Posted on 08/03/2006 12:13:31 AM PDT by goldstategop
Who says the New York Times is anti-Christian?
Why just the other day, I read a beautiful profile of an evangelical mega-church pastor from Minnesota. You could just tell the reporter for the Times loved the Rev. Gregory A. Boyd.
It isn't Christians the Times loathes. It's just right-wing Christians. And so does the Rev. Gregory Boyd.
Boyd has some interesting ideas – given that he claims to base his beliefs on the same Bible I read.
But let's start with abortion and homosexuality. While Boyd claims to oppose abortion, he doesn't advocate that believers do anything to stop it. While he thinks homosexuality is not God's ideal, he opposes standing in the gap and opposing its strident political agenda.
Many think the Bible is silent on abortion. I don't. In fact, I think it is the Judeo-Christian ethical teachings alone that kept abortion relegated to a few back alleys in America until 1973, when killing babies instantly became a constitutional right by proclamation of the high priests in black robes on the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Bible shows us what happens when people among you worship other gods. Recall the children sacrificed on the fiery altars of Baal? Did God allow for any compromise with that evil?
The Bible tells us that unborn babies had consciousness and that John the Baptist leapt in his own mother's womb in the presence of the pregnant Mary.
But let's cut to the chase on the abortion issue: What would Jesus do? Can anyone imagine Jesus walking by an abortion clinic without comment? Without action? With all that we know about the character of Jesus, can someone really suggest to me that He would not condemn such barbarism – that He would not do what He could to stop it and heal those involved with the sinful practice?
Trust me on this, when Jesus returns, He's not going to tell women it's their choice to kill their unborn babies.
Now what about homosexuality? What would Jesus have said? What would Jesus have done?
On this one, less speculation and guesswork is required. Because Jesus spoke openly and clearly on God's order for man and woman.
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. – Matthew 19:4-6
It's even more clear cut elsewhere in the Bible. It begins in Leviticus 18:22 (KJV): "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
That seems pretty clear to me. Not a lot of ambiguity there. The chapter goes on to state that people who commit these acts, and others God considers abominations, causes the land itself to be defiled. That's a reason for everyone to be concerned about homosexuality – especially the brand of open, in-your-face ''gay'' pride variety. Then, in the New Testament, Paul writes in Romans 1:22-27:
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
It's also suggested in the Bible that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. Therefore, it's hard to imagine why someone who claims to be an evangelical would not want to let homosexuals know their behavior blocks them from eternal life. Some day, I suspect, Gregory Boyd will have to answer that question for himself.
He says Jesus never moralized about sex. But, as you can see from Jesus' simple but eloquent statement about God's plan for men and women, He certainly did. he also shocked the Samaritan woman into changing her life. He told the accused harlot to go and sin no more. You have to ignore a lot of Bible to think Jesus didn't care about illicit sex.
Boyd reads the Constitution about as clearly and astutely as he reads the Bible, concluding that it says something about "separation of church and state," which it does not.
But, despite all that, he's a favorite of the New York Times. Why, if anyone at the New York Times went to church, I'm sure it would be a church just like Boyd's.
(Go Israel, Go! Slap 'Em Down Hezbullies.)
Does the NY Times still receive Government (local, state, and federal) Subsidies in the form of many legal notices?
Is there anyone who claims to be a Christian believe that Jesus would actually counsel a woman that the best thing to do would be to kill her pre-born child? I my wildest dreams, I cannot.
AOL-and the NewYork Slimes -and the false teacher Greg Boyd. I sent him a letter pointing out he misreads the US
Constitution-and probably Scripture as well. Had it not been for the pulpits in America we would yet be British Colonies(On the Right to Rebel by Samuel West -1776 sermon
clearly calls the readers to action against tyranny.Many other political sermons over the years have called the
Christian citizen to get up off his/her pew warming buttocks
and act.
Could we all stop using the phrase "back-alley abortion," PLEASE?!? That's NARAL-speak, which means it's a lie. Most places in the U.S. don't even have alleys, for one thing!
In addition, even before Roe v. Wade, a number of states had legal abortion, so "until 1973" is another NARAL-lie.
(This has been your "Take Back the Truth!" rant for today.)
99% of the illegal abortions performed in the US prior to Roe v. Wade were performed by licensed doctors in their own offices using standard medical equipment.
They would take cash to perform abortions in the wee hours in order to supplement their income.
The abortion mills of today are far more dangerous and disreputable than the illegal abortions of yesteryear - which shouldn't really surprise anyone.
Worth repeating!
And how the "pro-choice" forces fight against any efforts to make this "medical procedure" subject to the same cleanliness standards as veterinary clinics ... they care so much about "women's health"!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.