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 ...
Ignore my anachronistic failing of using Kool-Aid millennia before its invention...
I assume the "grape juice" thingie is a slap at me on the assumption that I am a Fundamentalist Protestant. I'm sorry to disappoint you.
Let me put it to you this way. You have no way whatsoever to prove the "virgin birth" or any other "miracle" of the "new testament" but you accept them all nevertheless out of fideism. Anyone who does this--and who has an "old testement" in his bible--can likewise fideistically accept the totally extra-natural, pre-natural ceation and formation of the universe before it began to function in accordance with "natural law" on the sixth day.
Let me put it another way. If you can't prove the virgin birth but choose to believe it and feel the need to put down people who can't prove Sheshet Yemei Bre'shit but believe it, then you are a living, breathing definition of hypocrisy.
But as a Jew you do read Isaiah ???
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: A virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14
Where's the hypocrisy is not believing what can be disproved, but having faith in what hasn't been disproved???
Is it possible the Lord made a universe where He put a bunch of stuff to fake us into thinking it's older than 6,000? Of course He can do that. I just choose not to worship a God who would be that much of a doofus.
I am not Jewish.
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: A virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14
Chr*stians read and assume the truth of the "new testament" from the outset. Therefore they accept its interpretations of "old testament" verses. Therefore when you read Isaiah 7:14 you see J*sus.
If one does not read the Hebrew Bible with this a priori assumption, the idea that these verses refer to J*sus is simply an unwarranted assumption.
As a chr*stian do you ever read the Torah?
Totally out of context. Just because someone does not worship the devil or burn believers at the stake does not make them Christian.
If the universe had been created in six days prior to the onset of the functioning of nature 5769+ years ago, it would look just exactly as it does. You assume it "must" be zillions of years old because you assume that it must have formed "naturally." What if it didn't function "naturally?"
Is it possible the Lord made a universe where He put a bunch of stuff to fake us into thinking it's older than 6,000? Of course He can do that. I just choose not to worship a God who would be that much of a doofus.
1)The alternative to the G-d who "lies" in nature is the G-d who "lies" in the Torah. Nature is not absolute. The Torah is. From nature one receives only an indirect knowledge of G-d. From the Torah one receives direct knowledge.
2)When Adam was created on the Sixth Day he "looked" about twenty years old. This does not mean he was twenty years old. It all depends on whether or not one insists on subjecting the creation of Adam to the laws of nature as they exist in the fully created, fully functional universe. Ditto with a universe that "looks old." If Adam's creation as an adult doesn't make G-d a "doofus" (as you so charmingly put it), then neither does the creation and formation of the universe during six days 5769+ years ago. One's the same as the other.
BTW, please don't reply to this with that bizarre concept of "false memories." I've heard it a zillion times and it's a red herring.
Did you know they're looking for him now? Did you know that the weekday `Amidah (recited three times a day) contains a prayer for the coming of Mashiach? Of course, it also contains prayers for the ingathering of all Jews into Israel, the rebuilding of the Temple, and the restoration of the literal Davidic throne. They're all basically referring to the same thing. The chr*stian "spiritual messiah" is an erroneous concept alien to the Torah.
BTW, did you know that the Torah is the supreme Revelation and that the Prophets and Hagiographa have lesser, secondary authority? That the Torah sits in judgment on all prophets and all claims of revelation? Taht the messiah is merely the servant of the Torah whose job is to expedite the full observance of the Torah by gathering in the exiles and rebuilding the Temple?
No "prophet" can declare the Torah "fulfilled" and replace it with something else. If this were true the Torah would plainly state that it is temporary. it does not.
You chr*stians read your bibles all out of order. First you read the "new testament," then you read the Prophets, and finally you read that "low" and boring Torah. Try reading your bible chronologically. The Torah comes first. Nothing can contradict it.
> I can say that the Jehovah’s Witness credo is not Christian without having to judge a soul.
And in doing so you would be dead wrong.
The Jehovah Witnesses believe that Christ is the only begotten SON of God, but not God Himself. That would make them non-Trinitarian. That would NOT make them non-Christian, as Christianity does not require Trinitarianism as a core belief. Christianity also does not require a belief in the Immortality of the Soul — which is something else the Jehovah Witnesses reject.
> Any sect which denies the divinity of Christ is not “Christianizing” anyone.
Based upon what? Your definition of Christianity? (Which would be very similar in most respects to mine, I would guess) Sorry, that assertion is wrong: many Christians believe that Christ is the Son of God, but not God Himself.
> I am a New Zealander. Auckland is my home town. I go back there from time to time and have many friends there.
Gidday mate. Something else we have in common, tho’ I was born overseas. Next time you are in town, why not let’s do coffee or a beer or something?
> Am I being too judgmental or should I just say yeah...... go along and check it out for yourself.”?
Most assuredly I will check it out for myself, as it is on my TO DO: list. I intend to meet all the social agencies in Auckland, as time permits, as a part of my work with the Guardian Angels.
I don’t know whether you’re being too judgmental: you have clear opinions that tend to err on the side of caution, and that’s not a bad thing.
For my part, I try to go and see the uglier parts of life and often wish that some of these inner-city denizens could Christianize themselves, even a little bit, because they surely need it. As do we all — the difference between us and them is that we know it and are trying to do something about it.
One other note: up-thread another poster pointed out that the *actual message* on the billboard isn’t too far wrong. Pondering that point carefully, I can see what he means. It’s a double-entendre, but it almost works.
> Totally out of context. Just because someone does not worship the devil or burn believers at the stake does not make them Christian.
So rather than dodge my question, why not just answer it then? How does your assertion square with Christ’s instruction?
So far as I can tell, it does not square at all. Christ is not ambiguous in what he says in that passage: it is straight talk, not spoken in parables and not much “wiggle room” therein.
Sorry, “out of context” doesn’t work in this case. It is in context and beyond serious dispute.
Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.”? (Luke 9:50)
____________________________________________________
Nice try...
But the discipiles were complaining that the others from another congregation were casing devils out in the name of Jesus ...
Not putting up basphemeous billboards about His mother and His birth...
Mormonism teaches that “god” came down and had sex with Mary...
But not Christianity...
> You chr*stians read your bibles all out of order. First you read the “new testament,” then you read the Prophets, and finally you read that “low” and boring Torah.
Which, for a Christian, is a perfectly valid way to read it, because Christians believe that the Old Testament was fulfilled by Christ, and that what Christ wants his followers to do is defined intact in the New Testament.
An alternative way to read The Holy Bible is the way our family did when I was growing up: one set of sequential readings from the Old Testament, and two sets of sequential readings from the New Testament each day, for a full year.
Starting in Genesis and ending in Malachi for the OT, and starting in St Matthew and ending in The Revelation of St John The Divine in the New.
By time the year ended, the Old Testament had been read in its entirety once, and the New Testament twice.
That is a very difficult discipline, but generally worth it.
I don’t do that anymore, I just read a passage here, and a passage there, when it suits me to do so. This is lazy, and I should probably undertake the old reading regimen again someday.
> Try reading your bible chronologically. The Torah comes first. Nothing can contradict it.
Nothing can contradict the Pentateuch, that is true: it is God’s Word as revealed to Moses. Christ can, and has, fulfilled it. So if you do not also read the New Testament as well as the Old, you are still observing the old, and obsolete, rules.
(That is what Christians believe, anyway.)
I am not Jewish.
_____________________________________
I was going on what you have said in other threads...
I must have misunderstood...
> But the discipiles were complaining that the others from another congregation were casing devils out in the name of Jesus ...
>
> Not putting up basphemeous billboards about His mother and His birth...
Rather than using sophistry, why not point out the blasphemies in the billboard for me?
A literal reading of the billboard renders Truth: Joseph (and indeed all Christians) *would* find God a hard act to follow. No blasphemy here: following God is a difficult thing to do. It is, by way of contrast, easy to sin.
So is the blasphemy in the picture of Joseph and Mary in the bed? How do you suppose they did sleep — I mean, after Jesus was born? We know that they slept together, because Jesus had a brother. So no blasphemy there, either.
Is the blasphemy in the double-entendre? Only if one has a dirty mind. Which we, as Christians, naturally should not have.
So, if you find blasphemy in the double-entendre, and imagine the literally-true text in the billboard to mean other than what it literally means, perhaps this indicates that you have something important to do on Sunday before you take communion.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
> Mormonism teaches that “god” came down and had sex with Mary...
>
> But not Christianity...
It is clearly your opinion that Mormons are not Christian -- that's fine, you're entitled to that. Mormons believe that they *are* Christian. I believe that they are, too.
As to how Mary became impregnated, how do you suppose it happened? I suppose it happened precisely the way the Bible said it did in Luke 1:35
"The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
Pretty straightforward, I should have thought, without being overly graphic. The Holy Ghost made Mary pregnant. *How* this happened, in graphic detail, is left to our fertile (and sometimes filthy) imaginations because it is unimportant.
*That* it happened is what is important.
Rather than using sophistry, why not point out the blasphemies in the billboard for me?
_______________________________________________
Die, you dont see any blasphemy in the billboard ?????
Mormons believe that they *are* Christian. I believe that they are, too.
_____________________________________________________
BINGO
Thanks for your reply. In my and others’ opinion, church is where the sheep are fed. Then we “go out” into the world and share the gospel with our friends and neighbors. Inviting people to church is great, but they will hopefully hear the gospel and the Word of God preached, not topical “self-help” sermons and such that are trying to meet the “felt needs” of unbelievers. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this matter.
When I say “liberal,” I mean theologically liberal. There are churches that hold to biblical teaching, and there are others that have wandered off into postmodernism and New Age and social gospel stuff. It is important that we hold to truth, and not mix truth with falsehood. The Enemy is subtle in his deceptions, so we need to be extremely vigilant.
FWIW, you're right.
Would their salvation be lost?
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.