I’m sorry, Howard. When I put in my comment at (displayed time) 12:46am, I was feeling too hot-headed still and didn’t respond as I should have. I had not taken the time to separate out and digest all the comments separately. I have since read through the thread a couple more times, I was thin-skinned and easily offended, and I was wrong. You did not attack the Pope as I thought you did and some of my comments were out of line.

That being said, I will not apologize for my first comment and my second comment was just between me and Colonel1961.

In my first comment, you had issues with my “vague phrases,” but of the two people who responded, both were correct about where I stood on their comments. I guess it was clear enough, despite not naming names. I will not apologize for considering civility and discretion virtues. That said, there is a time and place for plain talk, and this is it. If you think that it is without integrity to ask people to be personally responsible to their own moral compasses and not call them out by name to do so, then we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Now, on to the third comment, but we’ll start with this line: “So, it seems to me that you’ve called the Pope evil,”
This one was out of line. I apologize for it.

continuing on “the Church he leads lazy and greedy,”
I don’t see how this part is, though. You called (maybe sarcastically?) for the Church to be looted, or in your words “seize the selfish riches belonging to the Catholic Church to be divided up to the world’s poor.” You also said that “as far as the gold and riches go, it must keep them warm at night as all of the poor, wretched, starving souls in the world die from lack of help from it.” Do you have any idea how many Catholic charities there are out there? That they run schools and hospitals across the world? That the schools they run in the US don’t run on government money? That they teach and feed and shelter and help find adoptive homes for children? That the group “Catholic Charities,” actually a collection of more than 1,400 different agencies, sees 90 cents on the dollar going to programs and services? That they foster education and growth and have done so for 2000 years? That the Church is growing faster in starving Africa than anywhere else in the world? That the Catholic population in Asia doubled from 1975 to 2000, despite the oppressive communist government there wanting them all gone? I could go on but, to be honest, if an anti-Catholic bias on your part doesn’t let you be curious enough to look into the Church’s record as the oldest and largest charitable organization in the world, I don’t know if there’s any point.

and finishing with “and the people that die peaceably for its ideals inconsequential.”
First, I need to make clear that I see being taught about and brought into a personal relationship with Jesus the Christ a liberating experience. In that light, my comment that Catholics and Christians in general are being “sent to liberate, and yes they are dying” is wholly accurate and, thus you will get no apology. Before you tear into me again, saying that I don’t know anything about combat or being “sent to war,” you could read through your posts and notice the first time you say “sent to war” is in your 1:49am response to my 12:46am comment. I never said that missionaries are being “sent to war.” I said they were being sent to “liberate” and that they were dying. Both these things are true. They’re even true in countries where American troops aren’t fighting. I respect a man like yourself, willing to put his life on the line for his country, his compatriots and their freedoms. I did not compare people like you “who wear a uniform, undergo years of intense, life-threatening training, and then get ordered where to go, and what mission to die for…with a priest who tries to convert a Muslim” because I never said a word about war. And neither did you, until after my comment. Your attacks in those two paragraphs are therefore baseless.

Now, back to your question, because a lot hinges on it. “Has the pope and his church sent Vatican men to their deaths to liberate the people of this world anytime recently?”
As written, either the answer is yes or you are calling missionaries’ deaths inconsequential. If it’s the latter, sir, I’d like to know why.

You mentioned the atrocities committed under the British Empire, and that the US abolished slavery while it was a younger nation.
I could go into detail on the slavery issue and mention that the British, however, did it first in an absolute time scale. I could talk about how members of the British Commonwealth have done pretty well for themselves, arguably because of the British influence on their culture. Instead, that’s all I will say, because the USA has done plenty, and the Pope is willing to mention the UN but not America. That is where I’ll concede that point, and apologize. Not because the Pope did not raise the USA, but rather because he did not raise the USA up but still raised the UN.

“there are factors you don’t seem to be taking into account. Or maybe I did take them into account, and still came to the conclusion I expressed. You seem awfully certain that your vantage point of confusion about this document must be mine, as well. We can agree to disagree.”
Maybe you did, maybe you didn’t. I don’t know what’s going on in your head, but if that is the case then that is fine. I said “seem” for a reason.

Which brings us to “your general hostility all didn’t sit well with me. Oh well. If you’re expecting some act of contrition for my well-chosen words, you’re barking up the wrong tree.”
I’m not looking for an act of contrition over your “well-chosen words.” I’m letting you know a piece of what I’m thinking, to give you perspective for my words.

And that brings us full circle. Reading through what you’ve said again, my biggest issue would have to be that you sound like you think that your way of looking at things is the only way of looking at things. In religion of all places, semantics matter. Perspectives can differ. One true meaning is there, and you are far more likely correct than is the interpretation of Baron up above. Still, if someone brings up a differing perspective judge it fairly. If you think you did, then that’s fine with me.

There. You’ve had my apologies, and you’ve seen where I don’t intend to bow. Hopefully this one comes across as a little more reasoned.

We went to a Large Baptist church there. I believe it was in Van Nuys. (I was 12) It was growing and working on enlarging the building at the time. A nice church as much as I remember of it.

I haven’t been back but my son went out there amd wemt to see the old house where I lived and thanks to Google Earth was able to see a picture of it. It surely has changed since I was a kid. And not for the better. Oh well. It was a great place back then I loved it. But I would never move back now, mostly due to the political flavor of the people there and the crime etc. I still have family that keep wanting me to move back. Sometimes you “just can’t go ‘home’. Things change.

I was brought to Southern Baptist religion by a friend who grew up Baptist in Hawaii and Texas. I don’t know if Texas counts as “Southern” but it was mostly through this friend that I heard the stories about the Baptist churches in the South. He said in the South whites and blacks and other races tend to meet in the same congregations, since they go with the most appropriate location, rather than pick their church based on cultural grounds. In California and apparently in Hawaii and other states outside of the South, Baptists often pick their church based on ideology (i.e., is it a “liberal” Baptist church or a “conservative” Baptist church?) or based on ethnicity (i.e., is it a black Baptist church, an Asian Baptist church, or a Latino Baptist church?) I have found that outside of the South there are very few white Baptists, so if you travel to blue states like California you might be highly surprised to be the only white person in church! Most Christian whites here in Los Angeles go for mainline Protestant denominations (Methodist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian), evangelical sects other than Baptist (i.e., Church on the Way, Shepherd of the Hills, Pentecostal, etc.), or Catholicism. In Los Angeles Baptist churches are more often than not ethnically defined (one of the results of the vigorous overseas missions the SBC has undertaken over the decades, with funding from Southern contributors in places like MIssissippi and Arkansas).

Generally, however, if you are in a deep blue state like California, middle-class white Christians are rare. Most educated white people tend to be agnostic or overwhelmingly secular in their lifestyle. Minorities usually appear much more fanatically religious by contrast, which is why, I think, I meet so few white Baptists out here. The white Protestants I know tend to attend church about once or twice a year, if that much, or for weddings and funerals. They tend to be wary of black, Latino, and Asian Protestants, who often strike them as dangerously primitive in their beliefs. All of this is part and parcel of California’s strange racial tensions. That’s why my friend from Texas said he liked Baptist churches in the South, because there wasn’t a sense of racial stigma attached to the Southern Baptist label.

Wamp, thanks for your thoughtful and interesting posts.

We seem to be in close agreement, but you said it more eloquently than I did. Morality is the area where churches need to lead…..not politics. Unless, of course, the political system itself is manifestly immoral.

Let me try to answer a few of your questions. I am a Southern Baptist who now lives in the south and my family on both sides are from the south. One from the Low Country in SC who were “pentecostal” and my mother’s family who were Baptists from WV.

BP you wanted to know what Southern Baptists do in the south. The usual is Sunday – Sunday school hour that is sex and age grouped. We also have couples glasses if that is what you want and for the adults the age thing is optional…I enjoy the class of women who are about 10 younger than myself and that is ok. Then we have the worship hour in the sanctuary.

Some churches also have a early morning worship hour before SS and some churches use that service as “contemporary” worship service to appeal to young people who enjoy Christian Rock etc. Basically the idea is, like Jesus, you meet the public where THEY are and from there you may be able to expose them to the love of Christ and draw them closer to their saviour.

Baptist churches usually have a Sunday evening service and sometimes a Bible study class just before that service and We usually have a Wednesday evening Service.

Between the regular services and classes there are usually Bible study classes during the week. Some in the mornings and some at night. We also usually have stuff for the kids on various days etc such as a basket ball league and other “classes’ like a police led gun handling classes for the older young people with their parents as well as adults themselves. We live in a hunting area.

Now a days, most Baptists are casual in dress although it is still preferable to at least dress in honor of Christ. But no one would look down on you if you came in a Tee and jeans.

HR….I might take the time here to let you know not all Baptists churches are the same. “Baptist” can be claimed by most any church that immerses at Baptism and that claims that the ONLY source of God’s Word is the Bible and it is the INSPIRED WORD. You can not cherry pick it or add or take away anything in it. The other thing is of course the acceptance of the trinity and the understanding that you must accept Christ as your saviour due to his dying for all our sins on the cross. Baptists believe that in obedience you should be immersed in water for your Baptism. Baptism does not “save” you. It will not get you to, nor leave you out of heaven if you are or are not baptized. Its an act of obedience only and a public statement of faith in Christ. It demonstrates the death, burial and resurrections of Christ.

I’m sure there are a few other things I have left out but that’s a fair description of the Southern Baptists. Oh…Baptist churches are always independent entities. They answer to no hierarchy. The members of the local church “own” their own church and hire and fire their own pastors and elect their own deacons etc. They decide how their money is spent. They make their own statements of faith as a church and create their own bylaws. But everything MUST be in agreement with what the Bible says. Nothing can drift away from the Bible.

Having said that, usually Southern Baptists voluntarily belong to a national convention where they gather and SUGGEST actions to their member churches. As in the controversial one a few years ago that encouraged women to submit to the authority of their husbands. I understand the full meaning of that and agree with it, however I am not here to further that action. Some other time perhaps. Even so, if I disagreed with it, or if our local church disagreed with it, nothing would happen if we did not adhere to it.

You also need to understand there are MANY MANY Baptists denominations. I personally went to a fundamental “independent” right after I accepted Christ. This is where I got the best grounding I could have ever gotten in understanding Christ and being able to discern what the difference was between what GOD wants through his Word vs what MAN wants to impose on church members.

Personally this is very important to me. I finally stopped going to these Baptist churches because I felt they saw sin under every leaf. Women MUST wear dresses all the time. Long hair on a boy is sinful. etc etc. I feel God doesn’t give a flip about that stuff. But that’s my belief.

There are churches that claim to be Baptists that handle snakes….I think that is stupid.
There are churches that claim to be Baptists that show up at soldiers funeral and create a real ruckus and say hateful things…THEY need to get back into the word.

There are many more. Sooooo said all that to say. Baptist, like anything else can mean many things to many people. I went with the Southern Baptist church because it welcomes everyone.
However having said that, the congregation will reflect the attitude of the community it comes from. Some are more loving than other communities. That has to be considered as well.

As a whole, if a homosexual came in our pastor would do his best to welcome this person into our group. Would he approve of this person’s actions? No. Would he attempt to explain why we don’t accept his actions as ok? Yes. But this guy may be sinning by being a homosexual. The other church members may just as well be sinning by being mean or hateful to them.

Here is where Christ sat with the sinful and then told them to go and sin no more. That should be our behavior as well. We have to love the sinful. How else can they know the love of God at first. Remember, we are the fishers of men.

In the end…READ the Word. Double check everything that anyone tells you about God with the Bible. Read only solid authors who know the Word. And as BP said, double check our later versions of the Bible with the old text. Wine is one of the words that can mean either an alcoholic drink or grape juice. When it was translated into English it used wine for both.

Just do your homework. Once you decide on a church..don’t expect it to be perfect. It won’t be. I can promise that. It will be full people in all stages of their walk with Christ. Where better should they be? Just pray, study and love.

You two are a blessing to this blog. And Steve, thanks so much for allowing us all to get a little personal about our beliefs. With 100+ posts it apparently strikes an important cord in all of us.

BTW BP It drives me crazy when I hear the northerners always claiming that the south is so discriminatory. If you go to a chuch here that has a community with blacks and whites…..that is what you will see reflected in the congregation. We happen to live in the country and have only a few blacks here, but we also have a few that come to our church and we don’t ever have a bit of problem. Everyone is treated with respect. Its about Jesus…not race. Its good to see you feel the same way.

So, that is why this blog, thank you SG, is so fantastic and important in alerting us to coming menaces and current issues and twisted realities, and providing insightful input to the weaker of us (me) into insidious workings of others, while hopefully educating and spurring some to action.

I dare to think too that I can compete in the run-on sentence derby!

(When we “ASSUME” and all that, eh?)

But nonetheless, there are those in this nation that would think it a “peachy idea”. And, dare I say it, it’s gonna come to the fore someday all under the guise of “fair and equal”; A notion that gets so warped out of shape these days.

Hopefully, I will be long gone by then.

Thanks for the response. I kinda figured you meant it as you explained but I had to throw my (mis)perception in there if for no other reason than I’m crabby today.

What you say is all well and good as still, to this day, this nation was founded on the Judeo-Christian ideal. After all, what else did they have to go on?

I am pretty much of the mind that for those who find strength in religion….fine. I personally do not. I neither applaud nor condemn it. For me, it’s all wrong.

But with that said, I have to also admit to a hypocritical side in that I do believe our system of laws to be just and I say that simply based on the fact that I was raised surrounded by the same ethic as mentioned above and believe that the ten commandments are a good place to start.

However, in today’s uber-liberal society…I DO NOT WANT relativism to creep into our system and also for it to have ANY muslim influence such as is happening in European nations.

There are those who come here and expect the United States to be “all things to all peoples” and it simply cannot be. This nation has limits. And inasmuch as the ideal is pretty lucrative for 99.9%, the founding fathers, I don’t believe, ever expected the muslims to want to usurp this nation and pummel its system.

Up until recently, I am fairly certain that were it possible, Thomas Jefferson would have been able to step out of a 1790 courtroom and into a 2009 courtroom and recognize the proceedings. But if the US adopts this BS of circumventing state and federal law by even allowing the muslims their own system, then we have lost for all time

I think were in agreement, but I just felt to explore it a bit further. I wish I knew how to do it like some of the real talents here – short, concise, and bitingly funny.

May I respond to your statement that “churches (or religion) should stay out of politics?”

My response is based on a thoughtful Letter to the Editor of the Stars and Stripes newspaper by a Jeneen Nance from Vilseck, Germany. I do not have the date of the letter, nor do I know the writer.

In discussing athiesm and the Founding Fathers she wrote, “The were careful to provide for a separation between church and the government (remembering the misuse of religion b the state in the Old World), not to limit or eliminate the influence of religion from political discourse, but to insure that it was an independent voice to monitor the government and to mold the moral climate of society.”

A paragraph further on, Mrs Nance wrote, “So, the Founding Father’s establishment of the separation of church and state was to ensure the free flow of religious ideas and practices for the betterment of the state and its citizens…..as more and more protests are made against the public practices of those who do believe, religion becomes singled out as the one unaccepted voice in public life, which was not the intent of the Founding Fathers. let us all believe and not believe together, but that means that we must not go underground.”

I am not advocating that the Church (the lead elements of any sect or name) should mandate the actual voting by their adherents, or base membership, salvation, or ordinances on that activism or political beliefs. However, certainly the teachings, words, insights, and examples of those who do lead spiritual lives should be at least studied, and contemplated, and used for those aims, attitudes, and moral courage that they may provide discerning and seeking believers.

I am curious about yet another ‘world leader’ and one who certainly understands the Scriptures as well as human behavior, and history and who has certainly seen or is aware of the many failed (and astounding simple and easy to remember number of successes = 0 ) who is advocating some kind of single world authority for anything. First, redundantly, it has NEVER worked before! Mankind is not able to create, manage or maintain any such endeavor. The 2,467th iteration is not going to be any different! Anyone familiar with Christ’s teachings should understand that He was pretty clear (He or His prophets – Ref Amos3:7) about the world and humanity being at each other’s throats until such time as He comes to rule, and the events that will lead up to that time. Yes, charity as He taught is the best means to peace and personal improvement, and organized religions are often leaders in philanthropic initiatives, doing a much better job of hands-on work with the poor, poverty-stricken and undeveloped peoples of the world. However, Christ taught that the poor will always be with us (physically, economically, and spiritually) which to my mind means no amount of money, aid, programs or whatever are going to make some people healthy, happy, productive, or less-sinful. Poverty will never go away, and the heart-on-their-sleeve Liberals will always be looking to coercively dip into someone else’s pocket to ease their lack of true understanding.

Yes, we should each try, be compassionate, sacrifice of ourselves, time and resources to help our fellow man, whether tied to any religious sentiment or not. However, it is undoubtedly foolish to propose, from on high, this kind of worldwide, top-down, inefficient, and always controversy- and politic-ridden form of control. It is irresponsible. I know Obama’s evil intents and perverse, self-serving motivation to laud this kind of abject foolishness. I am disappointed that the head of the Catholic Church is apparently signing on to this kind of soft-headed ideology.

I take it as a sign of the times and that we need to be circumspect about those who come among us in sheep’s clothing; that there are those who are blind to the evil influences they accept or advocate, in unwitting naiivete or delusions of doing good. Anyone who does not believe and see satanic forces are at work, twisting minds, words, laws and people to blithely do or even accept through complacency the satanic bidding, to slowly and subtely deceive, bind, and drag humankind into their camp is surely not aware of anything beyond their t.v. set.

As I sometimes encounter a poster here in Iraq that shares a favorite theme of mine – All it takes for evil to win is for good men is to sit idle and doing nothing- my objection, or re-wording of your statement, Pro, is YES, I believe those with religious convictions should be of themselves very involved in politics, in word and deed, in our homes, communities, councils and legislatures.

What always bugs me about Baptist churches outside of the South is their tendency to segregate racially; for instance, I have met very few white Baptists. I hear that in the South the Baptist services tend not to divide along racial lines so much.

Best,Bobby

I was raised as a Baptist until the age of 13. I stopped going at that time. I became too large for my mother to force anymore, lol.

When I was there at the first Bible class I mentioned in the above passage, one of the things the Methodist pastor asked me about was my past. It went like this:

PASTOR: What’s your background? [I had just mentioned some uber-specific Old Testament passages from memory and had quickly recited the timeline of Abraham down to King David that buttressed my point during class, and the pastor's first question after class was if I was a pastor myself, lol. I had actually learned those quotes and Old Testament history not from any church, but from one of my philosophy classes at Ohio University ten years before. Hadn't had a need for them until that first Bible class, but it came in handy, lol]
ME: Uh, well, I was Army for 5 years, college grad, radio career…
PASTOR: No, no…what is your denominational background?
ME: Oh…well, uh…[I was flustered because I'd been studying Zen Buddhism for the twenty years since I was a Baptist, lol]…I was raised Baptist right down the road at Mainstreet Baptist.
PASTOR: Oh.

And you could just feel that he had just locked me up in a box with a label, lol. I was flatfooted, and didn’t know what to say. After all, my Baptist identity really means little when you consider that I was too immature to know what I was ingesting at that age.

I do like the sound of your church and Bible class, bp. I may indeed give one of our local Baptist churches here in Fla a chance, soon. Believe it or not, I was honestly considering investigating the four Catholic churches down here, after finding the terrific Father Corapi a few years ago. Of course I know that he is different from all other Catholic priests, but I kinda hope to find one that drinks from the same well that he does, ya’ know?

When politics comes up in our Baptist bible study, which isn’t actually very often, we tend not to dwell long on it. Most in my group are conservative but there are a few liberal Obama supporters and we do our best not to make them feel alienated.

Howard, for the deeper insights that it sounds like you are seeking, my congregation usually provides for 1-on-1 meetings with one of the deacons; in those private settings we try to get very deep and personal, and we work with deacons that we trust most. For bible study we approach it less personally and look more at the scripture itself. I read ancient Greek so I am often helping the other adults through the original language, at least of the New Testament. I tend to like focusing on the language during Bible study and only occasionally sharing my life experiences. I’m not sure which approach would be best for you, but maybe God has his own plans about which faith community he wants you to set up shop in. You seem like the kind of person who would like the Southern Baptist structure… I say it not to proselytize but just to share a bit. The Baptist setup fits your intellectual side but it is democratic enough that you would feel less frustrated with people in authority positions who you see as disappointing because they haven’t found close relationships with Christ yet.

Blessings and best of luck!