First off apologies for the spelling error in the thread title.

This up and coming generation of 18-29 year olds are not your parents GOP. Interesting reading. It's not a slam dunk for Obama but the change is very real and the old GOP needs to take a hard look.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004406277_evangvote11m.html

"Polls have shown that young Christians aren't any less concerned about the "family values" issues that have traditionally driven Christians to the Republican camp. (In fact, a study by the Barna Group, an evangelical polling organization, shows young Christians are actually more conservative on abortion than their elders.) It's just that they're also concerned about issues such as social justice and immigration, issues traditionally associated with Democrats."

IMHO, this is a good trend.

I was teaching a vocational class earlier last month. The group was mixed 18-34. Some very religious, I suspect a few were evangelical, but I didn't go and quantify that.

Somebody mentioned current event politics, so I held the discussion, with the promise of continuing it, given that we get the material for that day done, and that we all can be friends after word!

(don't want to spoil a class over that stuff!)

When it was time, I gave a very short lecture about the public discourse, and it's importance and that articulating our self-interests and beliefs is not only ok, but encouraged. I expressed great interest in hearing it go, as they were all younger and representative of how things could go. It went well from there.

Some very interesting observations:

(from that general discussion)

Young people are very worried about our direction, their job prospects and all the divisive stuff.

The evangelicals were very set on breaking the link between being conservative and racist / sexist. (divisive stuff does not fly with them --gets in the way of evangalizing! Interesting? I thought so!)

Most of the group believes we will get over coarse race and sexuality matters before we get over sexism. Hilary is not representing women very well in this contest it seems. In very coarse terms, the Black man is gonna be first, before the woman of any race.

This surprised me.

The group was Obama 6 of 10, with the other 4 being no vote, third party for a statement, or McCain. It was roughly thirds as far as being Democratic, Republican, Independent. I really wanted to nail that down more, but also didn't want things to get heated and too personal.

Edit: Also interesting! Many of these kids listen to talk radio! I had no idea, but KPOJ and KXL and specific shows were mentioned. I did not prompt or lead. Mostly kept where I was at to myself, instead wanting to hear where they were at. I did answer questions directed to me.

This will be interesting to see how it plays out once the Democratic nomination is secured. When we have the two major players in place then we'll see where these young evangelicals really stand.

Missing it sounds like you were impressed with the group. They sound well educated and willing to be open to many types of discussions.

I was actually.

The discussion was kind of a cut loose, "don't you guys want to talk about this stuff?" kind of thing. There is a pressure there that needs some relief. I could sense it, which is why I entertained the digression.

There was some left / right tension for sure, but nobody took it to the deep personal level where a person wouldn't want to talk for fear of making enemies.

Building a life matters more than some agenda. I was that way too in my 20's. I think a lot of us don't fully realize the damage being caused, because it's not going to impact us in the same way --or we are kind of inured to the impact.

Not sure...

I am quite sure the desire to speak out is greater for this up and coming generation than it was for mine at the same rough age.

Hearing talk radio mentioned was a big surprise. I honestly didn't expect that. Not all of them were listeners, but most all of them were familiar with the names and stations.

I wish I had directed things along traditional media -vs- new media lines. I know they use u-tube and such, but I don't know how much credence traditional media really has.

A lot of them use discussion boards. These things kept popping up during class often. As long as things were moving along, I didn't care so much. It was interesting to hear them lament about a fishing or car board turning into a mess over divisive stuff though!

This group is college educated, BTW.

I would absolutely love to have weekend sessions where these kinds of discussions can take place. Don't engage in advocacy, just direct, moderate and explore. Could learn a ton, I suspect.

It's a thing similar to working with younger people. They will employ different means and methods to the same result. Always worth some time to explore as the new dynamics contrasted with older ones have a lot of value --at least they do to me.

There are some in the Christian evangelical movement who don’t hold to edicts laid out by their self appointed conservative Christian leadership. Some evangelicals, like Dr. James Dobson for example, were very angry that some in the evangelical movement took serious issue with Bush Administration’s policy on the environment and did so publicly. But I think that had more to do with Dr. Dobson and company’s waning influence over the Christian right in this country.

I’m sure that after years of war and corrupt political leadership, evangelicals might find it difficult to label themselves Republican. They too may find a home with the politics of Barack Obama. Republicans took evangelicals for granted – and there is little Dr. Dobson or any of his supports can do to erase the truth about the corrupt nature of the past several years. If Dr. Dobson and his evangelical zealots want to align themselves with a failed presidency and a party without moral compass, go right ahead. It just shows that they are more interested in political power than living God’s word.

Well, I don't know they should label themselves Republican, or Democrat with regard to their faith.

That's a HUGE part of the problem!

Being evangelical is a religious thing, not a political thing. The two are not really joined at that level, as in one party or the other owning the faith, or maybe giving it credence of some kind.

IMHO, that's way to constrained of a model. There needs to be a lot more flux in it than that, or really we are talking about something greater than a common interest in worship.

Well, I don't know they should label themselves Republican, or Democrat with regard to their faith.

IMHO, that's a HUGE part of the problem!

Being evangelical is a religious thing, not a political thing. The two are not really joined at that level, as in one party or the other owning the faith, or maybe giving it credence of some kind.

IMHO, that's way to constrained of a model. There needs to be a lot more flux in it than that, or really we are talking about something greater than a common interest in worship.

I agree, and I hope people of faith can look beyond party affiliation and vote their conscience. But in recent history, some in the evangelical movement have closely aligned themselves with the Republican Party. Ronald Reagan appealed too many of these folks, and they’ve been Republican ever sense. The Republican leadership has gone to great lengths to deepen the ties with the Christian evangelical movement – and up until recently, it’s paid off handsomely.

Damn, double post!

Slow connection artifact --sorry.

Well, it is highly likely to still pay off for quite some time. Lots of appointees were made and it will take a good long time for all of those to work through the system.

In any case, I clearly see what Chris is talking about, and that's good.

from article...
"Michael Dudley is the son of a preacher man.
He's a born-again Christian with two family members in the military. He grew up in the Bible Belt, where almost everyone he knew was Republican. But this fall, he's breaking a handful of stereotypes: He plans to vote for Democrat Barack Obama."

a rare bird you might say...

Was not impressed by the school (SPU) and students when we visited around 10 years ago with my daugher who was thinking of attending.
Got clear sense of very liberal ideology among students...direction of school. I walked through their campus daily to get to grade school back in 60's before moving to Oregon so I have fond memories there but disapointed with the departure of some of their roots.

I have always voted ideology over party.

Broadway-

This is not as rare as you might want to believe. I'm not saying Obama is by any means the clear choice for conservative evangelicals, even the younger ones. But it is becoming very clear that today's younger conservative Christian's are stating it's not all about abortion and gay rights. Those are still important issues to them, but not the only ones.

More research has indicated that in a top 10 list of important issues for young evangelical Christian’s, gay marriage and abortion are at the bottom.

You may want to close your eyes or try and divert the realization that this is happening, but it is an indicator that the old guard is not in touch with their own younger constituency base.

These young voters are willing to have an Obama in office with the knowledge they disagree with this stance on abortion, yet knowing he will respect their beliefs and rights. Obama has appeal over Clinton and McCain with these voters and this is but one assessment of that appeal.

"...young voters are willing to have an Obama in office with the knowledge they disagree with this stance on abortion, yet knowing he will respect their beliefs and rights."

Respect their beliefs? Sounds great, but what Mr. Obama does is more like changing the topic to areas of agreement.

This isn't one of those areas where one can be wishy-washy.

Herb

Thanks for chiming in Herb. I know there are parts of Obama that you like and I appreciate it.

Changing the topic for agreements sake is not all that bad in my book. It means Obama is willing to build a bridge with those who disagree with him. It's not wishy-washy, it's called creating dialogue.

Hey Chris...could I be Obama's Pro-life Czar?!
Encouraging sexual purity till marriage and adoption as the best policy for all unwanted/unplanned pregnancies/parenthood?
I could use Planned Parenthood's budget given by your tax dollars!

There's no need to be wishy washy about abortion. The great thing about America is that if you disagree with abortion, you're free not to have one or participate in activities that could lead to one. This way, the folks that are against it don't have to have one, and the folks that are pro-choice still have the option should they find themselves in a situation where it's needed.

And, the best part for those that are against abortion: Those that are pro-choice will uphold the rights of those against it to have one when THEY need it.

"The great thing about America is that if you disagree with abortion, you're free not to have one..."

That's akin to saying: 'Don't like slavery? Then don't own a slave.' We fought a civil war over that.

It offends the very sense of justice, something that the left talks about...but without the right to life, it's a hollow agenda.

Herb

Blah, blah blah.

Until you hard core pro-lifers are willing to step up and address the problem head on with the large array of solutions we have for it, you are just blowing a lot of hot air.

I'm serious on this. It's an absolute fact that we could reduce abortion to a small fraction in 5-10 years, if it were not for all or nothing people getting in the way of that, for fear their pet issue might not see the share of the lime light they think it deserves.

It offends you, but not the majority because the majority don't see it like you.

The only comparision that can be made to slavery would be to force women to give birth when they don't want to. That's enslavement of a woman's body against her own will.

Enjoy the freedom you have to not have an abortion! And remember, not all that have abortions are pro-choice! Talk is cheap until you face reality.

Oh pleeeeeeeeezzze people. This was not to be another thread about abortion.

Broadway and Herb. What I am trying to educate you on is that your core issues, abortion and gay marriage, are not holding the water it once did with the young evangelical voters. The GOP and younger evangelicals see a broader scope of issues that are actually MORE important to them than the one you keep hammering.

You two come across at times like toddlers during a tandrum. It's wah wah wah, abortion, abortion, abortion. Well open your eyes people, the generation you help to bring into this world are asking you to engage beyond your one trick pony.

Hey Chris...I did not bring up the subject...I was only responding to try to "build a bridge" on the issue...maybe little tongue and cheek....

Pooh-pooh it all you want, Chris.

Just because you've dismissed the right to life doesn't mean others have. But even if they did, it wouldn't matter any more than those who didn't buy into other causes because there was a cacaphony of disagreement. This isn't about what's popular. It's about what's right.

The right to life is the foundation of what matters.

Take that away, and there's little else to prevent the slippery slope of moral relativism. Indeed, it's what makes our nation different than so many others and is central to our founding document:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Herb

The Constitution does not define the term "life", which is why we've defined it through the legal process. Besides, a literal interpretation of life would also include no death penalty, which many ardent pro-lifers like yourself fully support the death penalty (as do I). Your black and white world just isn't as black and white as you'd like!

"The right to life is the foundation of what matters."

Yes the right to life and the right to make ones own choices about ones own life.

You bet Herb, it's all there written in our declaration. Thanks for pointing that out.

You have these young, and in some cases first time voters, who have been raised in conservative evangelical Christian homes who believe in pro-life issues. I have no problem with that. But they are putting equal value on issues like the war which for them come into direct conflict with that pro-life stance.

These same young voters are concerned about our immigration policy, and our economy with equal interest. For them it's not all about abortion, which is still a core issue.

What I see happening is the old conservative guard in many ways have pushed so hard for so long that they are out of touch with today's informed young evangelical.

If Obama becomes president it will signify that what took place in 2006 was only the start.

"Just because you've dismissed the right to life..."

Why this? It's extremely divisive, and also completely non-productive.

I don't know anybody that has dismissed this matter. Where people differ is on the importance of it, and on core definitions of when life begins, when we have a person -vs- potential person, etc...

Let's at least keep it rational huh?

Oh, you mean like parsing the meaning of the word 'is.'

Right.

Our nation has been there, and done that, thanks to a prior commander-in-chief.

Words mean things.

Besides, it's not about Kum-Bah-Yah.

Like Dennis Prager once said, it's often more important to go for clarity over agreement.

Anything less is likely to be phoney and that serves no one.

And remember, this is a discussion board.

Obfuscate on.

Herb

Clarity was given in 1973.

*Plonk*

Herb, it just means the young evangicals see the world for what it really is instead of YOUR interpretation of it.

They realize to bring future generations into this world, the present generations need to take care of what we have so there is SOMETHING for future generation to have.

Your generation of evangelical says only:

Bring as many people as possible into the world and don't worry about taking care of it. God meant for us to use what is here and being good stewards of the earth, well we don't really have to worry about that because God will take care of everything and who really cares, because I'll be in heaven by that time anyway.

They realize you can't have life without taking care of what you have. You can do that and still be an evangelical.

"Bring as many people as possible into the world and don't worry about taking care of it."

It's Christian charities and people of faith en masse that not only encourage adoption, but who want desperately to give little ones a home, lest those little lives be snuffed out...and along with them, the grieving mothers who deal with their decisions they wish to undo.

And if you're saying Christians don't do enough. Okay, I agree. We can always do more.

But rather than blaming the guy with his finger in the dike, how about also focusing on the guy tearing down the dam, whilst he makes a profit from his dastardly acts of destruction?

Herb

What about the children who are not adopted but rather are raised by a parent or parents but because of economic circumstances, living on the margins. Why don’t you find evangelicals devoting as much time to supporting the needs of these children?

Hopefully, young evangelicals will see the shortcomings of those in the pro-life movement and devote more energy to helping kids in need, everywhere.

But of course the leadership of the conservative Christian movement, which has been beholden to the Republican right since the early 1980’s, will scream creeping socialism when it comes to spending less on war mongering and more on helping children in poverty. As I’ve said before, Dr. James Dobson, Rev. Pat Robertson and John Hagee sound more like Darwinists than Christians. If you’re poor and a child, it’s your fault and you and your parents deserve all the misfortune the world can throw at you.

Herb you're a lousy dancer. Here's the bottom line.

Today's young evangelicals agree with you about abortion. Heck I even agree to the extent it's a horrible procedure. But the generation behind you is also saying, the war in Iraq is just as important. Our economy is just as important. Immigration reform is just as important. Poverty and hunger in America is just as important.

They are saying that Obama, even though he is pro- choice, is a better choice than McCain and Clinton. They want somebody that embodies real change even though it's not their ideal candidate. They have made that resolve in order for America to move forward while you still want to live in the past.

You're singing a one line song while your younger counterparts are singing an entire chorus. Which makes you horribly out of tune.

>>The Constitution does not define the term "life"

It should'nt have to...what part of the word "life" don't you understand...oh...the opposite of life is....well...you know.

Ok...back on topic...Obama now has been well documented as the most liberal current standing Senator on most/all the issues. He campaigns on this euphoria "change" philosophy that seems to mesmerize his followers without the knowledge of what those changes will be.
I believe he's a "clay feet" politician that will be defeated in a landslide this fall.

Now back off topic...the whole reason abortion gets put at the "bottom of the issue list" is because it's one that is unpleasant to deal with/causes divisiveness...but the topic still comes up and will never die unlike...well...you know.

"I believe he's a "clay feet" politician that will be defeated in a landslide this fall. "

It will be an interesting race until the votes are counted. I don't expect a landslide victory either way.

It will be an interesting race until the votes are counted. I don't expect a landslide victory either way.

I'm with you Chris, I think it's going to be another nail biter right up to the end and wouldn't hazard a guess as to who'll come out on top.

Obama or McCain. It'll be close.

" He campaigns on this euphoria "change" philosophy that seems to mesmerize his followers without the knowledge of what those changes will be. "

Lie.

Well, it's a great message

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/house-gop-adopts-change-theme/inde x.html?hp

Also, grandpa McCain seems to get it where the younger voters are concerned:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=4824779

That's gonna be ugly. Fugly actually! (goes to get popcorn)

Transformational politics in action folks. Obama is kicking serious ass.

Using some of the logic I’ve read on this and other threads, I guess if someone like Adolph Hitler took a pro-life position, I’m sure our pro-life friends would most certainly overlook all of his absolutely vile positions on matters of state and social policy and gladly cast their ballots for him and his National Socialists.

I just don’t get it. Kids are living in poverty everywhere in this world and yet you seem so completely disinterested in their plight. If anyone can rally people behind helping children in need, it would most certainly be Barack Obama. I haven’t heard word one about children from the Republicans, except how massive tax cuts will help their wealthy parents offset the cost of private kindergarten.

And as it relates to the “clay-feet” remark, I find that amusing. Nothing is more farcical than the “pro-life” movement, aligning themselves with the corrupt Republican leadership. How can people who preach high morals make an alliance with the devil? By joining with George W. Bush and the Republicans, that’s exactly what they have done. What hypocrites. When so-called “pro-lifers” start taking the lives of children seriously and end their relationships with the corrupt politicians, then maybe people will take them seriously.

"Obama now has been well documented as the most liberal current standing Senator on most/all the issues."

I knew there was some reason I liked the guy. Having a liberal standing means he can think and is intelligent!

"I believe he's a "clay feet" politician that will be defeated in a landslide this fall."

Yeah right. Keep on dreaming! The media wants it to be a close race, but the numbers don't lie, and the numbers favor a McCain defeat.

>>When so-called “pro-lifers” start taking the lives of children seriously

You've got to be kidding...there has not been a lot of truth the past few boards...there are hypocrites on both sides the isle of course.

Put your money where you mouth is...There have been Christian relief agencies for many years serving the needs of the poor world-wide...all supported by offerings of Christians and more all now focused on the needs in the far east practicing Matthew 25...helping the least of these...

www.samaritanspurse.org
www.WorldVision.org
www.SavetheChildren.org
www.foodforthepoor.org
www.map.org
www.salvationarmy.org/ihq/www_sa.nsf
www.worldrelief.org
www.worldconcern.org

and based right here in Portland...

http://www.nwmedicalteams.org/site/PageServer
www.cityteam.org/portland
www.mercycorp.org

get your check books out!

Many church organizations have been helping the poor and impoverished for many years. Our family actually supports several of the organizations listed in Broadway's post.

Loads of other agencies that are not affiliated with any church organization have been helping as well. I bring up the 30,000 children that die each day of preventable starvation as a comparison to the abortion stance. The good news is that it used to be 40,000 children.

There have been great improvements in the past 10 years but there is so much more that can be done.

I along with many on this board would love to see 1 million abortions that happen yearly in our country dwindle down like the numbers I mentioned previously. Going cold turkey as in making abortions illegal I believe is the wrong step.

Working collectively and bringing our resources together, no matter if your pro-life or pro-choice, will help bring those numbers down. The rhetoric needs to stop and the actual work needs to begin.

We completely agree.

I'll bet that can go under 6 digits, if we actually worked on the problem.

My door is open, yours?

>>the actual work needs to begin.

Ah the $64,000 question! Who, what, how, and when I might add.

Who...all of us, churches, schools, government, media but mostly parent to child.

What...sexual activity demands responsibility where you can get pregnant, get STD's and/or AIDS and can be most full-filling in a committed relationship called Marriage. Just because half of them fail does not mean the model is bad. Most marriages fail because of pride, selfishness and laziness to work out the problems in your marriage. 80% of 2nd marriages fail. It's the individual.

How...modeling self control...sexual purity before marriage and devotion to your spouse in marriage. How novel...practice one of the 10 commanments to not commit adultery.

When...all times be a mentor...an encourager to everyone.

I tried not spew rhetoric!

"You're singing a one line song..."

Fine. Consider me a specialist.

Herb

For me it starts with personal responsibility. Freedom demands it. We see the ugly result of it everyday when people don't take responsibility for there actions.

There are some good ideas here from Broadway. Not all them will fit with everyone but it is a good starting point.

We all come from so many different experiences and places so we can’t expect to have a one size fit all. But we can build a community where everyone’s ideas are respected.

To keep this somewhat on topic, I think today's younger evangelical voters are realizing that they need to step it up and are looking beyond the one or two issue mandate they grew up with.

They have expanded the baseline that states these are all important issues that demand our attention. And we are willing to vote into office a person we believe can start that process.

"Consider me a specialist. "

Okay I'll give you that one Herb. Pretty funny line.

"...we can build a community where everyone’s ideas are respected."

No.

That's the liberal lie.

People have their 1st Amendment rights, but not all ideas are to be respected. You wanna respect some KKK guy? Or Mr. Obama's pastor?

Uh-uh.

As George H.W. Bush #41 would have said:

"Not gonna do it....wouldn't be prudent."

Herb-o-bama-rama

Preaching sexual purity before marriage is a loser's plan. If you want to reduce abortion, there's only one way to do it: BIRTH CONTROL AND SEX ED.

In fact, I'd like to see birth control free to anyone who wants it. It would be taxpayer dollars well spent.

Agreed.

I will qualify that with, it depends on the person. Some people are gonna wait. Maybe, maybe some additional ones would, given full on education.

Most won't, so then we have to deal with them and should deal with them.

The big turn off is a "you didn't wait, and should have, and now you are gonna get taught a lesson" kind of approaches or thinking.

Much better to just put the tools out there, then focus on all other aspects, knowledge and morals as it makes sense.

Everybody is safer that way.

"You wanna respect some KKK guy? Or Mr. Obama's pastor?"

Yep. Until they forfeit any reason to be respected.

Everyone gets my respect. Automatically. By default. It's up to them to keep it or lose it. You get to keep it until your actions prove me wrong. Once lost, it's tough to get it back, but you don't have to earn it from me.

That's just bass-ackwards, IMHO.

Good grief...there's an incredible amount of access to birth control. Our public school systems even hand out free condoms. Even with birth control you need personal responsibility in their use and condoms even fail 10-20% of the time! In our current society its very hard to practice self control but it does pay off in a life of less baggage/drama.

2% is the rate of failure of the condom. Not 10 or 20%. It's a big enough difference to note. I'm wearing one right now...just to be safe. But if you are going to cite rates of success as a worthy barometer to figure out what works, then the condom and pill win.

What's the rate of failure in The Pill? Abstinance? ( Studies show that kids in a program that advocates abstinence find an apple-cheeked way to get off. At least they aren't getting pregnant though, eh? Good for them )

But you are right, there is access to birth control. There could be more and even make it MORE effective though.

If people are having abortions for "birth control" as pro-lifers claim, then I would say the access to birth control is not as accessable as you claim. Plus, there's a cost that some people can't afford (pill is $30+ per month). The government would save billions by handing out free pills to every woman who wants one rather than paying for food stamps and welfare for 18 years for mom and kid.

Yep. I think Billions is probably right too.

There are some great points and plonks in this thread! Abortion is a matter that has been settled in the courts. Birth control should be made available to every kid who wants it. Children should not be parents due to myths when they can be armed with the facts. These solutions are much simpler when a environment of ignorance is not fostered by dogmatic stubbornness or enforced by backwards government policy. It is also a very old argument around these parts.

I believe that tackling the immense humanitarian issues that arise after a child leaves the womb is the best use of resources and energy. When every kid has a chance to be born into a world that is neither prejudiced, nor polluted, nor war torn, nor penniless, the "pro-life movement" will have accomplished the far larger task that their self-ascribed "label" encompasses. If you think that "Kum-ba-yah" is too far out to accomplish, or is simply delusional, I would suggest that your version of heaven is rooted in a far less noble fantasy.

To return to topic, I saw the article last weekend too. I was happy to read that there is a measurable shift in communities of faith to a more compassionate stance. Or, to put it another way, they are thinking in a Christ-like manner. It is encouraging to see the youth question their religion, but keep their faith. If a new generation of believers is more connected with reality, it is a very good thing.

Obviously, religion has been led far astray. Promoting the pursuit of material wealth regardless of the consequences to the planet or the lives of other people is wrong. Suggesting hate crimes from the pulpit is not the way of righteousness. A gospel rooted in irrational fears and traditional prejudices is hardly a gospel at all. Raising money rather than raising spirits is not a holy mission. Spreading war, xenophobia, distrust and division through global media networks is not teaching God's word, it is parroting agitprop. Armed compounds, clinic bombings and attacks on homosexuals, immigrants and the poor are not evidence of a true faith, but the calling cards of fascists and domestic terrorists. It does not take a genius to see that isolation from reality does far more harm than good.

Whether there is a God or not, he or she cannot be defined by the narrow band of negative human emotions or seen through the prism of partisan platforms. For all of the evangelical rhetoric about "worldly" sin, there has been little concrete action to help the "least of these" by the most pious. These folks spend all their days breeding golden calves. As "prosperity gospel" sweeps through the world, it dovetails perfectly with the neo-con agenda that took root three decades ago: The poor deserve to be poor, the oppressed deserve to be oppressed, the enslaved deserve to be enslaved because it is "God's will" and we must embrace it, celebrate it and force others to accept it. If, in your view, the world is simply a planet full of people and places to be exploited until the moment God returns, your dogma is rooted in pure evil.

History shows that strength of character cannot be defined by denominational labels. Putting yourself on the line to help another person, or rebuild a community is simply good. People help people every day -- even at great personal risk -- and expect nothing in return. The way of a compassionate person stands strong without any dogmatic framework. If one is a person of faith, it does not mean that you are righteous, or good. It is a cheap and worthless title unless it is accompanied by deep moral conviction. I think what the kids are saying is that if heaven is a monochromatic gated community full of do-nothing self-righteous people, count 'em out. They are following Jesus instead of the fancy lemming in front of them in church. They want to change the world for the better and make it a place where folks can live in peace. There may be hope for these kids yet.

>>Tackling the immense humanitarian issues that arise after a child leaves the womb is the best use of resources and energy.

If the birth was within the framework of committed marriage, the "immense humanitarian" issues would be nearly nothing.

>>Abortion is a matter that has been settled in the courts

It's not settled for now most Americans. The pendulum is swinging back to more of a "life spirit".

It's sad that many of the posters here have a very wrong view of true Christianity...of being a Christ follower and what that really means and how to live that out in what the Bible says.
Lots more later...

"Abortion is a matter that has been settled in the courts."

Were that the case, such hard leftists as Mrs. Clinton would not push the aclu and naral suggestion that Roe v. Wade might be overturned.

I sincerely hope you believe the decision is final, for this means that leftists will let their guard down whilst the Pro-Life legislation is passed, and with great relish, I might add.

Abortion on demand will be toast, indeed. And radicals are terrified of that fact.

Herb

Abortion on demand will be toast, indeed.

And THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of young women will die from botched abortions in back alley clinics across this great nation. And THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of kids will be born to YOUNG women who have NO idea or care how to care for their young babies. For which YOU, me and the American TAXPAYERS will have to pay INCREASED taxes for SOCIAL PROGRAMS that EXTREME RIGHT Evangelical Christain Bible thumpers DON'T want to pay for or BELIEVE IN.
You want to be LIBERAL when it's Convenient....

The whole right to life thing is so bogus guys. C'mon, really ... I don't think there is a person in here who is a big fan of abortion. It has deeply affected me personally.

That said, the other alternatives are equally drastic. Trixter is right, abortion won't go away simply if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Desperate people do desperate things. Some 16-year old, or incest victim, or rape victim, will end up in the back alley with a coat-hanger abortion, causing irreparable harm to themselves as well as aborting their fetus. This will happen thousands of times per year, and will result in many more lost lives than the fetus. But I suppose that's ok because the spirit of Roe v. Wade will be overturned, won't it be Herb?

I applaud you for being proactive in adoption and supporting those efforts. I think that more people should do the same, but I also guarantee you that the need for adoptive parents will not come close to meeting the need of kids that need homes. This leaves countless thousands of children in foster care, or custody of the state (social programs a conservative such as yourself would be against, I am sure). What kind of a life is that for the child, who is completely innocent in this? What about drug addict mothers having drug-addicted babies, and growing up in that environment? That's a drain on society as well, from a monetary as well as psychological standpoint.

Your intentions are noble Herb. I believe that. But you have to look at the bigger picture here. Is it fair to introduce thousands of children per year to this? It's not a black-and-white, when is the fetus a human question. It should be more of a what's right question!

Again, we see the born again Christian folk on here speaking out of both sides of their mouths. At times, after seeing what is posted on these threads, I’m embarrassed to be called a Christian. Where is the compassion? They speak a big game, but the “love” is seriously missing. They tie their fortunes to the most discredited political leadership in modern history and wonder why people see them as hypocrites. If you don’t fit their definition of Christian, you’re then on a one-way flight to hell. To me, these right wing Christian zealots are not different than religious terrorists causing mayhem in different places around the globe.

Talpdx drives home the point of my original post and article.

These young people of deep faith are looking for deeper moral conviction that has wings not catch-phrases.

If Missing and Herb can be adoptive parents and be on the opposite end of the political spectrum, it gives me hope that other issues can be handled with a sense of grace that drove these two to adopt in the first place.

If Obama can bring young conservative people of faith to his side and can find success in some of his ideas, then we can learn from those young people that even in our differences we can make progress.

BTW- Littlesongs....spot on!

"If Missing and Herb can be adoptive parents and be on the opposite end of the political spectrum, it gives me hope that other issues can be handled with a sense of grace that drove these two to adopt in the first place."

That's a cogent observation, Chris.

Herb

"Your intentions are noble Herb. I believe that. But you have to look at the bigger picture here. Is it fair to introduce thousands of children per year to this?"

Thanks for the kind word.

I grapple with plenty of things, but one thing I don't want to grapple with at the end of this life is to answer why I didn't do more to defend the most innocent among us.

Herbert

Thank you Herb.

Occasionally I do have a memorable mid-life moment.

Worldwide stats show that the rates of abortion are equal among nations where it's legal and illegal. The law will not change human behavior when it comes to this subject.

"If the birth was within the framework of committed marriage, the "immense humanitarian" issues would be nearly nothing."

Yes! And if we had no enemies abroad, we'd need no military. And if we had no criminals on the street, we'd need no police. And if our skulls were harder, we wouldn't need helmets.

You live in a perfect world which simply does not exist.

Last time I checked, this is America, where people DON'T need to be married to have sex or children. If you want to live under a government that regulates sex and marriage, move to Iran or Saudi Arabia, as the USA is not for you.

Exactly what is "Abortion on Demand"? Is it a franchise? Drive thru? Are they near HerrB's beloved "Rape Rooms"? Is it just another one of HerrB's "man things" that he knows absolutely nothing about, since he (still) has no uterus?

My sister has been waiting 2+ years for an adoptable healthy OR/WA baby. They're aren't many (any?) available from the state, the tribe, or the private and/or religious groups they've paid big bucks to. Plenty of already born Drug-, alcohol-, and STD-positive babies that most people, like Herb, don't, won't or can't adopt.

All the while, kids and women are still delivering babies at home, school or work and then drowning them in the toilet or killing them. We read it almost every single day.

(OK, I broke my own pledge on the A-word. Back to day one of sobriety).

Sometimes a drink hits the spot.

Mrs M,
will be praying that God will give your sister her heart's desire! Children are a blessing from God...adopted included! Having a boatload of fun with my one year old grandson.

"Worldwide stats show that the rates of abortion are equal among nations where it's legal and illegal."

Using that line of reasoning, then we should legalise murder. I'm certain we can show that murder laws don't have a huge effect in curbing it.

The left will use any excuse to off innocent little kids. And they don't even see it.

Then such mental giants wonder how WWII Germany, which devalued life by re-defining who would live and die, became such a monsterous regime.

You can't make this stuff up. It would seem too Orwellian...or worse.

Herbert M.

"You need new material. Recycling insert HerrBism here clearly is not working for you."

(B)lather, rinse, repeat.

Herb, changing the law won't change the abortion stats, so what's the point? Focus your efforts on real change, not window dressing.

The point is to punish people who do not subcribe to your beliefs.

Actually, the point is to control and to punish those they can't control.

>>punish people

giving birth to life is punishment??? Wait...that was a concept said by someone running for president recently!

Life...what a wonderful choice...your Mother did!

If someone is forced to give birth against their will, that is punishment. Punishment and shame are the hallmarks of your belief system.

For once your right Vitalogy. That's what Jesus did for mankind on the cross over 2000 years ago. He took the punishment and shame of our lifes and traded it for live everlasting with Him!

As far as you know...

If a person has moral qualms, or closely held beliefs, they are not automatically holy concepts. They may or not be logical or correct, but acting as if God has granted some sort of mandate through any single individual or collective body is heresy. God has no political party, national identity or single issue agenda. God does not endorse products. God does not root for specific teams. God is not an exclusive fellow with select friends. God has many names in many places, but in the end, it is simply love and respect that makes the world go 'round.

Jesus was compassionate beyond measure. He did not die to enable countless generations of people to do evil in his name. Redemption is not some sort of coupon that gives you discounted Ferris Wheel rides in the promised land regardless of how you behaved in line. Salvation is not some late night taxi that takes you home after a life of willful ignorance and apathy to the world around you. God is love and respect.

A love and respect without qualification, a love and respect without judgment, a love and respect without prejudice, a love and respect without condescension, a love and respect without questions of worthiness, a love and respect without guilt, a love and respect without duress, a love and respect without a standardized test, a love and respect without labels, a love and respect without a bracket tournament, a love and respect without boundaries of race, gender, time or space. Simple and pure: Love and Respect.

Jesus only spoke of one group of people who would have great difficulty finding heaven. It is all spelled out in Matthew 19:16-26, Mark 10:17-27, and Luke 18:18-27. It is easy to boil down: Since money can't buy you love, it cannot buy you salvation either. Still, even after singling out the ruling class, Jesus did not say it was impossible to be wealthy and saved, just very difficult.

God is a universal love and respect. So, when you have a very strong feeling or belief to share, do not cloak it in a narrow definition of God. If it is your own thought, brought forth by your free will, it belongs to you. Stand up, take ownership of your morality, live it and be it, but never thrust it at someone else using your dogma as a weapon. If your ideals are so small that they balance delicately on the tip of your bloody personal sword of truth, admit that you might be alone in the fight.

If I may play armchair quarterback on political strategies here:

Nobody has mentioned that the Evangelicals that we started talking about here weren't born in 1980, when the Reagan's presidential campaign and victory helped to make the Republican Party the party for born-again Christians. The party can't use a 1980 playbook if it cares about the votes of these young people. Getting all personal about specific issues and saying stuff that sounds like "these young Evangelicals aren't Christian enough because they don't have the right priorities" is a sure-fire way to lose. If you want to run a winning campaign, you have to be in touch with what the voters want; you can't go around preaching that voters want the wrong things.

Once again, the born again Christian crowd behaves in typical hypocrite fashion. Given that they are forgiven for their sins, they spend their time on earth behaving like heathens. Think of all the people who have been murdered on this earth in the name of Christ. Tells a very compelling story. But as long as it comports with their narrow sense of duty, anything goes. Unless we subscribe to their point of view, we’re all going to hell, with the exception of Broadway. Given his status as a later day prophet, he’ll be taking a first class ride to the afterlife.

Here is another "Christain" group that has come out for McCain over Obama.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_5N_MsfBgaM

"We can't allow this to happen"

"Unless we subscribe to their point of view, we’re all going to hell, with the exception of Broadway."

It's not Broadway's point of view, or my point of view that matters. It's the view of Jesus Christ Himself:

'Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.' Matthew 7:13

But God is no cosmic killjoy. He wants us to live a better life more abundantly. He doesn't want us to go to hell but to change our wrong ways:

'The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.' 2 Peter 3:9

If you saw your child playing with a bottle of poison, you'd warn him about it...or worse. But we have free will...and are free to disobey even what is best for us.

So you think.

But, your speculation has no more truthiness to it than anyone else out there who thinks differently. YOU don't have the answers, even though you're trying your hardest to convince yourself that you do.

What happens when we die will always be a 100% unknown to us. Anything further is a guess.

There are many good reasons that so few buy the atheist argument. To some it's the miracle of life. To others, it's simply observing the design all around them. For yet others, they discern the historical, archaeological, geographical and/or prophetic validity of God's Word.

For example, scholars at one point said that the Hittites described in the Bible did not exist, nor did rulers such as Belshazzar of Babylon or Sargon of Assyria. Archeologists now have records of all those civilizations and reigns. Again and again, the Bible is found to be true:

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/13100

But there are no atheists in a foxhole.

And at some point, Vitalogy, you will confront your maker, either in this life or the next.

It's not a matter of if. It's a matter of time.

And you will be held accountable for how you lived your life.

That is the natural law.

Herb

"That is the natural law."

As invented by a bunch of men.

Try defying gravity, birth and death.

All part of the natural law.

Invented, indeed.

Herb

"Try defying gravity, birth and death."

...evolution.....

"All part of the natural law."

"...evolution..."

*Plonk!*

God is nature, until one needs to exploit the earth.

God is all part of the natural order of things, until one needs to attack science.

If all else fails, condemn logic and reason.

Apples and oranges.

We can see evidence of gravity, births and deaths every day.

Where's the quantifiable proof a maker will be there to meet us when our time has come?

Look around.

If you see a building, you know it didn't just appear or 'evolve.' The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says order is winding down. Not only can you never get ahead...you can't expect to break even. Entropy indicates a beginning.

Design betrays a designer.

Creation is the result of a Creator.

This isn't rocket science...unless one thinks he or she is smarter than He who made the earth and galaxies.

Herb

Before you're anointed new marshall of Dodge city, I'll ask again...where's the proof a maker will be there to meet us when our time has come?

I think Herbie needs a bit of time to ruminate.

To return to topic, here two excerpts from a number of articles I found exploring Obama and the evangelical vote:

Obama converts evangelicals to Democrat cause
December 4, 2006

Mr Obama entered the political equivalent of the lion's den - the sprawling campus of Saddleback Church in the most conservative far reaches of suburban Orange County in southern California.

Many evangelicals were appalled that he should be invited to address their own, given his liberal attitude to hot-button issues such as abortion and gay rights. One fundamentalist leader said he represented "the antithesis of biblical ethics and morality". A coalition of "pro-life" groups said they could never work with someone who advocated "the murder of babies in the womb".

And yet Mr Obama not only survived the experience. He made perhaps the most powerful case to date that Democrats can talk to evangelicals, too, that Jesus is not a Republican, and that no voters are so ideologically distant that they cannot be wooed and won over.

"This is my house, too. This is God's house," he said. "We've all got a stake in each other. I am my brother's keeper." That last line had members of the audience yelping "yes!" and applauding wildly.

The Independent

Barack Obama's evangelicals close the God gap in Presidential race
March 7, 2008

Evangelicals are about a quarter of the US electorate. Distinguished by a belief in salvation through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and the infallibility of the Bible, they have been the backbone of the religious right. Red Letter Christians are no different theologically; the name comes from those traditional bibles where Christ's words were written in red, and is meant to emphasize a focus on his teachings.

"There are 2,000 verses in Scripture that deal with poverty - this is the dominant social concern," says Tony Campolo, a professor at Eastern University and author of Red Letter Christians. From these verses stems a passionate commitment to social justice. From Jesus' ideals of peace, comes a heartfelt opposition to the Iraq war. "War is an ethical issue," says Campolo. "You can't foster a war mindset and call yourself a Christian." And scriptural verses emphasizing man's stewardship over nature are the spur to take action on global warming.

Obama's call for change and renewal, itself a standard evangelical theme, has resonated. "I visit a lot of evangelical colleges and what I see is Obama stickers and Obama T-shirts all over the campuses," says Campolo. "His is a voice that can inspire."

Both Wallis and Campolo are quick to distance themselves from the "Christian left". Progressive evangelicals are hardly liberal on issues like abortion, but are anxious to "move away from endless symbolic legal debates which never change anything," as Wallis puts it. He advocates instead practical methods of making abortion rarer, such as better support for low-income women. And he says that "the sanctity of life is a broader, deepers concern that includes Darfur, that includes the 30,000 children who will die today from hunger and disease."

This attitude, says Campolo, is in tune with a younger generation of evangelicals. "Young people have a broader agenda and are interested in poverty and environmental issues. Gay marriage and abortion are at the bottom of the list. They are conservative on them but they have have gay friends and don't want to start a crusade against them."

It does seem that evangelicals under 30 are deserting the Republicans - a Pew survey in the autumn revealed that this group gave President Bush only 45 per cent approval rating - down from a whopping 87 per cent in 2002. Although this has yet to greatly benefit the Democrats, it has meant a big rise in the number of uncommitted evangelical voters. Given that 78 per cent of evangelicals voted Republican in 2004, this could be crucial. Wallis estimates that half of evangelical votes are in play. "If democrats can win 40 per cent of evangelicals, that's the election," he says.

The Times

Blogs like On Faith from the Washington Post and independent voices like Faithful Progressive also explore the topic. There is even a blog called Obamaianity that discusses matters of faith and politics in this election. We are definitely not the only folks having this conversation.

Add -- I think Alfredo has nailed some of the disconnect in this election. The GOP thinks that McCain is Reagan, the Democrats think Hillary is Bill, and everyone under 30 thinks that both points of view are irrelevant. After all, Obama has this outlandish notion that it is 2008.

I'd rather spend eternity with unbaptized babies and non-Christians in hell than with evangelical Christian Strom Troopers attending Christian supremacist meetings in heaven.

"Christian Storm Troopers attending Christian supremacist meetings in heaven."

Don't worry.
They won't be there.

I sit here at my computer slightly misty eyed. This is the first thread I have made that has almost reached 100 posts. However I'm not here to kiss it to 100 but to thank Littlesongs for keeping this on track.

The more I read Herb and Broadway's posts the more Obama impresses me.

St. Francis of Assisi has a great quote that I have used before and it really represents my personal beliefs: "Go out into all the world and preach the Gospel. And if necessary use words."

Jesus was pretty radical in his day. Still is today. Bono of U2 once said he was "drawn to the radical side of Jesus."

I think these younger under 30 evangelicals truly understand that radical nature of Jesus and will radically vote for Obama because of the Herb's and Broadway's of the world.

And thank God for that!

Re: 2dn law of thermodynamics

We consume the heat of the universe, in the form of food, which we then expel as ordered works.

The building decays because of our lack of interest, and for no other reason.

See, it all works just fine.

Chris, I agree. The beauty of it is that Obama is right about my generation! Just old enough to be able to lead, but not so old that younger ones cannot easily relate. Perfect.

There are some very sorry and wrong (Biblical) views of the writers of this side of the board.
Give me a break...Obama has been researched as the most liberal Senator of the Senate! On my list and most Americans that stance is not very righteous.

>>The more I read Herb and Broadway's posts the more Obama impresses me

I'm outa here...

"wrong (Biblical) views"

As defined by who?

(#98)

"I'm outa here..."

Sorry you feel that way Dan. We've known each other a long time and it's not like you to simply get up and walk away.

You keep trying to paint liberalism as a negative. Conservatives have done it for years with effectiveness. However this new younger breed of conservatives don't buy into YOUR kind of blueprint. All I have been doing is pointing it out.

You better take a long look at your up and coming constituency because baby, things are changing. For the better I might add.

Yeah, great stuff that liberalism.

Liberals defend the aclu, are part of the anti-boy scout crowd, and in favour of taking God out of our lives, along with pushing abortion on demand.

Sorry. That dog won't hunt.

Herb

yawn...

BTW.. Herb was post 100.

Spin Herb spin. Good boy.

Chris...it's righteousness or unrighteousness...right choices or wrong choices that we all need to be concerned about in our lives...not being a liberal or conservative...and the Bible is our "life roadmap". I'm sure you can relate to that. I'm just merely pointing out that this country is really heading down the wrong road. I think your assesment of the "younger breed of conservatives" is over rated. I'm not getting that input from the christian youth I converse with. It's quite obvious that you and I run in different loops/circles/influences these days. I'm surprised by your opinions on this board. Some change in past life philosophy? God be with you.

" The anti-boy scout crowd."

I don't know what is funnier, the misplacement of the hyphen or what was actually meant ( I hope, at least ).

Hey, come on Herb, I'm just laughing at you - not with you.

"I'm surprised by your opinions on this board. Some change in past life philosophy? God be with you."

Actually Dan nothing has changed. I've always held these beliefs and philosophies. However I just kept my cards close to my chest.

Many people assumed by my association working in Christian radio that I held their (your) same beliefs, when all I was doing was affirming their stance without sharing mine.

In the past 8-10 yrs. I have been showing my cards more. I'm still very much a man of deep Christian faith and run in a variety of faith-oriented circles.

I'm still the fun loving guy you've always known. I still love radio, both Christian and mainstream. I have many friends in both. Maybe being self-employed all these years and taking a risk everyday has given me some added confidence to share my value system.

I'm not here to change anyone’s viewpoint, including yours.

If this is a surprise to you, well welcome to the great adventure.

"I'm surprised by your opinions on this board."

You're not alone in that, Broadway. Get used to it. You'll note that Chris has some, well let's say, 'creative' ways of reconciling his views with the Bible.

Some are all for a 'big tent' unless that means taking the Bible literally. Then it's 'Katie bar the door,' as the late great Frank Bonnema used to say on Portland Wrestling.

Herb

Chris is someone that I hold in high regard. He is a friend. He quietly lives his life based on Christian principles and it shines through. He is not perfect, but the fact that he admits it makes him all the more real. I began my time in this forum as a unwavering skeptic, left bitter by my own experiences in church and unwilling to budge on my condemnation of organized religion. When I needed someone to prove to me that there was more to faith than blowhards, bigots, molesters and mall-sized sanctuaries, he rose to the challenge and changed my point of view. He wasn't here to do that, but it happened anyway.

In my outbursts, I am certainly not trying to change anything except perception. It is easy for folks to lump Christians together and call them ignorant dangerous crazies. There is plenty of evidence to support that conclusion. Based on my time in church, I was convinced for years that religion was just a socially engineered device to oppress and control. In some churches, it is precisely that kind of tool, but not all churches. Parsing and framing is the same process that creates distorted perceptions about many different groups of people based on factors like race, gender and class status. I only seek to provide my own dissenting point of view. If it makes folks think twice about attacking all people of faith with broad strokes, good. Love and respect allows folks to disagree on the finer points and still be friends.

For better or worse, we are all in this together. We can hammer on our talking points and pound the pulpit, or drink in a bit of the sunshine and have a quiet conversation. At the end of the day, what we believe is what we believe. As Chris so eloquently put it -- Welcome to the great adventure!

Herb, you are a dick.

Given that Jesus was crucified for his beliefs, it's pretty small potatoes for Ol' Herb to be called a few names for believing the Bible.

The only bashing that remains PC is to bash those who actually believe God's Word.

Herb

"The only bashing that remains PC is to bash those who actually believe God's Word."

Especially if "those who actually believe God's Word" are black, have big ears and a funny name, right?

Get off your high horse, feed him an apple and breathe in the view. You have been riding tall for so long that you cannot remember why you saddled up in the first place.

Why is it that liberals, who purport to be so tolerant, get incensed when the Bible is defended?

Were I to defend playboy or hustler, you guys would be giving each other high-fives.

Herb

" Why is it that liberals, who purport to be so tolerant, get incensed when the Bible is defended? "

Already answered.

"Why is it that conservatives, who preach the bible, incest whenever they can?"

Better that you ask:

" Why is it that liberals, who purport to be so tolerant, get incensed when the Bible is perverted? "

Littlesongs

I am somewhat at a loss for words and a bit humbled by your kind words. You and I have a bit of a kindred spirit here and beyond this message board. I truly appreciate it.

Now Herb. I believe you are sincere about what you believe. Why would you be so staunch if you didn't believe what you write and defend it so?

My wife has taught me much about the conservative mindset. She grew up Baptist. General Association of Regular Baptists (GARB) to be exact. As she has said to me it was as close to "kill a commie for Christ" kind of a church.

There are certain buzzwords that push these types of militant churchgoers. I think Broadway Dan will appreciate this little radio story.

My wife and I used to do a Contemporary Christian music program on Saturday’s on KPDQ AM 800 called Upbeat 800. Along with the guidance of Ted Rogers, this program actually gained some decent numbers including a top 10 ranking for men 25-54 from 3-7pm. Not bad for an AM station playing CCM once a week from 7am-12mid.

I did mornings from 7am-12noon. My wife was 12-5pm along with being the Music Director for this show. We were looking over some music by an artist named Tommy Coombs. I was familiar with some of his songs from a previous format.

Barb would mark the songs on the albums (we played records back in 1987) with a little colored dots to indicate fast, medium or slow song. One song on this Tommy Coombs album was called “The Pleasure’s Mine.” The hook was something like “The pleasures mind Lord, it’s all mine, the pleasure’s mine.” Barb was adamant that we never play this song because the conservative audience would have a problem with the word “Pleasure.” Both Ted and I thought, “Aw come on, no way!” She said if want to invite a negative response then play it, otherwise no.

So, I played the song one Saturday morning. And sure enough a couple of phone calls and a letter came in complaining about the song. Keep in mind they only heard the word they complained about was “Pleasure." No reference to any of the other lyrics of the song except “Pleasure.” It was an eye-opening experience.

That is but one story I have.

You see Herb and Broadway; the word “liberal” is like the word pleasure to you. It sits wrong; it’s worldly, and suggests something to you that is abominable.

I am here not to change your views or anyone’s on this message board. I simply try to shine my light as best I know how. If that light hits you wrong, so be it.

Obama is a Christian man. I’m a Christian. So is Herb and Broadway. Wow- some common ground. I could easily sit in a pew at church with all of you and be okay with it.

If you really want to see diversity and dealing with people who were arch enemies coming together just look at the 12 Disciples then get back to me.

Again-back on topic. Today’s young conservatives, ones you haven’t met Broadway, are taking a hard look at what there parents have told them. They’re not breaking away from those core values, but coming to an understanding that you need to treat other issues with equal or even more importance than abortion and gay marriage.

I see the young conservatives actually more mature in their walk of faith than some of their elders.

Thanks for the thoughtful post, Chris.

There's a lot to think about, so I'll do so and follow up.

Herb

I look forward to your follow up Herb. Thanks for appreciating my post.

There's gotta be some common ground you and I can meet at a regular basis so we don't keep chewing and spitting each other's posts up with no real substantial understanding.

>>Today’s young conservatives, ones you haven’t met Broadway

Chris...I talk and work with 20 somethings I call kids every day/week. Again...my loop/circle says the opposite.

In all honesty, look at the faces of most Obama rallies. They are sea of young faces of all races clamoring to see the next president of the United States – and by the thousands. Contrast that with John McCain rallies; the GOP pays kids to stand in the crowd and wave on queue. They’ve got a giant applause sign so the kids know when to clap. If his speeches go over the 45 minute mark, they have to pay the kids overtime. No, it’s not a union gig.

Dan- I have no doubt that the circle of 20 something’s you run with hold close to your value system. Again I have no problem with that.

I'm talking on a national level. I'm talking about the people who go from town to town each week and report back to different Christian and other faith-based organizations. From the one on one town hall meetings, to the gatherings in large halls all across this great country.

They have their finger on the pulse of these young evangelicals particularly the ones in leadership roles. Young pastors who are committed to building a bridge with politicians who they don't always agree with on certain issues, but whose overall approach seems more open and willing to discuss the hard topics.

We do walk in different circles Dan and that's not a bad thing.

Obama comes to Roseburg Saturday......

And Portland on Sunday...For Free!

Not like the McNukain rally Monday evening inside the Sheraton Airport Hotel

"McCain was holding a fundraiser where he would meet with supporters. Tickets were $1,000 for the reception, $10,000 for a photo opportunity and $33,100 for dinner."

Holy sheet...he's McKKK'ain a lot o' money, ain't he?

"There's gotta be some common ground you and I can meet at a regular basis..."

Fair enough, Chris and I fully appreciate your sentiments about some Christians having what I would call a fortress mentality...in a way it's understandable, given the hostile Christophobic culture in which we live. To some, any sense of encroachment by the secular into areas of faith is bound cause concern.

But to give you an idea of where I'm coming from...you know the parable of the shepherd who leaves the 99 to rescue the 1?

I feel the unborn are the forgotten 1.

Herb

and..."unto the least of these" Matthew 25

Wouldn't working hard on the problem mitigate that forgotten status?

I actually agree with you Herb, on this matter. It's easy to live life and not worry so much about these things.

Right to choose is not tied to ignoring this. In our family, it's been a frequent topic. There is lots of awareness of the dangers surrounding it. The result is none of us are likely to face it. There are lots of ways to keep this matter relevant, without just pissing off roughly half the population regularly.

The fortress mentality is a tough one for me. From my side of the fence, I see a TON of pushing.

When this happens, people act out, and from there we get the fortress mentality surrounding anyone that pushes too hard.

The advocacy should be attractive on it's own merits, meaning no pushing is needed. Instead, it's a pull, where people see something good and want to know more.

It appears that there is a fairly large generation gap between those people in Gen-Y and older Americans. Somehow, Obama and his people have figured out how to market effectively to that demographic. I'm getting the sensation that a number of people on this discussion forum are taking the election on a personal level because they have one candidate whom they really want to see win in November.

I'd be interested in hearing more about people's observations regarding Gen-Y and what makes them tick (like Broadway Dan's observations vs. those of others who have regular contact with Gen-Y). However, I think that this is a topic all of its own that would be best treated in a different thread.

Alfredo, perhaps the topic is so broad that it does merit another thread, but I agree with you. I think that there has been a disconnect with both Generation X and the Millennials that has widened into a chasm. After four decades of a Boomer-centric climate, the fact that any candidate from either party connects with voters under 40 is nothing short of a miracle.

You are welcome Chris, and again, I thank you for challenging me. I also wanna give a shout-out to Talpdx, Brianl, Alfredo_t, Missing_KSKD and others who have kept this discussion constructive. This is not comfortable territory, but I think we have made some progress toward understanding one another.

To add to the discussion, let me introduce you all to one of the folks who has witnessed and documented a sea-change in the attitudes of churchgoers: Christine Wicker. Her blog is a very enlightening read for believers and non-believers alike.

Wicker is also a best-selling author and her latest book is called, The Fall of the Evangelical Nation: The Surprising Crisis Inside the Church. She was the religion reporter for The Dallas Morning News. She comes from a family going into its sixth generation of evangelicals. Her mother's grandfather was an itinerant Baptist preacher. Her dad's father was a Kentucky coal miner and foot-washing Baptist.

Here is what she had to say today:

The Evangelical Swing Vote

May 16, 2008

The Religious Right is once again bamboozling the press and the public with a brilliant sleight-of-hand trick.

They're distracting us with the idea that they are becoming a kinder, gentler force, hoping that while we're pondering that happy change, we'll miss the true shift.

What's really happening is that the Religious Right does not control the hefty percentage of voters that it claimed as its own. These evangelicals voted with the Religious Right for a season, but they never were a solid GOP voting bloc. This election, they're the swing vote.

The non-Religious Right, swing-vote evangelicals are three to five times as numerous as evangelicals who toe the Religious Right political line.

Who says?

The evangelicals themselves. Only 20 percent of evangelicals say they are among the Religious Right, according the country's pre-eminent evangelical magazine, Christianity Today. Other surveys show that the great majority of evangelicals don't even know who their putative leaders, those the press goes to for opinions, are. Given a list of their names, they shrug and say, "Never heard of the guy."

These aren't new statistics. They are ignored statistics.

Seventy to 80 percent of people whom pollsters classify as evangelicals don't believe like, don't behave like, and this election, they aren't going to vote like the Religious Right. These evangelicals are pretty much middle America. They like their leaders to believe in God, to pray for guidance, to be good people. They worry about abortion but don't want to make it a crime. They aren't ready for gay marriage, but they aren't calling anybody an abomination in the sight of God. Discrimination of any kind doesn't sit well with them.

They're culturally conservative but not so much reactionary as merely cautious. They act as a storm anchor for a country being tossed every which way by change. Sometimes they go for the Republicans. Sometimes for the Democrats.

Religious Right leaders, on the other hand, still want their kind of God to be the only god allowed on the public stage, everywhere, all the time. They oppose legal abortion and gay rights as fiercely as ever. They still want sex education to be abstinence-only. They still oppose child protective services, teaching evolution, hate crimes legislation, condom distribution to combat AIDS... the list goes on. It hasn't changed.

Religious Right leaders have merely shifted public attention by adding more palatable issues. The environment. The poor.

It's a good trick.

Journalists, many of whom think born-agains and snake-handlers are pretty much on par, have never quite realized that two groups of very different evangelicals exist. Reporters have so often gone after the flamboyant character and the outrageous quote that there hasn't been room in the stories for the rest of the evangelicals, the bulk of them.

Pundits who worry that John McCain will lose the Religious Right vote don't get the picture. McCain has no rivals for the Religious Right vote. A good portion of those voters are convinced that Obama is a Muslim stealth candidate, and Clinton is the anti-Christ in a pant suit. Given such sentiments, McCain doesn't need to woo them. He merely has to keep that 5 to 8 percent of the population awake and alarmed enough that they won't stay home.

But it's only 5 to 8 percent. The other 17 to 20 percent of Americans who call themselves evangelicals are busy prising open the donkey's lips to get a look at his teeth. The Democrats have this vote if they remember to be moderately pious, as they are being, and mainly concerned with bread and butter issues: health care, jobs, energy.

As for the war, nobody quite knows what to do about that. Nobody wants to think about it. It can be safely ignored for now.

Religious Right leaders have stopped talking about their core issues -- publicly, at least -- only because they are afraid of being exposed for what they are. Not hate-mongers. That doesn't bother them. Not un-Christian. That doesn't bother them either.

What they fear is being exposed as the small minority of evangelicals that they actually are.

That is the important Religious Right story this year. So far, the press is missing it.

So, according to an insider, most Christians do not believe God is a Republican. Should we still be wary of the Jesus' Camp moppets growing up to be domestic terrorists? Perhaps. Should we still assume all Christians are dominionist nutbags? Not at all. By and large, Christians, like people of all faiths, are regular folks. With a bit of wisdom, and old-fashioned outreach, the Democrats could win them over in the fall.

Another hopeful sign:

As Congress and the Bush administration skirmish over still-secret interrogation techniques, American faith communities are mounting a national campaign to prohibit torture and cruel and inhumane treatment of US-held detainees.

More than 175 religious organizations have joined the National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT). Their aim is to build a moral consensus among Americans on the issue and to bring government policies in line with US law and international norms.


http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0508/p03s05-usju.html

Why is it that neo-CONs, who purport to be so tolerant and God fearing get incensed when their way isn't defended?

Is that what Jesus would have done???

I find the whole neo-conservative "theology" as disgusting as some of the world’s most intolerant religions. I personally find many of the neo-conservative cabal nothing short of repulsive. I sincerely feel they owe the United States an apology for leading the charge for war against Iraq. In my mind, they are evil people – with the same sort of dogmatic fervent as Osama bin Laden.

So much for the protection of the citizens of the United States of America. Well at least we've not had another 9-11 type attack since then...guess it's worth the billions spent.

So our US service men and women are "evil people" too protecting you!?

Comparing Christianity to militant Islam is an unfair, unwise and a ludicrous statement. Our country was founded on Christian principles and faith...written in stone all over Washington DC to prove.

This country was already well "founded" long before those white-ies on the boat got here.

not as The United States of America as you and I know it today. Give us a history lesson of your "well founded" country.

Dan

My wife grew up in a church that was militant in its theology. Women were second-class citizens. It was all about wives submit and give us your money.

I have to agree with Talpdx that some sections of Christianity are deeply disturbing. Thankfully there are enough balanced Christians who neutralize them.

Even within the 12 Disciples you had terrorists and extremists and those that took advantage of others. Jesus had a way of building bridges with his followers.

That is what I try to do with my Christian brothers and sisters who come from your perspective. We probably have more in common than you might think.

Jesus was/is pretty radical. Love your enemies? I think the younger conservative evangelicals I have been referring too on this thread are recognizing that Obama at least from his words comes across genuine and sincere and try’s to model a Christianity that is far more encompassing.

I don't think it's unfair at all.

There are factions within the Christian faith that clearly promote theocracy and violence. This is no different than militant Islam.

Those people give all the other Christians a very bad name.

We are not a theocracy and we do not torture and we don't start wars we don't need. Further, we give people due process and we honor our rule of law that applies equally to all.

All of those things are in our history, paid for with the blood of our own people.

This is why so many people are not happy about the performance of our current President. He's seriously bent our positive reputation in the world and has done more to promote terror than anyone expected, given the opportunity 9 / 11 presented to unify nations against this horrible tactic.

He is the least American President of my lifetime. Seriously glad I can at least say I didn't vote for the clown.

--->and he's a Republican, along with John McCain.

Remember that.

I like the non "American Taliban" type Christians. I think the world is a better place with them among us. The values they hold, the things they say, the lives they live are good and wholesome. They are the best advocates there is.

The others...

Let's just say they are not very good advocates and leave it at that.

>>Obama at least from his words comes across genuine and sincere and try’s to model a Christianity that is far more encompassing.

Obama has the most extreme record on the issue of abortion. Chris...answer this. Can a person be a "christian" with the abortion record as described below? His words and actions are not workin for me man...



Obama's abortion record

From Human Events

Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) portrays himself as a thoughtful Democrat who carefully considers both sides of controversial issues, but his radical stance on abortion puts him further left on that issue than even NARAL Pro-Choice America.

In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.

When the federal bill was being debated, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a statement that said, “Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act ... floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.”

But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted “present.” At the second he voted “no.”

The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote.

So McSame is a Christian?
Broadway???

Does being a Christian mean being Pro-Life then?

If not, then that's your answer. If so, well, then isn't that judging other Christians, and isn't that a bad thing to do?

(My Sunday School teacher thought so.)

Who's going to cast the first stone?

Herb?
DD's?
Broadway?
DJ?

It's gonna happen, but I'm curious to see how that goes.

From my perspective, I see two Christians, for example. One supports right to choose, the other pro-life. Both have a deep relationship with God, both go to Church, both have good families, solid jobs and are well regarded in their community.

So, whose to judge besides God?

So, whose to judge besides God?

Herb himself wants to be a Judge. He wants to lay down HIS laws and tell US what to do. Herb wants EVERYONE to think HIS way. NO EXCEPTIONS!

So the question is...what does it mean to be a Christian! "Christian" means Christ-like...you believe,serve and follow the teachings/truth of Jesus Christ as written in His Word/life's roadmap called the Bible. I challenge all of you to re-read the Gospels/beginning of the New Testament about His life when He was on this earth. He made claims that most of you on this board need to hear. Your current views on Christians and Christianity might have been warped by worldly values/influences instead of Jesus Christ...life's benchmark/bullseye.

John 14:6...Jesus said, "I am the Road, also the Truth, also the Life.

Everything about abortion is death...not the spirit of Jesus Christ

Everything about WAR is death but YOU Radical EXTREME RIGHTIES support it?
WTF?
That is NOT what Jesus would do!
NO argument is justified!

In your opinion, right Broadway?

How hard is it for Americans to comprehend that most if not all wars that American has fought since it began have been for the freedom of it's people? Why is the cost of freedom a concept so hard to grasp. Yes...yes...yes a million times I would rather not have war and resolve our problems more humane ways. Hardly no one wants war. Its always a last resort...but needed for freedom to live in the greatest country on earth.

And how, exactly, was our freedom threatened by Iraq?

"How hard is it for Americans to comprehend that most if not all wars that American has fought since it began have been for the freedom of it's people? Why is the cost of freedom a concept so hard to grasp."

Explain the current cnflict in Iraq then. How does that affect the freedom of you or me? Was Iraq REALLY a threat to us?

Explain Vietnam. Was Ho Chi Minh REALLY a threat to American freedom? Really?

I suppose Korea was a threat to us too ... it would have been such a simple jump to take over the United States and its people from the Korean Peninsula, wouldn't it have?

Shall I go on here? While we were part of a UN action in Korea, was it still a threat to US?

Don't give us this crap about all of the wars we've been in being all about the freedom of our people. It's a bunch of crap and you know it.

Dono, just to argue the other side, Saddam was going to trade in Euros to threaten the Petrodollar. That was one justification, not talked about much, for the regime itself as a weapon of mass destruction.

The loss of the status of the petrodollar *will* and today, *is* constraining us financially.

Technically, that is a loss of freedom.

Yes, but like you said, rarely, if ever mentioned by the Bush administration. The loss of economic freedom does not perpetuate the same sense of fear that loss of life and destruction to our "homeland" does.

A loss of freedom from being able to drive a vehicle that gets 8 mpg is one I can live with.

So-called pro-lifers really aren't pro-life, they are pro-control. They support war and the death penalty, so by default, they are not pro-life. They care more about controlling the decisions made within your household or with your doctor than they do about the good people already here on this earth. I get sick and tired of so-called pro-life hypocrites, such as Broadway, Herb, and their fellow traveller, Mike Erickson, talking a big game about being pro-life and pro-family. In reality, they're nothing but pure hypocrites who will drop off their hussy at the clinic and give her $300 to have an abortion should they find themselves involved with an unwanted pregnancy. It disgusts me!!

True that Dono.

Pro-control. Nailed it. Legislating moral choices for others IS offensive to me as well. Advocacy --even strong advocacy is fine, but not law without a rational fact based justification for it.

>>Legislating moral choices

or legislating morality. A lot of our current laws do that. If I hurt, kill, steal, lie to someone and get caught doing it...well the way we have our government set up is to legislate a punishment. Any other solutions out there?

Dan- I'm not sure why Obama chose to vote against that bill. I would disagree with him on it unless he could give me a good reason to re-think his position.

No doubt if Obama gets the nomination McCain will ask him as well and maybe I'll get the answer.

However that is but ONE issue. And it's your hot button issue. Your conservative nature does not see the bigger picture. For you the Bible has all the answers. Very black and white.

For me the Bible brings up more questions than answers. A bad thing? Not at all. It's where we struggle in our humanity. Again Jesus is the bridge between humanity and heaven. At least that's how I see it.

You got loads of cliché’s and one-liners that to the average ear are meaningless. Establish a relationship with people; be willing to walk in their shoes for a short time.

I still believe you're going to see many more young conservatives voting for Obama because his viewpoint is broader and a bit more mainstream. I believe he can get people to the table for a dialogue that is genuine and productive.

Andrew covered the answer pretty well in another thread:

"It's a false issue. The Illinois law was intended to advance the abortion battle by getting a law to declare a fetus a "person." It had no practical purpose.

Late term abortions (contrary to the belief of right-wing pro-lifers) are not performed because a healthy mother suddenly decides she doesn't want to carry the healthy fetus in her womb to term. Instead, late term abortions are performed to save the life of the mother or because the fetus is severely deformed, etc. These are heart-wrenching decisions made by doctors and mothers. Doctors perform them only reluctantly.

And any healthy fetus that could be delivered early to save the mother's life, would be. This is exactly what happened recently to a friend of mine. She was eight months pregnant and her life really was in danger due to the pregnancy. The doctor induced labor early and the baby was born prematurely (now doing fine along with the mother). That's what any doctor or mother would do. They would try to deliver a healthy baby, not abort the fetus. Babies are born premature all the time and doctors do whatever they can to save them. No law is needed."

Andrew

>>For you the Bible has all the answers

for many millions of Christians for thousands of years. Jesus was very "black or white" in His teachings. Just trying to emulate Him.

>>You got loads of cliché’s and one-liners that to the average ear are meaningless

I'm actually trying to communicate in a very common sense tone...well thought out/understandable. I'll try harder!

Thanks Vitalogy I had forgotten about Andrew's earlier post.

Dan-
Jesus was very clear on why he was here. Luke 4:18. "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed,"

Nowhere in that passage do I read, it's my way or the highway. It was about being a servant, a healer, a teacher.

Please DO that Broadway.

Put it out there, from your mind and your heart. It's better received that way.

There are differences between the crimes you mention and abortion.

A few actually.

First, those crimes of theft, murder, etc... can be tied to facts that justify the crime apart from moral choices.

If you steal something, another no longer has use of it. If you murder somebody, they no longer live.

All of these things can be traced back to the earliest law, which pre-dated the bible and was formed as a way to structure business transactions and expanded slowly to encompass lots of behavior. The early squabbling of merchants, service men and others led to the development of law to regulate these things for the greater good.

Key point here, the bible is well aligned with the body of common law we have built up, but is not the authority that drives it.

Facts are that authority. Natural facts, judged by juries, judges and other court decision making structures over time. Another element is mutually accepted definitions of things. Still another, but an important one for us here in America, is that our legal authority comes from the consent of the governed. We literally recognize that having government is better than not, and we agree to be bound by it's legal structure and authority for our greater quality of life. Finally, we are the law, the government in that we all can choose to serve, or be called upon to serve to administer these things.

Everyone agrees that we have a right to life. Everybody agrees that taking property that is not owned by us, denies others the fruits of their labor or maybe just the value stored in the thing stolen.

Another difference between these crimes and abortion is that these crimes involve people. Viable, people.

A few cells isn't a person --at least not in the sense of the laws you cite.

As of right now, today, there is no mutually agreed upon definition of when a person begins to exist. Some of us think it's when the fetus is viable. Others think it's when they are born. Still others think it's the moment of conception.

All valid, IMHO! It could be any of these.

Over time, the body of common law has evolved to articulate rights --expectations we all share. We share these expectations because a core pillar of our law is that it applies to everyone equally.

(reality is as equally as we can manage, but don't let that stop the discussion)

In the legal sense then, we need common, mutually accepted, fact based elements from which to build a legal framework. With the fetus, and the mother, they are intertwined, and legally troubling as we have not defined the various states that occur during this process. We don't know, for example, when the self is realized. That's a problem where trying to compare abortion to theft as both moral choices we have law to address.

On the matter of authority through commonly accepted definitions, the Bible is not one of these things! There are lots of Bibles and lots of readers, all of whom will tell you lots of different things.

This board being a case in point.

That's not a slam on the Bible, or any body's faith. It is however a statement of fact on the state of interpretation today.

We don't use law to regulate morals. A lot of people think this is true, but it really isn't. We use law to regulate matters of property and harm.

This is a big part of why adultery isn't illegal, BTW. If you've been cheated on, the harm is as big as you think it is. There are no absolutes here, because the harm to be addressed is arbitrary. Another example of this is profanity. Some people really are offended by it. Others could care less. It's just a word, where it's impact is up to the listener. Arbitrary.

We have two kinds of courts for this stuff. Criminal court is where we deliver punishments for known, accepted crimes. Civil courts are where we deal with more arbitrary harm. Get cheated on? Well, you can go to divorce court and have at it. Kill your spouse and you are going to criminal jail.

You are convinced that this is a criminal issue. You justify that with your interpretation of the Bible, your beliefs about when the person exists, and the emotional connotations surrounding that. All good, but not good enough to justify law, when counter opinions exist that are as plausible as yours are.

I don't think a few cells feels anything. That's plausible. I don't think avoiding sex before marriage is a good idea either. My reasons are for compatibility and a long and healthy relationship, depending on overall physical compatibility between the married parties. Again, plausible.

I'm not saying you are WRONG. Not at all.

I'm not saying I am right.

I am saying that our views are plausible, and our choices based on them are valid as a result. That is one pillar of the pro-choice point of view.

Failure to recognize this dynamic is offensive. It's offensive because it's selfish, and a flat out denial of others ideological, philosophical, and theological thinking. We are a free nation, meaning we are free to disagree or not, and debate is encouraged.

Removing choice from the abortion equation, without first reaching some mutually accepted, fact based, definition of when a person begins, is really trying to just shut down the debate and marginalize others so you can feel better about the whole thing. That really sucks man. It just does.

Emulating Jesus. I could just see Him at your run of the mill evangelical Christian church, in full fire and brimstone glory. First He condemns gays to hell, then the divorced to hell, then all non-Christians to hell. Then He goes one step further and condemns all non-evangelicals to an afterlife of hell. This leaves the chosen ones, our resident Christian bigots. Heaven is there’s for the taking. And don’t worry about those heathens, because if they didn’t hear the message as disseminated by your run of the mill evangelical preacher, then they’re getting what they deserve.

I just cringe at the thought that people in this day and age would take to heart a message filled with so much ignorance and hate and have the gall to call themselves Christians. It’s tragic. The Christ I know I’m sure takes pity on such souls, for they know not the true meaning of His word.

Talpdx as one brother in Christ to another all I can say is...no shit.

There's a carrot and a stick with the Gospels, guys.

Salvation is indeed a gift. Yet one must also carry their cross daily.

"Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple." Luke 14:27

That often means repentance, not cheap grace. We're told to go through the NARROW gate. The broad gate leadeth to destruction.

"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it." Matthew 7:13

Change is hard. But God loves us too much to want us stuck in our old ways. Repentance is a turning from the sin nature.

Read it and heed it now, or read it and weep later.

Herb

"We're told to go throught the NARROW gate."

Narrow gate yes....Narrow minds no.

Another point for both Broadway Dan and Herb.

When you use words like "you should" it means you're not ready to meet the person where they are. That’s when you get comments like…”don’t shove the bible down our throats.”

One thing Jesus did over and over in his ministry was meeting people where they were at in their need. That is where you establish a relationship, the trust and the exchange of experiences.

I never quote scripture for others on this board to think about, I quote scripture when I feel you Herb and Broadway have misrepresented scripture or in some way perverted it.

You two have turned more people off to spiritual things than anyone else on this board. You two seem to think this is some kind of "mission field." The Christians on this board only come out when you two come off sounding very pretentious.

They just don't seem happy enough with themselves to even consider giving God a shot. In fact, the more they talk about God, the more it feels like they are doing wrong in their personal lives. You know how someone will rail against the very thing they are guilty of doing? ( Do I really need to list the scandals of late? ). It's really getting creepy and sending some big red flags to me.

And how, exactly, was our freedom threatened by Iraq?

Broadway!!!!!
You did a bob and weave just like Herb does when asked questions.

I never did read an answer to Boradway's question that I asked of him;

How does a person get into heaven? Specificaly.Just,in your heart, quietly and to yourself say that you believe that Jesus existed? Surely there has to be more than that. Or maybe that IS it all takes.

Which bring up other questions, like, can you believe all the things listed above yet do some things that are wrong, and still get into heaven? Can your salvation be revoked? Unwillingly? Or perhaps Broadway belives in levels of salvation. Pergatory, becoming angels, picnicing with lamb chops with Judas and finally living with your heavenly bodied families and pets...do pets go to heaven too? Let's hope I get assigned to an area that doesn't allow parrots. What if I don't like going to church? Am I still saved? What if I believe that I am personally writing what is going to be the thrid book of the Bible? " But God, I speak so parenthetically sometimes ( you know what I mean? ) I don't know if what I thought I heard in that burning barb-b-que was your voice or a critter that has snuck under the coals unseen.

My belief is that you say it out loud, that you believe in God, to him, you are saved. NOTHING else. No " works " or marrying 28 wives " or concecrating a flag or bible will revoke your salvation." You still get to go to heaven.

Now, go ahead and ask me how I reconcille so many bad things I do? Go ahead. Ask me. Because, from what I gather, it's all about ME, right? I'll answer it honestly. Go ahead. Try it. Nail me on something so I can address it by either explaing how you are wrong or admit that I DO do that and feel bad enough to want to change it.

Thank you, Chris. You put into words exactly what I am, and have been thinking and feeling recently.

However, I don't feel that Herb and Broadway et. al are worth "coming out" to respond to. I can't think of anybody that has "turned me off" to the Bible and God more than the 2 (or actually 4) of them.

Thankfully, you speak for me (and probably for many of us) when you challenge them. Thank you for doing it so eloquently and thoughtfully.

I think "The Christians on this board DON'T come out" when those two (4) start trying to preach their self-righteous sad and disturbing versions of what they believe. I just sit back whilst rolling my eyes and shaking my head at their sad little absurdities.

It's not worth responding to. Like I said earlier, "I don't have to lift a finger", other than my middle one, to feel that Karma and the Big Kahuna will have it's/his way with them.

Chris, I recently started going to a different Church (same religion) that offers a lot of family-centered services and activities, mainly for the benefit of Baby M. The "Family Eucharist" is wonderful and full of young kids who sit up front at the alter, and the sermon is directed at the kids, in a sweet, kind and fun way for them.

The added bonus for me is that they have a female priest, who converted from Greek Orthodox, who has brought me back to being intested in Church in a good way. She is smart, well-read, and honest and forthright in her questioning and understanding of Religion and spirituality, God and Jesus in a "make you think" manner. She makes me want to know more...As do you.

I have always loved the ritual of church, but now I'm going because I want to. I want to hear what she says. I want my daughter to have that foundation. I feel good when I leave there, I want to know these people better. I think about what they've said and am looking into the books and people that she's talked about. There appears to be an amazing variety of people here, they don't exclude anyone.

The God there (and the spiritualty in my life) seems not to be the same one that Herb and Broadway loudly proclaim to "know" better than anyone here, even better than a PK.

The Mother said a few weeks ago that she sees all the religions as many streams that join up and form a giant river and then flow into and become a big lake, or the ocean. I thought that was a cool analogy, and one I agree with and have been thinking about.

That's why it does my heart good to see a sea of 75,000 people turn out on a Sunday, a beautiful day when they could be doing anything else, to hear someone speak, and hear another message of hope and unity and change for this country. And that it will take ALL of us, not just him. For the very first time in my (voting age) life, I feel that I am voting for someone that I actually admire and I feel hopeful about our future. Instead of the lesser of 2 evils.

You can't "buy" that at a $33,000 dinner at the PDX Airport Sheraton. Even if you had Mick Jagger doing lap dances.

So carry on. Herrocrite, Broadway, and the rest of your ilk, you are in the minority here, and I'm so glad that I don't live in your scary, narrow little worlds.

And Chris, Thanks again.

I am really amazed nobody has figured out who Broadway really is.

Is that a trick question?

Who is he? Is he someone that I should know? Or do you even know who he is?

Do you mean it's not Charlton "Moses" Heston?

(Gasp!)

Could it be Dan "Short" Sheets?

Tommy Tune?

Marvin-

I personally know Broadway and have for over 20 years. We do share a passion for radio.


Mrs. M thanks for your kind and deeply thoughtful words. Glad you are finding a grounding at a place where the rivers of faith converge.

Man...someone turn down the heat...it's getting hot here in the studio! These last few posts I have been honored and pilliaged...hey thats America...I'm ok. Yes I think I'm right about all of the issues being discuss here but you think your right too. I'm just the messenger. If your irrate at me I think your really at odds with God. Have it out with Him. Check out His word and what God says about Himself. I could make a host of individual comments to finish this post but as they say in radio...too numerous to mention now.

Politics, religion...ok...somewhat important but mostly I really do have a concern and love for each one of you and that is where will you spend eternity. Ten out of ten people die and one day you will. You can know for certain what happens after you pass on.

John 3 This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life. God didn't go to all the trouble of sending his Son merely to point an accusing finger, telling the world how bad it was. He came to help, to put the world right again. Anyone who trusts in him is acquitted; anyone who refuses to trust him has long since been under the death sentence without knowing it.

"Yes I think I'm right about all of the issues..."
"I'm just the messenger."

As a self-appointed egotistical delivery boy, you're sure doing a crappy job of it.

"I could make a host of individual comments to finish this post"

But what? You're too lazy? You can't do it? You know that you're bringing nothing to the table besides bible quotes? Lame. But thanks for thoughtfully sparing us the waste of time reading your pat answers.

You know Dan this is where you and I are different. It seems you feel the need to preach, where I feel the need to relate. Our approach is different and I do believe the result is as well.

"Some people are so heavenly minded they're no earthly good," as the old saying goes.

I'm not here to try and "get people into Heaven." That journey is different for all of us, and for some it's the farthest thing from their minds. But I can come along side those people and offer a helping hand, a listening ear or just be that person in the room who quietly offers support. I call it the gift of encouragement.

I'm also concerned about people's well being. Some of us have been posting here long enough where they feel like family or at least good friends, and when something happens to one of them this vastly diverse community has shown over and over again how much they actually care about each other.

Then you and Herb speak up and it's like...."puke!!"

I sincerely believe you and Herb truly think you're doing God's Will by posting the way you do. Sadly, it divides and turns people off. But some how you and Herb wear that as a badge of honor.

Don't tell people how YOU want them to live, accept people for WHERE they are living. Maybe that concept is just too simple for you to understand.

"You can know for certain what happens after you pass on."

No you can't. No one knows, no matter how hard they try to convince you.

Standing ovation for Chris.

Hear, Hear!

Well done. That is how things go here exactly, when they go well.

"Sadly, it divides and turns people off."

What one thinks about Jesus causes division, and Jesus emphatically said it would. So sharp would be the divisions caused by Christ, that He said:

For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a mans enemies will be those of his own household’ Matthew 10:35-36

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Matthew 10:34

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. Luke 12:51

He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

Chris, those are the words of Jesus, Himself. Division, indeed. He tells us that He came here to cause it. As much as I like Kum-Bah-Yah, it isn't in the cards. It's not about appeasement, or peace at all costs. It's about the Gospel Truth.

Speaking of division around this crowd, I can't wait for the look on all your faces when you see Mr. Nixon in heaven, wings, harp and even a halo, God willing.

Herb

Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Don't kill the messenger.

The Judge shall sit at the Right hand of God, The Father.

Herb

"Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone".

Jesus told the following parable:

A farmer went out to plant some seed. As he scattered it across his field, some of the seed fell on a footpath, and the birds came and ate it. Other seed fell on shallow soil with underlying rock. The seed sprouted quickly because the soil was shallow. But the plant soon wilted under the hot sun, and since it didn’t have deep roots, it died. Other seed fell among thorns that grew up and choked out the tender plants so they produced no grain. Still other seeds fell on fertile soil, and they sprouted, grew, and produced a crop that was thirty, sixty, and even a hundred times as much as had been planted! (Mark 4:3-9)

He explained the parable this way to his disciples:

The farmer plants seed by taking God’s word to others. The seed that fell on the footpath represents those who hear the message, only to have Satan come at once and take it away. The seed on the rocky soil represents those who hear the message and immediately receive it with joy. But since they don’t have deep roots, they don’t last long. They fall away as soon as they have problems or are persecuted for believing God’s word. The seed that fell among the thorns represents others who hear God’s word, but all too quickly the message is crowded out by the worries of this life, the lure of wealth, and the desire for other things, so no fruit is produced. And the seed that fell on good soil represents those who hear and accept God’s word and produce a harvest of thirty, sixty, or even a hundred times as much as had been planted! (vv. 14-20)

As you can see, our reaction to God’s Word has very real consequences. Jesus’ explanation helps us understand how people who responded to the same message take radically different directions in life. They heard the same truth but the soil of their lives received that truth in different ways.

Maybe Herb people would actual allow the Word of God into their hearts if you kept your mouth shut.

Oh hell. Let me settle this.

God is not an asshole. If he comes across that way, blame the messenger.

Herb,

Amen. Good job. After looking at the responses you received here, and other places, I couldn't help thinking about H.G. Wells Morlocks and their reaction to a light disturbing their comfortable world. I'm glad you're not one to curse the darkness.

It's the hypocrit's in this world that do more harm than good.

Seek it not by any one road. To each temperament there is one road which seems the most desirable. But the way is not found by devotion alone, by religious contemplation alone, by ardent progress, by self-sacrificing labor, by studious observation of life. None alone can take the disciple more than one step onward. All steps are necessary to make up the ladder. The vices of men become steps in the ladder, one by one, as they are surmounted. The virtues of man are steps indeed, necessary -- not by any means to be dispensed with. Yet, though they create a fair atmosphere and a happy future, they are useless if they stand alone. The whole nature of man must be used wisely by the one who desires to enter the way. Each man is to himself absolutely the way, the truth, and the life. But he is only so when he grasps his whole individuality firmly, and, by the force of his awakened spiritual will, recognizes this individuality as not himself, but that thing which he has with pain created for his own use, and by means of which he purposes, as his growth slowly develops his intelligence, to reach to the life beyond individuality. When he knows that for this his wonderful complex separated life exists, then, indeed, and then only, he is upon the way. Seek it by plunging into the mysterious and glorious depths of your own inmost being. Seek it by testing all experience, by utilizing the senses in order to understand the growth and meaning of individuality, and the beauty and obscurity of those other divine fragments which are struggling side by side with you, and form the race to which you belong. Seek it by study of the laws of being, the laws of nature, the laws of the supernatural: and seek it by making the profound obeisance of the soul to the dim star that burns within. Steadily, as you watch and worship, its light will grow stronger. Then you may know you have found the beginning of the way. And when you have found the end its light will suddenly become the infinite light.

"I'm glad you're not one to curse the darkness."

Thanks, Stonewall.

Herb

John 8:12

>>I'm not here to try and "get people into Heaven." That journey is different for all of us.

Chris...could you be more specific about peoples different journeys to heaven.

God is not an asshole. If he comes across that way, blame the messenger.

Couldn't have been said any better!

Broadway Dan-

Upon reading what I wrote I could see where it came across vague. Thanks for pointing that out. I will try and be clearer.

The journey of life is different for all of us. Our experiences are different thus our observations vary.

I know you are familiar with the music of Charlie Peacock. He has a song from an album that came out circa 1990 called "Experience."

Lyrics go: "We can only posses what we experience. Truth to be understood must be lived."

What happens is Herb and you and others who like to share scripture cherry pick it. It's not taken out of context it's just you don't give it any context.

Any good preacher will give you the background of scripture. The setting, who the writer is speaking too. When Herb drops Matthew 10:35-36 in a post, and if you choose to read it literally, it's going to look like Jesus is being unfair and unloving.

Had Herb set up the passage in context and not cherry picked a verse to justify his reasoning, then I would be more inclined as a reader to pursue checking that passage out.

You or Herb and it looks like Stonewall has joined in as well, seem to do is build walls. I try to build bridges when it comes to each of our faith journeys.

Sometimes you have give people space. Just dropping a bible verse out of the blue and expecting people to go and read it on their own is lazy evangelism. You might feel good about all your knowledge of scripture, but what good is it if you don't leave the door open for discourse.

Chris, although I could try to guess, I'd be curious about your view of 'Way of the Master' radio programme, who stress the biblical need for repentance.

As I see it, the laziest evangelism of all is trying to soft-peddle the Gospel whilst not explaining how sin is the way of death.

As you may know, the 'Way of the Master' focuses on people first understanding that we all fall short. Only then will the unsaved grasp the need for a Saviour.

My hunch is that you'd take issue with a literal understanding of Scripture, especially the need for repentance. But I may be wrong.

Herb

If somebody posts up a bunch of assertions, then cites a verse as "proof", it's not, period. The verse may resonate, it may not, but it's not in and of itself, proof of anything rational. Sorry.

That's really the line for me, and I'm going to tell you why. (again) Before continuing with this post, know this is not a challenge to whatever, if ever, your faith is. Live it, share it, enjoy it, grow from it, all good.

Nobody here (on the board and on the planet) is an authority on God. The simple reality is, if anybody was, these discussions would then be moot, leaving us with either being compliant, or non-compliant under a known higher authority, with all of us knowing the score, not choosing it, long before now.

Also, a cold addendum to the path discussion:

Given we lack this absolute authority, these things are then arbitrary. They range from one person having a fairly unique set of beliefs, such as the young woman in Kansas and her Spaghetti Monster and the large outstanding bounty for anybody able to prove Jesus is not the son of the thing, to large bodies of people sharing many, if not all belief elements.

IMHO, some people make the mistake of believing size matters when it really doesn't. And that's the path right there.

Where ever any of us are on it, that is where we all work from. That is a direct result of the choices we make in what we believe and what we do not. The big realization here is that we all choose, like it or not, and live by those choices. What others do has ZERO impact on this, despite MANY claims to the contrary.

Therefore, pushing somebody on this isn't good advocacy. These are things that are accepted because they ring just and true for each of us. They are not things we can be feared into believing, or we risk believing for the wrong reasons, based on lies to our selves.

Lies are false; therefore beliefs based on lies --even lies to our own selves, are false. Think really hard about that and the implications it has for scaring, pushing, or guilt-ing others into some belief system.

(safety tip --> this is harmful to people, particularly young people)

I know absolutely you hard liners don't like the word "arbitrary". Sorry. I really am. However, that is clearly the state of things today, with more variants on religion, all saying the others are either going to burn, or are sinning, or some other goofy thing. Until that changes, it's absolutely arbitrary, meaning we all get to choose how, where and when and if we buy any, all or some of it, on our terms, always.

And there is the justification for talking, finding common ground, building bridges, and all the other good things that we hear from true believers, working in earnest to share what they believe they have found.

Carry on folks.

And to get back to the topic at hand, sort of, I don't know whether a large majority of those gathering at the Obama rally on Sunday were of the evangelical type, but from my vantage point there were an awful lot of young folks in attendance. Though, if faith and hope are closely intertwined, then I'd speculate many are counting on him to be the answer to their prayers in 2008.

Herb-
I'm not familiar with "The Way of Master" radio show so I cannot comment on it or it's content.

Chris...check out

www.wayofthemaster.com

Live at 1:00pm daily on your former radio stomping grounds 800 KPDQ AM

Herb...thanks for bringing up. Very focused group that I think all will benefit from. Maybe sometimes you have go to back to your (spiritual) roots.

>>there were an awful lot of young folks in attendance

did they seem like voting age demos? If they were history has largely shown that they don't vote that well in the general.

>>Nobody here (on the board and on the planet) is an authority on God.

Well He is very knowable. He gave us His word to get to know more about Him. A challenge to all! Try your hardest to try to disprove Jesus Christ as God. Many have found Him trying to do so.

Dan I doubt I'll have time to listen. That's in the middle of my work day and since I work in a world of audio, having other audio going on would be too distracting. Unless it's work related.

Also I rarely listen to the radio these days anyway.

Agreed Broadway, but you must also admit, in like kind, that knowable is not the aggressive stand, but the passive one.

For the person, who does not believe, there is no burden to disprove anything. It's just not self-evident and that's enough.

However, such a person may see somebody living in ways not familiar and ask "why", "how", "who?".

See the difference?

Again, I'm struck with the comments >>Nobody here (on the board and on the planet) is an authority on God. That seems rather contradictory to your past posts. You seem to relish having the inside track on the inner workings of the whole God matter.

I can appreciate piety, but from an objective source. What I read from you is a litany of what's and wherefores relative to the whole matter of God; how He renders judgment upon us earthlings, how His word should be interpreted, and who benefits in the afterlife. But I find all the inconsistencies in your statements on faith and Christianity rather confusing. Maybe if my faith were blind I wouldn’t feel so conflicted.

Hey, this thread is getting kind of hammered right?

Dono raises a very interesting point of discussion; namely, is faith linked to hope, or not?

I see the contrasts here, which BTW ideally reflect the very polarized Oregon we live in nicely, this way:

On one hand, we've got the fear of god, fire, brimstone, view where it's all pretty ugly really. And I mean ugly as in lots of shame, fear, violence, tension.

On the other, we've got the share god, Jesus is Love, view where it's not ugly. Maybe it's actually pretty, or just decent. Don't really know.

Seems to me, if one is a hopeful person, and I mean hope as in things could be worse and they might just get better kind of person, and that person has strong faith, then are the two linked that way, by their nature, or...

If one is a gloom and doom, world is out to get you, we are all evil, kind of person, then faith is more of a coping thing where the world kind of sucks, and knowing there is something better after having experienced this, means being able to deal.

Clearly the two kinds of hope are different. They share some vision of an after life future of bliss, goodness, warm fuzzy, happy fun stuff. Perfection maybe.

The difference lies in the outlook for the here and now, earthly condition.

I don't think the world, in and of itself is a bad place. Some of the people in it can make it that way, but there is always one's expectations. Set them low, and the world is decent. Set them too high and the world sucks, right?

(been battling that one recently, deciding to live smaller, sort of reset and just experience for a while. It's working for me.)

Others I know believe we are bad and really just need redemption. There is so much shame in that, I just can't go there. If one of us is trying to be good, and does it in earnest, then we are good enough.

(which hints at lazy being bad on a lot of levels, just like Momma said it was. Hmmm...)

There is a difference in life perception as we age too. Mid to older people, and I'm talking 35 - 40 plus bring new really new experiences and enough perspective to see the limits.

At 20, these things are far less clear.

Obama is 40ish right? If so, he's young where Presidents are concerned. That's going to attract the younger crowd, and clearly shows in how he's able to use new school media and networking techniques.

(So many others are still playing big time catch up in that.)

Maybe Obama is showing us that there are lots of people that have the brighter world view. We are good, we can improve, it can be better.

And that means the up and coming generation at least sees that in significant numbers now. Will it hold?

That will depend on how the Presidential term goes.

More importantly, is this catchy?

I'm hoping it is really. On a personal level, it's been kind of an ugly ride. I could use a positive spark politically. A high tide lifts all boats. My boat could use some lifting.

Maybe that's shallow, but it's real. I also think it's powerful too.

"Seems to me, if one is a hopeful person, and I mean hope as in things could be worse and they might just get better kind of person, and that person has strong faith, then are the two linked that way, by their nature, or...

If one is a gloom and doom, world is out to get you, we are all evil, kind of person, then faith is more of a coping thing where the world kind of sucks, and knowing there is something better after having experienced this, means being able to deal."

A person's perspective on and interpretation of God and God's word is primarly a reflection of that person. We look to God to be who we are, or who we wish ourselves to be.

The Bible is simply language (that has been translated and retranslated), and every single language is an imperfect tool of communication. As an imperfect tool, one must apply some degree of interpretation in order to derive the complete meaning of any written word. This is where the reader begins to project themselves on the text.

Herb and Chris generally have vastly different views of the Gospel and neither is 'right' or 'wrong.' The difference comes from who they are as men, as they project their world views into their interpretations. I get the impression that Chris understands this, but the idea of Gospel Truth being anything less than absolute scares people like Herb shitless, because his black-and-white Christianity is essentially the only pillar holding up his black-and-white world view.

>>Christianity is essentially the only pillar holding up his black-and-white world view

It's worked for many millions for thousands of years. Jesus Christ..."the pillar"...is all you need!

Romans 3 God treats everyone alike. He accepts people only because they have faith in Jesus Christ. All of us have sinned and fallen short of God's glory. But God treats us much better than we deserve, and because of Christ Jesus, he freely accepts us and sets us free from our sins. God sent Christ to be our sacrifice. Christ offered his life's blood, so that by faith in him we could come to God. And God did this to show that in the past he was right to be patient and forgive sinners. This also shows that God is right when he accepts people who have faith in Jesus.

Ed-
I like your take and your understanding. And I would agree that Herb and I come from different worldviews. I'm not sure where in Herb's world how he came to interpret scripture since he has held his personal cards close, which I can truly respect.

Both Herb and I do lean on theologians to help explain and direct our understanding of scripture. We even like some of the same ones. However because of our differing worldviews our perspectives vary.

I posed a simple question to my retired pastor dad via email yesterday. I simply wrote: "Matthew 10:35-36?" Herb had used this scripture in a previous post.

Without boring others on this board with my dad's rather detailed email he summarized by saying "there's no easy answer to these few words... they need to have context beyond just what is written down - actually many years after the experience by people's remembrances.. and then it wasn't until the third and fourth century that we even have the first "autograph" copies of the early texts... but how strongly the words were remembered by those whose forerunners had exemplified.. this was all totally new in Jesus... and it's funneled down to you and me nearly 2K years later. That defies logic."

My father will be turning 82 in June. He's seen it all. His perspective no doubt influences mine and I am grateful for that influence.

Dan I did check out that link you sent about the show "Way of Master." And actually I had come across the TV version of the show on a couple of occasions on TBN. I was pretty much turned off by the show and only found myself watching a minute or two.

>> I was pretty much turned off by the show

that's too bad...It's growing in popularity for it's progressive evangelistic concepts. It's definately targeted to the growing Christian...not saying your not one of them.

>> "Matthew 10:35-36?"

Here's how the Message version states the passage....

Don't think I've come to make life cozy. I've come to cut—make a sharp knife-cut between son and father, daughter and mother, bride and mother-in-law—cut through these cozy domestic arrangements and free you for God. Well-meaning family members can be your worst enemies. If you prefer father or mother over me, you don't deserve me. If you prefer son or daughter over me, you don't deserve me. If you don't go all the way with me, through thick and thin, you don't deserve me. If your first concern is to look after yourself, you'll never find yourself. But if you forget about yourself and look to me, you'll find both yourself and me.

I think Jesus was talking loyalty to Him alone here. Hey Chris...were having Bible study!
Talk about getting off topic!

Dan- I think we need our own thread or start emailing each other.

hey kiddin aside...new thread it is...

back on thread...your setup article from the Seattle PI and SPU. Both have left leanings and might slant it's assumptions.

It's but one article and I realize that. But there have been other articles that have come out in the past year that have said much of the same thing.

Romans 3 God treats everyone alike. He accepts people only because they have faith in Jesus Christ. All of us have sinned and fallen short of God's glory. But God treats us much better than we deserve, and because of Christ Jesus, he freely accepts us and sets us free from our sins. God sent Christ to be our sacrifice. Christ offered his life's blood, so that by faith in him we could come to God. And God did this to show that in the past he was right to be patient and forgive sinners. This also shows that God is right when he accepts people who have faith in Jesus.

Ok, at the beginning of the verse, it reads “God treats everyone alike”. But then the next sentence contracts that claim. “He accepts people only because they have faith in Jesus Christ”. I’m trying to be open minded, but with contradictory statements like that, it leaves me confused.

I am no means biblical scholar, but it seems that The Bible is riddled with conflicting statements and confusing rhetoric. What about all the people who grace this planet but never hear the word of God or accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior? Or those who lived and died before the birth of Jesus? Does that mean Moses is languishing in hell? I’m totally serious; I find it all very confusing. Some contend that faith and logic go hand in hand, but I’m finding it difficult connecting the dots.

Talpdx you ask some great questions that don't have simple answers.

This is where reading the bible literally, or at least certain passages, will leave you confused. And believe me there are still passages that have me scratching my head.

Context, historical setting, and knowing a little bit about the writer and whom the writer is intending to write too, all play apart in understanding scripture.

I never see the bible conflicting itself because you have to remember that the years it covers are several thousand. You also have to understand that many of the stories were heard second hand and then written down much later. So oral tradition was vital, but ever changing.

That is why I look to those who have studied the scriptures for a living and have a passion to understand, that which is not understandable.

As much as Broadway and Herb say, just read bible and then cherry pick certain passages that they feel will give clarity, what you get is exactly what you're dealing with.

Don't look at the bible as if it will give you "all the answers." For me it gives more questions. But even within all that I am able to discern what I believe the bible is trying to project. And to me the bible's central figure and theme is Jesus.

Take the bible in small bites, do some research, ask questions and realize it's all apart of the journey.

Trying to connect the dots will only frustrate you because there are so many little details that will throw you off.

And it's okay to say...I don't understand, I don't get it. You're in good company.

Chris, I very much appreciate your comments. In all candor, I find the whole issue of Christianity troubling. Given that so much of The Bible was written and rewritten many times over, coupled with the removal of books which did not comport with prevailing theological views of certain Christian leaders of times past, I question its authority. And too, I see Jesus Christ as a man of love. He lived amongst the misfits of his time, and yet today, some of His followers mock this message of love and tolerance. Instead, they stand out as some of the most intolerant people on Earth.

Then there is the issue of who goes to heaven? I just don’t understand how so many people could be excluded for the Kingdom of God if they don’t accept Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. That would seem to eliminate billions of people over centuries. What about people who lack the intellectually capacity to make such a commitment to Jesus Christ? Are we to believe that God is so heartless that the mentally disabled are bound for an afterlife devoid of admission into God’s heavenly kingdom?

So very confusing.

I agree Talpdx.

I grew up in a Christian home but not the ultra conservative or fundamentalist kind. It wasn't until I got into college did find out that "conservative Christians" even exsisted.

Let me share an email from a long time pastor friend of mine who recently had a letter he wrote published in the local paper where he lives.

Friends and Family,
Recently I became convinced that I could no longer let a fellow minister and his congregation 'swing-in-the-wind' of public opinion, and hence sent off a 'Letter to the Editor' of the Aberdeen Daily World newspaper. Said letter was published in full in this past Sunday's edition of the paper, under the headline (picked up from my letter) 'Issues of Sexuality Have Always Plagued the Church.'

To: Letters to the Editor
The Daily World

Because Pastor Gregg Sealey and the congregation of Hoquiam United Methodist Church have taken a very public stance in being open and inviting to gays and lesbians, Mr. Sealey has been the focus of many recent letters to the editor. Most -- though not all – of these have been quite hostile, and several have implied that Pastor Sealey has totally misread the Bible.

As a fellow minister, and as a person of faith who grew up in a faith tradition that focused almost exclusively on 'holiness'(and hence excluded many in our community), I would encourage all of us – Christian or not – to be very careful before we declare who God will or will not accept in God’s (not ours) kin-dom.

When we are tempted to use the Old Testament 'Holiness Codes' to define what is or is not acceptable, may we remember that Jesus consistently challenged the rigid interpretations of his faith tradition, and was consistently chastised for welcoming and mingling with those called 'outcasts and sinners.' Let us also remember how often Jesus was willing to touch in love, and accept in grace, the untouchables of his day.

Let us also remember that the Old Testament prophets consistently had to roar and threaten their rulers and elites because, they declared, God was far more concerned with the way His people treated the widow, the orphan, and the alien (or stranger) in their midst, than with the piety of their worship practices.

Let’s also remember the Apostle Peter’s dream, as recorded in Acts, when God challenged Peter to 'violate' the Jewish dietary code, one of the central elements of what it meant to be a 'holy people.' God’s reported words to Peter, 'Don’t you dare call unclean what I call clean!' pulls me up short every time I’m tempted to believe that I know precisely what God will, or God won’t, accept.

Further, as the story of the early Christian church is related in Scripture, we who are Gentiles wouldn’t even have been included by adoption into God’s Covenant with Israel, had not Peter had his 'wake up call' and been sufficiently shaken in his convictions to go visit Cornelius and realize that even Gentiles could receive the Holy Spirit.

Issues of sexuality have always plagued the church, and likely always will. Issues of appropriate intimacy between heterosexual and non-married individuals are complex, much less intimacy and relationships that are outside 'traditional' definitions. However I would challenge all of us to remember that issues such as homosexuality - though important -- can sidetrack this community (and every human community) from the deeper challenge of discerning how we choose to live with each other, and how we unite to serve all of God’s creatures (and maybe especially those whose circumstances cause us to squirm).

As declared in an old English proverb, 'It takes all sorts to make a world.'

>>I am no means biblical scholar, but it seems that The Bible is riddled with conflicting statements and confusing rhetoric...

Talpdx..you have many great questions that even a theologian would have a challenge to answer.
The Bible talks so much about recieving Christ in your life and turning from your sin then you will (much) better understand His word. So many people don't want to do that cause they think they know better and want to control their lifes when God knows you better that you know yourself!
Life is not about you...its about God and His love for you not to "control" you but to "give you life and more abundantly"

Broadway/Dan

Here's another article that ties in with the original article I posted.
Like I said before....this is not yours or your fathers GOP anymore.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/us/01evangelical.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss