The State of Apostasy
Presbyterians 'Receive' Policy on Worship
--Richard N. Ostling
AP Religion Writer
BIRMINGHAM, AL. -- The divine Trinity _ "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" _ could also be known as "Mother, Child and Womb" or "Rock, Redeemer, Friend" at some Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) services under an action Monday by the church's national assembly.
Delegates to the meeting voted to "receive" a policy paper on gender- inclusive language for the Trinity, a step short of approving it. That means church officials can propose experimental liturgies with alternative phrasings for the Trinity, but congregations won't be required to use them. [Emphasis mine]
...And it only gets worse from there.
Question: How many people who attend church regularly stay where they feel uncomfortable? How may people stay anywhere they feel uncomfortable? I won't say 'none' because Jim Morrison aptly penned, "people are strange"-- aberrations exist --but I'm very comfortable with saying the number is, in all likelihood, extremely low... Miniscule even. The real test will be to see how many people stay seated in those congregations that allow such heresy.
It is undeniable that God is love. It is undeniable that God is not willing that any should perish. But it is equally undeniable that Jesus did not come to send peace, but a sword...
Wanting to be inclusive, to make the church more accessible, and welcoming to all people is admirable. It's what the Church was meant to be. But there are standards. There are truths. And there are expectations of those who accept Christ's message. None of which are mutable or flexible depending on the times, or circumstances. To follow Christ requires personal sacrifice; especially to turn away from sin. Consider how Jesus' prefaced the above statement...
Our sacrifice is just such a confession. A man or woman who turns away from homosexuality and allows God to heal their hearts and minds does so publicly, before men. Everyone who knows what they were will see what they are becoming, and that is a powerful testimony. Such a man or woman will not find it easy to shun the old ways, and the old people who supported them in those ways. But this is what God expects. He expects holiness of His people.
But that's not to say Christians do not fall, and often; the flesh remains unchanged. If anything, it's a much harder row to hoe, this "being a Christian." Before, there was no overt struggle for the soul; it belonged to the enemy. But now, with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, there is a constant struggle for that soul caught between the desires of the Flesh, and the desire of the Holy Spirit. But Christians need not fear this war being waged for their testimony-- for once saved, the soul is out of reach for the enemy. Jesus says we are to expect this, and that we shouldn't fear, for there are greater things to fear than what someone can do you to you.
There are standards Christians must not only accept, but standards under which they must also operate. One of which is to earnestly contend for the faith...
And we are further warned about "other" gospels, and they that preach such...
You walk into the kitchen one afternoon and see a roach. Just one. You manage to kill it on the counter. You then clean it up, disinfect the area and go about the business of preparing a snack. It was just one roach-- no need for anything more, and certainly no sense of urgency.
The same is true of one report of apostasy in the church... Just a smidgen of heresy... No need to worry. Or is there? For the real danger lies in the hundreds you don't see or hear scurrying around in the walls.
--Richard N. Ostling
AP Religion Writer
BIRMINGHAM, AL. -- The divine Trinity _ "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" _ could also be known as "Mother, Child and Womb" or "Rock, Redeemer, Friend" at some Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) services under an action Monday by the church's national assembly.
Delegates to the meeting voted to "receive" a policy paper on gender- inclusive language for the Trinity, a step short of approving it. That means church officials can propose experimental liturgies with alternative phrasings for the Trinity, but congregations won't be required to use them. [Emphasis mine]
...And it only gets worse from there.
Question: How many people who attend church regularly stay where they feel uncomfortable? How may people stay anywhere they feel uncomfortable? I won't say 'none' because Jim Morrison aptly penned, "people are strange"-- aberrations exist --but I'm very comfortable with saying the number is, in all likelihood, extremely low... Miniscule even. The real test will be to see how many people stay seated in those congregations that allow such heresy.
It is undeniable that God is love. It is undeniable that God is not willing that any should perish. But it is equally undeniable that Jesus did not come to send peace, but a sword...
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." Matthew 10:34-36
Wanting to be inclusive, to make the church more accessible, and welcoming to all people is admirable. It's what the Church was meant to be. But there are standards. There are truths. And there are expectations of those who accept Christ's message. None of which are mutable or flexible depending on the times, or circumstances. To follow Christ requires personal sacrifice; especially to turn away from sin. Consider how Jesus' prefaced the above statement...
"Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 10:32-33
Our sacrifice is just such a confession. A man or woman who turns away from homosexuality and allows God to heal their hearts and minds does so publicly, before men. Everyone who knows what they were will see what they are becoming, and that is a powerful testimony. Such a man or woman will not find it easy to shun the old ways, and the old people who supported them in those ways. But this is what God expects. He expects holiness of His people.
But that's not to say Christians do not fall, and often; the flesh remains unchanged. If anything, it's a much harder row to hoe, this "being a Christian." Before, there was no overt struggle for the soul; it belonged to the enemy. But now, with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, there is a constant struggle for that soul caught between the desires of the Flesh, and the desire of the Holy Spirit. But Christians need not fear this war being waged for their testimony-- for once saved, the soul is out of reach for the enemy. Jesus says we are to expect this, and that we shouldn't fear, for there are greater things to fear than what someone can do you to you.
The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household? ...And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Matthew 10:24-25, 28
There are standards Christians must not only accept, but standards under which they must also operate. One of which is to earnestly contend for the faith...
"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." Jude 3-4
And we are further warned about "other" gospels, and they that preach such...
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:8-9
You walk into the kitchen one afternoon and see a roach. Just one. You manage to kill it on the counter. You then clean it up, disinfect the area and go about the business of preparing a snack. It was just one roach-- no need for anything more, and certainly no sense of urgency.
The same is true of one report of apostasy in the church... Just a smidgen of heresy... No need to worry. Or is there? For the real danger lies in the hundreds you don't see or hear scurrying around in the walls.
from the mind of... Eric | 10:57 AM
62 Comments:
Beautiful, EL!
Wonderfully expressed!
Accurately administered!
Well said.
In the race toward apostasy, the Episcopal Church is leading, but the Presbyterian USA is not far behind. And lest anyone think their denomination is immune to this last days stretch, beware - the tares have been sown in all of God's Kingdom. True Christians should be bold and battle against these heresies, but when the point comes that there is no return, they should remove themselves from the midst of the apostates.
...Even so, come, Lord Jesus...
Oh, well, if y'all are making a list of apostates, based on churches that dare not stand in the way of God's grace and Jesus's example of wasteful inclusiveness, then, by all means, put the United Church of Christ, which I will soon call "my" church, on there.
Talk about a narrow way! Try telling the world that God loves homosexuals just as they are, like he loves all of us. The way gets narrower and narrower ...
Some wag said to me the other day, "Those who are most concerned with the Second Coming didn't much care for what Jesus said and did the first time around, and probably would crucify Him again."
Yep. He that hath ears to hear, let him click on this:
http://www.cathedralofhope.com
/homosexuality/index.php
There was a band from Athens, GA who had a song that went something like this:
When Jesus Christ returns to earth She is going to be a 5'3" Somoan
She'll speaks some words of wisdom, man
But no one here will understand
Because they will expect to see a man
Who hates the queers and talks American!
Oh, just in case the suggesting that the next incarnation of Christ could be female, here's another verse from the same song:
When Jesus Christ returns to earth he is going to be a 7-foot Korean
Surprise the white supremacists and rich TV evangelists
And all the cops will beat him senseless
Cut his hair and throw him in the brig
Thinking they're so big
Solomon--
Unless I'm mistaken, that's by a group called "The Fountains". I don't know the name of the song though, which is neither here nor there... I get your point. But you and ER have missed mine.
Somewhere along the line it's been assumed that I hate Homosexuals. Not true.
Somewhere along the line folks have decided that homosexuality is okay with God. Not true.
There are too many people trying to complicate the simple. Example: No where in our Constitution is the phrase "Separation of Church and state" to be found. And yet many will swear that it's implied. Not true.
Simplicity is best. Our founders didn't write the Constitution using some secret decoder ring. They used plain English.
Genesis states that God made woman for man. Simple. Noah woke up after his drunken stupor and realized what his son had done to him. Simple. The men of Sodom wanted to "know" the guests of Lot. Simple. Lot, understanding their intent far better than most people these days, offered his virgin daughters instead. Simple. Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind... it is an abomination. Simple. "Men with men, working that which is unseemly." Simple. Not the least bit complicated.
But wait! Jesus came not to condemn the world but that the world through Him might be saved. But He also didn't come to bring peace, but rather a sword. Contradictory? Not true.
Every man, woman, and child has a choice to make in this life... Literally a Life or Death decision. To enter into God's kingdom one must be born again. Crucify the flesh. Repent. Does the Bible state outright in plain, Queens English that, "Homosexuality is sinful, and I the Lord God forbid it." ? Obviously not. But it is there in plain English for anyone with but a rudimentary grasp of the nuances of our language, to see.
I'm not being judgmental, I'm not even being harsh. Just truthful. If the Holy Spirit is truly working in such a persons life, they will be forced to choose between the sin of homosexuality and continued fellowship with Jesus/God> Plain and simple truth.
ER-- as to your church. I know nothing about it. I can't say whether or not yours in an apostate church. What I can tell you is that the espousal of blanket acceptance of Homosexuality into the body of Christ without requiring such persons to turn away from their sin, is a sure sign of apostasy working in that church's midst. I not suggesting we stopping loving such individuals, but God. Does. Have. Standards... And if we are indeed His children, we are expected to abide by them.
You are a very bright penny in a world of moldering greening copper. Which is why it flabbergasts me to no end knowing you have trouble seeing what to me is obvious. That's as kind as I know how to be, Brother. None of this was written to offend you, and it is my sincerest hope you take none.
Peace.
No offense taken. I invite you to read the link I sent, and to ponder it.
If any of this were simple, there would be no discussion.
As for homosexual Christians:
I feel increasingly like an abolitionist Christian among slaveholding Christians in Mississippi, circa 1855. And *this* will have a similar result.
Churches will split over this, beginning with the Episcopals -- and good!
The best thing that happened to northern Baptists was the forming of the Southern Baptist Convention. The SBC was formed in fear, and in hubris -- by people who quoted Scripture that CLEARLY not only accepted but PROMOTED slavery, to hear our Southern Christian ancestors tell it. Slavery was seen as a GIFT of God, just as fundamentalist anti-homosexual, God-blocking, grace-insulting, Jesus-ignoring positions insist of themselves. Oh, the SBC has the numbers. Indeed. Broad is their path. (Antebellum references are historically accurate; connections to the present are my own.)
A wise man said that when people start using the Bible to defend ANY social custom, that custom is on its death bed.
Abolition: Opposed by the church in the generation before emancipation. Women's suffrage: Opposed by the clergy in the generation before 1920. Desegregation: Opposed by the church in the generation before and around 1954 and Brown vs. Board of Ed.
Add homosexuals to the list. The church started to get it in the 1970s; most of the church started to backlash in the 1990s; the schisms are coming now; much of the church will reconcile itself to homosexuals in full sacramental fellowhip in the next generation -- and 100 years from now, the percentages will be reversed: Most of the church will wonder what all the fuss was about. A few anti-gay holdouts will remain, venerating Fred Phelps, just as white supremacist organizations exist today venerating the KKK, and anti-women's rights church organizations do today, wishing for thr good old days.
No anger here. Just the way I see it, leaning not on my own understanding, but on grace!
And peace unto you.
Isn't it funny how a dishonest faux-Christian likes to use every little mistake from the past but refuses to see the global harm their own liberal idealism brings upon mankind?
It amazes me to hear a person who clearly has no clue of what grace really is talk about it.
Pick up the pieces of the irresponsible while encouraging them to continue to be irresponsible and condemn and demonize the responsible who clearly see the need to educate the irresponsible in responsible....GODLY...behaviour. The kind of behaviour that--if accepted by the irresponsible, sin-loving, faux-Christians would lead to a world with less poverty, disease, crime, divorce, etc.
If you really want to lead folks to Christ, Er (my perception is that you want to keep them in sin), you must teach them that they are sinners.
A person has to see his/her need before he/she can call upon his name for repentance.
But that's probably from some part of the Bible your brain-that's bigger-than-God has rejected.
Is that direct enough for you? Or will you now go tell your circle-jerkers that I'm being un-civil towards you again?
Oh, well.
er said: If any of this were simple, there would be no discussion.
The problem with that remark is that things are pretty simple if you accept the Word of God as being authoritative. God does love us all equally and it is all about grace. But Paul said, "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
"Or will you now go tell your circle-jerkers that I'm being un-civil..?"
Daddio, you were civil right up to the end. Until you inserted "circle-jerkers". Let's not use that again, please.
As to the points you made... I'm in agreement with you. Without restraint, and-- more importantly --agreement within the body of Christ, chaos will ultimately rule. Sin will have its day. And no ground will be made in the winning of souls.
D. Dad,
So slavery was a "little mistake?"
The point that "dishonest faux Christian" made stands: conservatives using the bible to prop up the status quo have a pretty poor track record in this country. They have often ended up on the wrong side of history, especially when they try to restrict the rights of others.
Every movement needs an enemy, and for some conservative Christians, homosexuals are just the enemy du jour. They are simply filling the role that jews, catholics, and blacks used to fill.
As for divorce, I invite you to compare divorce rates in red, bible belt states with those in blue, "godless" states. Massachusetts, anyone?
As for civility.
I urge y'all to check out this link.
It's a leftie version of D. Daddio. Only funny.
Not civil. Not reprintable here.
I admit it's where I originally got my idea on divorce in red and blue states,
but it checks out.
Best: Massachusetts. 2nd best: Connecticut.
Worst: Nevada. 2nd worst: Arkansas.
That's http://www.annotatedrant.com
They also take on taxes and the New York Times.
...Links supplied just for fun. Not all views reflect my own. Apologies to any Southerners who read the first rant. :)
EL, good call on The Fountains. Don't worry, although we disagree on the subject, I didn't think you hated homosexuals. ER's quote about how Christ would probably be crucified again just reminded me of the song.
"They have often..."--Solomon
Great point--"THEY have often" (My emphasis, of course). Not tried and true Christian morality.
Liberals, because of the weakness in their positions, MUST attempt to demonize the right. They accuse the right of promoting hate--a complete lie. They paint the right as having little or no compassion--again, complete lie!
Their approach is not honest. It is spiteful and NOT AT ALL civil behaviour to accuse someone falsely.
Solomon has stated that I have my head stuck in the sand, yet he refuses to admit he refuses to even listen to my logical reasond for doubting his positions.
Dishonesty runs deep in any "debate" with a liberal.
Again, if the "Christian" Left was really compassionate, it would embrace the just and proven Christian morals it loudly rejects!
The "slavery" thingy was a brainless analogy, Sol.
Have you visited Stop the Republicans website?
By the way, Sol, I am not responsible for what was done in the 1860s and befroe.
I am honest enough, however, to realize that had I lived during that era, I would have a 50/50 chance of either agreeing with the practice of slavery, or being adamantly against it.
I wonder if you are honest enough to admit the same thing about yourself.
But this post wasn't about slavery. It was about capitulatiing Christains giving in to the type of rhetoric and deception I fight each and every day--here and at The Church of Erudite Redneck
It was about people rejecting God's truth to follow man's fallacies.
It was about leftist liberals spitting in the face of Christianity!
Dad,
On slavery, I don't know where I would fall. I can only hope I would have been an abolitionist. But we are all shaped and limited by the times we are born in.
I am not saying you are responsible for anything that happened in the 1860's. What I am saying is that the Christian Right has not learned from its hubris and mistakes of the past.
It's funny to hear you talk about demonizing and being uncivil, when those are your two main strategies. You refuse to engage in patient, honest dialogue. You accused ER of being a"dishonest faux Christian" in your first sentence, then implied you weren't being uncivil (civil means polite, courteous, well-mannered, and gracious).
Almost every comment you leave is rude and snide.
It's not about your politics. ELAshley and I disagree about just about everything, but I would never say these things about him. I know that if I treat him with respect he will do the same. Not so for you. People who take time to explain their positions only get personal attacks in return.
You can't talk about ideas, you can only demonize groups and people you're debating. Grow up.
"You can't talk about ideas, you can only demonize groups and people you're debating. Grow up."--Solomon
I demonize the positions. I have debated you on every issue we have discussed. You, Sol, refuse to consider any side but your own--a typical liberal trait as once suggested by John Wayne.
If i get personal it's because a pattern has been established that ties the position, firmly, with the one voicing it.
To say that I have not been attacked is a fallacy in itself! You and ER both love to imply false things about me and any other opponent you face. If that's "patient, honest" debate, I don't want any of it!
I would say that by being as forward and "in your face" as I tend to be is a much better display of my honesty than your under-handed false accusations toward me and EL, both!
Give me one example of any of my arguments that is illogical!
Ah, yes, the "give me one example" tactic. Like when you asked for examples of when you had called anyone a name. Or how the study of evolution helps disease research.
Sigh. OK, here's one from today. It is illogical to claim that conservative Christian values would lead to a lower divorce rate, when 9 of the 10 states with the lowest divorce rates are blue states, and 10 out of the 10 highest are red. The worst states in this category tend to be in the bible belt.
It's also illogical for you to accuse me of failing to consider any side other than my own, when I had just conceded your point on not knowing where I would have stood on slavery had I lived during that era.
Touche!
"Sigh. OK, here's one from today. It is illogical to claim that conservative Christian values would lead to a lower divorce rate, when 9 of the 10 states with the lowest divorce rates are blue states, and 10 out of the 10 highest are red. The worst states in this category tend to be in the bible belt"
What does the "Bible Belt have to do with Christian Values?
Seriously, you would blame divorce rates on Christian Values? That's completely ILLOGICAL!
Tell me, since you have not done so previously, what does medical research have to do with macro-evolutiuon?
All you ever did was to say that micro leads to macro. But you cannot defend that ASSUMPTION. Other than offering more spevulation, of course. Based on the flawed and agenda-driven reasoning of men.
I concede adaptation(micro-evolution).
Explain, without using any form of speculation, macro-evolution.
What you're saying is immoral, irresponsible lifestyles benefit mankind?
That's logical?
"The worst states in this category tend to be in the bible belt"--Solomon
This is exactly what I mean when I say that you use fallacy in your argument.
There is no way that your "Bible Belt" compasrison addresses the issue.
It is not Christian morality that causes high divorce rates. It is clearly the liberal, sin-glorifying, irresponsibility-accepting direction our nation has taken!
Of course, as I always say, any means, however illogical, justifies the liberal-minded ends, doesn;t it?
Fallacy is your friend, Sol. However much you want to deny it.
Er...that is ends....justify.....means.
D.Dad,
"Seriously, you would blame divorce rates on Christian Values? That's completely ILLOGICAL!"
Nope, I didn't say that, nor do I believe it.
"What you're saying is immoral, irresponsible lifestyles benefit mankind?"
Nope, just that states filled with the "immoral" people you keep pointing your finger at seem to be doing better than states with lots of Christian morality-embracing people on at least some moral issues. Maybe the liberals aren't so immoral afterall.
"It is not Christian morality that causes high divorce rates. It is clearly the liberal, sin-glorifying, irresponsibility-accepting direction our nation has taken!"
Mm hm. Then why do the "liberal, sin-glorifying, irresponsibility-accepting" states, as you would define them, have the lowest divorce rates?
Again, Maybe the liberals aren't so immoral afterall.
"...what does medical research have to do with macro-evolution?"
As I said before, out of respect for EL I don't want to turn his comment sections into pissing matches over evolution. I will do my best to answer your question on how medicine benefits from the study of macro-evolution, but have to end it there.
Understanding the history of human evolution allows us to judge how much we can expect other animals to be useful models for humans. For example, how much can we trust the testing of new medicines or testing for toxicity of new substances on animals? Which species could be good organ donors for humans?
Generally, we can expect research on our distant evolutionary cousins (mice, say) to be less applicable to humans than research on our closer relatives (like chimps). But mice are still useful models, and a lot easier and cheaper to work with than chimps.
So its important to know how closely related we are to these different animals, how different parts of our bodies have evolved differently since we diverged, and which evolutionary changes may affect how we respond to different therapies or toxins.
We can determine our relationships to other animals based on DNA, the fossil record, morphology, and/or biochemistry.
Even different human populations have different recent evolutionary histories, so we have to be careful applying research on one group (e.g., Europeans) to another (e.g., native Americans).
This is one of many possible answers, doing my best to avoid the stock answer that "nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution, so it's impossible to study medicine without studying evolution."
You can have the last word.
My last word:
Common Design would also lend validity to the study of other animals in relation to the effects of treatment, etc. on humans.
A Ford isn't a Dodge, yet I can study a Ford and come up with ways to do meaningful maintenance on a Dodge. Or a Chevy. Or a motorcycle. Or a go-cart. Or a weed-eater. I can study a Ford and figure out the basic workings of electrical components, even. Heck, I can study a Ford and see how the textiles of its interior are similar to the textiles people wear! I would venture that I could figure out a way to repair a lawn-mower if I studied a Ford pick-up long enough!
To me, Common Design makes way more sense than evolution. But that's just me. And you're you.
EL, I sure don't cosnider this civil -- although I've come not to expect anything but hyperobolic, sanctimonious horsecrap from Bro. Dad:
"faux-Christian"
Not. In. The. Least. THAT is a greateer sin than ANYTHING I have ever leveled at Bro. Dad, who I consider, on his own profession, a Christian.
I'm 'bout tired of this. DooDad, either grow up and learn to attack issues without attacking people -- or go to Helena (Ark.)!
I was thinking the very same thing this afternoon while struggling to build graphics for the 5 & 6, AND keep up with happenings here and elsewhere. On a side note, I rarely do graphics anymore. These days it's usually audio.
Anyway, back to Common Design...
It's one thing to say humans may be related to chimpanzees or mice or pigs simply because organs may be compatible, or we all share remarkably similar physiologies. It's quite another when we choose to look at insects. Reptiles, though having pretty much the same physiologies as mammals, I have to wonder why our Genus'(?) are so dissimilar.
Last time I checked, snakes, turtles, iguanas, and toads all have hearts, lungs, livers, bladders, intestines, yada, yada. But Reptiles and Mammals are very different.
If evolution is the real deal inasfar as common ancestry is concerned... well, I have a lot of trouble putting any stock in that. Especially when we consider insects who do not have lungs, hearts, or blood vessels as generally understood to exist in higher lifeforms.
If evolution means everything now living had a common ancestor in some pool of amino-sludge a bilion years ago, then I find it difficult to accept the level of diversity we have... Changes in virus' and randomly occuring aberrations notwithstanding.
Just as all mammals sharing a similar physiology suggests to evolutionists that we all share a common ancestor, so too to the creationist the answer to all our similarities indicates that we all share a common creator.
I found D's analogy of different makes and models of cars to be very illustrative... and sensible.
Of course it's just as easy to say different sizes of animals require different physiological models, which to my thinking, would indicate an intelligent force behind it all. The randomness of chance, as expressed by evolution seems grossly inadequate to account for such divergences in design.
But that's me.
[I don't have time to edit, so please excuse the typos... there's bound to be at least one]
"hyperobolic, sanctimonious horsecrap"
Hyperbole--exaggerated statement not meant to be taken literally. (Oxford American Desk dictionary)
Sanctimonious--making a show of sanctity ot piety (Same publication as described above)
I have never claimed to be anything more than a sinner struggling with my own flaws. You, ER, on the other hand, SCREAM your own sanctity aloud to anyone willing to listen. Your piety is blaringly apparent.
Every word I have said to you or about you is accurate and not exagerrated--AND certainly meant to be taken literally.
These two dishonest accusations towards me describe you in every sense, Reverend.
And I've been tired of your piety since the third or forth comment you left on my blog. I percieved your self-worship then.
Remember, in light of today's news about WMD in Iraq--Democrats Lied, Thousands of People DIED!
Doodad, at least you took the time to look up the words. I'd call that progress.
ER, I just want to add that I thought D. Dad's last post on evolution above was very civil. Hey, no name calling, no demonizing, and a thoughtful argument to boot. Credit when it's due.
But halfway through writing this, I see it's started up again (D. Dad just posted his response to you).
D. Dad, the Ford/Dodge/weedeater analogy is a good one. Nice work.
EL, although I disagree on reptiles, insects, etc, I'm going to stick to my pledge to leave it where I left it. Maybe another time...
I'd missed the WMD "news" of the day, and have since looked it up.
I'll hold my response to this:
1. I hold Santorum in less regard than Doodad holds Teddy Kennedy.
2. Chemical weapons were NOT what the president and his hired flacks were worrying us all to death about in the weeks leading up to the war in Iraq. They were talking about nukes that could get to this continent. So, eh, enjoy the news.
Man! This was *too* EASY.
"Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.
" 'This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions 'are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war.' "
Try again, Doodad!
I need a vacation...
July 2nd can't get here soon enough.
Have you read the declassified report?
You see, they were there. There are more. They're scattered and hidden.
Saddaam was to have destroyed these weapons--he clearly did not.
Bush was right! End of Story.
Democrats lied, thousands upon thousands died.
It's hilarious that NONE of the MSM has this posted on their sites. Google doesn't have it on their front page. Yahoo doesn't either.
A-freaking-mazing.
The left will be in full-moonbat mode tomorrow trying to minimize this news.
Sorry, El! Last comment on any subject other than your original:
ER, did you happen to read-on about what else the senior Defense Department official said?
Here is the three paragraphs immediately following the one quoted by you:
"The official said the findings did raise questions about the years of weapons inspections that had not resulted in locating the fairly sizeable stash of chemical weapons. And he noted that it may say something about Hussein's intent and desire. The report does suggest that some of the weapons were likely put on the black market and may have been used outside Iraq.
He also said that the Defense Department statement shortly after the March 2003 invasion saying that "we had all known weapons facilities secured," has proven itself to be untrue.
"It turned out the whole country was an ammo dump," he said, adding that on more than one occasion, a conventional weapons site has been uncovered and chemical weapons have been discovered mixed within them."
And about that original post, EL. If you consider Presbyterians "apostates," what do you consider George W. Bush? You know, he's a United Methodist, and their denominational debates are very similar to those of the Presbyterians. Yet there sits George W. Bush, comfortable in his own congregation! How about it? Is he an apostate -- or a roach killer?
A fair question, 'mous.
George W. Bush is right on a number of topics, but he's dead wrong on Israel. Many within the Presbytery and Episcopals... as do plenty of other folks like baptists and such (though by no means all) have adopted a new doctrine-- that's not so new --called "Replacement Theology". I'm not going to go all into all of it right here, except to say, the basic thought is that Israel is no longer God's chosen people since they rejected Christ, and killed their messiah. The Church is now in possession of all the promises made by God to Israel. This, of course, isn't true, but this idea could be why Bush has insisted Israel retreat to pre-armistice borders... effectively surrendering Jerusalem, and all but sealing their doom.
Whether he's a bug killer or not, I cannot, at this point, say.
Thanks for your question.
EL, What brand of the Christian faith do you profess? And where do you go to church?? You seem to find fault in them all. (And you should, because there *is* fault in all, but most people who care try to find commonalities, not differences.)
Or are you still freelancing?
"Piety" alert! GO TO CHURCH, man.
No, Reverend Redneck doesn't attack others.
In his own deluded mind!
A church that rejects Christ--how amazing that anyone claiming to know Christ could defend that. Really, truly, fantastically amazing. (considering the source, however, predictable!)
The church I attend does not reject Christ. Not does it reject the Bible. What it does reject is fundamentalism in all its forms.
"....church that rejects Christ."
OK, Dadd, then you and EL should apologize immediately for using the word "apostate" -- or agreeing with it -- in regard to Presbyterians. Sorry, you may not like it, but you don't get to pick and choose your brothers and sisters in Christ.
And not by any stretch of the imagination could you say that Presbyterians reject Christ. This from the PCUSA Web site, there for you or anyone else to see:
Presbyterians believe Jesus was...
Fully human, fully God.
Jesus proclaimed the reign of God:
preaching good news to the poor and release to the captives,
teaching by word and deed
and blessing the children,
healing the sick
and binding up the brokenhearted,
eating with outcasts,
forgiving sinners,
and calling all to repent and believe the gospel.
Unjustly condemned for blasphemy and sedition,
Jesus was crucified,
suffering the depths of human pain and giving his life for the sins of the world.
God raised Jesus from the dead,
vindicating his sinless life,
breaking the power of sin and evil,
delivering us from death to life eternal
I have no doubt there are plenty of Presbyterians out there who believe their official statement of faith. My accusation of Apostasy is not directed to them, bur rather, to those in leadership who have obviously abandoned the truth of God.
The Good people of faith within the Presbytery should demand that their so-called "leaders" who have rejected Christ to either repent or step down. And that is biblical.
ER--
I'm attending Beth-Haven Community Church... very conservative. It doesn't claim a particular denomination, though blood and fire baptists would feel right at home.
At the tender of age of 45, there is only one person younger than I am in this church. The oldest is 92, and his favorite song is "Gimme that ol time religion" which he sings as often as they'll let him, with as much gusto as 92 years will allow.
I'm glad to be there.
There, you said it again: Reject Christ.
You have the church's Statement of Faith in front of you. So you have no excuse to use the word "apostate." No sir, that's not biblical in the least.
Neither Presbyterians in the pews, in leadership, or out in the parking lot REJECT Christ. Quite the opposite.
You still owe a retraction and an apology.
If you really want biblical, THAT, my friend, would be biblical.
Anyone who-- irrespective of denomination, in the parking lot, or in the pew --claims Jesus Christ is not the ONLY way to eternal life IS an apostate... he/she has fallen away from the faith.
I can't apologize for speaking the truth.
OK, well let me post this again, since you are apparently having trouble reading it.
Please point out the sentence in which Christ is rejected as the only way to eternal life. Thanks.
Presbyterians believe Jesus was...
Fully human, fully God.
Jesus proclaimed the reign of God:
preaching good news to the poor and release to the captives,
teaching by word and deed
and blessing the children,
healing the sick
and binding up the brokenhearted,
eating with outcasts,
forgiving sinners,
and calling all to repent and believe the gospel.
Unjustly condemned for blasphemy and sedition,
Jesus was crucified,
suffering the depths of human pain and giving his life for the sins of the world.
God raised Jesus from the dead,
vindicating his sinless life,
breaking the power of sin and evil,
delivering us from death to life eternal
You're missing the point.
1st sentence of the quoted article...
"The divine Trinity _ "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" _ could also be known as "Mother, Child and Womb"
That, sir, is heresy. And anyone who adopts it is living in a state of apostasy. Such a man or woman is a heretic.
Any Presbyterian who adheres to the beliefs you've posted twice now, is not... IS NOT an apostate OR a heretic. Reexamine my post. No where do I label "believers" as apostates.
My biggest concern in all this are those weak Christians who will accept the lie being preached to them. Will they know to get off the pew and go elsewhere? That's my worry.
You have taken offense needlessly.
That sentence may be wacky, but it is certainly not apostacy or heresy. It is not rejection of Christ, as you have defined. Especially in light of the denomination's Statement of Faith, which specifically embraces Christ.
The point is this: It is also dangerous for you, as a Christian, to throw that word around carelessly, tossing it out like a handful of gravel at Christians with whom you personally disagree.
You are painting with a very broad brush. And you are using that brush negatively and increasingly against all but your specific group of like-minded believers.
Not. biblical.
So. Mother instead of Father-- Child and Son are pretty much synonymous --and Womb instead of Holy Spirit.
You really think it's okay for the leadership of ANY denomination to allow this kind of change?
As to your "broad brush" assertion... I've said it twice now, but I'll happily reiterate: The only people I call apostates and heretics are those who insist the substitutions of Mother and Womb for Father and Holy Spirit is in line with the teachings of the bible. I am not painting all Presbyterians as heretics.
Furthermore, since you have been saved since the age of 10, and baptized in the same Southern Baptist church as I have, and are dedicated to daily prayer, weekly Bible study, and follow Christ in word and deed, you should know that Jesus repeatedly condemned the religious leaders of His day for their hypocrisy. He called them sinners... Told them they would die in their sins. Even with the woman caught in adultery He told her to "Go and sin no more". He didn't condemn her, but He did tell her what He thought of her actions... they were sin.
Jesus was/is the fulfillment of the Law. But He died so that the Law would have no power over those who accepted His sacrifice. You must know that sinners will be judged by the power of the Law, and will be found guilty. Saints/believers will be judged, yes, but not by the Law.
As Christians we are commanded to Judge... not condemn. How are we to know who not to fellowship with if we do not judge whether or not we might end up "unequally yoked"? Or how can two walk together unless they agree?
As a Christian you also know that many will depart from the faith, and give heed to seducing spirits. You also know, especially since you're in, or were in, a Southern Baptist church, that we are living in the last days.
You should also know that without the Law, the sinner cannot know his sin, and therefore cannot come to repentance. It's not enough that we walk the walk and hope the sinner likes what he/she sees, and chooses to accept Christ. We have to talk the talk-- whether they like what they hear or not --in hope that they will feel the conviction of the Holy Spirit and repent.
I cannot apologize for calling sin, Sin. Or branding heresy, Heresy. For you to insist such... Well... I'm left to ask why would a Christian not agree with all I've just laid out?
know in thyself and all one self-same soul; banish the dream that sunders part from whole.
PS. Ms. Green said: "True Christians should be bold and battle against these heresies"
Billy says: In the past when this was legal, "true christians" tortured and killed people such as physicists and mathematicians for "heresies" as you call them because they discovered facts about God's universe that didn't vibe with lies stated in the bible and believed by the church.
Biily said: "true christians"
Give me an example of one of your "true christians", Billy.
Charles Spurgeon?
Peter?
Paul?
Mary?
You confuse "true christian" with self-serving corruptors of Christianity, pal.
Give me an example of a contemporary Christian who advocates killing anyone for their scientific research.
It's not Christianity that has been to blame for past wars, persecution of scientists, etc.
Billy--
To what "lies stated in the bible and believed by the church" do you specifically refer?
Nowhere in the bible does it state that the earth is flat... or the center of the universe
What lies?
EL, take a look at this site about biblical verses about the shape of the earth, its immobility, vaults of water in the heavens, the movements of the sun and moon, and the nature of the stars:
Flat earth Bible
Also see:
Six flood arguments the creationists can't answer
I looked at both of your links, Sol. To interptret ann interpretation of dreams as evidence that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat is just plain stupid. And...er...umm...dishonest! LOL!
21 animals per acre? The text itself stated that the sizes of the animals varied in size from minute to gigantic. I would guess there are MORE than 21 animals on the acre of land my own house sits on.
This evidence you linked is no more than smoke and mirrors!
Dad, seems like you just scanned the site for something to pull out and hold up.
There are 21 animals for every acre of earth in a single formation in Africa.
Did you read the rest of the paragraph?
"Suppose we assume (conservatively, I think) that the Karroo Formation contains 1% of the vertebrate fossils on earth. Then when the Flood began there must have been at least 2100 living animals per acre, ranging from tiny shrews to immense dinosaurs."
Regarding the flat earth stuff. I deliberately just supplied the links without my own comment. So here's my position:
The argument that the Bible describes a flat earth does not rest on that single dream passage. There are others, and the bible leans more toward a flat earth than a spherical one.
But I find these arguments to be realtively weak compared to other Biblical inaccuracies, like the immobile earth and nature of the stars and "firmament," which are pretty darn clear (like those Psalms).
And the discussion is not about a flat earth per se, but about Biblical inerrancy.
The Flat Earth Bible is interesting. It doesn't, in my opinion, constitute a convincing argument-- There's a lot of conjecture therein. Haven't had time to peruse the flood Arguments yet. Tonight perhaps.
21 seems like an awfully light number representing how many animals could live on an acre to tell you the truth.
800 million remains are not found everywhere. It seems to me like the number proves that these remains were laid down together as they gathered during the run-off from a world-wide flood.
I would say that 2100 per acre on an average would not be so shocking considering that the earth was one big wild-life refuge at the time. Better conditions for reproduction before the flood and all. I'd say that there are at least 100 lizards on my property right this minute!
You're right, I didn't read the rest of the paragraph. But it is still speculation on the part of the author.
I've bookmarked the pages. I'll take a closer look and write a post on my own blog addressing the discrepencies I'm sure I'll find.
Okey doke. I'm traveling for a week, so may not be stopping by much.
Be careful--drive defensively if you drive--see you on the other side.
The sword is for separating ignorance from wisdom.
Post a Comment
<< Home