believe blindly without proof that he/she exists? Wait & see who gets to live forever & who doesn’t. What’s the point of that?
Like God is having a good ole time with this game of his.

Does that make sense? It doesn’t at all to me. Does that make me bad? Does that mean I don’t/won’t accept Jesus?

Sorry for the questions, I really don’t know.

By hollie a ryder

January 19, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this

The bible may be interpreted to mean almost anything as can the primary written word of any religion. The mentally constructed reason for giving is truly known by only one person, the donor. When giving occurs for a reason other than aiding one or more persons through a socially acceptable conduit, one logically concludes that such a donor is a hypocrite and worthy of scorn rather than praise. Who among us is capable of honestly knowing what is in anothers thought processes?

By norman

January 19, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

There was a story this morning that surprised, saying the Spanish Catholic church was allowing the use of condoms to prevent Aids. But by the afternoon the inquisitors had gotten to Spain again and the Spanish church was forced to recant and say Aids are better than condoms. Can anyone really have expected differently? When I got a letter from a Catholic charity asking for funds for Aids victims I wrote back refusing help, saying that the Church had probably been responsible for many Aids cases through its sexual misteachings. Giving them money is like putting bishops and priests in charge of children. NEVER AGAIN.

Boscoe: Newdow did not have my support because following St. Voltaire I do not push anything to those extremes. Better to ridicule Christians than to take them seriously. A prayer at Fascist Bush’s inaugural won’t hurt anyone. The devil will take care of him enough.

By Terry

January 19, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

Akeya,

You hit the nail on the head whether you know it or not - Textbooks!

Our society has spent far too much time with our heads buried in textbooks and not enough time with our eyes open - witnessing reality.

Had it not been for the Civil Rights movements and its “residual” effects, you or many others like you, might own more of the businesses - instead of working at them.

Of course that is going to get harder and harder when statistically you have 3 out 4 children born out of wedlock, a higher and higher percentage of black men locked away in prison - and about half of black teenagers unable to complete high school, read and write - or both.

But then again, maybe a bunch of White Leftists and Uncle Tom Civil Rights Leaders making you a bunch a promises and paying lip-service to you, complaining about Confederate Flags and all other such petty complaints as they have for the past 40 years - is good enough for you!

And if so - fine. But my question to you is: If you think that a bunch of Federal Laws is what makes it possible for people to live in better racial harmony - what world do you live in…?

By lozen

January 19, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this

Terry, you need to listen to Akeya. I know growing up in the south I never knew a black person because we went to different schools and lived in different neighborhoods in the 50’s. When I went to work in the early 60’s I never had black co-workers. Now my supervisor is black; I work with many black people. I have black neighbors. From what I saw in the 50’s and 60’s (and still hear from rascist relatives here in the south) I am almost certain things would not have changed. You say “The real racists in our society are those who have created an environment where Blacks as a whole are far more segregated today - than they ever were before the advent of: Civil Rights.” I don’t believe we are more segregated today and that is based on what I see daily. You say the Left stopped the progress of blacks? I’ve heard many things blamed on the “left” whatever that is but this is preposterous. And please don’t try to tell me a man who preached good for evil, love for hate, non-violence as a way to change the world in this violent country was not courageous. How many people do you know who are willing to go to jail to make the world a better place? How many people have you ever known who walked down a street being pelted with rocks to make a better future for children? I really do not begin to understand where you’re coming from.

By Randy

January 19, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

Whiley, Here is what accepting Jesus as your lord and savior means. You are probably a “good” person in your own eyes. However, have you broken any of the 10 commandments? Have you ever lied, stolen(even something small), taken the lord’s name in vain, looked a someone in lust(other than your spouse) or coveted(wanted something, someone else has)? If you have done any of these and there are 5 more commandments, you have sinned(or gone against God). When your judgement day happends and you are standing before God(he has to be the same with everybody, no special treatment, or it wouldn’t be fair) WILL YOU BE FOUND INNOCENT OR GUILTY? Hint. Everybody would be found guilty, as nobody is perfect, not one. So the only out(exemption) is Jesus Christ. He died on the cross to take your and my sins(everybodys) on his shoulders so we would not have to answer the questions. Get on your knees and say the following prayer “God I am a sinner, sin seperates me from you, remove that sin and come into my heart and be my lord and savior” When you say that and mean it you are saved by Jesus and he takes your sins onto him. God Bless!!!

By Randy

January 19, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this

Whiley, Also, God has proven to me that he exists and has done it in a logical way. The short of it is, when the universe came into being, whenever that was, things don’t create themselves out of thin air, so God does absolutely exists.

By whiley

January 19, 2005 04:56 PM | Link to this

Guess I’m going to hell in a hand basket. If I got down on my knees & begged for forgiveness I’d feel kinda ridiculous. Can’t help it. That’s how I feel & I won’t pretend I feel otherwise because I’m afraid of what others will think. So, sex offenders & murderers can get into heaven & I can’t because I don’t fall on the ground groveling to the heavens? I’m not sure heaven has a lot of people I’d like to share eternity with then.

Wonderful.

By Terry

January 19, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this

Lozen,

It is irrelevant as to why MLK marched down the street. The fact is, HE had absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with the enactment of Civil Rights. The fact that a man “marched down the street” - is meaningless.

MLK did not make even one child’s future any “better”. That is all a bunch of hooey and legend. No man marching with a bunch of teenagers has ever accomplished a damn thing!

MLK was nothing but a poster-child for a cause. And if it hadn’t of been him - it would have been someone else. The Leftists were going to complete their agenda with or without Martin Luther King Jr…!

By Randy

January 20, 2005 07:21 AM | Link to this

Whiley, I know how you feel, I felt the same way. However, what really scares me is standing in front of the creator of this universe(the one who created wind, who created fire, who put the sun at just the right distance so that we would not burn up or freeze to death, that created DNA so that we can be identified no matter what and be unique, there are millions of these examples). Without the “COVER” of Jesus Christ, who is going to step in at that point(Judgement day) and say “This one is with me, he is forgiven”. That’s what scares me a billion times more than getting on my knees to asking Jesus into my heart. If you feel uncomfortable getting on your knees, you don’t have to, just close your eyes and say the prayer and mean it. It’s not unusual for you to feel this way, Pride, is one of the 7 deadly sins. But it is extremely important that you do the prayer. Life is like, where Pinto in Animal House is about to have sex, remember the movie where “Evil” is on one side and a Angel is on the other, it just depends on which one you are LISTENING TO. I’m sure Evil will appear in this forum again shortly, to try to convince you otherwise. Probably thru someone who doesn’t even realize evil is using them. God Bless! I’m praying for you.

By Lyrazel

January 20, 2005 08:31 AM | Link to this

Ok, so what happens to the money when you tithe? Does anyone ever ask questions of their church ministers and laypersons how the money is spent? We have some very religious people here who attend church reglarly in this forum and I am very curious if they believe their tithes to going to holy work, or to payroll, building costs, or if they know how any of it it is spent? Is your investment with the church safely doing goodly deeds or is it a slush fund? Who has access to the fund at your church? Should you care or just blind faith trust? Are church-going people more vunerable to cons because they want to always appear/act holy and expect other members of the congragation are equally as holy motivated because of the amount of scripture quoted? Just how safe is the money you tithe? Consider this case: Robert Armstrong, pastor of St. Mark’s Primitive Baptist Church in Springfield, Tenn., took $3,000 out of his savings to invest with Abraham Kennard. He believed Kennard would make good on his promise that St. Mark’s and its 20 members would receive $200,000 to remodel their building. He believed it because he saw Evander Holyfield’s brother on a tape saying Kennard was the real thing. He believed it because hundreds of other pastors of churches all over the South had invested in Kennard. He believed it because he wanted so badly for it to be true. But instead, Armstrong and dozens of other preachers say they lost all the money they invested with Kennard. Armstrong testified in Kennard’s federal court trial Wednesday. A charismatic preacher acting as his own lawyer, Kennard is charged with flim-flamming 1,609 churches and pastors out of $8.7 million.

3,000 to reep 200,000 sets off alarm bells in my befuddled head. Why was the pastor so confused by a flim-flam man? Was it because Kennard could quote scripture and had already bilked others—so it had to be legit—or because 200,000 is a lot of expansion for a church. Note, the money was not going to be used for church charity but for restoration and payroll…does profit factor into what churches do with your tithes more than the works of prophets?

Curious. Thanks.

By Scalia

January 20, 2005 08:47 AM | Link to this

Randy, I was reading your post about being around good people at church. Some of the people that go to church are not good people. They go because they view it as a routine or social gathering cloaked under a vail of religious belief. Some of them are so artificial that it is unbelievable. They gossip behind other people’s backs, they play mind games in a power struggle, and do things to please the pastor/preacher instead of doing things to please the Lord.

If you go back and read the New Testament, you will see that Jesus associated with people that were outcasts and sinners. He didn’t go associate with only the “nice people”, he associated with the bad to minister to them.

Some good advice: go visit the people that are truly out there sinning, and minister to them. Spread your belief, and give more concrete answers instead of things just appearing out of thin air.

By Tim

January 20, 2005 09:13 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel,

Not every church is out there ‘scamming’ innocent people… you asked if people know how their church is spending money… well my grandmother has been the bookkeeper at her church for a little over 30 years (so I have always had a pretty good idea how the churches money is being spent)… some of it obviously goes to pay the churches bills such as the mortgage, water, electricity, grounds keep, and payroll… the money has also gone to help start a daycare… it goes to pay for a bus and the gas so that the church can bus children to church who would not otherwise be able to go… a percentage (I think between 10 and 20%) of all the money that goes into the church is donated to missionaries and some is also donated back into the community… so I hope that answers your question… I cannot answer for every church but I can tell you that yes I do know how the church that I grew up in spends their money

p.s. the pastor of the church drives an 89 Buick… not because the church couldn’t afford to pay him more but because he would rather that money go to other things :)

By Angie

January 20, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this

It is a rare day indeed when I find myself agreeing in any way with Diane. However, I do mirror her opinion on the charitable habits of celebrities. I do find the attention they garner for giving highly tacky…..but at least they give. I wish we would hear of these multi million dollar athletes (are you listening MLB?)opening their check books. They fight tooth and nail to go from 10 million to 12.5. Give a little back please. But the tithing issue strikes a small chord. You don’t tithe on the basis of what a church is doing for you. You tithe because of what God continues to do for you day in and day out. Regardless of how selfish and unappreciative we sometimes get.

By Akeya

January 20, 2005 09:32 AM | Link to this

As usual you’re clueless, Terry.

I have no desire to own a business. There are those who have the desire to be entrepreneurs, and those of us who do not. I have a full time job and am studying to be a teacher to work in the public school system. Hopefully I will get to our future’s children before people like you get to them and corrupt them with your pompous, ridiculous “reality.”

AS far as having babies out of wedlock, that’s happening in all races at an alarming rate.

Once again, on what planet have you been living?

By Texas

January 20, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this

“Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.” (Proverbs 16:18 KJV)

You ruled life from the scorner’s seat, O, stupid, foolish heart! A criticizing know-it-all, You thought you were so smart! When it came time for judging folks You always jumped right in; Behind the skirts of Honesty You pointed out each sin. So quick to see things black-and-white, So you-are-wrong-and-I-am-right, So pleased with Self, so smug inside, So judgmental, so full of pride.

No backslider, fallen from Grace, Could stop your preaching in his face, Self-righteous blood would course through you As you’d spout forth the things you “knew” ~ How he could never be God’s tool! O, haughty heart! Exalted fool!

Thank God His ways are not your own, Had you but guessed! Had you but known! Your pompous pride God could not stand, So He took matters in His hand.

O, wicked, vain, conceited heart! God took your world, tore it apart. And when His plan was made complete, He’d pulled you from the scorner’s seat. No pedestal to stand upon, Your ego bruised, your self-pride gone; No other heart could you condemn, For you were now the same as them.

O, broken, bleeding, contrite heart! God had to smash your world apart! You were so sure, self-satisfied, So steeped in sanctimonious pride! A legalistic fool were you! God had to break your pride in two! And in its stead He planted love, A tolerance born from up above; More merciful…compassionate, too, No longer judge-and-jury, you.

Now when you spy a pious pose ~ Disdainful gaze down “spiritual” nose, You long to bare your scars and say: “Don’t judge…it might be you someday!”

And when you face your Judge on high, I think you’ll see Him smile and sigh: “Beloved child ~ I rule alone ~ There’s room for One upon My Throne!”

—Connie

“Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged…” (Matthew 7:1-2a, KJV)

By Randy

January 20, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this

Scalia, Sounds like good advise. Have a great day.

By norman

January 20, 2005 09:49 AM | Link to this

Those of you who believe in prayer, I hope you will pray today that the American public receive the wisdom to understand that this man being inaugurated for a second term today is a liar, a war-monger, a proud and arrogant member of a family which thinks of itself as better than others, and a disaster for security, peace, and progress.

Lord, if you are there, help this hapless country.

By Randy

January 20, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this

Great response Tim, not all churches are good with money, just like not all people are good with money. My church gives a detail account for every dollar they spend and the pastor turned down a 2,000 suit from someone at church instead asking that person to give the money toward a good charity. What matters is where the heart is.

By Tim

January 20, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this

Norman… I may not necessarily feel as strongly as you do on all those accounts (I do definitley agree that he is extremely proud and ARROGANT!)… but I will actually be donig what you are asking… I will be praying that someone like him does not become president in 2008 and will be thanking God that in the United States someone can only be president for 2 terms!

Randy… thank you :) I did leave that chruch when I was 19 and the pastor at the church that I started going to was very wealthy… but NOT from the church! He was wealthy becasue he was a singer/song writer… He was not on the Churches payroll… and he did/does A LOT for the community with his own personal money… I personally find nothing wrong with a pastor being wealthy (as long as it is not at the expense of others)… I actually think it is great… I enjoyed seeing my pastor being blessed!

By Tim

January 20, 2005 10:44 AM | Link to this

Lozen,

I just wanted to add one other thing… My grandmother is not on the payroll… she has handled the books for over 30 years voluntarily and has NEVER expected anything in return… that was just one way she thought she could give… after 25 years the pastor/church decided they were going to send her and my grandfather on a cruise to show their appreciation… well when she found out she kindly asked that the church not do that… she had plenty of money of her own that she could spend on a cruise and there were too many people in that church that were in need… asked them to put that money to better use

I just wanted to show that there are pastors and church memebers that are out there doing good for no other reason than to just do good… not all are out to take peoples money

By Lyrazel

January 20, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this

Thanks Tim/Randy. In my experience most churches have boards and publish their financial statements in bullitens so patrons know exactly where their tithing goes on a monthly basis. Im just curious how many attend churches that practice full disclosure…and why so many do not. I am not casting aspersions on people! Just profoundly curious if people really stay aware?

By Tim

January 20, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this

Lyrazal, I can see where you are coming from… I certainly would be suspicious if a church were not willing to show me where the churches money was going… probably not a church I would want to attend

By Randy

January 20, 2005 02:25 PM | Link to this

Really its probably 99.9% of pastors and church people who are honest and .1% dishonest. However, for those who are looking for a reason not to give a church its money thats all it takes. Evil will tell you anything to keep you from going to church and accepting Jesus as your lord and savior. Like it said in a movie I saw a few years back, evil has had at least 6000 years to discover peoples weaknesses and lead them astray.

By Zack

January 20, 2005 03:03 PM | Link to this

Norman—You amaze me with your narrow-minded statements against the Bible. I don’t understand why you live in such denial. (Actually, I do, and I think it’s sad. People live in denial because they don’t want to confess their sins. They’d rather try to convince themselves that they’ve done nothing wrong in their lives.)

RS—Then we have people like you who always are trying to walk both sides of the fence. When someone disagrees with you, you accuse that person of supporting the Holocaust. When Norman makes a bigoted statement against Christians, you show no opposition at all and later admit you’re on his side. Then you tell me I’m <—full of hatred.

Norman—You attack the Catholic church for opposing condoms. I applaud it for doing this. Condoms are immoral, disgusting, and ineffective. They do very little against STDs and abosolutely nothing at all against some STDs. Therefore, the “pass out condoms” rhetoric is just that: rhetoric.

You attack the Bible left and right. No, my friend, the Bible is not just a book. It is a guidebook to life, inspired by God. It is supported by reason and wisdom. If you’d like an example, I’ll be glad to give you one: Christianity is the only religion that calls for unconditional love. This includes love toward friends and enemies, and only the one, true God could have such a standard. Please put aside your hatred for Christians and any self-anger or bitterness you may have. Jesus wants us to focus on the solution (giving our lives to Him), not the problem.

By Tim

January 20, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this

Zack…condoms are immoral and discusting? too funny… what about a married couple that does not want to get pregnant… they are immoral because they decide to use condoms as their form of birth control… please show me where in the Bible is states that condoms are immoral

By Randy

January 20, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this

I’m not Catholic, but I use condoms and have for years. I’m a christian but see minor problems with the Catholic church, there is nothing in the bible about, pergatory, or priests not getting married. There is no pergatory, no 2nd chances and all men should find a mate.

By Whiley

January 20, 2005 03:25 PM | Link to this

HEHEHE ! Zack is so funny !

Disgusting & ineffective condoms doing very little against STDs HEHEHE HEE !

Where is the reason and wisdom in THAT????????

By norman

January 20, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

Good, we’re getting some split among Christians here. The evangelicals are beginning to attack Catholic teaching, requiring a return of St. Boscoe the Damned from Hell. The union of Catholics and evangelicals has always been flimsy, because Catholics have some beliefs that are unscriptural and the Catholic church is not biblically fundamentalistic. Also because evangelicals have in their souls the old Reformation hatred of Catholicism. I say, the hell with both of them!

Voltaire hated both Protestantism and Catholicism, and in practical matters if one needed to choose he choose the one which at the moment was less tyrannical, often Protestant but not always. He did the same with the intra-Catholic hatreds between Jesuits and Jansenists, knowing that both were wrong.

Zack: instead of trying to sell your bible to me, sell it to Bush who violates its precepts on a daily basis.

By Randy

January 20, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this

No Norman there is no split, I see a few small things that need to be changed but let me make this completely clear, I’m on the Christians side that means Catholics, Baptists etc. My opponent is EVIL!!! We are not the ones going to Hell.

By Texas

January 20, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

Actually Zack is right. Only Abstinence is 100% effective. Look on any package of condoms and see for yourself. It sez so on it’s disclaimer!

By norman

January 20, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

Oh Randy: you know full well that Baptists believe Catholics will go to hell and that before the Second Vatican Council Catholics thought all non-Catholics would go to hell. The Catholic church has evolved a bit, the fundamentalists and evangelicals hardly at all.

By Tim

January 20, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

Texas,

no one ever said that condoms were 100% effective… I have a problem with calling them discusting and immoral

By Tim

January 20, 2005 03:58 PM | Link to this

Norman… I don’t think Catholics are going to hell… I think that it is for God to decide :) (I am pentecostal… some think we are going to hell)

By Texas

January 20, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this

Tim, the MAIN point Zack was trying to make was that they where “ineffective”. If he feels that they are “disgusting and immoral”, who am I to disagree?

By Texas

January 20, 2005 04:06 PM | Link to this

Tim, upon reflection, I do agree with Zack. I think schools passing out condoms is immoral.

By Tim

January 20, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this

Texas… well sure he can believe that all he wants… I was simply stating that I disagree and was curious if his beliefs on that were Biblical and if so where I could find that in the Bible

I also disagree that they are ineffective… are they 100% effective of course not… but to say they are ineffective is incorrect

By Tim

January 20, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this

Texas… I didn’t say that passing out condoms in school was moral… my issue was the statement that condoms are immoral

(Zack never mentioned anything about passing out condoms to be immoral… I am sure he would believe that… but he didn’t mention that nor did I)

By Whiley

January 20, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this

You should listen to yourselves! You sound like a bunch of wacky religious drones ! Thank GOD I don’t follow ANY of it. (pun intended)

STOP all the bickering about who & what is right. Absolutely none of you know “THE TRUTH”. So get a grip. Do something else more productive with your time on a Sunday. Like handing out condoms.

By Tim

January 20, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this

Whiley… I am not bickering… I am simply having a discussion… I wouldn’t try and hinder what you say or believe… so please don’t try to hinder what I say or believe… thank you

By Randy

January 20, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

Norman, Actually what I believe is that anyone who accepts Jesus as his/her lord and savior will go to heaven. Its a relationship thing. There will be some people who didn’t think they would be going to Hell, that will go there. Like Tim says, God and each individual person make the decision. Accept Jesus or reject him, your choice. I pray everybody is smart enough to accept Jesus, I wouldn’t wish the alternative on anyone, especially you.

By lozen

January 20, 2005 05:02 PM | Link to this

If we were living in Egypt at the time of Akhenaten we’d be arguing over whether there was one god as Akhenaten believed or many gods as Egyptians had believed up until then and again after he died. Norman, I’m surprised that you’re asking people to pray for our country. Most of those sending up prayers are saying “thank yous” for giving us what they believe is a moral, religious man for president. Isn’t it interesting how unquestioning belief in a big daddy in the sky and unquestioning belief in a big daddy in Washington seem to go hand in hand?

By norman

January 21, 2005 07:26 AM | Link to this

lozen: in asking for prayer I was just being satirical. If there is a God, he is the distant creator who has no time (indeed, he is outside of time) for the petty desires of people. As I said earlier, when the Sultan sends a ship to Egypt does he worry over the rats on board?

But you are right about the Bushites’ talk about big daddy in the sky so that the American booboisie will obey big daddy in DC.

Bush has gone to so many prayer services you would think he is hoping to succeed to that arch fakir, Billy Graham, when his presidential term is over.

By Texas

January 21, 2005 07:43 AM | Link to this

Yesterday I posted a poem about judging. It obviously went unnoticed by some who continue to rule life from the scorner’s seat.

When it came time for judging folks You always jumped right in; Behind the skirts of Honesty You pointed out each sin. So quick to see things black-and-white, So you-are-wrong-and-I-am-right, So pleased with Self, so smug inside, So judgmental, so full of pride.

President Bush’s Faith is his! The decision he made and will continue to make is the best this MAN can do.

An election was held Nov. 2 2004. The results, G.w. Bush was voted President over J.F. Kerry for a second term. Get over it!

By norman

January 21, 2005 08:21 AM | Link to this

So Americans were stupid enough to vote for Bush. When polled about the men they most admire, they vote for that senile Polak in the Vatican and that senile redneck preacher Graham. What a bunch of jerks.

By Angie

January 21, 2005 08:25 AM | Link to this

I was under the impression (misguided, though it seems to be )that this forum was to be used in response to Diane and Shaunti’s column. This now seems to be a place where the left ralleys their minions to dispute the role of God and hurl verbal mail bombs toward the President. I suppose most of you also agree with the yahoo trying to get God suspended from the current Washington celebrations and discounted in regards to the Constitution and our moneys? Regardless of your collective political stances, this awesome country was built on the shoulders of The Lord. How ironic and sad that the ideals our Forefathers quilted the corners of our country with, are now the very ones the lunatic fringe fight to unravel.

By Terry

January 21, 2005 09:41 AM | Link to this

Akeya,

I think you would make an outstanding Public School Teacher!

By norman

January 21, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this

Angie: why don’t you ask the Lord if wants to be associated with this pharisaical extravaganza of the GOP and their bible-thumping allies.

By lozen

January 21, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

This forum is a place for the looney left and the righteous right to carry on a pointless argument. It’s great entertainment Angie. Lighten up!

By Randy

January 21, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this

Norman, You choose to be critical of men that are a million times more men than you(Graham and the Pope). I guess this forum gives you a purpose to what appears to be a meaningless life(yours). You really are pitiful!

By lozen

January 21, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this

Randy, in one of your recent posts you said, “God has proven to me that he exists and has done it in a logical way. The short of it is, when the universe came into being, whenever that was, things don’t create themselves out of thin air, so God does absolutely exists.” Where did God come from? Who created him? Your proof is illogical.

By Tim

January 21, 2005 10:59 AM | Link to this

Lozen

I have to agree… this forum is a great source of entertainment! :)

By Zack

January 21, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this

Norman—You continue to attack the Bible and tell me to talk to the president about Christianity. We are accountable for our own actions. You cannot rationalize your bigoted statements because you think the president’s a hypocrite. You need to look in the mirror and take responsibility for your own actions and not look for separate issues.

To those who still defend condoms, yes, they are immoral and disgusting. Laugh, and make your snide remarks if you so choose, but such childish retaliation to facts changes nothing. There is no clinical evidence whatsoever to show that condoms work AT ALL against the vast majority of STDs, and they’re not foolproof against pregnancy (not that I’m endorsing them in this venue, either). It’s those like you who want to pass out condoms and preach the myth of evolution to students who are hurting our future generation greatly, although you’re not alone. (The education level of students nowadays isn’t all their fault. Why should we expect them to take learning seriously if we’re teaching them a load of nonsense?)

James—I never said I <—-was right 100% of the time. The Bible, on the other hand, is.

By Texas

January 21, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this

Many years ago Sir Isaac Newton had an exact replica of our solar system made in miniature. At its center was a large golden ball representing the sun, and revolving around it were small spheres attached at the ends of rods of varying lengths. They represented Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, and the other planets. These were all geared together by cogs and belts to make them move around the “sun” in perfect harmony.

One day as Newton was studying the model, a friend who did not believe in the biblical account of creation stopped by for a visit. Marveling at the device and watching as the scientist made the heavenly bodies move on their orbits, the man exclaimed, “My, Newton, what an exquisite thing! Who made it for you?” Without looking up, Sir Isaac replied, “Nobody.” “Nobody?” his friend asked. “That’s right! I said nobody! All of these balls and cogs and belts and gears just happened to come together, and wonder of wonders, by chance they began revolving in their set orbits and with perfect timing.”

The unbeliever got the message! It was foolish to suppose that the model merely happened. But it was even more senseless to accept the theory that the earth and the vast universe came into being by chance. How much more logical to believe what the Bible says, “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.” The Word also declares, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God”. (Ps. 14:1)

Addendum — Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

By Texas

January 21, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this

Furthermore: Vatican officials say the press often wrongly assumes that the church opposes condoms for anyone and under every circumstance. In fact, many church experts would say that the contraception teachings have real relevance only within marriage; all other sexual activity is already considered immoral by the church, so whether a condom is used or not is beside the point.

By norman

January 21, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this

In the beginning man created God and religion. And he saw that it was good, for it answered questions about life and death. Over time it became very good for those running the religion and very bad for those forced to subscribe to its tenets. Man became alienated from who he really was and took on an imaginative life as a child of a God who if he existed did not give a fig for the riffraff of humanity. In time the development of the mind, social and economic change, and the progress of science answered most if not all questions and at least provided the means for finding further answers. Those with a vested interest in religion for their own purposes refused to call a spade a spade and one plus one two. They even held that 1+1+1=3. Most advanced countries like those in western Europe and Japan put religion behind them but in the United States, populated by trailer-park trash and peasants progress was much slower. In this respect America was like a backward Muslim nation. Yet progress is being made. Attendance at church by mainline Protestants and Catholics has fallen to 25% of less. Only the real trailer-park trash goes to church on a regular basis. Many of those who do go, whether weekly or less frequently, actually don’t believe much of the nonsense taught in church but they are afraid of social ostracism. They haven’t the courage of even their tiniest convictions. Better to pretend to believe nonsense than to admit the truth.

But the truth will out, eventually. Not even the deceitful Bush clique can prevent the truth from shining forth.

By Tim

January 21, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

Zack… I don’t recall anyone ever said that condoms were 100% effective in regards to pregnancy… but they are still effective

where did you get your information from stating that condoms do not work at all against the vast majority of STD’s

and as usual you didn’t answer my first question… if condoms are immoral then I should take that to mean that a husband and wife that use them because they do not want to have a baby are immoral?

By Texas

January 21, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

STOP Norman, HEE HEE HEE, your killing me, stop Hee Hee Hee, Now that’s funny. I don’t care who you are, that’s funny. Hee Hee Hee

By Tim

January 21, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this

Norman… does it give you a warm tingly feeling inside to call people names? I don’t live in a trailer nor am I trash and I attend church on a regular basis… same goes for my Grandmother, Aunt, and most the other people in my family

why constantly throw around name calling? If you are confident in your argument and are actually intelligent you don’t have to just call a bunch of incredibly disrespectful names

By Texas

January 21, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this

Tim my friend, earlier your stated that this forum was a great source of entertainment. While I’ll agree with you that people should refrain from calling other people names, you gotta admit, Norm is funny!

By norman

January 21, 2005 11:53 AM | Link to this

Tim does not have a sense of humor!

By Tim

January 21, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this

Texas,

Oh I do certainly get a lot of laughs at what he and many others (along with what I have said) say :)… the name calling (whomever it comes from) I personally do not enjoy though… but obviously that is my opinion and he and others are certainly entitled to say what they like name calling and all :)

By norman

January 21, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this

You’ve all heard no doubt the joke about our Polish Pope. He was granted the boon of asking Jesus three questions. 1. Will there be married priests? Jesus replies, Not in your lifetime. 2. Will there be women priests? Not in your lifetime. 3. Will there be another Polish pope? Not in MY lifetime.

It is interesting that Catholics can tell jokes about themselves, even about supposedly sacred matters. Evangelicals don’t seem to have a sense of humor. They are not certain enough of their beliefs to risk ridiculing them even a bit.

By Texas

January 21, 2005 12:46 PM | Link to this

A young nun was on her way to see Mother Superior one fine morning. As she past another nun she would say good morning. The other nun would reply it looks like you got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. Baffled, the young nun continued on her journey to Mother Superior’s office and each time she past another nun, the same happened, she’d say good morning and the other nun would reply, looks like you got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

Well, after finally reaching the Mother’s office, the young nun was quit amiss, just as the Mother was ready to speak, the young nun blurted out, yes I know, I got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning!

Mother confused replied, oh no, I was just wondering why you had the bishop’s shoes on.

By lozen

January 21, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this

Just a little wisdom from another holy book, the Gita, the chapter on Spiritual Knowledge:

“No matter by what path men approach Me, they are made welcome. For all paths no matter how diverse lead straight to Me. All paths are mine, notwithstanding by what names they may be called.” This tells us that there is no “one true religion” over all others, that all religions are part of the one Path, even atheism, and that there is no exclusion from participation in the One Life.

Hafir the poet said, “I have learned so much from god that I cannot call myself a Buddhist, a Jew, a Christian or a Muslim.”

By Tim

January 21, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this

Norman… ohhh all knowing who can tell everything about a person simply by what they type… I am soooo glad someone finally figured out that I don’t have a sense of humor… now I don’t have to go around pretending that I do anymore… I feel free!! thank you Norman :)

Since we are enjoying jokes her is one that I like (you may think it is dumb)… I was raised in the Church of God, who do not believe in dancing! (the University I went to if you were caught at a club dancing you could be kicked out of school)

well do you know why the Church of God does not allow sex… because it may lead to dancing :)

I know I know not that funny… but hey according to Norman I don’t have a sense of humor so it was the best I could do :)

By norman

January 21, 2005 04:09 PM | Link to this

Oh Texas, how sweet of you to dig up an old Protestant joke against Catholics. You are only proving my point. any Catholic who trusts an evangelica or fundamentalist is nuts.

Tim: your joke is very old, I have heard something like it before. It doesn’t prove you have a sense of humor, only that you have been imbibing typical Protestant poor attempts at humor for a long, long time.

On National Public Radio this afternoon there was a discussion about faith and science. Nobel Prize winner Weinberg in Physics from the Univ. of Texas seems to have been listening to me, for he said pretty much what I have been trying to teach y’all on this site. All the beliefs of religion, while not subject to disproof by science, are more than implausible and those who believe them give up all right to be taken seriously.

By Tim

January 21, 2005 04:18 PM | Link to this

Norman… ughh… that is the best way to put it… I probably don’t have a sense of humor seeing as I laugh at most everything you say :)

By norman

January 21, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

The stock market has just closed down for three weeks of the new year 2005. Those Wall Street republicans must know something Bush isn’t telling us.

Perhaps Bush heard from the Lord that the end is soon.

By norman

January 21, 2005 04:38 PM | Link to this

With Bush re-elected we can expect a lot more faith-based nonsense. Dr. James Dobson is targeting Sponge Bob Square Pants as recommending homosexuality. Granted he is a sponge — but a gay sponge? Dobson thinks and is quoted as saying that he expects Bush to put into effect all the nutty delusions of evangelical Christianity. This is the first step. Even though Americans were (just barely) stupid enough to elect Bush in 2004 they are not without some shame. I cannot believe they will fall for Dobson and his fanatics. (I know of someone who used to hit her kids with a big wooden spoon just because Dobson recommended that form of discipline. Why not stoning?)

By Angie

January 21, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this

Tell me something Norman. When things have gone horribly wrong in your life, on whom have you called? God perhaps? In my considerable experience, I have found that even hard core non-believers such as yourself call upon The Lord when things go askew. But when things are peachy, they attribute their good fortune to their ability to forge their own way in the face of adversity. I have yet to read one good argument from you as to why someone on the fence of belief should jump to your side of the yard. In absorbing your pompous diatribe, I imagine that you are like those who feel superior to most and accountable to very few. But I assure you, Norman…..you will one day need to give an account, as we all will. And you will have to answer for your antagonistic points of view.

By norman

January 21, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this

I have learned that God is too busy admiring the firmament to care about what I, a mere human, needs or wants.

It is not true that there are no atheists in foxholes. It is precisely in foxholes (as in Iraq) that there are many atheists or deists, who know that God either is not or doesn’t give a good g*******.

By norman

January 21, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this

I don’t think God has a sense of humor either.

By Angie

January 21, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this

You tickle me so Norman. The thing that gets people out of those foxholes is the one thing you do not seem to possess. Faith, Norman…faith. Faith that regardless of one’s situation, you can and will prevail. Faith that your life holds more meaning than to occupy a hole in the ground. It sounds as if you are quite familiar with life in a hole….perhaps you should look up.

By norman

January 21, 2005 05:06 PM | Link to this

Angie: don’t be so patronizing. You don’t know what the hell you are talking about.

By lozen

January 21, 2005 05:11 PM | Link to this

Angie, here is one answer to your question about where to turn when things go horribly wrong. This is a pagan answer and there are native american, hindu, buddhist, muslim answers. “We Pagans don’t have comforting Bible verses to turn to in times of spiritual need—but we have something perhaps even better. We can turn to the natural world for teachings, strength and hope. That is where the promise of Solstice appears, because the darkness and the return of the sun’s light remind us that the wheel always turns, that the darkest hour may well be just before the dawn, and every death holds within it the potential for a new opening, a new birth.”