| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Dana" |
| Date: |
08 Aug 2003 09:54:56 PM |
| Object: |
Man's revisions of God's church |
http://www.thestate.com/mld/state/news/opinion/6485721.htm
Man's revisions of God's church
By CAL THOMAS
Tribune Media Services
An Episcopalian friend of mine, reacting to the elevation of an openly
homosexual priest to the office of bishop, said to me: "If you're a
heterosexual clergyman and you're having sex outside marriage, you can be
expelled. But if you're a homosexual clergyman having sex outside marriage,
they rejoice."
Most denominations that call themselves Christian take the Bible as their
text for spiritual and relational instruction. Some in the Episcopal Church
take a liberal view of the Bible, just as some do of the U.S.
Constitution -- it must be constantly updated to suit cultural trends. This
view lends itself to constant misinterpretation and confusion. Eventually,
it leads to religious or political heresy.
Ancient scripture sets out the parameters for all human sexual expression.
In order to get around the restrictions that limit sexual activity between a
man and a woman within a marital bond, liberal theologians have had to
construct a theology that says the Bible does not really mean what it
clearly says. It is the same with the Constitution, which is interpreted by
liberals to allow for the use of God's name in vain as an act of protected
speech, but prohibits the favorable use of his name under the same First
Amendment.
If scripture is to be circumvented in the matter of homosexuality and not
disqualify one who seeks the office of bishop, what about divorce? The newly
approved bishop, V. Gene Robinson, left his wife and two children to take up
with a man.
In what is regarded by most Christians as the job description for high
church office, Paul the Apostle wrote to his young protege Timothy that an
"overseer" (or minister) must be "above reproach, the husband of one wife,"
and "must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with
proper respect." Paul then asks an important question: "If anyone does not
know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?"
Members of the Episcopal Church, who give their money and their presence in
the pews, are being asked to accept a bishop who is not qualified for the
office (nor even for the priestly one he holds). Does the Episcopal
leadership (and the leadership of the parent Anglican Church) want to send
the message that the Bible says only what some people want it to say? Some
of Robinson's supporters call him a "holy man." What could that possibly
mean since "all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory" (Romans 3:23)?
Perhaps holiness, like the word "is" during the Clinton administration,
depends on what one means at a given moment.
People who regard scripture as having passed from God to man without error
have warned for years what happens when these texts are treated as something
less than accurate. Once compromises are made (and I'm not talking about
stoning adulterers, though such a practice might be one way to implement
term limits in Washington), all things become not only possible, but
probable.
If God is not God and if man says God didn't say what he has said, then what
standard is to be used to judge anything? It is more than a slippery slope.
It is slippery theology with potential consequences that are eternal. Who
gets to decide, God or man? If man, then man becomes God, and God is
diminished, at least in man's eyes.
If a practicing homosexual priest who divorced his wife and walked out on
his children is deemed a fit leader for the Episcopal Church, members are
going to have to ask themselves a serious question: Does their denomination
represent the will of their God, and, if not, why don't they abandon a
church that has clearly abandoned him?
--
"The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our
rights, and the rights of man."
-- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 3rd President of the United States
(1801-1809)
.
|
|
| User: "Barbi Satin" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's revisions of God's church |
08 Aug 2003 10:23:24 PM |
|
|
Yes, by all means we must live by the rules of the sky pixie! Your god is as
real as Santa!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's revisions of God's church |
09 Aug 2003 12:11:50 AM |
|
|
"Barbi Satin" <barbisatin@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:MOZYa.4817$vo2.111@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Yes, by all means we must live by the rules of the sky pixie! Your god is
as
real as Santa!
Being that you have no idea of what you are talking about, I can only laugh
at your sophmoric attempt at an insult.
http://www.thestate.com/mld/state/news/opinion/6485721.htm
Man's revisions of God's church
By CAL THOMAS
Tribune Media Services
An Episcopalian friend of mine, reacting to the elevation of an openly
homosexual priest to the office of bishop, said to me: "If you're a
heterosexual clergyman and you're having sex outside marriage, you can be
expelled. But if you're a homosexual clergyman having sex outside marriage,
they rejoice."
Most denominations that call themselves Christian take the Bible as their
text for spiritual and relational instruction. Some in the Episcopal Church
take a liberal view of the Bible, just as some do of the U.S.
Constitution -- it must be constantly updated to suit cultural trends. This
view lends itself to constant misinterpretation and confusion. Eventually,
it leads to religious or political heresy.
Ancient scripture sets out the parameters for all human sexual expression.
In order to get around the restrictions that limit sexual activity between a
man and a woman within a marital bond, liberal theologians have had to
construct a theology that says the Bible does not really mean what it
clearly says. It is the same with the Constitution, which is interpreted by
liberals to allow for the use of God's name in vain as an act of protected
speech, but prohibits the favorable use of his name under the same First
Amendment.
If scripture is to be circumvented in the matter of homosexuality and not
disqualify one who seeks the office of bishop, what about divorce? The newly
approved bishop, V. Gene Robinson, left his wife and two children to take up
with a man.
In what is regarded by most Christians as the job description for high
church office, Paul the Apostle wrote to his young protege Timothy that an
"overseer" (or minister) must be "above reproach, the husband of one wife,"
and "must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with
proper respect." Paul then asks an important question: "If anyone does not
know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?"
Members of the Episcopal Church, who give their money and their presence in
the pews, are being asked to accept a bishop who is not qualified for the
office (nor even for the priestly one he holds). Does the Episcopal
leadership (and the leadership of the parent Anglican Church) want to send
the message that the Bible says only what some people want it to say? Some
of Robinson's supporters call him a "holy man." What could that possibly
mean since "all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory" (Romans 3:23)?
Perhaps holiness, like the word "is" during the Clinton administration,
depends on what one means at a given moment.
People who regard scripture as having passed from God to man without error
have warned for years what happens when these texts are treated as something
less than accurate. Once compromises are made (and I'm not talking about
stoning adulterers, though such a practice might be one way to implement
term limits in Washington), all things become not only possible, but
probable.
If God is not God and if man says God didn't say what he has said, then what
standard is to be used to judge anything? It is more than a slippery slope.
It is slippery theology with potential consequences that are eternal. Who
gets to decide, God or man? If man, then man becomes God, and God is
diminished, at least in man's eyes.
If a practicing homosexual priest who divorced his wife and walked out on
his children is deemed a fit leader for the Episcopal Church, members are
going to have to ask themselves a serious question: Does their denomination
represent the will of their God, and, if not, why don't they abandon a
church that has clearly abandoned him?
--
"The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our
rights, and the rights of man."
-- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 3rd President of the United States
(1801-1809)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arne Langsetmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Man's revisions of God's church |
09 Aug 2003 01:22:58 AM |
|
|
"ButtMaster" Dana wrote:
"Barbi Satin" <barbisatin@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:MOZYa.4817$vo2.111@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Yes, by all means we must live by the rules of the sky pixie! Your god is
as
real as Santa!
Being that you have no idea of what you are talking about, I can only laugh
at your sophmoric attempt at an insult.
Actually, Dana, it's you that have no idea what you're "talking" about.
You cut and paste other people's articles, but can't write even
a single coherent sentence on your own, much less string even two
together. So you just repost whatever it was you originally
cribbed from someone else. That's pretty pathetic, Dana.
As for Thomas's screed:
http://www.thestate.com/mld/state/news/opinion/6485721.htm
Man's revisions of God's church
By CAL THOMAS
Tribune Media Services
An Episcopalian friend of mine, reacting to the elevation of an openly
homosexual priest to the office of bishop, said to me: "If you're a
heterosexual clergyman and you're having sex outside marriage, you can be
expelled. But if you're a homosexual clergyman having sex outside marriage,
they rejoice."
You seem to be neglecting the point that assholes like you
won't _let_ them get married, Cal.
Most denominations that call themselves Christian take the Bible as their
text for spiritual and relational instruction. . . .
Ummm, _which_ Bible, Cal?
. . . Some in the Episcopal Church
take a liberal view of the Bible, just as some do of the U.S.
Constitution -- it must be constantly updated to suit cultural
trends. . . .
Translation from Republican into English:
"Cultural trends": (n). New understanding that challenges the
prejudices of
conservative assholes like Thomas.
. . . This
view lends itself to constant misinterpretation and confusion.
Eventually, it leads to religious or political heresy.
Translation from Republican into English:
"religious or political heresy": (n). Ideas that Thomas disagrees
with.
Ancient scripture sets out the parameters for all human sexual expression.
It also set out the parameters for goat reproduction. Thomas of course
calls the Babble the infallible and revealed word of Gawd, so therefore,
he can explain precisely where spotted goats come from. For more on
this,
check this out:
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0402/biblefactquiz.html
All nicely annotated. ROFLMAO.
In order to get around the restrictions that limit sexual activity between a
man and a woman within a marital bond, liberal theologians have had to
construct a theology that says the Bible does not really mean what it
clearly says. . . .
I'm not a "liberal theologian", so I can safely say that the Babble
clearly says what is clearly wrong. Which renders moot any discussion
here about what it "really mean[s]".
. . . It is the same with the Constitution, which is interpreted by
liberals to allow for the use of God's name in vain as an act of protected
speech, but prohibits the favorable use of his name under the same First
Amendment.
Nonsense. Both are permitted under the same circumstances.
If scripture is to be circumvented in the matter of homosexuality and not
disqualify one who seeks the office of bishop, what about divorce? The newly
approved bishop, V. Gene Robinson, left his wife and two children to take up
with a man.
And Cal Thomas's friends think that the best thing for Robinson to do
would be to leave his partner, and start up another marriage. . . .
In what is regarded by most Christians as the job description for high
church office, Paul the Apostle wrote to his young protege Timothy that an
"overseer" (or minister) must be "above reproach, the husband of one wife,"
and "must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with
proper respect." . . .
Ummmmm, really??? Fancy that. Don't see too many pope's children
walking about. . . . Do you think that <*horrors*> Paul's church
lost something in the translation? Come to think of it, Paul
wasn't exactly a family type guy himself. . . .
. . . Paul then asks an important question: "If anyone does not
know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?"
Members of the Episcopal Church, who give their money and their presence in
the pews, are being asked to accept a bishop who is not qualified for the
office (nor even for the priestly one he holds). . . .
When Cal Thomas goes after the Catholic church with equal vigour,
I'll drop the charge of hypocrisy.
. . . Does the Episcopal
leadership (and the leadership of the parent Anglican Church)
want to send the message that the Bible says only what some
people want it to say? . . .
That of course is the inevitable result when you have more
than one Christian church. Is Thomas against this as well?
. . . Some
of Robinson's supporters call him a "holy man." What could that possibly
mean since "all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory" (Romans 3:23)?
Perhaps holiness, like the word "is" during the Clinton administration,
depends on what one means at a given moment.
So Cal's going to say "Hey howza" instead of "Your Holiness" when
he meets the Pope? This I gotta see.
People who regard scripture as having passed from God to man without error
have warned for years what happens when these texts are treated as something
less than accurate. . . .
Yeah, yeah. Galileo taught us that. Too bad it took the Catholic
Church 400 years to catch on. What happens is that the folks
that believe in the inerrancy of the Babble end up looking like
ignorant fools.
. . . Once compromises are made (and I'm not talking about
stoning adulterers, though such a practice might be one way to implement
term limits in Washington), . . .
Be my guest. Start with Barr, Hyde, Burton, Livingston, Chenoweth,
and Gingrich, OK?
. . . all things become not only possible, but
probable.
If God is not God and if man says God didn't say what he has said, then what
standard is to be used to judge anything? . . .
Cal Thomas needs someone else to do his thinking for him. Something
quite obvious from this babble of his.
. . . It is more than a slippery slope.
It is slippery theology with potential consequences that are
eternal. . . .
Glad you put that "potential" in there, Cal. And my pigs can
potentially sing.
. . . Who gets to decide, God or man? . . .
Oh, I know, I know, ask _meeeeee_. _Cal Thomas_ gets to decide!!!
Let _him_ tell you what whichever Babble du jour he's using
means. Don't read it yourself, and by _no means_ should you go to:
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/quizlist.html
. . . If man, then man becomes God, and God is
diminished, at least in man's eyes.
Look, I don't think that's a problem beyond the wiles of an
omniscient and omnipotent sky-pixie. Why don't you just
calm down, and let Him handle it the way He thinks is best,
Cal? Why don't you go do some good deeds instead, and leave
the heavy work to Him? A more rational distribution of
talent, I'd say, although even your task here might be
taxing.
If a practicing homosexual priest who divorced his wife and walked out on
his children is deemed a fit leader for the Episcopal Church, members are
going to have to ask themselves a serious question: Does their denomination
represent the will of their God, and, if not, why don't they abandon a
church that has clearly abandoned him?
Fine by me. We have religious freedom. Hop on Hale-Bopp for all
I care, Cal. In fact, I wouldn't have missed you if you _did_
join Applegate. . . .
Just don't shove this crap down the throats of others.
--
"The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our
rights, and the rights of man."
-- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 3rd President of the United States
(1801-1809)
That's a lie, Dana. Says a lot for your character that you continue
to quote manufactured quotes. What was that Ninth Commandment again?
Cheers,
-- Arne Langsetmo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
