For JMCFST, who asked (And anyone else who cares) LONG!!!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

…And in my mind's eye, I saw Jesus suffering on the cross.  And he was as black as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or whoever.  And he was saying to me, "when you hate anyone -- you hate me".  He wasn't angry.  I felt nothing but love coming from him.  And pity.

And tell me, in your vision of his crucifixion of your vision, was Jesus holding a list of charges against any group of people? 
---

In the days, weeks and months that ensued, the Holy Spirit began to show me my problem was not just with blacks...but with gays and liberals and non-Christians and Atheists and witches and -- goodness -- with anyone not like me.  I hated them.  I thought I was called to hate them….

Let me put it to you this way, JSojourner, I disagree with many of the leaders of the black community, like Sharpton and JJackson.  I believe the black community has had to deal with great injustices from the white majority, but I think these types of leaders are doing the black community a great disservice by their unceasing preaching of victimhood to the masses.  I think they have lead the vast majority of the black community astray and that they are one of the main reasons why 75% of black children are born out of wedlock.

But as much as I disagree with them, I would consider anyone a racist who has compiled against Sharpton and JJackson half the crap you’ve compiled against idiots like Falwell and Robertson.

---

 

So -- not only were gays, liberals, Democrats, Jews, Catholics, Socialists and abortive women damned.  So were women who wore slacks, women who failed to submit to the will of their husband (even if he was abusive), young people who danced or listened to rock music, people who had wine with supper or attended movie theaters.

JSojourner, you’d find a lot in common with many from the church I go to, for it broke off from the UPC to escape the chaos and the same type of legalism you just mentioned (they weren’t allowed to wear makeup, watch TV, go to movies, ride motorcycles, etc, etc, etc).  And like many, my pastor was brought up in the UPC and was told his church was the only true church.  But when he was shipped off to Vietnam at the age of 18, he started a one hour prayer service on Thursdays night in his base camp, and he witnessed boys from almost every denomination receive the Holy Spirit.  And God poured himself out into them thousands of miles away from any denomination because they were simply hungry for God.  That was my pastors first interdenominational experience, but it wouldn’t be his last.

And my pastor and many in my church have scars from their religious upbringing.  But I can’t name one of them who collects information on the any of the many who still teach those falsehoods.   Those members of my church have somehow moved on with their lives, even though many still have relatives and friends in the UPC.

Many people want to hear that they are special and that they belong to a select group who only know the truth.  It’s just human nature.  But, you might as well be an exMormon fighting against the Mormon church, because you are NOT going to stop that train.  For it has already been foretold:

 2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

And in light of this, did Paul instruct Timothy to compile a list of wrongs of those who don’t preach the truth? No, rather he gave the following command in the very next verse:

2Tim4:5 But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

And prior to verse 3,  there was another command in verse 2, that if followed, prepares for the things mentioned in verse 3:

2Tim 4:2 Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.

But the list you’ve complied and posted is not “preaching the Word”, rather it’s repeating someone else’s delusion.  And your compiled list is not “preparing in season and out of season”, rather you’re simply grinding an axe.  And it is not “correcting”, for you didn’t correct any of it.  And it is not “rebuking”, for the ones at fault aren’t even in your audience to rebuke.  And it is not “encouragement”, rather it is hopelessness.

===

But, in the end, let’s not deceive ourselves here, Sojourner:  For any fool can see that you and I are both in the wrong here:

You’ve compiled a list of wrongs on a group of people, and you know Jesus would not have done that.  And I have publically goaded you into justifying your list, and I know Jesus would not have done that.  I apologize for that.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I believe the power brokers in the religious right are that dangerous to American democracy...you might think they are wrong, but relatively powerless and irrelevant....We can argue those points then

Then, if they are such a dangerous threat to democracy and have so much "power", list the laws currently on the books that they have advocated and that you think should be removed.

I've said it repeatedly for years on this forum, and I'll say it again: these guys hold very little power, even among social conservatives.  Rather, it is social conservatives like myself, who strive to be impartial, who hold the power within the GOP.

---

I believe the power brokers in the religious right are that dangerous to the church -- Evangelical and otherwise.

well, unlike Joseph Smith, these people didn't create their denominations, rather they are a product of their denominations.  And they would hold no sway at all if there wasn't a market for what they produce.  You're treating them as if they were the disease, but the truth is that they are simply a symptom of the disease, and in doing so, you're focusing the spotlight on them.

===

You're trying to argue that you're doing God's work by keeping a list of wrongs of these modern day Pharisees.  But when you read the Gospels and the book of Acts, did the early church keep a list of wrongs against the Pharisees, or was it the Pharisees that kept a list of wrongs against the church?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

JSojourner, did I miss your answer to the following?:

Then, if they are such a dangerous threat to democracy and have so much "power", list the laws currently on the books that they have advocated and that you think should be removed.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

JSojourner, did I miss your answer to the following?:

Then, if they are such a dangerous threat to democracy and have so much "power", list the laws currently on the books that they have advocated and that you think should be removed.

No you, didn't.  And I simply forgot to respond to that point.

I will answer your question with a question.  Did the racial laws enacted in Germany in the mid-1930's become a threat once they were enacted?  Or were they a threat as soon as those ideas were hatched and publicized?

I don't know enough about Nazi history to answer your queston.  But are you trying to suggest that we have to go back and study Hitler and the Nazis to understand Pat Robertson?  As if Pat Robertson can be compared with Hitler?

If so, I don't know what to say in response, except that I find your comparison a ludicrous version of reality.

But, since you can't name any laws currently on the books that they have advocated and that you want removed, even though the Religious Right has been around for 30 years and its power is now waning, then it seems to me that my opinion is the one based upon reality:  these so-called "leaders" of the Religious Right have VERY little power, they're nothing more than gnats. 

And since that are nothing but gnats, my response to them seems the most prudent:  I turn the channel.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

But, since you can't name any laws currently on the books that they have advocated and that you want removed, even though the Religious Right has been around for 30 years and its power is now waning, then it seems to me that my opinion is the one based upon reality:  these so-called "leaders" of the Religious Right have VERY little power, they're nothing more than gnats. 

And since that are nothing but gnats, my response to them seems the most prudent:  I turn the channel.

I apologize for this interjection.

The problem is the fact that they have so many followers. Look at the amount of money they make, at the ratings their TV shows get, at the number of books they sell.

They may be gnats now, but if not stopped, they could grow to be the most powerful men in the land.

Don't even try, my friend.  The man has his own facts and they will never change.  I was warned about that along time ago but other forumites.  They were right.

you two are certainly a pair.  But let me make a prediction:  these so-called leaders of the Religious Right will never even take control of the GOP, much less America.  

Who has the GOP nominated in the last 11 elections:  Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush41, Dole, Bush43, McCain.  And no matter what you think of Bush43, he hasn't advocated theocracy.  

So, it is now July 2008, after 30 years of their influence, and here's what your number one threat has accomplished:
1)  They have pushed through ZERO laws that you want reversed.  
2)  And the GOP nominee is John McCain.

but, as you said, those are my "own" facts:

The man has his own facts and they will never change. 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You and I are almost in complete agreement.  All the Republicans you mention -- with the exeption of Little Lord George -- have definitely not been in the thrall of the religious right.
I couldn't disagree more about Bush Lite. 

and what theocratic laws has Bush43 proposed?

---
 

But I'm not going to keep quiet about a still-powerful movement with millions of adherants just because you want me to.  And I am sure you're not going to stop warning us about "the radical homosexual agenda" just because we wish you would.

I don't view the rush to embrace homosexuality as anything new, rather it is just a continuation of the sexual revolution of the 60's.  The value of marriage in this country has already been decimated by fornication and adultery and it is paraded day in and day out in tens of millions of living rooms through TV.

Does that mean I want to ban TV?  no.  Does that mean I want to ban those type of shows?  no.  We simply turn the channel.

But, regardless of my opposition to anything, whether it be sexual immorality or racism, one thing I will never buy into is the creation of a list of dirty laundry.

As it is written: "Love keeps no record of wrongs" (1Cor 13:5)

---

So let's ...hmm...  put a period to this discussion.

might as well, this is getting nowhere

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

To jmfcst: "If I don't agree with the pastor on TV, I turn him off." (or something similar)

How is someone supposed to develop an educated opinion if he isn't willing to listen to people he disagrees with?

if depends on what they are saying.  If they're on TV trying to sale the favor of God in order to get people to send in money, the only education I am going to get by continuing to watch is learning how crazy they really are.

---

If you don't know about your opponents, it's nearly impossible to debate them properly.

1)  i didn't know I had "opponents"
2)  i don't think Pat Robertson would give anyone on this forum a chance to debate him.

---

It's precisely JS's extremely large knowledge about Evangelical Christianity that gives him the moral authority

really?  does it really take "extremely large knowledge about Evangelical Christianity" in order to refute idiotic statements?  If someone were to state that the moon was made of cheese,  I do NOT need to know the source of the statement in order to refute the statement.  In any case, knowledge about a group does not equate to moral authority.

---

...and ability...to criticize aspects of it with which he disagrees.

again, the ability to refute untruth come from the knowledge of truth, not knowledge of the ones spreading untruth.

For example, you yourself don't need to know anything about the identity of someone trying to tell you that 1+1=3 in order for you to dispute it. 

---

Instead of going on and on about his supposed "list"

supposed?  dude, he has posted it.  there is nothing supposed about it.

---

 shouldn't you be thankful that he has informed himself to such an extent?

common sense....common sense...common sense...

common sense should tell you that enumerating the faults of others is NOT spiritually profitable. 

If you don't trust common sense, then spend a month listing the faults of others and see if you feel better at the end of that month.  Or, better yet, do the opposite - spend a month learning to forgive and erase the failures of others and I guanatee you will feel better about yourself and won't see others as such a threat.