NZ Anglican Church's Billboard Mocks Mary, Joseph and Virgin Birth

St. Mathew In The City ^ | 13 Dec 2009 | Glynn Cardy

[PanzerKardinal]

A "Progressive" Anglican church in Auckland New Zealand paid to have this billboard placed near their parish.

Here are some excerpts written by the Vicar, Archdeacon Glynn Cardy on the church's website touting what he did.

________________

To make the news at Christmas it seems a priest just needs to question the literalness of a virgin giving birth. Many in society mistakenly think that to challenge literalism is to challenge the norms of Christianity. What progressive interpretations try to do however is remove the supernatural obfuscation and delve into the deeper spiritual truth of this festival.

Christian fundamentalism believes a supernatural male God who lived above sent his sperm into the womb of the virgin Mary. Although there were a series of miraculous events surrounding Jesus’ birth – like wandering stars and angelic choirs – the real miracle was his death and literal resurrection 33 years later. The importance of this literal resurrection is the belief that it was a cosmic transaction whereby the male God embraced humanity only after being satiated by Jesus’ innocent blood.

Progressive Christianity is distinctive in that not only does it articulate a clear view it is also interested in engaging with those who differ. Its vision is one of robust engagement. If every Christian thought the same not only would life be deadly boring but also the fullness of God would be diminished. This is the consequence of its incarnational theology: God is among us; even among those we disagree with or dislike.

[reaganaut]

While I do not support vandalism, I am glad to hear it.

[Colofornian]

Me: .. Jesus told Saul to be baptized and THEN call on His Name (Acts 22:16)

You: You are mistaken and that embarrasses me...Act 22:10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Paul knew who the Lord was and he submitted himself to the Lord's will before he regained his sight and was baptized...In other words, Paul became a believer, first...8" 'Who are you, Lord?' I asked.

Well, knowing who the Lord is and actually having a living relationship are two different things. James said that the demons believe -- and tremble.

Here's the problem: You hint that I took Acts 22:16 out of context by not recognizing the already existing Lord-Saul relationship in Acts 22:10 -- all just because Saul called Him, "Lord."

But if you're going to cite context, please cite the entire context -- Acts 22:8: "'I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,' he replied.

In other words, the Saul you are elevating as having this "relationship with the Lord" has only seconds before been labeled by Jesus Christ a persecutor of Him -- and His body. (Surely, you know Jesus' words about not everyone who says, "Lord, Lord...").

Frankly, if Saul the persecutor of Christians -- if Saul who later called himself the "chief of sinners" was already all fine and hunky-dory in a "Lord-subject/servant relationship" -- except, of course, for some "minor corrective course" -- then I don't think Jesus would have needed to come and present Himself personally and address Him the way He did.

[Tennessee Nana]

DieHard the Hunter, you judge Nana harshly. If you’re comfortable doing that, then I expect you must live the life of a Saint and will be able to withstand being held up to your same high standard.

[Tennessee Nana]

From your writings I’d expect you’d prefer them to spend in the neighborhood of 10%, or even 30%?
__________________________________________________

No I would prefer they cease this new claim of theirs, that they are Christians...

While the real Christians are “Gentiles” “apostates” “infidels”

After saying for the first 150 years after Joey Smith founded his foul religion, that real Christianity is an abomination

[DieHard the Hunter]

> DieHard the Hunter, you judge Nana harshly...

“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” (St John 7:24)

[Tennessee Nana]

Civil Defense events
__________________________________________

WOW you were impressed...

FOCUS kid...

where are the LDS soup kitchens ???

The LDS shelters ???

The LDS cfree clinics ???

There are none...

And the LDS do not feed cloth or shelter the homeless chil;dren in their own Salt Lake City...

Nor help the “Lost Boys of Utah”

[betty boop]

Some LDS leaders have tried to play it both ways re: describing Mary as a virgin (for example, LDS apostle Bruce R. McConkie). Some clearly implied that she wasn’t (Brigham Young)

It seems to me Brigham Young was stipulating that the manner/methods of human procreation are necessarily binding on how God procreates. I don't see any rational basis for this supposition. There is no equivalence between God and man. God cannot be "reduced" to human criteria. (Nor, it seems to me, can man be "elevated" to divine status.)

God is Life. God is Spirit. He is subject to no law; for He Is Law — i.e., Truth (Logos).

To be preoccupied with the "hows" (on the crudest basis) of the divine Incarnation is to miss the point that this Incarnation is uniquely, utterly, absolutely, everlastingly Divine.

But once you realize that, then you understand God could have done it any way it pleased Him. The Holy Bible testifies that He did it in a particular way — via the Holy Spirit. And moreover, that the virginity of Mary was in no way inpaired/compromised by this particular way.

And at that point, I for one recognize that human speculations in this regard are altogether pointless, futile.

Not to mention divisive.

But my own spirit rings to the Truth of what the Holy Scriptures say in this matter.

[ejonesie22]

Ah, a topic I can sink my teeth into.

Because my church has not asked me for them of course...

http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/portoalegre/

[reaganaut]

“Salvation comes from doing the Father’s will, and earnestly repenting when we fail in that.”

THAT, and ONLY THAT, is essential for salvation!

I know personally that Jesus is divinely linked in some way; calling him the “Son” of God is a good term, but I also know that confessing that is not essential to salvation; but I also know that confessing that is not essential to salvation; FOLLOWING HIS TEACHINGS IS!

- - - - - - -
I have to disagree with you there. BELIEF not works are what are required for salvation. Mere confession is naught without belief, and our works are “filthy rags” without belief. Now, obviously someone who claims to be a Christian, yet “sins like there is no tomorrow”, I would have to question their faith. But your phrasing borders on making the Gospel a gospel of works, not grace.

John 6:27-29

27Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval.”

28Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

29Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

[reaganaut]

So, he set his own criteria and then fulfilled it. Uh-huh.

In a little while I will go to the mailbox. This will prove I am the messiah.

0- - - - - - -
Let’s see you raise yourself up from the dead.

Is going to the mailbox physically impossible?

[Iscool]

Catholics call that “baptism of desire.”

So define baptism of fire...Would that be a desire to turn to Jesus and accept Him as your Savior, or just the desire to get wet??? Or something else???

[Colofornian]

It seems to me Brigham Young was stipulating that the manner/methods of human procreation are necessarily binding on how God procreates. I don't see any rational basis for this supposition. There is no equivalence between God and man. God cannot be "reduced" to human criteria. (Nor, it seems to me, can man be "elevated" to divine status.)

I agree. In light of your comment, "there is no equivalence between God and man," Mormon contextual beliefs in this regard are:
(1) God was once a man (hence, Lds already reduce the heavens to mere anthropology);
(2) They "upgrade" mankind to the status of eternal spirits (as in eternity past -- who are "gods-in-embryo" -- and hence some will grow up into full-blown gods!)

They do precisely what Lucifer did -- yank God down -- and seek to ascend their own divine throne. (See Isaiah 14:12-14)

[ejonesie22]

My head hurts...

Why is this so a difficult concept for some...

[Robert A Cook PE]

No.

Fundamentally (and isn’t it “odd” that we DO have to use that very word?) all “Christians” MUST think exactly alike in matters of “Faith” and “Morals” - Unlike and exactly opposite to what this crude heathen/devil says” his lies claiming that it is “boring” if all Christians thought alike.

YES! We must all think alike. Or (like him) we can join him in Hell with the people/person he really appears to worship.

[reaganaut]

There are many Christians who do not believe that a belief in the Trinity is essential for salvation.

I have no opinion one way or the other on whether Salvation will be denied anyone who doesn’t believe in the Trinity.

Beliefs essential for salvation? From what Christ seems to say, our beliefs inform our deeds, and without them it would be difficult or impossible to please Him — the one equips us to do the other.

- - - - - - - - - - -

The belief in the Trinity is related to the belief of the Person, work and Nature of Jesus Christ. Therefore it is a core doctrine (as much of the Apostles creed is).

As far as behavoir, I do agree that our behavior should reflect Christ.

But the “works of God” required is Belief in Jesus (John 6).

If you denigrate Jesus into just a “prophet”, “elder brother”, “better than most human”, or reject his Sacrifice on the Cross, then are you REALLY believing in HIM? Or just a “feel good” made up modern fantasy?

For me, and most Christians, salvation is dependent upon a Biblical belief in the Biblical Jesus. Otherwise, what is the point? If only “living a good life” is required, then even atheists will be saved, and Christ died for naught.

[reaganaut]

American (and all humans) sense self-reliance. A gospel of works makes humans feel like they can contribute something.

I think the biggest stumbling block to the Gospel is the realization that it is about what Christ did, not what we do.

I know that was difficult for me to come to terms with when I was leaving the Mormon church.

[Iscool]

You can't add into Scripture the plural word "hearts" when it's not there (Acts 16:14-15). And you can't guess, "Oh, the Lord must have opened their hearts, too -- right all at the exact same time."

I didn't add anything...You're the one adding words...I told you we didn't know because the scripture doesn't tell us...HOWEVER: the scriptures, where it does speak of it, says we must all repent before baptism...

Don't want to believe it??? Go for it...But don't start adding probably and maybe and likely to convince others that you are dealing with facts...

Yes...and a promise of which children are not to be excluded, says Acts 2: 38

You are adding words to the scripture again...

Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

What do ya figure, the 3 month old babies jumped up as said, 'Hallelujah, praise God, and ran for the nearest river when they heard Peter speak???

Like Peter said, 'REPENT'...You don't believe me...You don't believe Peter...Obviously it's for children who can repent...

[Iscool]

Since you were ignorant of Matthew 28:18-20 -- which is the very commission upon which worldwide disciple-making is based, it doesn't surprise me to see you diss baptism in other ways as well.

You're kind of a nasty piece of work...Why don't you just go and try to impress someone else...

[Elsie]

For example, in 2 Samuel 6:23, we read that "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death." Now, unless you believe that Michal had children after her death, you have to admit to "till/until" can mean something other than what you claim.

Since the first was written in HEBREW, and the second in GREEK; I find that your claim that it can ONLY mean what you want it to mean without merit.

---

Second: The Church teaches and has always held that Our Lady remained a virgin after the birth of our Lord.

I understand that these stories have been handed done in the tradition of your church.<

And are there not OTHER 'stories' that state just the opposite?