Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Another reason to be annoyed with Christian fundies...
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2005 5:19 am 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:51 pm
Posts: 14534
Location: Mesa,AZ
...Of course, we all know the current trend that mainstream Christianity has recently created to force their beliefs on non-Christians. If that isn't enough, however, they also feel the need to dictate a correct way to be Christian.

I mentioned it briefly in another thread under political context, but the preachers and pastors of various protestant groups (the ones trying to get their hands on the government) also feel the need to discount other Christian groups with similar or higher moral standards as "not being Christian." (I would say "fringe groups" are the targets, but Catholics also receive their fair share of criticism (doctrinal, not talking about priest/child issues)).

Why? Is it because they fear for their position of authority? The constant attacks on Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses would suggest that. Elitism? Maybe a factor as well.

It just seems kind of wierd that people within these groups that clearly live the moral principles that Christ taught and clearly accept Christ as their savior and whatnot would be deemed non-Christian, when they really exemplify followers of Christ. I'm not talking about these religions as a whole, but there are clearly individuals within these religions that exemplify Christ, but are not "Christian" because of their religious affiliation.

It seems that there is more going on with these pastors than we and their congregations realize, like something in the way of ulterior motives. Are they trying to assert their ways onto America because they truly care about the salvation of Americans? If there were, why would they tear down and discourage those who perhaps live higher moral standards than their own?

Anyhow, I think I'm through with my ramble. This just makes me sick perhaps more than anything else the protestant leadership has undertaken.

_________________
John Adams wrote:
In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2005 1:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Black Metal Hero
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:04 pm
Posts: 39920
Gender: Male
Yeah I've always found that pretty hilarious.

"Are you Christian? have you accept Jesus Christ as your personal saviour?"

"Yes"

"...but are you a Jehovah's Witness?"

"No"

"Ok, you're still going to hell then"


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2005 3:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Menace to Dogciety
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:54 pm
Posts: 12287
Location: Manguetown
Gender: Male
godeatgod wrote:
Yeah I've always found that pretty hilarious.

"Are you Christian? have you accept Jesus Christ as your personal saviour?"

"Yes"

"...but are you a Jehovah's Witness?"

"No"

"Ok, you're still going to hell then"

:lol: :lol:
GEG, you have the gift of make me laugh and i love you my metalboy \,,/


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2005 3:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:51 pm
Posts: 14534
Location: Mesa,AZ
godeatgod wrote:
Yeah I've always found that pretty hilarious.

"Are you Christian? have you accept Jesus Christ as your personal saviour?"

"Yes"

"...but are you a Jehovah's Witness?"

"No"

"Ok, you're still going to hell then"


No, it's the other way around. You're still going to hell if you are a Jehovah's Witness. While they do believe they're right, they don't, as far as I know, conduct sermons and write articles about how other specific religions are going to hell.

_________________
John Adams wrote:
In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2005 4:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Stone's Bitch
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:43 pm
Posts: 7633
Location: Philly Del Fia
Gender: Female
$úñ_DëV|L wrote:
godeatgod wrote:
Yeah I've always found that pretty hilarious.

"Are you Christian? have you accept Jesus Christ as your personal saviour?"

"Yes"

"...but are you a Jehovah's Witness?"

"No"

"Ok, you're still going to hell then"


No, it's the other way around. You're still going to hell if you are a Jehovah's Witness. While they do believe they're right, they don't, as far as I know, conduct sermons and write articles about how other specific religions are going to hell.


I'm not 100% sure, but I had a friend who was trying to convert me for a few months.
I don't think Witnesses believe in the same heaven/hell version as other Xtian groups. She said that when they die they kinda go to sleep, and then after the end of the world they'll be revived to live forever w/ Christ. I don't remember any mention to hell at all. It might just be you don't get to come back.

_________________
Image


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2005 4:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Got Some
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:47 pm
Posts: 2932
Well, perhaps there's one thing we can all agree on;
the Mormons are a funny bunch.

_________________
For your sake
I hope heaven and hell
are really there
but I wouldn't hold my breath


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2005 4:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Yeah Yeah Yeah
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:53 am
Posts: 4470
Location: Knoxville, TN
Gender: Male
Man in Black wrote:
Well, perhaps there's one thing we can all agree on;
the Mormons are a funny bunch.
Actually I have some family that are Mormons, and although I don't agree with the Religion itself I have found most Mormons I talk to are good, honest people. I have nothing against Mormons.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2005 4:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Stone's Bitch
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:43 pm
Posts: 7633
Location: Philly Del Fia
Gender: Female
Man in Black wrote:
Well, perhaps there's one thing we can all agree on;
the Mormons are a funny bunch.


*giggles*

What is UP with those women? The men I understand - but who wants 1/8th of a husband? I mean - god dammit. Don't those women have urges? I don't like to wait in line at the store! I bet they have all kinds of kinky three/foursomes. . . . Ha. Godly my ass.

_________________
Image


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2005 4:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Yeah Yeah Yeah
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:53 am
Posts: 4470
Location: Knoxville, TN
Gender: Male
NaiveAndTrue wrote:
Man in Black wrote:
Well, perhaps there's one thing we can all agree on;
the Mormons are a funny bunch.


*giggles*

What is UP with those women? The men I understand - but who wants 1/8th of a husband? I mean - god dammit. Don't those women have urges? I don't like to wait in line at the store! I bet they have all kinds of kinky three/foursomes. . . . Ha. Godly my ass.
What are you talking about? :?


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2005 4:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Stone's Bitch
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:43 pm
Posts: 7633
Location: Philly Del Fia
Gender: Female
Cartman wrote:
NaiveAndTrue wrote:
Man in Black wrote:
Well, perhaps there's one thing we can all agree on;
the Mormons are a funny bunch.


*giggles*

What is UP with those women? The men I understand - but who wants 1/8th of a husband? I mean - god dammit. Don't those women have urges? I don't like to wait in line at the store! I bet they have all kinds of kinky three/foursomes. . . . Ha. Godly my ass.
What are you talking about? :?


dude, the men are allowed to marry as many chicks as they want.

_________________
Image


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2005 4:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Yeah Yeah Yeah
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:53 am
Posts: 4470
Location: Knoxville, TN
Gender: Male
NaiveAndTrue wrote:
Cartman wrote:
NaiveAndTrue wrote:
Man in Black wrote:
Well, perhaps there's one thing we can all agree on;
the Mormons are a funny bunch.


*giggles*

What is UP with those women? The men I understand - but who wants 1/8th of a husband? I mean - god dammit. Don't those women have urges? I don't like to wait in line at the store! I bet they have all kinds of kinky three/foursomes. . . . Ha. Godly my ass.
What are you talking about? :?


dude, the men are allowed to marry as many chicks as they want.


Umm...No, they're not. I know for a fact that's not true. Plural marriage was around at the beginning stages of the religion due to many reasons, one being that there were more woman than men, but once they settled and the ratio evened they abandoned it. The religion does not allow that at all. The same can be said about just about any religion. Most religions have abandoned some ideas.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2005 4:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Stone's Bitch
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:43 pm
Posts: 7633
Location: Philly Del Fia
Gender: Female
Cartman wrote:
NaiveAndTrue wrote:
Cartman wrote:
NaiveAndTrue wrote:
Man in Black wrote:
Well, perhaps there's one thing we can all agree on;
the Mormons are a funny bunch.


*giggles*

What is UP with those women? The men I understand - but who wants 1/8th of a husband? I mean - god dammit. Don't those women have urges? I don't like to wait in line at the store! I bet they have all kinds of kinky three/foursomes. . . . Ha. Godly my ass.
What are you talking about? :?


dude, the men are allowed to marry as many chicks as they want.


Umm...No, they're not. I know for a fact that's not true. Plural marriage was around at the beginning stages of the religion due to many reasons, one being that there were more woman than men, but once they settled and the ratio evened they abandoned it. The religion does not allow that at all. The same can be said about just about any religion. Most religions have abandoned some ideas.


Ya huh, i saw it on 20/20 , so it must be true! :wink:

_________________
Image


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2005 4:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Yeah Yeah Yeah
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:53 am
Posts: 4470
Location: Knoxville, TN
Gender: Male
NaiveAndTrue wrote:
Cartman wrote:
NaiveAndTrue wrote:
Cartman wrote:
NaiveAndTrue wrote:
Man in Black wrote:
Well, perhaps there's one thing we can all agree on;
the Mormons are a funny bunch.


*giggles*

What is UP with those women? The men I understand - but who wants 1/8th of a husband? I mean - god dammit. Don't those women have urges? I don't like to wait in line at the store! I bet they have all kinds of kinky three/foursomes. . . . Ha. Godly my ass.
What are you talking about? :?


dude, the men are allowed to marry as many chicks as they want.


Umm...No, they're not. I know for a fact that's not true. Plural marriage was around at the beginning stages of the religion due to many reasons, one being that there were more woman than men, but once they settled and the ratio evened they abandoned it. The religion does not allow that at all. The same can be said about just about any religion. Most religions have abandoned some ideas.


Ya huh, i saw it on 20/20 , so it must be true! :wink:


Actually, back when they abandoned the idea of plural marriage a small group split away from the main church and formed their own church, still calling themselves Mormons, and they practiced plural marriage. Some are still around today but they are not the Mormons that you see and hear about. This is a very, very, small group of people. The Mormon religion is much, much larger, and doesn't practice such things. I'm surprised at the disinformation the Mormon religion receives. I'm no advocate for the religion or anything, mainly because I don't believe certain aspects within the religion, but that goes for most strict religions with me, but like I said, usually I have found the people within the religion to be great people.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2005 4:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar
too drunk to moderate properly
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm
Posts: 39068
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Gender: Male
Quote:
The Mormon practice of polygyny was countered by the federal government's Edmunds Act of 1882. Multiple attempts to have Utah recognized as a state failed because of that practice. In 1890, the Church received a revelation from God that changed church beliefs and practices. The fourth president of the Church, Wilford Woodruff, issued a manifesto (called the "Great Accommodation") in 1890 which generally suspended the solemnization of plural marriages. In special cases, a few such marriages were sealed as late as the 1920's. Utah became a state in 1896, six years after the manifesto. Many small Mormon splinter groups who wished to continue polygyny formed at this time; they were all excommunicated from the LDS.

Some Mormon groups in Utah and British Columbia still engage in polygyny. Polygyny is against the law in theory but legal in practice in British Columbia. The Attorney General of the province recently decided to not pursue a charge of bigamy against the inhabitants of a largely Mormon town, because it would probably conflict with the religious freedom provisions in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- Canada's constitution. The government realized that it would probably lose any court case on constitutional grounds.


http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_hist.htm

Alright, you two! The Mormon chuch doesn't approve of polygyny, but some "splinter groups" might. Cartman, yes, some Mormon's practice polygyny. N&T, it's an itty-bitty minority.

Can we move on?

_________________
"Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2005 5:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:51 pm
Posts: 14534
Location: Mesa,AZ
just_b wrote:
Quote:
The Mormon practice of polygyny was countered by the federal government's Edmunds Act of 1882. Multiple attempts to have Utah recognized as a state failed because of that practice. In 1890, the Church received a revelation from God that changed church beliefs and practices. The fourth president of the Church, Wilford Woodruff, issued a manifesto (called the "Great Accommodation") in 1890 which generally suspended the solemnization of plural marriages. In special cases, a few such marriages were sealed as late as the 1920's. Utah became a state in 1896, six years after the manifesto. Many small Mormon splinter groups who wished to continue polygyny formed at this time; they were all excommunicated from the LDS.

Some Mormon groups in Utah and British Columbia still engage in polygyny. Polygyny is against the law in theory but legal in practice in British Columbia. The Attorney General of the province recently decided to not pursue a charge of bigamy against the inhabitants of a largely Mormon town, because it would probably conflict with the religious freedom provisions in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- Canada's constitution. The government realized that it would probably lose any court case on constitutional grounds.


http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_hist.htm

Alright, you two! The Mormon chuch doesn't approve of polygyny, but some "splinter groups" might. Cartman, yes, some Mormon's practice polygyny. N&T, it's an itty-bitty minority.

Can we move on?


Well, since it's been derailed...
No Mormons that are members of the church practice polygamy, but some people claiming to be Mormon do.

The point really was that the Christian groups seem to be pushing morals, but still hate groups with "higher" morals. But take whatever you want out of it.. lol

_________________
John Adams wrote:
In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Another reason to be annoyed with Christian fundies...
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2005 5:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Devil's Advocate
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:59 am
Posts: 18643
Location: Raleigh, NC
Gender: Male
$úñ_DëV|L wrote:
...Of course, we all know the current trend that mainstream Christianity has recently created to force their beliefs on non-Christians. If that isn't enough, however, they also feel the need to dictate a correct way to be Christian.

I mentioned it briefly in another thread under political context, but the preachers and pastors of various protestant groups (the ones trying to get their hands on the government) also feel the need to discount other Christian groups with similar or higher moral standards as "not being Christian." (I would say "fringe groups" are the targets, but Catholics also receive their fair share of criticism (doctrinal, not talking about priest/child issues)).

Why? Is it because they fear for their position of authority? The constant attacks on Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses would suggest that. Elitism? Maybe a factor as well.

It just seems kind of wierd that people within these groups that clearly live the moral principles that Christ taught and clearly accept Christ as their savior and whatnot would be deemed non-Christian, when they really exemplify followers of Christ. I'm not talking about these religions as a whole, but there are clearly individuals within these religions that exemplify Christ, but are not "Christian" because of their religious affiliation.

It seems that there is more going on with these pastors than we and their congregations realize, like something in the way of ulterior motives. Are they trying to assert their ways onto America because they truly care about the salvation of Americans? If there were, why would they tear down and discourage those who perhaps live higher moral standards than their own?

Anyhow, I think I'm through with my ramble. This just makes me sick perhaps more than anything else the protestant leadership has undertaken.


I dig a lot of what you said, except for one thing.
It's not "mainstream" Christians that are trying to dictate the "correct" way to be a Christian. It's wacko fundamentalists that have a nervy way of getting their mouth on the news.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Another reason to be annoyed with Christian fundies...
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2005 7:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:51 pm
Posts: 14534
Location: Mesa,AZ
Athletic Supporter wrote:
I dig a lot of what you said, except for one thing.
It's not "mainstream" Christians that are trying to dictate the "correct" way to be a Christian. It's wacko fundamentalists that have a nervy way of getting their mouth on the news.


Well, alot of the big-named preachers are also getting alot of attention as the leaders of the protestant majority, and alot of these guys could be considered "fundamentalists"... The individual members of their congregations might not be.

_________________
John Adams wrote:
In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2005 7:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Unthought Known
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:46 pm
Posts: 9617
Location: Medford, Oregon
Gender: Male
I think it's great. The more outrageous these people become, the more mainstream America will marginalize them and the politicians that cater to them.

_________________
Deep below the dunes I roved
Past the rows, past the rows
Beside the acacias freshly in bloom
I sent men to their doom


Top
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2005 8:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Administrator
 Profile

Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:51 pm
Posts: 14534
Location: Mesa,AZ
I'm not as optomistic as you are... :x

_________________
John Adams wrote:
In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Another reason to be annoyed with Christian fundies...
PostPosted: Sat May 07, 2005 8:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Devil's Advocate
 Profile

Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:59 am
Posts: 18643
Location: Raleigh, NC
Gender: Male
$úñ_DëV|L wrote:
Athletic Supporter wrote:
I dig a lot of what you said, except for one thing.
It's not "mainstream" Christians that are trying to dictate the "correct" way to be a Christian. It's wacko fundamentalists that have a nervy way of getting their mouth on the news.


Well, alot of the big-named preachers are also getting alot of attention as the leaders of the protestant majority, and alot of these guys could be considered "fundamentalists"... The individual members of their congregations might not be.


I don't think "big name" preachers really speak for the masses though. I think they speak for their political agenda. Falwell, Robertson, Jackson, etc are NOT part of the majority. My parents are Episcopalians and they think all of those guys are whack-jobs.


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Board index » Word on the Street... » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
It is currently Fri Feb 20, 2026 6:47 am