William Ramier
wonders why people are all talking about this 21st of May thing.
Friday at 8:24pm via Text Message · Friends Only · UnlikeLike ·
*
*
You like
William Ramier It's highly improbable. Highly.
Friday at 9:18pm · Like
#
William Ramier Memo? I didn't even hear about this until a few days ago. Now, it seems to be all everybody is talking about. And, it makes me a little angry too to tell you the truth....
Friday at 10:52pm · LikeUnlike
#
William Ramier Well, you can have your dog dogsat now....
Friday at 11:12pm · LikeUnlike
#
William Ramier It's Sunday in Oz now. Or was it on EST?
Yesterday at 10:05am · LikeUnlike
#
William Ramier I don't know how anybody could accurately predict the end of the world. I think it's very sad that people are selling their stuff and giving their money away because of Harold Camping. It's enraging. Plus, this guy is making Christians look like idiots.
Yesterday at 4:40pm · Like
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Atheists?
"Pour out your wrath upon the heathen who have not known you and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon your name." Psalms 79:6 (BAS)
Monday, May 16, 2011
Random Thoughts Part 4
The apostles in the early Church warned against a herracy at the time that taught that Jesus was only a spirit and not a man. It seems that in our time the herracy is that Jesus was only an animal, thereby proclaiming that we are all only meat and every word he spoke about the Father was a lie.
Random Thoughts Part 3
My dad said something like this once:
You're better to believe in God than not. If you don't believe in God, and you die and there isn't a God, you'll be right but you won't have the satisfaction of knowing it. If you believe in God and you die and there isn't a God, at least you died happy knowing you were going to a better place. If you believe in God and die and there is a God, then you have entered the kingdom [you hope]. If you don't believe in God and die and there is a God, you're in a lot of crap.
You're better to believe in God than not. If you don't believe in God, and you die and there isn't a God, you'll be right but you won't have the satisfaction of knowing it. If you believe in God and you die and there isn't a God, at least you died happy knowing you were going to a better place. If you believe in God and die and there is a God, then you have entered the kingdom [you hope]. If you don't believe in God and die and there is a God, you're in a lot of crap.
Random Thoughts Part 2
"I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark." Stephen Hawking
I liked Stephen Hawking a lot; why'd he have to go and be an atheist. He seems to have only gone public with his beliefs on God recently. Or, at least it's only been recently that the media has been covering it.
Are we just meat? Is their nothing more? It's disappointing that a man who is so smart can not open his mind.
I liked Stephen Hawking a lot; why'd he have to go and be an atheist. He seems to have only gone public with his beliefs on God recently. Or, at least it's only been recently that the media has been covering it.
Are we just meat? Is their nothing more? It's disappointing that a man who is so smart can not open his mind.
Some Random Thoughts
If there is no God, and the meaning of life is to procreate, then homosexuality is a disease.
If there is a God, and homosexuality is wrong, then they need Jesus.
If there is a God, and He's okay with homosexuality, then we need Jesus.
We all need Jesus.
If there is a God, and homosexuality is wrong, then they need Jesus.
If there is a God, and He's okay with homosexuality, then we need Jesus.
We all need Jesus.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
For the 2011 Synod of Huron
ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who by your Holy Spirit did preside in the council of the blessed Apostles, and has promised, through your Son Jesus Christ, to be with your Church to the end of the world: We beseech you to be present with the Synod of the Diocese of Huron now assembled in your Name. Save its members from all error, ignorance, pride, and prejudice; and of your great mercy vouchsafe so to direct, govern, and sanctify them in their deliberations by your Holy Spirit, that through your blessing the Gospel of Christ may be faithfully preached and obeyed, the order and discipline of your Church maintained, and the kingdom of our Lord and Saviour enlarged and extended. Grant this, we beseech you, through the merits and meditation of the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Taken from The Book of Common Prayer.
Taken from The Book of Common Prayer.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
The Way God Made Me
I was digging through some old college papers and stuff the other day, and I found an old O.B. paper I'd written, with the results of my personality type. Here is who God made me:
ISTJ
Profile:
ISTJs are characterized as serious and quiet. They become successful through their ability to concentrate and perform tasks in a thorough manner. They are practical, logical, dependable, orderly, matter-of-fact, and well-organized. They are not easily distracted and make up their own minds about how a job should be accomplished regardless of outside protest or interference. They pay great attention to details and operate well in stable environments. They do not like things that are frivolous or new, and are patient and sensible.
Attributes:
Conservative, decisive, dependable, duty-bound, factual, organized, painstaking, practical, realistic, reliable, sensible, stable, steadfast, systematic, thorough.
Preferred Work Environment:
They prefer to work in a structured, orderly, task-oriented environment that allows them to work independently and privately so that their work can be uninterrupted. They like organizations in which they have a good measure of security that will provide rewards for their steady work. They like their colleagues to be as hard-working as they are and to be interested in producing results from an analysis of the facts.
Interpersonal Style:
These people readily accept responsibility and are well-organized. When they serve in leading administrative positions, they produce a stabilizing influence and show good judgment and a memory for details. When their own needs have been firmly established, they are able to respect the needs of others.
Possible Developmental Needs:
These people sometimes need to develop a deeper understanding of their colleagues and coworkers. It is particularly valuable for them to learn to acknowledge others openly. They may need to give more attention to organizing the way they deal with the outer world and to avoid becoming too preoccupied with their inner life. Attempting new approaches can keep them from getting stuck in monotonous routine.
ISTJ
Profile:
ISTJs are characterized as serious and quiet. They become successful through their ability to concentrate and perform tasks in a thorough manner. They are practical, logical, dependable, orderly, matter-of-fact, and well-organized. They are not easily distracted and make up their own minds about how a job should be accomplished regardless of outside protest or interference. They pay great attention to details and operate well in stable environments. They do not like things that are frivolous or new, and are patient and sensible.
Attributes:
Conservative, decisive, dependable, duty-bound, factual, organized, painstaking, practical, realistic, reliable, sensible, stable, steadfast, systematic, thorough.
Preferred Work Environment:
They prefer to work in a structured, orderly, task-oriented environment that allows them to work independently and privately so that their work can be uninterrupted. They like organizations in which they have a good measure of security that will provide rewards for their steady work. They like their colleagues to be as hard-working as they are and to be interested in producing results from an analysis of the facts.
Interpersonal Style:
These people readily accept responsibility and are well-organized. When they serve in leading administrative positions, they produce a stabilizing influence and show good judgment and a memory for details. When their own needs have been firmly established, they are able to respect the needs of others.
Possible Developmental Needs:
These people sometimes need to develop a deeper understanding of their colleagues and coworkers. It is particularly valuable for them to learn to acknowledge others openly. They may need to give more attention to organizing the way they deal with the outer world and to avoid becoming too preoccupied with their inner life. Attempting new approaches can keep them from getting stuck in monotonous routine.
Jesus in Another Psalm
I was reading Psalm 68 last night, and I saw Jesus in it (old testament scripture) again. In the 29th verse it speaks of kings bringing Him gifts. In verse 31, it seems there is a Judas reference: "Trample down those who lust after sliver; scatter the peoples that delight in war." There is so much of Jesus in the Psalms; it continues to surprise me.
Religious Arguments Against SSM
As I've said before, the Bible says that same sex marriage (SSM) is wrong. Liberals will tell you that it's about temple prostitutes and not homosexual relationships. They will tell you that the Angels destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, not because the men wanted to have sex with the Angels, but because they wanted to have sex with Angels. They will tell you that the writers of the Bible were human and were influenced by their culture and time; in essence, they were ignorant and simple, not enlightened as we are today.
I believe that the Bible is the Holy Word of God. At the very least, it is divinely inspired. Liberal exegesis will tell you that the Bible doesn't say what it says; when it ways gay is bad, it really means gay is good. Who was the Bible for, the common every day Christian or the PhD educated Doctor of the Church? Jesus chose fishermen. Would God try to trick us? Or, would His word be in plain language for the people? Do you have to be a history major and know all the cultural nuances of the writers of the New Testament to read between the lines? e.g. Oh, I see, when they say homosexuals, they're really talking only about the temple prostitutes that existed in pagan practices as sex offerings to the fertility god/goddess/cult.
Love, love is the other liberal argument. Love first. Love not hate, and accept gay people. Love them and accept them the way God made them. Here's the problem though: Jesus said love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength; then, love your neighbour as yourself [second].
The conditions for marriage are set out in the 7th chapter of 1st Corinthians.
Why was it considered wrong by the Church for thousands of years, and now it's good? Could the Church have been changed by the world? Are we supposed to be of the world?
So, what does the Bible say? Here are some scriptures below:
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual 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 shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." Romans 1:26-27 (NIV)
"We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me." 1 Timothy 1:9-11 (NIV)
"Surely you know that the wicked will not possess God's Kingdom. Do not fool yourselves; people who are immoral or who worship idols or are adulterers or homosexual perverts or who steal or are greedy or are drunkards or who slander others or are thieves--none of these will possess God's Kingdom."
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (TEV)
"But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.'" Revelation 21:8 (NIV)
"In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." Jude 1:7 (NIV)
"They are going to end up in hell, because their god is their bodily desires. They are proud of what they should be ashamed of, and they think only of things that belong to this world." Philippians 3:19 (TEV)
So, why is the Church saying now that SSM is good? This scripture comes to mind: "Well, no wonder! Even Satan can disguise himself to look like an angel of light! So, it is no great thing if his servants disguise themselves to look like servants of righteousness. In the end they will get exactly what their actions deserve." 2 Corinthians 11:15-15 (TEV)
"But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. They said to you, 'In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.' These are the people who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit. But you, dear friends, by building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life. Be merciful to those who doubt; save others by snatching them from the fire; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh." Jude 1:17-23 (NIV)
Let us not deceive ourselves; the Bible does say that it is wrong. Or, as St. Paul says, "Do not fool yourselves."
That being said, consuming blood is also wrong. I can't say that gay people are going to hell. First of all, I can't judge them. Second, that's between them and God. Scripture also says, "Who are you to judge a servant of the Master?" Also, St. Paul talks so much about judging others (Romans 14:1-end) and about everything being acceptable (1 Corinthians 6:12 & 10:23-end), about Jesus releasing us from the law (Galatians 5:1-end). So, I have no real answer. I believe it is wrong, but I can't force that view on a gay person, nor do I want to set up a stumbling block for them. It's a hard issue to deal with for our time. Very hard.
So, if everything is acceptable, as St. Paul says. And, if a gay person is okay with it--their conscience is clear--and they give thanks to God, then what? Is it really wrong for them? Should I eat what they set before me?
I believe that the Bible is the Holy Word of God. At the very least, it is divinely inspired. Liberal exegesis will tell you that the Bible doesn't say what it says; when it ways gay is bad, it really means gay is good. Who was the Bible for, the common every day Christian or the PhD educated Doctor of the Church? Jesus chose fishermen. Would God try to trick us? Or, would His word be in plain language for the people? Do you have to be a history major and know all the cultural nuances of the writers of the New Testament to read between the lines? e.g. Oh, I see, when they say homosexuals, they're really talking only about the temple prostitutes that existed in pagan practices as sex offerings to the fertility god/goddess/cult.
Love, love is the other liberal argument. Love first. Love not hate, and accept gay people. Love them and accept them the way God made them. Here's the problem though: Jesus said love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength; then, love your neighbour as yourself [second].
The conditions for marriage are set out in the 7th chapter of 1st Corinthians.
Why was it considered wrong by the Church for thousands of years, and now it's good? Could the Church have been changed by the world? Are we supposed to be of the world?
So, what does the Bible say? Here are some scriptures below:
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual 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 shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error." Romans 1:26-27 (NIV)
"We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me." 1 Timothy 1:9-11 (NIV)
"Surely you know that the wicked will not possess God's Kingdom. Do not fool yourselves; people who are immoral or who worship idols or are adulterers or homosexual perverts or who steal or are greedy or are drunkards or who slander others or are thieves--none of these will possess God's Kingdom."
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (TEV)
"But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.'" Revelation 21:8 (NIV)
"In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." Jude 1:7 (NIV)
"They are going to end up in hell, because their god is their bodily desires. They are proud of what they should be ashamed of, and they think only of things that belong to this world." Philippians 3:19 (TEV)
So, why is the Church saying now that SSM is good? This scripture comes to mind: "Well, no wonder! Even Satan can disguise himself to look like an angel of light! So, it is no great thing if his servants disguise themselves to look like servants of righteousness. In the end they will get exactly what their actions deserve." 2 Corinthians 11:15-15 (TEV)
"But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. They said to you, 'In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.' These are the people who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit. But you, dear friends, by building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life. Be merciful to those who doubt; save others by snatching them from the fire; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh." Jude 1:17-23 (NIV)
Let us not deceive ourselves; the Bible does say that it is wrong. Or, as St. Paul says, "Do not fool yourselves."
That being said, consuming blood is also wrong. I can't say that gay people are going to hell. First of all, I can't judge them. Second, that's between them and God. Scripture also says, "Who are you to judge a servant of the Master?" Also, St. Paul talks so much about judging others (Romans 14:1-end) and about everything being acceptable (1 Corinthians 6:12 & 10:23-end), about Jesus releasing us from the law (Galatians 5:1-end). So, I have no real answer. I believe it is wrong, but I can't force that view on a gay person, nor do I want to set up a stumbling block for them. It's a hard issue to deal with for our time. Very hard.
So, if everything is acceptable, as St. Paul says. And, if a gay person is okay with it--their conscience is clear--and they give thanks to God, then what? Is it really wrong for them? Should I eat what they set before me?
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Seed
I've been thinking about this one for a while. Going back to the debate (yet again) about taking the Lord's prayer out of the provincial legislature, some believe it's for the better. They say they don't want people just repeating it that don't mean it anyway. When they say that, what I hear is, "If some of the seed is going to fall on rocky ground, don't plant at all." There's no way of accounting for the effect of exposure.
Speak
People like me better before I speak.
Somebody once said, "You've got enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something."
Somebody once said, "You've got enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something."
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Hate
Hate is contagious. It's hard not to hate people who hate you. I know people who have let hate consume their soul. Father, strengthen and forgive me. Amen
--thinking specifically of failed relationships--
--thinking specifically of failed relationships--
Just War
The concept of Just War was pioneered in the Christian world by St. Augustine, but has been around since the time of Cicero. The following principles must be satisfied to ensure the war is just: First, the damage by the aggressor must be lasting, grave, and certain. Second, everything else must be tried first to stop them before war is used. Third, you have to have a good chance of winning the war. Last, one can not cause more harm than would have otherwise occurred.
St. Thomas Aquinas, expanding on St. Augustin's theory, said that for a war to be just one must ensure that it is for a good purpose and not selfish. It must be waged by a state. And, third, peace must be the central motive (even amidst violence).
The only thing more dangerous than a warmonger, is a peacenik. If the world had attacked Hitler when he built his first treaty violation weapon, instead of being afraid of fighting, there would have been no second world war. If they had carpet bombed The Third Reich, they would have saved 6 million Jews! As I have said before, "Peace first, not peace at all costs."
Dr. King, a man opposed to violence said, "A man who won't die for something is not fit to live." He also said, "He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it." Archbishop Tutu said, "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor."
Almost as an aside, I'd like to point out a pet peeve of mine. George Bush takes a lot of heat for the post nine eleven violence the US got involved in, as does PM Harper in Canada. They are labeled warmongers. It wasn't wrong, though, when Clinton launched Tomahawk missiles at Iraq or bombed Belgrade. Nothing was said of Mr. Obama when Seal Team Six executed Bin Laden. It wasn't wrong when the Liberal government sent Canadian soldiers to war in Afghanistan. It wasn't wrong when JFK threatened the USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It's never wrong when a liberal is violent. But, watch out for those dangerous conservatives. Yup, them right wingens loves them a good war.
St. Thomas Aquinas, expanding on St. Augustin's theory, said that for a war to be just one must ensure that it is for a good purpose and not selfish. It must be waged by a state. And, third, peace must be the central motive (even amidst violence).
The only thing more dangerous than a warmonger, is a peacenik. If the world had attacked Hitler when he built his first treaty violation weapon, instead of being afraid of fighting, there would have been no second world war. If they had carpet bombed The Third Reich, they would have saved 6 million Jews! As I have said before, "Peace first, not peace at all costs."
Dr. King, a man opposed to violence said, "A man who won't die for something is not fit to live." He also said, "He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it." Archbishop Tutu said, "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor."
Almost as an aside, I'd like to point out a pet peeve of mine. George Bush takes a lot of heat for the post nine eleven violence the US got involved in, as does PM Harper in Canada. They are labeled warmongers. It wasn't wrong, though, when Clinton launched Tomahawk missiles at Iraq or bombed Belgrade. Nothing was said of Mr. Obama when Seal Team Six executed Bin Laden. It wasn't wrong when the Liberal government sent Canadian soldiers to war in Afghanistan. It wasn't wrong when JFK threatened the USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It's never wrong when a liberal is violent. But, watch out for those dangerous conservatives. Yup, them right wingens loves them a good war.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Clear
Well, gay marriage is in the news yet again: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/minnesota-lawmaker%E2%80%99s-gay-marriage-defense-goes-viral.html
This is like the Quebec referendums; the issue isn't going to go away until there's a yes vote. Then it will go away.
Let me be crystal clear about how I feel, if I haven't already. I believe in God. I don't believe that Jesus was just a good man and teacher that instigated a lifestyle philosophy. The Bible says it's wrong (gay marriage). For that reason alone, I feel it is wrong. You can't pick and choose what you like from the Bible. If you're going to bother being a Christian in today's world, why bother to do it half ass. Do I think gay marriage is wrong in society? No, I do not. I can't see a reason to stand against it. Although, permitting it causes a ton of trouble for the Church; it wouldn't be an issue in the Church if it was illegal anyway. Gay people, all people, should be equal under the law. In a democracy, nobody should be oppressed and gay people should have the same rights and privileges as anybody else. Do I hate gays? No, I do not--no matter how many hate filled liberals accuse me of being a bigot. I have no problem with gay people. I will not refuse to work with them. I will not refuse to speak with them. I will not refuse to befriend them. Although, I probably wouldn't speak to them about gay marriage, and not just because they'd viciously attack me for my views; because also, I don't want to put a stumbling block before them. I have no desire to place a millstone around my neck. If it is wrong, is it wrong for everybody? That's between the individual and God; I have no idea. Some people can't eat pork. Some people can't hold Holy Days. Some people can't have images or symbols present in a Church, even a cross. Some people can't consume blood. St. Paul said he had to be all things to all men and also any prohibited food eaten to honour God was acceptable in His sight. He said that a special day was wrong to some, but acceptable to those who honour God with it. Jesus released us from the law. St. Paul said that everything was permitted and that we are not to set up stumbling blocks for our brothers.
All that having been said, liberals are making my life difficult. Their agenda being pushed forward in society--including the Church in North America--is changing values (right and wrong). For a Church to preach gay is good is too much. In a way, they're setting up a stumbling block for me.
When I first was introduced to the issue, I thought it was all about gay rights vs. conservative religious views. Then, a friend of mine--who's a member of Essentials--said that it was just the tip of the iceberg. And, I thought, "Well, that's the only thing I've been hearing about." For the Anglican Church of Canada, gay marriage was both the tip of the iceberg and the straw that broke the camel's back. It was the symptom of a school of thought and it was too much for right wing Christians to accept. It, along with a lot of other "wrong" doctrine, was the product of a liberal system of scriptural exegeses: St. Mary wasn't really a virgin, she was a young woman; it wasn't a "miracle" that the disciples caught fish on the other side of the boat--on the angle He was on Jesus was able to see the fish through the water; scripture is not literal--it is to be interpreted through the filter of how it is relevant to the modern age; the Bible writers were living in a different society, influenced by that society, and speaking to that society; plus, they are human and flawed; Jesus may not have risen from the grave (probably didn't) so much as resurrection is a metaphor for the new life we live as Christians once we choose that lifestyle philosophy to live by; demons are not real and the disciples as well as people of that age didn't understand mental illness; the story of creation is just that, a story; Jesus is not the way--He is a way; Jesus was a good man and teacher who was put to death by conservatives (who were most likely bigots too); God is relative.
As far as my Church and I are concerned, I have two questions: First, can it move too far to the left for me to tolerate it? Second, will there be room in the developing Anglican Church in years to come for me and my orthodox views?
This is like the Quebec referendums; the issue isn't going to go away until there's a yes vote. Then it will go away.
Let me be crystal clear about how I feel, if I haven't already. I believe in God. I don't believe that Jesus was just a good man and teacher that instigated a lifestyle philosophy. The Bible says it's wrong (gay marriage). For that reason alone, I feel it is wrong. You can't pick and choose what you like from the Bible. If you're going to bother being a Christian in today's world, why bother to do it half ass. Do I think gay marriage is wrong in society? No, I do not. I can't see a reason to stand against it. Although, permitting it causes a ton of trouble for the Church; it wouldn't be an issue in the Church if it was illegal anyway. Gay people, all people, should be equal under the law. In a democracy, nobody should be oppressed and gay people should have the same rights and privileges as anybody else. Do I hate gays? No, I do not--no matter how many hate filled liberals accuse me of being a bigot. I have no problem with gay people. I will not refuse to work with them. I will not refuse to speak with them. I will not refuse to befriend them. Although, I probably wouldn't speak to them about gay marriage, and not just because they'd viciously attack me for my views; because also, I don't want to put a stumbling block before them. I have no desire to place a millstone around my neck. If it is wrong, is it wrong for everybody? That's between the individual and God; I have no idea. Some people can't eat pork. Some people can't hold Holy Days. Some people can't have images or symbols present in a Church, even a cross. Some people can't consume blood. St. Paul said he had to be all things to all men and also any prohibited food eaten to honour God was acceptable in His sight. He said that a special day was wrong to some, but acceptable to those who honour God with it. Jesus released us from the law. St. Paul said that everything was permitted and that we are not to set up stumbling blocks for our brothers.
All that having been said, liberals are making my life difficult. Their agenda being pushed forward in society--including the Church in North America--is changing values (right and wrong). For a Church to preach gay is good is too much. In a way, they're setting up a stumbling block for me.
When I first was introduced to the issue, I thought it was all about gay rights vs. conservative religious views. Then, a friend of mine--who's a member of Essentials--said that it was just the tip of the iceberg. And, I thought, "Well, that's the only thing I've been hearing about." For the Anglican Church of Canada, gay marriage was both the tip of the iceberg and the straw that broke the camel's back. It was the symptom of a school of thought and it was too much for right wing Christians to accept. It, along with a lot of other "wrong" doctrine, was the product of a liberal system of scriptural exegeses: St. Mary wasn't really a virgin, she was a young woman; it wasn't a "miracle" that the disciples caught fish on the other side of the boat--on the angle He was on Jesus was able to see the fish through the water; scripture is not literal--it is to be interpreted through the filter of how it is relevant to the modern age; the Bible writers were living in a different society, influenced by that society, and speaking to that society; plus, they are human and flawed; Jesus may not have risen from the grave (probably didn't) so much as resurrection is a metaphor for the new life we live as Christians once we choose that lifestyle philosophy to live by; demons are not real and the disciples as well as people of that age didn't understand mental illness; the story of creation is just that, a story; Jesus is not the way--He is a way; Jesus was a good man and teacher who was put to death by conservatives (who were most likely bigots too); God is relative.
As far as my Church and I are concerned, I have two questions: First, can it move too far to the left for me to tolerate it? Second, will there be room in the developing Anglican Church in years to come for me and my orthodox views?
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Upset
There have been some really p1$$ed off people on Facebook in the last few days; the reasons are the federal election and the shooting of Bin Laden. The liberals are blogging, and tweeting and facebooking their little hearts out. The "bleeding hearts" are bemoaning the killing of Bin Laden. Well, I'm sure it brings peace and satisfaction to anybody who lost a family member in the World Trade Center. So, the facebookers are posting quotes from Dr. King saying that hate can't be used to fight hate. Okay, I get that. But, I don't hate Bin Laden. I'm happy they got him though; although, I think I'd have preferred them to have taken him alive for trial and future incarceration. From a strategic and security point of view, he had to be gone after. I always say, "Peace first. Not, peace at any cost." We have to defend our selves against attack. The way I look at it, soldiers are God's gift to keep us safe. They put themselves in harm's way. Jesus said the greatest act of love was self sacrifice. They do some nasty things so that we don't have to, so that we can live in a free country. Thank God we live in the free world, in Canada. So, is violence never the answer? I think it can be an answer. It should always be the last option. But, if it's the only way to stop a mad man from leading his troops in a horrifying act of ethnic cleansing, it's our duty to save those people. If terrorists blow up high rise buildings, we have to go after their training bases and leaders. After all, David killed Goliath. God told the Israelites to kill the people in the land He was giving them. St. Peter carried a sword.
The problem is that they put being a liberal before being a christian. Anti violence is a liberal value, just like gay marriage. They can reinterpret scripture to justify that, but not violence. One is liberal, and one is not.
Politics should not enter religion. It's like when I pray for peace. There are three ways to pray for peace: The way I want it is to pray, "Father, bring us peace as only you can. We are not able to bring peace because we are flawed and imperfect." The Liberal prayer goes, "God, make those who fight see the error of their ways and give up their hate." The conservative prayer goes, "God, make it so that war is no longer necessary."
But, people insist on bringing politics into religion. It's hard not to, for me too. It gets harder every day. But, we should not try to beat our christian brother over the head because his views are wrong.
I think it's horrible when priests try to get people to vote liberal. They say, "remember social justice when you vote." And also, "Vote for the marginalized in society." But, what they're really saying is vote liberal. Well, I did vote the way my conscience told me to. The Conservative party is the party I think best protects and promotes Christianity that stands a chance of forming a government. I think they're the best for the economy. New jobs will help the poor too. BTW, correct me if I'm wrong, but I only saw one speech last night where God was mentioned, and it was Mr. Harper.
And, in my personal opinion, it was awesome to see the blue wave; it filled me with joy to see the first conservative majority government elected in Canada since 1988. We've been living under liberal rule for far too long. And, we'd be naive to believe that that has had no impact on our criminal law, economy, social values, etc...
The problem is that they put being a liberal before being a christian. Anti violence is a liberal value, just like gay marriage. They can reinterpret scripture to justify that, but not violence. One is liberal, and one is not.
Politics should not enter religion. It's like when I pray for peace. There are three ways to pray for peace: The way I want it is to pray, "Father, bring us peace as only you can. We are not able to bring peace because we are flawed and imperfect." The Liberal prayer goes, "God, make those who fight see the error of their ways and give up their hate." The conservative prayer goes, "God, make it so that war is no longer necessary."
But, people insist on bringing politics into religion. It's hard not to, for me too. It gets harder every day. But, we should not try to beat our christian brother over the head because his views are wrong.
I think it's horrible when priests try to get people to vote liberal. They say, "remember social justice when you vote." And also, "Vote for the marginalized in society." But, what they're really saying is vote liberal. Well, I did vote the way my conscience told me to. The Conservative party is the party I think best protects and promotes Christianity that stands a chance of forming a government. I think they're the best for the economy. New jobs will help the poor too. BTW, correct me if I'm wrong, but I only saw one speech last night where God was mentioned, and it was Mr. Harper.
And, in my personal opinion, it was awesome to see the blue wave; it filled me with joy to see the first conservative majority government elected in Canada since 1988. We've been living under liberal rule for far too long. And, we'd be naive to believe that that has had no impact on our criminal law, economy, social values, etc...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
