Rails option is right
This letter is written in support of the views expressed in the April 9 Op-Ed by Veronica Garvey Magnan about the “Rail beds alternative to east-west highway,” and an April 10 Letter to the Editor from Greg Rossel (“…boondoggle”). We agree with both points concerning the efficiency and efficacy of reinstating the railroads as the best way to move goods and encourage tourism, including the “Rails with Trails” which our research shows was the original intent of that effort.
Living in Washington County, where the rails have been removed and replaced by recreational trails, we continue to see the deterioration of our roads from the heavy trucking required to move what goods come to and through our region. The recent improvements and continuing development of Eastport and its unique deep water capabilities is only hampered by limited rail connections.
In addition to the increased potential for commerce and tourism, returning the rails will also provide “shovel ready” projects for much needed employment and economic development. Once established, the railroad would likely rejuvenate communities along the route, helping small businesses grow as well as begin new ones.
Research shows real economic benefits of moving freight by rail versus truck. The environment would benefit from reduction in particulate and gaseous polluting emissions. The east-west highway options might remove trucking from sight, but the pollution would be on-going. That would be a “cost” that would likely not be calculated into the expense of such a highway, but one that Mainers would have to live with.
William Richardson
East Machias
Bonnie Fortini
Roque Bluffs
Gay, period
Same-sex marriage opponents Mike Heath and Paul Madore protested in Orono to stop people from accepting what they called “sodomy-based marriage.” So they are not against lesbians?
Do you know that the word sodomy was actually used as a term for any type of sex that was not “missionary”? It was used for oral sex, sex outside of marriage, other positions, etc.
I do not in any way think gay marriage as a civic institution will make a straight person be gay. I do think that some people experiment and some people use drugs and alcohol and do all kinds of things they would not normally do. But I know there are people who are gay, period, and were born that way. They live in monogamous, loving family-based relationships.
This has been proven several times over, especially when Hitler tried to make them straight or die. Thousands died. If you are questioning the Bible’s interpretation please read Peter Gomes’ writings on the subject. The word homosexual was not coined until 1947. How was it in a 2,000-year-old book?
Don’t preach Jesus, preach what Jesus preached, compassion and love for all. Oh, and divorce, he really didn’t like divorce. But I don’t hear Mike and Paul talking about that.
Vote for same-gender marriage in November. Thousands of Maine families are counting on you.
Nancy Rotkowitz
Dover-Foxcroft
Angus as Jimmy Stewart
Wednesday, we had the honor of attending the opening of Angus King’s campaign headquarters in Brunswick. It was a joyous, positive gathering of about 250-plus people who were there to celebrate the kickoff of King’s bid for the U.S. Senate.
We saw people there of both parties as well as independents. King spoke eloquently about his decision to run for the Senate seat left by Sen. Snowe and of the great need for cooperation and compromise in these toxic times. His belief that just maybe one voice by example may inspire another and perhaps another, just might make a difference, compelled him to enter the ring.
We know him to be a man who can reach across party lines to get the people’s work done. Many of us have of late yearned for a remake of the film “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.” Maine has such a man in Angus King and we, as Mainers, should all be proud of his independent approach to important issues rather than towing party lines.
“As Maine goes, so goes the nation” need not be an old quote from the history books.
Ken and Ellen Barnes
Rockland
Dental pain care
I was completely shocked to learn that dental pain is the leading cause of uninsured or under-insured young people visiting an emergency room. Being fortunate enough to have good dental coverage, I never knew that people went to the emergency room for dental care. What is even more disturbing is that the emergency room treats these people by providing pain meds and telling them to see a dentist.
These people can’t afford to go to the dentist — that’s why they were forced into the emergency room in the first place. Finding a dentist who will even accept them on MaineCare is like finding a needle in a haystack. With no dentist to go to and no treatment in the emergency room, these people’s toothaches and gum problems turn into serious health problems.
What is most alarming to me is that the Maine Dental Association doesn’t want to admit that there is a problem with dental care in Maine. If there was not a dental access problem, then why are there so many emergency room visits for dental care?
Michelle Scammon
Greenbush
Pingree takes credit
Chellie Pingree should know better.
In a recent column in the BDN celebrating ObamaCare, she tries to give the massive new law — and thus herself as a big supporter — credit for a number of laws that already existed in Maine. I checked with the Bureau of Insurance.
She takes credit for mandating mammography, which has been mandated in Maine since 1990 and also for Pap smear tests, the law since 1996.
She says, “Mainers no longer have to worry that their insurance coverage may run out if they face a long-term illness such as cancer.” In 2009, Maine prohibited annual and lifetime aggregate benefit limits.
She says, “No longer will insurance companies be able to cancel our policies when we get sick.” And she adds, “It’s sad that it took a new law to end this ruthless practice, but it did.” Sorry Rep. Pingree, Maine has disallowed that practice since the early 1990s when guaranteed issue and guaranteed renewal were enacted.
And she takes credit for allowing dependent children up to age 26 to stay on their parents policies. Since 2007, Maine has had a mandated offer requirement for dependent coverage until a dependent child is 25. OK, ObamaCare and Pingree can get credit for allowing these “children” to stay on their parent’s policy one more year.
Whether you agree with these mandates or not, Rep. Pingree should not be taking credit for laws that were already in force. She is wrong and she should know better.
Dana Dyer
Bristol
Ms Scammon,
PCHC in Bangor has a great dental facility that accepts mainecare, it is a wonderful facility. Unfortunately some (not all , and not the majority) of people going to the ER for dental pain are drug seekers trying to get a prescription. Dental facilities have been burned by this so much that they are wary of prescribing drugs for short term pain relief. The best option is to get into a ;long term preventative care plan at PCHC or other dental facility that takes Mainecare.
The dental hygiene students at Bangor University also provide extremely low cost cleanings.
You say ” people going to the ER for dental pain are drug seekers trying to get a prescription. ” You know this as fact how? Sounds to me like LePage logic and presumption.
The only way they would know that is if they were a drug seeker going to the ER to try and get prescription pills.
Nancy Rotkowitz–Great Letter! Mike Heath and Paul Madore have been spreading their gospel of hostility and intolerance around our fair state for decades while masquerading as Christians. We will have the opportunity to vote true Christian morals of love and inclusion this november.
Vote Yes!
Nancy Rotkowitz, It is so hard to argue facts with people like Heath and Madore who base their arguments on fear, falsehoods, misconceptions and yes, outright lies! They can rant all they want but in the end Truth and Love will win out and the people of Maine will make history with their vote!
Remember that Ms. Pingree can say whatever she wants, then spin what she said and backtrack, just as her “boss” in the White House does–then she has her husband owning 75% of the 3+ papers in her area, so what does she have to worry about!
I don’t know who Dana Dyer talked to but my wife is insured by Mega Life and Health and she had to pay for her mammogram, her doctor visits aren’t covered, and there is a 2 million dollar lifetime limit on the major medical. It is a 5 thousand dollar deductible policy that may keep you from losing the farm if you need the major medical part but everything else sucks. Haven’t seen a big rush of new insurers since the Republicans pushed through their great insurance plan but I will see an increase in premiums thanks to their new tax on everyone’s policies. If you have insurance and you want to change policies they have to cover any pre-existing conditions but if you let your insurance lapse before switching or are getting a new policy your out of luck.
The Sup of insurance has already taken acton against Mega recently and they had to pay back $1million to insured. Sounds like he needs to take action again.
From the BOI web site – Are there certain benefits my insurance company must provide?
Yes. For individual and group policies, the State mandates certain benefits, including screening mammograms, breast cancer treatment, prostate cancer screening, medical food for inborn errors of metabolism, and chiropractic services. Group policies issued to employers with more than 20 employees must also cover treatment for mental illness, alcoholism and drug dependency. The insurance company may put limits on some of these benefits. For a list of mandated benefits, see: Mandated Benefits.
ObamaCare is a fake and Chellie is in this charade up to her ears. I like the title the BDN gives the story – “Chellie takes credit.” It almost sounds positive. It is not. Either she doesn’t know anything about Maine health insurance or she is intentionally lying. Take your pick.
Nancy Rotkowitz,
You can play the red herring, but it’s still a red herring. Arguing semantics doesn’t change the position that the bible clearly makes regarding sins of a sexual nature, including homosexuality. It isn’t just limited to homosexuality, and the end result of sin is death no matter what that sin is.
It doesn’t matter if the USA acknowledges same-sex marriages or not, it’s still a sin according to God. All God really wants, is for people to at least make an attempt to say “Yes, it is a sin, and I am sorry. Would you please forgive me?” – Rather than have us die.
As a Christian, I say it is a sin. But I am going to allow Jesus to answer for me, to my fellow Christians, that “he who is without sin, cast the first stone.” Let us not vote against it, if the people really want this. Warn them of sin, yes, but it doesn’t matter if it is legal or not. It will not affect your salvation one bit. This world, is Satan’s kingdom, and if a government under the rule of Satan wants to make same-sex marriage legal… Let them.
I don’t get it. Why does it makes sense to you that there is a god who would basically sentence a person to eternity in a burning place simply because the person was following his or her nature as a homosexual? You really believe that? And that there’s this creature called satan?
Why is it not easier to see these as storybook characters from long, long ago?
I just don’t get it…
God does not sentence anyone to hell for eternity, that choice is yours to make. As far as “following his or her nature” We all have a sinful nature. We also have the choice whether or not to act upon them. It could be anything from lying, drunkenness, gossiping, greed, envy and yes homosexuality. The desires are real, enticing and powerful. It is a lifelong struggle between good and evil. We can never do it perfectly, we all will stumble and fall. Jesus came and died in our place so we wouldn’t have to pay the penalty for our sins. That gift is available to all. Your eyes need to be spiritually opened for you to ever understand that. That is precisely what Jesus was talking about in John chapter 3 about being born again. Until that happens you will never understand. Satan is real. He is not a Hollywood caricature in a red suit with a long tail holding a pitchfork. If he can keep you from believing he’s real he has done his job. Giving in to our sinful desires is never the right thing to do. God intended marriage and sex to be shared between a man and a woman. Anything else is nothing but a lie from Satan.
I agree, Satan is real, and he seems to occupy the pulpit of the churches that these people who want to tell other people how to live their lives go to. Jesus expressly said, “He who is without sin shall cast the first stone,” yet his followers have perverted his message and twisted it into the unrecognizable Christianity that is practiced in churches all across the country. A true Christian would turn his back to these false churches, gods, prophets, and religious hucksters and try to make life better for their fellow man.
I didn’t realize that were such an expert in religion that you would know with certainty what anothers belief system should be.
There are several posters here that freely tell others what their belief system should be: i.e. cp444 this morning in his above comment … referencing John 3 to support his born again beliefs which he deeply believes is the one and only “way”, there are devout Catholics who disagree with this and believe that the Church and the catechism is the one and only “way” etc.
Is it your opinion that cp444 is “such and expert in religion” that he knows with certainty what another’s belief system should be? Because you share the same belief or because it is similar to yours?
How do YOU like it??
Satan is real, and does work within church systems to “muddy the waters” of God’s message of salvation in Jesus the Messiah.
Heaven deliver us from this sort of evangelism.
That is one thing about religion – there always is an escape clause to justify everything. It’s our fault and we chose this and on and on.
I was not raised in a religious background so to me all of what you speak sounds as strange as listening to ancient Romans and Greeks speak of how they must comply with the wishes of Jupiter and Zeus. I appreciate that you believe all this and I would be the last to dissuade you from your beliefs, but none of same-sex marriage has anything to do with you or your interpretations of the teachings of your choice of religious beliefs.
This is all about secular civil legal marriage as recognized by the State. How your church feels about all this is up to your church but your church cannot impose its belief system on those of us in the secular world who have nothing to do with your church.
You must understand that our government is here to serve ALL the people – not just your people or people who feel the way you do. On practical matters, our taxes pay for the government and we do not need to be discriminated against or disenfranchised from our government just because your particular version (which I understand in your mind is the only “true” religion) disagrees with what is a legal matter that needs to be resolved so we can protect our families just as you wish to protect yours (in issues related to civil law).
Why is this so incredibly difficult for the religious crowd to grasp? It seems as simple as pie.
Now, if you feel we are going to burn in Hell, or not get into heaven or whatever, let us take that risk. I do not need you babysitting me any more than I need to listen to what some people feel Jupiter and Zeus had to say.
The problem is, ChuckGG, that we’ve replaced Religion with Government. You know, the two things you “never” talk about? Government/politics and religion?
They’re just the same thing, really. Religion is just a way of governance under a god or gods, and government is a way of governance without said god/gods.
The problem with that is, we’re still trying to do it ourselves. Religion is man-made, just as much as government, and it shows.
But God is not a “religion”. Jesus wasn’t just a mere man. If we fail to see Jesus as “God in the flesh” then it sort of waters-down the spiritual message attached to it. That salvation is assured, with a belief in Jesus as “the Law made flesh”. No other “religion” has such a belief system.
In Islam, you are not assured salvation at all. You have a chance of entering heaven by being pleasing to “Allah” because of your *good works*. The same is true of ancient Egyptian paganism where your heart is measured on a balance of the *good and bad deeds* you have performed while alive. In Buddhism, the laws of Karma apply, and dictates your reincarnation (immortal soul) – Where as Christianity says that sin leads your *mortal soul* to die.
You can believe whatever you wish, or nothing at all. That’s fine with me. But they’re not even nearly equal in doctrine. Don’t quote me “Zeus this” or “Zeus that” when “Zeus” is not my god.
No, my God did not justify any bad behavior. It isn’t an “escape” clause, but rather a way to be forgiven of bad behavior. Jesus said “Go, and *sin no more*” to those he forgives.
Certainly, the comparison of religion and government is fair. Both are ways to have rules and order in a society and consequences for not following those rules.
And, as you stated, organized religion is just another form of a “ruling order” or organization just as is organized governments. Frequently, the rule making follows a structure and how the rules are enforced also is very similar. No arguments there. I think we both could agree that in the most pessimistic viewpoint, government and religion is a way to control the masses. The Romans knew this and provided “bread and games” (panem et circenses) knowing that keeping the masses fed and happy provides for a stable society.
Where we differ on this is starting in your fourth paragraph. Now you are not only starting down the line that there first is a God and that Jesus also is part of that God concept which is not a universally held concept. In fact, I often have wondered when people tell me we are a Christian nation in part because we have “In God We Trust” on our money. Since the Knights of Columbus were instrumental in getting that change to our currency back in the 1950’s and they have this “Holy Trinity” concept where God, Christ, and some spirit, in fact, are all in one, the implication therefore must be made that we are a Christian nation.I believe that conclusion is incorrect. If we look at the founding fathers, they made a clear distinction between the Creator (God) with no mention of Christ. Because some people wrap Christ up as God, then you can see where the inference, incorrectly I believe, is made.
But, I digress. In paragraph 4, you have the whole God/Christ explanation going on. For those of us who do not believe in any of that, and certainly not down to the detail level of Christ.
Fortunately, our government permits people to practice, or not, any religion they so choose. There are many religions in our country but only one government.For my money, I will stick with our government. As far as Zeus and Jupiter go, my point was that to me, the justifications and arguments against SSM made by the Christians sound little different than the objections made on any subject by any other religion that ever existed. They are based not on fact but only on some doctrine and belief passed down through the ages, none of which is substantiated by facts.
That said, everyone is entitled to believe or not whatever they choose. They do not have the right to inflict those views on others in society who do not hold those same beliefs. The government and it logic and fairness to all holds the trump card here. Religion and its unsubstantiated beliefs carry no legal weight in our society.
I don’t preach that the United States is a “Christian” nation, nor any nation on earth. And I agree that Christians shouldn’t force their views of life through regulations enforced via government, and likewise, we shouldn’t have the state enforcing contrary beliefs in the same manner.
In fact, I wish government would get out of the business of marriage altogether. It does nothing but divide us, and blind us to bigger threats that we as a nation, face together. I don’t need a piece of paper from the government to say that I’m married. Did I get one anyway? Yeah, but mostly because I wanted it for legal reasons. I agree that homosexuals should have equal treatment, under secular law, but I don’t believe that marriage should be a government tool by which we are divided and controlled.
But I respectfully disagree with your assertion that the bible is not substantiated by facts, and I’m sure we could argue all day about it… But believing what is written in the bible takes a little more understanding than any one study of history or science could ever conclusively prove.
As one example, we have the prophecies of Ezekiel which have been proven to have been written in the time period it says it was. And so even after this was proven, secular skeptics then argue about the prophecy itself, and try to argue semantics and apply associations with demonstrative pronouns such as “They” and “I” in the writings, but out-of-context.
And for the longest time, we had *no idea* that Nebuchadnezzar ever existed, until we found clay tablets with his name on them!
I’m sure there are more examples that I am forgetting off the top of my head, but I spent quite a bit of time grillin’ up some hotdogs, hamburgers and corn on the cob today. I failed to heed the warning of taking all things in moderation, like the sun. Beer solves that problem, though! :P
Yes, the Bible gets some of its history right, and some of it is clearly written from the point of view of Judea, and some “prophecies” were written after the events they predict — but I think Chuck was not talking about historical descriptions — he was more likely talking about a Creation that was only 6,000 years ago and took six literal days; a flood that covered the entire Earth several miles deep (in order to cover the Himalayas); a man who was swallowed by a fish; a talking donkey; Jericho’s walls falling because the Israelites blew on their horns and marched around; a virgin birth; Jesus turning water into wine, raising the dead, and walking on water. Those are the kinds of things that some people believe literally, others believe to be literal falsehoods, and still others understand as metaphors or parables. But you can’t prove them to be literally true.
So what of modern-day miracles? Verified medical miracles, and other seemingly amazing stories? Do they, or don’t they exist?
If miracles happen in this day and age, then maybe they could be possible at that time, also. And basically, quantum mechanics is opening up some very deep subjects as to its implications to how we understand the universe, including miracles.
You see, according to quantum mechanics, it is technically possible that one day you could be bouncing a ball and all of a sudden the ball simply disappears while you are bouncing it. This leaves open the possibility, a scientifically regarded-as-fact theory, that miracles can happen.
Maybe it isn’t so far-fetched as it seems? Possible, yes, but what of the probability? I don’t have all the answers, and I will not pretend to know. Simply put, I will never have the proof you need to verify your faith in God, however small it may be. Faith is not found in proof, since proof could just up and, *poof!*, disappear according to quantum mechanics.
Pat, last things first: My faith in God is not small, it is incredibly strong. I agree with you that faith is not found in proof — that was my point, that some people believe those things happened literally, others believe them to have been literal falsehoods, and others see them as metaphors and/or parables. You can’t prove such things. Nor do I believe it is necessary to believe in things that are scientifically impossible in order to have faith in God.
As for modern-day miracles, there is no such thing. Yes, some people make unexpected medical recoveries. Just because they are unexpected doesn’t mean that God stepped in and overturned the laws of science.
Does God intervene to help Tim Tebow win a football game, but is so busy with football that he neglects to help thousands of starving children in Africa? No, God doesn’t care about football, “miraculous” last-minute pass or not.
People say, “It’s a miracle the tornado didn’t hit my home. It’s a miracle I was spared.” If that’s true, it’s equally a miracle that their neighbor was killed. God doesn’t send a tornado to one house to kill the occupants, but spare another house. No, tornadoes are phenomena of weather — they occur naturally.
Because biblical-style “miracles “– like making the sun stand still, talking donkeys, getting swallowed by a fish, and literally walking on water (not just a frozen lake in winter) — don’t happen today, we can be sure they never LITERALLY happened in the past, either.
Biblical “miracles” must be understood metaphorically, or as parables — or how else do you explain the “fact” that the Greek philosopher Pythagoras once tamed a rampaging murderous bear by teaching it mathematics and philosophy? He also had a golden arrow he could stand on that would take him instantly to any part of the globe.
How do you explain the Buddha’s many miracles, or the fact that Alexander the Great’s mother was made pregnant by the god Zeus? How do you explain the “fact” that the Chinese philosopher Lao-zi’s mother was pregnant with him for 64 years, and as soon as he was born he started teaching philosophy immediately?
THAT’S HOW PEOPLE THOUGHT THEN! If you were anyone important, you “performed miracles,” or rather, miracles were attributed to you.
I believe in the miracle of daffodils in spring, the song of the birds in the morning, the joy of the spring peepers, the cry of a baby, and the love my wife has for me. I believe in the miracle of old enemies making peace. I believe in the miracle of friendship. Those are miracles enough for me, and they affirm my faith in God daily.
I’m going to go out on a limb, and say that the miracles that are recorded in the bible, actually happened as-is. I have no reason to believe otherwise, and proof would be nice, but no proof isn’t evident of miracles not happening.
But, I am glad we are coming to some sort of understanding!
Then I also assume that Lao-zi’s mother was pregnant for 64 years, and that Pythagoras tamed a murderous bear by teaching him philosophy and mathematics. We have no reason to believe otherwise, except, like Balaam’s talking donkey and Jonah getting swallowed by a fish, it is impossible.
I am sure we will find some historical accuracies in the bible as I see it as a collection of stories, fables, and lore passed down through the generations. So, if Nebby was found eventually on a scroll, it doesn’t surprise me. We found confirmations of non-biblical writing during excavations of Greek and Roman ruins, as well.
With regard to secular marriage, it is an institution created by the government and whether or not we like it, it does exist, so we have to work with it. So much of our secular society is based upon the marriage contract. The list is endless but child custody, medical permissions, inheritance, insurances, health benefits – just to name a few – are all affected by whether or not a person is legally married. We are unlikely to unbake that cake so we must move forward with the government’s recognition of legal marriage. Those who may wish to have a church ceremony performed may do so at their discretion. If you want to partake of filing jointly on your tax return, you need the secular marriage contract.
I do not see the government as dividing us on marriage. It is quite simple. The State and the church use the same word for similar but different concepts. The only group that seems to have its knickers in a twist about gay marriage are those on the religious side who cannot grasp that these are two separate entities that share the same name. Had ALL state marriages (straight and gay) been called “unions” from Day One and church ceremonies called “marriage,” we would not be having this discussion. The religious crowd is wrapped around the axle by what amounts to semantics.
I never said you said the USA is a Christian nation but we all have heard it countless times. I think it confuses the issue as a great number of people cannot seem to grasp the US government is a secular government. The First Amendment states it clearly.
Well, enjoy the burgers!
maybe the whole thing was Ancient Aliens. Can’t be proven either way . The fact is, is that christians are always preaching peace this and love that, and not judging as well but sure as heck do. and often.
“God intended marriage and sex to be shared between a man and a woman”…. regardless of their “sinful nature” or any “sins” they may have, are currently or may in the future commit …..be they lying, drunkenness, gossiping, greed, envy, divorce, adultery, promiscuity, lustful thoughts, molesting or raping children, physical, emotional or sexual abuse, incarcerated for a punishable crime ….. etc. – by virtue that they are a man and a woman… and that is “good”?
Edited to add:
For those who believe that marriage is between one man, one woman and God …. why bother with a civil marriage license? Why ask the permission of the state and invite government into your marriage?
Last I heard, your version of Christianity teaches that God is omnipotent and created the Universe and everything in it. That means that God created Hell. That means that God created Satan. That means that God made the rules and can change those rules and destroy Hell and Satan any time that God chooses.
So to say that you believe “God does not sentence anyone to hell for eternity” is completely disingenuous. You believe God created an eternal Hell, that God created Satan, that God created us, and God created the rules by which we get sent to Hell. Therefore, under your belief system, God sends us to Hell for eternity. Since God is all-powerful, only God can send us to Hell.
I, on the other hand, do not believe that a loving and just God would create a torture chamber called Hell, and then create us so flawed that we have to be sent there. That’s a cruel, medieval theology.
“And when am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men unto myself” (John 12:32). “Therefore, as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men” (Romans 5:18). “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). “For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all” (Titus 2:11).
Satan is real in your mind. As is Jesus and god. They exist in your mind and in the minds of those who think like you.
But they are nowhere to be found to those of us who question their existence. My choice is to continue having more questions than answers, or to surrender my thinking to religious dogma.
I prefer my curiosity.
If God is just a figment of my imagination, then why has the universe been almost conclusively proven to be expanding from a single point in space-time? And why do all laws of physics break down into gibberish when we macro-calculate the universe back to this one single, solitary point in space-time?
This is where quantum mechanics and current information theory come into the picture – That the smallest particles of the universe could be changing based on a choice: Sentience.
I hope that piques your curiosity. What is your choice?
My curiosity about what’s out there got piqued very early in life. I’ve always loved astromony and always had questions.
I just think it’s short-sighted to think the answers come from ancient stories written by people with vivid imaginations, but very little scientific knowledge. I understand that you want the bible to be true, but believing doesn’t make it so.
I’ll say this; it would be arrogant for me to state as a fact that there is no god. But no more arrogant than for you to state as a fact that there is one.
Each of us has our reasons for believing what we believe. But please don’t use your religious beliefs to judge me as a gay person. You’re out of your depth when you do.
That’s the problem, you think this judgement is coming from me, and it isn’t. I’m not judging you, God is.
And God really isn’t judging you either, it’s your own choice that causes spiritual death. You are judging you. “You reap what you sow”.
We are judged by a perfect moral standard, laid down by God who set these rules as if they were laws of physics. So just as darkness is an absence of light, so too is sin an absence of God.
You do realize that you’re trying to make your point with what I consider to be fiction, don’t you?
And by the way, saying that being gay is a choice is, to my way of thinking, judging. You’re in no position, as a straight person, to tell me that I chose to be gay.
I’ll just refer back to the 3rd graph of my post to which you replied.
As long as I am not hurting you, physically, or harassing you… Does it bother you? That’s what this public discussion is about, really. To present ideas to each other, and learn from our collective experiences. This means that some kind of conflict will arise from our differing view points.
I accept that you are different, and will leave it at that. Bless you.
What bothers me, and those who agree with me, is less about hurt and more about being held back from advancing with regards to legal rights. It’s bigotry, thinly masking itself as religion.
Thanks for the blessing. I’ll put it aside to use the next time I sneeze :)
You say, “I’m not judging you, God is.” But you are telling people what God’s judgment is. That’s hubris.
Restating what is already said, isn’t pride. I don’t take pride in knowing that my brothers and sisters in God are being destroyed by sin… No, I lament these things, as if you were a dear friend or close relative.
So many on the Christian right, while saying that they are lamenting that their brothers and sisters are “being destroyed by sin” are secretly taking pride in their own salvation, which they base on the idea that they know the truth — that they hold the correct theological opinions — while those other poor sinners do not. So you can take pride in the fact that you are right and they are wrong (or so you think). That’s hubris, the sin of pride.
I like the connection you make between the science of the “Big Bang” and our religious ideas about God creating the Universe out of nothing. Let’s just remember that one is science, and the other is religion. Medieval theologians tried to “prove” the existence of God. We know today that can’t be done, and is also unnecessary.
My faith in God is strong. At the same time, I don’t need to believe literally (stress on the word “literally”) in impossible things, like Jonah getting swallowed by a fish, or Balaam’s talking donkey, in order to follow Jesus.
You believe it is a character trait.
I believe it is a choice, made based on many differing factors, but still a choice none-the-less.
This is where we part ways. I don’t care if homosexuals have same-sex marriage authorized by the state, it doesn’t bother me… But if the message of sin bothers you so much, why don’t we talk about that, then?
I think you’re confusing me with someone who isn’t gay. I am. My sexual attractions are not chosen. Are yours?
And the message of sin? Not an issue for me.
Like I said, that is where we part ways. I have no problem with a state-enforced version of marriage, not one bit… But that doesn’t change my view that it is a sin, a choice. But I’m not here to change your mind about it being a sin, because it doesn’t bother me what you do with your soul: It is your choice.
There were no church marriages before the 1500s, nor were there any marriage licenses or marriage certificates. “Traditional marriage” is when two families made a financial agreement, threw a party, and their kids consummated the relationship in the marriage bed. That’s the kind of wedding Jesus went to in Cana.
So we could go back to those traditional weddings, and keep both the church and state out of it. But then there are tax laws, and all sorts of other legal benefits that married couples get, so I guess that means we need legal documents after all.
That’s because before the 1500’s, the church WAS “the state”.
Oh, how times haven’t really changed!
I think you misunderstood me. Before the 1500s, there was NIETHER church nor state involved. It was a private transaction.
Pat if homosexuality “is a choice, made based on many differing factors, but still a choice none-the-less” is heterosexuality a “choice” too? And if not, why?
Heterosexuality is indeed a choice. We are blank slates, waiting to take in information and decide upon it. All factors matter, but it is still a choice to make.
If it wasn’t a choice, you couldn’t have people who were once straight that are now gay, or who were once gay and now straight. If it were a built-in trait, you wouldn’t be able to change… At all!
Pat, I’ve known people who married, had heterosexual marriage, then in a few years they left and went into a same sex partnership. Everyone of them told me they had always been gay, but thought they shouldn’t feel the way they did, or didn’t to hurt mom and dad. I have never wanted a same sex partner, it easier for heterosexuals we don’t have to worry about what others think.
And my sister-in-law has confided in me that She wouldn’t be gay if she would be able to trust men more. I can’t say I blame her, given the conditions of her childhood.
I love her very much, but I don’t push my views on her. I explain if she asks, but I don’t go looking for a fight with her. I endure, as a friend, and hope to one day change her mind.
But this? This is the public forum, so to speak. I will say exactly what I think, and my intent IS to change the way you view life. I will try to push my views on you, because honestly we don’t know each other. We are not friends.
But that doesn’t mean I don’t *love* you any less, as a brother or sister since we are all children of God. See it from my point of view for just one moment. Forget what you know about other “Christians” who preach messages of hate. I am not working against you, or voting against your wishes of a secular government to honor the wishes of its citizenry. Not one bit, but…
Don’t you think that, given the media coverage of this topic, and the views pushed by atheistic scientists who try to explain everything without the benefit of God, that your views are indeed partly shaped by their view of reality itself? That maybe you’ve always “felt that way” because of a type of programming? By influencing your free will, to agree with *their* premise, by pushing it as “fact”? And also a pseudo-auto sexual response induced by changes in your body and at the same time, exposure to sexual content? That your desire is born of a type of Pavlov training-response, that every time you felt a “certain way” it just so happens that you’re watching, (oh I don’t know, let’s just say for the sake of humor…), “Top Gun” at the infamous “volleyball scene” that is so often the butt of so many jokes?
I await your honest answer, because to be honest I have never felt overwhelmingly heterosexual. That’s not to mean that I’m “still in the closet”, because I was never in it. I never chose to walk through the closet door. I felt more attracted to women than I was to men, because of how other people taught me to feel towards women.
Based on biblical principals, I view all women as beautiful. A person to cherish and love, so much so, that you spend your entire life with them. And through that love to your wife, I learned what God wanted me to from that experience: What it means to love another person, more than myself.
Then, God gave me a child. That feeling of love for a child, and loving them, and seeing them grow up knowing that they will one day make bad choices in life just as you once did. And I’ve scolded my son I don’t know how many times, but I still love him and let him know it. It doesn’t mean that I haven’t already forgave him of his wrongdoing before even asking for it. It was then that I realized that God gives us children to see what it is like, to be Him.
These things ARE a blessing from God! I can no longer see it any other way. And I want you to see this loving God that I see. I want you to understand what I do. I want you to feel the unmitigated and total eclipsing love that you get from God, which feels like the warmth of radiant gold with the taste of sweet honey-wine.
I’m sorry, but that last sentence didn’t make sense. That whole part about ‘the warmth of radiant gold’ didn’t convey the feeling all that well. But that’s the point, it doesn’t make sense at all. You see, love isn’t logical… Love is a miracle. Love defies the logic of mere men, and makes void the punishment of sin. It simply can not be conveyed in simple text, but to truly know how it feels you must believe, and to believe you must have faith.
So I say this, not in the hopes that you are ashamed of your sin, but that in seeing it from my perspective… You acknowledge that it is a sin.
In doing so, I ask you that if this is true: If what the bible says is true, then to be “saved” from spiritual death, is to ask for forgiveness! Is not that love? Is it not the most wonderful thing, ever?
God loves you, so much so, that he was willing to die for you. By literally stepping into space-time, and becoming subject to his own holy laws, he gave us the message himself in the form of Jesus. God simplified the law for us, summed up in one simple truth: If you love God, you will follow his law, and punishment is not necessary.
He came to us, personally, to reach out and say “I forgive you,” and all I want to do, is share that message of forgiveness and love. I am sorry if it seems overly pushy, but I really do care about you, and everyone else in the world. I really, honestly, do care.
Pat, I can honestly say, I have always liked men. I was never pushed into liking men, it is as natural, as my preferring dogs to cats, my love of chickens, and my being left handed.
I went to church, and Sunday school, I believe in god. I don’t believe in religion, in my eyes religion has made a mess of this world. Due to the fact, the every religion think god loves them more. I believe god made us all, and he loves none of us more then another, I also believe that we live in hell, here on earth, when we die we go into gods arms because we are his children. I am pro choice, because it’s none of my business, I am pro SSM, because, whom someone loves is none of my business. I am happy that they have someone to love them,
life’s to short, be happy, if you are happy with your religion, I am happy for you.
Wow, we kinda believe ALL the same things there. Like, everything you listed, I believe also. Maybe in a different way, yes, but I think we’re more similar than you think.
The one that really caught my eye, was that *this earth is literally hell*. I’ve never mentioned that to anyone before, but have always felt that it was that way. Can’t prove it, but it sure does feel like this is hell, doesn’t it? Sickness, disease, death… And for what? Maybe there’s a purpose to it, after all?
I disagree with the statement that “this world is literally hell.” Yes, we are imperfect, we sometimes do wrong, we grow older, and eventually we all get sick and/or injured, and die. That’s true of all living things. Rocks don’t die, and they don’t make mistakes or hurt the feelings of someone they love — but they don’t live either! To be alive is to be imperfect. I’d rather be alive, and love and feel and sometimes get my feelings hurt, than be a rock. I’d rather die some day than never be alive at all.
Yes, sometimes we humans create “hells” for one another. But most people, most of the time, are good to one another. Only the bad news gets into the newspapers or on TV for the most part. When someone does something nice, that’s not considered newsworthy. Why? Because people are nice to one another, and loving, most of the time. The bad things are unusual, and that’s why they are newsworthy. So this Earth is heaven a lot more often than it is hell.
If you feel you made a choice to be heterosexual, perhaps you may want to re-think how you are living your life. For most of us sexuality is innate (for instance I have always been attracted to members of the opposite gender and never had to choose).
And there you go — we DON’T have people who were once straight and are now gay. If they’re gay now, they always were. And we don’t have people who were once gay, but are now straight — although some may hide their true feelings in order to be accepted by their church. Yes, some people are born bisexual, just as not everyone is right or left-handed — some are naturally ambidextrous. But nobody switches from straight to gay, or from gay to straight. That’s a right-wing myth.
My heterosexuality is not a choice. I could NOT “choose” to be gay. I’ve always been attracted to women, and never to men. I didn’t choose to be straight — I was born this way. Did you REALLY choose to be straight? Are you actually secretly attracted to the same sex? If you’re really straight, you didn’t choose.
I did not choose to be straight no more than my gay friends chose to be gay. We are not a blank slate when it comes to certain things and sexual orientation is one of them.
There is no documented case of gays being made straight and staying straight or straights being made gay and staying gay, the person always returns to their natural sexual orientation. Those so-called organizations that claim to be able to convert gays to a straight life are nothing but cons
“Satan’s kingdom”? More extremism. This Chritian says you’re misguided. Then again, we shouldn’t judge, should we?
Satan is referred to as the “prince of this world” several times in the bible, even by Jesus no less.
Remember when Satan tempted Jesus on the mountain top, “showing him” the nations of the earth, that it could all be Jesus’ if only he bowed down and worshiped Satan?
Yeah… Uh, stating facts isn’t judgement. Punishment and reward is “judgement”. I am not [suggesting], nor am I advocating, any type of punishment. (Or reward).
Pat, you say you’re a Christian, you may be wrong about that. The
Bible would never have words of hate but people speaking from the pulpit
may.
Live your own life, please leave good people alone and be careful
about your own salvation or anyone else because only God can judge. Period.
I’m not judging anyone, only reinforcing what is already there. Judgement is not mine to make.
Pat, that’s another of those “escape clauses” to which I was referring. It’s not you judging, it’s what the bible says. But, you are delivering it.
I recall a Jehovah’s Witness knocking on my door one day. I asked her how she felt about gay marriage. Her reply? “Well, it doesn’t matter how I feel, it’s what the bible says.”
Yeah, sure, how convenient. But, I didn’t ask about the bible, I asked about HER opinion. Apparently, she has none.
I thanked her and shut the door.
My opinion is that I don’t care about it enough to make it illegal, if that’s what you’re getting at. I don’t want to take away your perceived “rights”, at all.
It just so happens, that I agree and take the position that the bible takes on homosexuality: That it is a sin. That does not mean I would want to deprive you of something you want, I would not defy your free will. Not at all.
My intent is to inform you of the position I take on this subject, based on what I know concerning spiritual things. I agree with the premise of the bible, but that does not make me judge. Judgement is punishment and reward. Sadly, we never had a need of a punishment until sin became a reality. (“Parable” of the “Garden of Eden”, a bible study if you so wish).
If you don’t like the message, I am fine with that, but I’m not a Jehovah’s Witlessness. I kinda know what I am talking about.
No, I guess I am trying to say that whenever I hear comments such as I heard from the Jehovah Witness lady, it comes across oddly to me. When I asked for her opinion, she instead relied upon parroting something from the bible. She might as well have been reading a section from U.S.C. Apparently, no original thought was needed.
BTW, you are the second person in one of these columns to imply the Jehovah Witness group is either not Christian, or as you put it, Witlessness, and that you, in fact, have the correct answers. For us “secular humanist” types, this presumptuousness is a bit much, primarily as we don’t see all the claims as being backed by any substance. Again, that is just my opinion, but it accounts for most of my eye-rolling.
On a sidebar about the sin and the apple and all that – I always wondered about the story of Eve “eating from the tree of Knowledge.” I am unsure of the context of that but in today’s world I could see it being interpreted to mean that it is a sin to gain all knowledge and thus to question doctrine. Of course, it my world, knowledge is everything. Learn all you can for as long as you can.
That is why I wonder about the long-term success of some of the more dogmatic religions. That being those (and we know which big one in particular) which pushes a very strict set of guidelines with very strict doctrine. And, in the past, told my friends (as kids) that they would be struck dead if they walked into another church. In other words, all information going to the kids and the laity in general is filtered through the church.
Contrast that to other religions (I was a U.U. until age 3 – as if I remember any of it) where gaining knowledge and exploring all possibilities of everything is the name of the game. There is not this fear of “losing the troops” should something contrary to the churches teachings be discovered.
I suspect as the education and awareness levels of the population increases, we are going to see far less of the literal interpretation of the bible and more consideration of it being a collection of figurative stories and parables used to teach good and bad. I hardly think people today truly believe they will be “struck dead” for anything but when I was a kid, they really believed it, because the unquestioned Grand Poobah of the local church deemed it so. To me, this is sad and pathetic if an organization has to resort to threats to keep the masses in line.
What I getting to is the usefulness of the bible and religion today. A mistake most of the religious people make is that they believe the church and religion holds the sole purview for lessons in morality. Far from it. I was raised in the traditional English class and manners environment where social pressure and your parents taught you right from wrong. One learned to be a gentleman. None of this had a lick to do with the bible. I also have a good friend raised under Mao where there was no religion. He’s one of the fairest, most polite, and well-mannered gentlemen I know.
It will be interesting this November. I suspect SSM will pass in Maine. I highly doubt Maine will spiral into the abyss of Hell because of it.
Hope the burgers were good. In fact, I could use a snack. Good chatting.
Yes, I know, my comment about that particular Jehovah’s “Witlessness” was slightly uncouth, but I meant it in humor. It wasn’t meant to actually demean the person you physically met at the door. It was meant to get a laugh out of you. Text lacks the inflection of voice… Sadly.
Most organized religions fail when explaining God, simply because they are trying to say that God can or can’t do this or that, when they have no idea of what God can (or can’t? lol) do. They put limits and boundaries on God. Then we have all these different denominations pop up all over based on one or two differences in verses! And worst of all, most of the time the two churches agree on what the verse says, but take it way out of context to make it mean whatever they want regarding some other doctrine! It’s babel, lunacy!
IF and only ‘if’ the bible does record God’s word through prophets and people that God himself chose to reveal to us, then what God is saying is important in just as much as how he is saying it. But the text of the bible, for all intents and purposes… Lacks the inflection of voice.
But I am not going to use that as an excuse to say, I don’t know what God really wants, because if he did tell us then we should listen. Also, along those same lines, if the bible is what God really said, then we must take all information into the context of: “If God doesn’t lie, and is perfect, and the bible is an inspired work” – Then we must assume that the only correct interpretation is one that does not contradict itself. Sadly, most churches contradict themselves based on horrible interpretations.
For instance, lots of people like to quote the contradicting bible verses or ones that don’t make any scientific sense at all. Things like “four-footed foul” and the like. Who ever heard of a four-legged bird? Maybe it isn’t talking about a 4-legged bird at all? (For those of you who don’t know what I’m talking about, I am talking about Leviticus 11:21).
It literally means “four-legged swarming animal” of which has no real interpretation in English. Is the bible wrong, or is the person who translated it wrong? Of course it is talking about grasshoppers, or locusts, etc. which technically crawl using their first four front legs, can fly, and use their back two legs to jump with. But most idiotic preachers, who just blindly charge in with all the faith in the world and not a single leg to stand on, say dumb stuff like “Well maybe them thar four-footed birds are gone now, see?” Or how about the famous idiotic preachers saying “If English was good enough for our Lord Jesus…” Uhg!
And stuff like that, is what I’m talking about when I say “Jehovah’s Witlessness”. I know they mean well, but they shouldn’t just quote bible. That isn’t going to make anyone think. It’s along the lines of “But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.” – As if by somehow quoting scripture over and over again is going to make for interesting conversation? Hah.
And yes, the burgers were great. Have leftovers for today, too. I could definitely see myself inviting you over for that, a beer, and some talk. Good ‘ole charcoal grillin’ gives it that smokey flavor!
The bible says far more in support of slavery than it says against homosexuality.
And in all cases, the bible is not talking about loving couples wanting to commit to monogamous relationships— it is talking about forced rape which we should all be outraged about, even today.
If you want to interpret the bible that way, then you are entitled to do so.
And just because the bible mentions slavery, doesn’t mean it *agrees* with its premise. Many times, the bible gives us examples of what NOT to do, and slavery is one of them. Regardless of if a Jew owned a slave, under “the Law” they are required to release their slaves to freedom in the 7th year, according to the Jubilee calendar.
And just because the bible mentions men raping other men does not mean it *disagrees* with a loving, supportive same-sex relationship.
Oh, but it does, and the meanings of words have changed to the point that we forget the INTENT of the text that the bible contains. Spiritual righteousness is manifested in this physical reality, in your choices, your intent. Knowingly going against those laws which God laid down, is a sin. Period, end of story.
But all sin can be forgiven, except that whole “blasphemy of the Holy Spirit” thing, which I will admit I do not yet fully understand. That being said, homosexuality is but a minor sin compared to the many others out there.
I, for one, only like to bring up the subject of God and sin in these debates only to show you that not every Christian is as rabidly “anti-gay” as some would suppose. It is a touchy subject for some reason, and everyone always tries to justify their behavior with bible quotes, even if they don’t believe it! Fairly odd manner of approval-by-proxy, don’t you think?
You say, “and everyone always tries to justify their behavior with bible quotes, even if they don’t believe it! Fairly odd manner of approval-by-proxy, don’t you think?”
Well, what does it mean to “believe” in the Bible? I DO believe that the Bible is a great collection of religious literature, the cornerstone of Judaism and Christianity, the great religious classic of Western civilization. It is authoritative for those religious communities that accept it as authoritative.
I believe the Bible is an inspired conversation; it is not some perfect book handed by God down from the clouds, but is the product of human authors who were searching for God, listening for God, conversing with God and with one another.
I believe that Christianity is about discipleship, about following the way of Jesus; it is not about holding an orthodox theological opinion. It’s not about beliefs, it’s a way of living.
So, does that mean I “believe” in the Bible? I don’t believe it is a perfect book, I believe it is “the Good Book.” I love and read the Bible, and am inspired by it. It has meant a great deal to me all my life, and I expect it always will.
I don’t have to believe it is infallible, a “paper pope,” in order to find it worth quoting. I don’t have to worship the Bible as the fundamentalists do, mistaking an inspired conversation for the God the conversation points to. I understand the Bible to be a lens we look through — the fundamentalists want us to believe in the lens. I want to follow Jesus. That’s different.
Others on this site probably quote the Bible because they know that the fundamentalists misunderstand Jesus and the Bible, and wish to not be bashed over the head with the Bible by people who misunderstand what it’s all about. That seems fair to me.
You say “I want to follow Jesus.” – So what’s stopping you? He said “I forgive you,” but he also said “Go, and sin no more.”
It isn’t that God wants to punish you, it’s just that he wants us to admit to our sins, and ask for forgiveness. Even if it’s on your deathbed, I’m sure he’ll forgive you. 100% positive that he will. So even if it is then, at the very time of your death, that you accept Jesus… Your sins are made as white as snow!
I do follow Jesus to the best of my ability — “I want to follow Jesus” is just the way we say it in English, like, “There must be a God somewhere!” Does that mean Zeus or Krishna or Jupiter? No, of course not. We say “a” God, but we know we mean the only God. So you are criticizing the way I phrased it as if I only “want” to follow Jesus — you pick apart the sentence, and then you missed the point of everything else I said.
Christianity isn’t about “believing” in the Bible, its about discipleship, following Jesus.
I think the point Pat is trying to get through to you is that following Jesus isn’t enough. Anyone can follow His example. But simply following Christ isn’t enough.
You must be born again. You must admit you are a sinner. You must believe that Christ is the Risen Messiah, and the only Way, Truth and Life. You must ask His forgiveness and accept Him as your Savior. It is then, after you have accepted Him as your Savior that you follow Him as your Lord.
No, you don’t have to be “born again” in the fundamentalist sense of beliving in impossible things. Christianity is not about holding the correct orthodox opinion. There’s not room here to do a whole class on the New Testament, but the essence of Jesus’ teachings, his most authentic teachings, are found in the three Synoptic Gospels, Mark (written first), Matthew and Luke. The authentic Jesus taught in parables, but there are no parables at all in John. The Gospel of “John” was written, not by the Aramaic-speaking Disciple John (who was, according to Acts, unlettered), but by a well-educated fluent Greek speaking Christian of the next generation, someone who didn’t know the name of Jesus’ mother, someone who didn’t understand the geography of Israel and Judea — someone who places Jesus in Jerusalem one minute and then has him on the other side of the Sea of Galilee the next. “John’s” Jesus doesn’t heal lepers, doesn’t speak in short aphorisms (such as “Blessed are the peacemakers”), doesn’t tell parables, but speaks in long monologues like a Greek philosopher. In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus overturns the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple during the last week of his life, and it appears to be what got him arrested. In John, it happens at the start of his ministry and has nothing to do with his arrest. In the Synoptics, there is only one Passover, indicating Jesus’ ministry lasted one year. In John there are three Passovers, and therefore his ministry is three years long… etc.
It is ONLY in John that the famous “I am” statements are made by Jesus (“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me. I am the good shepherd. I am the true vine). Jesus doesn’t talk like that in Mark, Matthew or Luke.
These differneces between “John” and the Synoptic Gospels reflect the philosophy of the Greek “John” who wrote the fourth gospel — they do not reflect the teachings of the historic Jesus of Nazareth.
In Matthew, Jesus tells his Disciples, “You are the light of the world.” In John Jesus has a different theology — he brags to his disciples “I am the light of the world.” But that’s “John’s” theology, not Jesus’.
So — John 3:16? Jesus never said that.
“You must be born from above” also translated as “you must be born again” is in found only John. The Greek word “anothen” can be translated either as “from above” or “again.” To be “born again” means also to be “born from above.” It is a Gnostic (and therefore heretical) statement — only those who know they are not of this world, but come from above, are the ones that can be saved.
But Jesus never said that.
The real Jesus is found in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, and the Sermon on the Plain in Luke (and the rest of Mark, Matthew and Luke). In those two sermons you will find the beatitudes and many of the parables. That’s the essence of Jesus’ teaching — and they say nothing about what to believe.
We are called to be disciples of Jesus, not to believe in the fundamentalist theological opinions. Christianity is not about believing the right opinions. Christianity is about Discipleship.
There are a group of books called the Apocrypha that are in Catholic Bibles but not in most Protestant Bibles. In the Episcopal Church they say that the books of the Apocrypha are “useful, but not necessary for doctrine.” I put John in such a category — useful, but not necessary. It is not where we will find the authentic Jesus.
So, I guess you completely ignore Acts, Romans, and the rest of the New Testament, along with the Gospel of John. I just can’t do that. It’s an “all-or-nothing” endeavor.
You are extremely intelligent. Trouble is, all the intelligence in the world is worthless without wisdom. And wisdom only comes from God.
Well, as you will see above, I referenced Acts describing what John, the Disciple, was like — unlettered. Elsewhere on this page I quote Romans.
Remember, however, that the New Testament was written by humans and then assembled by other humans. The Bible is not one book, it is many books. You, yourself, say that you only consider the Old Testament to be history, and otherwise you ignore it. So, should I say the same to you, ” it’s an all or nothing endeavor”? You do the same thing. Fundamentalists pick and choose what they want from the Bible all the time.
And I don’t throw out the Gospel of John or the Book of Revelation — I say they are useful, but not necessary for doctrine — like the Apocrypha.
As for wisdom, EJ, many of us think you lack it. But personally, I think you’re clever enough, just not compassionate enough. A little more compassion might lead you to wisdom.
You are very right, and I apologize if I seemed abrasive. It was not my intent to do so, and I believe I was misunderstood. Please accept my apology.
I’m confused now, Ceegen. Ceegen is apologizing for something that Pat Riote said. Are you the same person as Pat Riote, or are you apologizing for something someone else said? There’s also a poster named Pat T Riot, I believe. Do you post under three different names?
Maybe you’re not familiar with what the Bible says about slavery, as most preachers no longer quote the Bible on slavery, for good reason (the reason being that the Bible always supports the institution of slavery):
“As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as possession forever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren of the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness” (Leviticus 25:44-46).
That isn’t the Bible just mentioning slavery — it specifically agrees with the idea that you may buy slaves, that you may enslave the people you buy, that you may pass the slaves on to your sons, and that the may be enslaved forever.
Deut. 21:10-14 says that you may capture a woman in battle and enslave her (as long as you remember to shave her head).
“When you buy a Hebrew slave he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing” (Exodus 21:2). So yes, HEBREW slaves are to be released in the seventh year — foreign slaves, as we saw above, could be kept forever and passed on to your sons forever.
Exodus 21:7-11 gives the rules under which you may sell your own daughter into slavery.
But these are in the Old Testament, perhaps you are thinking.
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ” (Ephesians 6:5).
“Slaves, obey in every thing those who are your earthly masters” (Colossians 3:22).
“Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters, and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity, so that everything they do may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior” (Titus 2:9-10).
Now, does the Bible say that masters should be kind to their slaves? Yes. But the Bible never condemns slavery; it always accepts, allows, and condones it, and it tells slaves to be obedient.
I suggest that, if we take the Bible literally (I don’t), then the Bible is clearly wrong on the topic of slavery. Owning slaves is a sin, and always has been, despite what the Bible clearly says in favor of slave-owning.
And the bible also contains laws concerning divorce. This does not mean that God approves of divorce. This is proven by what Jesus says:
“He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts
suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not
so.” (Matthew 19:8).
The same is true of slavery. God doesn’t approve of slavery, but through slavery we learn a spiritual lesson, of how we are all “slaves of sin”.
God allowing evil, is only evident of our free will, not evident of a God that doesn’t care. On the contrary, I believe that God loves us so much, he was willing to allow us to make mistakes. If we didn’t have a choice, we could not love God, and would not have the ability to make our own decisions. This would also negate the need to be forgiven of sin as a condition of our salvation, through belief that Jesus is Messiah.
So no, slavery is evil. Anyone who advocates it, probably has control issues.
Of course GOD doesn’t approve of slavery — but the BIBLE DOES! And the Bible is wrong about slavery! Did you read those verses without any comprehension at all?
Slavery is a sin, and the Bible is wrong to say that we can own slaves, and hold them in slavery forever, and give them to our sons. It is wrong to say that we can sell our daughters into slavery, or if we rape a woman in war she has to marry us. it is wrong to tell slaves to obey their masters in fear and trembling. That’s the point — God does NOT approve of slavery, but the Bible DOES approve of slavery.
So, even though you misinterpret what the Bible says about same-sex relationships, even if your interpretation was right (it isn’t) the Bible could be wrong. God didn’t create people gay just to hate them the way he created them.
We obviously have a different idea of what the bible actually says about different ideas or concepts.
I think those laws on slavery were a prophecy of sorts to show us what it is like to be “slaves of sin”. Not that the bible condones slavery, but it was used as a tool by God to teach people of the time how things work in a spiritual sense. It isn’t that the bible or God approves of slavery, not at all, but I can see how this could be misconstrued as being an affirmation of slavery.
Again, Ceegen is responding to my response to Pat Riot. Dual personality?
Please read what the Bible actually says. Don’t just imagine that it says what you wish it would have said. You want to take the Bible literally when it condemns men having sexual relationships with men, but you say that when it CLEARLY says you can own slaves forever and give them to your sons who can own them forever, well, now you say that’s only some kind of metaphor. It doesn’t actually mean what it clearly says, you say.
Please think about that.
The Bible is WRONG about slavery.
The Bible doesn’t just “mention” slavery, it clearly says that it is okay to buy and own slaves, to keep them forever, to give them to your sons, and that they make keep them forever. It tells slaves to obey their masters in fear and trembling. That’s not “mentioning” that slavery exists, that’s APPROVING of slavery. God disapproves of slavery, but the Bible approves of slavery. And the Bible is WRONG about slavery.
Your last paragraph sums it up. As I have said countless times, if your church is against SSM, then that is fine. State your objections and the reasons for them. But, this is a secular, legal issue, and not church doctrine in our laws.
I am sure there is some Islamic Imam wringing his hands and lamenting how evil and sinful is the USA because our women are allowed to expose themselves by not being covered from head to toe in a burka. Fine. That is his belief. Let him have it. When he starts trying to impose his religious views in our laws, then that is the line crossed.
No one, to my knowledge, has been making any effort to “force” gay
marriage upon a church. There are plenty of churches who will perform
SSM for those couples who want a church ceremony. But, a church
ceremony is not necessary for a civil marriage. It never has been.
Let’s get this passed and move on. In another generation, the objections to this issue will be as arcane as are the religious objections to inter-racial marriage and women getting the right to vote. Both issues, by the way, were considered an affront to nature and biblical scriptures were used against both. Do those objections look bizarre today? Of course they do. In 20 years, so too will the objections to SSM look.
Pat, while I have some disagreements with you, thank you for being honest about your beliefs and for not taking a completely knee-jerk position. You and I both call ourselves Christians (I know there are some on these pages who say that Catholics, Mormons, Unitarians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and probably Quakers and others are not Christian by their definition, and they may judge me to be outside their definition as well).
You and I disagree about what the Bible really says about same-sex relationships.
But you are willing to say that only the one without sin should cast the first stone.
And, interestingly, regarding the freedom to marry, you said, “Let’s not vote against it,” because perhaps you believe that we are all sinners, and people should be allowed to make their own decisions. For instance, Jesus clearly told people to not divorce — yet our laws allow people to divorce. Jesus forgave adultery, but said, “Go and sin no more.” Yet we don’t make adultery illegal.
I disagree with the assertion that an all-powerful God has abandoned this world to be ruled by a much less powerful Satan — a mere creature of God’s Creation.
But I applaud you for being willing to let people have the freedom to be responsible for themselves. And so I think you are trying to take a thoughtful approach here, and I wanted to acknowledge that. Thank you.
You’re welcome.
But I believe you misunderstand my view of Satan, and have misunderstood that to mean that God has abandoned us here. No, not at all. Rather that through our free will we either chose God, or our own “way”. It is we who have abandoned God, not the other way around.
In making the choice to do things “our way” we are intentionally following the path that Satan leads in rebellion to God, and puts our banner firmly planted in opposition to God.
It isn’t that Satan has any power, but that he is a liar, and causes others to sin because of lies. That in of itself isn’t power, but a manipulation of your free will is a perversion of power. And any lie will do, any lie can be suited to your needs, to lead you away from God.
And no, I don’t think anyone who is a Mormon, Catholic, or any denomination is really a “Christian” if they put their religion ahead of their faith in God. “Ye shall know them by their fruit; A corrupt tree bears corrupt fruit, and a good tree bears good fruit”. God’s people are wherever they might be, no matter the label associated with them. We are judged by righteousness, not our adherence to “Mormonism” or “Catholicism” or the “Second Baptist Church of Xyz”.
You and I are likely to agree that God created the entire universe — everything.
Then, did God create Hell? Yes, assuming for the sake of discussion that there is a literal Hell. Did God create Satan? Yes, assuming for the sake of discussion a literal Satan.
If Satan has power over this Earth, can that be so without God allowing it? No.
God created Satan, is therefore more powerful than Satan, and has the power to destroy Satan any time God chooses. That’s what I mean when I say that, by the logic of your theology, God must have turned the world over to Satan, that God has abandoned this world to Satan. I know that you would not word it that way. I’m saying that is the logic of your theology.
After all, if we are imperfect (and indeed we are), who created us this way? I don’t believe that God created a torture chamber called Hell and then created us so flawed that we deserve to be sent there. A loving, just, and fair God could come up with a better plan than that. It is a medieval and cruel theology that says that God created a torture chamber, and that we will be sent to Hell for eternity simply for holding an unorthodox opinion about Church doctrines.
And while I see you give yourself an out, an “if,” your condemnation of Catholics and Mormons as (in your opinion) non-Christians suggests a certain hubris, a certain sin of pride, about your own doctrinal purity and your own salvation. There is no definition of what constitutes Christianity that everyone agrees on. If someone calls his or herself Christian, I take it at face value, and understand that as between that person and God.
That is a good analysis, but that is not the view I hold. Allow me to explain, for the sake of argument, of course:
We were made for a specific purpose, even Satan. Do I know what these specific purposes are? No, but the bible says we were created without sin. And supposedly, Satan was the most beautiful of all angels. Well, something happened, and I don’t exactly know what, but at this point in time Satan then decides that he wants to change things. Do things his way.
God allows this and other things to happen, because evil is a condition of our free will. Without free will, love is not possible. With free will, comes the choice to turn away and defy God.
But, even in evil, God makes his message known. Only God can make a bad situation good. This is clearly demonstrated, in the story of Job.
Yes, I agree with you that we have free will — if we didn’t, we would be mere puppets. But I disagree with folks who say, “But we can’t understand God’s plan. He allows Satan to exist for some unknown reason. We don’t know why a loving God would create a Hell to torture us in. It might not make sense to us, but we shouldn’t try to understand. God must have a plan that is beyond our understanding.” That, to me, is a cop-out. God gave us brains so that we would use them.
I don’t think that God created an incomprehensible universe. I think that God wants us to understand. And so I also believe that religion ought to make sense.
Yes, a lot of people make poor choices. But I also believe that we have come from God, are sustained by God in the present, and will eventually return to God, our Source. God will not reject us for being the imperfect people he created us to be. “God has consigned all men to disobedience, that he may have mercy upon all” (Romans 12:32).
“For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything in creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 8:38-39).
I hate just quoting scripture without comment, but yes I agree:
27. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
28. And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
29. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.
30. I and my Father are one.
A wonderful promise, indeed. Though we differ on if homosexuality is a sin or not, I accept you as a brother or sister in Jesus.
You are also Pat Riot, I believe, and maybe Pat T Riote as well — thank you for the kind words, Pat/Ceegen.
Enough playing with words. Gay people are citizens of this country and they’re not being treated equally under the law. That’s it. They do exactly what straight couples do: raise children, buy homes, pay taxes, love, etc. It isn’t right to have a different set of laws for them. We made a great step as a country when Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was repealed. Maine has the opportunity to join the rest of the northeast this fall and I hope my neighbors truly consider what it means to give gay people the same rights we all already have. This isn’t a religious question, it’s whether we’re comfortable dividing people (who aren’t that different from u)s into separate categories and handing them disadvantages. I hope we find as a state that we’re not comfortable with that.
Angus as Jimmy Stewart?
Hardly.
More like Angus as Jimmie Hoffa.
http://tinyurl.com/ces7y66
Nancy
Rotkowitz — The fact that Messrs. Heath and Madore can’t seem to understand
that marriage is about far more than sex would seem to explain their obsession
with the matter. Straight people, in love or not, can marry or divorce at will,
in church or not, have children or not, adopt or not, be monogamous or not.
Yet, Heath and Madore vociferously advocate denying any two gay or lesbian
people the same state sanctioned privilege on the sole basis of the fact that it
doesn’t conform to their particular religious views. “Live and let
live” has long struck a cord with Mainers and that tradition will
undoubtedly be restated in November.
Excellent points. Why would the State allow people past child-bearing age to ever marry, and would they advocate putting a stop to it?
Pat, you say you’re a Christian, you may be wrong about that, the Bible would never have words of hate but people speaking from the pulpit may. Church is becoming dangerous when it allows its deacons to preach hate and discontent.
Live your own life, please leave good people alone and be careful about your salvation or anyone else because only God can judge. Period.
With regard to the rails issue, I have to agree rail is vitally important. The problems seem to stem from the fact these rails are all commercially owned and operated and when times are hard, or business is down in a particular area, track maintenance drops and sometimes the tracks are just ripped up for scrap metal. Track is hard enough to lay what with the rights-of-way issues and the labor involved. Fortunately, in kind of a round-about way, the “Tracks to Trails” groups are helping the rail world by at least saving the rights of way which are harder than ever to obtain with the growth and expansion of buildings that might overrun what was once a clear right-of-way.
If we look back in history a bit (something many of our politicians seem to refuse to do), we can remember the demise of passenger rail. Cars, buses, and planes came in and took over. This worked well for decades until congestion, traffic volume, and fuel costs took over. Unfortunately, by this time the privately owned passenger train companies – famous as they were (Reading, Pennsylvania, etc.) had long since died. Amtrak was created to consolidate these dying lines under one umbrella. Don’t get me wrong – Amtrak has its issues but without it, passenger rail very likely would have completely died out in the USA. Of course, Amtrak (as I recall) does not own a lot of track and instead rents it. And, Amtrak is subsidized, just as are roads (gas taxes offset only some of road-work costs). I am not defending everything Amtrak does or how it does it, but I have seen some great successes with it and, at least, there is now passenger rail service where there would be none.
I have an idea which, as a RINO Republican, makes me a bit queasy. How about adopting the road model for the rail model? Roads are considered vital by the State and are not privately owned and thus subjected to the whims of the open market. We have and maintain roads to under-served areas because they are vital. Left to the whims of the private sector, the road running by my place in Maine likely would dissolve to dirt for the amount of traffic it gets.
My idea is that the State own and maintain tracks to “significant areas” (to be determined) and then rent the track out to any companies (not exclusively) who think they can run a successful business running freight and/or passenger rail on a particular run. This would separate the track ownership and maintenance from the train equipment (rolling stock). The lines would be rented, just as we have toll-roads for cars (and diesel fuel taxes, too). In this manner, it would not be such as astronomical task to start and run a rail service. As far as directing rail traffic, this is all computerized these days, anyway. Probably no more of a problem than coordinating street lights or running an airport tower.
I see rail companies running like airlines using short-haul inter-urbans such as the Diesel Motor Units (the modern day “Budd car” for those of us who went to college in Boston). These are modern, inexpensive, and self-contained. Very comfortable and cost effective.
http://www.usrailcar.com/
The point is for the State to provide the “roadway” for trains just as it does for trucks and cars. It is considered vital, just as are roads. It would at least provide some consistency and be an expedient means by which private companies could have access to high-speed rail, well-maintained, and without them needing to own more than the rolling stock. An example would be a trucking line having to own its own private roadways, or an airline owning its own airports. Probably not very cost effective. And, clearly, what we have now is not working.
This is just an idea. Any thoughts?
Not a bad idea except that I believe the owners of the rail beds accross North America would want an exhorbitant amount of money for beds that are in desperate need of a total rebuild. Not counting all the rail road bridges that are, in all likelyhood, in much need of maintenance also.
The only way this could work is if we nationalized the rail roads. Somehow I can’t see that happening.
Yes, that is the word I was trying to stay away from – nationalizing. Perhaps if we started at the State level? After all, we need the rail infrastructure in Maine. Plus, you might make a deal where you have the private guys either sell the railbeds at fair market value or demand they bring the rail up to standards and comply with the law. Or, perhaps, give them so many years of reduced cost railbed use in exchange for fair market sale of the property. It would seem to me that some deal could be reached. Track and bridge maintenance is an expensive cost item. If this could be a predictable line item cost (such as is the case with toll per mile), it might be attractive to their cost model.
I would not want to see more rights-of-way lost. Once these are gone, they are gone forever.
The advantages of freight rail are well-known. Right now, the freight rail system is overloaded and can hardly handle the demand. As fuel prices go up, so will demand for freight rail as it has the lowest per mile cost. We need more track and better management.
We also need to consider just how advanced rail and switching systems have become over the years. Trains can be effectively scheduled on single-rail runs, far more than before. With the current model of rail-company owned track, they are going to follow what is best for the bottom line. If they don’t really see any dollar advantage to advanced switching and higher-speed rail, then why spend the dollars? Of course, with freight, being timely is not as important as it is with passenger rail. If freight is delayed by an hour, it’s not a big deal, but you cannot delay passenger rail schedules.
I would like to see what we have on the Northeast run extend to Maine and beyond. I don’t think many of us in the DC area think using anything but the train to Manhattan makes much sense. It is door-to-door and comfortable. Right now, North Station connects to Portland (and is very successful at 5 round-trips/day). It is to be, or has, been extended to Brunswick. There is talk of connecting Brunswick to Rockland. And, this is all passenger service. I know I would use it.
An example of poor planning, as far as I can see, is what happened in Bangor. The passenger rail terminal simply disappeared. And, now that space is unavailable. It is a loss and a shame it is gone. To contrast that – look at the new station at Brunswick! Very impressive! I am looking forward to riding the train to that new station.
Sodomy-based marriage? I love the creativity of the term but I think it is so over the top it will backfire on its creators. Of course, excluding Rick Santorum, I suspect there is a little sodomy going on in most marriages, gay and straight, assuming we use the accepted definition of sodomy with which Heath and Madore perhaps are unfamiliar.
Let’s say “sodomy-based marriage” is even an accurate term. Well, then, the Supreme Court shot down all laws against consensual sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003.
As someone said, Heath and Madore seem to think a same-sex marriage is all about sex and little more. They cannot grasp the idea that other than the sex, there is little difference between straight marriages and gay marriages. If same-sex marriage were all about sex, we’d skip the marriage part altogether. Why bother? We’d be “shacking up” like half the straight couples in the USA already are doing.
Is it just my observation or are people who are anti same-sex marriage often woefully unaware of the law, how it works, what the Constitution really says, and more importantly, implies? I know they cannot spell. The typos from this group are 20:1 compared to the Marriage Equality group. I often borrow from Pogo: “We have met the enemy and he cannot spell.”
Will I be glad when Marriage Equality is the law of the land! We need to get this passed and move on. It should have taken 10 minutes back in 2009.
William Richardson, RR’s are good for high volume bulk shipments. They may even be great for high speed commuter traffic. I agree that the single item holding Eastport back is a good rail connection.
That being said, rail roads failure to keep up with modern demands and their apparent inability to operate in North America efficiently is their own downfall. Their failure to reinvest in the maintenance of existing rail beds has resulted recently in their abandonment of rail service to northern maine.
A century ago when rail was king, they ruled with an iron fist. They held towns and business’ under their thumb. Manufacturing had to build huge warehouses to stock materials and finished products that had to wait for RR’s to move at their liesure. All your lumber yards were located along rail lines and had to have a siding, which they paid rent on, in order to get their wares delivered. I’ll leave you to guess the price mark up on prime rail side realestate was.
What we have today is a free open country to develop at our own whim which is not being held down by the rail monopolies.
You might see my other comment on this RR issue.
Yes, I agree with you, but the rail companies now are serving only what is in their best interests. Perhaps, they always did. But, today, we need more flexibility and we need passenger rail. I suspect the costs today are proportionally much, much higher for rail maintenance. Companies are not going to invest billions for a 1% increase in revenues. Plus, the model of the one company owning the one track in town sounds very monopolistic.
My suggestion is to separate the rail companies from the track and bridge ownership and maintenance. Have the State own all the rails and bridges, maintain these, and charge a fee per mile. Then, allow open competition for rail companies to charge for freight and passenger service. This is exactly the model used for trucking and public roads, and airplanes and public airports.
The sharing of the rails by multiple companies is little different than airlines acquiring certain gates at a public airport. The computerized switching available today is very similar to ATC’s traffic sequencing of major airlines.
It really is time we up the game on rail and bring it kicking and screaming into the 21st century. If the government owned the railbeds and bridges, just as they own the roadways and public airports, then we have achieved true deregulation of the railway system.
Once again Chuck, I think the only practical way to acheive this would be the nationalization of the rail road beds and right of ways.
I’m not sure what system Europe imposes but from all reports they have a much more efficient rail system than we ever had. Japan is another country that has very efficient rail service.
Of course the EU and Japan, as much of the rest of the developed world, hasn’t had to put a huge amount of money into their military as we have. I can only imagine if we just cut our miltary expenditures in half and dedicated it to rebuilding our national infrastructure, what wonders we could accomplish.
I agree. Of course, in Europe and Japan, rail is considered critical. Maine, too, has a unique geography that makes it kind of big for driving everywhere but really too small to justify air travel. Trains make sense. How we achieve this is the big question. I would happily give up one submarine or one aircraft carrier to have rail everyone could use. After all, we have 13 carrier groups. We probably could squeak by with 12.
It would probably depend on what the powers that be deem in the “National Interests”.
We have an opportunity to eliminate one carrier group comming up soon, as the Enterprise is 50 years old. I remember seeing her when she was brand new, seems like yesterday.
It would be, IMO, a good thing if we stopped using our military might and youth protecting the business interests of those business’ that have abandoned the US workers that helped build them and moved out of the country.
Nancy Rotkowitz, good letter.
You are absolutely right that civil marriage for same sex couples has nothing to do with sodomy and sexual activity— for all of that is legal and has been for years.
No couple who wants to enter into a civil marriage does so in order to have sex; they do it to affirm their commitment to each other, and protect the life they build together. This is true regardless of the gender of the spouses!
I look forward to hundreds of thousands of Mainers joining me in November to offer civil marriage to ALL Maine families.
Nothing like the roar of a train.
I like the bells when the train glides into the station. Falling asleep on the train also is very relaxing.
Why should a dentist have to accept a payment from the State that does not even come close to the base cost of the service provided. They should not have to, nor should lawyers or doctors have to do free work or recieve little to nothing from the State to pay for services provided to others. People should take responsiability for themselves and pay for the services they need. Life is not a free ride.