More Bible-thumping idiocy as the literalists install their theorcacy

[boutons_]

August 21, 2006
Church Fires Teacher for Being Woman

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 8:40 a.m. ET

WATERTOWN, N.Y. (AP) -- The minister of a church that dismissed a female Sunday School teacher after adopting what it called a literal interpretation of the Bible says a woman can perform any job -- outside of the church.

The First Baptist Church dismissed Mary Lambert on Aug. 9 with a letter explaining that the church had adopted an interpretation that prohibits women from teaching men. She had taught there for 54 years.

The letter quoted the first epistle to Timothy: ''I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.''

( exactly the same approach as Muslim men use to oppress their women )


The Rev. Timothy LaBouf, who also serves on the Watertown City Council, issued a statement saying his stance against women teaching men in Sunday school would not affect his decisions as a city leader in Watertown, where all five members of the council are men but the city manager who runs the city's day-to-day operations is a woman.

''I believe that a woman can perform any job and fulfill any responsibility that she desires to'' outside of the church, LaBouf wrote Saturday.

Mayor Jeffrey Graham, however, was bothered by the reasons given Lambert's dismissal.

''If what's said in that letter reflects the councilman's views, those are disturbing remarks in this day and age,'' Graham said. ''Maybe they wouldn't have been disturbing 500 years ago, but they are now.''

( The Bible-thumpers want to take USA backwards 500 years, into the Dark Ages. Paraphrasing Reagan: "It's a New Dark Ages in America" )

Lambert has publicly criticized the decision, but the church did not publicly address the matter until Saturday, a day after its board met. In a statement, the board said other issues were behind Lambert's dismissal, but it did not say what they were.

[Extra Stout]

You can go back and read the writings of church fathers back to the 2nd century, people who actually spoke and wrote in koine Greek, and nearly universally they would disagree with Rev. LaBouf.

The only one who might agree with him is Tertullian, and even that is pushing it.

This is why even most fundy churches would disagree with this decision. The board of deacons probably should replace him as pastor over this.

[Extra Stout]

Of course, if this was the BoD's idea too, then it just shows that upstate New York has ignorant white trash too.

[Phenomanul]

It's all in the context. 'Taken out of' in this case. This is a doctrinally bad decision IMO.

Look to Jesus' example. He 'broke' many of the social rules concerning the conduct of men towards women. If anything, Jesus was one of the first woman's rights activists...

Why does boutons_ insist on lumping everyone together. Including the 'bad apples.'

From now on I will refer to him as 'the fruit of Stalin's loins'. After all, if by his logic all Christians are the same, then all agnostic-athiests must be the same as well.

Well, maybe I won't take it that far but 'Damn!!!'.... he really ought to tone down his extreme hatred.

[2centsworth]

As a Christian I totally disagree with the Pastor's decision and believe something should and probably will be done.

All you can ask for is a backlash from the majority against the extremist. I wish guys like Buttons would realize Christians do a very good job of policing their own.

[Spurminator]

This is a Theocracy how?

Leave it to boutons to post an article about which everyone probably sides with his point of view and still find some way to look like the asshole.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Theocracy is an over-exaggeration, but seperation of church and state is not a strong point for the US. Take the lovely example of the US tying it's sexual health aid packages to pro-life (ie. no condom use, no abortions)... how many new cases if AIDS and backyard abortions has that religiously-influenced policy decision led to across the planet?

Then again, I shouldn't be surprised to see this from a place where roughly half the population doesn't accept the theory of evolution, yet inexplicably believes that "intelligent design" is science... oh, and anyone who wants to argue that it is should refer to the transcript of the Pennsylvania court case in which the scientists destroyed it and the judge agreed. From a scientific perspective, ID is nothing but faith in sheeps clothing.

[velik_m]

Why does boutons_ insist on lumping everyone together. Including the 'bad apples.'

From now on I will refer to him as 'the fruit of Stalin's loins'. After all, if by his logic all Christians are the same, then all agnostic-athiests must be the same as well.

Well, maybe I won't take it that far but 'Damn!!!'.... he really ought to tone down his extreme hatred.

i generally agree with you, but stalin is not the best example of "evil atheist": At the age of eight, Stalin began his education at the Gori Church School.

it's the converts that i find are most dangerous/biggest nutcases.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE=RuffnReadyOzStyle]
Then again, I shouldn't be surprised to see this from a place where roughly half the population doesn't accept the theory of evolution, yet inexplicably believes that "intelligent design" is science...

I don't believe that half of the population dismisses it outright or believes that ID is science. Link please.

Evolution is theory not law. With significant gaps in the theory wouldn't it be foolish to throw our full support behind it at this time?

[Phenomanul]

i generally agree with you, but stalin is not the best example of "evil atheist": At the age of eight, Stalin began his education at the Gori Church School.

it's the converts that i find are most dangerous/biggest nutcases.

Stalin is credited with the murder of over 40 million people. :wow

That's pretty 'evil' in my book. And he was a known atheist.

[Phenomanul]

Theocracy is an over-exaggeration, but seperation of church and state is not a strong point for the US. Take the lovely example of the US tying it's sexual health aid packages to pro-life (ie. no condom use, no abortions)... how many new cases if AIDS and backyard abortions has that religiously-influenced policy decision led to across the planet?

Then again, I shouldn't be surprised to see this from a place where roughly half the population doesn't accept the theory of evolution, yet inexplicably believes that "intelligent design" is science... oh, and anyone who wants to argue that it is should refer to the transcript of the Pennsylvania court case in which the scientists destroyed it and the judge agreed. From a scientific perspective, ID is nothing but faith in sheeps clothing.

The Pennsylvania?? transcript addressed the weak and poorly constructed arguments brought up by the Dover school board (in Delaware). It did nothing to 'hurt' the case for the ID movement as a whole, particularly because questions will still remain until the origins of DNA or RNA can be addressed with a naturalistic process.

[Extra Stout]

I don't believe that half of the population dismisses it outright or believes that ID is science. Link please.

Evolution is theory not law. With significant gaps in the theory wouldn't it be foolish to throw our full support behind it at this time?
Scientists just cringed.

A scientific law is something axiomatic, like the Second Law of Thermodynamics, (delta)S > 0.

A theory is more of a comprehensive model that best accomodates all the available evidence.

Evolution is one of the really strong theories, on the order of the theory of gravity. It is the foundation for pretty much all modern biology, and is only questioned in the political circles of countries with a poor understanding of the relationship between religion and science.

You may have been thinking of a hypothesis, which is a proposed explanation that has not been well proven.

[velik_m]

Stalin is credited with the murder of over 40 million people. :wow

That's pretty 'evil' in my book. And he was a known atheist.

yes he was evil, but he had christian upbringig - that was my point.

[gtownspur]

yes he was evil, but he had christian upbringig - that was my point.


and how does that pertain to how evil he was?

[Phenomanul]

yes he was evil, but he had christian upbringing - that was my point.


In post revolution Russia??? It would have been (and obviously was) very shaky instruction. Russia never took the influx of Christian missionaries very well. In fact, the Orthodox Church was the strongest church in Socialist - Pre-Communist Russia -- and the creeds of said church aren't very conducive to a spiritual connection with GOD.

[velik_m]

stalin was born in 1878.


and how does that pertain to how evil he was?

it doesn't, neither does him being atheist, that's the whole point. Stalin was abused in childhood, that's the most probable explanation for his actions later on.

[Phenomanul]

stalin was born in 1878.



it doesn't, neither does him being atheist, that's the whole point. Stalin was abused in childhood, that's the most probable explanation for his actions later on.


I meant to write pre-revolution Russia.

I have the Time Life article where he is proclaimed 'Man of the Year.' It is a very interesting read in light of the editor's bliss of what was actually going on in Russia at the time of the article.

[velik_m]

oh yeah, orthodox are christians.

[Phenomanul]

oh yeah, orthodox are christians.


I never said they weren't. At least that's not what I wanted to imply.

I still stand by my assertion that ''their creeds aren't very conducive to a spiritual connection with GOD.''

[Extra Stout]

I never said they weren't. At least that's not what I wanted to imply.

I still stand by my assertion that ''their creeds aren't very conducive to a spiritual connection with GOD.''
Do you know very many Orthodox? I have a Greek Orthodox co-worker whose company I very much enjoy, who is a stalwart in the faith. We've had more than one enlightening discussion about patristic studies.

I also know in certain neighborhoods in Chicago, it seems there is an Orthodox church on every corner.

Now perhaps you have doctrinal concerns with them similar to what one might have with Catholics, in that case I tend to agree from a theological sense. However, just as I have experienced with Catholics, when one runs into people so obviously endowed with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, my pedantic regard for doctrinal differences has to take a back seat.

[velik_m]

I still stand by my assertion that ''their creeds aren't very conducive to a spiritual connection with GOD.''

as opposed to let's say catholic? i'm not sure i'm following.

[Phenomanul]

Do you know very many Orthodox? I have a Greek Orthodox co-worker whose company I very much enjoy, who is a stalwart in the faith. We've had more than one enlightening discussion about patristic studies.

I also know in certain neighborhoods in Chicago, it seems there is an Orthodox church on every corner.

Now perhaps you have doctrinal concerns with them similar to what one might have with Catholics, in that case I tend to agree from a theological sense. However, just as I have experienced with Catholics, when one runs into people so obviously endowed with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, my pedantic regard for doctrinal differences has to take a back seat.

True, I don't disagree with that. My post was more specifically in reference to the Orthodox Church that weakly held its relevance-grasp on the lives of the Russian people. It has produced (for the most part) weak beliefs. And as with everything, there are exceptions.

I knew at least three families of Greek Orthodox members in my 4-yr stay in Cambridge, Massachussetts. Most of them were very nonchalant about their faith. And though I realize the sample size was small and localized; that info was complemented by several books I've read.

[Phenomanul]

as opposed to let's say catholic? i'm not sure i'm following.


As you said earlier, his childhood trauma probably had more to do with his demeanor as an adult than anything he learned in school. Nevertheless, to imply that this was the result of his 'Christian' upbringing would be erred on several fronts. Ultimately, he chose his dictatorial path... And in my book, Stalin will still be regarded as someone who was very evil (along with Hitler, and the 'Angel of Death').

Point being that during his murderous years -- he was a stout atheist and not a Christian.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

August 21, 2006
Church Fires Teacher for Being Woman

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 8:40 a.m. ET

WATERTOWN, N.Y. (AP) -- The minister of a church that dismissed a female Sunday School teacher after adopting what it called a literal interpretation of the Bible says a woman can perform any job -- outside of the church.

The First Baptist Church dismissed Mary Lambert on Aug. 9 with a letter explaining that the church had adopted an interpretation that prohibits women from teaching men. She had taught there for 54 years.

The letter quoted the first epistle to Timothy: ''I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.''

( exactly the same approach as Muslim men use to oppress their women )


The Rev. Timothy LaBouf, who also serves on the Watertown City Council, issued a statement saying his stance against women teaching men in Sunday school would not affect his decisions as a city leader in Watertown, where all five members of the council are men but the city manager who runs the city's day-to-day operations is a woman.

''I believe that a woman can perform any job and fulfill any responsibility that she desires to'' outside of the church, LaBouf wrote Saturday.

Mayor Jeffrey Graham, however, was bothered by the reasons given Lambert's dismissal.

''If what's said in that letter reflects the councilman's views, those are disturbing remarks in this day and age,'' Graham said. ''Maybe they wouldn't have been disturbing 500 years ago, but they are now.''

( The Bible-thumpers want to take USA backwards 500 years, into the Dark Ages. Paraphrasing Reagan: "It's a New Dark Ages in America" )

Lambert has publicly criticized the decision, but the church did not publicly address the matter until Saturday, a day after its board met. In a statement, the board said other issues were behind Lambert's dismissal, but it did not say what they were.

For someone who openly roots against our military fighting a group of radical Islamists who basically embrace the same mindset, I'm amazed your bothered by this.



The Bible-thumpers want to take USA backwards 500 years, into the Dark Ages. Paraphrasing Reagan: "It's a New Dark Ages in America

Radical Islam wants to take us all back to the year 700, where's your bitching about that?

[boutons_]

hey dickless twerp

"openly roots against our military fighting a group of radical Islamists"

Link please.

If Iraq had been done my way, there'd be 2600 more US military alive today.
Done your way, they all wasted and dead.
Who supports and respects the military more?


"Radical Islam wants to take us all back to the year 700"

what does this have to with this post, other than you do see the parallel that both radical "Christians" and "Muslims" want to turn back the clock a few 100 years.

[jochhejaam]

Scientists just cringed.

A scientific law is something axiomatic, like the Second Law of Thermodynamics, (delta)S > 0.

A theory is more of a comprehensive model that best accomodates all the available evidence.

Evolution is one of the really strong theories, on the order of the theory of gravity. It is the foundation for pretty much all modern biology, and is only questioned in the political circles of countries with a poor understanding of the relationship between religion and science.

You may have been thinking of a hypothesis, which is a proposed explanation that has not been well proven.

I understand what you're saying Stout, it's just I've always heard of evolution referred to as a theory, not a law.
So, my statement that evolution is theory and not law is incorrect?

My understanding that a theory becomes law when the proof of the theory is no longer intelligently assailable. Would that be incorrect?
(bear with me fellow posters while I receive a free education from Stout)


Just for kicks I Googled, in parenthesis, the following:

Evolution is a theory = 101,000 results (the winner)

Evolution is a law = 35,600

Evolution is a hypothesis = 34,300 results

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

If Iraq had been done my way, there'd be 2600 more US military alive today.
Done your way, they all wasted and dead.
Who supports and respects the military more?

Humor me, what's your way, and what's my way? Oh yeah, and before you even start talking out your ass, my way is not the Bush way.

[ducks]

my way is a nuke...
10 days warning then nuke

[Ocotillo]

The church is perfectly within it's rights to do what it did. The first amendment protects the free exercise of it. I don't agree with the church's action and I would jump to the conclusion the woman who was let go does not either.

She is free to attend another church more in tune with her personal beliefs.

[sabar]

I understand what you're saying Stout, it's just I've always heard of evolution referred to as a theory, not a law.
So, my statement that evolution is theory and not law is incorrect?

My understanding that a theory becomes law when the proof of the theory is no longer intelligently assailable. Would that be incorrect?
(bear with me fellow posters while I receive a free education from Stout)


Just for kicks I Googled, in parenthesis, the following:

Evolution is a theory = 101,000 results (the winner)

Evolution is a law = 35,600

Evolution is a hypothesis = 34,300 results

A theory in science is not a speculation or opinion. Likewise, theory and fact do not oppose eachother in scientific use, a common misconception. Theory is not proven or disproven, it is refined.

Look at these.

Cell theory. Global warming. Plate tectonics. Continential drift. Gravity. General relativity.

A hypothesis can become a law as a law requires constant observation over years with many confirmations of experiments.

What's it all mean? Your everyday person puts way too much thought into the word theory and law. Cell theory has been proven time and time again. So has global warming. So has plate tectonics. So has general relativity. And so has evolution. Basically, people need a better excuse to discredit evolution than semantics.

[Phenomanul]

Gravity doesn't belong on that list....

Extra Stout earlier referenced it as the Theory of Gravity....

But it really is known as the Law of Gravity. The only 'loose-end' is the debate over the existence, or should I say the qualification of gravitons.

Having said that of course, the Law of Gravity is part of a bigger super theory that has been the subject of much research over the past decade or so.... the 'Grand Unified Theory'.