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.
I believe that concentration of wealth (and power too) in any form by anyone is always a prelude to disaster for the society. Even the church. Man is inherently sinful and we are called on by St. Paul to hold one another to account. We can't do that when such wealth and power is held at the top. I have always believed that one reason the Vikings were so successful in their raids of Europe in the 8th and 9th centuries is that they discovered that the monasteries held so much of Europe's wealth. It made raiding relatively easy... just head for the cross and voila, there's the riches.
I also think sometimes God uses these situations to bring his Church back to Him. While I don't like the thought of evil groups getting ahold of these resources, I am encouraged that God is very much in control and uses these things to purge us.
To state that "Bad Catholics" are "Protestants" is simplistic and inflamitory. When an organization bans the question "Why", its authority and justification is automatically diminished.
The Roman Catholic Church may not have "openly gay" priests and bishops and archbishops, etc., but remember, God sees all, so they while may hide their sins and hypocracy from the mortals, but they are "openly gay" to God.
Add radical obsession to this witch's brew of greed and avarice.
Ordinary folk (us) tend to be laid back, a mite complacent, just going about our ordinary lives, too often naively depending on the hope that right always prevails.
On the other hand, radical leftists, revolutionaries, feminazis, gays, whoever, devote their lives and sacrifice their pocketbooks to further their causes. They never lose sight of their goals. They never rest.
As an example, a mere handful of scholarly radical communists pounding out ideology and propaganda at desks defeated the might of the czar, his wealth and his vast armies.
A more current example is the gay movement. The gays comprise a drop in the bucket of our population. Yet they are successfully infiltrating, destroying, neutralizing or controlling the media, entertainment, historic institutions (Boy Scouts, the legal system, etal), and, of course, established religion. They never take their eye off the ball, craftily selecting major ripe targets to infiltrate and revolutionize.
As in the old Russian Empire, those lusting for money and power don't need numbers to effect a successful revolution. They only need some financing and a complacent or uneducated populace to achieve their goals.
The attainment of money and power says it all. Bishop Robinson, who will sacrifice his Church to attain both, is an example. Let's pray his obsessed, radical revolution will slowly crumble as it did in Russia.
What benefits a man if he attains the whole world, but loses his soul?
Leni
I agree. Not only is it money, however, it's institutional power and legitimacy. Gays have, essentially, taken over the structure and name of the Episcopal Church, thereby redefining it and making it theirs.
Somebody on another thread asked why gays didn't start their own church, if they really felt that way about it, but that person missed the whole point of what the gay political structure (and the many non-gay liberals behind it) really wanted.
Just did a search and found nothing of the sort.
Gays wouldn't even dream of approaching Baptists. That group is Biblically aligned. Also Baptists are also Biblically aligned when it comes to their churches - meaning that yes, each is INDIVIDUALLY operated and run just as the Bible dictates. There should be NO "main" head as in other Protestant denominations or the Catholic church with the pope heading that church. The Bible mentions the different church but they are INDEPENDENT of one another. Sure they may have had joint meetings as in the SBC (SOuthern Baptist Convention) however they are not excommunicated if they don't agree on issues and are NOT obligated to other churches within that denomination.
I think Lord Action, a Catholic, has it right, "Asolute power corrupts absolutely..." . We are seeing this happen through UNITING the different churches in a denomination based on UNBiblical teachings who wish to echo the ever lowering social mores to please fallible mortals while forgeting that God's Word doesn't evolve.
No, no....not my point at all....my fault for the digression into Jewish issues. I meant that the Jews who control Hollywood are the unwitting accomplices of disgusting organizations like NAMBLA, who want to advance an agenda and Hollywood is doing more than its part to glamorize homosexuality right now. All of this fits like a hand in a rubber glove to NAMBLA's and other activist homosexual organizational goals.
Show me a Baptist Elder.
Is StormFront down or something?
The Jews that control Hollywood. Sheesh.
Their incomes are slightly less than average, their median lifespan with Aids is 38, without Aids, 42 (NHS figures).
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.