Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Michael Medved :: Townhall.com Columnist
New Bishop show bankrupcy of 'religious left'
by Michael Medved
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


The Democratic takeover on Capitol Hill provides new energy and aggressiveness for the nation’s Religious Left – that faction of clergy and activists who seek to associate organized faith with the liberal agenda in cultural, economic and foreign policy debates. While deriding Christian conservatives for their alleged “intolerance,” “ignorance” and “fanaticism,” the religious leftists manage to turn off most religious believers of even moderate outlook with their own displays of arrogance and radicalism, and their smug dismissal of traditional values.

The controversial new leader of the Episcopal Church in the United States provided a prime example of these alienating attitudes in a startling interview in the New York Times Magazine on November 19th with Deborah Solomon. When Solomon asked about the current numbers of Episcopalians, for instance, Bishop Jefferts Schori took it as a point of pride that her church experienced declining membership.

Q: How many members of the Episcopal Church are there in this country?

A: About 2.2 million. It used to be larger percentagewise, but Episcopalians tend to be better educated and tend to reproduce at lower rates than other denominations.

In other words, it’s just those uneducated, unsophisticated Evangelicals and Catholics and Mormons and Orthodox Jews who are bothering with the messy, dirty work of producing and raising kids. Naturally, the Presiding Bishop defends the low Episcopal birthrate as a sign of enlightenment:

Q: Episcopalians aren’t interested in replenishing their ranks by having children?

A: No. It’s probably the opposite. We encourage people to pay attention to the stewardship of the earth, and not use more than their portion.

In other responses, Bishop Jefferts Schori showed far more sympathy for Muslim extremists than she did for “fundamentalists” within the Christian tradition:

Q: As a scientist with a Ph.D., what do you make of the Christian fundamentalists who say the earth was created in six days and dismiss evolution as a lot of bunk?

A: I think it’s a horrendous misunderstanding of both science and active faith tradition…

Q: Pope Benedict…became embroiled in controversy this fall after suggesting that Muslims have a history of violence.

A: So do Christians! They have a terrible history… I think Muslims are poorly understood by the West, and it is easy to latch onto that which we do not understand and demonize it.

Note that when the good Bishop speaks of the shameful record of violence by Christians, she says “they have a terrible history” – not we. In other words, she instinctively excludes herself when she talks of Christian tradition.

At a time when Muslim fanatics seek to influence politics and mores around the world, conducting tireless conversionary efforts in the European and North American heartland of Christendom, it’s deeply disturbing that the leader of one of the most influential Christian denominations refuses to recognize what many thoughtful Muslims freely acknowledge—that Islamic culture, today and yesterday, has been marred by uniquely warlike and violent elements. The idea that Christians (or even Muslim reformers) who seek to identify and confront those ugly influences merely “latch onto that which we do not understand and demonize it” is to diminish the significance of the worldwide Islamic terror campaign that’s claimed literally tens of thousands of victims from Mumbai to Madrid, from Nairobi to New York.

Finally, Bishop Jefferts Schori casually dismisses the familial and marital norms that most believers embrace and defend as the very essence of Judeo-Christian faith. Instead of traditional pride in a husband and wife building a home together, making heroic efforts and even significant sacrifices to share a life, the Bishop happily announces that she and her spouse occupy opposite ends of the continent.

Q: You were previously bishop of Nevada, but your new position requires you to live in New York City. Do you and your husband like it here?

A: He is actually in Nevada. He is a retired mathematician. He will be here in New York when it makes sense.

In other words, it doesn’t “make sense” for a retired mathematician to be at his wife’s side when she takes on the leadership of one of the nation’s most significant Christian denominations? It doesn’t make sense for the first female Bishop to head this denomination to try to model marital togetherness?

The questions and answers with Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori eloquently (if inadvertently) demonstrate the bankruptcy of the Religious Left. If the movement’s attitudes toward marriage and child-bearing reflect the trendy ideas of secular environmentalists rather than timeless Biblical truth, then who needs religion? Most Americans understand that the purpose of organized faith is to bring unchanging values to bear in challenging and modifying the fads and temptations of the moment. Religion means nothing if we rather begin with fashionable contemporary ideas and use them to alter the fundamentals of faith. Moreover, what’s the point of maintaining any sort of organized Christianity if one of its most prominent leaders will instinctively condemn her own faith tradition while excusing or dismissing the violent excesses of the deadly Muslim enemies of the Christian world?

As with most leaders of the Christian Left, Bishop Jefferts Schori appears be very Left, but not very Christian. Her example shows the way that this new movement of religious liberals amounts to little more than a desperate effort to use the language of faith to repackage the tired ideas of secular, utopian leftism and moral relativism that have failed so spectacularly wherever they’ve been tried around the world.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Michael Medved's daily syndicated radio talk show reaches one of the largest national audiences every weekday between 3 and 6 PM, Eastern Time. Michael Medved is the author of eleven books, including the bestsellers What Really Happened to the Class of '65?, Hollywood vs. America, Right Turns and, most recently, The Ten Big Lies About America.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Michael Medved's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Christian? Left
I don't think that there is a Christian Left. Anyone who is a born again believer and is truly striving to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ can't be a participant of the left's socialist/communist/humanist agenda. The number of Episcopalians is declining for more reasons that just that they aren't having children. As that denomination moves further left, more people are leaving or are being left behind because they still believe the way all Christians once believed. They still know that homosexuality is wrong and don't want same-sex marriage. They don't see anything wrong with having a cross in a memorial or having In God We Trust on our money or saying One Nation Under God in the pledge. They are on the verge of a split in their denomination and after that they will become also irrelavant as a religious force. They only make the news now because the liberal media likes what they are doing because it aligns with their liberal view of the world. It is just another case of the biased media pushing one of their favorites. Muslims will be more numerous that Episcopalians in a few more years and I hope the Muslims have even less influence than the Episcopalians.

But ... but ...
As the new PB (presiding Bishop) says, " but Episcopalians tend to be better educated ..."

It is just plain arrogant of us serfs to think that we can understand or appreciate the wonderful wisdom and insight of people like the Episcopal Church. They don't have children, they endorse sodomy, they think it's good for a church to shrink.... How dare we presume to comment on this refined, recondite, erudite, enlightened group. We should just do as they say, or if we don't, the least we can do is hate ourselves and our children - or hope that they grow up gay so as not to reproduce and take more than their share of the earth's resources.

You (and I) just don't get it. Sorry.

Religious left
There certainly is a faction of the religious left that is focused only on social issues. There is also a group of Democrats who were raised with traditional values. This is the group to whom Ms. Pelosi was appealing with the latest Dem election trick. That it worked to bring in the conservative element of the Religious Left merely shows that there are people who love God and want to live their lives humbly in accordance with His teachings. These people are much more like the Religious Right than anyone seems to be noticing.

Hmmmm
So, according to her, "intelligent, educated people" aren't interested in having children?

Considering that the conventional wisdom states that such people (also often described as "smart and sophisticated") have more sex than the "average person"(translation; stupid peon'), I can only conclude that, barring celibacy, people like her make extensive use of birth control.

If true, this means that the problem represented by trendy, liberal religious types is automatically self-correcting. Given one or two generations, that is.

cheers

eon

King Henry VIII's church
What do you expect of a church founded by a dissident Catholic? The church of England, and all it's offshoots, need to find their way back to the Church that was founded by the Master Himself, Jesus Christ!
Hello! Is anyone awake,out there??

Understanding Islam?
The PB says "I think Muslims are poorly understood by the West, and it is easy to latch onto that which we do not understand and demonize it."

Au contrare (a little French lingo there). I believe that more and more people are reading and learning about Islam today than ever before and are truly aghast at the hatred and violence that they read directly from the Koran and Hadith. Read any Robert Spencer, Walid Shoebat, Bernard Lewis, Melanie Phllips, Joel C. Rosenberg - and we will understand their (Islam's) true colors.

And we'll also understand that everything that CAIR says is a lie - approved by allah! What other religion actually supports lying to further it's cause? All the wailing about persecution and being treated inhumanely by the 6 imams on the Minneapolis US Airways flight - yeah - I'd have said something, too, if a bunch of men started praying aloud in arabic and wouldn't be seated in their assigned seats. It was all over the news here in Phoenix last night when 5 of these "imams" returned home. The news interviewed a few other passengers who said things were overblown...but the people who said that they would have reported the suspicious activity were afraid to be interviewed on camera for fear of retribution...we're already seeing dhimmitude self-imposed.

Don't want to hurt their little feelings, now, so we'd better not publish stupid cartoons, say that they lie about their koran and what it really says about killing and Jews and all of the contradictions therein. Can't bring up their "prophet's" pedophilia, or carnage, or illiteracy, or we'll be sorry - at the end of a sword.

But Christianity, well, and Jews, heavens - they want to take over the US (theocracy per the demoncrats)- or even the world (neocon blather). However, just look at who are the ones saying they want to destroy people - Nasrallah, Ahmadinejad, Fatah, Hamas. All muslims.

Sorry for the length. I'm just fed up with all of the molly-coddling of evildoers in the world.

Come quickly Yeshua HaMashiach.



intelligent people and birth rates
How does the notion of "intelligent" people typically producing less children NOT make sense to everyone? The better educated a person is, the level of employment he or she has is likely to be higher also. Whether the result of personal ambition to advance or simply dedication to the employer, such higher level jobs tend to discourage people (typically women) from taking time off to raise children. Couple that with the fact that "intelligent" people better understand the consequences of adding another child in terms of the new obligations incurred (money, time, etc.). So, yes, that specific statement is most certainly correct.

And as far as more "intelligent" people being less fervently religious, that trend has existed in Western civilization since the first printing presses were created in Europe. Many will blindly (and without factual support) argue that that has not been the case SIMPLY because they don't like the implication (real or imagined)that the "religious" are somehow less intelligent. I have no interest in making such an argument, but no one can argue that Western civilization has continued to experience declining religious fervor as scientific achievement has advanced AND the masses have gained greater and greater access to information. It is only natural that someone of higher intelligence (maybe just in their own mind) will be more skeptical about anything, not just specifically religion.

puftwaffe writes:
"I have no interest in making such an argument, but no one can argue that Western civilization has continued to experience declining religious fervor as scientific achievement has advanced AND the masses have gained greater and greater access to information. It is only natural that someone of higher intelligence (maybe just in their own mind) will be more skeptical about anything, not just specifically religion."

It can also be said that Western Civilization has experienced declining morals, common courtesy, honesty and civility and an increase in lawlessness, poverty and depravity with the "advances" of science. All of these things speak to a spiritual sickness, something science knows nothing about, neither do they even acknowledge it.

puftwaffe - yeah, but
I was not aware of anyone questioning the assertion. And certainly some of the reasoning you present is put forth by the soi-disant intelligent. I know something called "The Hunger Project" a couple of decades agao was encouraging protestant churches to join with it in lowering the birth-rate in poor countries because high rates of kiddies were associated with low rates of moolah (if you'll pardon the technical language).

On the other hand, 4 or 5 decades agao it was common for wealthier and presumably more intelligent couples to have lots of children. Two was a minimum. So this is a comparatively recent change. Certainly that has somehting to do with affordable and effective artificial birth control (hereinafter "ABC").

It remains to be seen whether the disassociation between sexual intercourse and child bearing is good for society. 40-50 years ago one argument made for ABC was that it would reduce the rate of illegitimacy. The rate of illegitimacy has increased, even among the "upper classes", where a lifelong matrimonial commitment, never really popular, has fallen even lower in public esteem.

Something is up, and it's not clear what. But it worries me, in that I think the psychological health of the child is challenged when domestic arrangements are unpredictable and commitment is absent.

Mad Dawg
One thing to consider about the "wealthy" and presumably more intelligent of 4 or 5 decades ago, the women were generally not working and able to raise more children full time. I think this is the primary reason for the difference, though birth control certainly plays a big part as well.

mystic7
I don't disagree that morality and civility have been in a similar decline. But you wrongly blame science for being complicit. Science only seeks to understand and better explain the universe in which we live. Certainly there are ethical boundaries, but science does not and SHOULD not be in the business of assigning morality to anything. It is for others (whether organized religions or a single person) to find meaning in what science discovers.

Declining Episcopalian membership
It is precisely because of the leadership of folks like this new Presiding Bishop that the numbers of Episcopalians is dropping dramatically. Many parishes are leaving the Episcopal Church and declaring themselves to be Anglican, keeping their allegance to God and the overall Anglican Community, of which the Episcopal Church is just the US branch. Some dioceses (regional groupings of parishes under one bishop) are even talking openly of becoming Anglican (North Florida and North Texas are two of them).
This is what happens when the Church is run according to the desires of man (gender neutral meaning here) instead of the Word of God.

Chris (recently changed my dogtags from Episcopal to Anglican)

Total Ignorance
Kosinator13, you have to be kidding me. Are you that blind? Or, maybe, just that stupid.
Who stands on the street corner screaming “look at me” more than the republicans? The new neo conservative movement loves to say God, but when actions come to play- he is always absent. Look at the fraud and excess of the last 12 years of Republican rule in congress. Look at an Executive, who claims to be “born again” lying this country into a useless war against people that posed us no harm. Look at an executive that let the real terrorist get away. The Greed and corruption of both the Bush admin and the Republican leadership in congress is why we failed in Iraq. Cheney’s plan to get Halliburton billions worked out fine- only 3000 soldiers dead for it…praise your god for that…Did you even know that Cheney’s personal stock in Halliburton went up over 300 million? Using the office for personal benefit like that- but hey, lets impeach a president for sex- right!

Ya’ll are foolish. The author of this article was petty at best and ya’ll are ignorant at least.

Would a “real” Christian attack another Christian like this man did? Who is standing on street corners? The neoconservative movement loves to talk God- but he is never present when it comes time to act.

Ya’ll need to wake up- God is neither republican nor democrat and you surly cannot reconcile this bs with the bible.

Who am I fooling- why would I think that ya’ll may actually think….for yourselves.

Religions aside, turn to God Almighty
When one has faith, turn to God, religions are man made and faulty, God gives wisdom and insight to the beleiver. I have found so many answers through prayer, and strenght and the real meaning of humbleness and faith. As man moves away from faith he puts himself and all of mankind at every kind of risk. Soon we will all be judged by the Creator of life. Man is not his own God, when we turn to man for the answers, oh what a horrible fate, for man is greedy, selfish, arrogant, hateful and deceitful. Man has a natural need for faith and if not nutured correctly, he can fall into the hands of evil, without even reconizing it. Lies and deception, are adopted without any innocence to refer too. That is what is happening in soceity today, as so many are casting out faith, and putting in it's place of deception and evil. What a world we are creating for the inoccent children whom had no choice, and are being led by the sheer deception and lies of mankind, Lead by sin and hate and greed, May God be merciful and just. For if you want to enter the kingdom of God, become like a child, and ask God for his entrnal love, that is the purpose of life, To become a child of God, lead by Him in truth and faith. A man truley of worth to Our Heavenly Father. A man God himself can trust with the Life he has blessed Mankind with. Amen!!!! Praise Jesus!!!

SP?

Sounds more like a jacket cover to one of o'Reilley or Coulter's books than an interview.




The new shakers...
With the Episcopalians' low birth rate (and loss of members due to leaders such as Bishop Jefferts Schori) are they destined to be the new Shakers? Except, unlike the Shakers who were able to survive for a while with new members, the Episcopalians (and others of the "mainstream" Protestant groups) are not attracting new members. The secularists, which she sounds more like than she does a religious leader, don't need a church while those who do believe in God and Jesus and the Bible gravitate to churches that don't consider the Bible to say whatever they wish it to.

Schori is the Perfect Bishop...
...for the Church of the New Thing...the Church of Extreme Relativism. Schori is the prow decoration for a church that has slipped its moorings and is adrift in a sea of increasing irrelevancy. Schori's true followers are those who basically despise traditional religion and are merely using The Episcopal Church to advance extreme secular agendas, feminism, the homosexual agenda, while perversely and desparately seeking affirmation and approval for those agendas. The Episcopal Church was easy pickings for them because of its "big tent" and gracious nature.

Thank you, Michael Medved for shining additional light on this surreal development in the American Anglican tradition.


Move husband to New York
She says her husband will move "When it makes sense". For tax reasons alone it makes sense to maintain an address in Nevada. Being the PB is not a lifetime appointment, at some point she will retire and keeping a home in a low tax state like Nevada makes a lot of sense.

Don't confuse God with religion. God is universal and applies to all, religion is politics with a scrubbed face.

Great Catch Michael
The singularly most significant catch by Michael Medved was the "they" comment when the PB was referring to Christians. The fact is for decades the "leadership" of the Episcopal church and other so-called mainline denominations has been dominated by secular people who have no regard for the Bible, basic Christian doctrine, or many other religious traditions. Meanwhile, the members of thess churches usually share the traditional values of most other Christians.

Ben- Total ignorance?
That sounds like your piece there. You rambled on a bit, but you got more misses than hits. As for who screams "look at me" well it obvious that your fellow liberal demorcats do that. I seem to recall them always finding a microphone or camera to spout their nonsense and accuse the president of something. Maybe you need to wake up. Being a republican doesn't mena they are automatically Christian. Generally in the past, Christians have supported the republican platform over the democrat because the democrats are usually on the opposite side of our beliefs. I see you went back to the lame Haliburton whines, like all pathetic liberals when they run out of real issues. Grow up and get over it. Haliburton is an American company that does a job few others can. For your information, Clinton used them for similar situations as well. Were they bad back then also? Here's a hint for you; Cheney isn't on their board anymore. Or next time would you prefer the contracts go to some foreign company?
As for real Christians, I suggest you go read up in the Bible and learn what it means to be a real Christian. Liberals like yourself tend to not even know what makes a Christian. Here's a clue; being a member of a particular church doesn't make you a Christian.

puftwaffe writes:
“…higher level jobs tend to discourage people (typically women) from taking time off to raise children.” (...) “…4 or 5 decades ago, the women were generally not working and able to raise more children”

It’s all about the money. Conservatives tend to be caricatured as money-grubbing capitalists. Yet nearly every liberal argument I’ve heard on any topic, is based on a money-centric worldview. To paraphrase your view: Now that women have seen the money, you just can’t keep them barefoot and pregnant anymore.

The essence of motherhood is altruism. This you seem to have jettisoned and replaced it with an Ayn Randian type concept of “The Virtue of Selfishness.” With no altruistic mothers we need no altruistic fathers, and our society is spiraling downward in self-centered hedonism.

For my part,
I'm very bad and evil. And ignorant too. If only I had some authoritative master who would control and dominate me into wisdom. Where might I find such an overbearing master -- or better yet, a mistress -- not in the illicit sense -- more a school marm sort of mistress. I know! Say, can anyone loan me a couple hundreds of thousands of dollars, so that I can become Episcopalian? Either that, or Moslem. Say, one can be my mommy, and the other can be my pa! Anything would be better than being so lost and ignorant and humancentric.

http://forgottenprophets.blogspot.com/

J

How very sad
that one commentator has to revile the mother of Jesus Christ to make his point. How sad that any of the commentators think they need to revile religion. Without religion humanity would be no better than the beasts that prey on the weak. Then again, some religions do prey on the weak, such as the attempted annihilation of whole villages and tribes in the Arabic world and beyond.

Muslims not only have a violent past, many of them are violent today. Christians have had a violent past also, for which there is no excuse. All will have to answer one day.

Many Episcopal priests and parishioners have turned to the Catholic Church, welcomed with open arms. No, it is not money. It is because we welcome all to the loving arms of Christianity, to the one true Triune God.

Christ taught us to love one another. With love and the Ten Commandments this could be a utopian world. But, with the left-leaning, liberal tenets of free love, homosexuality, sexual acts in the White House being teeheed, greed and avarice, humanity is going down the tube.

I pray for all of you (child abusers, spouse abusers, thieves, murderers, the greedy and self-serving) that you may be converted and forgiven, that you come to know the true meaning of love.

A few other questions for Jefferts Schor
Bishop Jefferts Schori’s interviews always feature softball (or even NERF-ball) questions. Here are some questions I would like to see a reporter ask her (I can dream can’t I...)

In your papers and press releases prior to your election as Presiding Bishop, you made a big point of “el buen Samaritano” and your deanship of the “Good Samaritan School of Theology.” Yet, you have admitted both of these were inflated terms. They have also disappeared from any post-election materials (such as the Episcopal page ‘Who is the Presiding Bishop?’). Why did you lie on your resume?

Why were you elected? On paper, even with your inflated claims, you were clearly the least qualified candidate. Were you elected solely because of your gender?

During your tenure as Bishop of Nevada, you used the Kairos Prison Ministry materials inappropriately. This organization considers the breaches significant enough that they are suing the Nevada Diocese for copyright violations. Would you care to comment?

The Kairos organization feels that their approach of gender-specific ministers for prison populations is both sound Biblically and practically? Would you care to comment.

What happened to “el buen Samaritano?”

Reporters seem to be very impressed by your experience as an oceanographer and as a pilot. Why are these relevant?

During you tenure as Bishop of Nevada, how much did the diocese grow? In that same period how much did the state of Nevada grow? Why do you think the Episcopal percentage is so much lower?

Jesus said, “No one comes to the father except through me.” What does that mean?

The Episcopal Church has been losing members for many years, why?

Do you really think, as you said in a New York Times Magazine interview, that the conservatives (such as Catholics) are “outbreeding” the Episcopalians?

Is it not possible that the liberal social gospel and ordination and promotion of gay ministers bears some responsibility for the membership loss?

In recent memory, two ministers confessed to breaking their wedding vows, one left his marriage and one did not. Why has one been made an Episcopal bishop and the other has resigned his position in disgrace. Compare and contrast - Vicki Gene Robinson’s marital breakup and Ted Haggard’s fall.

You state in the New York Times Magazine interview that we “are all hypocrites.” Isn’t the Christian belief that “we are all sinners?”

What is sin?

The Episcopal Church in America was at one time named the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States. With this Protestant background, how is “deeds-based evangelism” consistent with the Protestant principle of “faith alone?”

Why was one of your first acts as Presiding Bishop the formation of a committee to make sure property does not leave the TEC when parishioners leave the TEC?

Why does all material related to the issue of gay sexuality refuse to include references to Dr. Gagnon’s work. For example, the study guide prepared by the association of Episcopal Seminary Librarians has expressly excluded Gagnon’s work. This is so, even though Biblical scholars consider it a masterful treatment of the Biblical issues.

If the Millennium Development Goals are so important, why is the TEC allocating only seven-tenths of one percent of its budget to them?

If the MDGs are a sign of our deeds-based evangelism, how do you justify the buildings, salaries, and budget of the TEC bureaucracy?

Why have you singled out eight dioceses as “problem dioceses?” What exactly is the problem?

Has the Dennis Canon ever been tested and upheld in a court of law?

You and your supporters often criticize the African Bishops for turning a blind eye to polygamy. Where is the evidence of this?

You have an “honorary” doctorate from CDSP. The African Bishops, as a group, have a significant number of earned doctorates from major Western theological schools. Why should we listen to your theology rather than theirs?

Why is the Episcopal Church in Nigeria one of the fastest growing churches anywhere on earth?

Who is Jesus?

In what way is threatening churches consistent with deeds-based evangelism?

Two churches in Virginia have just proposed leaving the TEC. Their Average Sunday Attendance exceeds that of the entire Nevada Diocese. Shouldn’t their concerns be taken seriously?

In your New York Times interview, you discuss the relative childlessness of Episcopalians in terms of stewardship of the Earth’s resources. In light of this stewardship, what percentage of the TEC budget could be reduced if the offices at 815 were moved to say, Topeka or Omaha? In this day of instant communications and the Internet, surely a less expensive and wasteful location could be found for the headquarters of such an environmentally responsible church.

Why should I be Episcopalian rather than sleep in on Sunday morning?

I understand your mother became an Orthodox Christian in the 1970’s. What was that like?

You have criticised some for placing God in a “little box.” Jesus speaks of the “eye of the needle” and the “narrow way.” Compare and contrast your and Jesus’ viewpoints.

Why has the outreach to LGBT individuals been such a failure in terms of growing the Episcopal Church?

A significant portion of Christianity (Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy) does not allow women to be priests. What is your response to this fact?

At your investiture, I noticed that none of the major celebrants nor you had any cross symbols on their vestments. Was this intentional?

What is the Resurrection?

I'm a product of government schools, BUT
I think I detect at least one spelling error and a possible grammatical error in the headline. As a member of the Christian middle (fed up with both parties), I may be too distracted by the inconsequential - a poorly written headline - to be bothered with the consequential substance of the accompanying article. Maybe I'd better become a Christian CONSERVATIVE.

EPISCOPALIAN "BISHOP"

The Bible's requirement for a person to serve as a bishop show just how far the Episcopalian Church has drifted from Biblical Christianity.

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach." 1Timothy 3:2

Which of these requirements does the Episcopalian church not understand?





Eon and Mystic7
Eon wrote:

"...I can only conclude that, barring celibacy, people like her make extensive use of birth control"

One can only hope...!

Episcopalians = supercilious twits

Mystic7, I can only say RIGHT ON! You are so right about Easter, Xmas, etc. You must have been reading the same literature that I do, maybe??

Puftwaffen
Sorry you are wrong about intelligent people being less religious. Who saved Western Civilization? Monks from Ireland. I'm pretty sure they were religious. Early scientists and philosophers were religious. Early artists were religious. Isaac Newton, Spinoza etc. Even Einstein believed in God. William F. Buckley Jr is smart. Hugh Hewitt is smart. I am smart. So your statement APPEARS to be right at first blush, but being conservative and smart, I thought about it a second time and, obviously, it is an incorrect assertion.

If you want to argue that there are tons of poor, uneducated people who are religious, I will not argue with you. That does not correlate by proving that smart people are not religious.

I think it has only been since the early 20th century that "smart" men decided that they were smarter than God. Well, except for that stretch during the Renaissance:) But look what happened on the rebound - Pilgrims and Victorians.

Colosteve: brilliant comparison! Spot on.


For those Liberal Christians
For those of you who consider yourselves Christian but want the Government to take care of the poor I just gently want to point out that Jesus specifically told us, His Church, to feed the poor and widows and orphans. And whose name did he say do it in? Uncle Sam's? No. We are to spread the Gospel and do good works in His name. That seems pretty simple to understand.

Now, if we all agree to convert the US government and make it a super food spreader to those in need then I am all for it. I would love to see some social worker in San Francisco give a sandwich and blanket to someone while saying, "Bless you brother, in Jesus's name".

And think about it, what is more effective? When you or your church and friends decide to do a project to help people or waiting for the government to trap people in the projects and a miserable life?
Just my 34 cents worth.

Her Worship
Maybe I'm dumb and stupid and uncultured and all that, but isn't she denying the Episcopalian "faith tradition" by referring to Christians as "they"?

Christian or christian lite?
If one accepts Jesus Christ as one's personal Lord and Saviour one has to determine the second part of that, which is this: on your own terms - or on HIS terms. If "on HIS terms" is what you want then find that ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC Church and go to it's Banquet Table and eat the Food that Jesus gave for us all! The Eucharist is where christianity is fully alive. Hello mystic7 and Dan - pay attention!

Scarlet
You give reat examples of brilliant people that were also religious. What you ignore is the fact that a SIGNIFICANTLY greater percentage of scientists and scholars identify themselves as atheists than do those of lesser educational achievement. That difference primarily exists because of the analytical and skeptical approach to ANY topic that most people of advanced intellect utilize. That does not in any way make the claim that they all arrive at the same consensus on any topic. Again, most who consider themselves to be religious object in knee jerk fashion because they equate that fact with the implication that consequently they must be stupid.

Besides, the statement refers to western civilization as a whole which has UNDENIABLY become less and less religious as science advances and information becomes more readily available. You can find plenty of examples on both sides (religious scientists and high school drop out atheists) that buck the trend, but they are certainly the exception and not the rule.

Amen Jim
Many people, including myself at times, gladly claim the second part of the descriptor "Lord and Saviour" but don't do to well with the first. His will not mine.

I was wondering
eon writes: Hmmmm
So, according to her, "intelligent, educated people" aren't interested in having children?

---------------------------------------------------

Does that mean the dodo bird was really smart too?

Truthbetold . . .
has a point ("Anyone who is a born again believer and is truly striving to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ can't be a participant of the left's socialist/communist/humanist agenda.)"

The socialists are purely secular humanists. When people like Hillary and Bill Clinton exhibit religious beliefs, it's a fraud perpetrated to fool the religious right.

God and government
First there are no mentions in the Bible of commandments to use government to help the poor or do anything else other than giving Caesar his due. Like everything else in the Bible, God is interested in your personal choices.

Second, using religion for good works robs God of the glory for doing such works. You should be a good Christian in His name, not yours or your governments. It could also be considered sloth to simply decide you did enough good works by voting for welfare politicians.

Finally, dependence on government enourages control of government on those issues. Look at the situation in public schools to see that once they have a grip on something the rules and regulations for it will soon follow.

And quite often those rules will not include God.

wow
puftwaffe writes: You give reat examples of brilliant people that were also religious. What you ignore is the fact that a SIGNIFICANTLY greater percentage of scientists and scholars identify themselves as atheists than do those of lesser educational achievement.
-------------------------------------------------

Nice post, perhaps you could back it up with a few documented facts.


I normally don't do this (because I also make so many) but when one is touting the "We're smarter then you" argument it really irks me to see spelling errors in their posts.

"You give reat examples"

Did you mean "great"?

Puftwaffe
We could debate what makes someone smart. To those of us who believe, the people who do not believe are not really smart. But we don't want to go round and round on that.

Fact is, for most of human history smart people were religious. It is true that a big part of the world is becoming less religious. Europe, for example has almost run God out of the area. Guess who is taking over, now?

What happens to places where the one God has been replaced with man's pride? Not fun places to live are they? If you want to point out San Francisco or an American city, I would remind you that they are protected by a Christian population.

I see what you are saying though about scientists. Many vascilate between belief and non-belief. I used to be really analytical but i didn't "see" until I believed. We walk by faith and not by sight. If you can actually prove something and see it, then you don't need faith, right? I know it sounds like a Catch-22, but it is beautiful man!

And, I don't need outside proof, I have experienced God's love for me several times first-hand.




Things that make you go "Hmmmm..."
Deborah Solomon says: So do Christians! They have a terrible history…
---------------------------------------------

Is it just me or does she suggest that she is NOT a Christian with that statement? By using “they” instead of “we” one would think she was something other then a follower of Christ (Pagan?). Was that a Freudian slip on her part?

Leftie Christians
No one has said it better than Medved: the religous bankruptcy of the pop-religiosity of the new Episcopalian bishop. As a traditional Roman Catholic I am totally puzzled about how an Episcopalian can be so dismissing of the Bible, dumping what any practicing Jew or Christian knows are fundamental to belief, especially the great importance of intact, traditional families which excludes biblically forbidden relationships.

Intelligence and Religion
One of the priests at my Church (he lives there, but he doesn't work there, it's complicated and I don't have time to explain) has a second job... as a Forensic Psychologist at the FBI. He has several PhD's and is, overall, a brilliant man. And he's a very good priest.

Including myself, I know several other people who are extremely inteligent and very religious. I also know them that aren't. Intelligence and religion have little to do with each other, like Intelligence and politics. I've known some very smart liberals and some VERY dumb conservatives.

Intelligence also doesn't necessarily mean no children. I don't have any only because I haven't found anyone to have any with. My best friend is very bright, his wife has a PhD in Organic Chemistry and they have two wonderful children. You don't have to be an idiot to have kids.

Educated people tend away from religion mostly because the education system in the western world has been taken over by Leftists who make a positive effort to suppress religious expression and to trivialize religious belief. They look for ways to prove that there is no God (Evolution, "The God Gene", etc.). Those that don't eschew religion altogether put their "faith" in "New Age Spirituality", heretical teachings (the Gnostic gospels, the "Gospel of Judas" and the like). Finally, they go out of their way to misrepresent organized religions (Catholicism, especially) as universally corrupt, secretive, conspiratorial, and greedy in their leaders, and ignorant, lemming-like, violent, and intollerant in their followers.

Hockey Goon
I am sure you meant "typographic error" since it was obvious that they keystroke was not recorded, and not that I don't know how to spell "great". But nice effort though...

What future for Episcopalians?

I have written to four Bishops and six clergy of the Episcopal Church seeking advice on how to cope with the church of my birth and tradition for 74 years? None has responded in four weeks. Why? I fear that none knows what to say.

Clearly the new PB Schori recognizes her challenge. It may require her to move the ECUSA National office to Nevada to get back to her husband who is apparently not needed in NYC. Besides, selling the NYC property will finance the move and loss of revenue from the declining membership, lower birth rate and separation of those not about to watch her fix Canon law to permit her ideas of what is God's intent about how to let us abuse minor evidences to her in history of Godly preferences.

For her to condemn Christian abuses in response to Muslim advances via the sword in the way shown by Mohammed in what is now Saudi Arabia to occupy and control North Africa and Southern Europe during the 'Dark Ages' is an excessive response that appears now to placate what extremist Muslims have been doing for decades to eliminate first infidels and then apostates.

Her mania about environmental concerns is not a bad idea, but her ideas on how to solve the problems reflects her surprisingly unscientific notions about man's (use HSV for 'homo sapien variants', if you are PC sensitive) ability to solve problems of resource allocation, or creation of new ones to keep up with species procreation.

But, the liberals always assume a finite universe, not one that God is always creating (why do we want to limit God to one six day or whatever time slot for all creation?) when HSV keep on inventing new ways to grow more food per acre and invent new ways to use free sun and wind energy.

Its true that we need to reduce our affluent excesses, but the answer is not to let the rest of the world catch up! We need better answers for all and if her ideas of good stewardship start with birth control among the intelligent, she is in concert with the anti-tool English Luddites of the early industrial age, who are too focused on the wrong issues at a time when extremists in control of Iran, like Hussein was in Iraq are out to wipe Israel off the map on the way to finishing the job in America started in greater earnest on 9-11.

I may have to leave the ECUSA to be on the side of the Angels, taking great care not to be stuck in the past to the point that no change is good enough to be possible.

I'm not surprised
Mac writes: As a traditional Roman Catholic I am totally puzzled about how an Episcopalian can be so dismissing of the Bible, dumping what any practicing Jew or Christian knows are fundamental to belief

-----------------------------------------------


Remember the great Howard Dean split with the Episcopal Church over a disputed bicycle path. If that's all it takes to shake your faith....

It always cracks me up
when Liberal Christians claim that sodomy, rape, drunkeness, theft, gambling, fornication, idolatry, etc. did not bring Sodom and Gomorrha down - it was inhospitality! hahahahahahahahaha!!! Men wanted to rape strangers who were obviously holy and the real crime was being rude! oh my stitches!

That's a good one. What else have we misinterpreted? Don't murder really meant don't go swimming until 30 minutes after you eat?

Don't be a drunk really means cross with the light.

This is fun:
Don't covet your neighbor's Democrat means return your dvds on time.

hahahahahaha! hoo boy. I crack me up.

Here is a clue
Okay, after this I have a life…

Dan writes:

"I seem to recall them always finding a microphone or camera to spout their nonsense and accuse the president of something." Like there is nothing to find? Really, give me a quote- will you. At the beginning of this- prior to Bush’s invasion, the dems followed the prez more than I would have, and most of them- go to the senate site and look it up- gave him power to use force as a threat and last resort. Then bush ran to war- without a plan past getting there. Sorry your boy is incompetent- but life is just like that at times. They had fun playing cowboy and Indians- and like the last security reports stated- we are all less safe because of it.

Now, whining about Halliburton. You fools ranted for six years (and some still do) about Clinton having sex- it was the end of the world! Here we have a vice president that gave his previous company NO BID contracts, forked over billions out of the treasury for work that has yet to be completed, did away with accounting practices overlooking the contracts, and still Halliburton committed more fraud than can be believed.. But yes, I see your point- Cheney is a republican- so there fore- he said God a whole lot- so therefore he MUST be good…Oh, and there are plenty of American companies that never had the chance to bid the jobs- because this admin changed the rules to benefit themselves- of course at the countries expense.

Sorry- it’s getting real deep in here…

As for the lies of this admin, there are too many to count. But the effects of those lies are that we are now in a no win situation in Iraq and the Middle East. Just yesterday, the Iranian leader invited the Iraq and Syrian leaders to a summit- the Iraqi leader has already met with the Syrian leaders- who side does it sound like Iraq is on???? This was foreseeable. That is why so many were against us rushing in. But, even after we invaded, the incompetence of this admin really screwed everything up. Yeah, Saddam is gone, but now Iran is much stronger. Our military is shattered. Rumsfeld failed to have a plan outside of the three weeks liberation and cake walk. Now, we are left mitigating the damage they have done. And, 10-1 odds- you fools on this site will be the loudest in yelling when this mess can’t be cleaned up at all.

As far as religion is concerned, there is a difference in having a relationship with god and following any religion. The neo-conservatives have misinterpreted and intellectualized the bible to the nth degree. Nowhere in the bible can or the constitution can we find that we MUST oppress those that believe differently from us- gays. God gave us free will, but that is not good enough for the neo’s or the new Republican Party. They must ignore God and take matters into their own hands- cause god really likes it when hate is spread wholesale. From contraceptives to abortion to gay rights- the repugs just want to control everyone- while somehow still fooling a whole lot of people into thinking they really believe in less government. Moralists are rarely moral. I have a riddle for you:

If republicans were really against abortion and wanted to outlaw it, why after:
12 years of complete control of the congress
6 years of control of the executive
2 years with a conservative majority on the S. court

Why have they not written a law? (Besides the 3rd trimester which the majority of us were behind)
Why is it not outlawed yet?

But yet, us liberals are EVIL because we do not believe that a law will solve the problem?
Could it be that the repugs know that the issue is better to have than the law? To keep your vote!
Could it be that a law wont’ do anything but make the situation worse- like the last time is was outlawed? Could it be there is a better way to address the issue- like the dems have attempted to do- only to have the work erased by moralist repugs that even find birth control to be immoral?

Ya’ll are rubes. You have been fooled, lied to, cheated, our children/brothers/sisters/fathers/mothers killed in a war that benefited us not at all- but like GW said two weeks ago- it’s REALLY is about the oil…

And, as a veteran- that misuse of our military really pisses me of..

On so many levels- this admin and the Republican Party have drug un down to lows that I never dreamed we, as a country, could reach. And ya’ll still deny the facts, and follow blindly..

Just sad.

The Purpose Of The Church
Sadly, it is clear that the American leaders of my faith have forgotten the purpose of the Church. Instead, they are using the Church as their own launching pad for pushing their politics. The most obvious example is the push to accept homosexuality.

Bishop Robinson--like all of us--is a sinner. God loves him no less for his sin. But God does not teach to celebrate sin. Just the opposite. But the zeitgeist today demands that what is so clearly sinful be accepted, celebrated and practiced. And those who refuse to so do are the evil ones.

The Church is big enough to accommodate all sinners. It is not big enough, however, to accommodate those who selectively eradicate sin. The Bible is not subject to revision and the imposition of white out on those portions which we deem uncomfortable or unacceptable according to modern norms. It's an all or nothing book.

I pray that those who have turned their back on biblical teachings--including the PB--will find their way back.

GFK

Smarts & intelligence
Puftwaffe and ScarletPimpernel, one thing you're missing in your debate: There is a vast difference between INTELLIGENCE and WISDOM.

I've known - and I'm sure you have, too - many intellectual morons. And many wise dropouts.

"Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom..."

Scientists - and other "intellectually superior" sorts - have no fear of any God since they don't believe He exists, and so have very little wisdom to go along with all the smarts they've acquired over the years.

Parsing history
Ben writes: Really, give me a quote- will you. At the beginning of this- prior to Bush’s invasion, the dems followed the prez more than I would have, and most of them- go to the senate site and look it up- gave him power to use force as a threat and last resort.

-----------------------------------------------------


Could you please "quote" the section of Public Law 107-243 October 16 2002 that states "gave him power to use force as a threat and last resort"? I looked it up and never found it.

puftwaffe
But as you pointed out, the "advance" of science has led to a decline in religion. I wasn't trying to assign science the job of advancing morality, I was just pointing out that the more we depend on science for the "answers", the worse off the world becomes.

And just to be extemely clear, I wasn't knocking you either, just expanding on your thoughts.

why so many poor Christians
Obviously many Christians are poor because they don't have any money or prospects where they live.

But, many Christians misunderstand, in my humble opinion, what Jesus meant by "poor shall inherit the earth" and rich man and camel and heaven and eye of a needle.

I think Jesus meant poor in spirit and poor as in one should be humble. Poor in spirit means downcast, downtrodden. I don't think he meant to be poor literally as in having few things.

Rich man to me means someone who loves his treasures above all else. Someone who only does things from a motivation of money or greed.

Think about it. Abraham was a businessman. Solomon had some bling. David lived large. the Pope has own city. Billy Graham rocks. Being wealthy does not disqualify you from Heaven.

I think many people misunderstand this. I can see why, since the usual pattern of someone coming into wealth is that they indulge more and believe less and become very protective of their treasure.

All I know is that I can help more people if I have more money. That seems plain to me. Afterall, we are supposed to be good stewards and have dominance over everything on earth - including the jooray and money.

excuse me
It should be

Dan writes: Really, give me a quote- will you. At the beginning of this- prior to Bush’s invasion, the dems followed the prez more than I would have, and most of them- go to the senate site and look it up- gave him power to use force as a threat and last resort.

-----------------------------------------------------


Could you please "quote" the section of Public Law 107-243 October 16 2002 that states "gave him power to use force as a threat and last resort"? I looked it up and never found it.

Episcopalian Bishop
Isn`t the term religous left an oxymoron?

Hockey Goon
Let's see...I make an obvious typo and you respond with a non-sensical statement that implies I don't know how to spell. If you would like to continue making my point for me by issuing more such statements exhibiting you lack of intellect, please feel free.

Persnickety
I come from the Worldwide Church of God when it was headed by Herbert W. Armstrong. After his death the people who took over decided they wanted to become "mainstream" and changed all of his doctrines.

I am currently a member of the Philadelphia Church of God.

Naturally I expect responses now telling me how Armstrong was a heretic or a kook. All I know is, everything that is going on in the world now, I knew was going to happen years ago, thanks to Mr. Armstrong and his teachings about prophecy and true Christianity. That's why I keep saying, when people claim that Islam in general or Iran in particular will destroy us, that it's the EU (the Beast), led by Germany and assisted by the Vatican (the image of the Beast) and the Pope (the false prophet), that we have to watch out for.

Sorry to all the Catholics who may be offended by this, but I'm not knocking you, it's the organization you belong to who is deceiving you.

Persnickety
I wholly agree with you as you should have picked up in one of my first post when I referred to people of "higher intelligence (maybe just in their own mind)". IQ scores and framed certificates on a wall don't tell the whole story.

Episcopalians On Road To Extinction
The Episcopalian embrace of the Gay Agenda will inevitably result in the church membership being reduced to only the gay community and a few Leftist Hangers-On.

As such, it embraces a Culture of Death, as Pope John Paul The Great called it, rather than a Culture of Life.

btw
Someone earlier asked "What is sin?" As the Bible states, sin is the transgression of the Law.

Amazing
puftwaffe writes: Let's see...I make an obvious typo and you respond with a non-sensical statement that implies I don't know how to spell.
---------------------------------------------------

You sound so much like my six year old son. He tried that excuse on a spelling test claiming it was "misprint" (the "g" is understood). You two should get together and exchange ideas on how to "beat the man".

You have no idea how many liberal stereotypes you are proving.

Wow Ben
First, thanks for serving our country. I really appreciate that.

However, your posts do sound like rants. Where to start?

Here's a list of what we mean by liberals and them getting to a microphone:
G8 conference - burning down Seattle
Mexican illegals and thousands rallying waving the Mexican flag
Hollywood, especially Tim Robbins - "chill wind blowing" He said this on a microphone literally. I heard him. See the irony?
Anti-Bush protestors daily. Code pink Cindy Shehan

I could go on. I was stunned that you don't understand this. What is the ration between conservative protests and libs - 896 to 1?

Lies to get us in war. (Yawn) Your senators went along with it. Which was it - they were too naive and stupid (if so, why shouldn't they resign?) to look it up for themselves, or did they actually agree and are hypocrites and liars?

haliburton - whatever.

as for you being in the military I am shocked that you don't understand strategy. It is way better to have some sort of democracy in the middle east friendly to us than not. The military is being misused by the Left! Clinton turned them into pizza-delivery boys! The Liberals have done everything in their power to undermine success, (just like VietNam!) and when things don't look so good because of it they say, "See?" That really burns me up, mang.

As for abortion, Republicans who are usually Christian already know that a law (except the death penalty) won't deter anyone who wants to sin. We try to do moral persuasion instead. And, btw, if they put abortion up to a vote I guarantee that in some states it would be illegal. It was liberal judges who invented the right to have an abortion from the Constitution. It was no mass movement by the people. They were against it.

No, i don't really have much to do today:)

Good luck with regaining your sanity Ben.

Hockey Goon
It's a simple scenario that can't seem to wrap your tiny brain around. I acknowledged that I made an error in my post. However, YOU made the obviously incorrect statement implying that I did not know HOW to spell the word. THAT is how you demonstrated your low cognitive ability. But please, feel free to continue since you keep making my point for me.

one group of
people in our society has abandoned faith completely. That group is homosexuals. They have created their own societies in our urban areas with their own values. If religion and it's values are what made them miserable then they should be happy in these enclaves. Yet all the evidence shows that they are miserable. Their suicide rate alone is three times that of their heterosexual counterparts. That doesn't even take into account those who kill themselves indirectly with drugs and std's. And needless to say they are not a self perpetuating society. They have been given everything they asked for yet this is not enough and they demand more. Their problem is that no ammount of toleration, acceptance, leagalization of marriage or any other concession will erasee the fact that peoples lives have to have MEANING.We have to have things we value above our desires.

Men especially need to be engaged in a struggle for the creation of something lasting and good. Such struggles, wether they be raising a family, creating a business,or fighting wars take great strength and character. Religion's purpose is to make men strong enough to face these difficulties, to make men honorable. Liberalism on the other hand seeks to indulge mens weaknesses, to allow them to indulge present desires no matter what the consequences will be. Liberalism even demonizes those who point out the negative consequuences as cruel.

But men cannot escape the consequences of their acts. those gay men who move to the cities to indulge their desires without any greater responsibility in life than catering to those desires prove this. They reject that which gives life meaning and find thier lives meaningless and empty. They are not willing to face their personal responsibility for their situation and instead blame society for their misery. They accuse society of not giving them enough and demand more. They are proof that when one indulges weakness one gets more weakness and even destruction. Like a spoiled child they become not only destructive to themselves but to those around them, and at present they want to destroy marriage. When this is not enough they will demand the state take custody of children at birth and distribute said children to all "couples".

In an effort to indulge the weakest in society, in an effort to not be "judgemental", society will in the end criminalize real feelings of tenderness and affection, all in the name of "love". The fact that a maddonna and child were depicted in feces is an indication of the hostility liberals have to real values and love. they mock it. they mock it because it takes courage and strength and requires sacrifice and pain. They mock it because they are cowards. Yet people do not repect cowards. Churches like the Episcopalian church will die because it's leadedrship has been seized by a cowardice. It has chosed to indulge men's weakness as a parent who is afraid of angering a child indulges the child. Such children don't ammount to anything. Such churches will be composed of such children, he good ones will leave. The weak ones will not reproduce.

Any Eastern Orthodox out there?
One of the commenters above referred to the Catholic Church (was it Mystic7?) ... and in truth, that is where most people point when they discuss the origins of Christianity. But at one time the Catholic Church and the (for lack of a better term) Eastern Orthodox Church were the same (for the first 1,000 years, give or take).

Most diagrams I see of various Christian religions branch off from the Catholic side, rather than the Orthodox side. My specific denomination is Serbian Orthodox, and other than the Orthodox Church of America branching off from the Russian Orthodox Church, I'm unaware of other such branches. But I'm open to learning about more. Thoughts?

ScarletPimpernel
The reason so many Christians are poor is because they are Christian in name only. Just being a Catholic or a Born Again or an Episcopalian doesn't make you a Christian. Only he who hears His word and does them is one of His, to paraphrase Jesus. And Jesus did NOT do away with the law. Many today believe, because they were taught, that He "nailed the law to the cross". So of course they won't benefit from God's financial laws if they don't follow them, which includes tithing, among other subjects (usury, etc.).

But you are right about the rich. Jesus also said "The rich have their reward." which, of course is temporal. Being increased with goods and needing nothing, naturally they have no need for God at this time. However, that doesn't mean that the rich and all others who deny God will spend "eternity in Hell" for the Bible does not teach that. Rather it teaches that ALL will be given a chance to enter the Kingdom of God on this earth, in time order, first Christ the firstfruits, then they which are His at his second coming, and then the judgement, after the 1000 year millenial reign.

At that time those resurrected will be judged for their sins, and will then be informed that Christ paid the penalty for their sin. They will then be given the opportunity to choose to live under God's laws, having before them the utopia which His laws have created, or to choose to be consumed in the lake of fire, where they will cease to exist, not burn eternally in suffering.

And then, finally, all who have proven loyalty to God will be converted into spirit beings, literal Sons of God, having the power of God but willingly sujecting themselves to the authority of Christ, just as He is equal to the Father, yet willingly in subjection to Him. At that time the entire creation (the vast universe) will be our inheritance, where we will complete the job of creation. It boggles the mind.

Big Families
Large families were a necessity when the economy was largely agrarian. A big brood provided a ready labor force to operate the family business. As the economy became increasingly mechanized, the need for manual labor decreased. Educated people tend to be better informed as to the reproductive consequences of their sexual behavior, more likely to use birth control, thus avoiding "little accidents".

I wonder if for her theological misdeeds it wold be appropriate to beat the bishop?

The new bishop vs Paul...

There are some today preaching a different gospel. The gospel of worldly wisdom comes in many flavors, but it always has the same main ingredient: a rejection of the words of Jesus Christ and His apostles.

The new 'bishop' is a classic example of worldly wisdom gone to seed.

The 'bishop' is right, but she argues for worldly wisdom and against the God she professes to serve.

Consider the words of the apostle speaking to the church as a preacher of the gospel...

'I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.

The apostle reminds us why the words of Christ are rejected by the wisdom this world ...

'... the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing '

The apostle explains why God acts contrary to worldly wisdom...

'... consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised, God has chosen, the things that are not, that He might nullify the things that are...'

Why does God do this? The apostle answers, 'That no man should boast before God.' [1 Corinthians 1:18-31] This is the essense of the gospel. The new 'bishop' in all her worldly wisdom has missed the most fundamental thing.

Human pride is most difficult to subdue. The Creator of all things must use His power to bring the dead to life. Grace then works at the root of pride to produce the fruit of the Spirit, including humble submission to words of Christ.



Mi
Don't forget the Protestants, Lutherans, 7th Day Adventists, Baptists, and every other denomination, referred to in the Bible as daughter churches of Mystery Babylon, "Mother of Harlots".

Legislation does not create morals
GFK wrote: The Bible is not subject to revision and the imposition of white out on those portions which we deem uncomfortable or unacceptable according to modern norms. It's an all or nothing book.

Neither is the constitution. If you are against _____________ (insert the latest group we want to blame all evil on); you can pray for them, talk to them, hate them, love them, but you cannot use our legislative system to outlaw them. That is the issue here. You don’t have to approve of gays to understand that in this country they have the right to live their lives- just as you have the right to live yours. You have the right to practice any religion you want, and I have the right not to practice at all. Both God and our Forebears understood this. God gave us free will because he wanted us to follow him- not be forced through law. These laws will only create oppression- they will save no one. Our forebears wrote into the Constitution a separation between religion and government to protect, not only religion, but each of us from the horrors of a religion hijacked by politicians.

Study hard the words, and the actions of those republicans that preach the loudest.

You won’ t like what you see…

Open your eyes…

P.s. GFK- this is not intended to you personally- but to the 30 or so percent still completely fooled by the neoconservative movement.

Conservatism and neo- conservatism are mutually exclusive ideologies..

Hockey Goon
In answer to your question from several posts ago, one such survey was from the members of the National Academy of Sciences in 1998 in which 93% of it's members expressed disbelief or doubt that a supreme being exists. Most such surveys over the past 100 years have shown that AT LEAST 60% have held such views as compared to less than 10% of the general population.

Tiny brain?
puftwaffe writes: However, YOU made the obviously incorrect statement implying that I did not know HOW to spell the word.

----------------------------------------------------


Do you realize that you failed to spell "great" with a "g"? Call it what you may, but spelling "great" without a "g" is a mistake in spelling hence forth a "misspelling". I do not pretend to read your mind on this matter, simply interpret you actions. How "John Kerry" of you to beleaguer the point to no end.


You have no idea how many liberal stereotypes you are proving. I imagine you as one of those who pointed out that it was not asinine for the President of the United States and Rhodes Scholar recipient to be confused by the definition of the word “is”.



Hockey Goon
As you seem to "imagine" wrong all the time with regard to what I think and do, I suggest that you refrain from pretending to know. Otherwise, you will continue to find yourself where are now, struggling to defend a completely inaccurate and illogical statement.

Just curious
Steve writes: Educated people tend to be better informed as to the reproductive consequences of their sexual behavior, more likely to use birth control, thus avoiding "little accidents".

-------------------------------------------------

So liberals are enthralled with abortion because they are mystified by how one becomes pregnant?

Morons abound
puftwaffe writes: Otherwise, you will continue to find yourself where are now, struggling to defend a completely inaccurate and illogical statement.

-----------------------------------------


So in your mind "great" is spelled "reat"? You may not hear this enough, but you are WRONG.

Hockey Goon
Since apparently you cannot read OR form logical arguments, there is no point continuing this with a moron such as yourself. Maybe you should let your 6 year old post on here instead since he'd probably formulate superior comments.

Ben, you need activist judges
You say
--------------
but you cannot use our legislative system to outlaw them. That is the issue here. You don’t have to approve of gays to understand that in this country they have the right to live their lives- just as you have the right to live yours.
--------------
Actually, you can. Of course, I don't think anybody is talking about outlawing homosexuals. Instead they are talking about outlawing some sorts of behavior. In Jefferson's Code for Virginia therr were proscriptions against some sorts of sexual behavior, and I would submit that maybe Jefferson had a notion of what the Constitution allows and does not allow. THe ninth and tenth amendments seem to suggest that at least until the pasage of the 14th Amendment (and subsequent emanation and penumbra jusriprudence) states had an undisputable right to outlaw certain sorts of behavior. And less than a couple of decades ago the Supremes were saying that a state could outlaw "sodomy".

And, of course, if you actually read the constitution you will find that the "separation between religion and government" is not in the Constitution. For some years after ratification the Episcopal Church was established in Virginia and no one thought there was a constitutional problem with that. Congress could not pass a law about establishing a Federal religion, but the states were free to establish religion or not, as they chose.

What you are about the understanding of our forebears and about the Constitution is contradicted by the facts. AS you say: Open your eyes. I would add, and once they're open, read the Constitution and some Supreme Court opinions, not what the propagandists of the left want you to think about it.

And that inevitably leads to the questions: why do those who are in favor of "gay rights" say things that aren't true? When they base their argument on someting so easily shown to be false, how much should we trust them?

My provisional answer is that they don't care as much about truth as about winning and having their own way, so they ought not to be trusted. I am open to correction on the answer, but the questions stand

Heartland of Christendom?
We live in the "heartland of Christendom"? I'm sorry ... I wasn't aware that the United States had established a state religion.

How is the idea that Muslims are invading Christendom any different from the Dar al-Islam / Dar al-Harb division created by Islamic fundamentalists that Christian fundamentalists such as Medved so frequently deride? They're just tribes of the same character dressed in different colors.

Medved is morally bankrupt, not Schori.

Ben nowhere does it state
separation of church and state in the Constitution. It merely says that we cannot establish a state religion. I don't even know where you get so riled about Christians and other conservatives. Do we really threaten you? why? As far as i know we are specifically preached to to not put people in headlocks to convert them. We plant a seed, dust off our feet and move on down the road. What's your problem?

The Left tries to implement, through the courts usually, their anti-Christian desires. If we fight back you get riled and call foul. You can't have it both ways. The gays want to marry and we say "We don't think so. No government sanction for you." You get upset. You WANT the government to get involved on this issue don't you? But it should stay out of other issues - depending on how you like it.

It is hilarious that a Liberal tells us conservatives about keeping the government from telling us what to do. Taxation anybody? Licenses? OSHA? Auto Emissions tests? Public school curriculums? Sex ed for minors? University Speech Codes. What a joke.

Consistency in one's standards is the way to respect.

Not my Mistake
Kozinator13 writes:
"Your first mistake is that you appear to equate being Republican with being Christian. I assure you there is a sizable contingent of Republicans with no religious affiliation at all. So don't be surprised when a "conservative" doesn't act Christ-like."

Isn’t it amazing how the republican that doesn’t act like a Christian gets a free pass- but yet- all liberals are evil- well, because faux news told me so? Explain this to me. Don’t bother- there is no excuse except complete idiocy.

The previous pope was noted as saying [comparing socialism and capitalism], at least socialism thought about the poor. He did not advocate socialism- he knows it is a failed economic policy. But that is how I feel about conservatives. The liberals think about helping others- they may not always have the best plan or even be able to accomplish it. Some things are unsolvable- do we therefore not attempt to try?

Read a lot of the post above. All these self-proclaimed Christians filled with hate, labeling me and 50% of the country for not being like them… not hating the government enough. All of them- go read; all of them have made excuses on WHY NOT HELP ANYBODY.

Hillary Clinton is evil because she at least tried to fix our health care system- to get care to those that needed it…yet the republicans are godly when they cut hundred of thousands off from any care at all… I just don’t get it.

My contempt is for the neo-conservative movements that has hijacked Christianity and use it for selfish purpose. My contempt is for people that are so blind, they refuse to see or worse- justify- the corrupt acts of the republican congress and this Admin for the last six years (12 for congress). My contempt is for being called a traitor to my country by you religious conservatives for daring to have an opinion- and to right- more than GW. My contempt is for religious leaders that dare use their religion to attack a person in a different political party- like god cares about our politics.
It is your mistake. In today’s environment, the neo’s have made it where the republicans are good, and the liberals are evil. Yet, I am not evil. So, I have no choice but to be against those like you- who wish to use our government to outlaw me.

Still here?
puftwaffe writes: No, just hoping to find someone with a higher intellect than yourself.


---------------------------------------

Now you're rolling, you spelled "intellect" correctly. Now if only you could use your superior intellect and explain how "great" is correctly spelled "reat" and when exactly the "g" is understood when writing the English language. I'll copy your reply and forward it to my son. He'll get a good laugh along with the rest of his class.

I wouldn't say he's smarter but my son is more honest. He would called you a dumb b1tch and been done with you several posts ago.

I understand better now...
St. Paul's admonition to the bishops that women should not be made priests.

Mystic
You're way out there brother/sister. i've read some of the same things you obviously have read but I've had to come to a different conclusion.

I WISH everyone would go to Heaven but I don't think God would have gone through all the trouble of crucifying himself as man to pay for our sins if He were just going to let us all in anyway.

God gave us free will to choose, right? If I have a choice between burning forever in a lake of fire or hanging with God in paradise, which would I "choose"? That's not really a tough choice is it? I think that invalidates God's consistency don't you?

And what of the Book of Life? If your name's not in it sorry about that sonnyjim. The Great Throne Judgement is the part where you know you're a goner. The Judgement Seat of Christ is the one where you want to be.

Really...

ScarletPimpernel writes:
Ben nowhere does it state
separation of church and state in the Constitution. It merely says that we cannot establish a state religion. [Read your Madison]

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores, the blood and toil that soaked the shores of Europe for centuries." [paraphrase]

I don't even know where you get so riled about Christians and other conservatives. Do we really threaten you? why? As far as i know we are specifically preached to to not put people in headlocks to convert them. We plant a seed, dust off our feet and move on down the road. What's your problem?

Um, what world are you in? The repugs are attempting to amend the constitution to outlaw gays- for moral reasons- because someone said your God wants it that way. I would tend to think that is a little more than “planting a seed.” Don’t you think?

Now don’t get confused. I am not against God, nor am I against religion. I am against using our government to force your religion onto me or mine onto you.

I don’t want ya’ll deciding what prayers my kid should say. I don’t want ya’ll deciding what toys my wife and I can have in our bedroom (Alabama). I don’t want ya’ll forcing your interpretation of the bible into my life- and I won’t force mine into yours..

But your side can’t see this. They must, because they really know that their very specific form of religion is the right one and all others are wrong- because the book they hold is better than the book someone else holds… they have to attack me and force me into their narrow lines..

I don’t want to follow your religion. I don’t want you to use our government to force me into your narrow religion.

I do not have a problem being held accountable for my actions before God. I don’t need your help in making my life the way you want it to be.


p.s. the choice
on earth is to believe or not. The example of freewill i used above was in reference to mystic's idea that the second resurrection will give everyone a do-over.

Well Hockey Goon
Hockey Goon writes: Wednesday, November, 22, 2006
He would called you a dumb b1tch and been done with you several posts ago.

Guess you forgot a word in that sentence..now, don't you really feel stupid for correcting someone's english or grammar? These are post- give me a break- will ya...

If you can't talk about a topic without being petty- just shut up.

---------------------------------------

Now you're rolling, you spelled "intellect" correctly. Now if only you could use your superior intellect and explain how "great" is correctly spelled "reat" and when exactly the "g" is understood when writing the English language. I'll copy your reply and forward it to my son. He'll get a good laugh along with the rest of his class.

I wouldn't say he's smarter but my son is more honest.

Ben, again what are you talking about?
I don't care what you do in your bedroom, dude. If you're gay, don't ask don't tell. Just don't try to force us to agree with you by law, get it? Liberals do, in fact, the very things you don't like. They use the courts to override the will of the people to get what they want. How can you deny this?

I'm sorry but i have to laugh when you say we want to "outlaw gays". haha. did you really want to say it that way?

As for telling our kids what to pray or say? I agree that schools should only teach math, science, reading and writing, history, and civics. NOT sex ed NOR politically motivated garbage. You should be for that too, right? Christian parents have to undo what the schools have done in overstepping their bounds. Schools are public and they force ideas on kids. do you agree? this is actually what you are talking about, no? You have it twisted about who is doing what to whom.

i'm not afraid of gays, i'm afraid of God.

BTW- the constitution does say that we can gather and practice our faith WHEREEVER we want. Including public spaces. Which side wants to stop that? Remember the Boy Scouts and the homosexual mafia in San Fran banning them from school meeting rooms? Who wants to stop whom using the Government?

What used to be unthinkable
"A: No. It’s probably the opposite. We encourage people to pay attention to the stewardship of the earth, and not use more than their portion."

Thirty years from now I see this same type of well meaning logic to morally green light abortion and euthanasia.

This comes from the same church who once told a friend of mine at camp (when she was a child) that premarital sex was fine as a number of the Bishop's friends had commited relationships in the 70's and that nothing bad came of it. I kid you not.

Hopefully the views and comments of Bishop Jefferts Schori become a catalyst for people waking up and voicing their discontent with the radical direction of the Episcopal "Church".


ScarletPimpernel - Pro Abortion, Pro STD
So Scarlet Pimpernel is against comprehensive sex education, something proven to lower the abortion rate and decrease the number of STD cases. You're a wonderful advocate of the slaughter of the unborn and a great proponent of spreading the AIDS epidemic to our adolescents. That's a great moral doctrine you have there, Scarlet.

Jim: which church would that be?
Jim writes: “What do you expect of a church founded by a dissident Catholic? The church of England, and all it's offshoots, need to find their way back to the Church that was founded by the Master Himself, Jesus Christ!”

Which church, specifically, are you referring to? Because if you intend to argue that the Roman Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ, or that the Catholic Church is a scripturally sound church, I believe that would make for an interesting debate.

Absolutely Delicious
Oh kettle, thou art BLACK!!!

ScarletPimpernel

I think you have it wrong. An amendment to the constitution preventing gays from being able to claim they are together- I don’t care what you call it, a civil union, marriage, etc- is oppression. It is forcing those people to not have the same rights as us- to visit in the hospital, to pass down inheritance, to use family health insurance, to adopt kids, etc. By allowing the same rights is NOT forcing you to the liberal way. It is, however, living up to our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and our nation’s traditions of freedom. If you find it immoral- don’t do it. [Now reasonable people can determine and agree that some acts that harm others can and should be outlawed.] But, allowing gays to live their lives does not harm me or you.

In Alabama, they passed a law making it illegal to sell or buy sexual toys that stimulate the vagina. That is pure moralist law. There is no Demonstrate-able harm that can be shown to make this law just. Form the manufacturer to the retailer to the customer- everyone is participating voluntarily. Yet, the law was passed. Albeit minor- this is still a form of oppression. This is forcing one group to confirm to a larger more powerful groups way of life. This is wrong.

What is wrong with sex ed? With the teenage birth rate increasing- it seems to me that the more they learn, especially in how to prevent pregnancy, the better. Yes, I know- abstinence teaching is all that the religious right will allow, and there is a place for it- but at some time, we must realize that teenage kids will have sex- if we teach them or not. Human nature is a force that politics cannot control. An uneducated kid will get pregnant sooner and more often than one that was taught well. But, it should be the parent’s choice- I will agree to that. But let those parents remove their children from the class rather than the class from the school.

I am not now, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be against you practicing your faith whenever you want. Where ever you want is a different story. Especially, if at the same time, you wish to prevent others from practicing theirs. If I go to a football game, I am there to see a football game and don’t want to be forced into your prayers- why can’t you say them silently? Why must you, in the words of Matthew, “stand on the street corner and be a hypocrite?” [Paraphrase] [It’s more like, “Go into your closet and pray, do not stand on the street corners like the hypocrites for all to see.”]

So, I guess you can pray or practice wherever you want- just to ram it down my throat. And, I promise, I will never ram my beliefs down yours.

No, I don’t remember that. But, our government- our legal system- is to be used to come to a reasonable conclusion to disagreements. By definition, a law suit has two parties- the plaintiff and the defendant. One will win and one will lose. Because one looses, does not mean the judge was an activist. It means you disagree with the outcome. If we all start to scream that the judges are activist when we loose, without serious thought as to why and the legal precedents, then we destroy the least imperfect system of government that has ever been devised. The S. court has already ruled that schools can be used by all or none of the outside organizations that wish to use them. In Other words, if you are going to allow the Christians to use school property, you must also allow the gays, the wickins, etc. What is wrong with this?
Lastly, there is a very real difference between forcing others into your ways and preventing others from forcing their ways onto me. The liberals, I am sure not all but the mainstream, don’t attempt to force you into their ways- but they do resist being forced into the far right’s ways.

You got it backwards:
ScarletPimpernel writes:

"The Left tries to implement, through the courts usually, their anti-Christian desires. If we fight back you get riled and call foul. You can't have it both ways. The gays want to marry and we say "We don't think so. No government sanction for you." You get upset. You WANT the government to get involved on this issue don't you? But it should stay out of other issues - depending on how you like it."

We don’t live at the behest of our government, the government lives at the behest of us. This is the basis of our government.

I don’t need the government to ALLOW me to be me. That is my inherent right. The government can only OUTLAW me. What the republicans are doing is taking their [gays] rights away.

This is not what our government was created for.

This Column?
I like Medved and I frequently listen to his radio show BUT;

Right now, I am thinking real hard, trying to think of a subject that would be less out of place on this site.

To: Mad Dawg
Mad Dawg wrote: "Actually, you can. Of course, I don't think anybody is talking about outlawing homosexuals. Instead they are talking about outlawing some sorts of behavior. In Jefferson's Code for Virginia therr were proscriptions against some sorts of sexual behavior, and I would submit that maybe Jefferson had a notion of what the Constitution allows and does not allow. THe ninth and tenth amendments seem to suggest that at least until the pasage of the 14th Amendment (and subsequent emanation and penumbra jusriprudence) states had an undisputable right to outlaw certain sorts of behavior. And less than a couple of decades ago the Supremes were saying that a state could outlaw "sodomy"."


To a point, I agree [State vs Federal]. But what we are talking about is a ban through the federal government- not the states. Yet, technically and legally, if we passed an amendment to the Constitution- it would be the law of the land- even if unjust. Which, this would be unjust- just legal.

You have opened Pandora’s Box. If you are going to quote Jefferson as to the legality of outlawing behavior, you must also realize that it was Jefferson that interpreted the establishment clause as the Wall between State and religion. And, I point out, the forefathers were not against religion, yet they did create a secular nation for a reason. It was to prevent the persecution of innocent people by religion being abused by the government. Check out history- there is a whole lot of that throughout Europe.

Yes, there are a lot of laws on the books that are not just. Outlawing the sale of beer on Sunday- stupid proposition, yet it is still there. One moral group forcing me to live their ways.

Benjamin Franklin comes to mind: “We have built the LEAST imperfect form of government.” It’s not perfect. But when it is abused and twisted like the neo conservative movement does- it becomes less and less imperfect. It becomes useless. [Teri Shivo-sorry if i mispelled it] comes to mind.

You said: “I would add, and once they're open, read the Constitution and some Supreme Court opinions, not what the propagandists of the left want you to think.”

If you suggest that Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Jay, Lincoln, Kennedy, are liberal propagandist…but, I won’t stop reading them.

alright i'm back
Ben, don't confuse insurance and company benefits with government involvement. If a company or hospital or whatever wants to give money to some dude's buddy I don't care. I don't see how you're gonna stop a group of 5 college kids from claiming that they're all married at tax time, or a brother and sister, or Mormons or Arabs when they want to have many wives. What should we do then, O Slippery Slope.

Civil unions are okay by me, i guess. But don't try to call it marriage.

BTW- any gay man or gay woman can marry whomever they want as long as it is someone of the opposite sex so they DO have the same rights as everyone else.

Ben, if you love your brother's wife, shouldn't you have a Government sanctioned right to marry her? hahahaha. I guess we all CAN'T marry who we want afterall.

I haven't forgotten you Knight
Knight in Dragonland, I take it you don't think very long. What is the number one failproof way to prevent STDs, pregancy, and abortion smart guy?
tick tick tick tick

OK I'll help you out. Abstinence. See, Christians teach their children not to become whores and fornicate and treat their bodies cheaply. Instead we teach to wait until marriage where the sex actually has a much more powerful experience to it. Plus, you have God's permission AND a license to do it.

Let's try a sex ed test. I tell you Dragon, that this super hot woman is chock full of the AIDS. I give you a condom and say go to it lad. Well?

I'm not against kids knowing about sex, they will find out somewhere. But don't you think their parents ought to determine that? Also, how's that abortion rate, STDS and out-of-wedlock rate coming along since we "educated" the kiddies?

One more thing, shouldn't our kids learn how to read, write, add and earn a living BEFORE we spend time on sex ed and Daddy has two Mommies?


Hm-m-m-m
One thing I've noticed about the Episcopalians is that they don't lie about their homosexuality (when they are gay).



Re: Kozinator 13
The Liberals that consider themselves compassionate do so with other people's money. Real charity, is when you yourself, take money (or resources) from your self and give it to others. Charity is not giving away other people's tax dollars.

Getting back to the subject
Medved's contention was that the Bishop of the Episcopal Church is a religious politician more interested in socialization than conforming to God's plan for her or the denomination she heads. She shows contempt for other denominations with her comment about Episcopalians being "more intelligent and educated than other denominations." Her morality appears to be somewhat subject to whim. She identifies herself as not Christian by referring to Christians as "they." She apparently hasn't studied the Koran.

Unfortunately, the Episcopal Church is off in left field doctrinally and has been for a long time. Being a hierarchial church rather than a congregational church, I doubt it can be saved from its own loss of focus. Except that my MIL is an Episcopalian and I regret the destruction of the Christian values she holds in common with me, I don't really care what happens to this denomination. The true Christians who are members will desert in time to more Christ-centered churches. The non-Christians who so love attending their temple of social reform will continue to support it until it collapses from not having enough members to support it. Bye-bye!

However, I think this is a watchtower for other denominations. Christians need to recognize that we can't play cafeteria with God's Word. We must study the Bible earnestly and be ready to give an answer when a question comes. We need also to be doers of the Word, not just hearers only. When somebody comes trying to teach us doctrine (even if it sounds like good doctrine) we should be demanding to see its basis in the Bible. And, if it's not there, we need to tell these would-be teachers and prophets that they have no place in our churches. My church does this already. If yours does it that is commendable. If your church isn't doing that, demand that they start. If they won't, find another church.

The Church of Jesus Christ is founded by Jesus Christ and it lives in the hearts of individual believers. We seek fellowship with like-minded believers in similar congregations, but we hold certain truths in common even as our practices vary. I could go on and on, but I've been blogging on these very issues and see no reason to go over the same ground here. The Church must do what God requires and that is found within the Bible. All else is human folly and currently, the Episcopal Church is the court of fools.

jay jay
Have I been lying about my heterosexualty just because I have not announced it to the world.

Ooops...
Guess I just did. Oh well I'm out now. My apologies to anyone I may have offended.

Episcopal identity crisis
Yes the hierarchy of the Episcopal Church is spinelessly pandering to fashionable opinion through gay advocacy and left wing politics, but it maintains its connections to history and tradition better than most conservative churches through liturgical dignity and the orthodox confessions proclaimed at every Eucharist. Most Episcopal churches still use the Book of Common Prayer and read from the same Bible as the conservatives. Episcopalians tend to eschew trendy pop music and have not sold out to fashionable culture radiating from Hollywood and Nashville, unlike many of the conservatives making the most noise about culture and tradition.
Jesus said take the two-by-four out of your own eye before you offer to take the speck out of the eye of an estranged Espiscopalian.

Donaldd
If you read Genesis in the language in which it was originally written, you will find that the literal translation for "days" was actually "periods of time"

Read Darwin, and you will find that evolution explains the transformation of an existing species into another and nothing else.

Use the 6 cells in your brain that are not poisoned by hate of God, then look in the mirror and repeat "I'm an intolerant dip**it"


Even though you hate God, He loves you.

Evolution could be in God's plan
However right now it is still a theory and has not been passed into law. Also it is based on pretty bad science. It sorta makes sense but hten it again it has big holes in it.

Now, if something changes into something else in one million years it is called evolution. If it only takes 1/2 second it is called magic, no?

And why are there still monkeys?

How does an eyeball evolve slowly? Seems impossible to me.

Progressivist/Post-Modernist Spin
As a traditional Anglo-Catholic, I am indebted to Mr. Medved for his insight and his sorely needed bluntness. In her responses, Ms. Jefferts Schori is saying nothing that in any way challenges the belief system of her fellow-travelers on the progressivist/post-modernist bus. And she has not done so in any of her recent public comments, or as far as I can tell, in anything she has ever written or said publicly. And this most surely gives her away as unfit for spiritual leadership. Her failure to offer a truly Christian interpretation of history, or a deeply Christian perspective of family life, should surprise no one, but the fact that virtually every answer is in line with the general leftist/progressivist spin on historical and current events is an indication that there is a certain amount of serious self-delusion here. If all she can do is spin for the leftist spin machine, then surely she can't expect for us to trust her as an intellectual leader.


Christians are "They"
Quite a disturbing interview...If the leader of American Episcopalians believes the denomination is no longer "Christian", what are they?

Inherit the Wind
Anyone here ever see "Inherit the Wind" with Spencer Tracy?

What did you think of it?

Christians are"They"
When we take a hard look at the Biblical definition of Christian, it should become clear that the Church of the Dark Ages was controlled by non-Christians. That is, the popes of those times were, in contemporary terms, "humanists". (This view is not restricted to ancient Catholicism, by the way, as these activities have been present from the beginning. Hophni and Phineas were priests, but did they serve God?) Again (or still) today, the worshipers of Baal are in high gear. Reverend whats-her-name may call herself a Christian, but that doesn't make it so.

religion and intelligence
Regarding religion and intelligence, leading modern day scientists (atheists, Christians, Deists, etc.) were polled asking who they would determine to be the greatest scientist of all time. Overwhelmingly they chose Isaac Newton..guess what, Newton was a devout Christian.

scarpimp
By the time I scrolled down to the bottom I forgot what I was replying to. ;)

It's not a do-over as you put it. God at this time is not trying to save the world, but is calling out a select few to assist Christ in governing the Kingdom of God when it is established. The Bible says that the majority of mankind has been deceived by Satan, and He has set it so, so that He may show mercy at the appointed time.

You say if given the choice between "hanging with God or burning in the lake of fire" you'd choose hanging with God. Of course you would, and so will the majority of mankind, but how do you think the Muslims will feel when the "God of the Jews" turns out to be the true God? Or Hitler? There are still many millions of people who would prefer to cease to exist than to live under God's rule. And don't forget, God can look into your heart, He knows whether you sincerely want to "follow the rules" or you're just looking to escape eternal death.

As for the Genesis account of Creation, while you're right that 1000 years is as a day to the Lord, and a day as a 1000 years, Genesis makes it quite clear that they are 24 hour days. Even putting the 1000 years as a day rule into effect that still only accounts for 6,000 years, not millions or billions. That doesn't mean the earth is only 6000 years old, though. In Genesis 1:1 it says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. In verse 1:2 it says the earth "became" without form and void, or chaotic and in a state of decay, caused by the rebellion of Satan, who with the angels were put here on earth to originally do what is now man's destiny. In verse 1:3 it describes God renewing the face of the earth, which could have been millions or billions of years after the initial creation.

And finally, the program was called "The World Tomorrow", not The World Today ;). If you miss the Plain Truth magazine, you might be interested in The Trumpet, put out by the Philadelphia CHurch of God. You can subscribe for free, or read it online at http://thetrumpet.com

Oxymoron?
Not to be a nit, but I don't think "religious left" is an oxymoron at all. The Left embraces and champions their causes with all the dedication and fervor of most religions. Nobody can accuse them of being dispassionate...just misguided, inconsistent, and bankrupt - as Medved points out.

What IS an oxymoron is the idea of a "christian left." I don't care how many crosses, robes, candles, and stained glass edifices you wrap it in. When you euphamize abortion as "choice", homosexuality as a "civil right", and favoritism as "affirmative action" (see Lev 19:15), you may have a feel-good humanitarian group with tax exempt status...you may have religion...and you may even have a church...but you don't have anything even beginning to approach christianity.

If you want an even more revealing portrait of Jefferts-Schori's theology (particularly her relativistic view of Christ), check out the interview in TIME magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1211587-2,00.html


Science and Sublime Lunacy
Since it's a bit absurd to be trying to rationally expound upon religion and science and then descend to calling each other names I must of course refrain from bringing up anyone's 'cyber handle'.

To address the points therefore: Yes, more scientists do PUBLICLY claim atheism, however, anyone well read would be reading about the growing rise in scientists willing to be scientific ANd to have faith. Additionally, it is no secret, to any but those lovely ostriches with their heads in the sand, that there has been an increasing acknowledgment by scientists of anxiety about declaring their faith, due to a fear of experiencing discrimination and recrimination. Just as global warming scientists with worldwide acclaim have been all but exiled after they've revisited and withdrawn many of their alarmist beliefs, so too are scientists of faith exposed to some radically aggressive and ironically, ignorant, thuggery.

If one's belief is in an infinite God who managed to give us a perfect lamb whose love would save the world (a scenario that nobody INTELLIGENT would ever have been able to conceive of, no anybody STUPID come to that), then the ideas of 6 DAYS, big bang, evolution, anything that a limited science could come up wtih (3 1/2 pounds of grey matter SUPPLIED by infinite being...a little intelligence would draw one to the conclusion that the knowledge by the person would never be capable of attaining the omniscience of God) would be not difficult to believe.

What science doesn't want to look at very carefully, because it destroys every level of analysis, are selfless love and faith.

The fun of it is that there are any number of mathematicians and scientists who have started out in very good cheer to refute Christianity..and have managed to find themselves converted through their own research.

So anyone here attempting to tamp down the pretensions and condescensions of a pure science 'intellectual', please re-read the comments, understand the fear and animosity that underlies (hence the non-mysterious trajectory from condescension to out and out hostility of a rather adolescent tone)...and just do the simplest thing...pray for them, wish them well and hope that a seed was planted in them by someone's inexplicable kindness.

=)

Mulroney/Aurorawatcher
I have written extensively in the past on these and other boards about my first experience seeing the film "Inherit the Wind". That film, along with a course I took in 1968 under the late astrophysicist Carl Sagan, were responsible for my turning away from the faith of my forebears for more than 30 years.

It is a very good movie, though some liberties were taken with the actual events for dramatic purposes. Obviously in the movie the empiricist won over the man of faith. So I became an empiricist too. It worked for many years, until I began slowly to realize that much of what I had read and been taught from the Bible, especially concerning human nature and evil, is, in fact, verifiable and true.

I hope by now you have had a chance to read the book I previously recommended to you (Geisler and Turek). They do a much better job of explaining the rational and historical underpinnings of our faith.

Aurorawatcher: I wish I could find a church such as you describe. I ache to do so. It is not as easy as it might seem.

One day = 1 billion years?
Donaldd

Since you have referred to the Bible as part of this discourse, I encourage you to read Genesis 1:1-2:2 again.

It takes great pains to define a "day" in the context of the creation story. In fact, it is defined no less than six times as "there was evening, and there was morning...one day."

That seems pretty unambiguous to me.

sdan
I brought it up as I watched it again last night. It was even more powerful than I remembered. I can't understand how this debate is still continuing in America (and pretty much only in America) 80 years later.

Ironically, in high school a priest recommended that we watch it after a he gave a lecture about how not everything in the bible should be taken literally. He explained that they are fables and allegories, not a recounting of actual events. This was some 20 years ago. I think he wouldn't be too popular on this site.

"Obviously in the movie the empiricist won over the man of faith."

I saw it differently. I saw it as a victory for free will (and free thought) over the notion of government imposed morality (and acceptable thought) enforced by law. Hence the neglible sentence after being convicted (the idea that enforcing an unjust law is not justice).

"I hope by now you have had a chance to read the book I previously recommended to you (Geisler and Turek)."

No I haven't, but thanx for the recommendation. I believe I have discovered the answer to the question you tried to answer for me (why should some parts of the bible be enshrined in law, but not other parts?).

After some research, I beleieve that, over time as some parts of the bible were proven to be wrong (Earth is 6000 years old, Jonah and the whale, Noah's Ark, etc), religious leaders decided to drop those parts from the rules by which people must live by. It's hard to get people to follow rules they know (or feel) to be undefendable.

mulroney
I guess you ignored my post in the other thread about laws versus morality?

Do I need to repost it or will you keep making that same tired argument?

Nowhere in the Bible does it say the earth is 6000 years old. It is not a daily journal in the history of the earth.

The one part of the Bible which you MUST believe to be a Christian is documented in plenty of secular writings as well(Christ and his teachings).

Mulroney
"they" haven't proven anything. The bible is not day by day like the man said. God is outside time and space so we don't know exactly how old the earth is. Science continually changes it's arguments. Nothing is settled empirically. As for Noah, there is plenty of evidence of a great worldwide flood recorded at the same time in countries all over the world. And men have been swallowed by whales before. I know, I know. But, hey I don't need scientific evidence to believe God's word - that's why they call it faith.

BTW- have you noticed all the prophets in the old testament were 100% in their predictions?

example from history outside the bible:

http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_t09.html

now read Ezekiel 26 and 27. It was written around 580 B.C.


Demographics
While I was out on a run (a great time to think!) I was thinking about some of the quotes made by the new head bishop and some of the comments to the column. Has anyone read Mark Steyn's book "America Alone?" Ignoring the Islam focus of the book, it has many interesting points regarding Demographics that could be useful to think about.

First, her comment that Episcopalians are more intelligent (as seen by their having fewer kids) would mean that the world must be headed down the tubes 'cause all us ignorant fools are doing all the procreating! It would seem that the intelligent (elite) should be the ones doing all the baby-making--then the world would be populated with smart folks, not us dummies!

Second, a point that Steyn makes is, who is going to pay for all of the social services that the Dems (and Reps these days with the drug benefit!) keep adding. Europe is a prime example of this with their birth rates of 1.3 and lower for child per female--2.1 children is needed in order just to maintain population. So, increasing the taxes on our offspring(Kids, what kids? we don't need any stinking kids!)

DavidM
"I guess you ignored my post in the other thread about laws versus morality?"

No, I just didn't understand it. I had trouble finding the consistency in it.

"Do I need to repost it or will you keep making that same tired argument?"

No thanx. I visited the priest who used to minister to the kids in my high school, and he answered the questions for me. I stated his answer above.

"Nowhere in the Bible does it say the earth is 6000 years old."

So where does that claim come from?




ScarletPimpernel
"But, hey I don't need scientific evidence to believe God's word - that's why they call it faith."

That I understand. What I don't understand is why other people should be forced to live by the rules your faith tells you to live by.

Didn't God grant us free will? Why would he have done so if he didn't want us to use it?

"Out of the abundance of the heart
the mouth speaks" Matt 12:34

Mr. Medved points out what, in my opinion, is the most significant point in this entire sad affair, with amazing clarity and insight.

She says, "They have a terrible history" thereby excluding herself.

She is acknowledging, probably unwittingly, that she is not a Christian.

If she is not a Christian, then what spirit is she of? And what spirit is responsible for her "elevation"?

A LOT TO DIGEST
Where have all these new visitors to TH come from?

Will have to sort through all of the postings.

Religion appears to be a driving force that is brainwashing Americans from our American traditions.

Be cautious of the talking heads, and the liberal media, that are promoting the sick beliefs of the so called Muslim religion.


hntr admin
http://www.headsneedtoroll.org

Mulroney, In His infinate wisdom
God gave us freewill, in hopes that we would choose correctly. What joy would there be for Him if loving him and obeying his word were already programmed into us? And, contrary to prevailing thought today, force fed to the population by msm, Christians do not want to force anyone to live by their higher moral code. However, states should be able to seperate themselves from others whose obvious moral degradation interferes with raising there children as they see fit. If you want to live in a sty, move to a blue state. Leave us red states alone to our "ignorance". A return to individual state autonomy in deciding for themselves, their ideas of what's moral, and what is detremental to society, is the key to our forgotten republic, And the only way we will ever be able to peaceably co-exist.

Gunga galunga gunga - gunga galunga
Why go to a church? Is it just to satiate the 'religion center' in your brain? If the object of your love is your own intellect isn't it stupid to have to have a denomination to express your adoration, or a church, or a congregation? Can't it all be taken care of on some cosmic, telepathic frequency that the under-evolved masses haven't yet discovered? If you're so highly evolved what do you need a church for?

Maybe it's the flowing robes, the grace, that attracts them.


Meg that was awesome
Any woman who knows what "Gunga galunga gunga" is from is righteous in my book. I almost spit tea through my nose reading that. Now I have to go dig my copy up and explain to my wife what the heck I'm laughing at. LOL.

That 6000 year old earth
The idea that the earth is 6000 years old dates back to Anglican bishop James Ussher (1582-1656). Ussher dated creation at
Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC; the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden Monday, November 10, 4004BC. A contemporary of Ussher's,John Lightfoot, Vice Chancellor of Cambridge University, nailed the creation down to October 23, 4004 BC at 9.00am.

Attempting to date the creation was an important concern for many clergy and theologians in the 15-1600s.

Both Ussher and Lightfoot arrived at their dates by taking the many lengths of time reported in the Bible (e.g., reigns of rulers, lifespans of individuals, and lots more). If Ussher ran into a lack of data, he simply looked to histories of other societies in which chronologies seemed to be better established to interpolate what he needed.

There are lots of places you can read all about it. Here's Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher-Lightfoot_Calendar

This figure for the age of the earth wound up getting put into the King James translation of the Bible, where many Christians learned it. It is supported today by many creationists (see, e.g., http://www.icr.org/article/517/2/ for an article on the Instutue for Creation Research website).

If you really want to get into this issue, one of the best sites I've found (by someone who believes in a Young Earth) is

http://www.ldolphin.org/sewell/sewellchron.html

It's got enough tables, debates, calculations, and speculations to keep you busy, or cure your insomnia.

What all of this (whether Ussher's original or today's discussions) has to do with Christianity is quite another matter. It is, of course, possible that a playful God created a universe with internal evidence that shows it to be billions of years old as a kind of exercise in transcendental special effects. For that possibility, please turn to the writing of a 19th century Englishman, Phillip Henry Gosse (1810-1888)who published a book in 1857 in which he claimed that God created th world to appear (to science) as if it was immensely old, when it really was not. Since this view cannot be refuted by any conceivable evidence or argument, I suggest that more Young Earthers check it out. It will help them become more irrational than they currently are.


Mulroney
You wrote: (after my comment about the empiricist winning over the man of faith) "I saw it differently. I saw it as a victory for free will (and free thought) over the notion of government imposed morality (and acceptable thought) enforced by law. Hence the negligible sentence after being convicted (the idea that enforcing an unjust law is not justice)."

Even as a college student I was looking beyond the superficial "church vs. state" battle. My struggle was internal, deeply personal, and between me and God. Then, as now, neither the state nor the church really threatened my beliefs as an individual. I have always had the freedom to think for myself, since early childhood. But I have had to come to terms with the evil I have seen, not the good. In the end, for me, there is no other explanation that fits, except that found in the Bible.

I have seen "Inherit the Wind" about six or seven times, and can quote some of Darrow's arguments by heart. But his central thesis I believe to be true, and I believe that Jennings (and the religionists) were wrong. NO idea is a threat to my faith. The fact that I can think, contemplate, and understand complex and sometimes conflicting ideas is PROOF that God created me and intended me to use my brain for this process. In his creation I see his works, his wisdom, his beauty, his design, and his ultimate plan and goal.

Humanity cries out for Justice. Finally, and without exception, divine justice will someday be a reality. Nothing else, to me, is more important than this, because it resolves absolutely and finally the problem of evil.

Sdan
You are so right.

Religious Left (Wrong)
That pooor woman needs her soul prayed for before eternal damnation. She is either an aethiest trying to pass herself off as religious or a communist infiltrater damning those that believe in her to eternal damnation as well.

The Bible says there will be those that believe a lie and will be damned. It also says there will be those turned over to a reprobate mind.

Denominations through the ages have come and gone spiritualy because they strayed from the word of God. The Bible also says there will be false prophets and those with itching ears galore in the last days and there is an influx like the world has never saw in these days.

sdan
"NO idea is a threat to my faith. The fact that I can think, contemplate, and understand complex and sometimes conflicting ideas is PROOF that God created me and intended me to use my brain for this process."

That's a wonderfully open minded point of view. Would I be correct in assuming then that you have no objection to the theory of evolution being taught to children in science class?

And what exactly did you mean by "religionists"?

Thanx.

New Bishop
It is a poor poor pitiful shame when a denomination will elect someone that would make statements such as she has made.
If a person has the wherewithal to do so, there is plenty of information on the internet that proves the age of the earth to be between 6000-10,000 years of age.
It appears that she will put forth the Moslem agenda which will be detrimental to this nation.

Whoever it was who said...
"After some research, I beleieve that, over time as some parts of the bible were proven to be wrong (Earth is 6000 years old, Jonah and the whale, Noah's Ark, etc),"

As has already been pointed out, the Bible does NOT say that God created the earth 6000 years ago. In fact, most Christian beliefs that have been disproven and ridiculed by non-believers over the years don't find their origins in the Bible, but in pagan thought, from philosphers such as Plato, Socrates, Homer, etc. Ironically, the same people who ridicule such "Christian" beliefs as a flat earth, the universe revolving around the earth, etc., hold the true sources of these concepts in high regard. Funny, eh?

Ever notice that people who lose their faith do so over false doctrines, and those who lose their faith in science do so over discovering truths?

And one last point from me, I promise. The Bible does NOT want us to believe it in faith, but to prove all things, hold fast that which is good, as the Bereans did. It even specifically lectures against blind faith.

Sorry
One last, LAST point that I forgot to mention in my last post. To say that the stories of Jonah and Noah are myths, is to call Christ a liar, as He spoke of both incidents as fact.

It's Pride....
....that's why the Bishop needs the flowing robes, a grand building...it's pride. If she and her congregants were truly spiritually superior they would shed the traditional religious model like a hermit crab and look for a new shell. They're not interested in being mavericks because then you get marginalized by society. They want to 'enlighten' the poor, dumb masses by maquerading as the religious intelligencia.

Solomon was right, there's nothing new under the sun.

Thanks ScarletPimpernel...keep laughing!! I'm old and I have every silly tv jingle memorized from 1960 on. I also have a vast mental library of famous phrases from movies.

When raising children, which is the hardest job on earth and much more important than hugging trees, I often sing medleys of irritating songs as a method of coercion. Resorting to such unorthodox methods of childrearing proves how desperately difficult it is to outsmart a child. They are the most difficult resource to harness but they also are the greatest natural resource we have. We have the ability to replenish our greatest natural resource, isn't that good stewardship?

I dare Bishop Schori to spend a day with my kids, they would unravel her so fast...it would be like watching a ball of yarn rolling down the side of a mountain. They would inadvertently expose her for the phony-baloney she is.

They would do what all children are best at...breaking us of our pride...which is why most intelligent people don't want children around. She would be on her knees, sobbing and begging God for mercy...

...which He would graciously give.


Mulroney
You wrote: "That's a wonderfully open minded point of view. Would I be correct in assuming then that you have no objection to the theory of evolution being taught to children in science class?

And what exactly did you mean by "religionists"?



You assume correctly. I have no problem with the theory of evolution, either as a subject of study for myself, or for high school and college students in biology class. It is a well-established and historical tenet of modern science. Not to include it in the curriculum would be remiss. But I think teachers should be free to talk about the Biblical creation story as well, if that is their desire. There is no practical way, as far as I can tell, to limit EITHER the church or the state from ever acknowledging the other's ideas. One of the interesting questions I still ponder is how, if as the Bible states, "sin entered the world through one man, and by sin, death", then how do you explain the fossil record which clearly shows that many extinct species (say, for instance, the dinosaurs) lived, killed, and died millions of years before the appearance of the first humans. I don't know the answer. But then, that's the point about "faith".

At some point every deeply reflective person must choose, I think, between two world-views. One posits meaning only in rational thought and empirical observation, assumes no life beyond this objective world, sees humanity as a means unto itself, and cannot commit to any greater or ultimate design or purpose, either locally or globally. The other concludes that there is a creator, he has made himself known, there is a beginning and an end (i.e., meaning beyond the here and now), a purpose, right and wrong.....and justice.

It is possible to live a "moral" life without religion, or even acknowledgment of a creator. But I do not believe it is possible to have purpose and meaning in your life without looking deeply both without and within. Inside myself I see a battle being waged all the time, a conflict over what I want to do, and what I know God wants me to do. The outer world around me reflects this conflict every day, confirming my beliefs that what has been written about us, and about God, is true. But above all, my faith gives me hope. Hope for humanity is as vital as justice, or water and air. Without hope, I see no reason to live at all.

By "religionists" I mean people who feel that their religious beliefs should be legislated for all by the state.

You are correct, Meg!
Children are life's toughest challenge.

Puppies are right behind them, however. I'm in the midst of house-breaking yet another terrier. Pride? At the moment, I have little left.

On a more serious note, I think C. S. Lewis was correct in his assessment of pride in "Mere Christianity". It is our greatest sin, the Original sin, and the main reason so many resist God in the first place.

Ben: It must hurt greatly to be so full
CONTEMPT!!!!

Your words. Repeated over and over.

P.S. Ever thought of eating more bran?

Ben: Contempt usually leads to HATE
You may wish to do some self examination. Before you blow a gasket.

Mike: 3:59 post
I don't believe tradition and culture is going to save many souls. Not that it appears that you would care.

Traditions of old are important and enjoyable. But would not overly base my life on them.

I wonder if your point was only a straw dog? For I don't believe that you are really a traditions at heart. More likely, just a rabble rouser. And a rather weak one at that.

mystic7
Well said!!
There are many scientists that have been drawn away from evolutionism to the facts of creationism by finding Jesus in the science they practice.
Their disciplines include archeology(found dinosaurs contemperaneous with man), quantum-albebra(a communist;proved to himself that the earth was 6000-10,000yrs old), physics(speed of light analyzed and discovered through the decay rate that earth was 6000-10,000yrs old)and others too many to mention here.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/05agee1.htm

http://www.creationevidence.org/

This link I have not researched thoroughly but it is interesting nonetheless.
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/index2.htm


Shame,Shame,Shame
I it a poor pitiful shame that some of the posters here at TH follow their political party more avidly than they follow the Lord:-(
They continually spout the fact that they are 'Christian' yet do not support ideals that God the Father of our Lord,Savior, and Great High Priest put forth in His Word!!!
Now, none of us are perfect!!!
THERE WAS ONLY ONE PERFECT::JESUS!!!!!
It is written,'A house divided against itself can not stand.'
Our house(the US) is in danger of falling down!!!
We all make mistakes and sin, but we do have the ability and responsibility to limit these mistakes and sin as much as we can.

Mk.9:42 "But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea."

I don't know about ya'll, but I think it would be hard to swim with a millstone round ya neck,and I don't know any human that has gills.

"It is impossible that no offenses should come, but woe to him through whom they do come!
Lk.17:1-2 "It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."

According to these Words from the Lord, all the lawmakers that enact legislation that causes the little ones to sin will pay a dear price for their compounded sin, and all the ones that support these will suffer the same penalty.

1Gal.7-8:"Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.
For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.





Religion
Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations;
21 "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,"
22 which all concern things which perish with the using; according to the commandments and doctrines of men?
23 These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.
3:1 If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God.
2 Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth.
3 For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.
4 When Christ who is our life appears, then you also will appear with Him in glory.
5 Therefore put to death your members which are on the earth: fornication, uncleanness, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.
6 Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience,
7 in which you yourselves once walked when you lived in them.
8 But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth.
9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds,
10 and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him,
11 where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.
12 Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering;
13 bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do.
14 But above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection.
15 And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful.
16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.
17 And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him.
18 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.
19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them.
20 Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well pleasing to the Lord.
21 Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged.
22 Bondservants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in sincerity of heart, fearing God.
23 And whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men,
24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance; for you serve the Lord Christ.
25 But he who does wrong will be repaid for what he has done, and there is no partiality.

Feminist Church

I was an active member at Willow Creek Community Church. Bill Hybles, our pastor, was Former President Clinton's spiritual adviser during his eight years of presidential leadership.

http://www.willowcreek.org

I observe that Willow Creek condones/supports non-biblical teachings, such as, divorce, abortion, woman in leadership, and such.

After the church supported my wife's divorce from me, and I noticed their sermons becoming "man bad, woman good" messages (read: feminist), I separated myself from Willow Creek. I desire a biblically functioning church.

At the end of the day, a liberal church may be a place where people far from God start, not end up, yet I see that some stay.

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/229

Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Someone ought to do the Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori a big favor and inform her that God does not intend for her to be the head of ANY church, but rather at home taking care of her husband. Read the word of God and Paul's writings for confirmation. He says that if a woman even has a question about theology, that she is to be silent in church and then later, ask her husband. And if then husband is doing God's will, he can explain the word to her. May sound sexist, but God wanted it to be this way for a very good reason and that can be found in His word too, if you take the time to look.

What are you seeking?
All this bickering seems to miss a primary point. Search for Truth. Let go of things that are false. The Natural Law is a good place to begin (the natural law is not religiously based). But from there go to how Christianity came to be. Also discover how Islam came to be (both Monotheistic). Christianity is Revelation based. Islams seems to be a mix of Public Revelation (Old Testament) and Private Revelation (Muhammed). Christianity is Public Revelation alone (Old and New Testament). Let us seek what is true. Truth is not something that is a mystery, but through natural reason and the acceptance of God and what he has revealed we can discover the truth.

William
Well said!
Psa 53:1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity; There is none who does good.
Psa 53:2 God looks down from heaven upon the children of men, To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
Psa 53:3 Every one of them has turned aside; They have together become corrupt; There is none who does good, No, not one.
Psa 53:4 Have the workers of iniquity no knowledge, Who eat up my people as they eat bread, And do not call upon God?
Psa 53:5 There they are in great fear Where no fear was, For God has scattered the bones of him who encamps against you; You have put them to shame, Because God has despised them.
Prov 10:23 To do evil is like sport to a fool, But a man of understanding has wisdom.
Prov 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, But he who heeds counsel is wise.
Prov 14:16 A wise man fears and departs from evil, But a fool rages and is self-confident.
Prov 15:7 The lips of the wise disperse knowledge, But the heart of the fool does not do so.
Prov 18:2 A fool has no delight in understanding, But in expressing his own heart.
Prov 23:9 Do not speak in the hearing of a fool, For he will despise the wisdom of your words.



Mark Ruffolo / Re: Willow Creek
Hi Mark, thanks for the post, it is always great to hear from someone who has recognized religious error, and who is willing to act on that knowledge, and seek the truth.

I noticed that you posted similar comments on at least two different articles/forums, and I didn’t see that anyone had responded to you yet.

I wanted to respond to a couple of your comments this evening, and I hope to follow up tomorrow with a few more. I have copied my replies to both articles/forums where I found your comments.


Mark Ruffolo writes: “http://www.willowcreek.org”


I checked out the link to the Willow Creek website you provided. Fairly slick at first glance. They even included some of the “language” on their “What We Believe” statement that was part of my own search a while back:

(from the website): “The sole basis of our belief is the Bible, which is uniquely God-inspired, without error, and the final authority on all matters on which it bears.” (http://www.willowcreek.org/what_we_believe.asp).
It is unfortunate that many try to trick people who are honestly seeking the truth of God’s word with such language by proclaiming their beliefs are based solely on the Bible, when in reality they only pay lip-service to that declaration.


Next, I checked their beliefs with regard to baptism:

Statement on Baptism Page (http://www.willowcreek.org/statementonbaptism.asp):

(from the website): “While recognizing for other churches the right to practice infant baptism if it conforms to their theologies, the congregation of Willow Creek Community Church understands the Scripture to teach that only professing believers qualify for baptism.”

What does that mean, exactly, “While recognizing for other churches the right to practice infant baptism if it conforms to their theologies,…”?

If they meant “While recognizing for other churches the right to practice error if it conforms to their own man-made doctrines”, why don’t they just say that? Why not be honest about it, instead of playing PC games with the truth?

And if they didn’t mean that, if they meant that they recognize, condone and seek fellowship with those who practice error, then they have contradicted their own “What We Believe” statement mentioned above.


Next we find the following statement on the same “Statement on Baptism” page:

(from the website): “Willow Creek Community Church offers the option of believers’ baptism in the modes of sprinkling and immersion on the basis of a sacramentarian view of the ordinances…”

If they actually meant what they said in their “What We Believe” statement, they wouldn’t be offering options that cannot be found in the Bible, options which contradict their assertion that “The sole basis of our belief is the Bible” and that the Bible is “the final authority on all matters on which it bears.”

Finally, they admit that the Willow Creek church position on God’s plan of salvation really isn’t based on the Bible OR their assertion of its inerrant nature OR their proclamation that it is the final authority on all things. Instead, the Willow Creek church supports its position on Baptism not from clear, simple and God-inspired scripture, but on a book written by a man in 1962:

(from the website): “The church’s position on baptism is well represented in G. R. Beasley-Murray’s, Baptism in the New Testament, Macmillan, 1962.”

A scripturally sound church would not be “mincing words” on any of these issues. It would be forthright and declarative about what God says on each issue, backed up by clear and unambiguous Book, chapter and verse, in proper context, for every one of the church’s practices.

Mark Ruffolo / non-Biblical teachings
Mark Ruffolo writes: “I observe that Willow Creek condones/supports non-biblical teachings, such as, divorce, abortion, woman in leadership, and such. After the church supported my wife's divorce from me and I noticed their sermons becoming ‘man bad, woman good’ messages (read: feminist), I separated myself from Willow Creek.”

Such recognition of error is a critical step in seeking the truth. It would be proper to raise such concerns before simply leaving, unless you have reason to fear psychological manipulation (or worse) in an effort to prevent you from leaving.

If you are convinced that your church is at odds with the Bible position on such basic issues of divorce, abortion, women in leadership or any other Bible matter, you would be doing a great service to your brethren to point out to them what you see as clear error, and then let them speak.

If your church is unscriptural to its very core, it is not likely you will be able to change the minds of the church leadership by pointing out such errors, if for no other reason than it is difficult to believe they could be so far away from the truth of God’s word without knowing it already. If that is the case, they have effectively opted for human wisdom over God’s wisdom, and human authority over God’s authority.

However, it is probable that there are others in your congregation with honest hearts who will recognize the error, be grateful to you for pointing it out, repent, and change their beliefs and practices to be in accordance with God’s word. Those brethren would want to seek a scripturally sound church with you.

On the other hand, if your church is scripturally sound at its core, and the genuine desire of the leadership (deacons and elders) and the preacher is to understand and practice God’s will as it is revealed in His Book, they will indeed be grateful for being shown their error. They will be thorough and honest in examining your position. They will change their beliefs and practices to be in accordance with their new understanding of God’s word, if what you are showing them is found in the Bible, harmonizes with the other scriptures on the same subject, and you can demonstrate that you have divided the Word properly. Such a congregation of God’s people will be interested first and foremost in understanding and following the truth of God’s word, not in preserving traditions and practices which can be shown to be in error.

There is no profit in practicing error, error cannot be pleasing to God, so what reason can there be to continue in error once it becomes known and understood?

Adam was the Man
He was responsible for Eve. So, actually it was His "fault". One man took us down and one man paid for our way out.

Mark Ruffolo / Biblical church Part 1


Mark Ruffolo writes: “I desire a biblically functioning church.”

Amen to that. Rather than simply looking for a “biblically functioning church”, why not seek out the Lord’s church itself?

Can a man be saved, unless he becomes a Christian? (John 14:6 - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 1 Timothy 2:5 - For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;).

Can a man become a Christian, unless he is added to the Lord’s church? (Colossians 1:18 - And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. Ephesians 5:23 - For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.)

The Lord’s church was established on the first day of Pentecost after Christ’s resurrection (Acts 2:1, http://tinyurl.com/y8d882).

About 3,000 souls were added to the Lord’s church that first day (Acts 2:41, http://tinyurl.com/y6vrzl).

The Lord added to His church daily thereafter, such as should be saved (Acts 2:47, http://tinyurl.com/yxawvu).

To the best of my knowledge, these facts are not denied by any church that is serious about God’s word.

With hundreds of variations on Christianity, and hundreds of different churches and teachings, how can we know which one is the Lord’s church?

Is this not one of the most important questions we could ask?

After all, I don’t doubt the sincerity of many who believe all these different things, but they cannot all be right (Romans 10:2 - For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge). Thinking that every way is right is the wisdom of the world, the doctrine of relativism, the nonsense of “there is no truth” or “every man’s truth is his own”.


I contend that there is such a thing as truth; it is objective, it is absolute, it is knowable and it does not hide itself from those who seek it. It is meant to be understood by all, not just a select few:

(Psalm 19:7) The law of the LORD [is] perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD [is] sure, making wise the simple.

(Psalm 119:130) The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

(James 1:5) If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all [men] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.


The truth of God’s Word is a great and good thing, standing in stark contrast to all of the lies of this world. It is found in one place only; the inspired and inerrant word of God, given to us by revelation, collected together and contained within the book we call the Bible.

(Romans 3:4) God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

The truth is not found in the wisdom and words of men; how could it be?

(Jeremiah 10:23) O LORD, I know that the way of man [is] not in himself: [it is] not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

(Isaiah 55:8-9) For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.


If the words of men go further than what the Bible says, they are an addition to God’s word with no authority behind them; why would God be bound by the words of men?

If the words of men don’t go as far as what the Bible says, if they come up short, are they not insufficient to accomplish His plan of salvation?

If the words of men are the same as what the Bible says, then why are the words of men necessary? We already have the Bible.


Is the Word of God sufficient to accomplish His will, or does He require additions (or subtractions) by man?

(Isaiah 55:11) So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it.

(Psalms 118:8) [It is] better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

(Luke 6:46) And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?


I understand that earnestly contending for the faith (Jude 1:3, http://tinyurl.com/y924db) is not simple or easy, particularly when there are so many different “faiths” competing to be heard. Any serious effort in contending for the faith is going to result in ruffling some feathers, certainly among those who reject God’s word outright (John 15:18, http://tinyurl.com/yn486u) but also among some who might otherwise be generally supportive.

God certainly knew of these problems; we are warned repeatedly of false prophets, false teachers, false doctrines, commandments of men, vain words and vain worship. We are admonished to “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:” (1 Peter 5:8)


So what is a man to do? Does the Lord’s church, the one He founded in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, does it still exist?

But of course it does; the better question would be: How could it NOT still exist?

(Luke 21:33) Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

(Ephesians 3:21) Unto him [be] glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

(Matthew 28:18-20) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. [19] Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.

Surely it would be a mistake to think that either man OR time could undo that for which the Son of God gave His life? (Ephesians 5:25 - Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; John 15:13-14 - Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. [14] Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. 1 John 3:16 - Hereby perceive we the love [of God], because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down [our] lives for the brethren.).


So how can a man find the Lord’s church, and those who teach the truth of His word, just as it is written?


Scott, Thank You
You are exactly right, Christ the Lord founded his church and the Word of God gives us instruction and knowledge to discern what is good and just and true and what is not. Thankfully the assembly where I worship believe these things to be true.

Christians don't want to force anyone to follow Christ. That would defeat God's purpose. We only want to share the good news that we ourselves have heard and try to live by. The choice of believing or not belongs to each individual.

In these times too many have forgotten why we attend worship services. We are not the audience, God is. He has given specific instruction for worship and it does not involve entertaining the congregation so that they will want to come. It is about worshiping our Lord and Savior and realizing that we are sinners in need of His forgivness. We recieve edification by assembling ourselves and worshiping God in spirit and in truth according to His Word. Anything less is an exercise in futility.


Words of Wisdom:-)
SCOTT,your words are wise. Thank you for them.

In another light..I have noticed that so many posts on the articles have mention of Islamics somewhere in them..
If the Followers of Jesus do not stand together soon,,we will be overrun by the liberal House,Senate and Supreme Court and they will remove our freedom to take the Gospel out to the ones that need it.
Jesus wept:-(

Scott
"If the words of men are the same as what the Bible says, then why are the words of men necessary?"

Because when Philip met the Ethiopian eunuch, he asked the enuch if he understood the scroll of Isaiah that he was reading, and the enuch said, "how can I, without someone to teach me?"

I know you already knew this, by the way, I'm just pointing it out.

Scott
"So how can a man find the Lord’s church, and those who teach the truth of His word, just as it is written?"

Good question. I would say these are the marks:

A Bible-centered, Bible-proving, Bile-explaining church with a God-centered worldview who only preaches the truth as stated in the whole counsel of God.

A people who deeply love each other because of Christ living in each of them.

A people who fear God and keep His commandments from the heart.

Scarlet
True enough. Sin comes through Adam. Romans 5.

Kozinator
"But then, I also understand that it takes a very small mind and limited view to believe that you can do this through government"

Exactly. That's why I think you can be a Christian and a liberal if you haven't been very thoughtful about politics.

Scott
True.

God's will be done, not ours.
<