« New York Times Desperately Borrows Against Its New Headquarters | Main | Useless Educrat David Brewer Is Riding High »

The Episcopals, the Lutherans, The Methodists, the Presbyterians... have all decided they no longer wish to serve God, but serve man instead. The best lack all conviction, and the worst are full of passionate intensity. They are no longer churches, they are social clubs and daycare centers. If Jesus Christ came 'round today, they would denounce his Gospel as "Oogedy-Boogedy."

God help them and God help the rest of u.s. and the battles we face in the next few years.

we took a bunch of teens to a theme park in missouri yesterday and could hear them chattering in the back seat about all the "bi's" and "gays" at their tiny country school - and how accepted the behavior had become just since they were in elementary school. they're appalled at the "anything goes and usually does" society they're living in. they are the last of anything decent in the upcoming generation, but will be outnumbered by those who are "tolerant" and "accepting" of these blatantly devious agendas.

note to vtk - any church with a "united" in front of it is but a leftist front and an affront to God ALMIGHTY!

What makes the Bible such an authoritative source on the matter? The bible has no more credibility than any other religious text.

What makes the Bible such an authoritative source on the matter? The bible has no more credibility than any other religious text.

Spoken like someone who has neither read nor studied scripture.

"Spoken like someone who has neither read nor studied scripture."

So you need to have studied a religious text before not believing in it? Have you studied the koran or the bhuddist sutras? Gee i guess you must be a member to every religion ever invented, because unless you've read every single religious text ever written you cant say they are false. Great logic there.

So you need to have studied a religious text before not believing in it?

Yes, one can not truly understand religion from the outside.

Have you studied the koran or the bhuddist sutras?

Yes, and yes. I spent nearly two decades studying different religions and attending different churches before I finally committed to the one I felt was most true. (Although my own beliefs do not concisely align with any religion.) I often comment on the parallels between the teachings of Buddha and the teachings of Christ when I am called upon to speak in my church.

I study scripture on a daily basis, and I am consistently amazed at the insight offered by study of scriptures.

read "kingdom of the cults" anon - very informative book on apologetics pitting every other religion against christianity and why the bible is inerrant and true.

then, read the inerrant WORD itself. you can come to no other conclusion.

And my son, who is a strong believer in our church, likes to study the Torah, because he feels it gives him religious insight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scripture#Sacred_texts_of_various_religions

Let me know when you've read those and then get back to me.

I'm interested to know what objective criteria you used to determine which one was "Most true".

Obviously, you're just another silly, anonymous troll mocking something he does not even begin to understand, nor even want to.

"why the bible is inerrant and true"

The says not to wear clothing made of two kinds of material and charge interest (Lev. 19: 19, Deut. 23: 19-20").

The main theme of christianity seems to be that you can telepathically communicate with a grandfather like figure. It's an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. I'm yet to see any at all.

"Obviously, you're just another silly, anonymous troll mocking something he does not even begin to understand, nor even want to."

So you can't stand up to an argument and resort to ad hominem? great way of convincing me.

The main theme of christianity seems to be that you can telepathically communicate with a grandfather like figure.

Nope. Wrong. But that statement brilliantly illustrates exactly why people should not comment on that which they do not understand.

You will never understand religion from the outside. Until then, all your comments are like stones thrown by a scared little boy.

The point that there are different types of laws in the Old Testament is likely lost on the Anonymous Coward.

There are three types of law in the Bible: Moral, Civil, and Ceremonial.

Furthermore (and C.S. Lewis makes this point exceedingly well in Perelandra when Ransom reasons through the Law about not sleeping on the Fixed Land): Sometimes you can show your Love for God by doing what He says JUST BECAUSE He says so.

So you can't stand up to an argument and resort to ad hominem?

Are you anonymous? - yes

Are you a troll? - yes

Are you ignorant of scripture because you refuse to study it? - By your own admission, yes.

Is it silly to mock from a position of ignorance - I would argue, that it is.

This is not an ad hominem. These are accurate statements. If you are offended by them, change your behavior.

"Are you a troll? - yes"

How do you know my intent? Holy shit... God is that ..you!?

Seriously though, sorry if im being abrasive or offensive.

"Is it silly to mock from a position of ignorance - I would argue, that it is."

I dont accept this. If thousands of people believed in a teapot that was in the outer solar system, and said, these are precise measurements of it, the material its made of, without supplying any evidence to support that view, would i need to know these details in order to not believe in the teapot? provided that there was no actual evidence of the existence of the teapot?

Episcopals, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Anglicans etc. are not and never have been Christian churches. There is but One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The fact that these pseudo-Christian schismatics can smilingly, smugly and self-righteously condone sin is glaring proof of their true nature. On being confronted with the text of 1 Cor. 6:9-10 ("homosexuals (arsenokoitai)... shall not inherit the kingdom of God"), a progressive Anglican once told me that we know a lot more about human sexuality now than we did then, and thus St Paul was unable to conceive of a loving homosexual relationship. In other words, modern liberals "know better" than St Paul the Apostle and can safely ignore the outdated, backward bits of the Bible! (Apropos, the Bible does not say that loving relationships between men are sinful, it says that the act of sodomy is sinful, and this, of course, may take place between a man and another man, between a man and a woman, between a man and an animal, or between a man and a prepubescent girl, the latter being something actually condoned by Islam. It is not love between two men that is sinful, but rather the sterile self-gratification of buggery.)

What makes the Bible such an authoritative source on the matter? The bible has no more credibility than any other religious text.

Considering the denomination in question claims Christianity and would thus be subject to Biblical standards, I'd say the Bible is the only text relevant here.

Considering the denomination in question claims Christianity and would thus be subject to Biblical standards, I'd say the Bible is the only text relevant here.

Wow... You got me. Forget i said anything.

Van, if your reading feel free to delete all my posts.

i say they should stand as an attestation to your sheer moonbattery...

back on topic
I would say "Eat Me", but the gay boys in bondage would take that literally

It's my humble opinion these folks are not true Christians. The Bible to true repentant believers is the final authority.

PERVERTS,LESBIANS MOONBATS FREAKS

The writing is on the wall. Just as in the secular culture, the liberals in the religious community will lead the way to greater acceptance and tolerance.

The rest of you will be left behind.

2nd Timothy chapter 3 Reads: This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, feirce, despisers of those that are good, traitors heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God: HAVING A FORM OF GODLINESS, BUT DENYING THE POWER THEREOF FROM SUCH TURN AWAY.

They appear to be christians but their not, inside they have a form of godliness but inside they deny the power of God.

ps They follow their own way, not the will of God.

Revelation chapter 20 verses 12.13.14.15 Reads...And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and hades gave up the dead, and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and hades were thrown into the lake of fire. the lake of fire is the second death. if anyone's name was not found written in the book of like, he was thrown in to the lake of fire.

May God bless the reader that reads and understand. Study the bible and (bible.com)

"The writing is on the wall. Just as in the secular culture, the liberals in the religious community will lead the way to greater acceptance and tolerance.

The rest of you will be left behind."

If by 'Lead the way to greater acceptance and tolerance,' you mean "Force the church to sell out and go against its convictions and everything the Bible urges us to stand for in the name of 'political correctness,' and just generally become little more than a shallow, superfcial, 'Feel- good' religion with no real merit," then I'd have to agree with you.
I suggest you read the novel 'Rescued,' by John Bevere and Mark Andrew Olsen. It really rings true for the present state of many churches today (Though it's not until way into the climax that the message of it REALLY hits home).

Back on topic, my personal stand is that the Bible condemns homosexual practice ('Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind'), but not necessarily homosexual attraction. If a gay or lesbian desires to be ordained, he or she must be willing to embrace a life of celibacy.

Dinko,
YAWN. Same old same old.

The writing is on the wall.

~At first I wondered if you started your comment with a reference to a Biblical story on purpose, but reading the rest of it convinced me you couldn't possibly be that clever.

Daniel 5:1-6

Just as in the secular culture, the liberals in the religious community will lead the way to greater acceptance and tolerance.

Yes, we're well aware of liberals' capacity for acceptance and tolerance of others' beliefs and opinions. Here's an exercise for you: stop being intolerant of my beliefs and learn to accept my opinions you anti-Christian bigot.

Forgot the rest...

The rest of you will be left behind.

~Gladly.

Newsweek's Dec. 15 issue has a cover story entitled "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage." The editor comments “Let the letters and emails come. History and demographics are on the side of those who favor inclusion over exclusion.” Nope, no media bias here, folks.

Intolerance never goes away, it only changes targets. 'Tolerance' and 'relativism' are aspects of political correctness that are weak and destructive because they pit themselves against truth and order. You cannot be 'tolerant' and accept an institution like the Catholic Church because the Church is (must be) based on truth. When truth is invoked, it has the effect of making one group appear superior to another, and thus 'intolerant'. When order is invoked, the effect properly places man below God, and then the progressive agenda cannot be fulfilled. God commands Christians to love, not to be tolerant, and love is far more difficult and beneficial than tolerance. Think of raising a child...

Political religions like these are weak because they choose an easy and inactive approach to difficult issues. They are destructive because they lead to a spiritless culture. When the ability to properly order important things is either lost or forbidden, people become confused and start to believe that multiculturalism trumps unity, tolerance trumps truth, relativism trumps order, fairness trumps justice, entitlements trump self-reliance, equality trumps liberty, cleverness trumps wisdom, depravity trumps virtue, resentment trumps character, nature trumps religion, irreverence trumps devoutness, man trumps God, and secularism trumps Judeo-Christian morality. The 'easy' trumps the difficult and 'inaction' trumps action.

The natural human desire for compassion becomes misused when one has mis-ordered his priorities. Liberal compassion is a good thing, but it is arrived at in a way that is out of the proper order and is thus ultimately destructive. Abortion is an obvious example. It's compassionate to think of the plight of the mother's 'unwanted' pregnancy. The easiest and fastest answer is abortion; but they never ask the more important questions regarding the mother's long-term mental and spiritual health, the consequences on society, and of course, the existence of the other life and soul that she carries.

Eric Voegelin said "The death of the spirit is the price of progress". History shows that all 'progressive' societies lead to secularism and totalitarianism. Conservatives have long held that progress has costs weighed between the material and the spiritual, because the goods that each offer are often at odds and we can't have both without a price. So progressive societies advance (materially) and decline (spiritually) at the same time until a limit is reached and totalitarianism is imposed.

A wonderful article that addresses the topic of tolerance can be found at the National Catholic Register, www.ncr.org. Search for "When Tolerance Trumps Truth" by Donald DeMarco. Highly recommended for anyone regardless of religious or political leanings.

"The experiment in trying to be tolerant in the absence of any regulatory truth has proven to be a failure. It has inevitably led to a decisive intolerance of the Catholic Church, for example, and not because she opposes tolerance, but because she refuses to accord it a higher status than truth" -- (from the article).