Posted on 08/06/2003 7:08:03 AM PDT by Miss Marple
With apologies for posting a vanity, but I wanted to put this theory up for serious discussion.
The gay movement in churches does, indeed force people out (along with other divisive liberal issues). I myself have left my life-long church, the Methodists, because of several doctrinal and political disagreements.
I have noticed that the gays are not lobbying in the Southern Baptists, nor in the Church of Christ, nor in the Assemblies of God. Now, one would on its surface think that it is because those churches are less susceptible to the message of "inclusiveness." That may be true, but there is another underlying reason as well, I think.
The mainline Protestant denominations, as well as the Roman Catholics, own a great deal of real estate and have fairly large bank accounts. The real estate (in Manhattan and Boston and other large cities across this nation) is owned by the denomination, not the individual congregation, and is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. An entire Episcopal congregation who wishes to split from the church and go independent must LEAVE the building, abandoning it to the gay-friendly people. This holds true for the Methodists as well, and I believe for the rest of the mainline denominations and the Roman Catholics.
On the other hand, most Southern Baptist congregations own their property individually. They can withdraw without losing the building, nor would they lose control of their bank accounts.
It seems to me that this is a concerted effort to not only shape public opinion but, more importantly, to control real estate and money. Money is used to sway political beliefs, push certain social issues, and shape public discourse.
If I wanted to control a lot of real estate and church bank accounts, so that the money could go to causes I believed in but were not supported by most of the congregants, I would choose to infiltrate the church with people whose presence would FORCE OUT those who have less radical views, and I would also be forcing them to leave the very expensive real estate, bank accounts, and endowments behind. I could then funnel money to groups like anti-war organizations without any objection.
It seems to me that there is a plan afoot to rob people who have donated their time and treasure (in some families' cases, for generations) to a congregation and church building, and secure the land and money for their own purposes.
In other words, this is about money as much as sex. Otherwise, why wouldn't these people simply start their OWN churches? I have not forgotten how once before we were distracted from the real evil by a story about sex.
They don't want to start their own churches, because they want the land, the buildings, and the money. I think this needs to be looked at with more attention to the financial side.
I also would like to point out that manay mainline churches also control large universities, and this also supports my theory that the issue is financial and political control, not simply sex.
Let us not forget that Satan comes as a thief in the night.
In the end, it is you and your family that must make the decision where to go to church. If your congregation has gone apostate (and it certainly sounds like it has) it is your job to find someplace where you can be fed from the Word of God and the sacraments, where you can worship, serve, evangelize and be discipled. These churches exist. You must find them.
I am speaking to you in a strong manner because the spiritual health of your family is at stake. Being without a place of fellowship and worship is simply not an option.
Well I believe women are pastoring churches because they are willful and rebellious. Men can't lead women that refuse to follow. Now answer the question "who has a vested interest in claiming a dearth of pious men: pious men or rebellious women?" Who has been steadily gaining influence for a hundred years: pious men or rebellious women? What does our country most closely resemble, the vision of pious men, or rebellious women.
First, save your straw man obfuscation about heading churches. I didn't claim that, and your phrasing it that way is underhanded.
Next, you read 1 Corinthians 5: 3-5 and tell me that's not a claim of authority.
Wanna come to my church or stop in any Baptist church and meet one personally. What's your beef with "elders"?
I don't have a beef with Elders, and your Baptist church would be the first one I've ever heard of to have them. And don't act like I've never been to Baptist churches. That's a Florida flag on my homepage. I'll show you fifty Baptist churches without Elders for every one you show me with them.
Not to mention the Baptist penchant for congregationalism is unscriptural.
They've strayed from the Bible and by doing so they are creating their own religion on the fly. If I get to pick and choose what's right and wrong them I myself would be playing the role of God... and it's back to that original lie that Adam felt for.
If we can pick and choose what's right and wrong, then how would be be different from Shirley McClaine?
God wants us to obey Him and partial disobedience is still disobedience. On an item that's a gray area, then it's the Holy Spirit that will guide a person (e.g. drinking alcohol... you pick the hobby horse).
But on something that was black and white and both the old and new testaments... ? Man, I've got to scratch my head and wonder how far away from God we have fallen.
I saw some ministers/experts on McNeil/Lehrer tonight and I about vomitted all over my kitchen. They were trying to state that the church was finally 'maturing' along with society... blah blah. And that there were only a few references and since we don't follow the book of Leviticus part and parcel, it didn't apply.
If I ... a sinner saved only by God's grace wanted to vomit, then how much more would an almight holy and righteous God want to? I wouldn't stand near some of those men.... (afraid lighting might just come right down).
It was black and white multiple times in the new testament and those guys had better read about the Jesus that will judge the living and the dead. Eyes of fire, tongue like a sword, feet of bronze.... (that's from memory). But He's coming back and he ain't gonna be pleased with this blatant 'humanism' in His church.
[5] Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.
It says NOTHING about the love of money. It does say be content with what you have (weathy or poor) and do NOT COVET what someone else has for He will not forsake you.
A far cry from your statement:
Hebrews 13:5 Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, "Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you."
You don't have to have doubts since the Bible clarifies itself; not that you verse needs clarification but mayge this will help you understand Him:
The appropriate verse is this:
(not Hebrews but 1Timothy 6:10)
1Tim.6:10
[10] For the LOVE OF MONEY is the root of all evil: which while SOME coveted after, they have ERRED FROM THE FAITH, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
Reading 1 Timothy states that the LOVE of MONEY (over God) which SOME coveted after has caused them error in their faith and lead to sorrow. SOME is not equal to ALL.
Job and Abraham are two of the WEALTHIEST men in the Bible and yet they remained true to GOD above and NOT distracted by their wealth. Money in and of itself is NOT evil. It is HOW you use the wealth - serve God or serve yourself. To teach otherwise in NOT Biblically correct.
How do you expalin the eztreme wealth with Abraham and Job WITH God's approval? I think you'll find that when you read the Bible for what it says and strip away prejudices, much can be learned about God and how He sees things.
Is actually :
1Tim.6:10
[10] For the LOVE OF MONEY is the root of all evil: which while SOME coveted after, they have ERRED FROM THE FAITH, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
Reading 1 Timothy states that the LOVE of MONEY (over God) which SOME coveted after has caused them error in their faith and lead to sorrow. SOME is not equal to ALL.
Job and Abraham are two of the WEALTHIEST men in the Bible and yet they remained true to GOD above and NOT distracted by their wealth. Money in and of itself is NOT evil. It is HOW you use the wealth - serve God or serve yourself. To teach otherwise in NOT Biblically correct.
Since Hebrews 13:5 states this:
[5] Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.
That's an easy mistake to admit. Don't let pride blind you.
Here's your statement:
"Then how did Paul claim authority over the various churches he wrote to...not the least of which was the Corinthian church?"
Back it up and stop obfusgating.
You can stop the ridiculous personal attacks right now -It's also not amusing.
"Stop acting as though your mother was scared by a priest when she was carrying you.
That's low even from you.
"If you are a Southen Baptist, you would obviously be surprised at the respect that many Catholics hold for the courage and faithfulness of the Southern Baptist Convention and its magnificent leadership of the last decade or so."
I am not affiliated with any denomination so flattery will not work here.
"What we Catholics have a problem with is the preachiness in spreading YOPIOS that abounds here as though YOPIOS had any authority whatsoever compared to actual Scripture. If you don't think that gays have designs on the Baptist churches, you are quite naive."
It's not the "preachiness" that you dislike but WHAT is stated FROM the Bible. I use the Bible as ULTIMATE authority and I do NOT take verses out of context as I have demonstrated. You just don't like the message so you shoot down the messenger with the "preachiness" slur.
"Furthermore, IF some INDEPENDENT congregation, claiming to be Baptist, publicly denied the divinity of Christ, that Mary was a virgin at the birth of Christ, that God the Father so loved the world that He sent to us Jesus Christ, his only begotten son, that Jesus died on the cross in atonement for our sins, and that he resurrected on the third day according to Scripture, I am going out on a limb and betting that the good men who run the Southern Baptist Convention will find a way to turn such a congregation formally into separated brethren after due investigation and deliberation. No?????"
"publicly denied the divinity of Christ" is grounds for separating from the under ANY denomination since it is false.
Surely you are NOT suggesting that an independent or grouped denomination be found acceptable when they publically DENY the divinity of Christ?
Maybe I misunderstand your point. What you are saying contradicts itself. If Jesus IS NOT divine then how could someone accept the rest of what you say? Honestly, I'm confused and what you're saying and what your point it.
"Then how did Paul claim authority over the various churches he wrote to...not the least of which was the Corinthian church?"
Paul specificly says Christ is the head of the Church. Nevertheless, Paul's claim to authority is not restricted to any particular congregation, or do you dispute that? I gave the verse 1 Corinthians 5:3-5 to back it up.
If you want to be a heretic, that's your business, but asking for an answer that was already given is just childish.
Yet to posit it's moral equivalence with the heterosexual, monogamously married ideal, is not compatable with Western civilization's advance.
Hence, the agenda, as attack?
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.