Lambert14

Turkey will not be allowed to join the EU, it would drastically alter the power balance, and their weaker economy would seriously hurt the EU's. Not to mention the disagreements they have with current EU nations that they wont budge on, like Greece. Also, large amounts of labour from eastern europe is already flooding the western markets and causing problems in the socialist states. There are tons of problems with Turkey joining the EU, and I seriously doubt it will happen in our life time unless there are drastic changes within the EU itself.

Also with Turkey's entry into the EU all its citizens would be granted free movement in all of europe, flooding the richer nations labour markets. And the country itself would have a massive voting amount based on its population in comparison with the other leading EU States. Not to mention turkeys dismal economy and its terrible human rights record. I doubt turkey will ever be allowed into the EU, for good reasons...

Here is a condensed version of the canadian government's report: About the report: The report that the Canadian Conservative Party, under the leadership of Stephen Harper, apparently hoped would never see the light of day is titled "Children's Development of Social Competence Across Family Types." It is dated 2006-JUL. 2 It was only released after a request using the Access to Information Act by the lead author. The report notes that: "Canada has recently debated a profound redefinition of 'marriage' by extending its parameters through the legalization of civil marriage between same-sex adults" It was issued approximately twelve months after marriage was extended to same-sex couples across Canada. The report was prepared by a team led by Paul D. Hastings who holds a Ph.D. in Applied Developmental Psychology. The group included Johanna Vyncke, Caroline Sullivan, Kelly E. McShane, Michael Benibgui. and William Utendale. It was supplied to the group that commissioned the report: the Family, Children and Youth Section of the Canadian Department of Justice. The report is a 74 page meta study that summarized the results of over 100 individual studies into various family types and parenting competencies. A point of confusion: Quality of parenting: The report states: "Research has consistently shown little difference in children's social competence, parental socialization, and family functioning between families of heterosexual parents and families of gay or lesbian parents. The few differences that do emerge consistently suggest that: 1. Gay and lesbian couples tend to have a more egalitarian and satisfying balance of child-care tasks than heterosexual couples. 2. Gay and lesbian parents may be marginally more effective socialization agents than heterosexual parents, and 3. Children with gay or lesbian parents may be more concerned with or even experience more discrimination due to their parents' sexual orientation, although this does not appear to interfere with their social competence. From the perspective of risk and protective factors, the marginally, more effective socialization practices of gay and lesbian parents might act to protect their children from the adverse effects that could otherwise result from concern about or experience of teasing, bullying and discrimination because of the sexual orientation of their parent(s). Additionally, the marginally more positive home environment that likely results from lesbian and gay parents' greater support of each other's childcare activities might provide a marginally more supportive context for children's development of feelings of security and self-worth." In one study, "mothers reported that 18% of children had experienced some form of homophobic discrimination from peers or teachers, and adverse social events that would be a source of stress unique to children raised in gay and lesbian families." Such bigotry is hardly unique to children with same-sex parents. It is also experienced by children who are black, of mixed-race, whose parents follow a minority religion, who are recent immigrants, with a different mother tongue, who are developmentally challenged, who are visibly disabled, or a multitude of other differences. The encouraging fact is that the vast majority of same-sex parents reported no homophobic prejudice from outside of the family. Financial challenges: The report discusses financial aspects experienced by same-sex parents: "Relative economic hardship is common for gay and lesbian parents, as well. ... Gay men earn 11% to 27% less than heterosexual men with the same education, experience, and occupation, who live in the same region; lesbians also earn less than heterosexual women, although the difference is smaller. Lesbian mothers are more likely to experience job loss than heterosexual mothers, and lesbian mothers tend to be less affluent than heterosexual mothers." "It is curious, therefore, that overall gay and lesbian parents are equally good, or marginally better, socialization agents than heterosexual parents. Their relatively greater financial stresses do not appear to undermine the quality of their parenting. Perhaps anticipating that their children may be at risk of social disadvantage due to discrimination, gay and lesbian parents may put extra effort into meeting the needs of their children and providing them with strong social and emotional resources. Thus, the expected deleterious effects of economic stress on the quality of parental socialization may be ameliorated to some extent by the added childcare motivation present in many homes with gay or lesbian parents." (Citations deleted for clarity) Compensating factor: Quality of the parents' relationship: It seems likely that the high quality of parental socialization within lesbian and gay two-parent families acts to protect children from the adverse effects of this addition stress and discrimination. In turn, gay and lesbian parents are protected by the quality of their relationships with their partners. On the whole, lesbian and gay couples in two-parent families report sharing the tasks of child-rearing more equally than many heterosexual couples, and also report having more satisfying couple relationships." Recommendations: "Parents need to not be alone in the job of raising their children. Supportive and engaged partners, and accessible and supportive social networks, help parents to provide their children with the socialization experiences that foster the development of good social competence. The experience of stresses related to economic hardship and, in the case of lesbian and gay parents, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, undermine the quality of parental socialization when good social support is lacking. As a society, we should endeavour to eradicate poverty and discrimination because of their adverse effect on children and families. In addition, we should support the social factors that protect families against the adverse effects of these risk factors. All two-parent and one-parent families should be accepted and supported, and the positive social support networks of lone-parent and two-parent families should be fostered and encouraged." Conclusion: "The strongest conclusion that can be drawn from the empirical literature is that the vast majority of studies show that children living with two mothers and children living with a mother and father have the same levels of social competence. A few studies suggest that children with two lesbian mothers may have marginally better social competence than children in traditional nuclear families, even fewer studies show the opposite, and most studies fail to find any differences. The very limited body of research on children with two gay fathers supports this same conclusion."

Here is one of the professional studies done by the Canadian Government : http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/docs/Justice_Child_Development.pdf Our government hasnt touched the issue yet or any other reliable and unbiased group. A child needs a loving and caring family, how is a hetero or homo parenting different in that regard? Churches force there views when they push them into law... I dont know about mainstream churches, but evangelical churches do and they are mainly mainstream in the south here. Many gay hate crimes, when asking the perpetrators, they use religion as justification for there actions. If you go through the bible, there are many restrictions on when a hetero couple can have sex, when they cant, restrictions against divorce, rules regarding families and other such things disregarded nowadays by christians. Homosexuals are denied there pursuit of happiness and are made to feel as second class citizens. No laws protect my job, my home, me and my husbands marital rights, my children if they are not genetically related, adoption rights, and many other rights heteros take for granted. I never said homosexuals wouldnt divorce... but there would be more families in number staying together and more families to take cae of kids, even if the percentage staed where it is now. Any other questions?

Legislation from the bench can be a good thing. Rulings help move this county forward in a progressive manner when the people refuse to vote to do it. Allowing abortion, evolution ot be taught in schools, desegregation, bi-racial marriages, these were all given to us by the courts whose job it is to uphold the constitution and protect everyone's rights. Marriage is a civil institution, not religious. As many have stated before, marriage is granted by the government, not churches or anyone else. These rights should be available to same sex marriages. There will always be a difference, its not about saying we are all identical, its saying under the law we all deserve the same rights and abilities. Also, many heterosexual couples nowadays need a third party to step in to help with pregnancies, my mother and three of my aunts all had to have invitro. Also, the idea that it is bad for children is bull, more then 50% of marriages nowadays are divorced, those kids only have one parent and you make do with what you got. Having two parents that love you is more important then what sex they are. Also, if you look at the professional studies, there is no significant difference between a same sex parent family and an opposite sex parent family. These are lies forced upon us by the churches and focus on the family who live to mislead people and make them fear. Churches openly say that being gay is a sin and you are going to hell. Churches post signs saying I am going to burn. Churches allow hate crimes by telling there congregations that we are sinners and christians must punish the sinners. Churches cant even read there own bible and see that being gay is not a sin, what is referred to is idolatry and rampant debauchery and not respecting your own body. There are more sins committed by heterosexual couples in a marriage, then by gay or lesbian couples. We dont want or seek approval, we dont care if you accept it or not, we want our civil rights granted to us and to be treated equally under the law.

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy The church of Scientology, for instance, is in no way "non-profit". quote> Agreed, hence the UK and Irish governments do not class them as a religion but class them as a cult and ban them from using tax exempt status bar for VAT. Something they detest greatly and makes me laugh rather a lot.quote> Not to mention Germany where scientology is actively fought against as a cult oganization

Commercials, flyers, call centers, advertisements, yard signs, Internet sights, viral videos and numerous other items that they did not represent the costs on there documents. Under the IRS code for tax exempt institutions, a tax exempt group cannot do a substantial amount of lobbying or political pushing for or against anything. The LDS Church donated large amounts of items and money to the no on prop 8 campaign. They have claimed only 20000 dollars worth of actual monetary donations, but make no mention of all the non monetary donations given. The IRS needs to define substantial, and then needs to request all the monetary documents from the LDS to determine how much money they actually donated to the campaign. Many of the estimates put them at 70% o the total funding. If the IRS does there job, there is no way this wouldnt classify as substanital andd the LDS church loses its tax exempt status as punishment

um, I think the whole tax exempt thing is missing the point. The LDS chucrch broke the law by donating large amounts of nonmonetary lobbying tools to get legislation passed. They cant do that...

interesting news story I found. Apparently the Mormon church bit off more then it can chew and possibly broke the law... http://www.towleroad.com/2009/01/video-mormon-fi.html

interesting concept...

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.

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!"

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

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.

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.

not to mention, if all the good christians who truly follow jesus's teachings leave the churches, who will be able to stop there cruelty and hate?

Originally posted by: sklis Hogwash!quote> no arguments from you at all? Find holes in my ideas?

Actually, liberal Christianity involves studying the bible further than most people do nowadays and to try and understand everything that was said in a cultural and historical context. This whole idea of something being biblical or not is a concept that literalist Christians adhere too. You do understand that English just doesn't have the words necessary to properly translate from ancient languages? We don't even have the same concepts of words or ideas. To say something is biblical, you have to assume that the current versions of the bible are accurate and what was originally intended. Biblically, you can own slaves, beat your children if they misbehave, sell your daughters to husbands, commit genocide, have multiple wives, and numerous other concepts we find terrible today. My view of Christianity doesn't take the bible at face value; I just don't see how you logically can. If you really wanted to be completely biblical, the bible contradicts itself. Maybe the bible, instead of being a rule book, should just be a guide and a source of learned wisdom that helps all of us on our own personal road towards Christianity instead of something you can condemn and judge people with. People such as James Dobson and the super channel use their view of the bible and try to force it into law, even though they ignore large parts of the book, particularly Jesus teachings which I find should be more important then the rest. Also, to Sklis... Most of christianity involves stories, practices, and ideas from religions older then it, particularly egyptian and persian/babylonian religions. The story of Osiris parallels Jesus. The flood story is found throughout this part of the world. Most of christianity absorbed these ideas and tweeked them to be there own. For instance, speaking in tongues sounds alot like the greek oracles that would be smitten by there chosen god, speak in riddles or in an alien tongue, and a priest would interpret. All religions are based off the ones preceding it... Including christianity.

Originally posted by: manticorefan Originally posted by: Lambert14 I lived through a very repressive church childhood. The churches I grew up in taught very repressive and cruel doctrine. Many times in sunday school I was told that anyone who did not attend our church was going to hell. Yes I understand facism, and if you apply it religiously, the churches I grew up in resembled it. We had one leader, our pastor, everything worked to better the church and his personal life. They had witch trials and heresy trials in church were they actively threw people out of the church and forbade them to reenter. And focus on the families has changed there position, throughtout the 90s there stance was as I stated, I had to go through that with my family. The churches I have been a part of cared only about enforcing there view of the bible, not about people or caring or love or anything jesus actually stood for. Even the churches the missionarys sponsored only helped people who "came to christ" and ignored the rest of them. Before you attack me, try to understand that everyone had had different experiences in churches and I saw the cruelty and inhumanity that evangelism can achieve.quote> I am curious, would you care to divulge this particular denomination or church? I am surprised by the idea of witch trials, which sounds more like a cult than a mainstream denomination. The idea of church discipline for some things that can get a person 'uninvited' isn't new, but it can be taken too far by a pastor with unholy motives. I have seen a few churches where things have really gotten out of hand, usually at the behest of a very few with too much power. It's like any other group, where the power-mad exert themselves to a ridiculous or even dangerous degree because the masses are unwilling or too uneducated to take a stand for the truth. I can understand being scarred by this type of experience, but it doesn't apply to all evangelical Christians or churches, you must be aware of that. I suspect a certain particular denomination or similar umbrella group is the one you refer to by what you describe, but will hold my comments to avoid offending any adherents that may be members on this site. My guess is, they're post-millenial, and likely have or will have some form of health-and-wealth doctrine creeping in. Any "slain in the Spirit" or "holy laughter" stuff? A lot of laying of hands or excessive focus on speaking in tongues? Just guessing, but it fits a general pattern among some churches that would fit what you've already described.quote> Yes actually, that does describe alot of stuff the churches I attended did. One of the original reason I left was how fake and forced everything was. It wasnt one denomination, but several churches my parents took me to growing up. I wont say because I dont want to offend people, but most of the evangelical churches I tried reattending after I left home all had similar trends. People who are sheep and blindly follow the pastor no matter what he says. The one church I have been attending now is the MCC, metropolitan community church and was surprised to find that there platform wanted you to learn for yourself what is in the bible and actively let people in the seats discuss, debate, and present there own ideas. My views have moved very far towards a liberal christianity, and findd it pleasant to attend a church that allows free thought. I still view the types of churches I went to as a kid as hateful places with people like james dobson as a public forefront and I hope these people can wake up and realize the are being lied to repeatedly and just need to read the bible for themselves, particularl jesus's rules he gave : Love God above all others and treat others as you want to be ttreated.

Originally posted by: pingangster Yes, evangelical christians are great examples of fascism and extremism in religionquote> Fascism makes no sense in this context. Do you even know what that means? Also, you can see this hate when you look at politics of most churches, they dont care about human rights or equalityt or even upholding the curent laws. quote> I would like to see some proof of this. How is it that churches don't care about human rights? Maybe you mean Islam... Look at the cruelty focus on the family has done to families, actively telling parents that if there kids come out of the closet, they must reject them and throw them out.quote> Though it is true that most churches consider homosexuality to be sinful, this is not the case at all. You're just saying things without any facts to back them up. -Pingangsterquote> I lived through a very repressive church childhood. The churches I grew up in taught very repressive and cruel doctrine. Many times in sunday school I was told that anyone who did not attend our church was going to hell. Yes I understand facism, and if you apply it religiously, the churches I grew up in resembled it. We had one leader, our pastor, everything worked to better the church and his personal life. They had witch trials and heresy trials in church were they actively threw people out of the church and forbade them to reenter. And focus on the families has changed there position, throughtout the 90s there stance was as I stated, I had to go through that with my family. The churches I have been a part of cared only about enforcing there view of the bible, not about people or caring or love or anything jesus actually stood for. Even the churches the missionarys sponsored only helped people who "came to christ" and ignored the rest of them. Before you attack me, try to understand that everyone had had different experiences in churches and I saw the cruelty and inhumanity that evangelism can achieve.

Originally posted by: SkiGeek Originally posted by: Explodingsims Originally posted by: SkiGeek Originally posted by: Lambert14 Well, what I was told in sunday school was that catholics were not christian because they never asked god to forgive them, they asked a priest. Muslims are not christians because Allah is the Devil, and Mormons are not christians because they have a seperate book that mocks the bible. I HIGHLY dissagree with all of this, but this is what evangelical churches tell childrenquote> Well, that's really scary. That just seems so hateful and divisive to me. Where does loving thy neighbor fit in? quote> Well, according to most Christians, you can only love your neighbor if he's Christian. quote> That is not how I learned it as a kid. and, btw, that is my major problem with "true Christians" today. Apparently being a "true Christian" requires a high level of hate. Seems to me that is taking Christ's teachings and warping them into something else.quote> Yes, evangelical christians are great examples of fascism and extremism in religion, almost the same strain of extremism found in islam. Only difference is these extremists are wealthy and taken care of, so no need to resort to attacking people to get what god says is thiers. Also, you can see this hate when you look at politics of most churches, they dont care about human rights or equalityt or even upholding the curent laws. They want there views of thier religion to be the only views the government takes into account and forces on the rest of the population. Look at the cruelty focus on the family has done to families, actively telling parents that if there kids come out of the closet, they must reject them and throw them out. Most of these evangelicals dont even read there bibles themselves, they either listen to whatever thier pastor says and absorb it like a dry sponge, or they pay large amounts of money for "bible guides" to show them insights controlled by people with the same views as thiers

Originally posted by: Danlikebooks In Syria in the 70's, my parents were taught (by their Muslim teachers) that Israel was wrongfully created on Arab soil, in Arab Territory (Palestine). I've thought about where this problem has come from, and I think I've figured it out: Before the Jewish Diaspora, Israel was the Jewish homeland. Then, they were enslaved (by the Babylonians, I think) and the empty land was then taken over by Arabs, now known as Palestinians. 2,500 years later, Britain decides to make Palestine an Israeli nation, Israel. Now obviously, if you and your ancestors have been living on this land for 2,500 years, you would naturally not want to give it up. And there's part of the problem, disregarding religious sacred grounds. Sure it nice that Jewish people finally get their homeland back, but what about the people that were living there? They got pushed to the side. And so naturally, they decided to fight back. And so all of this leads up to what is happening between Israel and the Gaza Strip. I'm not sure where to side on this, but I'm leaning towards Gaza. Sure, they started the whole thing, but its just part of their struggle to get their homeland back. If you were kicked out of your house by some greater force and then someone else moved in, you would want to fight back too, wouldn't you?quote> If you look at the original UN charter for the state of israel, palestine was pretty evenly distributed with jerusalem divided up. After the 1967 war when the arab nations attacked israel, including all the palestinians, israel fought back and won large amounts of territory including the west bank, gaza and sinai. Israel made treaties for peace with egypt and a few others by giving back land they took. The current areas of palestine were israeli settlements a few years ago. The israeli government made a truce with the palestinians and gave back some of the land and forcefully removed the israeli settlers. The palestinian people in the west bank are not suffering, only the ones in hamas controlled gaza are. Hamas is a cruel and inhumane group that hides behind civilians, kills there own people if they dissagree, and instead of taking care of the people in there territory, spend there resources on rockets to attack israel. This is a group of people whos sole purpose and drive is hate. Every teaty they have been part of they broke. Why shouldnt they be forcefully removed and the territory of gaza given back to the rightful government in the west bank? Also, if you look at the original agreements, parts of the neighboring arab nations were to be given to the palestinians, such as territory from syria and lebanon, none of this was ever given to them, even though it was a greed upon. Furthermore, these people calling for protection on there arab brothers treat them terribly. They are forced into these narow pieces of land because the neighboring arab "brothers" will not grant citizenship status to them. Egypt even has the border sealed off to Gaza most of the time because they see the danger of hamas and what terrorism can do to there country.

This is a ludicrous situation. Every other country if they were being bombarded constantly with rockets from a neighboring territory would immediately attack and defend themselves from attack. Israel has asked the world repeatedly to condemn these attacks on there citizens, and yet everonye screams when israel attacks in defense. A Terrorist organization is controling the gaza strip and has refused to even recognize the existence of israel, so how should israel react? Roll over and let hamas continually bomb there cities, or wipe out a terrorist organization. If you notice, the west bank is doing well, effectively palestine has split and one group will be able to negotiate a lasting peace, while the other for its hatred will either kill every israeli or be destroyed themselves.

Originally posted by: sam Originally posted by: Ace_F15 I think it's more or less what the Bible says about the two issues you mentioned that matters. Obviously different people interpret it differently but it seems pretty straightforward to me. Also, I think there is such a thing as a true christian. I know some friends who take the Bible literally. A lot of christians I know take the bible literally. quote> Are you saying that only those who take the Bible absolutely literally are true Christians? How do you know that taking the Bible literally is the way of the true Christian? quote> I would go as far as saying bible literalists in the current american sense are very far from true christianity, mainly because they pick and choose what aspects of the bible they want to follow, and ignore large amounts of passages. Leviticus is a reat example, huge amounts of laws and rulings ignored, but lets pick out the ones we like and ignore the rest. Also, most literalists do not read the bible, they listen to there pastor read excerpts. For instance the passage that says that marriage is between a man and a woman... Right below that it states the exceptions to this rule, one of them using an old greek word that now is translated as eunuch, but was meant as someone not attracted to the opposite sex. My parents are literalists and seriously turn a blind eye to anything I show them, being stubborn in there long held beliefs and refuse to study the bible

Originally posted by: Duke87 It started with a simple mistake in composition in this thread, but it uncovered a key debate in digression from the topic at hand. And so now it's here. Quoting some posts first... Originally posted by: Duke87 Originally posted by: Barbarossa With the exception of some Catholic churches, it is difficult, even unlikely, to find a mosque or ashram or anything not Christian.quote> Um... A Catholic church is Christian. Methinks you meant "anything not Protestant".quote> Originally posted by: manticorefan I thought you were right the first time, but that's a whole 'nother thread.quote> Originally posted by: panthersimcity4Well, here in the U.S, Catholicism is often considered non-Christian, at least by most Evangelicals. Because, well.... GASP OMG IDOLATRY quote> Right then. Okay, my input on the matter now: A lot of people also firmly hold that Mormons are not "Christians", either. The problem here comes from the subjectivity of it all. Objectively, a "Christian" is simply one who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ. This would encompass Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons alike, as well as Eastern Orthodox Christians and Messianic Jews. But that is not what defines a "Christian" according to a lot of Christians. For many people, belief in the divinity of Jesus is a necessary but not sufficient condition to be considered "Christian". There are additional requirements of proper faith and practice. Mormons are branded heretical by many because they have their own extra holy book in addition to the bible. Messainic Jews, despite their belief in Jesus, insist they are not Christian - and many Catholics, at least, would beg to differ with them on that. Typically, the Catholic definition is the same as the objective one. You believe in the divinity of Jesus, you're Christian. It doesn't mean you're a proper Christian, but you are a Christian and thus eligible for salvation. For many protestants, however, the term "Christian" typically only defines the various Protestant Churches. The non-protestant followers of Jesus, they're something else. Now, it's a classic argument that Catholics (or "Papists", as some would call them) cannot possibly be truly loyal to their country since their loyalty lies with the pope. With time, people realized this was a misplaced prejudice and it's not a common way of thinking anymore. Nevertheless, many still do not embrace them as being "Christian". It's understandable on emotional level, at least. You rebel to break off and form your own church, you don't want much to do with the church you rebelled against and don't want to consider them to be the same thing as you. ....but that was nearly half a millennium ago. Surely people have gotten over that by now. What I'd like to hear is a logical argument as to why Catholics, Mormons, etc. are not "Christians". In the past I've been rather underwhelmed by the things I've heard. Things such as "they worship a different Jesus" or "you can't define what a Christian is in words, but if you are one, you know one when you see one and I can tell you from that that they are not". I don't like arguments like these since they make no apparent sense and thus make it quite hard for me to take the people using them seriously. So, anyone who holds that opinion, this is your chance: show me that there is a logical argument for the exclusion and that it isn't just a load of bullcrap. I'm all ears. Everyone else... well, you know the drill. Feel free to discuss the issue intelligently but do refrain from ad hominem attacks. If you resort to insulting people, you automatically lose the argument.quote> Well, what I was told in sunday school was that catholics were not christian because they never asked god to forgive them, they asked a priest. Muslims are not christians because Allah is the Devil, and Mormons are not christians because they have a seperate book that mocks the bible. I HIGHLY dissagree with all of this, but this is what evangelical churches tell children