Fine Christian family values

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Well, it's not like the Roman Catholics don't have the same problem, is it? Or are they a "cult" too?

The Catholic church has its problems. One thing you need to understand about Chrisianity. You don't get in by presenting an "I am sinless" card. In our faith there was only one card carrier. If a pedophile finds his way into the priesthood, it's abominable, but it needs to be dealt with, just the same as if, say, a college professor or elementary school teacher uses their position to get sex. I understand your disdain for Christians, but why the constant attacks? I'd never lump you into the same group as Debra Lafave.

Maybe, just maybe, the Christian right's constant attempts to get their "morality" () enshrined in law so everyone else has to comply is what makes their hypocrisy so obvious.

Case in point - Palin's desire to force rape victims to bear the child of the rapist.

Just keep beatin' that drum John. Do you honestly think Palin said to herself 'hehe...we'll force those girls who got raped to have the kid"?

I think she believes life begins at conception, and any life, no matter how conceived is worth being given a chance.

Same end result, two very different paths.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Well, it's not like the Roman Catholics don't have the same problem, is it? Or are they a "cult" too?

The Catholic church has its problems. One thing you need to understand about Chrisianity. You don't get in by presenting an "I am sinless" card. In our faith there was only one card carrier. If a pedophile finds his way into the priesthood, it's abominable, but it needs to be dealt with, just the same as if, say, a college professor or elementary school teacher uses their position to get sex. I understand your disdain for Christians, but why the constant attacks? I'd never lump you into the same group as Debra Lafave.

Maybe, just maybe, the Christian right's constant attempts to get their "morality" () enshrined in law so everyone else has to comply is what makes their hypocrisy so obvious.

Case in point - Palin's desire to force rape victims to bear the child of the rapist.

Just keep beatin' that drum John. Do you honestly think Palin said to herself 'hehe...we'll force those girls who got raped to have the kid"?

I think she believes life begins at conception, and any life, no matter how conceived is worth being given a chance.

Same end result, two very different paths.

It is her stated position, and she hasn't changed it. I just choose to state it differently than you like.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Well, it's not like the Roman Catholics don't have the same problem, is it? Or are they a "cult" too?

The Catholic church has its problems. One thing you need to understand about Chrisianity. You don't get in by presenting an "I am sinless" card. In our faith there was only one card carrier. If a pedophile finds his way into the priesthood, it's abominable, but it needs to be dealt with, just the same as if, say, a college professor or elementary school teacher uses their position to get sex. I understand your disdain for Christians, but why the constant attacks? I'd never lump you into the same group as Debra Lafave.

Maybe, just maybe, the Christian right's constant attempts to get their "morality" () enshrined in law so everyone else has to comply is what makes their hypocrisy so obvious.

Case in point - Palin's desire to force rape victims to bear the child of the rapist.

Just keep beatin' that drum John. Do you honestly think Palin said to herself 'hehe...we'll force those girls who got raped to have the kid"?

I think she believes life begins at conception, and any life, no matter how conceived is worth being given a chance.

Same end result, two very different paths.

It is her stated position, and she hasn't changed it. I just choose to state it differently than you like.

It goes to intent. Anyways, it's not something anyone will have to be concerned with anytime soon.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

John,

You've been active in these forums for many years. Even though I haven't agreed with you on some issues, I told you that I thought you were an honest poster.

Here's my question and I have no doubt that I will get an honest answer: What was your motivation in posting that article and wording the title of the thread the way you did?

Apparently you didn't read the verses about casting the beam out of one's own eye...

I've not noticed Jews, Hindus or Buddhists trying to get their morality enshrined in US law. Just Christians.

I've not noticed Jews, Hindus or Buddhists lecturing others about their values. Just Christians.

If you choose to throw stones, you should first ensure your house isn't made of glass.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Para_Frog 1]

Remind me again, oh learned one...

Which of the founding fathers was Muslim, Jewish, and or Bhuddist?

I'll stand by.

That is where our laws originate. As much as it grinds at the left...we are still pretty much a Christian country. Our primary source of immigration is Mexico, and guess what...they are too.

So your pipe dream of total secularism is just that for the next couple of hundred years anyway.

3 cheers for the FSM. You guys rock.

- Harvey, BASE 1232
TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA

BLiNC Magazine Team Member

[Muenkel 0]

John,

Your thread began with the title 'Fine Christian family values' and your first post simply had a link to an article about a cult. You're now backpedalling.

You're an intelligent guy. You know there are literally hundreds of Christian sects and cults and that some severely distort true Christian values.

The title of your thread and the post with that one link has nothing to do with your answer to my question.

I consider you to be better than this.

_________________________________________
Chris

[TankBuster 0]

Quote

Case in point - Palin's desire to force rape victims to bear the child of the rapist.

That may well be her personal view, but has she proposed legislation to that effect? On the other hand, Sen. Obama, while a state senator, opposed legislation that would force a physician to provide care to an infant born alive during a botched abortion. I think Christians and non-Christians alike find that reprehensible.

But the point of this thread is still pretty obvious. I think it's dishonest and a cheap shot.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/obama_abortion/2008/08/19/123525.html

The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.

[jakee 1,563]

Quote

Which of the founding fathers was Muslim, Jewish, and or Bhuddist?

So?

Quote

That is where our laws originate. As much as it grinds at the left...we are still pretty much a Christian country. Our primary source of immigration is Mexico, and guess what...they are too.

So?

Plenty of countries in the Middle East are predominantly Muslim, does that make their draconian Islamic based legal systems OK?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

John,

You've been active in these forums for many years. Even though I haven't agreed with you on some issues, I told you that I thought you were an honest poster.

Here's my question and I have no doubt that I will get an honest answer: What was your motivation in posting that article and wording the title of the thread the way you did?

Apparently you didn't read the verses about casting the beam out of one's own eye...

I've not noticed Jews, Hindus or Buddhists trying to get their morality enshrined in US law. Just Christians.

I've not noticed Jews, Hindus or Buddhists lecturing others about their values. Just Christians.

If you choose to throw stones, you should first ensure your house isn't made of glass.

And let's clarify that a bit more, I think European Christians don't legislate morality as American Christians do.

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

Which of the founding fathers was Muslim, Jewish, and or Bhuddist?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That is where our laws originate. As much as it grinds at the left...we are still pretty much a Christian country. Our primary source of immigration is Mexico, and guess what...they are too.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So?

Plenty of countries in the Middle East are predominantly Muslim, does that make their draconian Islamic based legal systems OK?

Huh?

I think I'll let Tankbuster or para-frog take on your reply.

_________________________________________
Chris

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>we are still pretty much a Christian country.


That's why prayer is mandatory in school and abortion is legal. Not to mention gay marriage has just become legal in at least Cali.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Our primary source of immigration is Mexico, and guess what...they are too.


They are Mexicans.... ....oh, they're Catholics, not the same as Christians.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So your pipe dream of total secularism is just that for the next couple of hundred years anyway.


And your dream of a statue of Charlie (Jesus) in schools and courtrooms is also defunct.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Remind me again, oh learned one...

Which of the founding fathers was Muslim, Jewish, and or Bhuddist?

Damn few of them were Christian. If the US is a Christian nation, it's because it has been hijacked by Christians, not because it was founded by them.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Your thread began with the title 'Fine Christian family values' and your first post simply had a link to an article about a cult. You're now backpedalling.


That's only because you find a difference between Christianty and cults.

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Your thread began with the title 'Fine Christian family values' and your first post simply had a link to an article about a cult. You're now backpedalling.


That's only because you find a difference between Christianty and cults.

We actually agree on something.

_________________________________________
Chris

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Your thread began with the title 'Fine Christian family values' and your first post simply had a link to an article about a cult. You're now backpedalling.


That's only because you find a difference between Christianty and cults.

We actually agree on something.

KInda, I don't see a difference much of the time.

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Your thread began with the title 'Fine Christian family values' and your first post simply had a link to an article about a cult. You're now backpedalling.


That's only because you find a difference between Christianty and cults.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


We actually agree on something.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


KInda, I don't see a difference much of the time.

That is your perogative which I respect.

_________________________________________
Chris

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Your thread began with the title 'Fine Christian family values' and your first post simply had a link to an article about a cult. You're now backpedalling.


That's only because you find a difference between Christianty and cults.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


We actually agree on something.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


KInda, I don't see a difference much of the time.

That is your perogative which I respect.

Mutually I respect yours...... even if you are wrong

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

John,

You've been active in these forums for many years. Even though I haven't agreed with you on some issues, I told you that I thought you were an honest poster.

Here's my question and I have no doubt that I will get an honest answer: What was your motivation in posting that article and wording the title of the thread the way you did?

Apparently you didn't read the verses about casting the beam out of one's own eye...

I've not noticed Jews, Hindus or Buddhists trying to get their morality enshrined in US law. Just Christians.

I've not noticed Jews, Hindus or Buddhists lecturing others about their values. Just Christians.

If you choose to throw stones, you should first ensure your house isn't made of glass.

I was watching a video on youtube about what scientists have said about Buddhism and at the very end...."The one true path" is displayed across the screen. I thought to myself...the fucking dick is recruiting. People will find Buddhism on their own. We don't need to go "spread the word."

The funny thin is when Jehova wintnesses show up at my parent's house, my mom tries to talk to them about Buddha.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[billvon 3,073]

>My point was that to invalidate Christianity because there is sin (or in other
>terms "shitbaggedness") among us is missing the basis of Christianity.

Absolutely. The acts of a bunch of shitbags is no reason to condemn Christianity (or Islam, or Hinduism, or atheism.)

[billvon 3,073]

>Which of the founding fathers was Muslim, Jewish, and or Bhuddist?

None; they were all Christian. Which makes it all the more remarkable that they made it very clear that there would be no connection between religion and government in the US.

>we are still pretty much a Christian country.

Yes we are. Fortunately, we do not have a Christian government. (Not a surprising outcome, since we went to war with a Christian government partly to avoid the same theocracy being foisted on us.)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

John,

You've been active in these forums for many years. Even though I haven't agreed with you on some issues, I told you that I thought you were an honest poster.

Here's my question and I have no doubt that I will get an honest answer: What was your motivation in posting that article and wording the title of the thread the way you did?

Apparently you didn't read the verses about casting the beam out of one's own eye...

I've not noticed Jews, Hindus or Buddhists trying to get their morality enshrined in US law. Just Christians.

I've not noticed Jews, Hindus or Buddhists lecturing others about their values. Just Christians.

If you choose to throw stones, you should first ensure your house isn't made of glass.

So, you can show all that legislation proving your point, then? Or is this just your normal smears against anyone that doesn't agree with your view?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

This isn't a Christian organization. It's a cult, apparently led by a very disturbed individual.

Serious question, where do you draw the line?

I personally draw it anytime the person in charge is using it to his advantage and control rather than actually helping people. However, my definition would include a HUGE number of "televangelists" and "tent meetings" in that definition. Anytime some "preacher" is taking some old lady's last dime "in the name of God" or requires you to give a certain amount to the church or is constantly trying to sell you their merchandise or "services" (like E-meter readings), I find that reprehensible.

So, I'm curious, where DO most people draw the line between "church" and "cult"?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[JackC 0]

Quote

Fortunately, we do not have a Christian government.

Are you sure about that? It seems to me that it's virtually impossible to get elected in the US unless you are christian.

http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html
http://www.adherents.com/adh_congress.html

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

This isn't a Christian organization. It's a cult, apparently led by a very disturbed individual.

Serious question, where do you draw the line?

I personally draw it anytime the person in charge is using it to his advantage and control rather than actually helping people. However, my definition would include a HUGE number of "televangelists" and "tent meetings" in that definition. Anytime some "preacher" is taking some old lady's last dime "in the name of God" or requires you to give a certain amount to the church or is constantly trying to sell you their merchandise or "services" (like E-meter readings), I find that reprehensible.

So, I'm curious, where DO most people draw the line between "church" and "cult"?

That's a good question - one person's cultist is another person's evangelist. I don't think there *IS* any way to quantify it, to be honest.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jclalor 12]

What percentage of priests have a homosexual orientation?

Nobody knows, with any degree of accuracy.

Any discussion of the role of homosexual orientation in the priesthood -- in fact any discussion of clergy abuse itself -- is hampered by a lack of hard, reliable data.

Some estimates of the percentage of current priests with a homosexual orientation:
Analysis of the estimates of others:
According to Amanda Ripley of Time Magazine, estimates range from 15% to 50%. 3
According to Bill Blakemore of ABC News, "...nobody knows what percentage of the American priesthood is gay; estimates range from less than 10% to more than 30%." 4
Personal estimates:
Richard Sipe, a psychotherapist and former priest, has studied celibacy, chastity, and sexuality in the priesthood for four decades. He has authored three books on the topic. He once estimated that 30% of the priesthood is homosexually oriented. 5 Elsewhere, he is quoted as estimating that between 25% and 45% of American priests are homosexual in orientation. 6 He told the Boston Globe: "If they were to eliminate all those who were homosexually oriented, the number would be so staggering that it would be like an atomic bomb; it would do the same damage to the church's operation...It would mean the resignation of at least a third of the bishops of the world. And it's very much against the tradition of the church; many saints had a gay orientation, and many popes had gay orientations. Discriminating against orientation is not going to solve the problem."
Sister Maryanne Walsh, spokesperson for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, said that it would it be difficult to find evidence to support these Sipe's estimates of the percentage of gay men in the priesthood. She feels that it is also irrelevant. She said: "There’s no real purpose in saying whether someone is homosexual or heterosexual. The issue is whether they can make a commitment [to chastity]." 6
Bishop Jerome Listecki is an auxiliary bishop in Chicago. He estimates that "perhaps more than 10%" of priests have a homosexual orientation." (Emphasis ours). 5
bullet Father Donald Cozzens, an author, psychologist, and Catholic seminary president says that there is such a high percentage of gay priests in the church that he is concerned that “the priesthood is or is becoming a gay profession.” 5 In his book, "The Changing Face of the Priesthood," -- published in the year 2000 -- he estimates that 50% of Roman Catholic priests have a homosexual orientation.
A NBC report on chastity and the clergy found that "anywhere from 23 percent to 58 percent" of the Catholic clergy have a homosexual orientation. 7
Author and sociologist James G. Wolfe estimated that 48.5% of priests were gay. 8
Actual surveys:
In the Fall of 1999, the Kansas City Star sent a questionnaire to 3,000 priests in the U.S. 73% did not reply. The low response rate could be anticipated. One would expect homosexuals and bisexuals to be reluctant to respond to the questionnaire since it deals with such a sensitive issue, and originated from a newspaper. Homosexual and bisexual priests would probably be less likely to reply to the survey. Among the 801 priests who did reply:
75% said they had a heterosexual orientation 15% homosexual;
5% bisexual. 9
During 1990, Rev. Thomas Crangle, a Franciscan priest in Passaic, N.J., mailed a survey to 500 randomly selected priests. Of the 398 responses, about 45% said that they were gay. 10

Conclusion: If we assume that all of the estimates are of equal validity, then about 33% of priests have a homosexual orientation -- about one in three.

However, as Father Donald Cozzens has written: "Beyond these estimates, of course, are priests who remain confused about their orientation and men who have so successfully denied their orientation, that in spite of predominately same-sex erotic fantasies, they insist that they are heterosexual." 11 Many define "homosexuality" in terms of actual same-sex behavior. They regard themselves as not homosexual because they have never acted on their fantasies, desire and orientation. To that might be added an unknown percentage of priests who have a bisexual orientation, and consider themselves neither homosexual or bisexual.

horizontal rule
Sponsored link: