Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Religion today

Thu Oct 2, 2008 7:17 AM EDT
us-news, today, religion, sarah-palin, rel, southern-baptists
Mike Baker, Associated Press
< PreviousNext >
showing 1 of 4 photos
<p>Rev. Carolyn Hale Cubbedge, Assistant Minister, First Baptist Church of Savannah greets parishioners, Sunday Sept. 28, 2008 reads a prayer during service in Savannah, Ga. Cubbedge's church is part of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship which emphasizes local church autonomy. (AP Photo/Stephen Morton)</p>

Rev. Carolyn Hale Cubbedge, Assistant Minister, First Baptist Church of Savannah greets parishioners, Sunday Sept. 28, 2008 reads a prayer during service in Savannah, Ga. Cubbedge's church is part of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship which emphasizes local church autonomy. (AP Photo/Stephen Morton)

Advertise | AdChoices

RALEIGH — Within the nation's largest Protestant denomination, a woman may not lead a church or a home. But prominent Southern Baptists see nothing wrong with Sarah Palin serving as vice president — or perhaps even commander-in-chief someday.

In other words: A woman can run the White House, just not her own house.

Republican presidential nominee John McCain's selection of the Alaska governor as his running mate — the first female on the party's ticket in history — has thrilled conservative Christians. It also has led Southern Baptist congregations and seminary students to confront their beliefs about the role of women in leadership.

Interpreted from Scripture, the teachings on women are held close in thousands of Southern Baptist Convention churches where millions worship. Among them: "The office of pastor is limited to men," and a wife should "submit herself graciously" to her husband. Earlier this month, more than 100 Lifeway Christian Bookstores — a retail chain affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention — pulled from the shelves a magazine featuring five female pastors on the cover.

Yet many in the denomination say the nation's second-highest leadership post is an apple to the pulpit's orange. Palin's potential work in a McCain administration — or even as president in the event of McCain's death — would be separate from her family life with her husband, Todd, and their children.

"There's no disconnect or inconsistency whatsoever," said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. "We don't go beyond where the New Testament goes. Public office is neither a church nor a marriage."

It's a question that's more than theological. The Southern Baptist Convention, with 42,000 churches and 16 million members, is reliably Republican. President Bush has addressed the denomination's annual meeting several times. And during the 2004 race, the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign hosted a reception for Southern Baptist pastors at a hotel across the street from the assembly.

The denomination is guided by The Baptist Faith and Message, a set of beliefs that includes restrictions on the roles of women. No Baptist is required to follow the statement, but it is a central theological document for Southern Baptists, their seminaries and clergy.

A prohibition on pastoral leadership by women, affirmed within the last several years, is based on the Bible verse 1 Timothy 2:12 in which the Apostle Paul says, "I permit no woman to teach or have authority over a man." Regarding family life, Southern Baptists cite Ephesians 5:22, "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord."

Land said the Southern Baptists' position allows for a wife to work outside the home, so long as her husband agrees — and Todd Palin has long backed his wife's career in public service.

Yet, Land's view is far from universal in the denomination. Many Southern Baptists believe women and mothers should stay home.

A year ago, the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, which has its main campus in Fort Worth, Texas, introduced an academic program in homemaking, where women — and only women — are taught how to cook and sew. In a 2004 sermon, the Rev. Daniel L. Akin, president of the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Wake Forest, N.C., cited the biblical book of Titus to argue that one of God's assignments to young women is to "be a homemaker."

"She is not lazy or a busybody, nor is she distracted by outside pursuits and responsibilities that eat up her precious time and attention," he said. "This woman is not seduced by the sirens of modernity who tell her she is wasting her time and talent as a homemaker, and that it is the career woman who has purpose and is truly satisfied."

Yet, in a recent interview, Akin said he supports Palin's candidacy, arguing that while the Bible speaks about the role of women in church and the home, it speaks nothing about women in government. Still, he said he would sound warnings to a wife and mother of five children who wanted to take on such a difficult job.

"Would that then disqualify her? No," Akin said. "Do I think it's a big challenge for her husband and for she and their family? Absolutely."

Bill Leonard, a Baptist historian and dean of the Wake Forest University School of Divinity, called the acceptance by Southern Baptist leaders of a woman in high-level government leadership "something of a retraction of their old view." That opens the doors for rank-and-file members of the convention to vote for a GOP ticket that includes a woman, according to Leonard.

"The SBC is so rooted now in the Republican Party that their theological judgment on this becomes an issue," said Leonard, a critic of the Southern Baptists' conservative leadership.

Palin's personal roots are in Pentecostal churches, which strictly interpret the Bible, but also teach that the Holy Spirit can work equally through men and women, so women can preach and take leadership roles.

Jim Sansom, 87, who worships at Temple Baptist Church in Raleigh, said he doesn't think fellow members of his Southern Baptist congregation would accept a woman pastor, and he would prefer to see a male serving in the role. But he still questioned limits on women in the church and wonders why it remains such an issue.

"That's not the first priority," Sansom said. "The first priority is a relationship with the Lord."

But in the Southern Baptist Convention, hundreds of congregations have distanced themselves from the denomination in recent years, partly over its views on women. Several departed as they adopted female pastors.

The Rev. Carolyn Hale Cubbedge at First Baptist Church in Savannah, Ga., said the Southern Baptist Convention fails to consider the New Testament's entire story, including the social context of the patriarchal society when it was written.

"I shed a lot of tears over this," said Cubbedge, whose church is now part of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, a group of Southern Baptists who have separated or distanced themselves from the denomination. "I felt like this convention that had nurtured me had really abandoned me. That was painful."

____

On the Net:

Southern Baptist Convention: http://www.sbc.net/

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Mike Baker's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: United States , Raleigh/Durham
  • Public Discussion (32)
jdl-28

Religion has should have nothing to do with this election. Church should not be tell anyone who to vote for. Religion has mess this country up.

  • 1 vote
Reply#1 - Thu Oct 2, 2008 8:15 AM EDT
desert voice

Right religion  is  vital  for  a  nation!  through  religion  one  learns  to  be  a  person  and  learns  to  love.  Citizens  without  religion  lose  their  identity  and  their  freedom! You become a slave if you don'y know who you are - a child of God! Christian  religion,  in  particular, is  a  fount  of  wisdom  and  virtues.  None  virtue  is  perhaps  more  important  for  citizens,  than  understanding.  Understanding is right spirit, and when it comes to love, and right spirit is everything. Cultures cannot die until the right spirit is in them (this includes Native cultures)! The balance between body and spirit is everything. Modern materialistic influences gravely upset this balance. Many antique tribes are becoming endangered, or extinct. This problem isn't just "native." Christianity has been grappling with the same thing for two thousand years! Enticed by the pleasures of the body, people forget that love does not end with the body: there it only begins! Love that ends with the body and in the body is the worst of spiritual deaths! While acknowledging the body, love must always transcend then body. For all true love is channelled from spirit to Spirit, which is God! My Polish-American advice to Christians, Alaska Natives, all Natives and all Americans is: Do not let your spiritual sense be extinguished!

    #1.1 - Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:01 PM EDT
    MalamuteMan

    through  religion  one  learns  to  be  a  person  and  learns  to  love

    Religion is not the only way to learn these things.

      #1.2 - Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:07 PM EDT
      bucit

      MalamuteMan:
      I totally agree.  It is probably best to ignore this person,  as he/she has most likely drank too much of the sacred grape juice on Sunday mornings. 

      This (ill)logic and derision proves yet again the need for a distinct separation between church and state. 

        #1.3 - Sat Oct 25, 2008 4:37 PM EDT
        Reply
        bucit

        Our "founding members" --- in order to form a more perfect Union, designed the separation of church and state into the laws (wisely).

        Leave it up to religious doctrine to justify political partisanship...  More hypocrisy and attempts to institutionalize what is not purposed.

          Reply#2 - Mon Oct 6, 2008 5:35 PM EDT
          truthtrekkers

          The separation of church and state was never officially established. It is found in a letter by Thomas Jefferson assuring a leader at a major baptist denomination that the governments influence over religion would be non existent not the other way around. One of the first things to happen when our government was established was Church service and prayer was established at the beginning of house gatherings.

          Now if that sounds like the founding members of our country were trying to remove religion from the White House then they were doing a terrible job. Of course history doesn't really matter in history in our modern society. We have turned the field into an enormous editorial.

          • 1 vote
          #2.1 - Wed Oct 8, 2008 1:25 PM EDT
          MalamuteMan

          truthtrekkers,

          Amendment 1 to the United States Constitution.

          Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

          • 2 votes
          #2.2 - Fri Oct 10, 2008 6:21 PM EDT
          fedupwithliberals

          Mal- the framers were trying to prevent the establishment of a State Church such as the one they left in England. If you read the second part of that sentence, it establishes the free exercise of religion, meaning the government cannot interfere with a person's right to practice their religious beliefs. That right is extended to all Americans, including those who hold government office.

          • 2 votes
          #2.3 - Mon Oct 13, 2008 1:33 PM EDT
          MalamuteMan

          The only way to allow EVERYONE the "right to practice their religious beliefs" is to keep those practices to non-public places, and most especially to keep those practices out of government places and public institutions, like public schools.

          • 1 vote
          #2.4 - Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:50 AM EDT
          bucit

          MalamuteMan:
          Well Stated !! "I approve this message".

          • 1 vote
          #2.5 - Thu Oct 16, 2008 11:40 AM EDT
          fedupwithliberals

          Malamute, if we follow your logic, you are prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

          Why can a group of anti-war protesters gather outside a courthouse, but a group of students cannot gather around a flagpole to pray? Perhaps we should call prayer "free speech". I'm simply having a conversation with God. Is that illegal? Or unconstitutional?

          If a government leader is not allowed to have religious beliefs (or perhaps just not ACT on them), then you are prohibiting his/her free exercise.

            #2.6 - Tue Oct 28, 2008 6:32 PM EDT
            bucit

            Why can a group of anti-war protesters gather outside a courthouse, but a group of students cannot gather around a flagpole to pray?

            fedupwithliberals:

            Because a scenario would have to be created to allow "all religions" to pray around that same public flag-pole, not just a particular "single" religion.  If the flag pole is on private property (namely yours), then you are right to exercise "what-ever" within the confine of the law.

            Bear in mind, there are Muslim, Buddhist, atheist/agnostic, Jewish, and a host of other religions that are also American citizens which contribute to society, pay taxes, and are law-abiding.  That's why !  "Out of many, we are one".  Remember that?  It is on the American dollar bill (in God we trust).
            Pray if you like, if you are Christian, "do not pray like the hypocrite and pray in public - go to your prayer closet amd pray in private... "Hmmn, I wonder who stated that? 

            Separation between church and state does not remove your rights - it protects every ones rights.  The mere fact that you argue, pursue and rant about this shows an intrusive nature and disrespect towards opposing views of other tax-paying and law abiding citizens.

            Don't get it twisted, I an neither a Democrat or Republican, but I know that "tolerance" is necessary and vital.

              #2.7 - Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:07 AM EDT
              MalamuteMan

              Hi fedupwithliberals,

              If you want to gather around a flag pole for prayer in such a way where no one who doesn't want to participate is not required to be part of your ceremony, and you are not encumbering other peoples opportunity to gather around the flag pole for whatever purpose may suit them... then fine... gather around the flag pole for prayer.

              One of the founding principles of this country is that people should have the freedom to practice what ever religion suits them best, including no religion at all.  The point I made above is: The only way this can happen is to keep religious practices out of places that people MUST GO in order to carry out necessary business, such as government business or academic activities.

              I imagine you wouldn’t much like having someone come into your church to exercise their right to free speech by speaking about some topic that was contrary to the teachings of your religion.  So it is important for your church to have the right to exclude this sort of activity.  In the same way, it is important to exclude religious activities from public places where people of widely varying religious and philosophical beliefs must go in order to conduct their government or academic business.

              BTW fedupwithliberals - I am liberal and proud of it.  Tolerance and acceptance are two of the qualities of liberalism that I find especially appealing.  I understand how important it is to you to be able to practice your religion as freely as possible; and I respect your right to do that.  Since you are "fed up with liberals" I think it is safe to assume you do not think of yourself as liberal, and so your inclination to be tolerant may not be the same as mine.  Having said that, I would be most grateful if you would make as much effort to respect my right to religious and philosophical freedom as I make to respect yours.

              • 1 vote
              #2.8 - Wed Oct 29, 2008 12:43 AM EDT
              fedupwithliberals

              Separation between church and state does not remove your rights - it protects every ones rights.  The mere fact that you argue, pursue and rant about this shows an intrusive nature and disrespect towards opposing views of other tax-paying and law abiding citizens.

              I'm not quite sure why you're accusing me of "arguing, pursuing and ranting", when I'm merely stating my thoughts on the issue and raising questions regarding those positions I don't agree with. I have no objection to others being able to publicly practice their faith. That's what this country was founded on. As for the out-of-context scripture you quoted, Jesus Himself prayed in public MANY times (remember the Lord's Prayer?)

              Since you are "fed up with liberals" I think it is safe to assume you do not think of yourself as liberal, and so your inclination to be tolerant may not be the same as mine.  Having said that, I would be most grateful if you would make as much effort to respect my right to religious and philosophical freedom as I make to respect yours.

              I respect your views; however, when I am told that I can only pray behind closed doors on private property, my rights of not only religion, but also of free speech are being quashed. No, I obviously don't think of myself as a liberal. I do get annoyed, though, when people claim to be open minded and tolerant, but then insult me and my faith. It seems that the people who claim to be the most tolerant are the least tolerant of people they disagree with.

                #2.9 - Wed Oct 29, 2008 1:02 PM EDT
                MalamuteMan

                How did I insult you fedupwithliberals???

                Doesn't my suggestion for gathering around the flag pole seem like a genuine expression of tolerance?

                Here is something to think about...

                People may say insulting things to you (not me I hope) because they feel religious people (perhaps not you) are treading on THEIR rights; treating you this way surely doesn't help matters; nonetheless, this is why they do it.  Many secular people see religion creeping into their lives in ways they find offensive; public schools and government are places secular people do not want to see religious influence.  If you want people to be tolerant of you then you need to be tolerant of them; if I want you to tolerate me I must tolerate you.  ALL OF US (religious and secular people) must make an effort to see things from the viewpoint of the people that are not like us.  We will ALL be happiest if we can learn to accept one another, be considerate of each others needs, and make as much room as possible for the lifestyle and religious practices of others.

                  #2.10 - Wed Oct 29, 2008 2:41 PM EDT
                  bucit

                  fedupwithliberals:

                  I do respect your views and rights.  The argument is very old and ridiculous.

                  Concerning "insulting your faith"... faith is personal and humanity which is tangible and can be seen suffers much more insult when you consider "the evidence of faith".  Faith is something which may not always be seen or tangible.  What one has faith in, others may not. 

                  You have yet to address prayer in silence, so it is obvious that your stance is public prayer and "bellowing scripture, as if anyone really listens.  If you do not care that people listen, then it is proven to be self-serving, right?  That means it is all about you and your percieved right to do what you want (privilage).  Is it effective, appealing and does it please God? I think not. 

                  By the way: How divisive and insulting do you think your screen name is to "liberal Christians or liberals in general?  Think about it.

                    #2.11 - Wed Oct 29, 2008 5:32 PM EDT
                    fedupwithliberals

                    You have yet to address prayer in silence, so it is obvious that your stance is public prayer and "bellowing scripture, as if anyone really listens.  If you do not care that people listen, then it is proven to be self-serving, right?  That means it is all about you and your percieved right to do what you want (privilage).  Is it effective, appealing and does it please God? I think not. 

                    Nowhere in scripture am I commanded to pray in silence and in private. The verse you are taking out of context is referring to the Pharisees who would stand on the streetcorner shouting their prayers to appear more "holy"; Jesus called them hypocrites. At the same time, there are many examples of Jesus praying in public; I wouldn't assume that God was displeased.

                    While I don't recall ever "bellowing scripture", I do pray in public with my family on occasion (before a meal, for instance) and since I'm talking to God, and not my fellow diners, I'm not too worried about them listening - any more than I would be if they were listening in on a conversation between me and my husband.

                    It's not self-serving; on the contrary, I'm serving God by honoring Him and thanking Him for providing the meal. I do believe it's effective, appealing and pleasing to God. I do believe I'm entitled to my "free exercise of religion". I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

                    I realize others may feel uncomfortable seeing someone pray in public; however, there are many things I see/hear in public that make me uncomfortable, but I recognize I don't have the absolute right not to be offended. And since I still have the freedom of speech, I would think it extends to my conversations with God.

                    I apologize if you're offended by my screen name; I'm usually on politically-based blogs, which by their very nature tend to be divisive. As a conservative (politically and morally), I am often maligned for my stand on issues, hence the name.

                      #2.12 - Thu Oct 30, 2008 12:09 PM EDT
                      Reply
                      DailyCat

                      Ed yes, separation is a founding principle AND -- if you know anything about the history of religious conflict in England (whence came the majority of those earliest framers) -- not specifically for CHRISTIAN liberty OR Christian autocracy, but for the purpose of preventing the religious persecutions that they had experienced first-hand before they immigrated here.
                      For anyone who doesn't know that story and doesn't thrive on bare historical facts, get a copy of the historical novel, London (by Edward Rutherfurdton) and read it.  Brilliant, beautiful book that documents the gorey truth without taking sides in the politics.
                      As for the Southern Baptist position on women's roles:
                      The reference in I Timothy 2 is relied upon for this viewpoint and I will be the first to say that if your conviction is for a strict interpretation, by all means practice that within your own home and church community.  But please understand that a great many of us do not agree with that interpretation and we hold our views with equal validity.  We believe that the passage must be interpreted by the whole body of work, most especially the life/death/resurrection of Jesus. 
                      It is equally valid to hold the view that, since all believers are instructed by the same author to be conformed to the image of Christ and to grow up to maturity in that same pattern AND since all believers are instructed by the same author that there is to be no discrimination WITHIN the church or society at large based on race, gender, faith, etc (in terms of how we interact with others) -- then this passage, being interpreted by these other principles set forth by the same author, is advocating that women who are bossy, loud, brash, aggressive or mystical ( in short, power mongers or unreliable) etc ought not be promoted to leadership within the community of faith.  The same evaluation would apply to men in leadership, as well.
                      If a woman is not conformed to the pattern of gentleness, modesty, wisdom and compassion that gives evidence of the Holy Spirit at work, THEN she is not to be given authority or position in the community.
                      Oh, AND the verb authenteo = to usurp authority translated in this article "to have authority" (i.e., over a man) actually does legitimately translate "to govern" or "to be absolute master".  Its only semantics of the religious far right to stipulate that they would cite the Bible to support a woman in political leadership, but not in their church.  First amendment, I suppose, gives them the right to do that.
                      The same author also writes, "When I was a child, I thought and spake as a child, but when I grew up into maturity, I put away childish (ways)". . .

                      • 1 vote
                      Reply#3 - Mon Oct 6, 2008 7:33 PM EDT
                      bucit

                      Dailycat:

                      I understand it ... and much more than you perceive.  I also do not care to make dissertations and get into the doctrines in which you have been learned, believe and interpret and embrace.  It is much like history... one has only to consider the author and denote the potential bias (right, wrong or indifferent).

                      Let's stay with tangeble and credible facts "first and foremost"... in doing so, that would be thinking and being adult-like, even for the spiritual-minded. 

                        #3.1 - Mon Oct 6, 2008 7:43 PM EDT
                        DailyCat

                        Ed -- my SBC comments were intended for a broader audience and not a judgment on your comment.  I'm just thinking alot these days about the people who are being held in thrall with such ideas as were documented in the article posted by jdl. 

                        Religion is always a part of the election dynamic in this country and it is refusal to debate the underlying issues with intelligence, respect and compassion that has lost us the last 2 rounds for the white house.

                        So no disrespect intended, but I gotta say my peace.

                        • 1 vote
                        #3.2 - Mon Oct 6, 2008 8:05 PM EDT
                        bucit

                        Dailycat:
                        I support and agree with many things you previously mentioned.  No worries.
                        I simply loathe the fact that "extreme" justifications and "intolerance" prevails more than anything.  I suspect "common sense really is not "common"...

                        I also am a stauch believer that religion is a personal and private matter, shown only in behavior (not so much in speech). There is too much public and verbal declarations - not enough action. I appreciate your opinions.

                          #3.3 - Mon Oct 6, 2008 8:50 PM EDT
                          truthtrekkers

                          Ed I would like to refer you to my response to your earlier post 2.1 and

                          Tolerance and intolerance is very subjective. If you say you are tolerant of one you are intolerant of another. There is no way around it but you will pick a side no matter what kind of fence sitting stance you might want to take. You are right religion is a personal matter but private? No religion is something that has impacted your life along with everyone else and if you choose to sweep that under the rug and request that all that believe in a God go quietly into the knight then you have missed the point.

                          • 1 vote
                          #3.4 - Wed Oct 8, 2008 1:31 PM EDT
                          bucit

                          truthtrekkers:

                          I am only responding out of decency... I do not accept your defination and opinion, neither find you "tolerant" as you insist to twist what I have stated.  It is decearnable where you would like to go.

                          Seems you prefer to start a "religious -opinionated rant".  Nothinhg objective, just a ant based upon a religious bias.  Perhaps, religion, politics and war are all impacted by God, and an "elect" few have also decided to exercise that opinion as a declared right as well?  Please take your canard elsewhere.

                          We cannot discuss this without you "perverting and twisting" statements to justify and satisfy your bias.

                          All the best!

                            #3.5 - Wed Oct 8, 2008 3:29 PM EDT
                            desert voice

                            There are many  religions  but  none  equals  Christianity!  I do  not  care what  the  Moslems,  the  Jews,  the  Buddhists, or anyone else,  say.  Ours is the only creed  on  earth  that  has  a  Savior  who  has  risen  from  the  dead!    Having  this  unsurmountable  advantage,  we look  at  the  future with a  hope  that  no  other  religion can muster!  Just  look  at  Ophrah's  New-Age "horizontal"  worship  of  a  "Force."  It's  an  elitist  and  futile  idolatry  of the "powers of nature,"  and  nothing  more!  Or  look  at  Iran's  ayatollahs, al-Sistani and  al-Khamenei, together with their lieutenant, al-Sadr - their religion  includes  exposing  women, children, and men, young and old,  to an unnecessary  death  in  Iraq!  Many  Moslems  have  come  to  the  point where,  out of  desperation,  they try  to "save themselves,"  and  to "assure  themselves the paradise"  by  just  blowing  themselves up!  And,  the  more innocent  lives they  take  with  them,  the  more "saved"  they  feel!  The  Jews  have  a  Beautiful  One  God,  Yehwah Ehad,  whom we of course all share. But  even  they  keep  rejecting  the  Messiah  who  already  came!  This  makes  their  life  veritably  miserable and,  to  compensate for their  misery,  they stubbornly worship  Mammon  and  a "promised land" - in this life!  The  Buddhists "save  themselves"  by  atoning for  an  endless "negative  karma."  Theirs  is  a  hopeless religion,  indeed!   Sometimes  they  suffer  for  many  generations,  convinced  that  "life  is  a  dead  end  for  some."  All in vain,  for  all  these religions  rely  on  self-salvation!  Only Christians  know  by  faith  that  their Savior lives,  that  He  has  already  saved them,  and  that He  is  coming back  because He  loves  them!  Paradoxically,  and  this  is  most  sad  of  all,  the truth of God  is  that  all  human  beings  have  been  saved  by  Christ -  Christians,  Moslems,  Buddhists,  Jews,  and  the  rest!  But  many  people  still  do  not   see  this,  and  thus  only  the Christians,  knowing  that  their  afterlife  is  bright,  have  a  real  reason  to  rejoice!

                              #3.6 - Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:07 PM EDT
                              desert voice

                              Religion  should  never  be  a  secret  affair.  The  Catholic  Church tries to  reach  out  with  her  examples  to  all,  especially  with  examples  of  sainthood.   All saints  impress me,  including  the anonymous  Saints  of  today.  They are  all  different,  but  they  all have  one  thing  in  common:  they  love  God  with  steadfast  faithfulness  (the Hebrew  word  is  'emunah),  with  all their souls,  hearts  and  strengths! We  know  from  Scripture that a  human  soul  is  composed  of two elements,  the  body (beten),  and  the  living  spirit (nepes  hayah).  But until  Christ sent  His  triune Spirit the Paraclete,  human souls had no ability  to attain eternal  life,  even though some individuals  loved the Creator so much,  that    "they  were  taken  to  Heaven  alive" (Elijah  and Enoch come  to  mind). Now the situation  is  different:  in  Redemptor  hominis 8-11,  John Paul  II  says  that  "the  Paraclete  now  sent,  restored the primitive bond of the world  with  the  Divine fountain  of  Wisdom  and  Love." Just  think,  the  Wisdom  and  Love was in the  Bible  before,  but  this  bond was missing! All new creation is now  possible  in  Christ  for  all human  beings, an eternal  life - for Christians,  Jews, Buddhists  and  Moslems!  But the Commandments  remain  the same:  the  soul  must  love  Christ  totally! Loving Christ  with  our bodies  is  the  greatest challenge,  but  also  the  greatest reaward. God  purifies  the  soul  for  a period  of  time,  before  He  makes  his  dwelling in her.  Only  Saints  can  love  God  in  this  manner,  and  Saints  seldom  become  such  overnight. It  means  loving  oneself,  by  offering  oneself  to  Christ totally,  and  through  Christ  to  God.  Then  the  soul "magnifies  the  Lord,  [and]  the  spirit  also  rejoices" (Lk 1:47),  and  the  love  of  neighbor  is  the  logical  consequence.  The Saints  are  all great  lovers  of  mankind.  The  Divine  Heart of  Jesus,  the  Perfect  Man,  beats  in  them,  and  their  mind  is  embued with  the  Thoughts  of  God. It is  God  Himself Who is loving  and  acting through  them, and  there  can't  be  a  greater  Love  than  His.  The  Saints  sleep  with  God,  and  raise with  God. They are  His  hands and  eyes  and  heart. They  are  His  human 'emet (truth),  the  reflections  of  Himself  on  earth. They  are  also  His  hesed (merciful loving kindness),  and  His mishpat  (vindication of goodness and  rightness) .  They  are  also  His  rahaymim ( the  motherly  tenderness). It  does not matter if they are  ugly, or mentally impaired,  or  terminally  ill:  like  the Beloved Disciple and the "pustulous" Lazarus, they  rest  on  Christ's  bosom,  and  they  go  straight  to  Heaven  when  their  time  is  up!  If  people  only  knew,  how  great  is  the  joy and reward  in  being  the  friends  of  God,  they  would  all strive  to  be Saints!

                                #3.7 - Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:21 PM EDT
                                desert voice

                                Religion  teaches us  who  we  are  as  people. If religion  to  which  we  are  exposed  is  right,  we  become  a  better  people. Religion is  a  defense  against  the secular  humanism,  which  has  led  many  civilizations  astray! No one can become a human without the breath of life, which only God can give. Breath of life (Hebrew nepesh hayah), is the immortal soul of human beings, immortal analogically for in truth only God is Immortal. This soul cannot be reproduced in the lab, for it comes from the Creator! God said, "creced y multiplicaos" (be fertile and multiply, Gn 1, 28). He did not specify how, either by sex, or in the lab, or some other way. We do not know with certainty how God will react in each individual case of cloning: will He provide a soul to every one? My theological guess is that He probably will, given that they are in His Image and given that He loves them! But we should never cease to give all honor to Him! The scientists especially, must be humble before God, given their power to create good things, or if they aren't humble, to create monsters!

                                  #3.8 - Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:31 PM EDT
                                  Reply
                                  fedupwithliberals

                                  Ed- while I appreciate your opinion, I have to disagree. Yes, religion is a VERY personal matter; however, to say that one is only allowed to show it by one's behavior, not in speech, is to deny the first amendment. I understand that we don't want a theocracy, but in being able to speak freely about my beliefs, I am simply exercising my Constitutional rights ("...the free exercise thereof").

                                  I agree that there needs to be more action on the part of Christians; we need to be out in the community doing what we're called to do: minister to the poor, sick, widowed, orphaned and hurting. As a Christian I try to be aware of the needs of those around me and I try to meet those needs when/if I can. To be judged solely on my denomination's image (I am a member of an SB church) and be told I'm intolerant seems a bit hypocritical.

                                  • 2 votes
                                  Reply#4 - Tue Oct 7, 2008 4:56 PM EDT
                                  bucit

                                  fedupwithliberals:
                                  I am in no way removing anyone's constitutional right of "free speech"... sorry if it is interpreted that way. 

                                  I am emphatically "dead-set" against someone "bellowing religious jargon" and insisting that it was the fabric of this countries laws history and was intended to be integrated into a schools, etc.  For example, the right to pray is acceptable.  Pray in silence --- the constitution does not provide an individual or group a public arena (at school, work or court-house) to bias private and personal matters in a controlling and public fashion.  Hence, the necessity of the separation between church and state.

                                  What does it mean to be a Christian these days?  Just because you indicate that you are one (so what)?  What does that mean publicly?  Some special privilege or rights?  Don't swear or use foul language around a "Christian" ??  I am also a Christian... did Christ go around and invoke his Constitutional or better yet - God given authority and rights against people that did not agree or see "eye-to-eye" with him?  Tolerance is vital and necessary, and it is not hypocritical. There are also other practicing religions with citizens which are are also law-abiding and decent citizens.  Christians should have no higher or better rights in this country than a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist or even an atheist (it is also their God given choice).  Take a closer look and examine scripture - not your "doctrine" and teachings of men... 

                                  Free exercise (as you put it) must be limited (for all), as it assists with mutual equality, unless God forbid. 

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #4.1 - Wed Oct 8, 2008 10:15 AM EDT
                                  fedupwithliberals

                                  I wasn't referring to free speech, I was referring to freedom of religion, although I would think religious speech would be covered as well. You can be dead set against what I'm saying, while still allowing me my constitutional right to say it. I am dead set against Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnell, and Bill Maher's opinions on things, but I respect their right to say it.

                                  Would you take away my right to pray out loud with my family in a restaurant? What about a group of students around a flagpole before school? Where does it end? You can argue all you want that our country wasn't founded on Christian principles, but the proof is in the documents and writings of the founding fathers. And who started the schools? Have you ever looked at a grammar book from as recent as the 1950's? It may not be acceptable to have religion in school now, but it was certainly a part of it until fairly recently.

                                  Christians don't want special rights or privileges. I realize I don't have the "right" to not be offended...but that means you don't either. I have no problem with a Buddhist, Jew or Muslim exercising their religious beliefs, speaking about them, etc.

                                  And, um, yes, Jesus DID in fact exercise his "God given authority" to speak out against those who did not agree with him (i.e. the Pharisees). Jesus didn't tolerate sin. He spoke in love, but he spoke THE TRUTH in love. I have examined scripture. I do know what Jesus taught.

                                  Free exercise that is limited is not free.

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #4.2 - Wed Oct 8, 2008 1:51 PM EDT
                                  bucit

                                  fedupwithliberals:

                                  Many things you have stated I agree with and find acceptable and support.  However, respectfully, we share a difference of opinion (as Christians) regarding what Jesus did under his vested authority in God... perhaps, a matter of "doctrine/teaching/deductive reasoning or preferred belief".

                                  I would also differ with you ... some "Christians" do expect and anticipate special rights and privilages.  I am curious, do you travel out of the country (US) much.  If so, for what purpose(s)?

                                  Thanks.

                                    #4.3 - Wed Oct 8, 2008 3:35 PM EDT
                                    fedupwithliberals

                                    While I realize there are a few who feel they're entitled to special rights, I don't count myself among them. I believe that, as scripture says, God allows the rain to fall on the just and the unjust alike. I believe that God allows me to experience negative things in my life to help me grow and to mold me into what He wants me to be. At the same time, I don't believe Christians are to be doormats, and allow our rights (both God-given and Constitutional) to be taken away.

                                    I'm not sure what my travel habits have to do with anything, but although I haven't lately, I used to travel to Mexico a few times a year to help a local pastor - building houses, running children's programs, handing out clothing in the local "shantytowns", etc.

                                      #4.4 - Thu Oct 30, 2008 12:21 PM EDT
                                      Reply
                                      desert voice

                                      I  do  not  believe  in  hiding  ones  religion!  Jesus  did  not  hide  what  He  was  after!  He  enunciated  the  Gospel  using  speech,  not  just  acts! How  otherwise  would  we  be  sure  what  is  right  and  what  is  wrong?  people  today  are  horribly  confused  about  religion.  Take  for  instance  Keneth Copeland.
                                      Kenneth Copeland's "ministry" is as close to the ministry of Antichrist as one can get. Jesus did not care about getting rich. If He carried a purse, it was only for the daily necessities. Kenneth Copeland perverts the message of  Christianity in the highest degree, substituting Mammon for Justice, Holiness, and Truth!  It is sad that there still are people who fall for this evil! http://groups.msn.com/TheTruthAboutWhatIsGood/thebeautyofgod.msnw?

                                        Reply#5 - Sat Oct 25, 2008 3:13 PM EDT
                                        Leave a Comment:
                                        You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                        You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                        (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                        Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                        As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                        FUN STUFF:
                                        • Leaderboard |
                                        • E-Mail Alerts |
                                        • Top of the Vine |
                                        • Newsvine Live |
                                        • Newsvine Archives |
                                        • The Greenhouse
                                        COMPANY STUFF:
                                        • Code of Honor |
                                        • Company Info |
                                        • Contact Us |
                                        • Jobs |
                                        • User Agreement |
                                        • Privacy Policy |
                                        • About our ads
                                        LEGAL STUFF:
                                        • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                        • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                        • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com