Archive for http://rorap.net The Roanoke Valley's Most Reliable Forum
 



       http://rorap.net Forum Index -> Roanoke Valley News, Events, Politics
THE CURE

Victory Baptist

Seems to be getting a little political. http://www.vbcrr.org/MoreInfo.html
SkygreenLeopard

Oh joy. More religiously sanctioned bigotry.
The Rock

I didn't realize marriage was under attack in North Carolina.

Cap'n Slappy

"Charter a motor coach for the rally". Let me guess, the Tacklebox express?
SkygreenLeopard

Pirate wrote:
"Charter a motor coach for the rally". Let me guess, the Tacklebox express?


Now now.. Let's try to stay on topic.
That seems a bit petty and mean-spirited since tacklebox isn't even involved in the discussion..
Cap'n Slappy

From what I know about Tacklebox if he's not involved he will be.
SkygreenLeopard

Pirate wrote:
From what I know about Tacklebox if he's not involved he will be.


I know, his views aren't exactly a secret.
To me it just seemed to be an unnecessary potshot. *shrug*
Cap'n Slappy

I guess it could be construed as such.
SkygreenLeopard

Pirate wrote:
I guess it could be construed as such.


Not trying to jump on you, I just know him personally, and while I disagree with most of his methods and beliefs, I respect his dedication to his faith(however misguided I may think it is) and think he's an all-around nice guy.
Cap'n Slappy

I think he's misguided too and the nice guy persona may very well serve to "misguide" someone else. Sun, never worry about whether I perceive that you are "jumping on" me. I have a very thick skin.
msnightowl

NO, in fact it is not the Tacklebox Express, the Minister is getting this bus together, and no it will not be a charter bus, we own three buses that we use to bring kids and adults to church that have no other way. And the kids and adults are of all colors of the rainbow. And yes marriage in North Carolina is under attack. In fact Richard Burr is going to be the Guess speaker at the rally. Tacklebox has nothing to do with getting the trip together. And one other thing I will not have anyone attacking anyone in Open Chapel, this should be the one place you should be able to come and not have to worry about having to be attacked.
SkygreenLeopard

msnightowl wrote:
NO, in fact it is not the Tacklebox Express, the Minister is getting this bus together, and no it will not be a charter bus, we own three buses that we use to bring kids and adults to church that have no other way. And the kids and adults are of all colors of the rainbow. And yes marriage in North Carolina is under attack. In fact Richard Burr is going to be the Guess speaker at the rally. Tacklebox has nothing to do with getting the trip together. And one other thing I will not have anyone attacking anyone in Open Chapel, this should be the one place you should be able to come and not have to worry about having to be attacked.


Explain how marriage is under attack in NC, please.

Since you're among the ones who will be demonstrating, I assume you have a firm grasp of the issue at hand.
msnightowl

The Marriage amendment legislation has languished in the General Assembly in North Carolina for three years in a row, making North Carolina the only state in the South where legislative efforts to put a marriage amendment on the ballot have consistently failed. Why has it failed because the Demonuts refuse to act on it.

Two bills – H55 and S8 – were introduced in both chambers of the North Carolina General Assembly. Both are constitutional amendments that seek to define marriage as “the union of one man and one woman at one time.” The only difference between the bills is the date in which voters would have approved the constitutional amendment. H55 designates a vote on November 8, 2005, when many voters go to the polls to vote in municipal elections. S8 designates the vote on the day of the primary election in May, 2006.

Neither bill was given so much as a committee hearing, even though this important legislation defends North Carolina’s traditional values and has broad-based support. Similar amendments were introduced during the last legislative session in 2003, but the Democrat leadership also prevented those bills from receiving a hearing in committee.

No need to ask me to go further on this issue because Open Chapel is not the place to debate Politics.
Cap'n Slappy

msnightowl said:
Quote:
No need to ask me to go further on this issue because Open Chapel is not the place to debate Politics.



And I will go so far as to say neither is Victory Baptist Church the place to debate politics either. Church's that involve themselves in the political process should loose their tax exempt status.
SkygreenLeopard

msnightowl wrote:
No need to ask me to go further on this issue because Open Chapel is not the place to debate Politics.


I think you lost the right to call it a "political matter" the moment you got your church involved.

msnightowl wrote:

The Marriage amendment legislation has languished in the General Assembly in North Carolina for three years in a row, making North Carolina the only state in the South where legislative efforts to put a marriage amendment on the ballot have consistently failed. Why has it failed because the Demonuts refuse to act on it.


Or perhaps, there is some sanity left in the world.

msnightowl wrote:

Two bills – H55 and S8 – were introduced in both chambers of the North Carolina General Assembly. Both are constitutional amendments that seek to define marriage as “the union of one man and one woman at one time.”


What gives you the right to impose your own religious beliefs on the millions of people who don't share them? The religious right used the Bible to back up bans on interracial marriage and segregation as well. I see no difference.
Marriage is about two people in love making a pact with each other.

msnightowl wrote:

Neither bill was given so much as a committee hearing, even though this important legislation defends North Carolina’s traditional values and has broad-based support.


There you go again with "traditional values."
Traditional values really aren't all they're cracked up to be.
Some are common sense, of course, such as not cheating on your husband/wife, not lying, having character..etc
Since when did dictating someone else's love life become a traditional value? Follow your own values, don't marry someone of the same-sex, thats YOUR choice. But you have no right to take that choice away from everyone else.

So yes, marriage IS under attack in NC.
By you, and anyone else attempting to proliferate this ethnocentric belief.
Cap'n Slappy

Sunalsorises is a genius.
msnightowl

One: I did not start the post, so yes I can call it a poltical matter.

Two: It is not my Church it is gods church.

Three: I do not attend any Church at the moment, so I have got noone involved.

Four: I share my religous vaules with anyone anymore. I just am the moderator, and make sure Open Chapel is not abused.

Five: I don't go to Raleigh to postest anything.
msnightowl

[quote="msnightowl"]One: I did not start the post, so yes I can call it a poltical matter.

Two: It is not my Church it is gods church.

Three: I do not attend any Church at the moment, so I have got noone involved.

Four: I don't share my religous vaules with anyone anymore. I just am the moderator, and make sure Open Chapel is not abused.

Five: I don't go to Raleigh to postest anything.
pottershands

The beauty of America is that our political system is set up so that in theory the majority rules. The question is "what does the majority think?" Everyone has the right to demonstrate about whatever they want to unless they are insiting a riot or causing traffic obstruction or the like. This is an instance of a group of people gathering to make their opinion heard in an effort to have an impact pollitically and on the opinions of the public. They aren't using hate language.

I have thought about the issue of tax exemption of churches as it relates to churches taking a political stance. Actually, most churches don't realize that they don't have to declare themselves an entity of the state to be tax exempt. They are exempt just because they are churches. I feel churches should be able to be politically involved. Our legal system represents the moral codes of the majority of citizens and churches, etc. are just gatherings of people with similar moral codes.
SkygreenLeopard

pottershands wrote:
The beauty of America is that our political system is set up so that in theory the majority rules. The question is "what does the majority think?" Everyone has the right to demonstrate about whatever they want to unless they are insiting a riot or causing traffic obstruction or the like. This is an instance of a group of people gathering to make their opinion heard in an effort to have an impact pollitically and on the opinions of the public. They aren't using hate language.

I have thought about the issue of tax exemption of churches as it relates to churches taking a political stance. Actually, most churches don't realize that they don't have to declare themselves an entity of the state to be tax exempt. They are exempt just because they are churches. I feel churches should be able to be politically involved. Our legal system represents the moral codes of the majority of citizens and churches, etc. are just gatherings of people with similar moral codes.


I have nothing against demonstrating, as a matter of fact, I wish more Americans would demonstrate on issues they believe in.
What I am calling into question is the validity of trying to have our countries laws changed in a way that respects a single religious belief over basic human rights..

Also, the "majority rules" concept works sometimes, but our government frequently has to decide when majority opinion actually lines up with what is morally right..
Is taking away the right to have a beautiful ceremony celebrating a vow made to the individual whom you want to spend your life with morally right? I state emphatically, NO. It is detestable.

In 40 years, we'll be looking back at this time period just as we look back now on the 50s and 60s with it's mob rule, lynchings, "coloreds not allowed," and other such barbarity. Shaking our heads in consternation, we can't imagine how anyone could honestly believe and support such heinous infringements on human rights.

There's a saying, "History repeats itself."

But in this case, I think one of my personal favorites is a bit more appropiate: "What goes around, comes around."
Cap'n Slappy

Is the problem people don't want gay's to be married or is the problem that people don't want married gays to have the same rights as married heterosexuals?
THE CURE

The problem is nobody wants someone to tell them how to live but they love to tell other people how to live.
flyupsidedown

The problem is "gayness" or sodomy whatever your flavor is an aberrant behavior no matter how one looks at it and tries to justify it with "armchair" anecdotes of "loving relationships" and beautiful music wafting around their union. It aint so. It is sin and shouldn't be protected by marriage antmore than a pedophile should be protected under some type of marriage amendment, even if the adolescent consents and is "in love". In this great country one is able to choose the sin of ones choice. It doesn't mean we need to protect it. The politically correct minority screams HOMOPHOBIC! AND BIGOT! in an effort to make Americans feel ashamed of righteous stances. It won't work. It would be just as relevant then to scream adulteruraphobic! or pedophileaphobic! or pornographyaphobic! It is a ridiculous comeback to which I scream RIGHTEOUSNESSAPHOBIC! The scripture is right - righteousness exalts a nation and sin is a reproach to any people.
SkygreenLeopard

flyupsidedown wrote:
The problem is "gayness" or sodomy whatever your flavor is an aberrant behavior no matter how one looks at it and tries to justify it with "armchair" anecdotes of "loving relationships" and beautiful music wafting around their union. It aint so. It is sin and shouldn't be protected by marriage antmore than a pedophile should be protected under some type of marriage amendment, even if the adolescent consents and is "in love".


Comparing a union of love between two adults to the disgusting, morally wrong and ILLEGAL (but I should add, Biblically condoned) practice of pedophilia shows a serious flaw in your thought process(or, I should say, lack thereof).


flyupsidedown wrote:
The politically correct minority

Where have you been the last 20 years or so? look around you chief, you're the minority now, and for good reason.

Now, There is much I would like to say. I'm going to hold back, if for any other reason, to at least maintain some "credibility as a thinker," as you seem to believe anyone who too vehemently opposes your doctrines loses.
I would suggest that you yourself with these beliefs not only hurt, but completely obliterate any credibility whatsoever, as a thinker, as a compassionate being, as a person of faith, as a fellow inhabitant of our society.

Understand, I hold you on the same level as the next KKK rally-goer, the ethnic-cleansers, any person who hasn't learned to function in a modern world, who still grasps at dysfunctional 10,000 year old passages as "proof" that he/she has the right, nay, the duty(!) to dictate the way his fellow man is allowed to live. It is very difficult for me not to speak my mind in this matter, to remain civil in the presence of blatant bigotry.(yes, I said it, complain all you want, if the shoe fits...)

That absurdity aside, let's examine this from the perspective of legality.

You yourself define your cause against homosexual unions as "It is sin and shouldn't be protected by marriage."
Ok. So it's a sin. Sin is defined by religious creed. That's not an arguable point. From religion to religion, the definition of "sin" changes shape.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

So keep preaching your beliefs at church, teach it to your kids, discuss it here, at christian gatherings...etc. But stay far, far away from our legal system.
flyupsidedown

politically correct minority, yes. That is why nearly every State in the union rushed to pass some kind of mariage protection act. We don't want it. Without moral law you have no basis for civil law, let alone a legal system. Moral law comes from a higher power ... like ... God. There has to be a foundation for civil law beyond the meager spigs intellectualism affords. Nazi Germany had the greatest number of PhD's in the industrialized world and yet they gave us the laws that gave us the holocaust. As far as the "dyfunction" of using 10,000 yr old passages - It is called "God's word" and Jesus, a historical figure you know, stated "heaven and earth shall pass away, but not one jot or tittle of my word" - get used to it.
Cap'n Slappy

'When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.
- Benjamin Franklin, in a letter to Richard Price. October 9, 1790.



God does not need any help enforcing his laws.
pottershands

Pirate wrote:
Is the problem people don't want gay's to be married or is the problem that people don't want married gays to have the same rights as married heterosexuals?


I admit I haven't done an indepth study on the issue, but my take on it is that the issue is whether a gay union should be viewed as the same as what has been traditionally viewed as a marriage and whether it should be given the same legal status.
Cap'n Slappy

If it's the legal status and benefit thing Pottershands a lot of places already recognize domestic unions and give the same benefits as if they were married.
SkygreenLeopard

flyupsidedown wrote:
Nazi Germany had the greatest number of PhD's in the industrialized world and yet they gave us the laws that gave us the holocaust.


Just a sidenote.
Hitler was a Christian.
He included Biblical passages in his party doctrines and speeches at every chance.
This is an excerpt from the German Worker's Party's Programme:

Quote:
We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest.


And here are a few excerpts from speeches by Hitler himself:
Quote:

My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.

-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922


Quote:
We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls.... We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Passau, 27 October 1928, Bundesarchiv Berlin-Zehlendorf


Quote:
We are determined, as leaders of the nation, to fulfill as a national government the task which has been given to us, swearing fidelity only to God, our conscience, and our Volk.... This the national government will regard its first and foremost duty to restore the unity of spirit and purpose of our Volk. It will preserve and defend the foundations upon which the power of our nation rests. It will take Christianity, as the basis of our collective morality, and the family as the nucleus of our Volk and state, under its firm protection....May God Almighty take our work into his grace, give true form to our will, bless our insight, and endow us with the trust of our Volk.

-Adolf Hitler, on 1 Feb. 1933, addressing the German nation as Chancellor for the first time, Volkischer Beobachter, 5 Aug. 1935


Quote:
The German people was created by Providence, not in order to obey a law which suits Englishmen or Frenchmen, but to stand up for its vital right. That is what we are there for!

-Adolf Hitler, at Wilhemshaven, 01 April 1939


And so on, and so on, and so on.
I have pages and pages of similar quotes.

Therefore, I find your argument of Intellectualism vs. Religious values using Nazi Germany as a case-point to be bunk.

Hitler used Christianity as a main argument for his attempted annihilation of the Jews, not "intellectual reason." The German people were duped into believing it was morally right because of their faith.
flyupsidedown

Actually, Hitler was not a christian which means "christ-like" or "follower of" The klu klux klan use the bible also. Are they christians? Satan himself used the scriptures and Jesus testified that even demons believe.

Actually Hitler was a rapturous admirer of Nietzsche -- Just google Hitler+Nietzsche and you'll find such:


Thus, regardless of what he hoped for, Nietzsche offered grounds for the reprehensible Nazi ideology of a superior race exercising its will to power as it saw fit. Hitler was living out what Nietzsche had envisioned, trying to prove himself to be the Übermensch and the precursor of the Master race. He despised weakness as much as Nietzsche did and wanted to "transvalue" the current social values into something that supported the aggressive instinct. He wanted to become, as Nietzsche called it, a "lord of the earth."
Like some killers today, Hitler appropriated Nietzsche's ideas and made them his own. It may not have been Nietzsche's intent to have his themes taken out of context, but few thinkers have the luxury of controlling what others do with their work. It's unlikely he would have viewed a petty, dysfunctional and tyrannical little man like Hitler as the Übermensch that would usher in a new age of self-realization and cultural achievement. Yet Hitler was indeed a "monster filled with joy" with the "conscience of a beast of prey," as Nietzsche described. Vague phrasing provided a certain flexibility of interpretation.
And in other ways, too, Nietzsche's influence has been pervasive. Warmongers took up his philosophy, as well as other philosophers, artists and poets. It's no wonder that there's been a widespread cultural influence from Nietzsche's time that persists even today. Whether young minds bent on aggression come across him in a classroom or just hear some popular (and often distorted) rendition of his ideas in music or movies, there's no doubt that he resonates with a certain breed of killer

Some sources indicate that Hitler had one of Nietzsche's books, Thus Spake Zarathustra, issued to his soldiers. It spoke of the new age of truth in morality and power. William Shirir writes in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich that while Nietzsche was never anti-Semitic, Hitler basically saw what he wanted to see in Nietzsche's writings. "Hitler often visited the Nietzsche museum in Weimar and published his veneration for the philosopher by posing for photographs of himself staring in rapture at the bust of the great man."

[/quote]

       http://rorap.net Forum Index -> Roanoke Valley News, Events, Politics
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
map it!
Deaf Topics
Deaf Topics - daily topics from deaf sites, forum and blogs.
Find services
Find jobs, services, gigs - It's the best place who looking for a job and it's free to post, no registration needed.