The “Reverend” Chuck Currie posted this Open Letter from Religious Leaders to Members of Congress Supporting Inclusion of Abortion Services in Health Care Reform. Who needs Syrup of Ipecac when you have religious people not only wanting legalized abortion (bad enough) but wanting to make pro-lifers pay for it? That isn’t pro-choice, that is pro-abortion.
And who doesn’t realize that once the government is in complete control of health care that they’ll do away with those pesky conscience clauses and force doctors to do abortions?
Before I dive into the letter, I wonder where the “separation of church and state” folks are and why aren’t they frothing at the mouth over this gross intrusion of religious beliefs into our political system? Oh, yeah, they are pro-abortion, so they don’t care about these religious beliefs being voiced. Of course, there is nothing wrong with your religious views informing your political views, but a little consistency from the ACLU crowd would be nice.
Dear Members of Congress,
As religious leaders, we support public policies that are just and compassionate and prioritize the needs of those who are poor and marginalized in our society.
Oh, they are so compassionate. How about justice and compassion for these victims? They seem more than marginalized to me.
Therefore we are opposed to attempts – many made in the name of religion and morality – to exclude abortion services from health care reform. While our reasons for supporting the inclusion of abortion services in health care are diverse, they are grounded in the teachings of our faith traditions and our commitment to social justice.
What nonsense. I’ll be glad to debate Chuck over what the Bible says about taking innocent human life any day. Justice is about protecting the innocent, not harming them. I usually present the pro-life cause without the Bible. It is rather simple, given the scientific fact that life begins at conception and that it is immoral to take innocent human life for 99% of the reasons given for abortion. But if people claim to believe the Bible then the case is even easier.
The majority of faith groups in America have affirmed that abortion is a decision of conscience that should be safeguarded by government. Further, these faith traditions affirm that health care services, including abortion, must be available to all, regardless of income.
Got any Bible verses for that, Chuck? I’ve read the Bible many times and noted that Jesus never told us to petition Caesar to take money by threat of force and loss of freedom from neighbor A to give to neighbor B for anything, let alone abortions. He taught to give our own money to help others.
If coverage for abortion is eliminated from health care reform, the poor and communities of color will bear the consequences.
Yeah, they won’t have killed their children. Hey Chuck, ever been outside the U.S., where 90% of the people make the poor in the U.S. look rich? Are you saying that all those people should have been aborted?
And what naked racism! These pro-abortion plans will only increase the three-to-one ratio of black abortions to whites. That will further the inequality and genocide of the black community. Fact: More black human beings will die under Chuck’s plan.
Already, a low-income woman is four times as likely to have an unintended pregnancy and five times as likely to have an unintended birth as her higher income counterpart. Lack of access to abortion services perpetuates inequality and compromises the future of women, their families and their communities.
Then why don’t you just kill those pesky poor children outside the womb? The size, level of development, environment and dependency of a human being should have no bearing on her right to life. The “inequality” buzzword implies that someone forced these women to get pregnant.
In this religiously pluralistic nation, our health care system should be inclusive and respectful of diverse religious beliefs and decisions regarding childbearing. One in three American women has an abortion by age 45, making it one of the most common medical procedures in the nation. Ignoring this truth belies the rhetoric of comprehensive, accessible health care.
Oh, so if lots of people commit a sin then we should fund it? Great logic, Chuck.
And you aren’t being respectful of religious beliefs that oppose taking innocent human life. Why are you forcing those people to pay for abortions? Why not just give the money yourself to help these women have their unborn children destroyed?
A health care system that serves all persons with dignity and equality will include comprehensive reproductive health services.
Here’s some dignity and equality for you, Chuck.
We call on Congress to preserve the current standard of reproductive health care and ensure that millions of uninsured and underinsured women will have access to these services.
What satanic wordsmanship. “Reproductive health?” Not too healthy for the human being destroyed in the process. “Preserve the current standard?” No, they are asking for a major change.
Chuck is such a great poster boy for these fake religionists. Just a few tidbits about this “Christian Reverend.”
- He did a whole sermon on how John 14:6 is wrong about Jesus being the only way to salvation. His fake seminary was so bad that they didn’t even tell Chuck that there are 99 other passages with the same message, not to mention the endless Old Testament references commanding us not to worship other gods.
- He is pro-oxymoronic “same sex marriage” and says homosexual behavior is not a sin, despite the fact that 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms, 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman, 100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children) and 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.
- He preached a whole sermon praising Charles Darwin (he knows less about science than he does Christianity) and didn’t mention Jesus once.
- He is a serial, unrepentent liar. He knows it. I know it. He knows that I know that he knows it. He deleted a comment of mine once (no biggie) but when I pointed that out he lied and said it had “racist, sexist, homophobic, offensive language and more.” But despite a couple dozen requests he has never backed up that false claim. He thought he could get away with that lie and is now too proud to ‘fess up. Great example, “Rev!” You’ll repeatedly lie like that but we can totally trust you on everything else, right?
- The whole pro-abortion thing.
There is so much more, but you get the idea. There is a bright side to false teachers being so over the top with their heresies and blasphemies: It makes them easy to spot. They don’t even bother masquerading as angels of light; now they are out of the closet as angels of death.
2 Corinthians 11:13-15 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.
Filed under: False teachers, Politics, Pro-life | Tagged: abort73, abortion, anti-choice, Bible, christianity, chuck currie, false teacher, God, Jesus, Politics, Pro-life, religion, Sexuality
What an incredible scumbag this Currie fool is. Why do such unChristian people insist on calling themselves Christian? Must be because they don’t want to do any real work. What work is there in enabling bad behavior? And this crap about “unwanted” or “unintended” pregnancies is what we call BULLS**T! That’s like pointing your gun at someone and pulling the trigger and then saying it was an unintended killing. If one engages in a particular behavior, the results consistent with that behavior cannot then be said to have been unintended. He is of the “they’re gonna to it anyway” breed of adult who abdicates responsibility; in his case as a minister of God and teacher of His Will. He’s more than a false preacher. He’s a card-carrying a**hole.
I know that’s not a very Christian thing to say, but I never said I was good at being Christian. And herein lies the difference between myself and a**holes like Currie: I don’t pretend the Bible somehow justifies MY bad behavior. I don’t redefine sin in order to annul my bad behavior. I cop to it and work to improve it. People like Currie just piss me off.
OK. Rant over.
Preach on, brother! The only bad thing about my post is that it will fuel Chuck’s persecution fantasies, as if he is somehow noble and enduring suffering for mirroring the world. Oh, they do love the world — just not in the John 3:16 sense:
1 John 2:15-16 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world.
Few quick thoughts
The first amendment does not say that religious and moral values should play no part in public discussion. But the problem is when you have government endorsement, support for particular religions, religious bodies, etc. So when the public school teacher says…don’t steal Johnny that’s a good thing. If the teacher says, “now Johnny let’s pray to the one true God” um, yeah that crosses a line.
Also to nitpick on the health care reform bit. Right now the vast majority of insurance plans cover abortion. This proposed amendment that Rev.Currie is arguing against would ban such companies from providing that coverage if they are on the public exchange…so yes that is a dramatic step against access to abortion. You can celebrate it or oppose it, but it’s a change that the Catholic Bishops have supported. So it’s odd to deny that the change is real.
The thing about other religions. Jesus was Jewish. So what could it mean to say that Jesus must want us all to be Christian? And there is only one God. You write as if there any number of them. And that is the God of the universe who was around well before Christianity, well before humanity for that matter. This is a God who found favor for people in other lands with other religions (Job, Cyrus, etc)
As for your libertarian tangent, I think that set of politics would have been foreign to the Bible. When the Psalms reflect on the qualities of a good king, they include rescuing the poor, carrying for orphans. This stark division between the society and the individual is one not heard of in the Hebrew Scriptures for instance. And that makes sense. Charity is what one does beyond the requirements of a just society, not what one does in lieu of it. I can bust out some Aquinas on the subject if you like.
As for the Bible….I can’t find the word homosexual (in Greek or Hebrew). I find some instances where same gendered relations are condemned (the prostitutes referred to in 1 Corinthians) and others lifted up (David and Johnathan) but to be honest our current debate is ours. It’s not evidently one that is to be of concern, certainly not in the Gospels. So at best all we can do is take some principles, moral ones from scripture to help us interpret the issue for us today. And in that, Christians and Christian churches, find themselves in disagreement.
But to call folks scum, to use this kind of language shuts debate down and certainly does nothing to build charity within the church. So even if we disagree, let’s find better ways in relating that disagreement.
Hi Dwight,
No one put forth the first claim in your 1st paragraph, so I’m not sure who you are disagreeing with.
Chuck wants pro-lifers to pay for abortions via taxes. Aside from being sick and twisted, that is a change.
I have no idea what your 3rd paragraph meant.
The Israelites were uniquely set apart by God. Their setup was slightly different from ours.
Don’t play silly word games re. “homosexual.” Leviticus 18 and Romans 1 spell it out plainly, probably so people couldn’t play silly word games later. David and Jonathan were not gay. That is one of those pathetic pro-gay agenda items put forth by people who don’t believe the Bible anyway. In the event that you convert and make it to Heaven they will most likely kick your butt
. The Bible couldn’t be more clear about homosexual behavior being a sin and that God’s ideal for marriage and parenting being one man / one woman for life.
The claim about “Christians” disagreeing is bogus. Chuck et al teach the opposite of the Bible on virtually every essential of the faith — Jesus’ exclusivity, his divinity, the authority of scripture, and more. They claim the name Christian falsely. But that’s no surprise — falsehoods don’t bother them.
Re. “not in the Gospels” — no kidding. The debate wasn’t there because it wasn’t a hot topic for them, just as abortion wasn’t. You are arguing from silence — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2008/07/06/what-jesus-didnt-say/ .
Re. your complaint about Marshall’s reference to “scum” — I love lessons in manners from fake Christians advancing the pro-abortion, pro-gay agenda. Please do one honest thing and stop calling yourself a Christian. Same for you, Chuck.
Neil, thanks for posting this. I get so frustrated (indignant maybe?) with so-called religious teachers who purport to speak on behalf of “the religious”…and then they get it wrong while doing so! They reveal and represent who their true father is.
I posted a comment on his article, but don’t see a section where comments (in support of or opposition to) can be viewed.
Thanks again, brother! You are doing a mighty work!!!
Thanks, Mike! I agree. The post was too long already but I should have noted that as well. He plays word games to act like he is speaking for the majority of Christians. Just another lie.
Mike, your comment on Chuck’s blog was excellent. Notice how he completely dodged it? Pro-aborts will do anything to avoid the facts that life begins at conception and abortion kills an innocent human being.
A few quick things
-The question about the first amendment was in response to a stock caricature about the left and religion and the public square.
-The now passed amendment forbids private insurance in the exchange from carrying abortion coverage. Now most will likely dump such coverage. That is a big shift in reducing access to abortion.
-I’m not arguing from silence. I don’t think the Bible is pro-gay. And I question attempts to make it say as such. What I’m saying is that it’s not addressing the issue.. That doesn’t mean we as Christians shouldn’t take a stand. It means though that we have to surmise with our best sense of scripture and moral reasoning. And when that has happened we’ve discovered Christians disagree (as they have on most ethical issues).
My third paragraph questioned how biblical it could be to say that Christianity is the only way. I don’t think Jesus was a Christian. And I guess I’ll have to be more attentive to Chuck Currie’s blog because he seems to pull from the scriptures a lot for someone who doesn’t believe in its inspiration. And he seems to talk about Jesus a lot for someone who think he’s just some bloke.
Please don’t be naive and/or don’t think that I’m naive: The Dems already have plans to sneak whatever abortion coverage they like back into the bill, not to mention putting Planned Parenthood locations by schools so they can hide more statutory rapes and meet their abortion quotas. Why on earth would anyone trust Pelosi & Obama on this topic? They have lied so many times already.
Jesus wasn’t a Christian, He was Christ. Am I really having this conversation with a seminary student?!
Of course Christianity is the only way. The NT teaches ~ 100 times explicitly and implicitly that Jesus is the only way — http://www.4simpsons.com/Jesus%20is%20the%20way.htm . It doesn’t make sense any other way. The OT has endless references to the sin of not worshiping the one true God. You can’t claim to take the Bible seriously and come to any other conclusion.
Chuck rarely mentions scripture and when he does he butchers it. He preached a whole sermon praising Darwin but “forgot” to mention Jesus — http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/church-membership-in-the-us/ .
The Bible does address the issue of homosexuality: Every reference to it condemns the behavior as sin. Romans 1 uses it as exhibit A in the case that people suppress the truth in unrighteousness and that the world is upside down, morally speaking. Jesus defines marriage as one man / one woman. And so on.
Your first point suggests some cleverness I’ve never seen from Democrats before. This is the party that gave the votes need for Alito and Roberts after all.
Your collapsing Christ and Christianity. Your first error. Yes we should worship the one and true God. Sometimes the church is even able to point to said God (sometimes not)
Chuck posts many of his sermons on his blog, so Jesus gets quite a lot of air time. But defending Darwin is a good thing as far as I can tell. Presumably we’d want to go with the best account of origins to understand God’s working in the world. Christianity doesn’t benefit from anything less.
And then you quote Romans 1, the best passage for natural theology which seems to be odd for someone claiming that Christianity is the only religion.
And I have no doubt that then as now, one man and one woman is the norm. But that doesn’t give it any moral force.
I think you meant evil, not clever, but whatever.
Have you had too much po-mo Kool-Aid? I didn’t collapse anything. Jesus is the Christ. People who follow him are Christians. I encourage you to become one someday so you can be forgiven of your sins against a perfect and Holy God, including your sins of mocking his word 24×7.
You are mistaken. You should listen to them. It will be very painful, even for a fake Christian like you who agrees with him (he’s a horrible, droning speaker), but you’ll see what I mean about avoiding Jesus. They are all false teachings, so you’ll probably like them. And to his credit, they are relatively short.
I mean this in the most factual way possible: You are an idiot. Darwin’s theory has huge holes. You and Chuck know about as much about science as you do about Jesus. Funny how the Darwinists don’t mind scientifically ignorant people like Chuck talking about evolution. Go see Expelled! — they think that fake Christians like you and Chuck are useful idiots helping to advance their cause. Darwin was a fake religionist himself, so I can see how you guys would get along.
But even if Darwinism was true, one should never do a whole sermon on Darwin with no mention of Jesus.
That makes no sense. I never said Christianity was the only religion. I said it was the only true religion, which the Bible makes spectacularly clear. Romans 1 points out that men are without excuse for ignoring God. It doesn’t say they are all saved.
I do appreciate your pagan clarity. But I still must point out what a liar you are. I completely respect your freedom to hold and express your false, God mocking views. I just find it fundamentally dishonest of you and Chuck to parade as Christians. It is the ultimate equivocation.
Dwight, take my advice. I mean this in the nicest possible way and with the true agape love of having your long term best interests at heart: Quit seminary today. Your life is a joke. If you don’t believe in Jesus then so be it. He won’t coerce your faith. But you are piling up debt and sins every day by mocking God.
Are you another gutless wannabe politician like Chuck, who wants people to like him and wants to impress his bad ideas on society? Then grow a pair and be a politician. Don’t hide behind a pulpit as a fake Christian just because you think that will give you a microphone with no accountability.
You guys are worse than TV preachers. And I detest TV preachers. As transparently awful as they are, their prosperity gospel still contains more truth than what you guys “preach.”
Re. the “cleverness” from Democrats — I appreciate your candor in labeling as “clever” the Democrats’ gross and repeated deceptions to increase the number of human beings crushed and dismembered each day, paid for with tax dollars from people who oppose that slaughter. It is another example of your dishonest core that you would applaud such a move. But if you’ll live a lie about your religion each day, why would I expect you to be truthful anywhere else?
There are so many passages warning against false teachers like Dwight and Chuck and about the importance of sound doctrine. I came across this one last night:
1 Thessalonians 2:13 And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.
It is an easy way to discern who the fakes are. Real believers accept the word of God. Fakes like Chuck, Dwight, ER, etc. will discount it and mock it — starting with this passage!
Lots more verses like that here — http://www.4simpsons.com/doctrine_counts.htm
Neil
I’m not really post modern. For one thing I respect science too much to treat it just as another narrative. And because I believe it has some force it ought to provide some sort of context by which we make religious claims including what it means to speak of God as creator. While your post is filled with divine threats, we face actual threats in the world; poverty, environmental, war, and otherwise. And while I’m sure it pleases you to have found the one true religion, you might as well have found the right football team to root for. It’s a mere badge, a form of ID. The point is what one does to engage one’s faith to transform the world for the better. That is, the humanizing feature of faith. And this is something I see in Chuck’s blog. And that is what makes his site Christocentric. Not how many times he mentions Jesus. But whether he or any of us point to the power of God working for our salvation. .And I don’t always agree with him on this or that political issue. It’s rather the overall thrust on what the meaning and point of faith is that I see credence in his ministry.
Hi Dwight,
Whether you self-identify as a postmodern is irrelevant. Your views have the same cowardice and emptiness as any “truth is relative” po-mo.
Your statement is meaningless. Who says I’m saying to ignore poverty and such? Remember, I’m the one who teaches that we should give generously of our own money, as opposed to Chuck, who releases endorphins for being so “generous” when he asks Caesar to take money by force from neighbor A to help neighbor B. That isn’t compassion or charity.
Don’t be so wimpy and passive aggressive. You think your view is true, otherwise you wouldn’t advance it. Of course I think mine is true. I offer evidence to support it. It is technically possible that I could be wrong. But I’m not some girlie-man fake Christian who tries to have it both ways.
Oh, there’s the po-mo slipping through. Who says that’s the point? What is your authority for making that claim?
And as Marshall points out, that is absolute nonsense. You think that crushing and dismembering innocent human beings and homosexual behavior make the world a better place. Sure.
More truth claims with no support. Why do we need salvation? Salvation from what? When does Chuck ever mention that?
What do we need salvation from? War, alienation from other people and ourselves, environmental despoliation, poverty, meaninglessness, etc. Reading the daily paper should give you some good ideas on what we need to be saved from.
And that is something that is both individual and social. You seem to lop off the social. That’s certainly foreign in the Bible where the responsibilities of a just king are raised and where Israel as a nation is judged. Not just as individuals. In that, both you and Chuck Currie are right. We need a just society and we need to work for charity.
As for authority, well that is a whole other issue that hasn’t been touched upon. But given how carelessly you threw off the consensus in science behind evolution, I’m not sure you have much of any grounding for most of your claims, what less of your threats.
As a side note. One of the interesting features of heterosexism is that it combines hatred for gays with hatred for women in one nice little package. Your girlie men talk (there’s something wrong with being a woman I guess?) gives indication that you suffer from this. Any steps you plan to overcome this problem?
So, how are you doing in solving those? Has killing babies and encouraging gays to have sex fixed any of those problems? Has taking money by force to redistribute solved those? Has teaching the opposite of the Bible helped? Has lying and claiming to be a Christian helped?
Oh, so now you are referring to the Bible authoritatively? How convenient. Looks like we’ve got another Dalmatian Theologian in the pack, picking and choosing what he likes as he creates a god in his own image.
Got any evidence for that? Have you examined my calendar and 1040’s? Maybe I actually do something about the social issues with my own time and money.
There’s a non-answer. Try again. What is your grounding, other than your made up opinions and god? Demonstrate, using facts and logic, why I should care about your fantasy religion, especially when you start with the truth claim that whichever one you pick is as irrelevant as picking a favorite football team. You need to show why that claim is true.
Oh, nice little ad hom. You have no evidence for either claim, and no grounding to say why those things would be wrong. I think they are. Hey, you probably support the legality of gender selection abortions — the ultimate misogyny. Hopefully I’m wrong on that count and there is one shred of pro-life decency buried somewhere in your rebellion against God.
Nothing wrong with being a woman — if you are a woman. But that doesn’t appear to excuse you.
And if you can’t provide evidence that you strongly oppose gender selection abortions, virtually all of which are done to destroy females for the sole reason that they are female, then I suggest you doubly apologize for your “women hating” straw man / ad hom.
Working to save the lives of the unborn and help women in need is part of the social for me. You think that killing more unborn is part of the social.
I also have worked in this area to help women and the best way I know how to respect women is to provide choices. State mandated abortions in China or the criminalization of abortion in Latin America and some places in Eastern Europe has been a disaster for women. Presumably we ought to find some path which avoids this.
How about not crushing and dismembering innocent human beings?
How about completing your sentence? Providing choices to do what? Where to go to college? Whom to marry? Oh, you mean choices to kill their unborn. How about the choice to kill their toddlers for the same reasons they give for abortions?
Why doesn’t your “can’t we be right at the same time?” reasoning extend to mandated abortions in China? Why is that wrong? Who are you tell the Chinese what to do?
I think the direct harm, physical and otherwise against women when the state has mandated abortions or mandated pregnancies is a pretty good basis for making a judgmenent in this area. That kind of harm is what I oppose.
Answer the question. What is your view on gender selection abortions?
Before commenting again, please explain with clarity your position on gender selection abortions.
If being compared to a woman is an insult, that suggests you have a problem with women but no problem with insults.The fact that you have a problem with societal responses is backed up in the first paragraph in your response.
As for claims about God. God is what makes for goodness, for transformation and for well being in our world. Since we have seen the latter happen (in our own lives and others) we have a solid basis for talking about God. And from that Christological basis we can then begin to talk about what resources, including scripture and other features of our tradition, the sciences, etc. one can use for that end.
Now upon what grounding do you use? The Bible, which has any number of images of God? If so, which one do you go with and why? Are there other sources for your claims about God? Describe some features of this God and how you came to that conclusion.
That isn’t grounding, that is opinion. Try again. You haven’t demonstrated that comes from God at all.
My grounding is what I said before: Creation and revelation through the Bible. It is well documented throughout my blog, or check out any of the apologetic links or posts.
1.we have experienced goodness, transformation, and well being
2.there is a cause for this
I’m saying that properly speaking when we are talking about God we are talking about the cause. Otherwise we’ve cut off God from the good and therefore cease to make God an object worthy of devotion, love, etc. God is not some generic power. Lots of powerful things should not be worshipped. God should be because God is in fact the basis for the good in life.
Admittedly I have not waded through your apologetic materials but when one hears revelation, creation, or bible proofs, it strikes me that this is not so much an answer but a context for discussion. For I believe in revelation too. And believe we can learn of God in creation and I use biblical material but I suspect our understanding of God is different. Could you give me a brief synposis on how you would define God?
That is gibberish. Please don’t ever share your faith with atheists. We authentic Christians have enough work to do sharing the real Gospel without having to deal with such ridiculous statements by “Christians.”
Answer the question about gender selection abortions.
That is nonsense. Christianity makes truth claims. So do Hinduism, Islam, whatever religion you and Chuck are peddling, atheism, etc. The claims are mutually exclusive. It isn’t an opinion poll. When you die, you don’t get the God that you made up while in this life. You get “I AM.”
They can be taken as such. Or they can be taken as differing means to relate to God. Sometimes they conflict. Sometimes they don’t. Presumably if we engaged each other we might learn a bit about ourselves and others. Maybe even learn something about God in the process.
I learn about God from his creation and his revelation, not from Romans 1 poster boys suppressing the truth in unrighteousness and making up their own god.
I know enough that the core claims of religious dictate that we can both be right. It is basic logic. Anyone can understand that Jesus couldn’t die on the cross (as per Christianity and virtually every historian around) and not die on the cross (Koran, Sura 4:157-158). And so on with death (reincarnation vs. die and face judgment vs. annihilation), the nature of God (personal vs. impersonal) and so many more. It takes a lot of effort to deny the obvious.
How does starting with an illogical premise before talking about God help anything?
I agree that religions *do* make contradictory claims some of the time. Though not every claim if different is a contradiction. To be a contradiction, it would have to be saying the opposite about the absolute same thing. Most of the time the claims are different but are not addressing the same thing.
Also religions are themselves broad enough that to say anything except for the most vague and thin claims about a religion is hard.To say that God is personal is to mean very different things depending on where in the Bible or in the tradition you are reaching for. In Buddhism, Christianity, and other religions you have different schools of thought, etc that would have to be taken account of.
In the few cases where a.there is a meaningful claim that matters that unites the whole of one religion and b.there is another meaningful claim that matters which unites a whole other religion and c.that these claims are about exact same thing but said oppositely, one could presume one is right and the other is wrong. One could presume that both are wrong. One could presume that both are right if there is some modification of the claim made. In any case, the choice between true and false is pretty unheard of and when it happens, it doesn’t guarantee the rightness of one of the positions.
Assuming that human beings are fallible, that our conceptions change, that traditions are broad based, that we are living in the same world such that we have some common basis for evaluating whether a claim has some basis or not, we can likewise believe that we have some basis for talking, some basis for mutually criticizing as well as learning from others.
You are dead wrong. Go ahead and address my specific example about Jesus dying on the cross. Christianity and historians are explicit that He did so. Islam is explicit that He didn’t. And that is just the physical facts and not the meaning behind the act.
Then you can explain how Hindus can be right about reincarnation while Christianity is right about dying once and facing judgment for eternity.
And on and on.
I agree that religions *do* make contradictory claims some of the time. How done one go about validating whatever vision you have the afterlife or of re-incarnation so as to see who is right or not?
Examine the truth claims.
Now answer the question about gender selection abortions, or just leave. I really don’t care. You claim to be pro-women and, with no evidence, claimed that I hate women. Now explain your views on whether people should have the legal right to crush and dismember females just because they are female.
How would you establish what counts for truth when it comes to the afterlife?
I oppose gender selected abortions. But I’m not going to outlaw abortion either. I think there are better ways to reduce abortion which is less coercive, more consistent with the well being of women than prison terms.
Why do you oppose gender selection abortions? What happens during the abortion that is wrong? Let’s close on this topic before addressing your other deceptions.
P.S. Skip the red herrings about the punishment phase as well as your faux caring about the well being of women.
“The point is what one does to engage one’s faith to transform the world for the better.”
This is absolute nonsense. The point is to love, honor and serve God. I don’t see how killing the unborn, or supporting the “right” to do so serves God in the least. I don’t see how pretending Scripture doesn’t condemn homosexual behavior universally, thereby leading others astray or enabling them in their sinfulness, serves God in any way whatsoever. The point is to put aside anything we might want and focus on what God wants without the influence of our own corrupt desires and urges.
It’s an appropriate appellation for those who preach counter to Scripture to be called scum. It’s their choice to be scum. Scum, or whatever word one might decide to choose, often act as nice guys to deflect negative criticisms. Satan, for example, is said to disquise himself as light or righteousness.
But we have Scripture to help us identify those who are preaching falsely and applying any label to such can be said to be unChristian. Sorry. That jive doesn’t work for me anymore. Scum, false preacher…all the same to me. I’m more concerned with those who are lead astray by such people than to spend too much time worrying if I might be perceived in a negative light for the manner in which I call such people out.
“The point is what one does to engage one’s faith to transform the world for the better.”…This is absolute nonsense. The point is to love, honor and serve God.
Um..same thing. But sometimes it’s hard for me to tell if you mean God or your particular reading of the Bible. Presumably God is Lord over us and over the scriptures and even Lord over our best estimations of how one should act. In the case of Peter that meant overturning his understanding of what is clean and unclean and who can be accepted into the community. And here we are in 2009 fighting over the same theme.
To be accepted into the community you need to repent and follow Jesus. The Jesus revealed in scripture.
Same thing? I don’t think so. I established the point. What you’ve done is give one person’s example or interpretation of how to love, honor and serve God. Even then, it’s incomplete. What determines transforming the world for the better? Making everyone play nice? That’s the general theme of the po-mo psuedo Christian, but even non-believers can be nice. Not good enough, and certainly not the point of our existence.
Further, in response to your understanding of the need for salvation, you prove a distinct ignorance of Scripture. We are in need of salvation from the wrath of God for our sinfulness. This is very basic stuff. It’s got absolutely nothing to do with whatever suffering we experience during our life on earth, but what will follow if we are not saved by faith in Christ.
Yes even non believers can be good. Where does good come from? God. So somehow these non believers are relating to God in an efficacious manner. Thus we come to have a basis for religious pluralism.
I think sin is far more serious then your treating it. I don’t think we need to be rescued by God from God. I think we have to be rescued by God from our own sin, destructiveness that we act out against one another, ourselves, and our world.
And nonsense like that only costs you $20k per year at a “Christian” seminary, folks! Religious pluralism is intellectually bankrupt — at least the kind Dwight and Chuck teach. Of course we should be tolerant of other religions with respect to freedom of expression and general kindness.
But if you really love people you’ll want to share the truth with them. Chuck & Dwight love themselves more than others so they spread the lie that all religions lead to God — even while attending “Christian” seminaries and standing in the pulpit of “Christian” churches. But I suppose they do save a lot of time and effort by not doing the hard work of evangelism. And they do get to bask in the glow of the world’s love for them.
Even atheists can read the Bible and explain it better than Dwight and Chuck. God wrote the law on our hearts. We know basic right from wrong, which is why we are responsible for our sins against God. Why can’t seminary students — even the fake Christian kind — at least articulate that simple point of theology?
And the Bible is emphatic that we aren’t good enough on our own for God. Oh, we can do some good things, but a few good deeds don’t undo your crimes against God.
The views of you and Chuck are virtually indistinguishable from atheism. At least they are more honest than you two.
And what bizarre statement from a pro-abort to say that he takes sin more seriously than us.
And your grounding for that is what? Not the Bible. You are making up your own religion.
Fake Christians like Chuck and Dwight are some of the most dishonest people I know.
Friendly reminder to regulars and especially newer folks: We should always be as winsome as possible when sharing the Gospel with non-believers. The exception I make here is to absolutely whale on fake Christians like Chuck and Dwight. I pull no punches. They teach the opposite of what Jesus does on virtually everything — life, marriage, his view on scripture, his nature, his exclusivity, our need for him, and so much more. They are liars and fakes. If they picked another name for their religion I’d take a different tone. But they falsely claim the name of Christ.
Abortion: I oppose gender selected abortions because of the affects it has in re-enforcing attitudes which are harmful to women and in China in particular, we’re facing a demographic problem as a result of said policies. There’s not a lot that can be done on our end of things in terms of such practices but it strikes me that changing social attitudes (which some organizations work on) is key.
As for these other issues. You’ve deleted several of my responses. So I’m not sure how you plan to have any discussion about them? I’m not going to bother writing responses that are wiped out by you. For some reason you are saturated with authoritarian language, religion, politics, and modes of relating.
That’s a non-answer. What is wrong with the abortion itself? Are you really saying it isn’t the fact that a female is ripped apart just for being female, but the fact that her destruction re-enforces attitudes harmful to women? Uh, isn’t crushing and dismembering them for their gender a form of harm?
I told you to stay on topic. Stop dodging. Your other comments are in moderation. Stop boo-hoo-ing, btw. I have no sympathy for pro-aborts who whine about moderation.
Answer the question. Or better yet, meditate on why you are dodging it so aggressively.
Abortion kills an innocent human being. You can’t just bring yourself to state that abortions are wrong. If they don’t kill an innocent human being, why reduce them? The liars/”experts” at Planned Parenthood will be glad to tell you how they are safer than pregnancy (when they aren’t busy hiding statutory rape). And over time, abortions don’t cost much more than birth control.
And you use your fake Christianity to prop up not only legalized abortion but forced funding of it by pro-lifers.
Answer the question. I do want to have this discussion. The discussion that I wrote a post on. But you are dodging it.
Oh, and you are either lying or uninformed on the deaths of women who have abortions. Go find out how many died in the last year stats were kept by the CDC (hint: double figures, not thousands).
The abortionists who stood to profit greatly spread the lies about tens of thousands of women dying. And feminists bought the lie. And you help perpetuate it.
Now answer the question.
Dwight, this forum is open for you to answer the questions that you keep dodging. You claim to be pro-women and, with no evidence, claimed that I hate women. But you haven’t backed up your claims despite repeated requests.
What is wrong with the gender selection abortion itself? Are you really saying it isn’t the fact that a female is ripped apart just for being female, but the fact that her destruction re-enforces attitudes harmful to women? Uh, isn’t crushing and dismembering them for their gender a form of harm?
Now explain your views on why people should have the legal right to crush and dismember females just because they are female, and how you reconcile that with being pro-women.
Or just go away for good. Just do me one favor: Quit calling yourself a Christian. It is a lie.
This Dwight dude is something else !!!
Yes, something other than a Christian!
Did you get a “word of knowledge” Neil? That was my exact thought.
Seriously, a christian doesn’t have to get a word of knowledge to recognize a false christian like Chuck Currie. I won’t even call him “reverend.” He, along with Dwight, have been written about long ago and has what the apostle Paul calls “false humility” in Colossians 2:23. It looks and sounds good, but it has no value at all against the flesh and it’s works (homosexuality and abortion).
I think I mentioned on another post before how the most damage done to Christianity isn’t other religions, it’s FALSE CHRISTIANS…people who claim to be, sound like, look like, but are not christians. They dilute and contaminate the word of God which throws christians off course and they also misrepresent Christ and his word to the world.
Dwight, If you don’t repent, you will be heating hell back up just when it’s just about to fizz out….you and Chuck!!!
It’s a real bummer when other Christians have the audacity to disagree with you. I imagine your life in the church must be a splendid thing.
You are begging the question, of course. You have never given a single reason for us to believe you are a Christian. If words mean anything — and they do — you are not a Christian. Neither is Chuck. You are just two of the false teachers the Bible warned about over and over.
Answer the questions. What is wrong with the gender selection abortion itself? Are you really saying it isn’t the fact that a female is ripped apart just for being female, but the fact that her destruction re-enforces attitudes harmful to women? Uh, isn’t crushing and dismembering them for their gender a form of harm?
And don’t say you already answered them. I’ve got 8 of your non sequitor / ad hom / fallacies ‘R us comments sitting in moderation that say otherwise.
Neil
I can’t imagine that most of the Christian world is Christian in your book. One example of this is that every poll I’ve seen from Barna and other folks suggests that most Christians in America recognizes some validity in other religions. So your little corner of the church seems to be getting smaller as you pass verdicts on others.
The posts you deleted argued why the best measure for protecting women’s health and reducing abortion is through support systems, health care, education, contraception, etc. That’s always been the case. It’s not been through criminalizing folks.
Why reduce abortion? Because it removes the possibilities inherent in fetal life. Because it invariably comes from some event which was not for the best for the women and family involved. That doesn’t mean it’s never necessary. Sometimes it is. But it doesn’t remove the tragic nature of it. But the best way I know how to reduce the likelihood is to provide a context where those events are lessened and choices can be meaningfully had by women.
So Mr. Christian seminary student draws his conclusions from his ethnocentric U.S. views of polls of people who are as clueless as he is, and he lets that trump scripture!
Go check out the video of Steven Crowder’s latest poll and see how few people knew who Joe Biden was http://selfevidenttruths-euripides.blogspot.com/2009/11/steven-crowder-who-is-joe-biden.html . But you can totally trust religious polls where 50% of people think Christianity supports reincarnation.
That was a bad answer for any question, but a non-answer for my question: What is wrong with the gender selection abortion itself?
You’ve dodged it for the 20th time. I love it when pro-abort fake Christians try to play the “you’re anti-women!” card then trot out one evasion after another when asked to comment on gender selection abortions.
What a weasel. I think what you meant to say is that it kills an innocent human being. But you think that should be legal in all circumstances, including to kill females for the offense of being female.
This is an excerpt from a post I’ll be running in a couple weeks. It highlights how ridiculous it is for Chuck and Dwight to claim to be followers of Christ.
Sounds ridiculous, right? Now consider this:
Neil has so defined Christianity that a good chunk of the present day church membership would have to be kicked out. He mocks most church members in response to my mention of surveys. If one held to biblical inerrancy and exclusivism and a set of right wing social views, Barna estimates that abut 6% of Christians fit what Neil calls true Christians.
I’m sure he’s glad to be a part of the true remnant but at some point, one has to wonder what that does to believe that most of the church are made up of fakers and that only he and his views must constitute true Christianity ™. As far as I can tell from this blog, he has to battle other Christians. That seems to be his ministry. Hate on other Christians.
Augustine (who would not qualify as true Christian by Neil for his views on scripture) says that a good test for our religion is this. Does it build up the double love of God and neighbor? But I think it’s a good question. And it suggests pretty well whether one is in fact dealing with the Gospel. Or religious sectarianism. There is a difference between the two.
More falsehoods and straw men.
“Neil” didn’t define Christianity, the Bible does. And Chuck and Dwight mock the Bible.
And I’m on the record for saying that you don’t need perfect theology to be saved, or none of us would be – http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2009/01/16/saved-and-confused/ .
But fakes like Chuck and Dwight deny many essentials and are without excuse.
Of course I mock the answers of church members from the surveys. They demonstrate that they don’t have the faintest idea of how what they really believe is relative to biblical Christianity. Fakes like Dwight and Chuck have less of an excuse since they go to or went to “Christian” seminaries.
Augustine = great guy. But note how Dwight quotes Augustine more authoritatively but not the Bible? And all the things about Augustine that he doesn’t quote that disagree with Dwight’s religion.
And how he quotes transparently false views from Barna surveys more authoritatively than the Bible? And how the Barna survey isn’t even worldwide, as if U.S. Christians get to decide who God is? How ethnocentric. Dwight can’t get past the “don’t make God in your own image” command.
And of course, the bible has higher standards for teachers — who Dwight and Chuck claim to be — than it does for lay people (though those are probably passages that they ignore as well). I guess I’d have to get their Dalmatian Theology version of the Bible to know for sure.
Or I suppose I could just read a Barna survey to learn what God is really like.
A more accurate survey
Do I believe in God? Yes
Do I believe God was in Christ? Yes
Do I believe the Bible to be inspired? Yes
Do I believe that we need God to save us? Yes
Do I believe that through Christ we come to know, experience God’s salvation in our life? Yes
Do you believe Jonah was swallowed by a big fish? Um no..
Neil collapses from such un Christian sentiments as expressed in the response to the last question and then immediately I’m booted out of his sect. Dang it. I was so close to being a true Christian ™
What clever weasel words. If I hadn’t already learned what a transparent liar you are that might have worked on me. Satan masquerades as an angel of light.
Cute word play to act like I’m kicking you out. Your martyr bit is part of the routine, I know. You deny him by your own words. It has nothing to do with me.
A word to the wise Neil, I find that your acidity towards Dwight significantly distracts from the substance of the back-and-forth. It does have a bullying, authoritarian effect.
Thanks for the feedback, Seas. That is exactly what I was aiming at. I don’t tolerate fake Christians. Chuck, Dwight and those they deceive are on their way to Hell for eternity. The kind thing is to be direct with them. The evil thing would be to pretend they were saved.
Neil said: The kind thing is to be direct with them.
Directness would be to address what you consider to be their misunderstandings evenly and exactly, unadorned by those truckloads of scorn in which your substantive points are drowned. Especially if, as you say, true Christianity thrives in an atmosphere of reason.
Granted that truly loving words can be anything but diplomatic, there’s still a very reliable rule of thumb for determining whether you’re speaking out of love or something else. Namely, what does it do for your digestion? If there’s a tender look on your face and a tender feeling in your breast while you type, odds are good you’re speaking from love, even if your words are strong. If your musculature’s tight and your expression sour, odds are good you’re speaking from rejection.
I agree in general, but not with these guys. They deserve scorn. Heaping amounts of it.
Being pro-abortion is bad enough.
Advocating that the gov’t take the money of pro-lifers by force to pay for abortions is worse.
Being fake Christians is far worse.
Being all three of those begs for scorn.
God is in control of who converts and is saved, but I’ve found it more likely for Muslims or atheists to convert than these fake Christians. They have the most seared consciences and hardened hearts I’ve seen. They can’t acknowledge the simplest error they make and continue to teach the opposite of Jesus on almost every important topic. It is vital to shine a light on their errors and ensure that under no circumstances are we perceived as being on the same team as them.
I cannot endure false doctrine, however neatly it may be put before me. Would you have me eat poisoned meat because the dish is of the choicest ware? It makes me indignant when I hear another gospel put before the people with enticing words by man who would fair make merchandise of souls; and I marvel at those who have soft words for such deceivers. “That is your bigotry,” says one. Call it so if you like; but it is the BIGOTRY OF THE LOVING JOHN, who wrote, “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed; for he that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds.” I would to God we all had more of such decision, for the lack of it is depriving our religious life of its backbone and substituting for honest manliness a mass of tremulous jelly of mutual flattery.
HE WHO DOES NOT HATE THE FALSE DOES NOT LOVE THE TRUE; and he to whom it is all the same, whether it be God’s word or man’s, is himself unrenewed at heart. Oh, if some of you were like your fathers, you would not have tolerated in this age the wagon loads of trash under which the gospel has been of late buried by ministers of your own choosing. The apostle spake by inspiration when he said, “If we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”
According to modern effeminacy he ought to have said, “Let him be kindly spoken with in private, but pray make no stir. No doubt the good brother has his own original modes of thought and we must not question his liberty. Doubtless he believes the same as we do, only there is some little difference as to terms.” This is treason to Christ and treachery to truth and cruelty to souls. IF WE LOVE OUR LORD, WE SHALL KEEP HIS WORDS AND STAND FAST IN THE FAITH, coming out from among the false teachers. Nor is this inconsistent with charity; for the truest love to those who err is not to fraternize with them in their error, but to be faithful to Jesus Christ in all things.”
~CS
Wow, Bret! Nicely done!
What concerns me is not so much what Neil thinks of my views. We disagree. And we think each other to be wrong. Not a shock. But some of this is not about my views but is rather a fight against a liberal caricature Neil has in his imagination. I say abortion is a tragedy he says I love it, I say we need to be saved, he says i say we don’t, I say the Bible is inspired he says I think it’s worthless, etc.
At some point this is not about my views, Chuck’s views, etc. but it’s something about what is going on in his head and there’s nothing that can be done about that. But since we operate in probably different worlds, outside of a blog response there’s little chance of interaction in any case.
But when Neil has gone after 94% of all Christians in his definition of true Christianity ™ then my concern is about his interactions that cut so many people out of the church, rhetorically if not otherwise. In his own church or in his work. I don’t think most Christians ought to be mocked. And I don’t think the doors of the church are closed off just for those on the american political right.
Nice straw man. Nobody light a match!
I have noted how many people are “saved and confused” and belong in church. I am not mocking those people. I want them to know the truth of God’s word.
My main beef is with frauds like Chuck and Dwight who are constantly either equivocating or teaching outright falsehoods.
For example, he says the Bible is “inspired” while obviously not meaning that in a traditional or meaningful sense, and most importantly, not in the sense that the Bible makes that claim. It reminds me of Dan Trabue, who would basically say “THE BIBLE IS INSPIRED! (except when it’s not).”
More equivocation: Dwight acts like we both mean the same thing by saying we need to be “saved,” but his salvation is the wordly “save us from ourselves” bit rather than the “saved from the wrath of God” truth taught in scripture — you know, the scripture he claims is “inspired.”
You can try to fool others, but you aren’t fooling me.
It isn’t about what’s going on inside my head (note his sneaky ad hom that it is my mental instability and not his rebellion to the word of God that is the issue). It is about the word of God and how they mock it and teach the opposite of it.
And of course Dwight brings up the political angle. Jesus came for everyone. It just happens that with respect to the positions of pro-life, real marriage and a few others that Conservatives agree with God and Democrats do not. But if the Democratic party quit supporting the culture of death then they’d be on the correct side of that issue, as some of their members already are (most Dems used to be pro-life, so on that issue they used to be Biblically correct).
The fakes love to act like they have the open doors and that we are the bad guys closing them. The truth is that God set up the metaphorical doors. He says who is in and out. The fakes deny scripture to make their points.
They are the most ironic of fakes as well: In their pluralism they say you shouldn’t try to change the religious views of others. But guess whose religious views they try to change? Those of orthodox Christians! In their world of hypocrisy, every religion except orthodox Christianity has a “right” view of God that can be reconciled with Liberal Christianity.
Well yes as Christians, folks have meant different things by inspiration, by salvation, etc. That’s been a given in church history as indicated by the range of denominations and schools of theological thought. That could merit exploration though I don’t think this site is probably the place to do that. I’m faithful to my understanding of it which coincides with my church’s understanding of it.
So yes, as you note in your last paragraph, of course my belief that God is at work in other religious contexts does not suggest relativism, or an utter relativism that refuses to make claims, what less do evangelism. Though in this case I’m not so much as trying to change your position as provide some opening for the possibility that others can disagree.
Only with Liberal Christians the definitions aren’t a little different, they are opposites . You cannot take the Bible seriously and come away with a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pluralistic view of the world, and that’s just for starters.
I hate to remove Dwight’s faux martyr status, but here are all his comments I put in moderation while he was repeatedly dodging my very specific questions about gender selection abortions, such as What is wrong with the gender selection abortion itself? Are you really saying it isn’t the fact that a female is ripped apart just for being female, but the fact that her destruction re-enforces attitudes harmful to women? Uh, isn’t crushing and dismembering them for their gender a form of harm?”
He played the typical “you’re pro-life because you are anti-women card” which takes about 10 seconds to annihilate. Just bring up gender selection abortions and watch ‘em scurry like cockroaches when the lights are turned on.
If they approve of gender selection abortions they reveal their fallacies and hypocrisy in claiming to be pro-women.
If they admit gender selection abortions are wrong then they have removed their foundation for abortion-on-demand. They can never demonstrate why only those abortions are wrong. If the unborn aren’t persons, then why would anyone care if they were female “non-persons?”
Here are his comments in quotes. Keep in mind that in between each one I told him to answer the questions and he dodged them. Yeah, I’m a real Stalinist here:
Pointless whining.
Straw man / ad homs — Eek! We oppose crushing and dismembering innocent human beings so of course we want to control women! And that’s why so many of the volunteers and employees at CareNet are women! Oh wait, that would be the opposite of what they’d expect . . .
And the church doors bit is tired. I point to the Bible as the final court of arbitration, so to speak. It labels the doors.
B.S. on not being pro-abortion. The whole point of the post was fake Christians wanting Caesar to take money from neighbor A to abort neighbor B. That’s pro-abortion, not pro-choice.
What is soul destroying is crushing and dismembering innocent human beings. What is perverse is saying that Jesus agrees with you.
As Marshall noted at his place, your God definition and the bit about God not being identified with good were just poor reading on your part.
Same.
Same.
Same. I have no idea where you made things like that up, but I am not going to waste my time with straw men.
There, the world is right again for Dwight! His magnificent, pointless, non sequitor, mistaken, fallacious comments are there for all to see and enjoy.
Now, if you’d like to answer the questions about why gender selection abortions are bad but others are not, then feel free to come back.
There, now I trust that all the non-Dwight/Dan/ER/etc. people can see why dialogue with false teachers is such a poor use of time.
It’s easy to post bits of posts out of sequence.
But let’s address the two issues raised:
1. When I identified God with the source of goodness, you said this was gibberish. What part of this was gibberish?
2. I already said why I opposed abortions based on gender. It furthers attitudes, structures, etc that are harmful to women. So we need to work on how to change that.
The rest of the things you quoted involved why I believe we can do much less harm, more good by working for education, support systems for women, etc, in reducing abortion then criminalization (which you seem to take as the gold standard proof of being a true Christian
And to re post what I said earlier. Why reduce abortion if I don’t take every abortion to be murder of a human person?
” Because it removes the possibilities inherent in fetal life. Because it invariably comes from some event which was not for the best for the women and family involved. That doesn’t mean it’s never necessary. Sometimes it is. But it doesn’t remove the tragic nature of it. But the best way I know how to reduce the likelihood is to provide a context where those events are lessened and choices can be meaningfully had by women.”
I noted that this comment was gibberish. It has no foundation and proves nothing.
I know you oppose abortions based on gender. But why are those worse than killing for all the other reasons given for abortions: economic issues, just don’t want the child to live, love life, Down syndrome, etc.?
Your “possibilities inherent in fetal life” is also gibberish. Just because the human being was created in circumstances that you don’t think were ideal doesn’t mean she is fair game for destruction.
[...] wonder if he rails against the religious folks who (falsely) claim that Jesus would support the pro-health care package in general and the [...]
I would hope Christian faith would make us interested in helping the poor. But what does that look like? Obviously folks will disagree on what looks like. But I actually oppose the current health care bill as it is in congress. Just to shock you.
Glad you oppose it, but I’d like to know why.
Of course authentic Christian faith makes one interested in helping the poor. I think we should help them with our time and money and not asking Caesar to take from neighbor A by force to give to neighbor B. It also involves gov’t policies that encourage creation of real jobs.
I think you’re referring to charity..but charity is what ought to happen beyond justice, not something one does in lieu of it. I oppose the current health care bill because it’s $1.2 trillion dollar income transfer to private insurance companies. It enshrines the very system (and mandates participation it) that has proven to be the problem.
I was referring to charity. But God loves justice. The problem is that Liberal (read: fake) Christians equate any income inequality with injustice. It is just coveting disguised as charity / justice, where you think God messed up so you have to put the money where it belongs. How about giving your own money?
How about increasing competition with insurance carriers? Tort reform? Giving tax benefits to employees instead of employers so they can take insurance with them when they leave jobs? And so on.
Those are rhetorical questions, btw. You need to describe the efforts of you and your church in sending out Reverse Missionaries on the Great De-Commission before moving on. Otherwise I’ll have to conclude that your pluralistic “Christianity” is just feel good Liberal nonsense you spout to fit in with the world.
Last chance to describe it or don’t expect more comments to post. I’m not hear to provide a platform for your false teachings, but I will let you answer these questions and defend your consistency — if you have it.
I’m pretty sure God is not behind the distribution of wealth in this world of ours where 90% of the world’s wealth is owned by a small percentage of folks. And I do give to charity but that doesn’t fix the underlying problem. And I’m pretty sure that if we wanted competition with health insurance we would have a vigorous public option…something that no bill in congress provides for.
And yes de-conversion from what makes for hate, what makes for war, injustice is a good thing. We should work overtime for that. But isn’t any conversion just the flip side of a de-conversion in any case? So don’t both you and I in fact support efforts of conversion and de-conversion (one implying the other?) but our sense of what both would look like would be presumably different.
Maybe you should give more to charity, or convert to Christianity then spread the real Gospel so others will have changed hearts and minds and give more as well. Just sayin’.
A vigorous public option is the opposite of competition. To say otherwise is to be naive or a liar.
Yes, our definitions of conversion are quite different. I use the Biblical motif.
Dwight’s religious pluralism reminded me of these posts: Do pluralistic “Christians” send out reverse missionaries on the Great De-Commission? They would if they really believed what they said.
As someone who has done evangelism, including in campus ministry. I thought I might respond to your last point of contention. I believe that Christian faith provides an invaluable context to relate to God. And I want to work to provide an opening for people to join the faith who are in a position to receive that.
Not everyone is. Some people relate to God well in their traditions. And for some the language and practices of the Christian church are too damaged to be in a position to provide that opening. If Christian faith can provide a person a space to love God and neighbor then we ought to share that faith. We need not seek to convert folks who are are in a good place where they at. But for those who are seeking we ought to remove roadblocks (one of them for many is religious exclusivism) to Christian faith.
To borrow a line from Michael Scott from The Office, “Dwight, don’t be an idiot” (same name and everything!).
The Christian faith is exclusive. Jesus made no apologies for that, but his fake followers do. You want to remove Jesus as a roadblock to Christianity. Even atheists can see how ridiculous that is.
Please please please stop doing campus ministry. Or at least be honest and tell people you are there on behalf of Satan. Have a little intellectual integrity for once. I know that is silly of me to ask since you are following your master, who is the father of lies.
You dodged my comment, btw. How much time and effort do you and your fake church spend to send Reverse Missionaries to places like India and China where Christians are persecuted for their faith? If you really believed your own lies you’d behave consistently with your worldview and tell these Christians to adopt their local religions to avoid persecution. They are suffering needlessly, right? Just like the early church. What were those silly martyrs thinking? You phonies spit on the cross and mock the blood of the martyrs.
I’ve been reading 1 Peter 1 today. It mocks false teachers like you, ER, Chuck, Geoffrey, etc. from beginning to end.
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cap-padocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. In this you rejoice, though now for a little while, as was necessary, you have been grieved by various trials, so that the tested genuineness of your faith—more precious than gold that perishes though it is tested by fire—may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory, obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls.
Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look.
Therefore, preparing your minds for action, and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile, knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for your sake, who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.
Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart, since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God; for “All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever.” And this word is the good news that was preached to you.
As I had just noted
1. I believe Christianity can provide a ready access to God
2. I believe that many people who are seeking out such faith
3. I believe that we ought to remove roadblocks to such faith
I also believe that
4. It’s possible for some to find God in other faith contexts.
5. It’s possible that Christianity is not accessible for some
Therefore
6. We ought reach out to seekers
7. We ought to not seek to convert people who are relating to God with integrity in their own context
And the primary aim of missions is to reflect God in the world. That can be done by many means. Working for peace and justice for instance. Conversion sometimes is a part of this. Sometimes it has not been. We ought to support the church around the world, support Christians (and anyone else for that matter) who faces persecution.
1. But you obviously worship a different God than the one revealed in scripture.
2. Agreed.
3. But you’re willing to remove foundational things.
4. Not according to the Bible.
5. Not according to Acts 17 and others.
6. Sure, but not with your false gospel.
7. Bzzzzzt. Completely un-biblical.
No, that is not the primary aim of missions — at least real missions.
Still waiting for you to explain all the things your Reverse Missionaries do to execute the Great De-Commission, or at least an attempt to explain why that wouldn’t be a logical expectation of pluralistic “Christians.” Your notion of supporting persecuted Christians makes no sense in your worldview. Why should they suffer if their local religion is an equally valid path to God?
Look not every context, Christian or not, increases love of God and neighbor. Some do. Some do not. Which is why it is *not* the case that all paths lead to God. All I affirm is that God can be found in other religious contexts outside of the church. In those places where love of God and neighbor are pushed against then de-conversion or conversion away from those forms of religious faith, Christian or not is a good thing. For instance in Uganda, the churches are pushing a proposal for the state to have the death penalty gay and lesbians. There is Muslim support as well. I would rather they not be Christian or Muslim than support such a murderous measure. Or better yet it would be better that their understanding of their faith became transformed.
Too funny. What a judgmental fraud. So you get to decide which religions qualify and which don’t, as if there is some religion incorporating lots of religions but not all of them? You’re not a real Christian or a real pluralist, just a typical soul making up a god in his own image. And how ironic to see the pro-abortionist oppose “such a murderous measure.” I’d oppose those death penalties, but at least I’ve got consistent reasons to do so and I don’t throw out Jesus to try and “increase love of God and neighbor.” You’ve made up a religion but have no foundation for it, because you have to toss most of the Bible to get there.
You’ve dodged the questions again. See ya.
Given that the Bible in Leviticus can be used to support the death penalty against gay men, I can only assume that your deeper humanitarian impulses ( or what you call making it up on your own) is overriding scripture. I’m glad to hear that. Sometimes people are better than their purported theologies.
No, some people just read the Bible in context. Those were Israelite-specific punishments. Hey, do they teach you anything about the Bible in seminary, or do they just keep explaining why Jesus is not the only way to salvation?
The problem with your theology is that you are so busy mocking God and making up your own god that you can’t see the most simple things. Some people are worse than their purported theologies — namely frauds like you who claim the name of Christ then teach the opposite of what he did, including your vile pro-abortion rhetoric. Baal worshipers masquerading as Christians are sickening.
Hope you enjoyed your swan song.
[...] Posts RoundupDalmatian TheologyAwesome? Really?A post I never thought I'd seeSuper freaks: Pro-abortion clergyWeekly roundupAbortion and capital punishmentIn essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in [...]