One Body in Christ

1. 67

   Make Moneyposted 13 years ago

   <snipped - no promotional links in the Forums>
   
   "A Call of Christian Conscience
   
   Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.
   
   We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:
   
      1. the sanctity of human life
      2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
      3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
   
   
   Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life."
   
   Now this is truly the One Body in Christ coming together in support of civil society and family values.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Presigoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Very glad you brought this forth. I signed it 3 weeks ago and was very impressede at how thoughtfully it was put together, lets hope many find this here and read it, good work !

      replyreport
   2. 90

      Bibowenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I just heard of the Manhattan Declaration about a month ago. These statements are ones that any orthodox Christian (and even some who are not believers) can agree on.
      
      This seems similar to the Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) that was being promoted by Colson, Neuhaus, Bright, et al. about 15 years ago, although my understanding is that this document is much more scaled back and probably won't run aground of sectarian squabbles between Protestants and Catholics the way ECT did.
      
      I'd be curious for a response for those of you who are believers, what do you think to be the value of a declaration like this? We believe these things already and people already know that we believe them.

      replyreport
   3. 59

      mohitmisraposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      It would be better if you mentioned god rather than narrow it down to one of gods prophets Jesus Christ  and create divisions which creates wars  on this planet.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         Make Moneyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         The Declaration is a call of Christian conscience but includes "believers and non-believers alike" so anyone can sign it. 
         
         But I see your point mohitmisra.  Most religions hold a regard for civil society and family values similar to the Christian conscience.  Yeah most religions hold these same values.
         
         1. the sanctity of human life
         2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
         3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
         
         If you think you know a lot of people from different religions that would sign this Declaration if the wording was changed then there is a link on The Manhattan Declaration front page to contact them.  Actually if you do I'd contact them for you mohitmisra and direct them to this thread.  But for anyone that holds those three values they might want to sign it whether they are Christian or not.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            mohitmisraposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            I do love and respect Jesus as I love and respect all the prophets.

            replyreport
   4. 61

      seyiariposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      i think it is good things like these are happening in church. thank God that we now understand that though we have different part but it is meant to be one body and we are serving one God who is the head of the church.

      replyreport
2. 67

   Make Moneyposted 13 years ago

   Yeah for sure Presigo, I was impressed because it is Christians from all flavors coming together when needed, like the One Body in Christ we are meant to be.  And it's definitely needed, we don't need to go any further than these forums to see that.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Presigoposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      you are very right about that

      replyreport
      1. 61

         tantrumposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         About what ??
         The Body in Christ ?
         If you can't agree in a forum sometimes, how can you be able to put together a whole body ?

         replyreport
3. 88

   Paragliderposted 13 years ago

   Hi Mike -
   Thanks for posting something worth discussing!
   Speaking as an outsider, whom the One Body in Christ may safely ignore, I still welcome the attempt by the Churches to find consensus and speak coherently 'with one voice'.
   
      1. the sanctity of human life
      2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
      3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
   
   There should be no argument with no 1, except for the inevitable argument over when human life begins, something which is not resolved by soap-boxing.
   
   There may be a tension between nos 2 & 3, since conscience is an individual matter, albeit informed by familial and social influences. And conscience may incline one to wish to extend the definition of marriage beyond the traditional, as indeed it has in sections of the Anglican Church who are nevertheless part of the One Body in Christ.
   
   I join Mike in respectfully asking contributors to this thread to discuss the topic thoughtfully.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      Make Moneyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you Paraglider.  There is already tension considering the real truth behind the Uganda issue and this recent development.
      Education official involved in teaching 14-year-olds strange sex techniques

      replyreport
4. 73

   wyanjenposted 13 years ago

   Hello folks
   As you are calling on believers and non-believers alike, I don't feel out of turn putting my opinions here.
   
   1. is the basis of all human faith IMO. There is no need for religion to justify this. We all share this value.
   2. As a humanist, I disagree with the narrow scope of this definition. It is an exclusive principle, not an inclusive one.
   3. Rights of conscience and religious liberty are ideals worth fighting for. Religious liberty includes freedom from religion.
   
   Peace
   Jen

   replyreport
5. 61

   kessposted 13 years ago

   My Friends,
   
   For one to forsake his religion is a very hard thing.
   
   If one was to forsake his religion  to support  this "whatever you call it"  declaration, all that is happening is recreating another religious wheel.
   
   What is needed in this season,
   Is for the children of God is to forsake his religion.
   
   For no religion has truth, and all religion was formed not for good but for evil, to satisfy the ego of men.
   All Good that may be done within a religion is negated by the fact that it is used to promote the religion (evil ) itself.   
   And that is summarized as hiding light under a bushel.
   
   What you as children of God need to do is practise good works from a pure heart.
   And teach men to do the same.
   
   And by doing this you are   promoting the Kingdom of God and his Christ and not a mannade kingdom.

   replyreport
6. 60

   DogSiDaedposted 13 years ago

   I'm a little confused, what exactly are we being asked to sign here?

   replyreport
7. 60

   DogSiDaedposted 13 years ago

   It looks like 2 is a little dig at the gay population again eh?

   replyreport
   1. 90

      Bibowenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      If it does so, it only does so incidentally. I'm confident that these declarations are strongly assertive; that is, they are declaring the positive value of each of these ways of life. There is nothing new about each of these principles; what is new is the convergence of orthodox, Catholic, and Protestants as potential cobelligerents to affect cultural change along these three lines.

      replyreport
      1. 88

         Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         'Cobelligerent' is an interesting word choice, especially as you probably know what it means. Where's the war?

         replyreport
         1. 90

            Bibowenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, that's its literal meaning, but it has other applications. Why pick the most extreme of them? If you want to make something sensational out of the word "cobelligerent," good luck. In this context it's no more provocative than using the military word "campaign" as in "political campaign."

            replyreport
            1. 88

               Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Nothing sensational, no. The word merely suggests that it's not enough for the signatories to hold to the three tenets in their own lives, but should in some way engage in requiring others to live by them too.

               replyreport
8. 64

   AdsenseStrategiesposted 13 years ago

   What a disappointment; 2.4 billion people living on two dollars a day or less and THIS is what you're concerned with. Shame on you. Jesus would not like this, let me assure you (based on his portrayal in the Gospels, at least -- constant attention to the poor and needy - ABSOLUTELY ZERO attention to the issue you're fawning over -- shame on you, I say again)

   replyreport
9. 61

   tantrumposted 13 years ago

   Manhattan declaration
   
   
     1. the sanctity of human life
      2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
      3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
   
   
   1. Human life is beyond whatever sanctity. Human life doesn't have to be sanctify to be respected.
   
   2- What are we talking here ?We know where the dignity of marriage goes when love is over. And it's always  over, sooner or later. If not divorces wouldn't exist.
   Far more important is the dignity of the individual, including, gays, lesbians, transexuals, etc.
   
   3- Don't forget that Satanism is a religion, as well as Agnosticism, Gnosticism, Wicca, Dicordianism,and others. Are you willing to give them the religious liberty you ask  for yourselves ?

   replyreport
   1. 61

      tantrumposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      So again!
      Why nobody can clarify these points? As  this Manhattan declaration is open to everybody ?

      replyreport
10. 71

    pylos26posted 13 years ago

    Makemoney…Your furnished news link reeks of unprofessional political bias…I’m not denying the severity of the accusations of course.

    replyreport
    1. 67

       Make Moneyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Yeah pylos26 when you consider it's involving Obama's risky-sex czar I guess you could call it political bias.  But the editorial is from the Washington Times and it's a very serious issue as you also imply.  It was so disgusting HubPages deleted the post and closed it to replies.  But you can read the editorial here if you want.  There is a warning at the top of it.
       http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 … czar/?feat

       replyreport
11. 61

    tantrumposted 13 years ago

    'We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. '
    
    
    This is what you said.

    replyreport
12. 67

    Make Moneyposted 13 years ago

    Well sign it then mohitmisra.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       mohitmisraposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       No I will not if you have all the prophets names together in the declaration then I will sign it.

       replyreport
       1. 67

          Make Moneyposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          It's not my declaration mohitmisra, I just posted it.  You can contact them to ask if they'll add them if you want.

          replyreport
          1. 59

             mohitmisraposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Thanks not interested.

             replyreport
13. 67

    Make Moneyposted 13 years ago

    How about that.  HubPages thought the Declaration was a "promotional link" and snipped it.  Unbelievable.  What a joke.

    replyreport
    1. 71

       pylos26posted 13 years agoin reply to this

       My goodness Makemoney...did you actually not realize that you were promoting the pathethic thing.

       replyreport
    2. 58

       Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       Promoting anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-forcing children to pray in school propaganda still counts as promotion Make Money.
       
       Calling "mandatory prayer in school" "religious liberty" does not make it any less offensive.
       
       Sorry you feel the desperate need to get everyone to think the same garbage that you do. And yet still - you do not understand why the christian religion causes conflicts. This is what your "declaration" says:
       
       1. Make abortion illegal
       2. Make marriage between consenting adults of the same sex illegal
       3. Mandatory prayer to the christian god in schools to be re-introduced
       
       And the sad thing is - you think we are stupid enough not to notice this.

       replyreport
       1. 84

          earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          It's always the same. Interfere with others lives because they do not agree with the invisible fairy in the invisible fairy book. Pathetic nonsense and hate of fellow humans. Psychotic.

          replyreport
       2. 88

          Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          @Mark - Your interpretation of no 3 is pretty loose!
          
          I think we are still waiting for the proponents of the code to clarify a few things, before it is justified to assume we know what they are trying to say. For example:
          a. What is the working definition of human life.
          b. How do they resolve the possible conflict between individual conscience (3) and the restrictive statements of 1 & 2? (To me, the only honest resolution for such people is not to sign).
          c. Is the intention for signatories simply to abide by the code (which is their freedom), or to try to impose the code on non-signatories? (If the former, then there is nothing in it that need concern non-signatories)

          replyreport
14. 58

    Mark Knowlesposted 13 years ago

    @ Paraglider.
    
    LOl. Could be I am jumping to conclusions, but their opening statement, "Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.
    
    We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them.These truths are:
    the sanctity of human life
    the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
    the rights of conscience and religious liberty.
    
    Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
    "
    
    ....suggests otherwise. I am open to learning that the Way, the Truth and the Light does not mean what I think it means.
    
    And seeing as Make Money was in favor...........
    
    1. "we note with sadness that pro- abortion ideology prevails today in our government."
    2. "We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct. We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity; and we pay tribute to the men and women who strive, often with little assistance, to resist the temptation to yield to desires that they, no less than we, regard as wayward."
    3. "In recent decades a growing body of case law has paralleled the decline in respect for religious values in the media, the academy and political leadership, resulting in restrictions on the free exercise of religion."
    
    What do you think?

    replyreport
15. 88

    Paragliderposted 13 years ago

    @Mark -
    
    there are words in there that are ambiguous. Personally, I am in favour of ecumenism and of having the church speak with one voice, so that the rest of us can know what the agenda really is.
    
    Do you 'honor' a declaration by abiding by it or by seeking to impose it? This is why I asked Bibowen to explain 'cobelligerence' in his earlier post.

    replyreport
16. 58

    Mark Knowlesposted 13 years ago

    Well - as far as I can tell, Bibowen and all the other zealots think they are at war, so I am not surprised at his terminology.
    
    Fortunately - they will never agree on these things - political power does not share readily. See any history book.
    
    Ambiguous? Yes - I suppose that is one way of putting it. Much like their book really. Seems pretty clear to me.

    replyreport
17. 88

    Will Apseposted 13 years ago

    If the only points of friction between orthodox Christians and secular society are abortion and gay rights, I think people can blunder through this 'crisis'.
    
    What worries me is that politically motivated groups use these differences to drive a wedge in societies and pour contempt on academics and politicians at a time when our societies are facing genuinely life and death dilemmas like finding a sustainable future for our planet.
    
    Denigrating and disregarding the people who we most need to find solutions to our real problems just doesn't help.

    replyreport
    1. 84

       earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       At the risk of making history, I am in full agreement Will.

       replyreport
       1. 58

          Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          Me too.
          
          Although - It cannot have escaped Will's attention that many of the same people screaming foul at the lack of bible teaching in school seem to be the same ones convinced that we do not have such a thing as climate change which is human influenced.
          
          That would be "arrogant."
          
          Sadly - abortion and gay marriage are the thin end of a rather large wedge which includes the notion that "we have dominion over," and "god will provide."

          replyreport
       2. 88

          Will Apseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

          One of the reasons I give you and Mark Knowles a hard time for attacking Christians en masse is that it just reinforces a completely artificial cultural divide that is a danger to us all.
          
          If Christian groups felt under less pressure from the secular world they would be less inclined to reject the evidence the academic world has to offer on climate change etc.
          
          Somehow, the whole evolution vs creationism. abortion vs pro life thing has got mixed up with global warming and clean energy in the popular imagination. Many right wing Christians react to evidence  that is presented on the man made contribution to global warming as if it was a direct assault on their right to exist. It isn't but when I read the rationalists in the forums I can understand why they might think that it is.
          
          Another reason for giving you and MK a hard time is that it is just plain rude to pour contempt on people's head for genuinely held beliefs.

          replyreport
          1. 88

             Paragliderposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             I agree with that. However, in a public forum it is perfectly reasonable to ask difficult and challenging questions of anyone who makes bold statements about having 'the truth'. And it is also reasonable to object to anyone stating a belief (or wish) that other people will be punished by their god.

             replyreport
          2. 58

             Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

             Oh dear. Is it really rude to pour contempt on some one who thinks that homosexuality is a disease that can be cured and evolution is a lie? Do you think if I genuinely tried to educate them that would work?
             
             Now - Just remember - "god will provide," is a genuinely held belief that means we do not need to worry about climate change.
             
             Says so right there in the bible.
             
             Now persuade them their book is wrong.

             replyreport
             1. 84

                earnestshubposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                Lots of luck with that one Will.

                replyreport
                1. 88

                   Will Apseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                   I wouldn't dream of trying to persuade a Christian that the Bible is wrong. It is such a huge text with so many different philosophical perspectives it can be used to argue anything that you like. Their is plenty of 'an eye for an eye' and just as much 'turn the other cheek' etc. That is the point of great texts- every generation can get what they need from them.
                   
                   More to the point, I trust the basic tolerance of the average Christian. Gays are not going to be boiled in oil any time soon.

                   replyreport
                   1. 58

                      Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                      Now why are you avoiding the point I made and going back to the theme which you were just castigating me for arguing?
                      
                      Biblical thinking - which you were so keen to point out colors my culture along with every one else in my tribe not so long ago is (at least in part) responsible for the "dominion over, god will provide" attitude that I see you vainly arguing against in the climate change arguments.
                      
                      And no - maybe gays will not be boiled in oil outside of Uganda just yet, but the planet's resources will be used up and we will continue to "go forth and multiply," until there is no where else left to multiply on. 
                      
                      Christian, tribal thinking, pounded into us from birth.
                      
                      We are better. The planet was made for us. We have dominion over. God will provide.
                      
                      It will be our downfall, and you will continue to take issue with me personally, because I see through to the root of it.

                      replyreport
                      1. 88

                         Will Apseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                         Christians aren't going to disappear under your mighty onslaught Mark. It's best to accept that and find ways to make the most of it. With fewer pointless assaults there might be more meaningful dialog in areas that are important. A few kids growing up without being immersed in the River Dawkins simply isn't important. Making a whole bloc of people hate science does.

                         replyreport
                         1. 58

                            Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                            I see. So my "mighty onslaught," will make a bloc of people "hate science."
                            
                            Deary me. If you have nothing to say - why bother opening your mouth?

                            replyreport
                            1. 88

                               Will Apseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                               I see the River Dawkins remark was a little upsetting. How do you think people feel when you insult their core beliefs?

                               replyreport
                               1. 58

                                  Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                  I hope it makes them examine them more closely and perhaps think about adjusting them to reality.
                                  
                                  Upset? Actually - I never noticed your reference to River Dawkins. In fact - not sure what you mean by that and am not upset by it in any way.
                                  
                                  What was that supposed to mean ?
                                  
                                  And what do you hope to achieve my accosting me on a regular basis? Other than venting? So - you are offended that I despise religion. Tough.

                                  replyreport
                                  1. 88

                                     Will Apseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                     I'm not offended that you despise religion. What you believe is your own business. The derision is the thing that offends me (the sky fairy stuff etc) Given how easily upset you are, I'm sure you understand how upsetting your attacks on others are.
                                     
                                     Let it rest there if you don't want to be 'accosted' again. I'm happy to carry on our dialog until doomsday.

                                     replyreport
                                     1. 58

                                        Mark Knowlesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                        Still not understanding where I am supposed to be upset. Could you explain that to me? I still did not get the "River Dawkins" thing that was supposed to upset me. Perhaps if I understood how this was supposed to be an underhanded insult?.
                                        
                                        Your childish attacks are at best slightly irritating, and I do not care how offended you are that you have mistaken me for some one who calls the imaginary invisible super being a "sky fairy."

                                        report
                                        1. 88

                                           Will Apseposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                           I'll check through the hubitivity stuff to see if there is anyone I might have mistaken you for. Please accept my apologies if I have.
                                           
                                           I won't explain the River Dawkins bit you are clever enough to pick up on the allusions there.

                                           report