So if I dont like adult businesses I can just go around taking pictures of people’s license plates and send them postcards? Is this some kind of a threat or intimidation? Those adult stores are there legally and did not break any rules. Is this still the “Land of the Free” ? From the article though, looks like this Pastor is not so clean himself.
Time for the adult businesses to stalk those Church goers and send them obscene postcards thats as racy as you can legally mail on the front, and a message “Come on down to Joe’s XXX video … you just might like it”
[quote=“chodofu”]What scares me is that this prick Norwood will eventually get federal funds from George W. to support his campaign.
This is the future of faith based services!
Chou[/quote]
Well, Dubya did start the so called “faith based inititive”. I guess this Texas pastor’s action is just what Dubya was looking for. So much for the separation of church and state.
[quote=“chodofu”]What scares me is that this prick Norwood will eventually get federal funds from George W. to support his campaign.
This is the future of faith based services![/quote]
Gentlemen… hold on a minute.
I am as outraged as any of you… I agree totally with Mother Theresa on the issue of separation of Church and State…
But let’s not turn this into a rant against President Bush… because you’re both mistaken.
Bush’s Faith Based and Community Initiative program is not designed to help idiots such as the pastor in the report cited in this thread. In fact, President Bush stated, on October 29, 2003 when discussing FBCI, the following:
Note from the story that the pastor receives donations from the community, NOT from the federal government. The pastor indicated that his cards were “invitations” to worship at his church, and thus, this activity is expressly NOT the type of activity Bush seeks to assist in his FBCI program.
Bush’s FBCI program is targeted specifically at supporting organizations that serve people, particularly the following populations:
at-risk youth
ex-offenders
homeless and hungry
substance abusers
those with HIV/AIDS
welfare-to-work families
Thus, IMO, it isn’t fair to start bashing Bush with respect to the jagoff pastor identified in the report cited in this thread. Can we call off the dogs on this one?
Ok, I agree its not fair to start bashing Bush on this one.
I was just being cynical and seeing “Dickwoods” actions as a possible outcome of the FBCI as it trickles down to the decison making of petty bureaucrats and special interests.
Anyhow let me change “eventually will” to “may eventually” so that I can keep my cynicism intact without truly bashing the FBCI. I’ll reserve my criticism of the FBCI for another thread.
[quote=“chodofu”]I was just being cynical and seeing “Dickwoods” actions as a possible outcome of the FBCI as it trickles down to the decison making of petty bureaucrats and special interests.
Anyhow let me change “eventually will” to “may eventually”…[/quote]
I doubt that Dickwood will ever get funds for his activities from Bush’s FBCI program. There are legal requirements that must be met to qualify for federal funding under FBCI and Dickwood’s acts do not fall under the stated purposes of FBCI aims. In fact, Dickwood’s acts are expressly NOT the type of acts that FBCI seeks to assist.
But do retain your cynicism… just check the facts…
Perhaps he should start stalking his own flock and see how many keep attending church. That’s the fastest way to get him to stop, no people = no money. Perhaps that is why he stalks the store. It could also be jelousy about not being able to go in himself. I wonder if he gets some sick pleasure out of watching people inside the store.
From the report it seems he is acting on his own initiative in a matter that began 4 years ago (prior to Bush’s election). He does, however, seem to have some community support (businesses donating money to fund his on-line search of vehicle registrations).
Nonetheless, I think his actions, if not his motives, are wrong and I’d be very tempted to confront him were he to point his camera at me.
From the report it seems he is acting on his own initiative in a matter that began 4 years ago (prior to Bush’s election). He does, however, seem to have some community support (businesses donating money to fund his on-line search of vehicle registrations).[/quote]
This does not make it right. I do recall that guys like “David Koresh”, and “Jim Jones” had plenty of community donations. Yes, I know that I am again taking this to the extreme without supporting evidence. But its just another way to call him a nut.
The guy clearly has some serious issues to get over in his ongoing recovery from addiction to porn and violence. Too bad he won’t do it on his knees… in his church. I certainly would confront him for taking my photo and spaming me with his junk mail.
From the report it seems he is acting on his own initiative in a matter that began 4 years ago (prior to Bush’s election). He does, however, seem to have some community support (businesses donating money to fund his on-line search of vehicle registrations).[/quote]
Absolutely. I stated that I believe his actions are indeed wrong. My use of “however” above does not imply that his conduct is acceptable because supported, only that it appears to have some community support despite being taken on his own initiative.
From the report it seems he is acting on his own initiative in a matter that began 4 years ago (prior to Bush’s election). He does, however, seem to have some community support (businesses donating money to fund his on-line search of vehicle registrations).[/quote]
Absolutely. I stated that I believe his actions are indeed wrong. My use of “however” above does not imply that his conduct is acceptable because supported, only that it appears to have some community support despite being taken on his own initiative.[/quote]
Easy now, I’m not trying to debate you here, nor misinterpret your meaning. What you said was clear. I only meant to add some spiteful comentary.
[quote]A young man in a blue pickup pulled into the lot, an aluminum ladder rattling in the bed. When told of Norwood’s surveillance program, his eyes darkened. “I’m just going to rent a video and go home. I’ll be [angry] if I get a postcard in the mail. I think it’s stupid. People aren’t going to stop doing what they want to do,” he said.
Norwood readily agreed. But those who dismiss his invitation to church will perhaps take their business elsewhere, “somewhere they won’t be hassled,” he said. "There are a lot of other places
[quote=“ImaniOU”]What on earth does renting porn have to do with having a sexual addiction?[/quote] Perhaps your question was rhetorical. But, just in case it was not, I’ll give you the basic theory. Many in the religious community believe that exposing yourself to something like pornography will desensitize you to the “horrors” of it and make it easier for you to become addicted to it. They believe that, just as taking too much of a drug may lead you to becoming addicted to it (a-la-Rush Limbaugh ), watching any porn, let alone “too much” of it will lead to an addiction to porn (in general) or sex (specifically).
I think you are right. It sounds to me like he has not yet dealt with all his “demons.” However, instead of getting down on his knees and working out his own issues, he is choosing to attack others. It is almost as if he is trying to show how much he has changed (been “cured”), even though he really hasn’t, by attacking people who are doing the things he will no longer let himself do.
Unfortunately, there are lots of people like that. Whenever my mother suggests that maybe I can change… look at all those “ex-gays” out there… I try to politely remind her of the leader of one of the largest “ex-gay” organizations who was caught in a DC gay bar in the fall of 2002. Apparently he wasn’t as “cured” as he thought he was. But, it didn’t stop him from tell others how sinful they were and how much they need to change.
This is a bit :offtopic:, but I was brought up in a conservative, evangelical, born-again Christian household, and still consider myself a born-again Christian. (I know, I’m also gay and that is an oxymoron to many. But, hey, I don’t have any issues with it. So, I trust you don’t either.) I want to take the opportunity to stand up for the Christian faith.
Many people attack Christianity, mentioning all the horrible things – killing, discrimination, etc… – that have been done in the name of Christianity and/or God. But, I hope people can remember that it is the people not the faith that is the problem. Over the centuries people have misinterpreted (purposefully or not) the Bible and/or outright lied about what it says in order to pursue their own aims and goals. They have used Christianity to manipulate those around them and to support behaviours and beliefs that God would never agree with – the KKK and the not so reverend Fred Phelps (sp?) are two modern examples.
Ultimately, God’s message, through His Son’s life and death, is one of love, mercy and forgiveness, not of hatred, malice and intolerance. Unfortunately, too many people use it for the latter, rather than the former. Even though, they claim to be trying to spread “God’s Love.” As you rail against the outrageousness of people like this pastor, please remember that.
But surely the whole purpose of any organized religion is to manipulate people and support certain behaviours and beliefs. That’s what its always been for. Nothing else.
And all that “smite thine enemy” stuff or “smite the infidels” – surely that’s the faith and not the people. Without the people, there is no faith. And as for the part about god agreeing or disagreeing with anything – how can anybody possibly know what he she or it (assuming that you believe such an entity exists) would or would not agree with apart from the writings in a bunch of old tales written not by angels but by men with agendas of their own.
And I’ll stop throwing peanuts from the gallery. :flowers:
Don’t you just love these former “sinners” who think it is their right to stop everyone from doing something just because they have stopped? The guy is a jerk.
This is my major issue with organized religion. How do you (anyone) know how to “correctly interpret” the Bible? I think this is not possible… and thus I resent anyone telling me that they know the correct interpretation of the Bible.
This is my major issue with organized religion. How do you (anyone) know how to “correctly interpret” the Bible? I think this is not possible… and thus I RESENT anyone telling me that they know the correct interpretation of the Bible.[/quote]
If this means that you do not see any value for Christians in biblical scholarship and exegesis, I have to disagree. Careful, thoughtful and thorough scholarship is precisely the thing that overcomes the excesses of naive dogmatism that is found when people try to take the Bible out of all historical context and read it in a very literal, simplistic way. There are good ways and bad ways to go about reading the Bible, and it follows that there must be more probable/useful and less probable/useful understandings or interpretations of its meaning. An awareness of such scholarship is also an effective protection against those who misrepresent the Bible in order to pursue their own ends.
If, however, you’re arguing against those readers of the Bible who have very rigid views on its meaning, without having based those views on good scholarship, then I agree with you.
Regarding religious leaders who seek to follow their own selfish ends, I would say that careful research into religious teachers’ and groups’ backgrounds and their place in the wider context of religious traditions, is one of the best protections against unscrupulous teachers and groups.
Before I start my response, I want to make it clearn that I am not getting defensive about this. It is sometimes difficult to tell people’s emotions in a forum like this. Please don’t read defensiveness into anything I write. I am merely responding to responses about my response to other people’s responses. (Was that statement confusing or what? )
I don’t think the original purpose of organized religion was to manipulate people. Though, that is, unfortunately, often the case today. I do agree that one of its purposes has been and is to “support certain behaviours or beliefs,” with those being based on the shared faith of the members of the religion. This would be true for Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc… However, my comments were not about organized religion. Rather, I was talking about faith.
I know people think that faith and religion are the same. In fact, one definition of faith in the dictionary says it is a belief in a religion. But, IMHO, they are not the same. Faith is an individual set of spiritual
principles and beliefs, that can not necessarily be proved scientifically. In most cases, this is the belief in God, or some “higher power,” His role in the creation/management of the universe. Faith is individual and can be "
practiced" alone.
Religion, on the other hand, requires a group, as it is an institutionalization of that individual faith. Therefore, there is no difference between “organized religion” and “religion,” per se. Unfortunately, once humans started to institutionalize and organize their faith into religions things became a problem. Over time, for whatever reason, religion set one person (pope, pastor, etc…) above the others. This one person then had the ability to dictate behaviors and beliefs to the other members, because ultimate authority for interpretation was given to that person, as they were seen to be “better” – i.e., more spiritual, more learned, etc…
In contrast, the original new testament churches were small, individual,
loosely affiliated groups that were led, not by a pastor, but by a group of
elders who acted as a “checks and balance” system for each other. In addition, unlike many churches in organized religion in history and today, the congregations (the common people) were expected to study the scriptures for themselves, as a further check on the elderships interpretation of scripture. [Note: I do have passages to support my assertions about the original new testament churches, but they are too many to list here.] By the way, as far as I know no where in the Bible does it say you HAVE TO go to church to be a good Christian. Rather, people are encouraged, to fellowship with one another, for encouragement, edification, instruction, etc… but, it is not a requirement.
Please provide me with some references to where in the Bible it says this!?!? Then I’ll deal with the validity or invalidity (is that a word?) of this
statement.
Well, part of the concept of “faith” is believing that they are not just old tales and that they are inspired by God, and not written by men for their own agenda. Of course, you have to have faith in the existence of God for this to work.
This is sort of a catch 22 when it comes to the Christian faith. Part of the reason we have faith that God exists is because the Bible gives us “evidence” of His existence. However, we believe the Bible, because we believe it is the inspired word of God. Again, this is where faith comes.
[quote=“tigerman”]This is my major issue with organized religion. How do you (anyone) know how to “correctly interpret” the Bible? I think this is not possible… and thus I RESENT anyone telling me that they know the correct
interpretation of the Bible.[/quote]
This has always been a question. And, I don’t know that I have an answer you (plural form) will accept, if you are someone that has trouble accepting any kind of spiritual belief, faith, religion, etc… However, I was always taught that there were three things to do when determining God’s will. One, you need to open up your heart and mind to God’s leading (I know, that sounds very religious and unscientific, but, again, that is where faith comes in). Two, you need to do (as Joesax says) a careful study of the relevant passages. That includes looking at the context, looking at the original Greek or Hebrew words, etc… And, three, you need to check your conclusions with other individuals that you trust.
Part of the problem that I see with organized religion today is that the people have, by and large, allowed themselves to be lulled into complacency when it comes to religious teaching. They allow the pope, priest, or pastor to tell them what the Bible says and, then, they never question it.
One week the pastor (or whoever) can tell them they all must wear brown clothes to church or risk going to hell, and they will nod their heads and agree. Two weeks later, the pastor can turn around and tell them they wear blue clothes, instead of brown. They will all just nod again, never questioning the spiritualness of wearing either brown or blue clothes, nor will they question the fact that the pastor has changed his view.
IMHO, it is this blind adherence to the “authority” of one person that is one
of the main causes of the problems in organized religion. It’s the “pope says it, I believe it; that’s good enough for me” syndrome.
By the way, Tigerman, back on the subject of pornography, I never said that there was anything wrong with pornography or sex. Believe me, I’ve enjoyed both. I was just explaining what some see as the link between pornography and sexual addiction. and sexual addiction.
However, I would state further that I think that even with the most meticulous and objective scholarship… we cannot “know” God or understand God’s meaning, plan, etc… Its all interpretation, and a good deal of speculation.
Some of the interpretations are simply based upon better scholarship than others.
)
I was just explaining what some see as the link between pornography and sexual addiction. and sexual addiction.