History
- Member for
- 28 weeks 5 days
Get E-Mail Updates
Palosaari
Top Stories This Week
- A North Carolina Christian’s Response to Pastor Charles L. Worley
by Andrew Simpson 05-23-2012 - 10 reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained For Ministry
by Eugene Cho 04-30-2012 - A 'Bizarre and Peculiar' Ruling
by E.J. Dionne Jr. 06-01-2012 - What is the Chief Political Concern of the Bible?
by Tim Suttle 05-24-2012 - The Problem with Certitude
by Gary L. Tandy 05-25-2012 - Dear Pastor Charles Worley: We Condemn Your Words of Hatred and Cruelty. REPENT!
by Eugene Cho 05-23-2012 - The Gospel According to Lady Gaga
by Richard Beck 01-09-2012 - Rob Bell: 'Surrender the Outcomes'
by Cathleen Falsani 05-09-2012 - Jennifer Grant Asks 'What is an Evangelical?'
by Jennifer Grant 05-23-2012
by Karen Sue Smith 01-01-2012
Fifty years after Vatican II, will a new generation of lay Catholics lead prophetic change in the church and in the world?
by David Cortright 05-01-2010
... and make us all more secure. A pragmatic approach to nuclear disarmament.
by David Cortright 08-01-2006
Official rhetoric has helped fuel an escalation of tension between the United States and Iran. Do recent negotiations mark a change in direction, or just a temporary detour from the highway to military attack?
Comments
It's an interesting quandary. We shouldn't help others to sin, but nor should we try to control the morality and ethics of those outside the Kingdom. "Are we to judge those outside the Church? Judge those within!"
I think a better approach would have been for them to reason that a couple of men, or women, or a man and a woman, might just like to get one room to themselves for financial reasons, or maybe not, but they have no control over why. Even a dating couple might decide to get a room not for sex, but just to (literally) sleep together. Some Christians might find this unethical, and others wouldn't. Unless this innkeeper were to investigate the complete moral history of every guest, it would be a better witness to say that they have no idea what's going on behind closed doors, but that they could tell the guests that they do not condone extramarital sex, and give the reasons why- and then let the guests make the decision.
I profoundly disagree. No Hosanna is warranted here. First, as a Christian, and not a member of the government, I am appalled at what this church did, firing someone for a disability, and not caring for her. If they feel she can't fulfill her duties, then they have a higher duty than the law- a duty before God Almighty- to care for her. They did the work of Satan here, not our Lord.
Secondly, Ministerial Exception- great. Freedom of Religion and the Church- great. But *the individual has a right to decide if they are a minister or not*. No religion gets to decide for it's members if they are ministers or not. That must be an agreement between the two parties. Such was not the case here. One could argue that the woman in question could then just leave the church if she disagreed. But that is in fact what she was forced to do, against her will, which is the whole crux of the issue. I would argue that she would have no desire to be part of such a church, and nor should anyone else- but she has a right to be compensated for not being in her job because she did not see herself as a minister.
What about myths or truths about the spirituality of Yoga? I'd love to hear more about that.
I liked this in general, a lot. But one bit I'd quibble on. Paul did not ordain that men only should be church leaders. Rather, the opposite.
I do the Ramadan fast every year, have since it was back in March. I do enjoy it, like you said. I get more out of it some years than others, but that's depending on what I put into it. But the one part I'd add to your description- I get a lot more out of it by doing it *with* Muslims, at the same time as them. Standing in solidarity with their suffering and all.
Considering the Revenge Slaughter supposedly committed by the Jews at the end of the Book of Esther, I'm not so sure we should be celebrating this holiday.
A friend helped today, when I told her about this article. She suggested that it is hard for us in our culture to see the evils of sin, but the Hebrews at the time could relate to the imagery more. They saw the evil as so gruesome and evil that this was the only imagery that could fully encompass it.
God has no place on the logo because he's not into war and the military. Would we be all in a hizzy demanding that his name be on legal prostitution houses in Nevada and on pirate boats in Somali waters?
Where is the F-word? I've looked and looked and can't figure out which verse would have it.
So I guess everything we did in England 40 years ago with Jesus People Europe, Lonesome Stone, Sheep, and Greenbelt is now illegal. And of course, it never happened.
As I understand it, the idea that Rand Paul is named after Ayn Rand is a bit of an urban myth. His real name is Randy. (See Wikipedia. Oh wait...Never mind.)
I was loving pretty much everything about this article, and then realized why. It's written by Lisa Harper.
I'm offended by this as a scientist. It's supposed to be a "sexperiment". I get the sex, but where's the experiment part? What are we trying to achieve here? Where is the hypothesis? The control as well as the variable? No control the results are meaningless. What's your methodology? How do we even know when we get results?
I have a sneaking suspicion they just wanted to appropriate the good name of experiment for a catchy title. :-(
I would *love* to be able to post via my Facebook account. While the option has been listed for months (years?), it has never actually worked for me. There is some sort of glitch in the matrix. I have *often* tried. If you do move in that direction, please make it work, so that we can post via Facebook. Though I rarely post here, I'd hate not to be able to because of technical difficulties.
Everyone who signs up- even those who are drafted- made a choice. They made a choice to fight and kill. If killing another in the image of God is wrong, then it is not just those who made the decisions at the top who err, but those who carry them out. They may have many reasons for joining the military, but they *are still responsible for their actions*. They are adults. They chose to kill. We should not honour that.
What we should honour is what they did not- that all humans are in the image of God, and that there is that of God in all of them- including those in the military and veterans. Though they made a mistake, we should treat them with love because they are fellow creatures of God, and represent God to us. In other words, treat them with the same respect that we give to all humans, and ensure that they have the same rights and opportunities- but not greater respect, nor greater rights.
This is Sojourners. Other than the title, and the last line, this article could have been in Politico. The gist of it doesn't address anything of Jesus' words, love your enemies, never fire a gun at them, no harm can come from love, turn the other cheek.
I really hate mammon and materialism and wealth. I agree with that point. I'm not so sure that this is what Norton means by "stuff', however. It seems like they are talking about your digital imprint. And I think this raises a more profound question. We are not our stuff. We are our relationships- with God, with people, with ourselves. But in a digital age, those relationships exist as electrons as much as in person. And Norton is right here- if those electrons get destroyed, the relationships get disrupted, or even irreparably damaged. This is truly where we are at in the post-modern world. I do not like it. I do not like that material things- even if they are not matter but merely energy- determine my relationships. But they do.
Now, how do I interweave that with the notion of a spiritual relationship with Christ? Certainly, we are to be holistic, and we are body-persons, and not merely spirits. But how do I fit the idea that I should not rely on things with the acknowledgment that electrons (as things) determine if I can or cannot have some relationships?
Such as the ones involved in being able to read the Sojourner blog.
Hmm. When you say "Oh my God" here it doesn't sound like a prayer. It sounds more like you're taking his name in vain. That's not to say that you are, but it seems like this could have been written a little differently to make the intent clearer.