Saturday, August 06, 2011
Religious liberty & the case against gay 'marriage'
This guy's Baptist, but I think it's appropriate for Catholic audiences. He makes some really awesome points. Those who are pushing a brand-new definition of marriage that isn't really valid anyway are not simply out for equally, they want complete domination. They want everyone to just shut up and not express their opinion and those who do are attacked in various ways.
Baptist Press - FIRST-PERSON: Religious liberty & the case against gay 'marriage' - News with a Christian Perspective
Baptist Press - FIRST-PERSON: Religious liberty & the case against gay 'marriage' - News with a Christian Perspective
Mad scientists create sperm from stem cells
Scientists that would make Frankenstein blush have created sperm cells using stem cells in mice. I can't really explain the science, but basically they want to make sperm out of other cells. Of course, this is absolutely insane and immoral, but as usual, we will defer to the scientific community to see if it's ok to do this, even though science has absolutely no moral character and is utterly incapable of telling the morality of an action.
As usual, the general populace are like a frog in gradually heating water. First it was contraception, then in-vitro fertilization, then surrogacy, and it just keeps on going on. We have sperm banks and people donate eggs. Kids don't even know their parents and they are the real losers in all of this.
It's all just so sad.
As usual, the general populace are like a frog in gradually heating water. First it was contraception, then in-vitro fertilization, then surrogacy, and it just keeps on going on. We have sperm banks and people donate eggs. Kids don't even know their parents and they are the real losers in all of this.
It's all just so sad.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Friday, July 29, 2011
Anglicanism: a case study in moral relativism
The modern Anglican Church accepts openly gay bishops who live with their "lover", gay marriage, and the use of contraception within marriage. That's not to mention female priests and bishops plus many other issues.
But how did they get here? I was just looking back at some of the Lambeth Conferences that they've had over the years. This is roughly equivalent to an ecumenical council in the Catholic Church. After splitting from Rome, the Anglican Church managed to uphold most Christian doctrines, but suddenly in 1930 that began to change, and very quickly.
The change is truly astonishing and just goes to show the destructive power of moral relativism. It also shows the veracity of the statement "stand for something or fall for anything." Sadly, that's what happened to the Anglicans.
So what happened?
At the 1920 Lambeth conference, they completely rejected all forms of contraception even within marriage. Look at the uncompromising language used:
It's shocking and hard to believe that just 10 short years later, the Anglican communion would disavow their previous comments and break from their own tradition, so clearly laid out so recently. In 1930, they became the first mainstream Christian church that accepted birth control, although at the time it was limited to married couples for certain reasons.
How could they be so clear in 1920, then reverse their position a decade later?
From there, it was a free fall of moral laxity. In 1958, the reaffirmed the use of birth control.
In 1968 there were more big changes. They began recommending women to the priesthood and the diaconate. They also endorsed "open communion". This is interesting because it seems their doctrines were so shaky and minimized that any less than open communion would appear illogical.
In 1988, they began accepting women to the role of bishop, although this continues to be debated in the various autonomous churches.
In 1998, something odd happened. The conference declared that homosexual actions were incompatible with Scripture. This was voted on and only succeeded narrowly. However, after this statement was issued, many Anglican bishops around the world issued apologies to their gay and lesbian parishioners. This shows the inherent division the Anglican communion is currently experiencing.
Of course, it must be noted that many priests and bishops in the Anglican Communion are far more traditional than others. Often these more conservative leaders come from Africa, and there is a huge split in the church.
I think the goal of the Anglican Church has been to please people, to become popular, but this strategy has backfired. The Anglican Church is not growing. I think the reason is that people either want the truth or they don't. They don't want an accommodated truth which cannot offend anyone. If someone is against the Christian faith, they will not accept a watered-down version of it. Conversely, someone who wants real Christian meat and potatoes will not settle for anything less than the real thing. The Anglican Church is trying to appeal to a group of people that really doesn't exist.
A few years ago, Pope Benedict created a way for Anglicans to make the transition to Catholicism easier and many thousands have taken up the offer. Let's hope more Anglicans are able to find a home with Rome.
But how did they get here? I was just looking back at some of the Lambeth Conferences that they've had over the years. This is roughly equivalent to an ecumenical council in the Catholic Church. After splitting from Rome, the Anglican Church managed to uphold most Christian doctrines, but suddenly in 1930 that began to change, and very quickly.
The change is truly astonishing and just goes to show the destructive power of moral relativism. It also shows the veracity of the statement "stand for something or fall for anything." Sadly, that's what happened to the Anglicans.
So what happened?
At the 1920 Lambeth conference, they completely rejected all forms of contraception even within marriage. Look at the uncompromising language used:
We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of conception, together with the grave dangers - physical, moral and religious - thereby incurred, and against the evils with which the extension of such use threatens the race. In opposition to the teaching which, under the name of science and religion, encourages married people in the deliberate cultivation of sexual union as an end in itself, we steadfastly uphold what must always be regarded as the governing considerations of Christian marriage. One is the primary purpose for which marriage exists, namely the continuation of the race through the gift and heritage of children; the other is the paramount importance in married life of deliberate and thoughtful self-control.
It's shocking and hard to believe that just 10 short years later, the Anglican communion would disavow their previous comments and break from their own tradition, so clearly laid out so recently. In 1930, they became the first mainstream Christian church that accepted birth control, although at the time it was limited to married couples for certain reasons.
How could they be so clear in 1920, then reverse their position a decade later?
From there, it was a free fall of moral laxity. In 1958, the reaffirmed the use of birth control.
In 1968 there were more big changes. They began recommending women to the priesthood and the diaconate. They also endorsed "open communion". This is interesting because it seems their doctrines were so shaky and minimized that any less than open communion would appear illogical.
In 1988, they began accepting women to the role of bishop, although this continues to be debated in the various autonomous churches.
In 1998, something odd happened. The conference declared that homosexual actions were incompatible with Scripture. This was voted on and only succeeded narrowly. However, after this statement was issued, many Anglican bishops around the world issued apologies to their gay and lesbian parishioners. This shows the inherent division the Anglican communion is currently experiencing.
Of course, it must be noted that many priests and bishops in the Anglican Communion are far more traditional than others. Often these more conservative leaders come from Africa, and there is a huge split in the church.
I think the goal of the Anglican Church has been to please people, to become popular, but this strategy has backfired. The Anglican Church is not growing. I think the reason is that people either want the truth or they don't. They don't want an accommodated truth which cannot offend anyone. If someone is against the Christian faith, they will not accept a watered-down version of it. Conversely, someone who wants real Christian meat and potatoes will not settle for anything less than the real thing. The Anglican Church is trying to appeal to a group of people that really doesn't exist.
A few years ago, Pope Benedict created a way for Anglicans to make the transition to Catholicism easier and many thousands have taken up the offer. Let's hope more Anglicans are able to find a home with Rome.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Disobedient women...
I like this article. Not because it is showcasing disobedient women who care nothing about legitimate authority in the Church, but because it presents both sides, and seems fairly objective. I also find it funny that this so called Roman Catholic Womenpriests has only 120 members in the whole world. It's barely worth talking about. You could find a group of 120 or more people who believe virtually anything.
The Catholic Church is not "forbidding" women from being priests because they are backward and outdated, it's because Jesus Christ did not ordain any women to the priesthood. He could have chosen his own mother as an apostle. She certainly was devoted enough to him, perhaps more than anyone up until he was crucified. Also, when the priest lifts up the Eucharist and says "This is my body", he is acting in Persona Christi, in the person of Christ, and Christ's maleness was essential to him.
The priesthood is not about power, as some wrongly believe. It's about being a servant and going even to death to serve others. Some people classify the Catholic Church as male-dominated or something along those lines, but really the priests have the hardest job. Even if a man thought the priesthood was about power, he would seem unfit to be a priest himself. Plus, not all men can be priests either. Like one of the women in this article, many of the people who disobey the Church when it comes to female ordination, also oppose the Church on many other topics, such as a celibate clergy or on sexual matters.
Pope John Paul II said we should not even discuss the topic of women ordination, and many theologians believe it is an infallible teaching of the Church. We would be better off putting our efforts elsewhere.
Article:
Women called to the priesthood » Ventura County Star
The Catholic Church is not "forbidding" women from being priests because they are backward and outdated, it's because Jesus Christ did not ordain any women to the priesthood. He could have chosen his own mother as an apostle. She certainly was devoted enough to him, perhaps more than anyone up until he was crucified. Also, when the priest lifts up the Eucharist and says "This is my body", he is acting in Persona Christi, in the person of Christ, and Christ's maleness was essential to him.
The priesthood is not about power, as some wrongly believe. It's about being a servant and going even to death to serve others. Some people classify the Catholic Church as male-dominated or something along those lines, but really the priests have the hardest job. Even if a man thought the priesthood was about power, he would seem unfit to be a priest himself. Plus, not all men can be priests either. Like one of the women in this article, many of the people who disobey the Church when it comes to female ordination, also oppose the Church on many other topics, such as a celibate clergy or on sexual matters.
Pope John Paul II said we should not even discuss the topic of women ordination, and many theologians believe it is an infallible teaching of the Church. We would be better off putting our efforts elsewhere.
Article:
Women called to the priesthood » Ventura County Star
Monday, July 25, 2011
Unwilling to Care
People just want comfort these days, and I'm probably no different. One area where this is manifested is in confronting struggles of others, including the loss of a loved one. It's quite popular these days for people to downplay someone's death or to simply explain it away. They do not allow themselves to even be shocked, let alone grieve.
A couple of days ago, the singer Amy Winehouse died at the age of 27. A told a friend about it on an internet chat service. His immediate reaction was surprise, but quickly after he simply said it was expected. It was no longer a sad event to him or even something he should care about. He simply brushed it off as being "expected" and that was that.
Same thing happens often times when a loved one passes away. Instead of grieving, the whole process is quickly dismissed by using some easy explanation. Often after the first few minutes of surprise, the person will simply explain it away as "the person was old, they lived a good life" or something along those lines. The individual no longer feels the need to grieve, because well that's just how things are.
I don't really know what the root cause of this is. It could be a couple of factors. One is that people see the gravity of things as being connected to their emotions. If their emotions tell them to be sad, they will be sad, but if not, then they dismiss the event as "not that important".
But more importantly I think people really fear sadness. They would rather just have fun and not have to worry about big topics. They want the world to be orderly and they don't want their daily routine to be altered.
Despite the fact that Amy Winehouse was a drug and alcohol user, her death is still tragic and ought to be responded to with sadness rather than a complete lack of concern.
A couple of days ago, the singer Amy Winehouse died at the age of 27. A told a friend about it on an internet chat service. His immediate reaction was surprise, but quickly after he simply said it was expected. It was no longer a sad event to him or even something he should care about. He simply brushed it off as being "expected" and that was that.
Same thing happens often times when a loved one passes away. Instead of grieving, the whole process is quickly dismissed by using some easy explanation. Often after the first few minutes of surprise, the person will simply explain it away as "the person was old, they lived a good life" or something along those lines. The individual no longer feels the need to grieve, because well that's just how things are.
I don't really know what the root cause of this is. It could be a couple of factors. One is that people see the gravity of things as being connected to their emotions. If their emotions tell them to be sad, they will be sad, but if not, then they dismiss the event as "not that important".
But more importantly I think people really fear sadness. They would rather just have fun and not have to worry about big topics. They want the world to be orderly and they don't want their daily routine to be altered.
Despite the fact that Amy Winehouse was a drug and alcohol user, her death is still tragic and ought to be responded to with sadness rather than a complete lack of concern.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)