Posted on 12/16/2009 7:38:57 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at stmatthews.org.nz ...
> And no, the “Christian” message was never explained up-thread,
Posts #41 and #95 both make the point that a life following after God’s ways is difficult — which is one way to read the double-entendre.
This is a lesson quite consistent with the teachings of Christ — particularly St Matthew 7:14
“Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”
I’ll reiterate that I do not approve of the billboard, nor do I approve of the pastor’s sense of humor or the way that this message is delivered. It falls short of the standard of Blasphemy, however, because of its literal truth.
That said, it is perhaps unwise for this church to play cute tricks with their teachings: God may well have a sense of humor, and Jesus does certainly. It is in questionable taste, and the turn-off factor of this particular “joke” is so high it is hardly a wise use of preaching effort.
As we’ve seen on this thread.
“It would make more sense if it didn’t claim to believe the Torah, if it just popped out of nowhere. Because it does not fulfill the Torah’s criteria.”
______________________________________________________________
What are the Torah’s criteria?
I understand this position, though I believe it to be in error. Again, a thousand years before there was a Church, G-d spoke authoritatively at Sinai. That Revelation must clearly authorize any further "revelation" that is to come.
2. Christianity is not centered upon Scripture. It is centered upon the Person of Jesus Christ, who claimed to be the I AM and demonstrated it by healing the sick and lame, raising the dead, controlling the weather, transmuting matter, forgiving sin in His own right, establishing a Church and imbuing it with infallibility, and by bodily and physically returning from the dead in front of hundreds of eyewitnesses. It was only after His ascension into Heaven (again, in front of eyewitnesses) that His followers began to record His earthly words and deeds; later, these were collected into a series of writings which His Church deemed to be the completion of the written Word of God. It was during the course of compiling these Scriptures that the learned men of the Church carefully mapped out and noted how our the various circumstances of our Lord’s life, death, and resurrection were the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures.
And I understand this as well, though the "learned men of the Church" must ultimately be authorized by the prior Revelation in order for their own claims to be valid. However, I want you to understand that I appreciate that you have an external authority that authorizes your belief in the "new testament." I am currently arguing with a Fundamentalist Protestant--culturally the group that I identify with and whom I defend like a lion on this forum (and I will continue to do so). But they have no reason whatsoever for believing their bible other than it's their bible. The bible is self-authorizing and self-authenticating, and the only reason the "book of mormon" isn't is that Fundamentalist Protestants didn't grow up believing the "book of mormon" as well. I've even pointed out to the one I'm arguing with that the King James Version originally had the Apocryphal books. What do you think he will say? I am 99.99999% certain that he well claim that G-d saw to it that they were eventually removed so as to leave the "real" bible, which just happens to be the one he grew up believing. What say you?
In other words: Man met God face to face in the Person of Jesus. It was only through meeting Him that Man is able to understand what the Hebrew Scriptures really meant when prophesying of the Messiah.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe the idea that religious truth can be determined from its aesthetic beauty. However aesthetically pleasing chr*stianity may be and however internally consistent its theology (and I personally find Fundamentalist Protestant the most internally consistent in theology of all chr*stian groups, however circular their logic in determining their bible), but this does not constitute proof of authenticity. The First Revelation by the nature of things becomes the "Ultimate Revelation" by which all later claimants are measured. In short, Divine Revelation is, and must be, regressive rather than progressive in nature, else there would be no end to the "dispensations" and "religions" G-d was using.
The fulfillment of the Torah is a Man, and that Man is also God, in the Person of Jesus of Nazareth, He who conquered the grave, Death and Hell. In the end, all human history, all life, and existence itself centers upon Him.
See my above remarks. Thank you. It's very nice to argue with someone whose reasoning is not a self-reinforcing Moebius strip.
Is going to the mailbox physically impossible?
What makes you say that rising from the dead proves one is the messiah? The "new testament" may say this after the fact but that is merely "affirmation of the consequent."
It doesn't matter how many miracles one performs or rises from the dead. All that matters is that the Torah's criteria are met exactly. Otherwise it is merely a test from G-d and one must pay no attention to the miracles and stay with the Torah. Have you ever read the thirteenth chapter of Deuteronomy?
Here is a post from a Mormon Returned Missionary and his take on their care of the “poor and needy”
I served a full-time mission in Haiti for two years. Haiti is largely considered the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere and in the bottom five in the world. I know what the Church does there because I worked in the office and actually had a discussion with one of the older couples who was in charge of the charity work done there. They do very little. Very little. They give a few bags of rice and beans here and there. They give a few thousand dollars here and there to some local charities but that is all.
Everything the Church does charitable wise that is of any significance is published in the Church news. They’ll publish that they’ve given a few hundred wheel chairs away or that they drilled a few wells in Africa. It makes Mormons think that they church is very charitable and those are just highlights. The problem is, those are the bulk of what was done, not just highlights. The Church wants its members to beleive that they are extremely charitable when they lack a great deal.
Bishop Edgley stated that the Church had given 750 million dollars between 1984 and 2006. You’ll have to search the deseret news for that. I’m not saying that 750 million is worse than nothing but what I am saying is that it is not enough at all. I have been told, by a gentleman who works at the Church headquarters, that only 27% of members of the Church pay tithing fully in the US. If we say that there are 5.5 million members in the US and we divide that 5.5 million members by 4 to represent average families and assuming children or spouses will pay tithing, and we then say that they pay between 5000 per family, which I think is fair because I know several Mormons that pay more than that, and I checked this figure with my father in law who is a ward finance clerk in Idaho and he said it was fair, you get around 2 billion a year. That is very conservative figures and excludes all foreign tithing income and all the other income the church gets from its more wealthy members. If the church only spends about 50-75 million of that in charitable work, which is probably high, we are talking about miniscule amounts.
I don’t think all these anti-mormon idiots who say we are not Christian or whatever are right. I’ve seen several of these “Christian” ministers and pastors wearing jewelry and driving nice cars in Haiti off the backs of donations by their starving congregations. I am saying that I know that I saw starving children who slept in streets, and not just a few, every day all day begging me for help and all I could do was push them away. Our Church does not have hospitals or schools or orphanages and I know that our Church doesn’t donate very much at all to other Churchs or organizations that do this. This is all fact from my personal experience in Haiti. I had a ton of problems with this and obviously still do. The typical responses of “our Church just gives a lot through other churches,” or “we don’t want to publish what we do because that would diminish our charitable efforts,” are pretty much garbage. We’ll hear, “by your works ye shall know them” and then just assume we give a ton and do more than our share. The truth is, we as a church are letting thousands of children die each day by not doing enough. No matter what you say or tell yourself, if you open your eyes, you’ll see the Church doesn’t really do all you think they do.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2405383/posts?q=1&;page=116#116
As for Acts 2...all I pointed out is that Acts 2:38-39 applies to "children" -- the text plainly says so...so stop subtracting children.
Now you've resorted to telling outright lies...Go away...
Amazingly....that post has been removed.
Because it does not fulfill the Torah's criteria.
Just what IS (are?) the criteria?
Thank you for asking.
First of all, the messiah isn't the heart of Judaism or of the true religion for gentiles. The Torah is the is the "logos" from which the world was created and the purpose of existence. The messiah is merely an expediter--the ultimate expediter, true, but an expediter nonetheless--of Torah observance.
The Mashiach must be descended from David through Solomon (not any of David's other children) through the male line (which one born of a virgin couldn't do). He will be a literal Davidic King, defeat `Amaleq and all Israel's enemies in battle, regather the Jews to Israel, rebuild the Holy Temple and restore the Temple Service, and inaugurate a period of literal (not "spiritual") peace. All false religions and false "gxds" will be disappear and the entire human race will acknowledge and worship the One True G-d.
Now, I am aware that in the past two or three centuries some chr*stians have developed the idea that J*sus will fulfill these prophecies at some time in the future. This is not what chr*stianity originally taught (originally it taught that all these prophecies were fulfilled at once in a "spiritual," non-literal manner). This means that if this is so, classical chr*stianity isn't the true religion at all. Furthermore, until J*sus fulfills these prophecies he cannot be the messiah. Furthermore, until they are all fulfilled Mashiach has not come.
Here's a web site with information on the true concept of Mashiach: Messiah and Tanach. Please note the unfortunate use of the word "fundie" further down on the page. As I am a Fundamentalist myself I resent the use of the term in this derogatory way. Unfortunately, even fundamentalists of other religions think that only a certain kind of American Protestant is a "fundie." It's stupid and short-sighted of the author of the page, but it doesn't nullify the theological arguments he marshals.
You add and subtract words from the scripture and you're going to critique a bible believer??? Tsk...Tsk...
See my post to Elsie above.
wrong link. Sorry, it should have been:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2405383/posts?page=112#112
I think I need a nap. :)
Yes I have. Point? I do not worship another God, contrary to what you may believe.
The point is that the Jews were plainly instructed by G-d to stick with the Torah and ignore all miracles performed by anyone claiming authority to supersede it. It plainly states in black-and-white that G-d performs such miracles expressly for the purpose of seeing if His people will ignore them ("you shall pay no attention") and stick with what they have.
Rising from the dead does not give one the right to "fulfill" the Torah, though chr*stianity says it does.
ping to #260. Do you still have the LDS charity figures you posted the other day?
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”
“What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. (James 2:14-18 ESV)
All right, I think I see your point, but these cute tricks are more than just unwise. Whether or not they are blasphemy, they border on unbiblical:
“But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.” Ephesians 5:3-5
The International Standard Version gives verse four in modern language as, “Obscene, flippant, or vulgar talk is totally inappropriate. Instead, let there be thanksgiving.”
I really can’t improve on that, and since I believe we all in this discussion actually do agree on it, I’ll conclude by saying that I just wish the pastor had read it before spending parish funds contrary to it.
GMTA - again.
Brothers and Sisters in Christ!
Look at us! Our Master surely disapproves. We are straining at gnats!
> I really can’t improve on that, and since I believe we all in this discussion actually do agree on it, I’ll conclude by saying that I just wish the pastor had read it before spending parish funds contrary to it.
I do agree with that, certainly.
I also suspect that provoking this sort of controversy was *precisely* what the pastor would have had in mind before he/she did this. Stirring up trouble is very much a New Zealand way of making a point.
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”
“What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. (James 2:14-18 ESV)
- - - - - - - - - -
I agree with both verses. Not every who claims to be a Christian is one. Only those that do his will and we are back to John 6:28-29 again.
The idea of salvation by grace alone through faith in NO WAY contradicts James. Works are how we show our faith to others, God judges us by our hearts.
Mormons often used James 2:14ff as “proof” that salvation comes by works. It does not. A life of good works is consistent with abiding in Christ. Faith comes first, then works.
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.