 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
Christian vegetarianism
degeneRat replied to the following 1% of my post which she did not snip:
>>>> He taught that it's not what goes into a man that defiles him, but >>>> what comes out of a man's mouth. The apostle Paul similarly urged >>>> believers not to judge one another by diet or drink. > >>> Both of which > >> No. > > Yes NO. Admit your error. You claimed both addressed a circumsion heresy. You were wrong. >>> refer to controversies OF THE TIME about Jewish ritual >>> practices ( like the issue of circumcision ) and whether they were >>> required for non-Jewish converts. > >> Read Matthew 15 and tell me where Christ was addressing converts or >> circumcision. He was addressing the legalism of the Pharisees, as well >> as your own AR legalism. St Paul addressed the same matter in a >> similar context. In both cases, it's clear that Christians should not >> judge others on the basis of diet. > > Legalism is always an issue, on various topics, We're not discussing various topics. We're discussing a narrow issue witin a Biblical context. > and I think Biblical > literalism is very similar to the Pharisees' idolatry of the Law -- You can "think" whatever you want, but you need to deal with two aspects of Scripture, the Law and the Gospel, to understand. Consider the following article written by Michael Horton, a Reformed scholar, for a quick synopsis of the issue. And since you're so caught up on academic credentials, he has a doctorate from Oxford and he's a professor at Westminster Theological Seminary. http://snipurl.com/4er3 Your church, like others from the Reformed tradition, used to make Law-Gospel distinctions. You are now so opposed to the law that you seek to explain it away through different contexts, even going so far as to suggest the Holy Spirit is leading this diametric move against Scripture. This type of behavior is no different from when a charismaniac tells you the Lord is speaking to him. And with all due respect, Pat Robertson is hearing stuff more in line with God's word than what you seem to be hearing. I don't trust *either* of you. What you are failing to note is that Christ and Paul taught that the Law serves a purpose even for believers. The Pharisees taught that the Law made people holy (i.e., "what goes into a man's mouth"). That is also the part addressed by Paul. He even asks himself in one of the epistles if the law is meaningless, which is a point you seem to be trying to make. His answer was NO. Yours seems to be yes. We both have room to complain about misuse of the Law by modern Pharisees, but you should look in the mirror and look at your own attempts of Pharisaism: AR and veganism. You are just like those you abhor on the right when they try to use the Bible to enforce behaviors in the rest of society (i.e., "blue" laws, forbidding sale of alcoholic beverages, etc.). You do that when you proselytize others with your pro-AR and pro-vegan propaganda and represent those as "ethical" choices when the choice is ethically neutral. Certain food and drink cannot make us any more ethical than not buying certain things on Sunday or having a beer: it's all BS whether right or left. > a concept which was condemned by both Christ and Paul. The important > thing is to open ourselves to God's presence and respond to it. Where do you find God or know what his will is? > I > think a compassion toward God's creation and our fellow beings is > central to that. You have a very different view of "compassion" than most people, even among Christians. Your AR paradigms contradict the teachings of Scripture and history and isn't a question of slavery or gang rape or any of your other diversions. > I've been attending the Confirmation class in my parish -- I go to the > Confirmation class in every parish I attend, because it is a wonderful > way to learn how different priests approach the identity of the Church, I would endorse this, too, of attending such courses in other congregations which have a more traditional view. > and their individual emphases. This priest was stressing that we look > into each others' faces and see Christ there. The good priests will tell you to look in the Bible to find the real Christ. The touchy-feely ones seem to prefer the Christ-in-your-face to the real one anyway. > There was another *** > (male) couple in the class -- together for 24 years -- and it was > wonderful to see in them a reflection of our own growth in the church > and our own search, Yes, the "growth" that has torn apart the American church, ripped the fellowship between the American church and all the other Anglican bodies, and halted dialogue with other denominations. I don't exactly see any of that as positive development. > and then to look around the circle and see Christ > also in the faces of the little 12-year-old Oriental girl, *Asian* girl. "Oriental" is perjorative unless you're speaking of objects like antiques. > the other > young people, the middle-aged ex-Presbyterian, and the middle-aged > Irish ex-Roman priest. I offered the closing prayer, which I feel is > the central commission Christ gives us: "Oh Lord, help us to see that > we are all one in Thee, and give us the grace to serve Thee > in each other." > >>> There is no relevance to animal rights at all. > >> Actually there is: both passages deal with forms of legalism. Both >> Christ and St Paul are saying that we're defiled by what comes out of >> our mouths and not what goes in it. You and other ARAs, like the >> Pharisees, suggest ethics and morality are based upon diet and >> lifestyle. You're diametrically at odds with Jesus and Paul about that. > > Would you suggest that ethics and morality have nothing to do with > lifestyle? Lifestyle meaning "vegan", AR, and homosexual, or even considering each individually. One is not unclean or defiled by what he eats. > That certainly has no basis in Scripture or the Church's > teaching. You've been beating me on the head with complaints about > the supposed evils of my "lifestyle" for some time here. Have you > changed your opinion on that? No, you've simply misinterpreted what I wrote. >>> <snip> > >>>> The New Testament says a lot more about homosexuality (and all in >>>> opposition to it!) > >>> It says nothing about homosexuality > >> Liar. It says a lot against it. > > Not as we understand it today, as an orientation. You raise your red herring yet again. Those passages address people who were oriented toward homosexuality back then, and they still address them today. The only thing that has changed is the politics of it and the condoning of it in some quarters. > <snip> > >> No. The Bible is not a manual for leftist thought. It's also not a >> manual for right-wing thought, either. It is about man's relationship >> with God: how it went awry, how it was put back together. To draw or >> create *politics* from it -- ON EITHER SIDE -- misses its real meaning >> and makes a mockery of its substance, which is Christ. > > If you *I* do, you pompous and disingenuous nag. Geez. :-p > and the other right-wing fundies would really understand that, I can only speak and act for myself. I do not have any control over anybody else. That includes a whole list of people whose words I dislike as much as you do, but you've yet to cease the comparisons or falsely aligning me with them. > perhaps we could have a real, honest dialog. I've tried with you and all you do is snip and accuse me of being Fred Phelps. Are you capable of honest dialogue? > Our priest has spent > his life (and earned his Doctorate ) in the theory and practice of > Reconciliation, working in Ireland, the Balkans, and recently > dialoging with Moslems from Afghanistan. So? Get him in here. Maybe he can shut your trap long enough that you'll actually read what I write rather than lash out at me and call me a "fundie." > (I find it interesting that > so many priests in the Episcopal church have doctorates -- we have > a very educated clergy.) Funny, the same is true within my denomination. Who'd ever think it? Even the Catholics try to educate their priests. I've even seen BAPTISTS with DMins and PhDs. Go figure. BTW, have you ever seen the British comedy "Keeping Up Appearances"? You sure do remind me of Hyacinth. > I wish you could meet him and talk with him. I'd set him straight. > <snip> > >>> People here have noted several texts which match yours, especially >>> the passage from Genesis supporting vegetarianism as the diet of >>> pre-fallen humanity. > >> Are we pre-fallen? Do we have the new heaven and new earth yet, where >> the lion lies down with the lamb? No. Until then God has given man the >> beasts to eat as well as the herbs. > > Surely the fact that we are fallen should not justify sinful behavior. Eating meat is not sinful. If it is, we're still without a savior because Christ sure did eat some. > Our unfallen state -- whether as myth or reality -- presents an > image of what we should be. Ipse dixit, and you're a Pharisee if you practice and teach such things. > <snip> > >>>> You clearly don't know the Bible. You claim it supports >>>> homosexuality, homosexual marriage, > >>> No, I say it says nothing about homosexuality as it is >>> understood today, > >> Red herring (debunked above). > > I don't accept that. I know. I'll pray for you, apostate. >>> as a genetically-disposed orientation. > >> Ipse dixit. Science is not settled on that issue at all. > > Science, I think, No, you want to think. > is. Not. > It is not completely genetic, of course, Of course it isn't. If it WERE genetic, it would find itself breeded out of existence. > but there certainly seems to be a genetic component. According to whom? Media types who either accept junk science or over-hype studies? http://www.narth.com/docs/dejavu.html http://www.gcc.edu/news/faculty/edit...n_10_21_03.htm etc. >>>> and animal rights. > >>> Again, animal rights as it is understood today is a post-70's >>> movement, but the roots of a theology supporting animal rights >>> does exist in the Bible. > >> Ipse dixit. The dominion given man over ALL creatures is in conflict >> with your statement. > > No, not at all. Yes, completely. > The dominion (stewardship ) we are given is what > compels us to recognize our obligations toward the creatures God > gives into our care and concern, And which in NO way prevents us from eating them or using them for our welfare. >> So, too, are passages that deal with animals as food and beasts of >> burden. > > As I said, a different culture. Not that different. They got hungry, they ate meat. They needed something done, they used animals. Sounds pretty familiar to me whether we're talking food, plowing, or research. >>>> The Bible does address animal welfare. It does not say they have >>>> rights. > >>> It doesn't say HUMANS have rights either. None of His creatures >>> have rights against their Creator. But justice is a great issue, >>> and human and animal rights grow out of that Biblical concern. > >> Ipse dixit. Animal rights do not grow out of Biblical concern. The >> issue is pagan and foreign to the Bible. > > That is not true. The roots of animal and human rights are to be found > in the Bible and our Christian heritage. Ipse dixit. You're reading INTO texts to find that. >> The Bible addresses issues of welfare towards animals, but not to the >> extent that some, if not all, species cannot be killed, eaten, or used >> for our own benefit and welfare. > > As I said, a different culture. Shirking your responsibility by thinking different rules apply to you. Will there be any sins left when our entire culture is "oriented" or otherwise clinically-defined? > We advance, Tearing your church and its fellowship with other denominations apart isn't advance, it's regression. A very tragic step back. > through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The spirit guiding you and your church isn't God. It's your own belly. You snipped the proof of that again rather than deal with it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Christian vegetarianism
usual suspect wrote: > Rat replied to the following 1% of my post which she did not snip: >>>>> He taught that it's not what goes into a man that defiles him, but >>>>> what comes out of a man's mouth. The apostle Paul similarly urged >>>>> believers not to judge one another by diet or drink. >>>> Both of which >>> No. >> Yes > NO. Admit your error. You claimed both addressed a circumsion heresy. No, Usual -- I said, correctly, that both addressed Jewish ritual practices (see below). The issue of the significance of the Law (addressed by Christ) became an issue in the early church when applied to converts. > You were wrong. I was right. >>>> refer to controversies OF THE TIME about Jewish ritual >>>> practices ( like the issue of circumcision ) and whether they were >>>> required for non-Jewish converts. >>> Read Matthew 15 and tell me where Christ was addressing converts or >>> circumcision. He was addressing the legalism of the Pharisees, as >>> well as your own AR legalism. St Paul addressed the same matter in a >>> similar context. In both cases, it's clear that Christians should not >>> judge others on the basis of diet. >> Legalism is always an issue, on various topics, > We're not discussing various topics. We're discussing a narrow issue > witin a Biblical context. As I was; I am correct. The issue is not Law, but the spirit -- and the Christian spirit, the mind of Christ, deals with compassion, non-violence, and service and sacrifice by the higher for the lower. Christian AR is based in this spirit. >> and I think Biblical >> literalism is very similar to the Pharisees' idolatry of the Law -- > You can "think" whatever you want, but you need to deal with two aspects > of Scripture, the Law and the Gospel, to understand. Consider the > following article written by Michael Horton, a Reformed scholar, for a > quick synopsis of the issue. And since you're so caught up on academic > credentials, he has a doctorate from Oxford and he's a professor at > Westminster Theological Seminary. > http://snipurl.com/4er3 I'll read it later. I don't necessarily accept the teachings of Protestants. > Your church, like others from the Reformed tradition Our tradition is Catholic, Anglo-Catholic. We broke away on an issue of Church government, not Catholic doctrine, like the Protestant sects. <snip> > What you are failing to note is that Christ and Paul taught that the Law > serves a purpose even for believers. The Pharisees taught that the Law > made people holy (i.e., "what goes into a man's mouth"). That is also > the part addressed by Paul. He even asks himself in one of the epistles > if the law is meaningless, which is a point you seem to be trying to > make. His answer was NO. Yours seems to be yes. The Law has a function much like the 39 Articles. It is a historical document from a different culture and a different time, and it is valuable as an insight into the origins of our own beliefs, but it is no longer binding as written then. <snip> > Certain food and drink cannot make > us any more ethical than not buying certain things on Sunday or having a > beer: it's all BS whether right or left. But AR is not about "certain food and drink." It is about our attitude toward and treatment of God's creatures, given into our care. Vegetarianism is just one small aspect of AR thought. >> a concept which was condemned by both Christ and Paul. The important >> thing is to open ourselves to God's presence and respond to it. > Where do you find God or know what his will is? A good question, and one we all have to search out. >> I >> think a compassion toward God's creation and our fellow beings is >> central to that. > You have a very different view of "compassion" than most people, even > among Christians. Which, as Linzey remarks, is both true and unfortunate. > Your AR paradigms contradict the teachings of > Scripture and history and isn't a question of slavery or gang rape or > any of your other diversions. There are historical parallels and prototypes for AR thought among saints and teachers in the Church. >> I've been attending the Confirmation class in my parish -- I go to the >> Confirmation class in every parish I attend, because it is a wonderful >> way to learn how different priests approach the identity of the Church, > I would endorse this, too, of attending such courses in other > congregations which have a more traditional view. I was confirmed in 1958. I've DONE traditional, thank you.... >> and their individual emphases. This priest was stressing that we look >> into each others' faces and see Christ there. > The good priests will tell you to look in the Bible to find the real > Christ. No, that's part of the problem. Our priest was asking last week who we thought Jesus was. Everyone gave descriptions in the past tense. Our priest stressed that Jesus is not a dead historical figure; He is a living presence in the present, most visible in our actions toward our fellow creatures, human and non-human. > The touchy-feely ones seem to prefer the Christ-in-your-face to > the real one anyway. >> There was another *** (male) couple in the class -- together for 24 >> years -- and it was >> wonderful to see in them a reflection of our own growth in the church >> and our own search, > Yes, the "growth" that has torn apart the American church, ripped the > fellowship between the American church and all the other Anglican > bodies, and halted dialogue with other denominations. I don't exactly > see any of that as positive development. Nor do I. It's sad when rigid legalism and lack of charity split the church. As I said, it's not the liberals who are splitting the church and threatening schism; it's the conservatives who are leaving and setting up their own new denomination. >> and then to look around the circle and see Christ >> also in the faces of the little 12-year-old Oriental girl, > *Asian* girl. "Oriental" is perjorative unless you're speaking of > objects like antiques. If you say so. O.K. >> the other >> young people, the middle-aged ex-Presbyterian, and the middle-aged >> Irish ex-Roman priest. I offered the closing prayer, which I feel is >> the central commission Christ gives us: "Oh Lord, help us to see that >> we are all one in Thee, and give us the grace to serve Thee >> in each other." >>>> There is no relevance to animal rights at all. >>> Actually there is: both passages deal with forms of legalism. Both >>> Christ and St Paul are saying that we're defiled by what comes out of >>> our mouths and not what goes in it. You and other ARAs, like the >>> Pharisees, suggest ethics and morality are based upon diet and >>> lifestyle. You're diametrically at odds with Jesus and Paul about that. >> Would you suggest that ethics and morality have nothing to do with >> lifestyle? > Lifestyle meaning "vegan", AR, and homosexual, or even considering each > individually. One is not unclean or defiled by what he eats. Oh -- only YOUR definitions of lifestyle. I see.... >> That certainly has no basis in Scripture or the Church's >> teaching. You've been beating me on the head with complaints about >> the supposed evils of my "lifestyle" for some time here. Have you >> changed your opinion on that? > No, you've simply misinterpreted what I wrote. Uh-huh. Only YOUR particular hobby-horses. I see.... >>>> <snip> >>>>> The New Testament says a lot more about homosexuality (and all in >>>>> opposition to it!) >>>> It says nothing about homosexuality >>> Liar. It says a lot against it. >> Not as we understand it today, as an orientation. > You raise your red herring yet again. Those passages address people who > were oriented toward homosexuality back then, and they still address > them today. The only thing that has changed is the politics of it and > the condoning of it in some quarters. I doubt we'll ever agree, so I'll just leave it at that. >> <snip> >>> No. The Bible is not a manual for leftist thought. It's also not a >>> manual for right-wing thought, either. It is about man's relationship >>> with God: how it went awry, how it was put back together. To draw or >>> create *politics* from it -- ON EITHER SIDE -- misses its real >>> meaning and makes a mockery of its substance, which is Christ. >> If you > *I* do, you pompous and disingenuous nag. Geez. :-p >> and the other right-wing fundies would really understand that, > I can only speak and act for myself. I do not have any control over > anybody else. That includes a whole list of people whose words I dislike > as much as you do, but you've yet to cease the comparisons or falsely > aligning me with them. >> perhaps we could have a real, honest dialog. > I've tried with you and all you do is snip and accuse me of being Fred > Phelps. Are you capable of honest dialogue? Yes, with people who show they are willing to have one and treat other Christians with charity and respect. That lets you out. >> Our priest has spent >> his life (and earned his Doctorate ) in the theory and practice of >> Reconciliation, working in Ireland, the Balkans, and recently >> dialoging with Moslems from Afghanistan. <snip> >> I wish you could meet him and talk with him. > I'd set him straight. You think you know more about me than my priest -- or understand better what being a Christian means? Fine -- do what you want, believe what you want, I have no quarrel with that. But my priest is my priest, and if I want spiritual direction, I'll go to him, not you. Jon Ball, Mercer, and you other Antis taught me one very good lesson -- that none of us can become perfect through our own efforts. We do what we can, accept it will never be enough, and put the rest in God's hands. It was a hard lesson, but a valuable one. They also taught me one other good lesson -- NEVER show weakness. I opened my heart and discussed my spiritual crisis on this newsgroup once, and jonnie still brings it up as a triumph of the Antis and my "nervous breakdown." If I ever DID change my mind on anything, or have any doubts about my actions, you can be DAMN sure I'd never admit it again here. You are not honest searchers after truth and fellow Christians with concern for animals and our ethical obligations toward them. You are a bunch of vicious hyenas waiting to leap on any sign of weakness. I know you now, and I will never trust any of you in discussing serious issues ever again. <snip> >> Our unfallen state -- whether as myth or reality -- presents an >> image of what we should be. > Ipse dixit, and you're a Pharisee if you practice and teach such things. How so? <snip> >>> Ipse dixit. The dominion given man over ALL creatures is in conflict >>> with your statement. >> No, not at all. > Yes, completely. No, no more than the Kingship of God indicates earthly kings should be tyrants. >> The dominion (stewardship ) we are given is what >> compels us to recognize our obligations toward the creatures God >> gives into our care and concern, > And which in NO way prevents us from eating them or using them for our > welfare. Ipse dixit. <snip> >>>>> The Bible does address animal welfare. It does not say they have >>>>> rights. >>>> It doesn't say HUMANS have rights either. None of His creatures >>>> have rights against their Creator. But justice is a great issue, >>>> and human and animal rights grow out of that Biblical concern. >>> Ipse dixit. Animal rights do not grow out of Biblical concern. The >>> issue is pagan and foreign to the Bible. >> That is not true. The roots of animal and human rights are to be found >> in the Bible and our Christian heritage. <snip> > The spirit guiding you and your church isn't God. Ipse dixit. <snip> Rat |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
karen doesn't even realize her church *is* protestant
degeneRat wrote:
<...> >>> and I think Biblical >>> literalism is very similar to the Pharisees' idolatry of the Law -- > >> You can "think" whatever you want, but you need to deal with two >> aspects of Scripture, the Law and the Gospel, to understand. Consider >> the following article written by Michael Horton, a Reformed scholar, >> for a quick synopsis of the issue. And since you're so caught up on >> academic credentials, he has a doctorate from Oxford and he's a >> professor at Westminster Theological Seminary. >> http://snipurl.com/4er3 > > I'll read it later. I don't necessarily accept the teachings of > Protestants. From Grace Cathedral (SF) Episcopal Church's website: So... What, exactly, is Anglicanism? The Anglican Church is both Protestant and Catholic; it retains the organizational structure of the Roman Catholic tradition and incorporates theological insights of the Protestant reformation. http://www.20s30satgracecathedral.org/links.htm IOW, your church is Protestant in teaching (substance) and Romanist in hierarchy (form). From another Episcopal Church's FAQ: Q: What is the difference between the Episcopal and the Roman Catholic Churches? The Episcopal service seems very similar to the Roman Catholic Mass. So does my church's liturgy; so much so that one of my RC ex-girlfriends had no problem attending our services. A: They are similar. Some parts, in fact, are identical. We, however, are part of the worldwide Anglican Communion – the group of Churches that are "in communion" with the Church of England. We have some doctrinal differences with the Roman Church That should read "MANY doctrinal differences," but again it's a matter of form as noted next: – and, in places, we have differing interpretations of Christ's moral teachings. You can say that again. And again. And again. And again... But, in our basic structure, order, liturgy and spititual life, we are indeed very similar to the Roman Catholic Church. Yes, in the more outward vestiges of liturgy and hierarchy; some Reformed churches are also high church, but style isn't what the Reformation was about. Even some Lutheran denominations like ELCA maintain a bishop-oriented hierarchy, though it's a matter of adiaphora -- neither commanded nor forbidden -- for good order in the church. >> Your church, like others from the Reformed tradition > > Our tradition is Catholic, Anglo-Catholic. We broke away on an > issue of Church government, not Catholic doctrine, Yes, you did. My church claims to be catholic as well, and we are. You differ tremendously over the following Roman Catholic doctrines: * female ordination * contraception and abortion * papal infallibility * perpetual virginity of Mary * immaculate conception of Mary * assumption of Mary There are many more. > like the Protestant sects. Ipse dixit. Check with your priest or even your denomination's website. <snip> >>> a concept which was condemned by both Christ and Paul. The important >>> thing is to open ourselves to God's presence and respond to it. > >> Where do you find God or know what his will is? > > A good question, and one we all have to search out. Where do you start? <snip> >> The good priests will tell you to look in the Bible to find the real >> Christ. > > No, that's part of the problem. Our priest was asking last week who we > thought Jesus was. Everyone gave descriptions in the past tense. Our > priest stressed that Jesus is not a dead historical figure; He is a > living presence in the present, most visible in our actions toward our > fellow creatures, human and non-human. If I were to look in your face, I would find an AR misanthrope, a homosexual activist, a mother who did not raise her own son, someone who chooses to live with someone who *hates* babies and children, etc. I would not see the one who lived a perfect life in my place, suffered and died for my sins, and was raised again for my justification. That Christ still lives and is seated at the right hand of the Father to make intercession for me and for you. He is not a spiritual "presence" whose grunt work is carried out in leftwing political activism. <snip> >> Yes, the "growth" that has torn apart the American church, ripped the >> fellowship between the American church and all the other Anglican >> bodies, and halted dialogue with other denominations. I don't exactly >> see any of that as positive development. > > Nor do I. It's sad when rigid legalism I don't call their charitable efforts to discuss the matter "rigid legalism." I do call the uncharitable and radical moves away from Scripture and tradition, and away from good order in the church, schism. > and lack of charity split the church. I agree it was a lack of charity that caused the schism, I just disagree with you which side showed the lack of charity. > As I said, it's not the liberals who are splitting > the church Yes, it's the radicals who want homosexual bishops who are causing schism and division. > and threatening schism; it's the conservatives who are > leaving and setting up their own new denomination. They've no choice now that the apostacy has occurred. Guess who'll have fellowship with the other Anglican bodies and resume dialogues with the Roman Catholics and other churches. <...> >> Lifestyle meaning "vegan", AR, and homosexual, or even considering >> each individually. One is not unclean or defiled by what he eats. > > Oh -- only YOUR definitions of lifestyle. I see.... No, the one in the context of this discussion. <snip> >>>> No. The Bible is not a manual for leftist thought. It's also not a >>>> manual for right-wing thought, either. It is about man's >>>> relationship with God: how it went awry, how it was put back >>>> together. To draw or create *politics* from it -- ON EITHER SIDE -- >>>> misses its real meaning and makes a mockery of its substance, which >>>> is Christ. > >>> If you > >> *I* do, you pompous and disingenuous nag. Geez. :-p The *least* you could do is apologize for being so uncharitable. >>> and the other right-wing fundies would really understand that, > >> I can only speak and act for myself. I do not have any control over >> anybody else. That includes a whole list of people whose words I >> dislike as much as you do, but you've yet to cease the comparisons or >> falsely aligning me with them. > >>> perhaps we could have a real, honest dialog. > >> I've tried with you and all you do is snip and accuse me of being Fred >> Phelps. Are you capable of honest dialogue? > > Yes, with people who show they are willing to have one and treat other > Christians with charity and respect. That lets you out. Then why do you even bother replying? <snip> >>> I wish you could meet him and talk with him. > >> I'd set him straight. > > You think you know more about me than my priest -- I don't know what your priest knows about you, I only know what you've told these newsgroups. > or > understand better what being a Christian means? You can't even tell me where to find God or learn his will. You offer Christianity as though it's AR and homosexual activism. I don't think it is. I think those are tangential issues which Christianity can address, but they are so far from the center of Christianity's reality that they're unimportant. > Fine -- > do what you want, believe what you want, I have no quarrel > with that. But my priest is my priest, and if I want > spiritual direction, I'll go to him, not you. That's as it should be, but my beef with your choice of priests is that he's not giving you the full counsel of God's word. I already know you don't care about the full counsel for various reasons. So long as you offer your opinions as statements of fact, I will (a) clarify what the Bible actually says about those things and (b) state the historical perspective (novelty, etc) of what you opine. Homosexual and AR activism both are antithetical to the Bible and both are historical novelties. Your positions about homosexuality being an orientation are not supported by Scripture, history, or science, but rather by modern sociologists with political agendas. > Jon Ball, Mercer, and you other Antis taught me one very > good lesson -- that none of us can become perfect through > our own efforts. See? You could've read St Paul and learned that. Would've saved you a lot of effort. > We do what we can, accept it will never be > enough, and put the rest in God's hands. Actually, if you read St Paul and Christ, we have to put it ALL in God's hands. > It was a hard > lesson, but a valuable one. They also taught me one other > good lesson -- NEVER show weakness. I opened my heart > and discussed my spiritual crisis on this newsgroup once, > and jonnie still brings it up as a triumph of the Antis and > my "nervous breakdown." If it's the one he shared at TPA/AAEV the other day, how was that a *spiritual* crisis? Sounds like reality set in on one of those tangential issues. > If I ever DID change my mind on > anything, or have any doubts about my actions, you can be > DAMN sure I'd never admit it again here. Why not? I admitted my errors. Of course, that meant the vegans didn't like me anymore, but that was after they showed their true colors (red, pink, yellow). > You are not honest searchers after truth I'm honest and I do search after truth. > and fellow Christians with concern > for animals and our ethical obligations toward them. I care about animals. I feed and take care of feral cats. I also have my own little menagerie in here. That doesn't change the fact that AR isn't about Christianity and Christianity isn't about AR. My anti-AR views don't make me any less Christian, and my Christian faith doesn't incline me to the same AR position you hold: quite the contrary for reasons given in texts you snipped two messages ago. > You > are a bunch of vicious hyenas waiting to leap on any sign > of weakness. Take a good look at that sidekick of yours. There's your vicious hyena: Do I hate kids? Yes! -- Swan, Date: 2000/04/09 http://tinyurl.com/2f3wx Hate the very social structure that created me? Oh, Fertilla, you don't KNOW the homicidal fury that writhes within my form like a rotting pestilential tumor crying for its freedom! When I think back... when I ALLOW myself to think back to the pastel stucco houses, each with a tricycle or a swingset in the yard and a Cocker Spaniel or maybe a kitty named Mister Fluff, I want to scream. No, I want to do worse than that... I want to tear down those prim little houses, each festering in its own self-assured vileness! I want to firebomb the Chevy Suburbans, and **** a swastika into every dichondra infested lawn! I want to grab Ward Cleaver by his ****ing GONADS and rip his belly oepn to expose the wretched vomiting hypocrisy that fills him like gas fills a dead wildebeest in the African sun. I want to smash the windows to let in the wind and maybe dissipate the stench of June Cleaver's rotting viviparous snatch! Then I want to visit their neighbors, Ozzie and Harriet. Maybe I'll catch JUne and Harriet in a squirming ******* love-fest, if either of them can stand the stretched-out stench of their babyslots! Maybe we'll get lucky and see Ricky buggering the Beav with eight inches of steel hard social frustration screaming "I'll SHOW you whay they call you 'Beaver' you little faggot!" ....You want bitter ****s, Smurfetta, you GOT 'em! Bitter? Try so ****ing disgusted at a society that worships people in exact inverse ratio to their age! The egg os holier than the soaked Kotex, the zygote is better than the egg, but after that, it's ALL DOWNHILL, Baby! Praise the sacred ****ing FETUS, worry about the CHILLLLdrunnnn, but **** the adult, and SHITSCREW the poor senior citizen worthless pile of flesh that he is! **** Granny, but SAVE the bayyyybeeeee! Consider me the retroactive ABORTION rotting in you living room! You'll NEVER get me out of your carpet, no matter HOW hard you try! I ****ing BATHE in PetFresh and Febreeze and my rage STILL stinks to the high heavens, because when you get a whiff of ME you're smelling YOU! I AM YOUR BOIL lanced and splattered over your Sunday picnic! Get this loud and get this clear, I HATE CHILDREN. I hate YOUR children, I hate THEIR children, I hate every shitstain, every whine, squeal, drool, dribble and quiver of the little maggotty flesh loaves, ARE WE CLEAR ON THAT?! -- Swan, Date: 2000/02/12 http://snipurl.com/4ae8 I don't see what anyone could ever see in her. > I know you now, and I will never trust > any of you in discussing serious issues ever again. That's your loss, not mine. > <snip> > >>> Our unfallen state -- whether as myth or reality -- presents an >>> image of what we should be. > >> Ipse dixit, and you're a Pharisee if you practice and teach such things. > > How so? As I've noted several times now, you set up a paradigm of AR and veganism and judge others on it. IOW, you judge a man by what he puts in his mouth rather than what comes out of it -- going against Christ's teaching -- and you judge others on the basis of meat and drink -- going against St Paul's teaching. You are a legalist and a Pharisee, albeit one whose standards are set by caprice (it isn't the Holy Spirit) rather than Scripture. <snip> >> The spirit guiding you and your church isn't God. > > Ipse dixit. This has already been demonstrated by all the stuff you keep snipping. I know you don't like the Bible and seek to marginalize it, but it doesn't support what you're trying to put forward as Christian. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
karen doesn't even realize her church *is* protestant
usual suspect wrote:
> degeneRat wrote: > <...> > >>>> and I think Biblical >>>> literalism is very similar to the Pharisees' idolatry of the Law -- >> >> >>> You can "think" whatever you want, but you need to deal with two >>> aspects of Scripture, the Law and the Gospel, to understand. Consider >>> the following article written by Michael Horton, a Reformed scholar, >>> for a quick synopsis of the issue. And since you're so caught up on >>> academic credentials, he has a doctorate from Oxford and he's a >>> professor at Westminster Theological Seminary. >>> http://snipurl.com/4er3 >> >> >> I'll read it later. I don't necessarily accept the teachings of >> Protestants. Karen doesn't accept all kinds of things she finds inconvenient. She's a cafeteria Christian. > > > From Grace Cathedral (SF) Episcopal Church's website: > > So... What, exactly, is Anglicanism? > The Anglican Church is both Protestant and Catholic; it retains > the organizational structure of the Roman Catholic tradition and > incorporates theological insights of the Protestant reformation. > http://www.20s30satgracecathedral.org/links.htm > > IOW, your church is Protestant in teaching (substance) and Romanist in > hierarchy (form). > > From another Episcopal Church's FAQ: > Q: What is the difference between the Episcopal and the Roman > Catholic Churches? The Episcopal service seems very similar to > the Roman Catholic Mass. > > So does my church's liturgy; so much so that one of my RC ex-girlfriends > had no problem attending our services. > > A: They are similar. Some parts, in fact, are identical. We, > however, are part of the worldwide Anglican Communion – the > group of Churches that are "in communion" with the Church of > England. We have some doctrinal differences with the Roman > Church > > That should read "MANY doctrinal differences," but again it's a matter > of form as noted next: > > – and, in places, we have differing interpretations of > Christ's moral teachings. > > You can say that again. And again. And again. And again... > > But, in our basic structure, order, > liturgy and spititual life, we are indeed very similar to the > Roman Catholic Church. > > Yes, in the more outward vestiges of liturgy and hierarchy; some > Reformed churches are also high church, but style isn't what the > Reformation was about. Even some Lutheran denominations like ELCA > maintain a bishop-oriented hierarchy, though it's a matter of adiaphora > -- neither commanded nor forbidden -- for good order in the church. > >>> Your church, like others from the Reformed tradition >> >> >> Our tradition is Catholic, Anglo-Catholic. We broke away on an >> issue of Church government, not Catholic doctrine, > > > Yes, you did. My church claims to be catholic as well, and we are. You > differ tremendously over the following Roman Catholic doctrines: > > * female ordination > * contraception and abortion > * papal infallibility > * perpetual virginity of Mary > * immaculate conception of Mary > * assumption of Mary > > There are many more. > >> like the Protestant sects. > > > Ipse dixit. Check with your priest or even your denomination's website. > > <snip> > >>>> a concept which was condemned by both Christ and Paul. The important >>>> thing is to open ourselves to God's presence and respond to it. >> >> >>> Where do you find God or know what his will is? >> >> >> A good question, and one we all have to search out. > > > Where do you start? > > <snip> > >>> The good priests will tell you to look in the Bible to find the real >>> Christ. >> >> >> No, that's part of the problem. Our priest was asking last week who we >> thought Jesus was. Everyone gave descriptions in the past tense. Our >> priest stressed that Jesus is not a dead historical figure; He is a >> living presence in the present, most visible in our actions toward our >> fellow creatures, human and non-human. > > > If I were to look in your face, I would find an AR misanthrope, a > homosexual activist, a mother who did not raise her own son, someone who > chooses to live with someone who *hates* babies and children, etc. > > I would not see the one who lived a perfect life in my place, suffered > and died for my sins, and was raised again for my justification. That > Christ still lives and is seated at the right hand of the Father to make > intercession for me and for you. He is not a spiritual "presence" whose > grunt work is carried out in leftwing political activism. > > <snip> > >>> Yes, the "growth" that has torn apart the American church, ripped the >>> fellowship between the American church and all the other Anglican >>> bodies, and halted dialogue with other denominations. I don't exactly >>> see any of that as positive development. >> >> >> Nor do I. It's sad when rigid legalism > > > I don't call their charitable efforts to discuss the matter "rigid > legalism." I do call the uncharitable and radical moves away from > Scripture and tradition, and away from good order in the church, schism. > >> and lack of charity split the church. > > > I agree it was a lack of charity that caused the schism, I just disagree > with you which side showed the lack of charity. > >> As I said, it's not the liberals who are splitting >> the church > > > Yes, it's the radicals who want homosexual bishops who are causing > schism and division. > >> and threatening schism; it's the conservatives who are >> leaving and setting up their own new denomination. > > > They've no choice now that the apostacy has occurred. Guess who'll have > fellowship with the other Anglican bodies and resume dialogues with the > Roman Catholics and other churches. > > <...> > >>> Lifestyle meaning "vegan", AR, and homosexual, or even considering >>> each individually. One is not unclean or defiled by what he eats. >> >> >> Oh -- only YOUR definitions of lifestyle. I see.... > > > No, the one in the context of this discussion. > > <snip> > >>>>> No. The Bible is not a manual for leftist thought. It's also not a >>>>> manual for right-wing thought, either. It is about man's >>>>> relationship with God: how it went awry, how it was put back >>>>> together. To draw or create *politics* from it -- ON EITHER SIDE -- >>>>> misses its real meaning and makes a mockery of its substance, which >>>>> is Christ. >> >> >>>> If you >> >> >>> *I* do, you pompous and disingenuous nag. Geez. :-p > > > The *least* you could do is apologize for being so uncharitable. > >>>> and the other right-wing fundies would really understand that, >> >> >>> I can only speak and act for myself. I do not have any control over >>> anybody else. That includes a whole list of people whose words I >>> dislike as much as you do, but you've yet to cease the comparisons or >>> falsely aligning me with them. >> >> >>>> perhaps we could have a real, honest dialog. >> >> >>> I've tried with you and all you do is snip and accuse me of being >>> Fred Phelps. Are you capable of honest dialogue? >> >> >> Yes, with people who show they are willing to have one and treat other >> Christians with charity and respect. That lets you out. > > > Then why do you even bother replying? > > <snip> > >>>> I wish you could meet him and talk with him. >> >> >>> I'd set him straight. >> >> >> You think you know more about me than my priest -- > > > I don't know what your priest knows about you, I only know what you've > told these newsgroups. > >> or >> understand better what being a Christian means? > > > You can't even tell me where to find God or learn his will. You offer > Christianity as though it's AR and homosexual activism. I don't think it > is. I think those are tangential issues which Christianity can address, > but they are so far from the center of Christianity's reality that > they're unimportant. > >> Fine -- >> do what you want, believe what you want, I have no quarrel >> with that. But my priest is my priest, and if I want >> spiritual direction, I'll go to him, not you. > > > That's as it should be, but my beef with your choice of priests is that > he's not giving you the full counsel of God's word. I already know you > don't care about the full counsel for various reasons. So long as you > offer your opinions as statements of fact, I will (a) clarify what the > Bible actually says about those things and (b) state the historical > perspective (novelty, etc) of what you opine. > > Homosexual and AR activism both are antithetical to the Bible and both > are historical novelties. Your positions about homosexuality being an > orientation are not supported by Scripture, history, or science, but > rather by modern sociologists with political agendas. > >> Jon Ball, Mercer, and you other Antis taught me one very >> good lesson -- that none of us can become perfect through >> our own efforts. > > > See? You could've read St Paul and learned that. Would've saved you a > lot of effort. > >> We do what we can, accept it will never be >> enough, and put the rest in God's hands. > > > Actually, if you read St Paul and Christ, we have to put it ALL in God's > hands. > >> It was a hard >> lesson, but a valuable one. They also taught me one other >> good lesson -- NEVER show weakness. I opened my heart >> and discussed my spiritual crisis on this newsgroup once, >> and jonnie still brings it up as a triumph of the Antis and >> my "nervous breakdown." > > > If it's the one he shared at TPA/AAEV the other day, how was that a > *spiritual* crisis? Sounds like reality set in on one of those > tangential issues. > >> If I ever DID change my mind on >> anything, or have any doubts about my actions, you can be >> DAMN sure I'd never admit it again here. > > > Why not? I admitted my errors. Of course, that meant the vegans didn't > like me anymore, but that was after they showed their true colors (red, > pink, yellow). > >> You are not honest searchers after truth > > > I'm honest and I do search after truth. > >> and fellow Christians with concern >> for animals and our ethical obligations toward them. > > > I care about animals. I feed and take care of feral cats. I also have my > own little menagerie in here. That doesn't change the fact that AR isn't > about Christianity and Christianity isn't about AR. My anti-AR views > don't make me any less Christian, and my Christian faith doesn't incline > me to the same AR position you hold: quite the contrary for reasons > given in texts you snipped two messages ago. > >> You >> are a bunch of vicious hyenas waiting to leap on any sign >> of weakness. > > > Take a good look at that sidekick of yours. There's your vicious hyena: > > Do I hate kids? Yes! > -- Swan, Date: 2000/04/09 > http://tinyurl.com/2f3wx > > Hate the very social structure that created me? Oh, > Fertilla, you don't KNOW the homicidal fury that writhes within > my form like a rotting pestilential tumor crying for its > freedom! When I think back... when I ALLOW myself to think back > to the pastel stucco houses, each with a tricycle or a swingset > in the yard and a Cocker Spaniel or maybe a kitty named Mister > Fluff, I want to scream. No, I want to do worse than that... I > want to tear down those prim little houses, each festering in > its own self-assured vileness! I want to firebomb the Chevy > Suburbans, and **** a swastika into every dichondra infested > lawn! I want to grab Ward Cleaver by his ****ing GONADS and rip > his belly oepn to expose the wretched vomiting hypocrisy that > fills him like gas fills a dead wildebeest in the African sun. > I want to smash the windows to let in the wind and maybe > dissipate the stench of June Cleaver's rotting viviparous > snatch! Then I want to visit their neighbors, Ozzie and > Harriet. Maybe I'll catch JUne and Harriet in a squirming > ******* love-fest, if either of them can stand the stretched-out > stench of their babyslots! Maybe we'll get lucky and see Ricky > buggering the Beav with eight inches of steel hard social > frustration screaming "I'll SHOW you whay they call you 'Beaver' > you little faggot!" > > ....You want bitter ****s, Smurfetta, you GOT 'em! Bitter? Try > so ****ing disgusted at a society that worships people in exact > inverse ratio to their age! The egg os holier than the soaked > Kotex, the zygote is better than the egg, but after that, it's > ALL DOWNHILL, Baby! Praise the sacred ****ing FETUS, worry about > the CHILLLLdrunnnn, but **** the adult, and SHITSCREW the poor > senior citizen worthless pile of flesh that he is! **** Granny, > but SAVE the bayyyybeeeee! > > Consider me the retroactive ABORTION rotting in you living room! > You'll NEVER get me out of your carpet, no matter HOW hard you > try! I ****ing BATHE in PetFresh and Febreeze and my rage STILL > stinks to the high heavens, because when you get a whiff of ME > you're smelling YOU! I AM YOUR BOIL lanced and splattered over > your Sunday picnic! > > Get this loud and get this clear, I HATE CHILDREN. I hate YOUR > children, I hate THEIR children, I hate every shitstain, every > whine, squeal, drool, dribble and quiver of the little maggotty > flesh loaves, ARE WE CLEAR ON THAT?! > -- Swan, Date: 2000/02/12 > http://snipurl.com/4ae8 > > I don't see what anyone could ever see in her. > >> I know you now, and I will never trust >> any of you in discussing serious issues ever again. > > > That's your loss, not mine. > >> <snip> >> >>>> Our unfallen state -- whether as myth or reality -- presents an >>>> image of what we should be. >> >> >>> Ipse dixit, and you're a Pharisee if you practice and teach such things. >> >> >> How so? > > > As I've noted several times now, you set up a paradigm of AR and > veganism and judge others on it. IOW, you judge a man by what he puts in > his mouth rather than what comes out of it -- going against Christ's > teaching -- and you judge others on the basis of meat and drink -- going > against St Paul's teaching. You are a legalist and a Pharisee, albeit > one whose standards are set by caprice (it isn't the Holy Spirit) rather > than Scripture. > > <snip> > >>> The spirit guiding you and your church isn't God. >> >> >> Ipse dixit. > > > This has already been demonstrated by all the stuff you keep snipping. I > know you don't like the Bible and seek to marginalize it, but it doesn't > support what you're trying to put forward as Christian. > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
karen doesn't even realize her church *is* protestant -- iIt's
usual suspect wrote: > Rat wrote: <...> >> Our tradition is Catholic, Anglo-Catholic. We broke away on an >> issue of Church government, not Catholic doctrine, > Yes, you did. No, we _broke away_ on an issue of church government, not theology. Henry VIII was a staunch Catholic til the day of his death. The Church of England, and later the ECUSA, see-sawed back and forth over the next 300-plus years, but those of us who were brought up in the Anglo-Catholic tradition reject the term "protestant." OTOH, we let the low-church faction claim it if they wish. We are, however, not Roman (thank God). > Ipse dixit. Check with your priest or even your denomination's website. Hey -- my priest's an ex-Roman. <snip> >>>> a concept which was condemned by both Christ and Paul. The important >>>> thing is to open ourselves to God's presence and respond to it. >>> Where do you find God or know what his will is? >> A good question, and one we all have to search out. > Where do you start? With Scripture, Tradition, and Reason -- and listening to what God sends you in meditation and prayer, for me. > <snip> >>> The good priests will tell you to look in the Bible to find the real >>> Christ. >> No, that's part of the problem. Our priest was asking last week who we >> thought Jesus was. Everyone gave descriptions in the past tense. Our >> priest stressed that Jesus is not a dead historical figure; He is a >> living presence in the present, most visible in our actions toward our >> fellow creatures, human and non-human. > If I were to look in your face, I would find an AR misanthrope, a > homosexual activist, a mother who did not raise her own son, someone who > chooses to live with someone who *hates* babies and children, etc. But God and the Church tell us also, the image of Christ. Even Jon Ball, despite his wizened, black, and shriveled spirit and his cruelty, bears the image of Christ, and Christ died for him also, as for you and me. I pray for him. <snip> > I agree it was a lack of charity that caused the schism, I just disagree > with you which side showed the lack of charity. Well, there you are. That's often the problem, isn't it? <snip> >> and threatening schism; it's the conservatives who are >> leaving and setting up their own new denomination. > They've no choice now that the apostacy has occurred. Don't let the door hit you on the butt on your way out.... <snip> >> Yes, with people who show they are willing to have one and treat other >> Christians with charity and respect. That lets you out. > Then why do you even bother replying? Probably for the same reason you bother replying to me. I truly believe that AR represents one expression of Christ's presence in the world and a gift of the Holy Spirit, a deeper understanding of the Incarnation and God's relationship with His creation. <snip> > You offer > Christianity as though it's AR and homosexual activism. I think those reflect one aspect of God's justice in the world. > I don't think it > is. I think those are tangential issues which Christianity can address, > but they are so far from the center of Christianity's reality that > they're unimportant. I think they are a central aspect of Christ's sacrifice for the abused, downtrodden, and poor. Surely there are no creatures more helpless and innocent than God's animals, and few that suffer more. Christ is crucified in the suffering of the animals. Swan often says that she sees God in the image from the Animal Planet show of the starved, abused, dying dog whose last act as he died was to feebly wag his tail for the humans who had killed him. Surely, this is an image of Christ-like forgiveness and perfect love. <snip> > That's as it should be, but my beef with your choice of priests is that > he's not giving you the full counsel of God's word. In YOUR opinion. Not mine. <snip> >> Jon Ball, Mercer, and you other Antis taught me one very >> good lesson -- that none of us can become perfect through >> our own efforts. > See? You could've read St Paul and learned that. Would've saved you a > lot of effort. Ah -- I did read St. Paul. Jon, et. al. just provided the concrete experience in my own life. And, as is often the case, Jon's (and Mercer's) malice and cruelty brought about the opposite of their intended purpose, through the mercy of God and His grace. I am at peace, because I understand now what God was trying to show me through them, and I am now beyond their (and your) attacks. >> We do what we can, accept it will never be >> enough, and put the rest in God's hands. > Actually, if you read St Paul and Christ, we have to put it ALL in God's > hands. Tell that to Jon. >> It was a hard >> lesson, but a valuable one. They also taught me one other >> good lesson -- NEVER show weakness. I opened my heart >> and discussed my spiritual crisis on this newsgroup once, >> and jonnie still brings it up as a triumph of the Antis and >> my "nervous breakdown." > If it's the one he shared at TPA/AAEV the other day, how was that a > *spiritual* crisis? Sounds like reality set in on one of those > tangential issues. Yes, the reality of understanding I am not evil because I am fallible, human, and imperfect. <snip> >> You are not honest searchers after truth > I'm honest and I do search after truth. Will you accept that I am also? <snip> > I care about animals. I feed and take care of feral cats. I also have my > own little menagerie in here. That doesn't change the fact that AR isn't > about Christianity and Christianity isn't about AR. My anti-AR views > don't make me any less Christian, and my Christian faith doesn't incline > me to the same AR position you hold: quite the contrary for reasons > given in texts you snipped two messages ago. Accept that I disagree for the reasons I have given, but am equally a Christian. <snip> > I don't see what anyone could ever see in her. (Swan) That's because you don't know her in real life. She is fun, creative, intelligent, deeply loving and compassionate, honest, and God-centered. She has given herself to her fellow humans in a variety of ways, and cares for them in many ways. She sat death-watch with many terminal patients -- including her own grandmother -- and has showed tremendous love toward many of the least lovable people. She has amazing patience with them. You see a persona, a Web-creation. I see the real human being and thank God daily that she is a part of my life. >> I know you now, and I will never trust >> any of you in discussing serious issues ever again. > That's your loss, not mine. If you say so.  >> <snip> >>>> Our unfallen state -- whether as myth or reality -- presents an >>>> image of what we should be. >>> Ipse dixit, and you're a Pharisee if you practice and teach such things. >> How so? > As I've noted several times now, you set up a paradigm of AR and > veganism and judge others on it. Actually, I don't. Many times, I have said that I don't believe most meat-eaters, or even most animal-killers, vivisectionists, factory farmers and so on are evil PEOPLE. I believe what they do is evil. I believe it sincerely and with all my heart. I believe it on the basis of what I read in the Bible, the traditions ( minority, but there ) of the Church's history, and the illumination of the Holy Spirit in my life. You disagree. I don't think you are an evil person either -- but I do think and believe you are absolutely wrong, just as absolutely as you believe I am wrong. You will not convince me otherwise by throwing proof-texts at me -- Linzey throws them at you with equal facility, and I trust him a lot more than I trust you. God will judge, and I believe He will judge for mercy and stewardship and love, not cruelty and indifference and tyranny. Rat <snip> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
karen doesn't even realize her church *is* protestant -- iIt's
degeneRat wrote:
>>> Our tradition is Catholic, Anglo-Catholic. We broke away on an >>> issue of Church government, not Catholic doctrine, > >> Yes, you did. > > No, we _broke away_ on an issue of church government, not theology. No, the issue was Henry's divorce -- A POINT OF DOCTRINE. Following the split with Rome, Canterbury continued to reform on matters of DOCTRINE. > Henry VIII was a staunch Catholic til the day of his death. Ipse dixit. Had he been a staunch Roman Catholic, he would have very well accepted their DOCTRINE of marriage and divorce. > The Church of England, and later the ECUSA, see-sawed back and forth > over the next 300-plus years, but those of us who were brought up > in the Anglo-Catholic tradition reject the term "protestant." So does my church, but it is a matter of semantics since "Reformed" and "Evangelical" are synonymous with "Protestant." Your church is not RC-with-a-different-hierarchy. There are real doctrinal differences between you. > OTOH, we let the low-church faction claim it if they wish. Snob. > We are, however, not Roman (thank God). Snob. >> Ipse dixit. Check with your priest or even your denomination's website. > > Hey -- my priest's an ex-Roman. So? > <snip> > >>>>> a concept which was condemned by both Christ and Paul. The important >>>>> thing is to open ourselves to God's presence and respond to it. > >>>> Where do you find God or know what his will is? > >>> A good question, and one we all have to search out. > >> Where do you start? > > With Scripture, Tradition, Good answers there... > and Reason -- Somewhat acceptable, but even your church teaches (or used to) that man's ability to reason was corrupted in the fall. > and listening to what God > sends you in meditation and prayer, for me. God isn't telling you stuff contrary to what he's already spoken. You know, Karen, I have a lot more respect for people who reject the Bible and Christianity outright than I have for you. The only difference between them and you is that you want to wear the "Christian" name. >>>> The good priests will tell you to look in the Bible to find the real >>>> Christ. > >>> No, that's part of the problem. Our priest was asking last week who we >>> thought Jesus was. Everyone gave descriptions in the past tense. Our >>> priest stressed that Jesus is not a dead historical figure; He is a >>> living presence in the present, most visible in our actions toward our >>> fellow creatures, human and non-human. > >> If I were to look in your face, I would find an AR misanthrope, a >> homosexual activist, a mother who did not raise her own son, someone >> who chooses to live with someone who *hates* babies and children, etc. > > But God and the Church tell us also, the image of Christ. It is not in Christ's image to condone or promote bestiality and pedophilia, nor to hate children. Shall I keep pasting those quotes from you and Sylvia? I don't see what good it does. You only snip them. BTW... now that I'm raising the issue again. Is the prohibition against having sexual relations with animals also a cultural thing? Is bestiality also an "orientation"? If not, why do you condone it and even speak approvingly of it? > Even Jon > Ball, despite his wizened, black, and shriveled spirit and his > cruelty, bears the image of Christ, and Christ died for him also, as > for you and me. I pray for him. That's sweet of you. > <snip> > >> I agree it was a lack of charity that caused the schism, I just >> disagree with you which side showed the lack of charity. > > Well, there you are. That's often the problem, isn't it? It certainly is in your case. > <snip> > >>> and threatening schism; it's the conservatives who are >>> leaving and setting up their own new denomination. > >> They've no choice now that the apostacy has occurred. > > Don't let the door hit you on the butt on your way out.... See what I mean. > <snip> > >>> Yes, with people who show they are willing to have one and treat other >>> Christians with charity and respect. That lets you out. > >> Then why do you even bother replying? > > Probably for the same reason you bother replying to me. I don't think so, lol. > I truly believe > that AR represents one expression of Christ's presence in the world > and a gift of the Holy Spirit, a deeper understanding of the Incarnation > and God's relationship with His creation. Your job should be to reconcile that with Scripture. You can't, so you make unfounded claims about culture, orientation, and Christ's and Paul's narrowly focused messages against judging others on the basis of what they put into their mouths. >> You offer Christianity as though it's AR and homosexual activism. > > I think those reflect one aspect of God's justice in the world. Why? Where besides your incontextual allusion to Matthew 25 do you get that? >> I don't think it is. I think those are tangential issues which >> Christianity can address, but they are so far from the center of >> Christianity's reality that they're unimportant. > > I think they are a central aspect of Christ's sacrifice for the > abused, downtrodden, and poor. While I agree to some degree with you about AW, I don't share your view that it's central. Soteriology is about God and man reconciling in the work, passion, and resurrection of Christ. It is not about AR. > Surely there are no creatures more > helpless and innocent than God's animals, and few that suffer more. Have you seen how Christians are treated in China, Somalia, parts of Nigeria, or in all of Arabia? > Christ is crucified in the suffering of the animals. Ipse dixit. > Swan often says > that she sees God in the image from the Animal Planet show of the > starved, abused, dying dog whose last act as he died was to feebly wag > his tail for the humans who had killed him. Surely, this is an image > of Christ-like forgiveness and perfect love. Projecting an AR bias and trying to "Christianize" it. > <snip> > >> That's as it should be, but my beef with your choice of priests is >> that he's not giving you the full counsel of God's word. > > In YOUR opinion. Not mine. I know. I don't expect you to agree with me about that considering your low opinion of the Bible and your high opinion of what you 'feel' during meditations. > <snip> > >>> Jon Ball, Mercer, and you other Antis taught me one very >>> good lesson -- that none of us can become perfect through >>> our own efforts. > >> See? You could've read St Paul and learned that. Would've saved you a >> lot of effort. > > Ah -- I did read St. Paul. Jon, et. al. just provided the concrete > experience in my own life. And, as is often the case, Jon's > (and Mercer's) malice and cruelty Where's your condemnation of Sylvia's hatred of children? Why do you condone and approve of her hateful vitriol? That makes you come across as quite a hypocrite. > brought about the opposite of their > intended purpose, through the mercy of God and His grace. I am at > peace, because I understand now what God was trying to show me > through them, and I am now beyond their (and your) attacks. You keep coming back despite feeling "attacked." Why? >>> We do what we can, accept it will never be >>> enough, and put the rest in God's hands. > >> Actually, if you read St Paul and Christ, we have to put it ALL in >> God's hands. > > Tell that to Jon. Jon is free to join the discussion if he cares to discuss religious doctrine. >>> It was a hard >>> lesson, but a valuable one. They also taught me one other >>> good lesson -- NEVER show weakness. I opened my heart >>> and discussed my spiritual crisis on this newsgroup once, >>> and jonnie still brings it up as a triumph of the Antis and >>> my "nervous breakdown." > >> If it's the one he shared at TPA/AAEV the other day, how was that a >> *spiritual* crisis? Sounds like reality set in on one of those >> tangential issues. > > Yes, the reality of understanding I am not evil because I am fallible, > human, and imperfect. Jeremiah 17:9 > <snip> >>> You are not honest searchers after truth > >> I'm honest and I do search after truth. > > Will you accept that I am also? Yes, but I find you to be obstinate in the face of truth. I realize you probably see me the same way. That's fair. But like I said above, I have more respect for those who reject Christianity outright than those who pick and choose and modify and receive contrary revelations. > <snip> >> I care about animals. I feed and take care of feral cats. I also have >> my own little menagerie in here. That doesn't change the fact that AR >> isn't about Christianity and Christianity isn't about AR. My anti-AR >> views don't make me any less Christian, and my Christian faith doesn't >> incline me to the same AR position you hold: quite the contrary for >> reasons given in texts you snipped two messages ago. > > Accept that I disagree for the reasons I have given, but am equally > a Christian. Your opinions are at odds with both Scripture and tradition, as already shown. Whatever doesn't fit your worldview is categorized as culturally irrelevant, a matter of new understanding (such as orientation), or from a revelation (individually or collectively) of "progress" or "justice" contrary to Scripture. > <snip> >> I don't see what anyone could ever see in her. (Swan) > > That's because you don't know her in real life. She is > fun, creative, intelligent, deeply loving and compassionate, > honest, and God-centered. Hard to pick up on that from her posts. Very hard. > She has given herself to her > fellow humans in a variety of ways, and cares for them > in many ways. She sat death-watch with many terminal > patients -- including her own grandmother -- and has showed > tremendous love toward many of the least lovable people. > She has amazing patience with them. You see a persona, a > Web-creation. I see the real human being and thank God > daily that she is a part of my life. You admit she *hates* children. How is that consistent with what Christ teaches about children or brothers? <snip> >>>>> Our unfallen state -- whether as myth or reality -- presents an >>>>> image of what we should be. > >>>> Ipse dixit, and you're a Pharisee if you practice and teach such >>>> things. > >>> How so? > >> As I've noted several times now, you set up a paradigm of AR and >> veganism and judge others on it. > > Actually, I don't. You do. > Many times, I have said that I don't believe most > meat-eaters, or even most animal-killers, vivisectionists, factory > farmers and so on are evil PEOPLE. I believe what they do is evil. Why is it evil to try to find cures for diseases or to raise food for others? > I believe it sincerely and with all my heart. I believe it on the > basis of what I read in the Bible, the traditions ( minority, but there Very small minority, almost anomalies. > ) of the Church's history, and the illumination of the Holy Spirit in > my life. You disagree. Yes, especially when you claim the Holy Spirit is telling you something completely at odds with what he told St Paul, Jude, et al. Your revelations are no different from any televangelist's in nature. > I don't think you are an evil person either -- You don't know me. > but I do think and believe you are absolutely wrong, just as absolutely > as you believe I am wrong. That's fine. > You will not convince me otherwise by > throwing proof-texts at me -- I know. Your show less esteem for Scripture than your private revelations. > Linzey throws them at you with equal > facility, And he's wrong in his use of them, at least to the extent that he uses a parable (e.g., Matthew 25) to formulate doctrine related to animal rights. His views are NOT shared among your learned clergy or by any other theologians or scholars, only by ARAs. > and I trust him a lot more than I trust you. I know, because he preaches what you want to hear and I don't. > God will judge, and I believe He will judge for mercy and stewardship > and love, not cruelty and indifference and tyranny. Do you believe I am pro-cruelty, pro-indifference, or pro-tyranny? Who is any of those? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
karen doesn't even realize her church *is* protestant -- iIt's
usual suspect wrote: > Rat wrote: >>>> Our tradition is Catholic, Anglo-Catholic. We broke away on an >>>> issue of Church government, not Catholic doctrine, >>> Yes, you did. >> No, we _broke away_ on an issue of church government, not theology. > No, the issue was Henry's divorce He didn't have a divorce -- he had an annulment, and he got it on the perfectly sound point of doctrine that the Pope did not have the authority to set aside God's Law ( you should like that). He considered the Pope an apostate usurping false authority -- partly because the Pope at the time was under the guns of Catherine's nephew and didn't have much political wiggle-room. Cromwell brought in old theory on church/state relations going back to Constantine by claiming "This England is an Empire" and thus Henry, as king, had the same authority in his own realm as the Emperor had had in the Roman Empire as the representative of God. This was standard theory in the non-Roman nations in the Reformation period. -- A POINT OF DOCTRINE. Following the > split with Rome, Canterbury continued to reform on matters of DOCTRINE. True. >> Henry VIII was a staunch Catholic til the day of his death. > Ipse dixit. Had he been a staunch Roman Catholic, he would have very > well accepted their DOCTRINE of marriage and divorce. He did. He didn't accept the authority of the Pope in England. He had been granted a Papal dispensation to marry his brother's widow in the first place -- i.e., the pope had set aside church doctrine for political reasons, because Henry VII wanted to keep Catherine's dowry and the Spanish Alliance. So the marriage was already questionable. Once Henry and Cromwell and Cranmer refused to accept the authority of the Pope to grant the dispensation, the original impediment resurfaced. Henry's defense of his annulment was based on solidly Orthodox theology and church doctrine -- he was, after all, very educated in theology, and had just been declared "Defender of the Faith" for his argument against Luther in favor of the Church. As the second son, after Arthur, he had been intended to go into the Church and groomed for that all his life, until Arthur died. He also recognized that the political reasons which had led to the dispensation in the first place now demanded that the dispensation be put aside, so that he could (he hoped) sire a male heir to the throne. It was the usual complex Renaissance mix of politics, theology, and personal, on both sides. Under normal conditions, the Pope would have granted the annulment without blinking an eye, but Catherine's political ties to the Emperor frustrated that. >> The Church of England, and later the ECUSA, see-sawed back and forth >> over the next 300-plus years, but those of us who were brought up >> in the Anglo-Catholic tradition reject the term "protestant." > So does my church, but it is a matter of semantics since "Reformed" and > "Evangelical" are synonymous with "Protestant." Your church is not > RC-with-a-different-hierarchy. There are real doctrinal differences > between you. Absolutely. That's why we're ANGLO-Catholic, not ROMAN Catholic. >> OTOH, we let the low-church faction claim it if they wish. > Snob. Nope. Big Tent and all that. >> We are, however, not Roman (thank God). > Snob. Nope. Doctrinal and governmental issues. >>> Ipse dixit. Check with your priest or even your denomination's website. >> Hey -- my priest's an ex-Roman. > So? He believes we're Catholic. >> <snip> <snip> > Good answers there... >> and Reason -- > Somewhat acceptable, but even your church teaches (or used to) that > man's ability to reason was corrupted in the fall. Which explains your views. >> and listening to what God >> sends you in meditation and prayer, for me. > God isn't telling you stuff contrary to what he's already spoken. Indeed. > You know, Karen, I have a lot more respect for people who reject the > Bible and Christianity outright than I have for you. The only difference > between them and you is that you want to wear the "Christian" name. I think the same about you. <snip> > BTW... now that I'm raising the issue again. Is the prohibition against > having sexual relations with animals also a cultural thing? Is > bestiality also an "orientation"? If not, why do you condone it and even > speak approvingly of it? Yes, I think the prohibition is cultural, and certainly bestiality is also an orientation. I do think that zoophilia can be loving and respectful toward the non-human partner, and, as I said, can encourage a real understanding of the animal's individual personhood. It also, like any unequal power relationship, is very subject to abuse. I think responsible zoophiles have to be very careful, but I will not condemn such relationship categorically. <snip> >> I truly believe >> that AR represents one expression of Christ's presence in the world >> and a gift of the Holy Spirit, a deeper understanding of the Incarnation >> and God's relationship with His creation. > Your job should be to reconcile that with Scripture. You can't I may not be able to, but Linzey can, and does. Indeed, he founds his argument on Scripture. <snip> >> Surely there are no creatures more >> helpless and innocent than God's animals, and few that suffer more. > Have you seen how Christians are treated in China, Somalia, parts of > Nigeria, or in all of Arabia? Have you seen a battery chicken house or a swine confinement facility? >> Christ is crucified in the suffering of the animals. > Ipse dixit. It is a common idea, and true. <snip> > Where's your condemnation of Sylvia's hatred of children? It's really more fear than hatred. She doesn't hate real children, and deals well with them unless they threaten her. <snip> >> brought about the opposite of their >> intended purpose, through the mercy of God and His grace. I am at >> peace, because I understand now what God was trying to show me >> through them, and I am now beyond their (and your) attacks. > You keep coming back despite feeling "attacked." Why? Because I speak the truth and God has told me to speak it here, as he told the ancient prophets to speak it even in the face of persecution by the unrighteous. <snip> > Yes, but I find you to be obstinate in the face of truth. I realize you > probably see me the same way. That's fair. But like I said above, I have > more respect for those who reject Christianity outright than those who > pick and choose and modify and receive contrary revelations. I would say the same about you. There are those who reject what they see as Christianity because the organized churches are full of people like you. Swan was one of them for many years. But that can change, when they get to meet real Christians full of Christ's love toward all of Creation, as Swan did in the ECUSA. <snip> >> Many times, I have said that I don't believe most >> meat-eaters, or even most animal-killers, vivisectionists, factory >> farmers and so on are evil PEOPLE. I believe what they do is evil. > Why is it evil to try to find cures for diseases or to raise food for > others? It isn't. But to do it in evil ways is evil. <snip> >> God will judge, and I believe He will judge for mercy and stewardship >> and love, not cruelty and indifference and tyranny. > Do you believe I am pro-cruelty, pro-indifference, or pro-tyranny? Who > is any of those? No one -- as they see it. But you support a system which is, with specious perversions of Christianity which are more harmful than any honest non- or anti-Christian position. What you say is wrong, because it leads toward evil. "By their fruits shall ye know them," and the fruits of anti-AR and homophobia are oppression, contempt of God's creatures, needless suffering, perversion of God's creation, pride, cruelty, and death. I know you think the same of me. So, as I say, God will judge. I may be wrong. You may be wrong. But I will speak what I believe is God's truth. Rat |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
karen doesn't even realize her church *is* protestant -- iIt's
Rat wrote:
Before I correct more of your mistakes, I want you to consider the following part of the coronation oath taken by the British monarch: Archbishop or bishop, "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the gospel and the *Protestant* *reformed* religion established by law, and will you preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this Realm, and to the churches committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them, or any of them?" King and Queen, "All this I promise to do." http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/parliament/oath.htm My emphasis. Why does the *head* of the church call it "Protestant" and "reformed" but you won't? >>>>> Our tradition is Catholic, Anglo-Catholic. We broke away on an >>>>> issue of Church government, not Catholic doctrine, > >>>> Yes, you did. > >>> No, we _broke away_ on an issue of church government, not theology. > >> No, the issue was Henry's divorce > > He didn't have a divorce -- he had an annulment, Distinction without any difference. > and he got > it on the perfectly sound point of doctrine that the Pope did > not have the authority to set aside God's Law ( you should like that). The grounds he sought were not on the primacy of the pope, but rather on the grounds that Catherine could not bear him a male heir. That is not a valid ground in Scripture *or* tradition. > He considered the Pope an apostate usurping false authority -- That's also one reason why other monarchs stood up against the papacy during the early 1500s. > partly because the Pope at the time was under the guns of Catherine's > nephew and didn't have much political wiggle-room. The pope refused annulment on doctrinal, not political, grounds. > Cromwell brought > in old theory on church/state relations going back to Constantine > by claiming "This England is an Empire" and thus Henry, as king, had > the same authority in his own realm as the Emperor had had in the > Roman Empire as the representative of God. This was standard theory > in the non-Roman nations in the Reformation period. In another sense, the Reformation was similarly based in old "theories" about the grace, faith, and Scripture alone (pre-)dating to Augustine's time. Luther was an Augustinian monk; his 95 theses were consistent with Augustine and other church fathers. >> -- A POINT OF DOCTRINE. Following the >> split with Rome, Canterbury continued to reform on matters of DOCTRINE. > > True. > >>> Henry VIII was a staunch Catholic til the day of his death. > >> Ipse dixit. Had he been a staunch Roman Catholic, he would have very >> well accepted their DOCTRINE of marriage and divorce. > > He did. He didn't accept the authority of the Pope in England. He didn't accept his primacy anywhere except Rome, as the kings of Sweder, Norway, Germany, etc., did. > He had been granted a Papal dispensation to marry his brother's > widow in the first place -- i.e., the pope had set aside church > doctrine for political reasons, because Henry VII wanted to keep > Catherine's dowry and the Spanish Alliance. So the marriage was > already questionable. Once dispensation is granted for the grounds of the marriage, annulling it is no different than any other marriage. Henry wanted to divorce his wife for one reason only: she didn't bear him a living male heir. That is not grounds for divorce for king or commoner. > Once Henry and Cromwell and Cranmer > refused to accept the authority of the Pope to grant the > dispensation, the original impediment resurfaced. > > Henry's defense of his annulment was based on solidly Orthodox > theology and church doctrine -- No, it wasn't. It was legalistic sophistry. > he was, after all, very educated > in theology, and had just been declared "Defender of the Faith" > for his argument against Luther in favor of the Church. Specifically, he defended the Seven Sacraments -- one of which happens to be marriage. > As the > second son, after Arthur, he had been intended to go into the Church > and groomed for that all his life, until Arthur died. He also > recognized that the political reasons which had led to the dispensation > in the first place now demanded that the dispensation be put aside, > so that he could (he hoped) sire a male heir to the throne. Which is NOT sufficient grounds for divorce for king or commoner. > It was the usual complex Renaissance mix of politics, theology, and > personal, on both sides. Under normal conditions, the Pope would have > granted the annulment without blinking an eye, but Catherine's > political ties to the Emperor frustrated that. I don't accept that it was all political, though I know *some* historians suggest that it was. >>> The Church of England, and later the ECUSA, see-sawed back and forth >>> over the next 300-plus years, but those of us who were brought up >>> in the Anglo-Catholic tradition reject the term "protestant." > >> So does my church, but it is a matter of semantics since "Reformed" >> and "Evangelical" are synonymous with "Protestant." Your church is not >> RC-with-a-different-hierarchy. There are real doctrinal differences >> between you. > > Absolutely. That's why we're ANGLO-Catholic, not ROMAN Catholic. There's much more to it than just your names imply. >>> OTOH, we let the low-church faction claim it if they wish. > >> Snob. > > Nope. Yes. > Big Tent and all that. Too bad the tent's not big enough for the traditionalists: not just the Americans, but those in the rest of Anglicanism who are breaking ties with what's left of your church. >>> We are, however, not Roman (thank God). > >> Snob. > > Nope. Doctrinal and governmental issues. More doctrinal than hierarchy. >>>> Ipse dixit. Check with your priest or even your denomination's website. > >>> Hey -- my priest's an ex-Roman. > >> So? > > He believes we're Catholic. So? You also think you're correct, and you're not. We can't stop either of you from harboring your delusions. <...> >> Somewhat acceptable, but even your church teaches (or used to) that >> man's ability to reason was corrupted in the fall. > > Which explains your views. PKB, especially when comparing what each of us professes about homosexuality in light of: The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. Romans 1:18-32 IOW, your "orientation" is the culmination of being turned over to your lusts and depravity. >>> and listening to what God >>> sends you in meditation and prayer, for me. > >> God isn't telling you stuff contrary to what he's already spoken. > > Indeed. It's Satan, not God, telling you those things. >> You know, Karen, I have a lot more respect for people who reject the >> Bible and Christianity outright than I have for you. The only >> difference between them and you is that you want to wear the >> "Christian" name. > > I think the same about you. So we're even. > <snip> > >> BTW... now that I'm raising the issue again. Is the prohibition >> against having sexual relations with animals also a cultural thing? Is >> bestiality also an "orientation"? If not, why do you condone it and >> even speak approvingly of it? > > Yes, I think the prohibition is cultural, and certainly bestiality is > also an orientation. I do think that zoophilia can be loving and > respectful toward the non-human partner, and, as I said, can encourage > a real understanding of the animal's individual personhood. It also, > like any unequal power relationship, is very subject to abuse. I think > responsible zoophiles have to be very careful, but I will not condemn > such relationship categorically. I'll save that quote for future reference. I promise to use it in its entire context, too. > <snip> > >>> I truly believe >>> that AR represents one expression of Christ's presence in the world >>> and a gift of the Holy Spirit, a deeper understanding of the Incarnation >>> and God's relationship with His creation. > >> Your job should be to reconcile that with Scripture. You can't > > I may not be able to, but Linzey can, and does. Only by stretching it. The use of Matthew 25 -- the parable of the sheeps and goats -- is instructive, but to narrowly use it as you and Linzey do is to alter its meaning. The goats have works -- MORE works -- than the sheep. Heaven is offered not as a reward, but as an inheritence: something earned by someone else and bestowed upon the earner's death. > Indeed, he founds his argument on Scripture. Why do so many of his fellow churchmen disagree with him when they read the same Bible? Could it *possibly* be that he's reading INTO texts things nobody else has ever read OUT of them? He is an eisegete, not an exegete. > <snip> > >>> Surely there are no creatures more >>> helpless and innocent than God's animals, and few that suffer more. > >> Have you seen how Christians are treated in China, Somalia, parts of >> Nigeria, or in all of Arabia? > > Have you seen a battery chicken house or a swine confinement facility? Yes, most such animals are treated quite well. They're not in a few instances. Not all "factory" farming is bad. >>> Christ is crucified in the suffering of the animals. > >> Ipse dixit. > > It is a common idea, No, it is not widely held. Your point is now appeal to popularity. > and true. Still ipse dixit. > <snip> > >> Where's your condemnation of Sylvia's hatred of children? > > It's really more fear than hatred. Fear of what? > She doesn't hate real children, What other kinds are there? > and deals well with them unless they threaten her. How do children threaten her? > <snip> > >>> brought about the opposite of their >>> intended purpose, through the mercy of God and His grace. I am at >>> peace, because I understand now what God was trying to show me >>> through them, and I am now beyond their (and your) attacks. > >> You keep coming back despite feeling "attacked." Why? > > Because I speak the truth When? > and God has told me to speak it here, When did he tell you this, and what exactly did he say? > as he told the ancient prophets to speak it even in the face > of persecution by the unrighteous. Delusion of grandeur. You're no Isaiah. >> Yes, but I find you to be obstinate in the face of truth. I realize >> you probably see me the same way. That's fair. But like I said above, >> I have more respect for those who reject Christianity outright than >> those who pick and choose and modify and receive contrary revelations. > > I would say the same about you. There are those who reject what they > see as Christianity because the organized churches are full of people > like you. You still don't know me or what I believe. You seem to have a caricature based on what you *think* I believe (Fred Phelps references, fundie, etc.), but that's a strawman. <snip> >>> Many times, I have said that I don't believe most >>> meat-eaters, or even most animal-killers, vivisectionists, factory >>> farmers and so on are evil PEOPLE. I believe what they do is evil. > >> Why is it evil to try to find cures for diseases or to raise food for >> others? > > It isn't. But to do it in evil ways is evil. What's evil about testing something on monkeys and rats before giving it to a child? What's evil about raising cattle? >>> God will judge, and I believe He will judge for mercy and stewardship >>> and love, not cruelty and indifference and tyranny. > >> Do you believe I am pro-cruelty, pro-indifference, or pro-tyranny? Who >> is any of those? > > No one -- as they see it. But you support a system which is, No, I don't make the same leaps of (il)logic that you do. Nor do I equate the life of a rodent with the life of a human. > with > specious perversions of Christianity My Christian faith isn't a perversion, and it certainly isn't specious. > which are more harmful than any > honest non- or anti-Christian position. Here again, I think the same of you and your apostate views. > What you say is wrong, Ipse dixit. I have shown you repeatedly in Scripture AND tradition that my points are valid. Your use of Scripture is to deny it, to say it's culturally irrelevant or obsolete, and to twist it to suit your purposes (such as taking the parable in Matthew 25 out of context to build a pretext). > because it leads toward evil. Ipse dixit. You promote what the Bible calls evil, and you condemn what it calls good. You even condone and approve of pedophilia and bestiality, as if your promotion of homosexuality weren't bad enough. Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil... Isaiah 5:20 Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5:18-19 Heaven and earth have not passed away. Why are you teaching others to break Christ's commandments? > "By their fruits shall ye know them," Yes. We see you coming from a mile away. > and the fruits of anti-AR and homophobia are oppression, No. One can be anti-AR without being oppressive. One can also disapprove of homosexuality and homosexual marriage without oppressing. > contempt of God's creatures, Neither opposing AR or disapproving of homosexuality is an act of contempt. When done purposefully, as in citing Biblical reasons to another Christian, it is quite the opposite: it is an attempt to correct an erring brother or sister. I'm sorry you don't see it for what it really is, but I recognize that you an agenda and don't care what the Bible says about the matters dearest to your heart. > needless suffering, perversion of God's creation, > pride, cruelty, and death. Nobody is promoting any of those. > I know you think the same of me. So, as I say, God will judge. I may > be wrong. You are. > You may be wrong. I'm not. > But I will speak what I believe is God's truth. And I will refute it with what God's word actually says. :-) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
karen doesn't even realize her church *is* protestant
<snipped>
I have a personal anecdote that beats that. During my childhood/teenage years, my parents were devout members of the local United Methodist Church so all eight of their children were in Church 52 Sundays a year and a lot of days in between. After graduation, one of my older brothers joined the Marine Corps. While in Basic Training at Parris Island, he sent my parents a letter stating that there were only two choices for Christian worship at boot camp: Catholic and Protestant. He decided against Catholicism for some reason. In a very apologetic letter, he stated he hoped my parents didn't object to the fact he was attending a Protestant Church. Kevin |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
karen doesn't even realize her church *is* protestant
K D B wrote:
> I have a personal anecdote that beats that. During my > childhood/teenage years, my parents were devout members of the local > United Methodist Church so all eight of their children were in Church > 52 Sundays a year and a lot of days in between. After graduation, one > of my older brothers joined the Marine Corps. While in Basic Training > at Parris Island, he sent my parents a letter stating that there were > only two choices for Christian worship at boot camp: Catholic and > Protestant. He decided against Catholicism for some reason. In a very > apologetic letter, he stated he hoped my parents didn't object to the > fact he was attending a Protestant Church. That's funny. I've heard similar anecdotes. It also reminds me of an old joke for some reason... This guy from Arkansas went to Washington, DC, when President Kennedy was in office. He decided to tour the White House. The tour wound its way through the various parts of the White House, and the tour guide paused at a bathroom. "Since the President and his family are devoutly Roman Catholic, they've had the whole house blessed by a priest. In fact, now the White House has holy water running through all the pipes, in the showers, even in the commode." The guy returned to Arkansas and told his friends all about Washington and the White House. "You know, that Kennedy fella has holy water piped in that whole house. They even have holy water in the commode." His friends scratched their heads. One of them asked, "What's a commode?" The guy looked puzzled. "Gee, I don't know. I ain't Catholic." |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Lab-Grown Meat May Save a Lot More than Farm Animals’ Lives | General Cooking | |||
| How producing “ethical, zero-harm” plant food for vegans and vegetarians kills more animals than, well, actually killing animals for the purpose of eating them. | General Cooking | |||
| "Consideration for the lives of farm animals" - meaningless tripe | Vegan | |||
| Non-existent - but NOT imaginary - farm animals | Vegan | |||
| A day on the farm | General Cooking | |||
Hybrid Mode
