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
Friday, December 22, 2006
Pat Buchanan :: Townhall.com Columnist
The real schismatics and bigots
by Pat Buchanan
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


"I grew up in the Episcopal church. I hope I don't cry when I talk about this. But the issue is: Are we going to follow Scripture?"

So an anguished Katrina Wagner, a member of the leadership of Truro Episcopal parish, told Washington Post reporters Bill Turque and Michelle Boornstein. They have been covering the sad Christmas story of the breakup of the Episcopal Church in Northern Virginia. Nine parishes have voted to secede from the American church.

What forced the break was the installation at the National Cathedral of Katharine Jefferts Schori of Nevada as presiding bishop of the U.S. Episcopal Church. Schori has blessed homosexual unions and supported the consecration as Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire of V. Gene Robinson, a priest who had left his wife to enter a homosexual union. At last report, Robinson was cohabiting with his gay lover.

Traditionalists have had it with the hierarchy, and the in-your-face elevation of a green and trendy liberal prelate to lead them broke it. Not only have the nine parishes severed ties, with more considering secession, seven of 111 Episcopal dioceses have rejected Schori's authority. Sad as the story seems, however, it produced mirth and mockery from Washington Post columnist Howard Meyerson.

"Whether it was the thought of a woman presiding over God's own country club or gays snuggling under its eaves, it was all too much" for the "Fairfax Phobics," wrote Meyerson. This is "just the latest chapter in the global revolt against modernism and equality and, more specifically, in the formation of the Orthodox International."

And what, exactly, is the "Orthodox International"?

"The OI unites frequently fundamentalist believers of often opposed faiths in common fear and loathing of challenges to ancient tribal norms. ... The OI's founding father was Pope John Paul II, who ... sought to build his church in nations of the developing world where traditional morality and bigotry, most especially on matters sexual, were ... more in sync with the Catholic Church's inimitable backwardness. Now America's schismatic Episcopalians are following in (John Paul's) footsteps -- traditionalists of the two great Western hierarchical Christian churches searching the globe for sufficiently benighted bishops."

The reference to "benighted bishops" is to Archbishop Akinola, who believes, as the 13 colonies and 50 American states did up until the late 20th century, that homosexual sodomy should be a crime. Jefferson, the patron saint of liberals, thought active homosexuals should be emasculated.

Meyerson dismisses the Fairfax dissenters as a "distinct minority." Yet, he concedes that only 13 of 38 national churches in the Anglican communion ordain women, and only three -- the United States, Canada and New Zealand -- permit the consecration of women bishops.

So who are the real schismatics, the real heretics?

In rejecting the authority of Schori and refusing to bless homosexual unions, the dissenters have God, Scripture, and church teaching and tradition on their side. Did not Christ Himself say to the Pharisees of his day: "Have ye not read that He who made man at the beginning 'made them male and female'? And He said, 'For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.'"

As for the Old Testament, Leviticus is a good deal rougher on the Mattachines than even Archbishop Akinola.

And, tell us, Meyerson, if the dissenters believe in their hearts that Christ restricted the priesthood and apostolic succession to men and that homosexual sodomy is a sin against God, which, persisted in, corrupts the soul and can bring eternal damnation, should they stand firm in the faith -- or should they conform to the commands of "modernity"?

Meyerson is particularly upset that Pope John Paul's "Orthodox International" -- Israeli rabbis, Christian and Islamic clergy -- came forward to "bury ancient enmities and to jointly condemn a gay pride festival" in Jerusalem. Yet one need not be a raging homophobe to think it probably not a good idea -- in the middle of a Moslem intifada that may lead to a war of civilizations between Islam and the West -- not to have 100,000 Sodomites cavorting in the Holy City.

In discussing the late pope and traditional Christians, Meyerson tosses about insults like "benighted," "tribal" and "Phobics." He charges the Catholic Church with "backwardness," and draws a direct parallel between Catholic teaching and "tribal norms" and "traditional morality and bigotry."

Meyerson's is the authentic voice of an anti-Catholicism that is out of the closet and on the op-ed pages of the national press.

"Episcopalians Against Equality" is the title of Meyerson's piece. But this is surely unjust. None of these folks has called for the denial of any rights to homosexuals. They are simply saying that, as faithful Christians, they cannot elevate to the same moral plane as Christian marriage, which the Lord commends, the homosexual unions Scripture condemns.

God bless these brave Episcopalians at Christmas -- and a very Merry Christmas to you, too, Meyerson.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Pat Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative magazine, and the author of many books including State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Pat Buchanan's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Its inevitable
Atavistic, literalist religionists who believe that only wisdom (and no folly) exists in ancient religious texts like the bible are always going to be left behind by their more intelligent and forward looking brethren.

Sounds like Myerson has it about right. Buchannan, as usual, has it wrong. Modern episcopalians are to be congradulated for leaving their backward collegues in the dust.

Slacker
"Atavistic, literalist religionists who believe that only wisdom (and no folly) exists in ancient religious texts like the bible are always going to be left behind by their more intelligent and forward looking brethren."

By your line of "thinking" the islamo-fascists are your kind of modern not-so-literal religionists who leave their atavistic tribalist backward brethren in the dust. The logical outcome of this "modernity": the Episcopal church is very likely to disintegrate, and the islamists will ultimately cause the death of many millions of their brethren. Both of these tragic events will no doubt cause you and the Legion you are part of great joy.

May the spirit of Christmas bring peace into your troubled lost soul.

Sometimes we just have to
go through the motions. *Yes, wacky lefty, you are wrong and here's why...* But the sad fact is that there is a vast and yawning chasm seperating us and them. What we call daylight, they call night. Thus, they think that we are "benighted".

How many miles is Sodom from Jerusalem, anyway? Something like twenty miles. A quick trip. Seems significant, somehow. We know from which direction Meyerson would be traveling.


J
http://forgottenprophets.blogspot.com/

Slacker...
...now that Loyal Democrat has been sucessfully outed,I am glad Slacker has stepped forward to take over his duties,i.e. post the classic left wing arguements to see how many comments he can get.But you need more practice Slacker.LD was very skilled.

Good Points Merry
If I might add alittle:

You said," because homosexuality is in truth...either demon possession or demon oppression."

Homosexuality may involve demonic influence but as a cursory influence.

You stated rightly "The only way to win an arguement with homosexuals is with the word of God..."

By the premise of beginning with the Word, it states homosexuality is a direct judgement from God.
Rom. 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

The essence is judgment as a result of reputiating what is inherently known of God. (preceding verses)

It's degradating outcomes are only consequences of that intitual judgement. For a short list of some of the consequences of that judgement read the following verses to the above quote.

It is the insanity and utter darkness of sin and the arrogance of the world that could twist a judgment, meant to turn a sinner from error, to parade and flaunt it.

'Let God's be true and every man a liar.'



Bandu
What you say is just the opposite of the truth. The "Islamo-fascists" are the traditionalists who are taking what is said in the Koran, literally.

Too late

I bet Bill Oreilley would have loved to have talked with Slacker. It would have added afew pages to his chapter about secular progressives.

When anyone starts hurling around adjectives like stupid, backward, or even homophobic, before knowing who I am or what I believe, I wonder what their biases and problems are.

Merry Christmas and Happy Hannaka to all. May what ever is the light of your life shine for you.

How can a Christian look down on me?
As a gay man who despises Marxism, political correctness, Islam, and much of what "gay culture" has to offer me, I find Buchanan's article patently stupid.

He claims that homosexuality is a grave sin that can bring "eternal damnation". It must be pretty horrible, huh? His words are pig excrement! Homosexuality is consensual and it harms no one. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Compare that to the so-called "loving" god of the Bible. In 1 Samuel 15:3, this "loving" and "merciful" god commanded the violent murder of CHILDREN AND INFANTS. As a parent, this is disgusting and evil. These are the actions of a vicious and evil god. Period.

Compare further to Hosea 13:16, in which the so-called "loving" god commanded that PREGNANT WOMENT BE TORN OPEN. The "pro-life" god mandated the kind of abortion in which the mother dies!

If I am "evil" compared to this wicked, vicious god, then I consider it an honor. I could have gay sex one thousand times a day and I would still be infinitely more moral than the horrible god of the Old Testament. May god strike me dead if I'm wrong, and I ask it in Jesus Christ's name!

Just admit that you hate gay people, you Christian liars.

A leaders power
A leader only has the power that followers give them. Leaving that organization or firing her is the best thing to do. Much like our country being founded upon Biblical values and the rule of law, a strong Church must also. God's words are eternal and valid in any time. The Bible does not change with public opinion or pollitical correctness.

Not the God OF
the Old Testament but God in the Old Testament. His was a display of the severity of His attitude about sin and His Judgement on it.

That serverity calminated in the display of His judgment on His own Son on calvary for a final penalty for sin for all time.

That judgement allowed sinners like me to escape.

Sin is the real enemy not God.

struck dead
loundry,sadly, if your eyes are not opened,you will be struck dead by god(the second death),and cast into the pit of fire at your judgement.there you will suffer with all of your ilk forever.you do understand that means it will NEVER end.its also referred to as ETERNAL DAMNATION.YET STILL,I CANNOT NOR WILL I EVEN ATTEMPT TO ARGUE THE BIBLE AS YOU AND I SEE IT IN TWO DIFFERENT LIGHTS.just as a muslim would never convice me his doctrine is correct nor can we convince you.that agument would have to rest on the HOLY BIBLE as the final authority and you would not accept that.think about this at least.if we christians are wrong,we loose nothing.what if you are wrong?is that a gamble you really think you can take?remember that at stake is your eternity.God does not hate you,just your sin.

True Christians don't Loundry
Loundry,

We are all sinners and therefore evil.

Even though I am a Christian, I don't hate gay men or women. But I am not going to disobey or shun what I believe. Nor will I be bullied into it. I will not stand by and let you call me a liar when you don't even know me. How about you get over your own bigotry and paranoia and live your life. The Westboro Baptist Church is nothing more then a small molecule when compared to the rest of us.

I attend one of those nine churches that recently broke away from the Episcopal Church and joined with the greater Anglican Church. We did so not just because of the promotion of sinful lifestyles but the blatent disregard to defy God himself and worship idols within His Church. The consecration of Bishop Gene Robinson was merely the straw that broke the camels back. They have done some much that would be considered incredibly offensive and just plain wrong by the majority of Americans.

So please keep in mind that it wasn't just issues related to homosexuality.

And on a side note
Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts once regarded Jesus as "Mother Jesus." Just so you know just how warped these people are.

Missing the point
It is interesting to note that people like Howard Meyerson would probably be the first ones to argue that people need to be "tolerant" of other views. Instead, he condemns them for what he believes to be the wrong choice.

If the people of those churches chose to leave the national church, why should Meyerson criticize? In the name of tolerance, he should be tolerant towards them. Instead, he condemns.

This still is America and those people chose what they believed to be the right thing to do.

Agree or not, it was their choice.

givenmercy lies
givenmercy wrote:

"loundry,sadly, if your eyes are not opened,you will be struck dead by god(the second death),and cast into the pit of fire at your judgement."

Give me a break. Read Acts 12:23. There, Herod was killed for the mere act of NOT PRAISING GOD. If Herod would be killed immediately for such a minor and trivial act, then why would I survive for daring your weak, homosexual god for not killing me immediately?

Because he's weak? Gay? Pathetic?

Because he's imaginary?

Maybe it's because I am God and you should worship me immediately!

How much blasphemy do I have to commit before your sky pixie will do to me what he did to Herod? Is your god a god of empty threats as well as a god of baby-killing?

Cut out with the threats and your supserstitious garbage. It is all exrcrement, as is your faith.

Loundry writes:
How can a Christian look down on me?

I don't look down on you, but I will not condone your sin and say it's ok. The verses you picked out were punishment for sin and disobedience. We all will have to answer for our sins, but I have chosen to cover mine in the Blood of the Lamb of God.

Loundry sees a little
I applaud Loundry for at least acknowledging the brutality of God as He is reveled, not only in the OT, but the NT also. It is an insult to God that most of the visible christian world tries to apologize for God's actions or relive Him of responsibility for them. God never tried to blame calamity on someone else. He plainly said, "I create peace and I create calamity." He made the world and He flooded it. He makes alive and He kills. It is the Lord who gives, and the Lord who takes away. Loundry's problem is that he believes he can bring God into judgment for this. Job's correct response to, "The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away," was, "blessed be the name of the Lord." Loundry has chosen to curse rather than bless.

Paul addressed an attitude similar to Loundry's with, "Who are you, O man, to reply against God!" Of course, Loundry believes he is god, or at least, than man, in general, is god, for he considers nothing wrong so long as it does not hurt another human. "Consensual homosexuality hurts no one, so it is not wrong." So Loundry has issued his decree without one reference to god; which is not surprising, since he evidently considers himself to possess the rights and privileges of a god - why should he acknowledge the presence of another god?

Is God brutal and ruthless in judgment? Yes, He is. Just ask His Son. Just ask those in hell. Katrina belongs to God, as does the Tsunami, the planes that flew into the towers along with all the Islamo-Fascists who brutally murder in the name of their false god belong to the Almighty. America is His, as is Russia, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Venezuala and every other nation and tribe in this world: countries He creates and tears down at His will. The fertile fields are His, as is the scorched earth of famine. Peace is His doing, and so is war.

He will bring judgment on every homosexual who does not repent - and on every heterosexual who thinks he needs no repentance. He will destroy every abortionist - and every pro-life protester who thinks their pro-life stance gains them favor with God. He will judge every militant islamist - and every professed Christian who thinks his American heritage and western value give him credit with God. Some of our brave soldiers who have died on the battlefield for our liberties have gone straight from the hell of war to the real hell of Divine judgement.

Does that offend? Do we really think that the God of the universe is impressed with America and that her soldiers are somehow pleasing in His sight just because they come from a "Christian nation."? God will destroy everyone who does not bow the knee to the Lord Jesus Christ. He will destroy them with an everlasting destruction that will make horrors like Noah's flood, Sodom's brimstone, and ripped-open pregnant women look like a Sunday picnic.

Do not fall for the foolishness that the God of the OT is mean and the God of the NT is nice. The One God of the OT and NT is a God of unyielding justice and unspeakable mercy. To any who think that by their own works they have gained His favor, He is a ruthless judge, jury and executioner. To all who repent of their sin and self-righteousness, and look for no ground of acceptance with Him other than the blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ - to them, he gives the right to be called His sons and blesses them with all the blessings that rightly belong to Jesus Christ.

By His grace, I am such a person: beset with sin, but chosen, redeemed and called by God. No better or worse than anyone else, I am worthy of God's everlasting wrath. But He chose to be merciful to me. He chose not to execute His just wrath against me, but instead, to turn it on His Son, the Lord Jesus, in my behalf. And, He being the just God, will not punish my sin in His Son, then later, visit that punishment on me too. I am free. The Lord has given...and blessed be His Name, this is one thing He will never take away!

God is
patient.

Sin is the enemy
not Christians not God.


Loundry
I am not a church goer, but...

I sure am glad I am not in your shoes.

Buchanan has
it right...don't ususally agree with him.

Homosexuality is a personal self gratifying, forbidden action that produces nothing, and is condemned by Scripture. To purposefully taunt God by practicing, supporting, and encouraging this immoral action puts one in a position of "it being better to not having been born".

Make no mistake, all of us live in glass houses where sin abounds, however, the saving Grace and mercy of Christ washes my failures and reminds me to cease any sinful activity.

To Joe T...
Simply brilliant.

To Loundry:

Who told you ripping babies from a woman's womb is horrible? On what authority can you claim that bigotry is "wrong," and "who are you to judge" what constitutes "mercy"? In whose eyes? Be careful with your answer, lest you may soon find yourself believing in an invisible man in the sky, or conversely, bearing a strong resemblence to Himmler.

Buchanan

Like him or not, Like his words or not, Buchanan's stance here is not that of a craven coward.

It's quite brave to say or do anything that goes against the powerful special interest groups for GLBT.

I must say I find it amusing how readily these groups were able to frame the debate in the terms of 'civil rights,' considering that the groups involved had not had their civil rights infringed by such things as Jim Crow laws. We are working towards the day when members of this group are a protected species, and speech against their opinions will be actionable.

It is very clear
That folks like Meyerson and "Slacker" put the authority of Man ("more intelligent and forward looking brethren") in front of the Authority of God. I can see atheist/secularists doing this as it is central to THEIR religion. Christians who do this will have to answer at the judgement seat. To me and many of MY brethren the Authority of God trumps and human claims of "modernity" et al.

Are you trying to negotiate....
....a "deal" with God?

If you believe in God, you know that he is absolute truth. Yes, absolute. So, explain to me how you can strike a compromise deal with him?

If you don't believe in God, then there is no foundation for what you consider "right" and "just" and "moral." So all your posturing is spurious, and you have no truth-full guide to conduct, so you can rationalize behavior at will, unless you're into hedging your bets.

Which way would you like to hedge in this issue about acceptable behavior by "clergy"?

Your call.

Joe T
You wrote:

"I applaud Loundry for at least acknowledging the brutality of God as He is reveled, not only in the OT, but the NT also."

The problem you have is that the Bible also describes your baby-killing god as "loving", "kind", and "merciful". You can't have it both ways. You can either be brutal and merciful, but not both.

"He will bring judgment on every homosexual who does not repent"

And he might also decide to torture you with boils and kill your whole family just to win a bet with the devil (read Job again -- Job was a perfect man and behold what he received in payment for his fealty!), so where do you get the idea that only "unrepentant" people will receive his wrath?

"The One God of the OT and NT is a God of unyielding justice and unspeakable mercy."

And baby-killing, abortion, eternal torture, and polygamy. Don't short-change your god, you of low morals.

In defense of God
After reading some of the comment by more orthodox posters I have to conclude that the Korean Dictator Kim Jong Il is more like some of your versions of God than Jesus. We condem humans who kill innocent people yet you attribute the same behavior to God.

When Jesus walked the earth, did he ever kill anyone? Did he send Tsunamis to kill 200,000 men, women and children. Did he afflict people with blindness and disease? If you believe Jesus was God like, then how can you believe God is guilty of such horror? One poster even claimed that 9/11 was the will of God. Why the war on terror? Why did we stop the Germans from creating hell on earth, since you apparently believe in a God who not only behaves the same way but causes Hitlers, Stalins, Pol Pots, Osamas and Saddams to commit such acts as though they were His agents. What is the difference, in your minds, between God and Satan. You sound more like Zorastrians than Christians...God is the source of both good and evil.

And what would make it right or ok for God to do this? His holiness Please define holiness, given your interpretation of what it inspires Him to do. Can he just do it because He is God? Is is the 1200 lb gorilla that sits wherever he wants. Might makes right. Sounds like He is some kind of school yard bully that never grew up. The God you believe in belongs in an institution for the criminally insane.

One of the Ten Commandments is that thou shall not take the name of the Lord in vain. Ironically, some of the posters here do just that.

God gave us minds to think and reason with, not just read and follow, no matter how ridiculous the belief. Why don't some of you fundamentalist blasphemers try using yours. Even Calvin and Martin Luther weren't fundamentalists. How did you creeps sneak into the wood pile.

The word Gospel is english for Gott Speel (sp) a German word for "good news". If your version of God is real, then instead of good news God should say "Hey, if you think you have problems now, wait 'till you get a load of Me".


Obvious
You wrote:

"Who told you ripping babies from a woman's womb is horrible?"

Every individual has the right to life, liberty, and property. It is immoral to initiate force to deprive any individual of life, liberty, or property except in self-defense. No one had to "tell" me this, as I can use my reason and observation understand what is right and what is wrong. Naturally, I can fully explain the philosophy which underpins my morality, but what's the point? It doesn't come from the Bible, so you reject it, right?

You, on the other hand, are in the unenviable position of defending the act ripping a pregnant woman open and tearing the baby out of her womb. How can such a thing be evil when the "good" god you worship commanded it? Sucks to be you!

No Christian here has denied that their god is a baby-killer. They instead try and spin it away with the "punishment for sin" excuse. Go read Romans 3:23 and explain why god didn't kill YOU as a baby. The only possible answer is that your god sometimes likes killing babies. After all, he killed the Egyptian firstborn because he wanted to, not because Pharoah hardened his heart. Speaking of which, why doesn't your gay god kill me for my horrible blasphemy? Do I have to start talking about Jesus Christ's sexual escapades with John (the disciple that Jesus loved) in order to get you deceitful Christians to eat crow?

Just admit that you hate gay people and be done with it. Liars.

"On what authority can you claim that bigotry is 'wrong,' and 'who are you to judge' what constitutes 'mercy'? In whose eyes?"

In my own eyes. I claim the authority myself, Your god is free to stop me from doing so if he sees fit to stop me, but, he's imaginary so I'll do as I see fit. And there's nothing you can do about it. I don't need your god to be good. In fact, your god would make me bad, not good, since it would put me in the position of waffling on the issue of violent abortion (like you!).

"Be careful with your answer, lest you may soon find yourself believing in an invisible man in the sky, or conversely, bearing a strong resemblence to Himmler."

That's the stupidest thing I've read all day. I'm used to "progressive" morons playing the Nazi card, but it looks like you Christians do it when you're backed into a corner just as well. You're the one who worships the genocidal, baby-murdering, abortionist god. On what authority can you claim that Himmler was wrong? It's not like you can make the same judgment about violent abortion using that "authority".

It's beginning to reek of "Christian love" in here. Merry Christmas!

JimP
"Sin is the enemy, not Christians, not God"

There are some Christians who are very much my enemy, and I do not love them, do not forgive them, and I do not turn the other cheek. I fight fire with fire!

As soon as you pathetic Christians cut out with the "You're going to burn in hell" stuff, then I'll be happy to stop calling your god a homosexual baby-torturer (and getting away with it!).

Until then, let's fight! >:)

The spring from
which every single enmity between God and man flows is Sin.

Heb. 9:26 But now He has appeared once for all at the consummation of the ages to put away sin by his sacrifice.

Heb. 10:12 But when this priest had offered one sacrifice for sins for all time.


If sin is a fact of life, than this God who took it upon Himself to take care of this problem, well what can be said? This has to be pretty good news for the person who sees their own sin.

Merry Christmas
Loundry

"No one had to "tell" me this, as I can use my reason and observation understand what is right and what is wrong." What if my reason disagrees with your reason and decide that genocide to control the population is in order? Who are you to tell me it's wrong? Hey, it's right in my eyes and good for the planet. How dare you judge me? I used Himmler as an example, not because he was a Nazi, but rather than dwell in the theoretical, I chose him because he was a real person whose real morality caused real bad stuff to happen to real people.

On a side note: as Christ instructed his diciples, I humbly ask that you allow me to pray that we both come to a better understanding of truth through our life experience, the scriptures and through the amazingly magnificent universe we find ourselves in.
Merry Christmas.


Why the constant focus on homosexuality?
"Have ye not read that He who made man at the beginning 'made them male and female'? And He said, 'For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.'"

Is this is the closest Jesus Christ personally came to condemning homosexuality? He made his position on divorce a whole lot clearer, yet fundamentalist Christians aren't trying to make divorce illegal.

Or are you just biding your time?

Joe T December, 22, 2006 10:59 AM
What's the difference between your version of God and Allah?

Loundry
I am curious,

You say you used your reason to make your decisions. At what age?

Were you born an adult or did you have parents?

Are you a Greek scholar by any chance?

Who gave you life ..liberty etc..

Who taught you morals?



Inquiring minds want to know.

Loundry
You simply need to realize that God will be judging you rather than the other way around. This is a very common mistake, one I have been guilty of myself.

How do you know anything?
You read a book written thousands of years ago by people who knew a fraction of what you know, and all you know about them is what they chose to reveal. It contains some ideas and assertions that ring true to you, so you conclude that everything it says must be true. When this is pointed out to you, your standard response is that you believe because the holy Spirit has spoken to you. (In reality, most of you say you believe because you are afraid to say otherwise. You're playing it safe.) You don't know what has "spoken" to you. You think you know yourself so well that this inner voice just can't be your own. The thing is, what we know of our inner selves is just the tip of a moutain.

To those who question your beliefs, your favorite response is to demand that they explain all the mysteries of life in terms devoid of the word "God". If they can't, then you win--You think.

Well, the truth is that nobody has the answers, and never will. There are things that we humans will never understand because we aren't smart enough, and other things that can't be understood by any intelligent being because understanding is impossible. Like what existed before the Big Bang. That is my reasoned opinion. Don't ask for proof. But the mere fact of the unknown/unknowable doesn't prove the existance of God. But neither does it disprove it. But not being able to disprove it is not much of a reason to pretend that it's true.

In the end, where facts are absent, we all believe what we want and need to believe.

As for the Big Bang: It is assumed to have been caused by God as the First Cause. But even if this assumption were reasonable, it doesn't prove anything about God. It doesn't say anything about the character of God, which is what people care about most.

But it isn't reasonable either, because it rests on a fallacy. It is assumed that cause and effect, which is apparent in the universe as we know it, is not just universally applicable, but super-universally applicable. In other words, a principal based on time, space, matter and energy is assumed to apply in a state of no time, no space, no matter and no energy, the state that would logically prevail "before" the Big Bang. (Before is a misnomer, because it assumes time where none existed.) Is it reasonable to assume the super-universality of cause and effect? No.

All we know, or think we know, is that the Big Bang happened. No reasonable conclusions can be drawn as to how or why it happened. Such concepts just do not apply. So you can believe what you want and need to believe. I won't deny you that right.

Loundry
I don't know who has hurt you, or why you are so angry. How unfortunate for you to be so misreable, angry, and sad. I wish you could know how much love Jesus has for you. "God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him."

"...In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."

May this Christmas season be a season for you to discover that Jesus is not there to condemn you. May you know the love of Jesus.



Live Free or Die
I do not need to read any books to realize I did not create this universe. Once this is acknowledged, the rest begins to fall into place.

Women in the priesthood
Did Jesus actually say that the priesthood should be restricted to men? Isn't it possible that in choosing only men as his apostles He was acknowledging the customs of his day -- unwilling, perhaps, to allow the primary message of his ministry to be overshadowed by controversy over a minor point?

And doctrine DOES change. Nobody reads the Biblical verses on slavery as an endorsement of human slavery anymore. There are no witch trials.

It's odd that there should be an argument over whether women should be priests or bishops, since Christ seems to state quite clearly that his church should have no priests -- "You are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in Heaven" (Matt 23:8-9).

Moreover, Paul's letters refer to specific women as leaders of the church (a fact deliberately obscured in translation), and I've read arguments to the effect that his statements AGAINST women may have been additions to the text by a later writer.

In any case, I can't imagine that Christ intends us to be overly concerned with issues like this -- not when we are surrounded by an ocean of human suffering and hopelessness, for He DOES say: "sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven" and "as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me." Christ clearly places compassion and faith above doctrinal correctness.
The latter remains important, but I think it's too often the sole focus.

The Catholic Church
believes it to be the one true religion and all others, Lutheran, Episcopalian etc. are ones who broke away from the traditions of the Church. In the Catholic Church these other religious factions are not considered true churches.

Catholics have many homosexual priests in their Church. What say you Pat Buchanan on this topic?

Just for the sake of argument, what if the "men" who wrote the bible were just "men"? Is there not only one true God. If men wrote the Bible they were not God.

Can we leave judgment to God alone and not judge ourselves? Since none of us are God, who are we to judge? At least this is what I was taught within the Catholic Church.

All who ask God's forgiveness by the Catholic Church's doctrine are forgiven and their sins are washed away giving them the right to eternal life. This can occur as late as upon one's death bed that is why a priest is summoned at the very end to give the sinner the last opportunity to wash his sin from his soul and be saved from eternal damnation.


I need to clarify
that when I say we are not to judge I mean "judge" whether one's soul is heading for eternal damnation.

Jehovah and Allah
Someone asked how my God (Jehovah) differs from Allah. I am not certain I can give a good answer on that for the simple reason, I do not know what Allah is supposed to be like. But I think it is safe to assume that the primary concern of the questioner centers on the brutality of God in judgment and the fact that I asserted that God is behind all actions, whether we count them pleasant or unpleasant.

On the one hand, I feel no need to defend God on any aspect of His being: He is what He says He is, and it is OK for Him to be that way for no other reson than this: He is God. He is and does what He wants, and none are allowed to judge His character or question His deeds.

But this does not mean that God deals unjustly with men or that there is any character or work of His that would be found faulty by those that recognize that He is not simply above us, but of an entirely different order of reality than us. He is the creator, we are His creation; and all of us believe that Man may do what he wants with what He creates. Why then would we not recognize the same rights for God?

The reason is clear: Men consider themselves to be gods, thus, on the same plane as God, thus they consider it suitable to bring His character and actions into judgment.

What I wrote earlier is not ALL their is to say about God, it was simply the aspects of God's character that are in contrast to some of what had been written in this thread up to that point. Loundry had made some statements about God and Christians which were contrary to some aspects of God's character as He has revealed Himself in Scripture, so I responded to those issues.

One of my points was that God exhibits both unyeilding justice and unimaginable mercy. It was later posted by someone else that showing both grace and mercy are impossible. That is true for us, but not for God. All receive justice from God - that is, everyone's sins will be punished. But in mercy, God has punished the sins of some men in the person of His Son. In mercy, God did not dealt with me according to my transgressions. Instead, He dealt with Jesus Christ according to my transgressions and has dealt with me according to Christ's righteousness. So the books of justice are balanced, and I receive mercy.

A person may refuse to beleive that, but it cannot be denied that such is what the Bible teaches. That is the thoughts and ways of God which are higher than our thoughts and ways. It is also one of the ways in which Jehovah is distinguished from Allah. Jehovah calls Himself a just God and Savior, all in one breath. Allah cannot call himself a savior, for as far as I know, He saves no one. He rewards those who do what He says, and destroys all who break his law. That may be justice, bu there is no salvation in that.

One the other hand, Jehovah has sacrificed His Son in order that He might deal with His sinful people as though they are righteous (justify them)and remain just while He does so.

Loundry has tried some "spiritual terrorism" by uttering blasphemies so abhorrent to believers that they might be shocked into silence or moved to a blathering rage. I am certain it has worked with some. I am so appalled by some of his remarks I wonder if it is worthwhile to respond to them. but I I also recognize that his blasphemies are no worse than the blasphemies utterd by many who claim to be Christians and that his sinfulness is no greater than mine. Even as he taunts believers (and God) by daring God to judge him and openly questioning the existence of God by appealing tot he fact that Gid has not struck him dead, he is doing nothing more than what EVERY unbeliever does. Moreover, God will deal with Loundry in His time and His way. He may deal with Him in judgment, or in mercy. Either way, Loundry (and all of us) will someday learn that we are in God's hands and He does with us AS PLEASES HIM. He is the potter, we are the clay.

But I will respond to one of Loundry's statements that, I am sure, has caused no little consternation among any beleiver who has read it: the implication that there was an improper relationship between John and the Lord Jesus.

greek has thre words for love. In most cases, th e love spoken of is agape, signifying what we might call "true love." In one case it is "phileo" which generally signifies affection more like the love of friends. Greek also had the "eros" from which we get erotic. this word was never used in regard to the love of the Lord Jesus for John. Loundry may beleive what He wants, and God will straighten him out in His time. But Loundry's wretched theory cannot be supported by Scripture.

John was amazed that Christ loved him. He was not implying that Christ did not love the other disciples equally. it is simply that John wanted to be known by bo other moniker than "The one whom Jesus loved." To be loved by Jesus is salvation. To have His love is to have all.

Feel free to go to our church's web site to find a more well-rounded statement of what I believe and preach, if it interests you. There are a good many short articles there. You can also find my email address if you wish further communication. http://www.rvgrace.com No time for proof-reading. Apologies for errors.

All God's children.
Too much acrimony with above comments!

Joe T Saturday, December, 23, 2006 10:40
Knowledgable, clear and lucid. Well said.

To all
come up to my blog and share a Christmas memory.
Put down the swords and come tell a story of your favorite Christmas. I already have gotten many wonderful stories shared by others whether funny or inspirational.
Let's celebrate the love of Christmas and what Christ meant to all of us who believe or do not believe. It doesn't matter. It is that special time of year to give your love and friendship more meaning.

Loundry
If you want to know what you sound like, take your last sentence and substitute straight for gay, and homosexual for Christian.

priesthood and apostolic succession?
Does Buchanan really believe that "Christ restricted the priesthood and apostolic succession to men"? On what basis? The fact that the 12 were males? If so, taken to its logical conclusion, Buchanan would also have to believe that Christ restricted the Christian priesthood and apostolic succession to jews since he also chose 12 jews. Now THAT is funny! I'm not sure Pat would go for that, now would he?

Does Jesus say anything about the type of Christian priesthood that Buchanan has in mind? Pat must be reading another NT than mine; it's called the Roman Catholic NT as interpereted through centuries of tradition. Not very reliable in the end.

Meyerson is as big a bigot as Buchanan a poor reviewer of NT data.

zulators
Since Pat is Catholic I was also wondering what he thinks of our homosexual priests? That is pretty funny too considering this article.

sky pixie?
"How much blasphemy do I have to commit before your sky pixie will do to me what he did to Herod? Is your god a god of empty threats as well as a god of baby-killing?"

If you sincerely believe that God is a God of justice and that he punishes the wicked, you would not say what you do. How can he be both harsh and vindictive, and at the same time imaginary.

Perhaps you don't really believe in God at all and are just dragging up the quote because you believe Christians will be embarrassed by the quote and turn away from the Word of God.

Faith is more then the bible
"You read a book written thousands of years ago by people who knew a fraction of what you know, and all you know about them is what they chose to reveal."

Indeed a good question. How do we know anything about history at all. You might as well describe plato as you would Scripture.

"It contains some ideas and assertions that ring true to you, so you conclude that everything it says must be true."

As we do with all forms of history, unless contradicted by another source, we believe that what is said to be true.

"You don't know what has "spoken" to you. You think you know yourself so well that this inner voice just can't be your own. The thing is, what we know of our inner selves is just the tip of a moutain."

Indeed, God knows us far better then we do. I think you give Christians too little credit. It is much more then just about words in a bible.

"In other words, a principal based on time, space, matter and energy is assumed to apply in a state of no time, no space, no matter and no energy, the state that would logically prevail "before" the Big Bang. (Before is a misnomer, because it assumes time where none existed.) Is it reasonable to assume the super-universality of cause and effect? No."

Scripture says before all worlds, so it is entirely plausible that a being that exists out of time would continue to exist before time began.

Dear loundry
Do yourself a favor and refrain from posting. You are only embarrassing yourself with your lack of mental ability. Name-calling (for example, "supserstitious garbage" and "it is all exrcrement, as is your faith") is what grammar school children do to each other at recess.

Big people, especially those like yourself who preach "tolerance," try to make at least an attempt at rational argument. Not only is such an attempt not present in your posts, you are coming off like a cry-baby: "oh, please, acccpet me for what I am so I can love myself, waaaaah!"

In short, move on to Moveon!



Ben Kenobi
The common mistake of Christians who try to use logic to confirm their faith is circular reasoning. Before you can call on scripture as an authority in your argument you must first establish its authority. It can't be it's own witness to it's accuracy. Simply because a writer asserts that what he says is true, especially when it can't be verified, is no reason to believe him.

The bible is not a science text. Science is not judged by the philosophizing of ancient moralists.

Further, it doesn't really matter what Plato said or did as far as how a person orders his life and what he commits himself to. Plato makes no demands. But Christianlty does make demands. that is why people are more skeptical towards its doctrines and claims than toward mere historical figures. As they should be.

women as ministers,and others.
this will only matter to any of you if you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God.
the new testament shows the women participated in the public prayer meetings of the church.(acts1;14)as well as praying,they also prophesied.we are told the 4 daughters of phillip did so.(acts21;29).paul tells the corinthians that any woman praying as well as prophesying with her head uncovered dishonors her head(1 cor.11;5)yet in the very same epistile paul goes on to make this emphatic statement,'let your women keep silence in your churches;for it is not permitted unto them to speak;but they are commanded to be under obediance,as also saith the law.....it is a shame for women to speak in the church'(1 cor.14;34,35).now go see what is said about homos in book of romans and you pretty well knock out men who are homo,women who are homo,and women all together regardless of sexual orientation.you will also know that NO MAN CAN FORGIVE SIN,ONLY JESUS CHRIST!!...guess that also shows what an apostasy the church of rome and its doctrines really are.......all of this again assuming you believe the bible.if you dont, it will just leave you confused.that is your choice.

Although women can have ministries
it is not scriptural for women to be the pastor of the church.

Why women want to replace men has to do with the way that women's traditional roles have been so devalued by the feminazis that women don't want to do them anymore.

The truth is, what is there more important in this world than raising the next generation? But the pro-deathers have made children so distasteful to women, that even those who long for them will nevertheless abandon them to be raised by and uneducated nanny with no education and little English.

So they stick themselves into roles traditionally held by men, driving the men away. Then they wonder why they can't find a good man.

Lydia
That is why I am agnostic. I recognize that the existence of God and the claims of Jesus and/or his followers, or anyone else who claims to have contact with a supernatural power, can't be proven or disproven by the living. Nor by the dead either, most likely.

You stated, "I can say this for a fact, that for most of human history, humans have believed in a power and force beyond themselves. This is evidence. Draw your own conclusions of what."

Evidence of what? People used to believe a lot of things subsequently proven untrue.

I don't dispute the need for most people to believe in something beyond this life. That is a given. I present my thoughts on the subject for the benefit of those who suspect as I do that this is an illusion and are uncomfortable pretending otherwise, but have not gotten up the nerve to think and question out loud. I am interested in the truth, knowing full well how difficult it is to come by. In fact, doscovering what is untrue is a lot easier, so thats a good place to start.

Have you ever wondered whether or not plants and animals, other than man, have a connection with God? Do they seem to? Do they seem to need to? My pet dog seems to need nothing more than being part of his "pack", getting affection, food and all the usual needs fulfilled. He does have intelligence, but not an awareness of self.

Man's defining characterisitc is an intelligence that is aware of self. One of intelligence's essential purposes: To observe and to ask itself questions about its observations. What, when, where, why and how. It does not differentiate between one object and another. All objects fall under the same scrutiny and the same questions. The self is not exempt. This has been beneficial to our survival when applied to the world outside the self, and when applied to the self. But when the intellect runs up against a stone wall, as when it asks "The Questions" about itself and can find no answer, and fears there is no answer, it begins to doubt its own reality. It is called depression.

My dog does not doubt his reality. Because he can't doubt that which he is unaware of. When he is in pain or suffers loss, he endures it. When we suffer pain or loss we question it. But we discover no answer, no meaning, no purpose. My dog endures because like all living things, he possesses a Life Imperative. He will struggle for life to the last breath. Man, on the other hand, knows death is inevitable anyway. Why suffer? As a result we have a weaker Life Imperative than any other creature that has ever lived.

The solution? Another important feature of human intellect, imagination, kicks in. Where answers to questions are inaccessible, imagination provides substitutes. The degree to which these imaginings themselves cause pain and suffering is the degree to which they should be examined, and discarded if need be.

anti-Catholic??
Like usual I agree almost 100% with Pat. However, my criticism is with his characterization of the anticatholic bias of the op-ed industry.
The media elite are not so much anti-Catholic as they are anti-Christian. And not so much antiChristian as they are antiBible.
To quote scripture to these folk is like waving the red flag for the bull.

Obvious
(So many responses, so little time!)

You wrote:

"What if my reason disagrees with your reason and decide that genocide to control the population is in order? Who are you to tell me it's wrong?"

I am me, and I can easily tell you what is wrong because I can easily tell you what my values are. Every individual has the right to life, liberty, and property, and it is wrong for anyone to take any action to deprive any other individual of those rights except for self-defense. Period.

You, on the other had, have to waffle on the issues of baby-killing and violent abortion. How could those things be wrong if your god commanded them?

You wrote:

"How dare you judge me?"

Do you think I'm some kind of wimp who is afraid to judge someone? Do you think I'm some kind of cowardly "progressive" simply because I'm gay and not afraid of your pathetic, imaginary sky pixie? Your values suck!

"I used Himmler as an example, not because he was a Nazi, but rather than dwell in the theoretical, I chose him because he was a real person whose real morality caused real bad stuff to happen to real people."

I agree that Himmler was a real person who had real crappy morality. You can read my values above and understand clearly why.

Unfortunately for you, you can't criticize Himmler for baby-killing. That's not necessarily immoral according to your flawed belief system.

Packrat
You wrote:

"I am curious"

What made you think I'm here to answer to the likes of you, baby-killer worshipper? Gay sex is less offensive and less evil than your god by a longshot.

BD
You wrote:

"You simply need to realize that God will be judging you rather than the other way around."

Christians have longed for the days in which I could be imprisoned for being gay (that's called "Christian love"). Heck, I've heard that the loving and merciful god of baby-killed and forced abortions was going to subject me to ETERNAL TORTURE for years now.

So what makes you think that you merely telling me I'm mistaken is going to have any effect on me at all? You really need to ramp up the abuse to get a rise out of me. Otherwise, *yawn*

Verbivore
You wrote:

"I don't know who has hurt you"

Christians did it.

"or why you are so angry"

When Christians say that they wish the government would persecute me for being gay, or that their baby-killing god will torture me for being gay, then that inspires me to talk about how gay Jesus Christ was (and get away with it!).

"How unfortunate for you to be so misreable, angry, and sad."

Spare me your pity, for you have pegged me wrong. I am strident, angry, and vengeful. I fight fire with fire! Screw forgiveness! let's fight, Christian! >:)

Joe T
Hi! :)

You wrote:

"I am so appalled by some of his remarks I wonder if it is worthwhile to respond to them."

I'm pleased to hear that you were appalled. I hope I hurt you and that my words continue to cause you pain. I will be happy to show you some mercy as soon as you back off the "you're going to hell" business. Until then, I'll be just as happy to rub salt in your wounds. I do not love you and do not show mercy, pity, or kindness toward those who wish me ill for having done nothing wrong. It's called self-defense. Look into it.

"Even as he taunts believers (and God) by daring God to judge him and openly questioning the existence of God by appealing tot he fact that Gid has not struck him dead, he is doing nothing more than what EVERY unbeliever does."

But I'm doing considerably MORE than what Herod did in Acts 12:23. Herod was KILLED for less than I've done. Your god is inconsistent, cruel, unjust, illogical, and, on top of all that, a violent abortionist. If he can be all those things, why can't he also be gay?

"He may deal with Him in judgment, or in mercy."

Naturally, and he may do the same to you, too. Your god might decide to torture you and take me to heaven. Remember what your god did to Job? Even by your own rules, your faith is meaningless.

By the way, I know you habitually and incorrectly capitalize the pronoun "him" in a pompous gesture of puffing yourself up as one of your god's faithful chattel, but you were referring to me this time around, not your favorite violent abortionist. I suggest you return to standard English and abandon Christian English.

Savage99
You wrote:

"If you want to know what you sound like, take your last sentence and substitute straight for gay, and homosexual for Christian."

I know exactly how I sound, and I mean every single word that I write. I do this precisely in response to the wishes that gays be persecuted by the state or be TORTURED ETERNALLY by the Christian god.

It's called quid pro quo. If you want me to stop being mean to your god, your faith, and your savior, then lay off the Chrstian abuse.

Until then, an eye for an eye! Let's fight! >:)

Robert E. Lee
You wrote:

"Do yourself a favor and refrain from posting."

Since it seems to upset you, I have renewed my pledge to continue posting.

"You are only embarrassing yourself with your lack of mental ability."

I certainly hope you feel embarrassed! Any discomfort on your part is pleasing to me.

"Name-calling (for example, 'supserstitious garbage' and 'it is all exrcrement, as is your faith') is what grammar school children do to each other at recess."

It's also what I do to Christians, but only when they start up with the "you're going to hell" crap. I suggest you learn to enjoy the name-calling, because the Christians here seem to show no signs of stopping the "Christian love".

"Big people, especially those like yourself who preach 'tolerance,' try to make at least an attempt at rational argument."

I have never in my life preached tolerance. I am intolerant of abuse, and that is why I fight fire with fire! I don't put up with Christian abusive garbage, no matter how much you love Jesus. If I were tolerant, then I would take my Christian love and say, "Yes, sir!" like a good little f****t, now wouldn't I? Do I show any signs of doing that any time soon? Use your powers of observation, brave Christian. Perhaps you can pray about it, too.

"Not only is such an attempt not present in your posts, you are coming off like a cry-baby: 'oh, please, acccpet me for what I am so I can love myself, waaaaah!'"

I don't care if you accept me or not. I just want the "you're going to hell" garbage to stop. If you don't want to comply, then let me tell you a story about Jesus Christ and how much he loved gay sex. It's a parable, and since I have a Personal Relationship with Jesus Christ (tm), I am qualified to recount it.

"In short, move on to Moveon!"

No way! Those "progressives" share all the bad qualities of Christonazis plus a few more! With all the bad things I say about Christians, I generally think they're swell people as long as they "you're going to hell" crap stays in the closet.

Thank you for being another idiotic black-and-white dolt who thinks that if I don't unflinchingly support every Christic authoritarian edict then I must be a Krazy Kos Kid. What shallow, stupid thinking you exhibit! I doubt you could even understand what Robert E. Lee wrote if you were to ever read it. You disgrace his name with your stupidity.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.