Couple of things
- Hear me out, but I like this. Of course, it's all based on context. I wasn't particularly a fan of this organization's efforts to stick the Ten Commandments in every courthouse in Georgia, and my response was typically that I'd rather have the freedom to have them in my home than in a public courthouse. In complete fairness to Ten Commandments-Georgia, they've taken me up on my advice and are mailing copies out to every person in some Northeast Georgia counties. Then again, I have the Ten Commandments sitting on my bedside table, in this great part of this high-quality book where someone leads his people out of the bondage.
- Also, more credit where credit is due, I've been hard on Chris Butts's views on our drought policy, but kudos to him for wishing to avoid another divisive zoning battle like the one that confronted the closing of Cofer's last year.
- There's a fine line involving Sen. Charles Grassley's investigation into financial misconduct at megachurches. I am no fan of folks like Benny Hinn, and I think it's ridiculous that we have the Trinity Broadcasting Network which has gold on everything, but ... at the same time, it's one to be intentionally misleading a congregation and funneling money into private accounts so pastors can lead a lavish lifestyle. That is, without pulling any punches, a moral abdication of one's pastoral responsibility and blatantly sinful. However, it's another thing if the congregations is OK with that. I'll fully concede that from what I can gather, the latter is few and far between in this investigation, but we need to be careful about merely assuming that because a pastor rolls up in an H3 bedazzled in gold chrome he's doing some illegal. Unethical and quite probably out-of-line with his Christian calling? Well, yeah, but again, that's not always illegal.
- Day Two of The Safe As Houses Water Challenge.
- In a political mystery I surely can't unravel, I don't get the Clark Howard for Mayor of Atlanta thing. Offering tips that help me save time at the airport doesn't necessarily translate into being equipped to manage the Southeast's largest city, does it?
- Also, more credit where credit is due, I've been hard on Chris Butts's views on our drought policy, but kudos to him for wishing to avoid another divisive zoning battle like the one that confronted the closing of Cofer's last year.
- There's a fine line involving Sen. Charles Grassley's investigation into financial misconduct at megachurches. I am no fan of folks like Benny Hinn, and I think it's ridiculous that we have the Trinity Broadcasting Network which has gold on everything, but ... at the same time, it's one to be intentionally misleading a congregation and funneling money into private accounts so pastors can lead a lavish lifestyle. That is, without pulling any punches, a moral abdication of one's pastoral responsibility and blatantly sinful. However, it's another thing if the congregations is OK with that. I'll fully concede that from what I can gather, the latter is few and far between in this investigation, but we need to be careful about merely assuming that because a pastor rolls up in an H3 bedazzled in gold chrome he's doing some illegal. Unethical and quite probably out-of-line with his Christian calling? Well, yeah, but again, that's not always illegal.
- Day Two of The Safe As Houses Water Challenge.
- In a political mystery I surely can't unravel, I don't get the Clark Howard for Mayor of Atlanta thing. Offering tips that help me save time at the airport doesn't necessarily translate into being equipped to manage the Southeast's largest city, does it?
posted by Jmac at 9:46 AM
16 Comments:
Of course, if the 10 Commandments folks took the money they will spend on this and did something like, oh, I don't know, feed the hungry or clothe the poor, then maybe that would have more impact on people's lives. But I guess it's easier to engage in meaningless stuff for show than it is to do anything really meaningful.
And Bill Campbell or Shirley Franklin were better equipped? I think somebody who is passionate about wisely spending and saving money, and has a very strong record of speaking out against corruption, is the perfect choice for mayor.
Clark Howard would focus on making Atlanta efficient and good for consumers. He probably knows a thing or two about conservation as well.
I think there's potential for Clark Howard to be a good mayor. If you listen to the speech he gave to the Atlanta Press Club, he has a pretty good grasp of the city's issues.
Anonymous ...
I don't disagree in the slightest, but I also would hesitate to say that an organization that is dedicated to spread its faith is 'meaningless.' The body is made of many parts, you know?
Re: Clark Howard ...
I'm just being kinda snarky, but I find it kinda funny, that's all. He may very well be a bang-up mayor if he opts to run and is elected (which, as of now, I think he would be). He'll have to learn how to live with working with the Atlanta City Council, which could be challenging in its own right.
I would argue that Shirley Franklin, based on her resume, was pretty well-equipped to be mayor.
I took anonymous to be saying that sending out 10 commandments is meaningless, not that the organization or that group of people is itself meaningless. The Gospel isn't just the 10 commandments...
Also, it seems to me that there could be some illegalities if the pastor converts a vehicle owned by the church into one strictly for personal use. I am not sure what the case law has been with parsonages. Frankly, I just haven't been that interested. The spiritual outrage is enough for me, and taking such people to a secular court seems contrary to Paul's exhortation to take them before the church.
And if the congregation is okay with that...
Springsteen April 25, 2008 Phillips ticket sale TBA
thanks for the link
Correction tickets on sale 10 am 11/17 - that's Saturday two and half hours before Kentucky game!
Providing a parsonage for the minister is, like, a pretty old practice. And a good one, depending on the circumstances. I suppose if the 'parsonage' is actually a million dollar home in a neighborhood miles from the church, that might be a problem though...
Re: the Ten Commandments, had they been mailed to my house I'd be looking forward to disposing of them. But I'm a coldhearted type who also disposes of mailing labels with baby seals on them. And I don't appreciate any cause invading my house with stuff I did not solicit. Least of which groups that support blurring the lines between church and state, political candidates that want me to vote for them so they can defeat godless heathen democrats (that's what I get for voting republican, huh?), any third-party fundraising group, or any group that I'm not actually already involved in.
Re: the prophets with profit, there are two questions -- 1. is it fraud? and 2. is it really what our legislators had in mind when they made religious work tax-exempt? Methinks probably not.
And I don't appreciate any cause invading my house with stuff I did not solicit.
That's part of the whole function of a mailbox, though. If you destroyed yours this wouldn't happen. :-)
Mail is an attempt at communication, analogous to a friend or stranger walking up to you on the street and saying "hello". You do not have to engage them in conversation if you don't want to, but the very fact that they said "hello" (and sent unsolicited sound waves into your ears) doesn't constitute an invasion, does it?
"I took anonymous to be saying that sending out 10 commandments is meaningless, not that the organization or that group of people is itself meaningless. The Gospel isn't just the 10 commandments..."
You got it. I do have problems w/ these types though --they want to live by the 10 Commandments (whose, btw --Protestant, Catholic, Jewish? --but that's another story) some of the time but not all. So, we get people saying to live by the Bible and 10 Commandments when it comes to gay marriage but not when it comes to adultery (like the so-called live by the Bible folk that killed an amendment about adultery that was tied to the vote on gay marriage in GA a few years back --I guess too many of those Bible thumpers kinda fell down there!). They should also check out what the Bible has to say about eating pork (there goes bar-b-cue!), working on the Sabbath (there goes the neo-con Christian arguments about how unfettered capitalism is God's will!), and wearing clothes of animal hide and cloth (there goes sartorial style!). They won't like it. Then again, hypocrisy is such a tasty dish that they keep coming back to the (pig)trough to chow down on it.
While your citation is wrong (there is no mention of gay marriage or homosexuality in the ten commandments) you’ve done a decent job of showing the attitudes that are held towards Christians here and around the world. Had your attacks been directed at minorities, women or the infirmed you might not have received such a hushed reply.
In the new testament, there is an explanation allowing the eating of pork and many true Christians would be fine with a law against adultery. But to really understand Christianity is not to go law by law and try to find faults. It is to understand the belief that all have sinned and are unworthy of the kingdom of God. Salvation is not offered for a price and it cannot be earned. One must simply and earnestly ask. It means that all good works and wealth and prestige mean nothing if you cannot humble yourself to honestly ask God to forgive you.
If you’ve read the Bible, you know Jesus loved those society despised. He ate and communed with those society called unclean. He preached an unwavering commitment to the poor and forgotten. If he was born tomorrow, do you think he would be born in Crystal Hills or Broad Acres? Would he dine at Mama’s Boy or the soup kitchen across the street? Would he be yelling at students in the Tate plaza or praying with the homeless in tent city. Those of you who know Jesus already know the answers.
Instead of delighting in those you see struggling to adhere to their faith, you might find better result in examining your own. Who knows, you might find something amazing.
Snowden: You are right that supposed prohibitions on homosexuality are not in the 10 Comms. My point was a broader one, namely hypocrisy --that many of those who want to have us and our laws conform to some parts of the Bible (esp parts of Deuteronomy and Leviticus) don't when it comes to other things. There are so many who want to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they live by. OK, fair enough --we're all contradictory individuals-- but don't then force those beliefs on the rest of us. If they truly want to argue that homosexuality is against the Bible's word then they should also have the same thoughts towards adultery, IMO, but of course many don't practice what they preach in that regards (which was my point about the amendment that was introduced re the gay marriage amendment). That's my problem. I don't care what you believe; just don't try and tell me how I should live according to your (not your personally) Biblical interpretations (or Koranic, for that matter).
As to Jesus, I agree w/ you completely --he was definitely on the side of the oppressed and outcast. I don't have a problem w/ Jesus the man (though don't believe he was divine) but do have a problem w/ many evangelical so-called Christians who would step over that beggar infront of their mega church. I also don't think he'd agree too much w/ the way his message has been betrayed by the religious right to argue for tax breaks for the wealthy --I guess that bit about camels and eyes of needles is forgotten by them.
And all this crap about how we are all born in sin is just that --arrogant crap. You can think you were born in sin if you like; personally, I didn't do anything sinful until I was outside the womb :-) It also seems to contradict all the Christian rhetoric about the innocence of fetusus --if they are innocent until the moment of birth, then they cannot be expected to have the same rights as "post-born" (if I can riff off the "pre-born" rhetoric) people. If they are to have the same rights as the post-born, though, then presumably they're equally sinful. You (not you personally) can't have it both ways.
As to reading the Bible I've probably read it more than many self-professed Christians, who don't seem to know it very well except as spouted to them by the rabid right.
I'm not delighting in others' efforts to come to terms w/ their beliefs. I really don't care one way or the other what they believe. But I do think that symbolic gestures --mailing out the 10 Commandments-- is a political choice that this group has made, one which I question. Why not spend that money to feed the hungry? Wouldn't that be fulfilling Jesus' mission better? COuld it be because they are actually not very concerned about the later --not very Christian of them, I think. And before you say "well, they can be concerned about them and send out a massive mailing" I would respond thus: until the hungry have all the food they need, this (spending money on mailing) is literally taking food out of the mouths of babes.
One final comment: this equation of racism and sexism w/ criticizing Christian hypocrisy is a switch and bait. Minorities and women don't chosse to be such; Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists etc do choose their faith/ non-faith, and so implying that attacking Christians is more acceptable than critizing minorities and women is ludicrous and just part of the religious right's efforts to claim that Christians are persecuted; this plays into the persecution cult that modern right-wing Christianity has created about itself as part of its identity politics --because the most persecuted people in America are Christian (and rich, white, straight, and male). But more than that, if minorities and women engage in hypocrisy (Al Sharpton's lies about the Tawana Brawley case, for instance: Hillary's flip-flopping on the war) then I am more than happy to criticize them too.
All good points but I disagree in a few places. The whole concept of people who do not practice what they preach is a function of those people, not necessarily their religious beliefs or adherence to teaching. Many Christians believe in the concept of sanctification which is to say they believe in their own transformation and betterment in their Christian walk. This means trying to live by God�s word, screwing up, asking forgiveness, trying again and hopefully, with every step, getting a deeper grasp on the reality of God and his plan for our lives. It does not believe you are perfect and infallible, otherwise why would you need to ask for salvation?
As for forcing belief on people, Christianity has plenty of company. There are plenty of ordinances and regulations that affect life in a community which are based on beliefs which are then imposed on citizens along with the bill. As to the adultery thing, you are right. The bible barely mentions homosexuality but adultery is banned in the Ten Commandments. That rider concerning the ban of adultery on the bill against gay marriage and the response to it was enlightening and telling about true intentions. But again, that�s not all Christians and that situation should not be held up as some sort of �gotcha� for every believer.
Jesus does not have a problem with you either but he does have a problem with many so-called Christians who would step over that beggar whether they are evangelical or not and no matter where they go to church.
I don�t think you are fully understanding of the concept of being born in sin. It is not that we are born sinful or giving the homeless the bird from the womb. It is that this world is sinful and we are born into it. It is our sinful nature that we take up from the moment we are born. From not want to share our match box cars to stepping over that beggar, we are sinners who have separated ourselves from God. For many years God gave people chances to reconcile. From asking them to sacrifice some of their food or riches to prove that they cared more about him than their petty possessions. From asking them to live in accordance with laws that most actually better mankind in the process rather than just simply to show an acknowledgement and respect for our creator. Because we could not fulfill even these slightest requests from God to live within the laws or put God ahead of our wealth and greed, he sent his son and said �If you just believe in my son and that I sent him to save you, you will be saved�.
Just because you are saved does not mean you will not sin. But you will know more about the gravity of your sin. For believers who are thankful to God for salvation, knowing that they have put something between themselves and God hurts.
Killing anyone is wrong. To point out those who want to ban abortion but support the death penalty is important. I know people will find justification for nearly anything in the Old Testament but the new covenant was made with the blood of Christ. And while Christ was being crucified he turned to a man next to him, heard his confession and saved him. We should heed this example.
Your attempted explanation about how equating the attack on a religious group is somehow less than an attack on minorities is not a very good one. People are entitled to practice their faith and beliefs and if someone has imposed their beliefs on you, that is a problem of the person- not the faith. To say that all Christians are responsible for all acts of all other Christians simply because of their faith is very flawed. And to say people choose their faith is based on your belief structure. Most Christian felt called to God and therefore believe he choose them.
By all means, persecute Christians if you must. Spit on the cross or soak it in piss. Put the little Darwin fish on your car if you feel the need to overtly insult the beliefs of others. There was once a man far angrier than you who went town to town killing Christians and imprisoning them wherever he could find them. Today we call him Saint Paul.
Snowden: I actually agree w/ a lot of your points. Just a few responses.
1) the difference b/w forcing one's religion on others and forcing ordinances etc on people who might not agree w/ them is, of course, that the latter is done by elected officials, and they can be dealt w/ through elections. Of course, you will probably argue that people are free to walk away from people trying to force their religion on others --they are, and I do-- but I think your equating of forcing of religion on others and forcing laws w/ which people may not agree is not a logical equivalent.
2) I agree that there is a difference b/w Christianity as a concept and Christians as people, and my comments were directed at the kinds of right wing evangelical nonsense I hear many so-called Christians professing/ practicing. But, I also seem to recall something in the Bible about being known by one's acts. Perhaps these right wing evangelicals will see the light, see how they are not living what Jesus would have wanted them to do, but I have lived long enough in the South to see that they aren't and don't. At a certain point you (at least I) start to lose hope that they will actually practice what Jesus urged. Some of the most un-Christian folk I have met are Christians and some of the most "Christian" are actually atheists :-)
3) perhaps my theological understanding of original sin does need some updating. but I guess, at a basic level, I just don't believe that the world is naturally a sinful place and see this as one of the arrogances of Christianity (and other religions who believe this too).
4) I don't think I said all Christians try to foist their faith on others. My comments were mostly focused at evangelicals. Some Christians are very discreet, taking that admonition to pray in secret seriously. But, at the same time, a fundamental tenet of Christianity, I seem to recall, is to go forth and testify, thereby bringing others to the faith. This is what I have a problem w/ --people who live their faith (whatever specific faith it is) on their sleeves. I really don't have a problem w/ people who believe in god --I really don't-- I just have a problem when they foist that on others or use it to undermine things like science. [As an aside, I think science and faith can coexist --I think you can accept that evolution occurs and still not be able to explain the beginning of the universe, but to claim that the earth is only 6000 yrs old and that evolution is false is, though, patently ludicrous, letting faith get in the way of science.]
5) I have no interest in persecuting Christians. I think they should be free to practice their religion, up until the point where that impinges upon me (such as arguing that laws should be based on the Bible, not allowing sunday sales of alcohol, requiring censorship of tv programs that might, you know, show people naked, etc). My comment about persecution, I believe, was that there seems to be a strand amongst the religious right which argues that the most persecuted people in America are Christians, which runs in tandem w/ the angry white straight men who argue that they are the most persecuted. I just find that a ridiculous argument to try to sustain, but a common one which speaks to what is much of the contemporary right-wing Christian identity politics --"we're so oppressed", "there is a war on Christmas", "the secularists control everything", etc
6) I agree there is a difference b/w old and new testament. Unfortunately, many evangelicals of the right seem to trot out the O.T. "angry god" on social issues when it suits them :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home