The Definition of "Christian"

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Lambert14 in my whole life, I have found 2 churches that have accpeted people fully and not judged or condemned others or been hypocrites. Those were the MCC and a small church in London I went to. Take me to this area of good churches you live in (dont tell me really, just a hypothetical suggestion) and show me these places full of love and kindness because I have yet to see them.quote>

 

Okay, game on. I have no fear of anyone here doing bad things to me just because I can name some churches I have attended in the past. Addison Street Congregational in Chicago IL, Grace Evangelical Free Church, same town. In the Portland, OR area? Glencullen Baptist, or Hillcrest Bible Chapel. 

Vancouver, WA? First Baptist, on Main just north of Fourth Plain. I'm sure others here can name a few, too. Since you mention London, those here in the US aren't going to be much help. Just saying, they do exist if you are willing to look for them without prejudice.

Many people complain about hypocrites in church, as if they don't exist anywhere there's a single human. What about work, or your extended family? Your favorite football team, or political party? Yeah, they're everywhere. If you only concentrate on the hypocrites in church, or that annoying person with the bad breath and squeaky shoes, or the woman with the terrible singing voice in the pew behind you, you are missing the whole point. It has to do with your relationship with God, and no one else's issues. And besides, if they weren't at least trying, how much worse would they be?

We should probably tone it down a bit, though. High emotion will just get this thread locked, and that won't do anybody any good. Lighten up! If I can, anyone can. Smile!

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

page flip

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

page flip redux

[sklis 10]

Lambert, you have had some pretty bad or very confusing experiences. You are looking back at those experiences through the eyes of the child you once were. Your opinions at the time were partly formed by the adults and or other youth who influenced how you developed your opinions. I am truly sorry for your heart break. I have been through quite a bit of it myself and know of what you speak where the church is concerned

The biggest mistake we make is following people, men or women in the pulpit rather than looking to God.

The word Christian was given to the followers of Jesus Christ in the early church. Simply put. As I was born and raised in Canada and therefore I am Canadian. It is Christ(ians). People have developed their own idea of what a Christian is, the fact is if a person goes to church they call themselves Christians, whether they believe in Christ or not. For me i am simply a believer and totally in love with Jesus Christ. I have seen miracles and have witnessed some amazing things that only God could do.

Secondly. God created people. He created them for fellowship and worship. His plan was simple, he wanted children and so He gave himself some by creating them. ( I just want to address those who considers them self atheist, there is no such thing. If that offends you who claim to be, then you know how it hurts those who do believe when you react in anger to something you choose to know nothing about and declare there is no such thing as God. You can say it but it doesn't make you right. To say something is not is an absolute. Like if you were to tell me there was no gold in China you would have to know for certain that there is, in fact, no gold in China. You do not know what is under the earth or hidden from your eyes. Even if you had 1% of all the knowledge in the world you could not say or prove there is no gold in China because you will tell me that if you can't see it, smell it, touch or taste it, it doesn't exist.

Just like your brain. Do you have a brain? How do you know that? Have you ever seen your brain? Then how can you say you have one if you have never seen, touched, smelled or tasted your brain. So you see, you can't be an atheist because you don't know for a fact that there is no God. at best you are agnostic.)

When sin entered the scene, (that is anything you have done wrong, it doesn't have to be more than a lie.

God created man, man created religion. Relgion is dangerous. People have done some terrible things in the name of God but it wasn't the God who created them that led them, you can be sure of that.  It had nothing to do with God, but all to do with power hungry men. That men teach falslely is a problem every denomination faces. To say that there was no truth, and everything was phony in the Charismatic churches, or where ever you attended is not fair. And yes, those were days of great confusion and the truth was hidden from us, but no more and more importantly I am seeing some great changes in the church, it is not that bad now. But even so there are always going to be people who will take things to the extremes, and the only thing you are to do about that is study the word, and ignor them. See we hate and feaer the things we do not nderstand and we attack. That is why you are saying the things you are saying about some of the places you have been. That is why we have denominations. That was never God's plan. The church of refered to in the new testament was one body. Beleivers as a whole worshiping the one true God. Denominations have only managed to separate the true church and cast fear and doubt and cause others to say they don't beleive because of the way they preceive those church people to be. If they only new Jesus by the merit of who he is alone. I am very pleased that you had not left God, but only the church alone.

 If you were the only human being that God created, you became a sinner, as we all have been at one point of our lives before knowing him, God would have asked and Jesus would still have come to the earth and die to take your punishment for your sin. I have a sister who I love and if she was going to get a punishment from our parent for something that she did that she was told not to, I said to my mother, don't punish her, punish me instead. That is what he did so that you could be with God again.

You need to forgive every person in your life who ever hurt you. Forgiveness is freedom, Not for them but for you. Let go of your hate and anger. Forgive them and live. Because if we are to do to others as we want them to do to us then we need to forgive because we need forgiveness. You have hurt people too. Then you will be free from your pain and can focus on the Lord.

As for the tongues and the things of the Holy Spirit. Again I say, stopping dondeming the things you do not understand. Either ask God to reveal the truth or leave it alone. Because you don't understand doesn't mean it's wrong it means, you don't understand. Look at waht Paul says in 1 Corinthians. It is what the believers received when the Spirit came on them. Becareful of what you say about others because you bring a curse with your lips to innocent God fearing persons who have done you no harm at all.

 Jesus gave us a new commandment He said we should love the Lord your God with all your soul, mind and heart, and to love one another as you love yourself.

His great commission is to preach the gospel to every creature, he also commanded that we heal the sick, cleanse the lepers(anyone with skin issues) raise the dead and cast out demons.

The same Spirit that was on him as he lived on earth is the same spirit that raised him from the dead and that very same spirit is with us and in us, giving us that same power to do what Jesus did.

Jesus came to destroy the work of the evil, and to give us the freedom that we all want. That was his work.

He wants you to be free from the all of this stuff, all you have to do is ask him. Say this out loud if you want to know him more. Jesus, if what I am reading is true then I want you to come and live in me the same as you live in those who love you. I confess I have done some wrong things in my life and I want you to forgive me for them, please come to me and heal me of all my diseases and make me free just like your word says you will. Thank you.

[Shingure 56]

Have you went to every church that physically exists in the world? Because one Catholic church for instance can be more lenient than others. Denomination doesn't matter , Independent governance by clergy does.

[Lambert14 0]

I know that I have problems with many organized churches, and there are a few out there who would accept anyone as they are. My main issue with the organized churches is there pushing of religious interpretation into law, mainly against homosexuality, begin that I am gay. It is a huge problem in our community, and the only way I kept my faith was drastically reinterpretting it. I do not support churches that condemn, churches that preach that because I am gay I am inherently a sinner and am not an equal person. I grew up being force fed that I was evil for being me, but my friends were hypocrites, going to church on sunday, then having sex with there boyfriend sunday night. I tried to follow these rules and be a good christian and for 21 years of my life I hated myself because of these views I was forced into. Religion hurts so many people and so many guys and girls who are closeted either hide from reality by lying to themselves, or commit suicide. Because of this, many of these churches that say they preach love, but then condemn my friends and family, I cannot see them as beingg a kind institution.

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: sklis

...

I just want to address those who considers them self atheist, there is no such thing.

... Like if you were to tell me there was no gold in China you would have to know for certain that there is, in fact, no gold in China. You do not know what is under the earth or hidden from your eyes. Even if you had 1% of all the knowledge in the world you could not say or prove there is no gold in China ...

...quote>

Perhaps you'd like to reconsider your position on the existence of atheists in light of your "gold in China" analogy?

Originally posted by: sklis

... Even if you had 1% of all the knowledge in the world you could not say or prove there is no gold in China because you will tell me that if you can't see it, smell it, touch or taste it, it doesn't exist...quote>

Please do not presume to tell me what I (or anyone else other than you) would say. You have chosen your position on the matter, so please let others do the same for themselves. And that really is at the centre of the issue I think. Some people seem to think they should be entitled to decide what other people believe or should believe. For my part, if someone calls themselves a Christian I usually take them at their word. I don't think all Christians have to go to church (I know many that never go) nor that all people in church are Christian (I think there are probably quite a few atheists who go to church, I have been to church several times as an atheist). Nor does it matter to me what kind of church or way any one Christian chooses to follow. There are many different ways that Christians choose to live true to their belief and I think its counter-productive for everyone Christian or not, for some people to point the finger at others and say they are not true Christians (or any other religion or lack thereof for that matter).

If they believe in the divine nature of Christ and that he died for our sins so that we could live forever in God's presence then they are a Christian to my view, but I leave to them what they want to believe and choose to call themselves.

Originally posted by: sklis

...

Just like your brain. Do you have a brain? How do you know that? quote>

MRI among other things.

[_Atticus 10]

Originally posted by: Lambert14 I know that I have problems with many organized churches, and there are a few out there who would accept anyone as they are.quote>

Christianity by nature accepts people like they are.  What you don't seen to agree with, however is the fact that churches will try to instruct you on how they think you should live your life. They do this for your own good, because they believe that by doing so they are saving your soul from eternal damnation. If you don't agree with their teachings, that's your problem. That doesn't make the churches evil or oppressive.

My main issue with the organized churches is there pushing of religious interpretation into law,quote>

Yes, just like any other group, Christian churches will push for what they believe the laws should be. What is wrong with this? There are thousands of interest groups that do the same.

I do not support churches that condemn, churches that preach that because I am gay I am inherently a sinner and am not an equal person.quote>

Two things are wrong with this statement.

First, churches don't condemn, God does.

Second, and I'm talking from the perspective of the Catholic Church,

I don't know about Protestant denominations, homosexuality alone is not a sin, as long as you don't act on it. And yes, you are equal in rights to everyone else.

-Pingangster 

[cheese91 9]

Just a reminder that we need to keep discussing the topic and not bring each other into any argument. You may express your opinions, but do not, by any means, trash talk another person's beliefs. We haven't had much of an issue with this thread thus far and I'd like to keep it that way for as long as possible.

Thanks for the cooperation.

-Addie

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: sklisI just want to address those who considers them self atheist, there is no such thing. If that offends you who claim to be, then you know how it hurts those who do believe when you react in anger to something you choose to know nothing about and declare there is no such thing as God. You can say it but it doesn't make you right. To say something is not is an absolute. Like if you were to tell me there was no gold in China you would have to know for certain that there is, in fact, no gold in China. You do not know what is under the earth or hidden from your eyes. Even if you had 1% of all the knowledge in the world you could not say or prove there is no gold in China because you will tell me that if you can't see it, smell it, touch or taste it, it doesn't exist.

Just like your brain. Do you have a brain? How do you know that? Have you ever seen your brain? Then how can you say you have one if you have never seen, touched, smelled or tasted your brain. So you see, you can't be an atheist because you don't know for a fact that there is no God. at best you are agnostic.quote>

Well then, by that logic, there's no such thing as a Christain, Jew, etc. either. Everyone is an agnostic.

After all, you don't know for a fact that there is a god.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: pingangster

 What you don't seen to agree with, however is the fact that churches will try to instruct you on how they think you should live your life. They do this for your own good, because they believe that by doing so they are saving your soul from eternal damnation. If you don't agree with their teachings, that's your problem. That doesn't make the churches evil or oppressive. quote>

Not everyone agrees the church's (pick a church, any church) interpretation of  "eternal damnation".  Some churches use that as a threat to cower the congregation into believing/acting the a certain way.   Seems to me that constant, repeated threats can be evil and oppressive.

My main issue with the organized churches is there pushing of religious interpretation into law,quote>

Yes, just like any other group, Christian churches will push for what they believe the laws should be. What is wrong with this? There are thousands of interest groups that do the same. quote>

What is wrong with it?   A major problem in the world today (possibly the major problem in the world today) is that people are going around, trying to force their religious beliefs on others. 

Different groups do this in different ways but it still boils down to Group A deciding that Group B must live their lives in accordance with Group A's beliefs.  Historically, this is one of the most destructive ideas on the planet.  (not sure what the others are but let's posit for the moment that they exist.)

First, churches don't condemn, God does.   quote>

That is not my understanding of God.   Some people see God as condemning, hateful, vengeful, and acting like someone with the manners and morals of a spoiled child.  (I never did understand the reasoning that the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent Being would behave like that.)  Anyway, the point is, not everyone sees God in that way.  So why force that view of God on them?

Second, and I'm talking from the perspective of the Catholic Church,

I don't know about Protestant denominations, homosexuality alone is not a sin, as long as you don't act on it. quote>

The Catholic Church does have this idea that celibacy is a good thing.   Interesting concept in theory ("Hey!  Let's avoid all of these messy problems by just not having sex in the first place!") but, in practice, it doesn't work very well.    It might work for a small percentage of the population but, let's be honest, it has no hope for any kind of long term success with the vast majority of people.

[fukuda 351]

( I just want to address those who considers them self atheist, there is no such thing.quote>

To say something is not is an absolute. Like if you were to tell me there was no gold in China you would have to know for certain that there is, in fact, no gold in China. You do not know what is under the earth or hidden from your eyes. Even if you had 1% of all the knowledge in the world you could not say or prove there is no gold in China because you will tell me that if you can't see it, smell it, touch or taste it, it doesn't exist.quote>

It's like 2300 years too late, sophism was defeated as a knowledge process by ancient greek's philosophy, but keep it up if you want. The funniest part of sophisms is that they are self-destructive, objectively, the chances of your god(s) being real are the same as Baal's, the flying spaghetti monster ones or any crazy thing I might imagine just now. If you can't disprove it, it exists! Fatal logic failure, that means that everything can be real or false (the statement of everything being false is also real, as you can't disprove it) which leads into a spiral of logic failure.

Just like your brain. Do you have a brain? How do you know that? Have you ever seen your brain? Then how can you say you have one if you have never seen, touched, smelled or tasted your brain. So you see, you can't be an atheist because you don't know for a fact that there is no God. at best you are agnostic.)quote>

Yes, I've been shown my brain through CAT and I've seen and manipulated enough (for my taste) animal and human brains to know that I have one inside my head, and it's quite obvious that I wouldn't be typing this reply without one after all 

All the rest mostly stems from the human mind being unable to distinguish between concepts and reality.

First, churches don't condemn, God does. quote>

already heard this one. ah yes, here

Originally exclaimed by: Pope Innocent III

Kill them all; God will know his own! quote>

[Lambert14 0]

but thats the point... We have a seperation of church and state in  this country. These people are pushing there religious interpretation on the rest of the country. Other groups dont have religion backing them or use religious masses  to go and vote. That is how a theocracy forms and theocracys are one persons views on religion oppresing everyone elses. And I dont believe that God condemns as much stuff as the church does... If you look at the bible, alot of these condemnations are ridiculous, the biblical evidence is scarce and alot of the condemning that God did explicitly put into law is ignored by most churches. All christians need to follow are the two laws jesus gave us... Love God above all others and treat others as you want to be treated. Christians cant seem to do this, they like to create a myraid amount of laws and rules and follow those, but ignore when Jesus hands them a simplified system that encourages free thought and individual views. I believe that God gave us free will and inteligence and to not use those things and blindly follow someone is the worst slap in the face you could do. All of this is in my opinion of fcourse

[awake_78 0]

When I' m saying church I don't mean a specific church in a specific place I mean Church in General. For example the Catholic Church is being administrated by Pope in Vatican city. 

I don't kow how things are in America but in my country there is no individual church. The Greek Orthodox church is divided in Metropolis and every church wherever it  is located belongs to this Metropolis. 

So even the smallest church takes order from people above and follows their lead. 

With exceptions most of them are not men of God or whatever they just have power in their hands to do whatever they want and the most of them are corrupted. 

I beleive that every organized church works like that. That's why I' m telling if you want to believe not get involved with priests just do it by yourself. 

Besides that's why they are for. Churches represent fondamental ideas....

[Joe 90 358]

A case of the shoe being on the other foot: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7818980.stm

Interesting to see how the church reacted!

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

My main issue with the organized churches is there pushing of religious interpretation into law,quote>

Yes, just like any other group, Christian churches will push for what they believe the laws should be. What is wrong with this? There are thousands of interest groups that do the same. quote>

What is wrong with it?   A major problem in the world today (possibly the major problem in the world today) is that people are going around, trying to force their religious beliefs on others.  quote>

Is the problem that people are attempting to push their religious views on others, or that people come to believe something and want others to believe the same thing?  If the problem is the former, that might be solvable.  If it's the latter, we can buy all the "Coexist" stickers that we want, but it isn't going to solve the problem.

On some level, I also have to wonder how telling a person that their religious beliefs are wrong is any different than the guy that was handing out flyers and telling me that eating meat was ethically challenged.  It seems to me that people often fixate on the most visible problem without actually looking at the deeper issues.

First, churches don't condemn, God does.   quote>

That is not my understanding of God.   Some people see God as condemning, hateful, vengeful, and acting like someone with the manners and morals of a spoiled child.quote>

What's wrong with having the necessary level of judgment and the will to condemn?

Anyway, the point is, not everyone sees God in that way.  So why force that view of God on them?quote>

You're approach the issue from an entirely different paradigm.  Under your paradigm, God is what you make of him.  Under the paradigm that is more inclined to argue/force a uniform nature of God, God is an objective god.  If God is objective, that opens the door for "incidents" (I'm trying to choose a broad word here) concerning the nature of God.  The former viewpoint sees the latter as being potentially oppressive.  The latter considers itself concerned with what it sees as the truth, and might consider the former to be little more than idolatry or some other such thing.

(Also, for whatever it's worth, the two different paradigms can never be reconciled.  Their very nature is such that it doesn't accommodate the other.)

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hym

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

What is wrong with it?   A major problem in the world today (possibly the major problem in the world today) is that people are going around, trying to force their religious beliefs on others.  quote>

Is the problem that people are attempting to push their religious views on others, or that people come to believe something and want others to believe the same thing?  If the problem is the former, that might be solvable.  If it's the latter, we can buy all the "Coexist" stickers that we want, but it isn't going to solve the problem.  quote>

imho, the problem is people attempting to push their religious views on others.  I don't see how anyone is entitled to do that.

As to people who believe something wanting others to believe the same thing, that happens.  People want whatever they want.  That doesn't give them the right to impose their wishes on others.

What's wrong with having the necessary level of judgment and the will to condemn? quote>

 

I didn't say it was wrong.   I said that is not my understanding of how God works. 

My beliefs are more Eastern than Western. if I had to cram my beliefs into a pre-defined category, it would be Buddhist.   I was quite pleased when Dirk told me that he could tell that by my actions.

Anyway, the point is, not everyone sees God in that way.  So why force that view of God on them?quote>

You're approach the issue from an entirely different paradigm.  quote>

Thank you.

Under your paradigm, God is what you make of him. quote>

Not exactly.  but that is beyond the scope of this thread. 

Under the paradigm that is more inclined to argue/force a uniform nature of God, God is an objective god.  If God is objective, that opens the door for "incidents" (I'm trying to choose a broad word here) concerning the nature of God.  The former viewpoint sees the latter as being potentially oppressive.  The latter considers itself concerned with what it sees as the truth, and might consider the former to be little more than idolatry or some other such thing. quote>

 

Obi-wan may be fictional but I'll quote him anyway:  Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.

 

Just because someone is convinced he knows what the truth is, that doesn't meant that everyone is going to see it that way.

Personally, I think it is quite arrogant to claim to know what God is thinking.  which is why I talk about my understanding of God.  By definition, my understanding is incomplete.   Being humans, our understanding is always going to be incomplete, no matter how much some people want us to believe otherwise.

How can there be a "uniform nature of God" when our understanding is incomplete?

One of my favorite bumper stickers:  God is too big to fit into one religion

As was mentioned earlier, religion is something that man invented.  How can man invent something bigger than God?  It's a contradiction in terms.

But we are wandering off course here.  This thread is supposed to be about the definition of "Christian", not the nature of God.  Those are two different topics.

 

(Also, for whatever it's worth, the two different paradigms can never be reconciled.  Their very nature is such that it doesn't accommodate the other.)quote>

 

You may be right.   I just never understand the mindset that says "I know what God is and you don't.  Therefore, I must correct this error in you."

[Lambert14 0]

Awhile ago some people asked for proof of my claims of the cruelty of evangelical christians. Here is a leader of many churches in the US and many right wings admire him, and this is what he does in the name of god. Rick Warren is a cruel person who is leading people to death and supports attacks on gays.

Condom Burnings and Anti-Gay Witch Hunts: How Rick Warren Is Undermining AIDs Prevention in Africa

By Max Blumenthal, The Daily Beast. Posted January 8, 2009.

GA_googleFillSlot("alt_story_btf_right_300x250");

// ord = window.ord || Math.floor(Math.random()*1E16); document.write('<InvalidTag type="text/javascript" src="<a href='http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/stln.alternet.org/;sz=300x250;ord=''>http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/stln.alternet.org/;sz=300x250;ord='</a> + ord + '?"><\/script>'); // Once hailed by Time magazine as "America's Pastor," California megachurch leader and best-selling author of The Purpose Driven Life, Rick Warren now finds himself on the defensive. President-elect Barack Obama's selection of Warren to deliver the inaugural prayer has generated intense scrutiny of the pastor's beliefs on social issues, from his vocal support for Proposition 8, a ballot initiative banning same-sex marriage in California, to his comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia, incest and bestiality. Many of Obama's supporters have demanded that he withdraw the invitation.

Warren's defense against charges of intolerance ultimately depends upon his ace card: his heavily publicized crusade against AIDS in Africa. Obama senior adviser David Axelrod cited Warren's work in Africa as one of "the things on which [Obama and Warren] agree" on the Dec. 28 episode of Meet the Press. Warren may be opposed to gay rights and abortion, the thinking goes, but he tells evangelicals it is their God-given duty to battle one of the greatest pandemics in history. What could be wrong with that?

But since the Warren inauguration controversy erupted, the nature of his work against AIDS in Africa has gone unexamined. Warren has not been particularly forthcoming to those who have attempted to look into it. His Web site contains scant information about the results of his program. However, an investigation into Warren's involvement in Africa reveals a web of alliances with right-wing clergymen who have sidelined science-based approaches to combating AIDS in favor of abstinence-only education. More disturbingly, Warren's allies have rolled back key elements of one of the continent's most successful initiative, the so-called ABC program in Uganda. Stephen Lewis, the United Nations special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, told the New York Times their activism is "resulting in great damage and undoubtedly will cause significant numbers of infections which should never have occurred."

Warren's man in Uganda is a charismatic pastor named Martin Ssempa. The head of the Makerere Community Church, a rapidly growing congregation, Ssempa enjoys close ties to his country's first lady, Janet Museveni, and is a favorite of the Bush White House. In the capitol of Kampala, Ssempa is known for his boisterous crusading. Ssempa's stunts have included burning condoms in the name of Jesus and arranging the publication of names of homosexuals in cooperative local newspapers while lobbying for criminal penalties to imprison them.

Dr. Helen Epstein, a public health consultant who wrote the book, The Invisible Cure: Why We're Losing the Fight Against AIDS in Africa, met Ssempa in 2005. Epstein told me the preacher seemed gripped by paranoia, warning her of a secret witches coven that met under Lake Victoria.

"Ssempa also spoke to me for a very long time about his fear of homosexual men and women," Epstein said. "He seemed very personally terrified by their presence."

When Warren unveiled his global AIDS initiative at a 2005 conference at his Saddleback Church, he cast Ssempa as his indispensable sidekick, assigning him to lead a breakout session on abstinence-only education as well as a seminar on AIDS prevention. Later, Ssempa delivered a keynote address, a speech so stirring it "had the audience on the edge of its seats," according to Warren's public relations agency. A year later, Ssempa returned to Saddleback Church to lead another seminar on AIDS. By this time, his bond with the Warrens had grown almost familial. "You are my brother, Martin, and I love you," Rick Warren's wife, Kay, said to Ssempa from the stage. Her voice trembled with emotion as she spoke, and tears ran down her cheeks.

Joining Ssempa at Warren's church were two key Bush administration officials who controlled the purse strings of the president's newly minted $15 billion anti-AIDS initiative in Africa, PEPFAR. Museveni also appeared through a videotaped address to tout the success of her country's numerous church-based abstinence programs.

These Bush officials -- Randall Tobias, the Department of State's Global AIDS coordinator, and Claude Allen, the White House's chief domestic policy adviser -- are closely linked to the Christian Right. Tobias, the so-called global AIDS czar, declared in 2004 that condoms "really have not been very effective," and crusaded against prostitution, until he resigned in 2007 when he was exposed as a regular client of the D.C. Madam's escort service. Allen, once an aide to the late Sen. Jesse Helms, R-N.C., resigned in 2006 after he was arrested for felony thefts from retail stores.

During the early 1990s, when many African leaders denied the AIDS epidemic's existence, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni spoke openly about the importance of safe sex. With the help of local and international nongovernmental organizations, he implemented an ambitious program emphasizing abstinence, monogamous relationships and using condoms as the best ways to prevent the spread of AIDS. He called the program "ABC." By 2003, Uganda's AIDS rate plummeted 10 percent. The government's free distribution of the "C" in ABC -- condoms -- proved central to the program's success, according to Avert, an international AIDS charity.

On New Year's Eve 1999, Janet Museveni, who had become born-again, convened a massive stadium revival in Kampala to dedicate her country to the "lordship" of Jesus Christ. As midnight approached, the first lady summoned a local pastor to the stage to anoint the nation. "We renounce idolatry, witchcraft and Satanism in our land!" he proclaimed.

Two years later, Janet Museveni flew to Washington at the height of a heated congressional debate over PEPFAR. She carried in her hand a prepared message to distribute to Republicans. Abstinence was the golden bullet in her country's fight against AIDS, she assured conservative lawmakers, denying the empirically proven success of her husband's condom-distribution program. Like magic, the Republican-dominated Congress authorized over $200 million for Uganda, but only for the exclusive promotion of abstinence education. Ssempa soon became the "special representative of the first lady's Task Force on AIDS in Uganda," receiving $40,000 from the PEPFAR pot.

Emboldened by U.S. support, Ssempa took his anti-condom crusade to Makerere University in Kampala, where senior residents of a men's dormitory promoted safe sex by greeting incoming freshmen with a giant effigy wearing a condom. According to Epstein, one day after she visited the school, Ssempa stormed onto campus, tore the condom from the effigy, grabbed a box of free condoms and set them ablaze. "I burn these condoms in the name of Jesus!" Ssempa shouted as he prayed over the burning box.

"It was a very controversial time," Epstein told me. "After the Bush administration authorized PEPFAR, a number of the local evangelical preachers began to get excited about this and get involved in AIDS very rapidly. To try to prove his credentials, Ssempa became increasingly active and vociferous in his antipathy towards condoms."

By 2005, billboards promoting condom use disappeared from the streets of Kampala, replaced by billboards promoting virginity. "Until recently, all HIV-related billboards were about condoms. Those of us calling for abstinence and faithfulness need billboards, too," Ssempa told the BBC at the time. A 2005 report by Human Rights Watch documented educational material in Uganda's secondary schools falsely claiming condoms had microscopic pores that could be penetrated by the AIDS virus and noted the sudden nationwide shortage of condoms due to new restrictions imposed on condom imports.

AIDS activists arrived at the 16th International AIDS Conference in Toronto in 2006 with disturbing news from Uganda. Due, at least in part, to the chronic condom shortage, HIV infections were on the rise again. The disease rate had spiked to 6.5 percent among rural men and 8.8 percent among women -- a rise of nearly two points in the case of women. "The ‘C' part [of ABC] is now mainly silent," said Ugandan AIDS activist Beatrice Ware. As a result, she said, "the success story is unraveling."

Troubled by what he was witnessing in Africa, the late Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., led the new Democratic-controlled Congress to reform PEPFAR during a reauthorization process in February 2008. Lantos insisted that Congress lift the abstinence-only earmark imposed by Republicans in 2002 and begin to fund family-planning elements like free condom distribution. His maneuver infuriated Warren, who immediately boarded a plane for Washington to join Christian Right leaders, including born-again former Watergate felon Chuck Colson, for an emergency press conference on the Capitol lawn. In his speech, Warren claimed that Lantos' bill would spawn an increase in the sex trafficking of young women. The bill died and PEPFAR was reauthorized in its flawed form. (Days later, Lantos died of cancer after serving for 27 years in Congress.)

With safe sex advocates on the run, Warren and Ssempa trained their sights on another social evil. In August 2007, Ssempa led hundreds of his followers through the streets of Kampala to demand that the government mete out harsh punishments against gays. "Arrest all homos," read placards. And: "A man cannot marry a man." Ssempa continued his crusade online, publishing the names of Ugandan gay rights activists on a Web site he created, along with photos and home addresses. "Homosexual promoters," he called them, suggesting they intended to seduce Uganda's children into their lifestyle. Soon afterward, two of President Museveni's top officials demanded the arrest of the gay activists named by Ssempa. Terrified, the activists immediately into hiding.

Warren, in his effort to dispel criticism, has denied harboring homophobic sentiments. "I could give you a hundred gay friends," he told MSNBC's Ann Curry on Dec. 18. "I have always treated them with respect. When they come and want to talk to me, I talk to them."

But when Uganda's Anglican bishops threatened to bolt from the Church of England because of its tolerant stance towards homosexuals, Warren parachuted into Kampala to confer international legitimacy on their protest.

"The Church of England is wrong, and I support the Church of Uganda on the boycott," Warren proclaimed in March 2008. Declaring homosexuality an unnatural way of life, Warren flatly stated, "We shall not tolerate this aspect [homosexuality in the church] at all."

Days later, Warren emerged so enthusiastic after a meeting with first lady Museveni, he announced a plan to make Uganda a "Purpose Driven Nation."

"The future of Christianity is not Europe or North America, but Africa, Asia and Latin America," he told a cheering throng at Makerere University. Then, Ugandan Archbishop Henry Orombi rose and predicted, "Someday, we will have a purpose-driven continent!"

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Oh, I see. Gee, I guess we are all just evil people now. I didn't know that Rick Warren was in any way representative of all Christians. I'll just have to go out and kill myself now...

...right after you post something about how ACT-UP has vandalized churches and disrupted services, in ways like throwing condoms at people during services, and filling the offering plates with them, or harassing those on their way to worship. Does ACT-UP represent all gays?

[Lambert14 0]

Risk Warren doesnt represent all christians, I never said that. Rick warren is an evangelical who has wriiten many popular books that many evangelical churches follow. His influence is felt throughout the world and his hatred of gays and his destructive ideas as well.

[Sam 163]

The point is not whether he is representative of all Christians or not, but if the allegations in the article are true and accurate, then I think its an example of why allowing social policy to be based on a particular view of arbitrary religious values, thereby enforcing those views on others who should not be required to share those values, is really not a good idea.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hym

You're approach the issue from an entirely different paradigm.  Under your paradigm, God is what you make of him.  Under the paradigm that is more inclined to argue/force a uniform nature of God, God is an objective god.  If God is objective, that opens the door for "incidents" (I'm trying to choose a broad word here) concerning the nature of God.  The former viewpoint sees the latter as being potentially oppressive.  The latter considers itself concerned with what it sees as the truth, and might consider the former to be little more than idolatry or some other such thing.quote>

 

I've been thinking about this.  Is one of the "requirements" (for lack of a better word) for being a Christian using one paradigm versus another for the nature of God?

 

or is it "enough" to follow Jesus' teachings, believe he died for our sins, and so forth?

 

 

[Duke87 1,070]

Depends on who you ask, obviously.

Different churches differ in their ideas of what god is. For some, god is more personal. For others, god is more universal. Different churches also seem fond of coming up with reasons why they're right and given "other" churches are "not Christian".

I suppose for some the nature of the god worshiped is a potential disqualifying criterion.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: hym

You're approach the issue from an entirely different paradigm.  Under your paradigm, God is what you make of him.  Under the paradigm that is more inclined to argue/force a uniform nature of God, God is an objective god.  If God is objective, that opens the door for "incidents" (I'm trying to choose a broad word here) concerning the nature of God.  The former viewpoint sees the latter as being potentially oppressive.  The latter considers itself concerned with what it sees as the truth, and might consider the former to be little more than idolatry or some other such thing.quote>

 

I've been thinking about this.  Is one of the "requirements" (for lack of a better word) for being a Christian using one paradigm versus another for the nature of God?

 

or is it "enough" to follow Jesus' teachings, believe he died for our sins, and so forth?quote>

As Duke said, it depends on who you ask.

Earlier, you spoke of your understanding of God.  This is the subjective approach to the nature of God.  If you don't believe that God behaves like a spoiled child, he doesn't.  If I do, then he does.

The problem is then that the objective viewpoint of God views the subjective as illogical; God's attributes are what God says they are, and are independent of what you choose to believe they are.  To some "objectivists" (I doubt that's a recognized term but I'm going to call them that regardless), the exact particulars are the nature of God are "second place" to the larger scheme of the "Jesus died to save you from your sins" doctrine.  To other objectivists, they are inseparable; you either accept who God is in his entirety, or you don't believe in God at all.  (On a side note, this is why blasphemy often carried the death penalty in the ancient world.  By denying even a part of the nature of XYZ diety, you could be considered as denying the diety as a whole.)

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hym

Earlier, you spoke of your understanding of God.  This is the subjective approach to the nature of God. quote>

I don't see it as subjective.  I see it as acknowledging that my understanding is incomplete.

 

In our current state of existence -- a.k.a. human beings --our understanding has to be incomplete.

imho, a basic starting point is that God is greater than we are.  (Seems to me that, if God isn't greater than we are, we aren't talking about God.)

 

We have no more chance of completely understanding God than a dog has of understanding geography.   The dog will grasp some of the basics, like where things are in the neighborhood or where to find his doghouse, but he isn't going to understand continents, oceans, mountains, etc.

 

  If you don't believe that God behaves like a spoiled child, he doesn't.  If I do, then he does. quote>

Why would anyone accept that belief?  That point has always eluded me.  I remember when people tried to tell me that God behaves like a spoiled child.  It seemed obvious to me that I was being lied to.

The problem is then that the objective viewpoint of God views the subjective as illogical; God's attributes are what God says they are, and are independent of what you choose to believe they are.  To some "objectivists" (I doubt that's a recognized term but I'm going to call them that regardless), the exact particulars are the nature of God are "second place" to the larger scheme of the "Jesus died to save you from your sins" doctrine.  quote>

 

How can God be "second place" to anything?  That is a contradiction in terms to me.

To other objectivists, they are inseparable; you either accept who God is in his entirety, or you don't believe in God at all.  quote>

"who God is in his entirety" according to whom?   Again, it boils down to Person A expecting Person B to swallow Person A's view.

(On a side note, this is why blasphemy often carried the death penalty in the ancient world.  By denying even a part of the nature of XYZ diety, you could be considered as denying the diety as a whole.)quote>

 

which moves it beyond Person A "expecting" Person B to swallowing Person A's view.  Now Person A is forcing Person B to accept that view or die.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Originally posted by: hym

Earlier, you spoke of your understanding of God.  This is the subjective approach to the nature of God. quote>

I don't see it as subjective.  I see it as acknowledging that my understanding is incomplete.

 

In our current state of existence -- a.k.a. human beings --our understanding has to be incomplete.

imho, a basic starting point is that God is greater than we are.  (Seems to me that, if God isn't greater than we are, we aren't talking about God.)

 

We have no more chance of completely understanding God than a dog has of understanding geography.   The dog will grasp some of the basics, like where things are in the neighborhood or where to find his doghouse, but he isn't going to understand continents, oceans, mountains, etc.quote>

My apologies.  I misunderstood you.

Still, it illustrates how easy it is for your comment to be misconstrued as belief in a subjective God.  Or to say it as I once heard someone else say it, "my own little God who is as I want him to be."

The problem is then that the objective viewpoint of God views the subjective as illogical; God's attributes are what God says they are, and are independent of what you choose to believe they are.  To some "objectivists" (I doubt that's a recognized term but I'm going to call them that regardless), the exact particulars are the nature of God are "second place" to the larger scheme of the "Jesus died to save you from your sins" doctrine.  quote>

 

How can God be "second place" to anything?  That is a contradiction in terms to me.quote>

Let me phrase that differently.  Say you believed God was blue.  There's nothing in the Bible that says God has a specific color to him.  This is what is known as "adiophora"; it's of no immediate relevance to the issue of salvation.  Some objectivists believe that there are aspects to the nature of God that are of no immediate relevance to salvation, so they are comfortable with their being disagreements over those particular aspects of God's nature.  Other objectivists don't take this view; you either accept God in his entirety, or you don't believe in him at all.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hym

My apologies.  I misunderstood you.  quote>

No worries.  It's easy to misunderstand each other in conversations like this.

How can God be "second place" to anything?  That is a contradiction in terms to me.quote>

Let me phrase that differently.  Say you believed God was blue.  There's nothing in the Bible that says God has a specific color to him.  This is what is known as "adiophora"; it's of no immediate relevance to the issue of salvation.  quote>

So salvation is more important than understanding God?

Again, according to whom?  

That depends on your point of view.  and there is nothing to say that Person A's point of view is any more valid than Person B's.

Some objectivists believe that there are aspects to the nature of God that are of no immediate relevance to salvation, so they are comfortable with their being disagreements over those particular aspects of God's nature.  quote>

Granted, the issue of whether God is blue or not seems irrelevant.   But it seems to me that the issue of behaving like a spoiled child is pertinent.

 

[hym 358]

We're heading off topic here....

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hym

We're heading off topic here....quote>

True.   This conversation should be over in the House of Worship thread.

Edit:   since I'm too lazy to move the posts, I'll rephrase that:

Any continuation of this aspect of the conversation should occur over in the House of Worship thread.

 

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa