Queer Religion

Blog moved to PurplePew.org

2005-06-03T18:25:00.000-07:00

This blog has been moved to Purplepew.org and placed in the category Queer Religion. Please come visit us... and don't forget to update your bookmarks.

Pope's prayer not answered

2005-04-26T00:31:00.000-07:00

In his speech to Germans, according to washingtonpost.com, the new pope prayed for God not to make him pope; he wanted to live in peace for his remaining years. In the Roman pope's own words, [God] 'didn't listen to me.'

So the very first prayer that the world is privy to indicates that God is not listening to the leader of the Roman Catholic church. Interesting...

Conservatives playing the 'faith card'

2005-04-25T00:20:00.000-07:00

"The left has the race card and the gender card; the right has the 'faith card.'"

"An ugly new chapter in the religious wars" by Cathy Young, an article on Boston.com, demonstrates the author's keen understanding of the "religious war" that America is being beefed up for - an attempt by conservative political "Christians" to use their faith muscle to dominate and bring the "enemy" into subjection: all who are not worthy to be invited to Club Religion.

Conservative political "Christians" are now playing the 'faith card' in the fight for conservative judges appointed by Bush to get Senate approval.

THE PERENNIAL battle over judicial nominations is escalating into a religious war. On April 24, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is set, at the time of this writing, to participate in a "Justice Sunday" telecast at which America's most prominent evangelical leaders will lambaste the Democrats who are blocking conservative Bush nominees for federal judicial posts. A flier for the event, organized by the Family Research Council, decries "the filibuster against people of faith," accusing Democrats of an anti-religious bigotry comparable to "racial bias."

God: "Hello, can you hear me?"

2005-04-19T03:49:00.000-07:00

If you believe everything you hear from the media these days you'd think that the Catholic Church had some special in with God that no other religion has. But do they?

If the cardinals that are electing the next pope are being led by the Holy Ghost through prayer then why haven't they agreed on the next pope yet? Is it because God has yet to communicate with all of them?

So far the 115 cardinals have casted their ballots twice and have yet to come up with a two-thirds majority, which is required to elect the next pope - the 'vicar of Christ'. Should we conclude from this that God has yet to decide on a representative? Or maybe it's because the old way of communicating to people - weighing on their hearts - is outdated and doesn't work like it did some two thousand years ago. Then again, maybe it's because most of the cardinals can't hear God speaking.

Just think how much simpler it would be (and God loves simple) if they had drawn the next pope from a lottery system. What would have been wrong with an equal opportunity for all the cardinals to be the next pope? I mean, after all, aren't all the cardinals eligible? And if all are eligible and capable (that is, godly leaders), surely God in all His power could choose the one whom He wanted from the lot through an arbitrary, fair and equitable system (and God loves fair and equal).

But the cardinals in Rome demonstrate through their lack of immediate agreement that the current system in place to elect a new pope is one devised by men and established through tradition. For if God is speaking, how can they not have heard Him yet?

Electing the Next Pope

2005-04-15T03:06:00.000-07:00

There is talk that the next pope may be amount these three: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Germany, Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina and Francis Arinze of Nigeria.

Currently Catholic leaders from around the world are being hold up at the Vatican while they decide by election their next pope to replace John Paul II. The votes of 115 men will decide who shall take the highest seat in the Catholic Church.

But in true Christian form this isn't how it is done. When a position needs to be filled in God's Church, it is not done by democratic elections that are fraught with politiking.

When the disciples needed to select someone to take Judas' place they left the choosing up to God: they casted lots. (Act 1:24-26)

The Catholic Church is now saying that Europe needs to get back to its Christian roots. The true roots of Christianity are found in the Bible. This includes letting God choose who will lead His people.

If the Catholic Church implores getting back to biblical truth, then shouldn't they do the same, lest they be hypocrites?

(Photo from the Washington Blade.)

Comparing Colossians

2005-04-11T16:45:00.000-07:00

King James version (1611) of the Bible says this of Colossians 3:13-23:

[quote]
[13] And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; [14] blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; [15] and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

[16] Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: [17] which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

[18] Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, [19] and not holding the Head, from which all the body joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.

[20] Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, [21] (touch not; taste not; handle not; [22] which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? [23] Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will-worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.
[unquote]

However, the Geneva Bible of 1560 says this:

[quote]
[13] And ye which were dead in sins, and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, forgiving you all your trespasses. [14] And putting out the hand writing of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, he even took it out of the way, and fastened it upon the cross, [15] and hath spoiled the Principalities, and Powers, and hath made a show of them openly, and hath triumphed over them in the same cross.

[16] Let no man therefore condemn you in meat and drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days, [17] which are but a shadow of things to come: but the body is in Christ.

[18] Let no man at his pleasure bear rule over you by humbleness of mind, and worshipping of angels, advancing himself in those things which he never saw, rashly puffed up with his fleshly mind, [19] and holdeth not the head, whereof all the body furnished and knit together by joints and bands, increaseth with the increase of God.

[20] Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the ordinances of the world, why, as though ye lived in the world, are ye burdened with traditions? [21] As, Touch not, Taste not, Handle not. [22] Which all perish with the using, and after the commandments and doctrines of men. [23] Which things have indeed a show of wisdom, in voluntary religion and humbleness of mind, and in not sparing the body: neither have they it in any estimation to satisfy the flesh.
[unquote]

There are many things to note here.

First, it seems that the interpreters of King James' version went out of there way to confound its readers.

Second, in verse 18 of the Geneva Bible it says let no man rule over by humbleness of mind and worshipping of angels. (The side note in the Geneva Bible says, "Meaning, that the hypocrites led them at their pleasure into all superstition and error.) However, in James' version it says to not let anyone deceive you of your reward "in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels" - as if to say there is reward in voluntary humility and in the worshipping of angels, and you should not let anyone mislead you and intrude in those things which he has not seen. Two completely different meanings. One, the former, leads to godliness, and the other, the latter, leads to blind apostasy.

Third, in verse 20 of the James' Bible it has the word "ordinances" in place of the Geneva Bible's "traditions." One might agree that there is a distinct difference between ordinances and traditions. Although traditions can become ordinances and ordinances can become traditions, they are not interchangeable. Ordinances are civil, whereas traditions are cultural, even religious (in appearance) sometimes.

Fourth, it seems in verse 20-23 of James' Bible the answer contradicts the question. But when looking at the same verses in the Geneva Bible, and then compared with verses 18 and 20, there is a consist theme that James' Bible misses: Those who know not the things unseen, for there own good pleasure, lead astray the godly by use of the voluntary religion that incorporates humbleness of mind, worshipping of angels, and their own created doctrines and commandments which are contrary to God; however, the body is in Christ: meaning by faith in the Head, as Christ is the head of everyone who believes on him, therefore no one can condemn you for not worshipping certain holy days, or in eating meats, or drinking (of spirits such as wine), for these things may appear as signs of piety, but, as the margins of the Geneva Bible says they are not - (referring in particular to verse 23), "They pinch and defraud their bodies to show themselves greater hypocrites."

There may very well be a few things that I have missed. Please feel free to expand on my observations.

Acknowledgment is not "Sorry"

2005-04-10T04:30:00.000-07:00

The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams conducted the blessing ceremony of the newly wed couple, Charles and Camilla, yesterday - part of England's tradition.

Included in the tradition is the reciting of a verse found in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer with the congregation, which done as an act of penitence for "sins and wickedness."

It reads, "We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness, which we, from time to time, most grievously have committed, by thought, word and deed, against thy Divine Majesty, provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us."

What is an act of penitence? It is a symbolic act done to acknowledge a sorrow for sin. What is it not? It is not repentance.

Repentance is different from penitence in that it includes not only the acknowledgement of sorrow for sin but also a heavy remorsful heart that begs for forgiveness in the name of Jesus Christ - who died as the Redeemer for all who have sinned against God - which is everyone except Christ Jesus himself. "Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand."

Charles and Camilla merely recited a verse that has no more meaning to God than the "pledge of allegiance" does to Iranians. Charles and Camilla only subtly acknowledged their sins of adultery against Princess Diana, but not outright. Regardless, acknowledgment, even outright, is not the same as a remorseful apology. Satan himself can acknowledge that he is a sinner, but he will never have a repentant heart: for he hates God, and thus the humility it takes to apologize for sinning is beneath him - remember he fell from pride. All who cannot humble themselves and repent to God in the name of Jesus are full of pride.

Lest ye repent, you will not see the kingdom of heaven.

The Anglican Church, created by Henry VIII (who divorced several times, had a couple of wives beheaded and is known to have had several adulterous affairs while married), is a hybrid of the Roman Catholic Church. They wear special robes and love the greetings that come from the "common folk"; they pray repetitious prayers, and confess sins through verse; they accept sin and variance, but never do they REPENT!

But the Anglican Church is not alone; other denominations too having taken on rituals and traditions that originated with the Roman Catholic Church. Ironically, these "imitators of traditions created by men" include churches that oppose Catholic teachings on (homo)sexuality.

For example, the United Church of Christ practices repetitious prayers, wears special robes, participates in the tradition of lighting a candle that is to symbolize the eternal flame of Christ (which isn't very eternal when its blow out after service...), shakes hands for peace, confesses to sin but does not repent of sin, and reads only a verse or two during service without expounding and teaching the meaning behind it and within context (this lack of spiritual bread starves the body of Christ of the rich food that the Holy Word possesses). Thus, even the United Church of Christ which earnestly walks in faith ignorantly fornicates against the Spirit of God by co-opting rituals and traditions of Roman Catholic men, and leaves the weightier matter of Christ, teaching the unadulterated Word of God through faith in the same, undone.

But, lest ye repent!... If the leaders of the churches repented for their fornication against the Spirit of God, their churches would undoubtedly go through a transformation, visible and clear, as their churches would possess the Spirit of Truth. But if these leaders do not repent of their sins, those that follow them will be like the blind led off a cliff unless they excommunicate themselves from these leaders and repent, even their whole household.

Interfaith and the unifying of churches

2005-04-10T02:00:00.000-07:00

We hear a lot of talk about how the churches of the world should unite in love, and how this might be a catalyst for peace in the world. But interfaith is a code word required for entry at Satan's party. In other words, those who possess interfaith philosophy are at a "religious" party that God is not.

Pure religion and undefiled is the religion that worships and serves God and God only, through faith in His Son Jesus Christ, the propitiation for our sins, and not just ours only but for the sins of the whole world. (John 2:2)

Does your religion teach that Jesus is the Son of God; that there is only one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (Timothy 2:5)?

Or does your religion fornicate against the Spirit of God and teach another doctrine, which is a lie against the truth? If there is anything not to be tolerated it is fornication against the truth with lies of hypocricy.

Do you love God with all your heart? Or do you exalt men and praise and thank them, giving glory and honor to them rather than to God? The first commandment is this: "I am the Lord thy God...Thou shalt have none other gods before me." (Deuteronomy 5:6-7)

Do you give worship to graven images made of stone, brass, copper, clay, or the like? This is the breaking of the second commandment. The erection of statues "in honor" of men goes back long before the Egyptians did so, long before Moses brought God's jews out of bondage. Erecting graven images is a symbol of wickedness: for it is idolatry.

Deuteronomy 5:8-9:

Thou shalt not make thee no graven image, or any likeness of that which is in heaven above, or which is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt neither bow thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the third and fourth generation of them that hate me: And showing mercy on thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

Is there a difference between the statue of Mary (mother of the man Jesus), Abraham Lincoln, the pope or Saddam Hussein? Absolutely not. In the eyes of God they are all graven images. Anyone who worships a graven image is not worshipping the living God, but is worshipping a false idol. "Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." (Luke 16:15)

We have an abundance of false idols today. From Hollywood stars to the royals at Windsor Palace, from the Dalai Lama to the pope of Rome, the inquity of our "fathers" - the leaders of the past who practiced and preached to the acceptance of such sin, that is, idolatry - is upon the "children" of the world - the people of today. The traditions of sin, I mean men, have been passed down from generation to generation, causing "children" to fornicate against God as did their fathers' fathers.

Interfaith is nothing more than an orgy of religions, perversing the Name of God and His Holy Word, teaching that fornication against the Spirit is the path to piety. But there is only one path to God...

"If ye love me," Christ said, "keep my commandments." "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he might abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." (John 14:15-17)

"Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: contnue ye in my love. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love." (John 15:8-10)

"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not better than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also."

"But all things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me." (John 15:18-21)

Intolerance for Papal Misrepresentations

2005-04-09T17:10:00.000-07:00

The Guardian Unlimited, an online UK publication, has no tolerance for misrepresentations of the truth by the papal leaders at the Vatican who claim that the fall of communism is attributed to the actions of the late pope.

"We are rewriting the history of communism's collapse" reads the headline, followed by: "It was Gorbachev, not the Pope, who brought the system down."

Writing on the Wall

2005-04-09T01:56:00.000-07:00

"Palestinian militants fired a rocket into Israel from the Gaza Strip yesterday, confirming fears that violence in the territories may once again spill across the borders," states this article in Free Internet Press.

It concluded with: "Add to that the fact that Israel's ultra-conservative religious leaders have called for thousands of Israelis to march on the Temple Mount this Sunday to protest the settlement closure policy, and fundamentalist Islamic leaders have called for thousands of Palestinians to march on the part of the mount holding one of their most sacred mosques at the same time to protest establishing new settlements in Jerusalem, and it is easy to see why both Israeli and Palestinian officials are very nervous right now."

Can you see the writing on the wall?

'Coalition of the Billing'

2005-04-09T01:13:00.000-07:00

In "Iraq is becoming 'free fraud' zone: Corruption in Iraq under US-led CPA may dwarf UN oil-for-food scandal" by Tom Regan of csmonitor.com is this:

"Newsweek reported that lawyers for Custer Battles, and until last week, the Bush administration, had argued the CPA was an "international authority" and thus US laws could not be used. "

"It [the US government] has argued privately that the occupation government, known as the Coalition Provisional Authority, was a multinational institution, not an arm of the US government. So the US government was not technically defrauded. Lawyers for the whistle-blowers point out, however, that President George W. Bush signed a 2003 law authorizing $18.7 billion to go to US authorities in Iraq, including the CPA, 'as an entity of the United States government.' And several contracts with Custer Battles refer to the other party as 'the United States of America.'"

And this:

"Max Boot, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, writes in the Los Angeles Times, the heavy use of contractors by the Bush administration not only lead to corruption problems, but is impeding the US military's progress in Iraq.
Peter W. Singer, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of 'Corporate Warriors,' estimates that there are 20,000 to 30,000 civilians in Iraq performing traditional military functions, from maintaining weapons systems to guarding supply convoys. If you add foreigners involved in reconstruction and oil work, the total soars to 50,000 to 75,000."

"To put this into perspective: All of Washington's allies combined account for 23,000 troops in Iraq. In the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, Singer quips that "President George W. Bush's 'coalition of the willing' might thus be more aptly described as the 'coalition of the billing.' "

Now, again, why did God lead Bush to seek regime change for the Iraqi people? Because Saddam was a tyrant that had respect of persons and stole from the purse of the common people?

The Pope Died

2005-04-02T14:13:00.000-08:00

The pope died today at 2:37 pm (ETS), Reuters reported. He was 84 years old and served as the head of the Roman Catholic Church for 26 years.

Pope John Paul II fell ill on March 31st from a urinary track infection that spread to his blood and caused him to go into septic shock. His death was imminent.

Most of the world, Christians and non-Christians, Catholics and non-Catholics, will mourn his death. Although I am not convinced that the pope was truly the "head shepard" of Christ's flock or was ever the "vicar of Christ," I feel a sense of sorrow for his passing. It is a sad thing when anyone dies. And it is particularly sad when one may not ascend to heaven to be with our Lord Jesus and the Holy Father.

The Catholic church teaches another doctrine and therefore teaches another Christ. It teaches that there is purgatory, where one can make amends for the sins in their previous life; and that one can pay indulgences to the church to be relieved from purgatory; the Bible does not.

The Catholic church also teaches its congregants to pray the rosary. The Bible says that God is against repetitious prayers. (Matthew 6:7) Likewise, the Catholic church teaches that one should pray to Mary, the mother of the man Jesus (she's not the "Mother of God" for a created being can never be the mother of the Creator), for her to intervene to God the Father, when the Bible clearly states that there is only one mediator between man and God, the man Jesus Christ, who was and is the Son of God - because he was God who came in the flesh to pay the penalty for our sins which we could never pay on our own. (Timothy 2:5) These are but a few of the undoctrinal teachings of the Catholic church.

The Holy Scriptures tell us that if there is another doctrine taught, then that doctrine is accursed. (Galatians 1:8) Another doctrine is not the true doctrine. Likewise that means that another Jesus and Mary is taught. Their Jesus and Mary is not the Jesus and Mary whom God chose to serve him. Thus, their God is not the God of Holy Scripture, the one true living God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the one and only "Holy Father." (Matthew 23:2-11)

I mourn for the pope this day because he now knows that he has been deceived by Satan his whole life. But maybe God will have mercy on him anyway. (We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:22-27 & Galatians 5:4-9) ).

Schindler Appeal

2005-03-30T10:11:00.000-08:00

Yesterday Mrs. Schindler sent an emotional appeal to the "husband" of her dying daughter, requesting that he give her back her daughter so she could live. There was no response to from Schiavo. But, then again, why would a husband want to let his wife live?

What I find interesting about this case is that Michael Schiavo is the only one who allegedly heard his wife say that she never wanted to live on life support - if you can call feeding assistance life support. But what I find most interesting is that Michael is married to a Roman Catholic and living in an adulterous relationship with another woman, Jodi, and has two children with her. Could it possibly be that because the Roman Catholics do not believe in divorce that Michael Schiavo feels an even greater need to "let his wife die" in order to move on and legitimate his sinful affair? How much is "the other woman" encouraging him to sever all ties with his past?

I think that these questions must be asked by the appeals judge. It may be in fact that Michael Schiavo has a motive for getting rid of his wife, and using the "right to die" argument just happens to be convenient and expedient.

In the case where a spouse has abandoned the other for another, regardless of the situation for doing so, I think the abandoned spouse, if incapacitated, such is the case with Terri, then full guardianship and legal rights should be handed over to those that have a vested interest in her well-being.

So the ultimate question remains: what was the terrible harm in letting her live?

Microsoft owns rights to name next pope (satire)

2005-03-29T04:26:00.000-08:00

This is pretty funny.
Bill Gates Says Microsoft Owns the Rights to Name the Next Pope

Mormon Church: A Silent Anti-gay Force

2005-03-29T04:11:00.000-08:00

In next month's issue of The Advocate is the cover story, "Mormons on a Mission" by Lisa Neff.

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is one of the most powerful forces working to defeat gay equality."

"While the Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention have grabbed the most headlines with calls to 'save traditional marriage,' the Mormon Church has quietly become one of the most powerful forces opposing any changes that offer gays and lesbians equality under the law. Not only does it lean heavily on its members to deny their homosexuality and to vote for candidates and ballot measures opposing equality, it's thought to be spending millions of dollars to support antigay initiatives and politicians."

Schiavo: Supreme Court Decision Immoral

2005-03-24T14:26:00.000-08:00

The U.S. Supreme Court turned down the appeal from Terri Schiavo's parents today to allow their daughter to live. The Supreme Court has made a profound immoral decision: to not protect the lives of those who cannot protect themselves.

This case is not about a right to die with dignity; it's about a right to live. Let me explain. Terri Schiavo is living and breathing on her own. She is not connected to heart or lung machine to keep her body functioning against its will. She is merely being fed with assistance.

What's the significance of this? Consider a baby, not on any machine, but needs the feeding assistance of someone else, should it then be legal to not provide that essential assistance? Or a better argument yet, what about a senile elderly person who needs feeding assistance? Should we cut off their means for survival just because their brain is not with us? What about the mentally retarded?

Our medical technology is not so superior that it can detect beyond a reasonable doubt that Terri Schiavo does not have even the slightest cognizance of her own being or of her Maker's. And let's not forget, when the medical community doesn't want to take responsibility for error, negligence or malpractice they remind us that their job is not a true science but a "practice." So, can the doctors be certain in this case that there is no error being made here? Thus, the medical community should side with caution rather than error.

Basically what the Supreme Court has done is turn a blind eye to the fact that one judge has determined it was in the best interest of the husband to allow Terri Schiavo to starve to death in the name of "dying with dignity."

When we marry someone, we take a vow to stay committed in that union through "sickness and health". We don't get to choose when it is time for our loved ones to die; God does.

In the due course of time, even with feeding assistance, Ms. Schiavo, like everyone else, will die. The only moral thing to do here is let her die at God's will.

Catholic Calls for Gay Teacher Ban

2005-03-23T08:27:00.000-08:00

A Scottish Catholic bishop, Bishop Joseph Devine, calls for a ban on gay teachers, saying: "It would be offering a lifestyle that is incompatible with Catholic social teaching." Additionally, he says that gay teachers already in the Catholic school system should be denied promotion. GayNZ.com

It's clear, based on Pope John II's comments in his recently published book, Memory and Identity, that Bishop Devine has the pope's blessing to discriminate. Never mind that the Holy Word of God says otherwise.

Gay Professor Labeled 'Terrorist'

2005-03-18T22:30:00.000-08:00

Included on the Terrorist Exclusion List — a "non-public" list created under the Patriot Act - and thus labeled a 'terrorist,' is a lesbian professor scheduled to teach at Harvard University. Dora Maria Tellez, an advocate for gay and lesbian and women's rights advocate in the eighties has been denied a visa to enter the
United States by the U.S. State Department "for alleged involvement in terrorist activities," according to an article in the Washington Blade Online.

Excerpts:

"Tellez, who became one of Latin America’s most prominent figures following her leadership role in the Nicaraguan Sandinista insurrection, was scheduled to begin teaching classes on Latin American history and gender issues at Harvard University this spring as the Robert F. Kennedy visiting professor of Latin American studies."

"A U.S. government official confirmed that the visa denial is related to Tellez’s role in the Sandinista insurgency — a rebellion that unseated the Somoza family dictatorship that had ruled Nicaragua for 50 years. The Sandinistas are not on the State Department list of terrorist organizations, and though voted out of power in 1990, remain an active and recognized political party within Nicaragua."

I thought the Bush Adminstration was pro-demacracy. Maybe they are just so anti-gay that even a reputable professional such as Professor Tellez shouldn't be granted permission to enter the United States. After all, if she was a leader in uprooting a "family dictatorship" once, then maybe she can do it again here in America.

Alaska WildLife Refuge Marked for Destruction

2005-03-16T15:47:00.000-08:00

"In a major victory for President Bush's energy policy, the Senate voted Wednesday to open Alaska's wildlife refuge to oil drilling" is the lead in The Christian Science Monitor's article today.

After two decades of debate, drilling in ANWR is closer to reality as the Senate voted 51-to-49 in favor of pilfering and destoying the land in hopes of finding black gold: oil.

Of course the administration wants us to believe that there is an oil shortage out there, and that there are no other options than drilling in ANWR. Bush is an oil man; and he comes from oil country.

But what about the environment?

Weren't we created by God to take care of the earth?

Anyone who destroys what God created, and for profit even, is mark for destruction in the latter days by God: "And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they sould be judged, and thou shouldest give reward to the servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth." (Rev 11:18)

American Founders Christian?

2005-03-14T16:27:00.000-08:00

Anyone who says that our founding fathers were Christian, and so America was founded on Christian principles, is either seriously misinformed or they are a bold-faced liar.

Our nation was founded by men who profited from kidnapping men, women, and children from Africa and enslaved them to work ridiculous hours under ungodly and inhumane conditions in exchange for the priviledge to live another day of misery.

And what about the Indians at the hands of our government? If our government couldn't cheat them out of their land then they hunted them down like savage beasts and slaughtered them.

Even the writer of the constitution had no morals to speak of. If Thomas Jefferson was a true Christian then why is that he raped his slave women, producing several offspring? Since when is rape or adultery Christian acts?

Our founding fathers were no different than the people we have in office today: they talk a good game and invoke the name of God and tout their "faith" at every opportunity, but when it comes to walking the walk, they seek not the narrow road of righteousness, they walk the wide road of lies, deceit, destruction, vengeance, variance, greed, idolatry, and guile - the road straight to hell.

One cannot say they are for God on the one hand and then on the other sin against God. There can be no hypocrisy with God.

Remember what the Bible says? "By their fruits you shall know them." We must look to the whole of a person and judge them according to their behavior and acts, rather than on words and rhetoric.

Pseudo-Christians would like to believe that our nation was founding on Christian principles, as if to say they are the offspring of righteous men. But the truth is they are just like their forefathers: hypocrites.

DeLay's Sin In Spotlight

2005-03-14T15:53:00.000-08:00

In a CNN article today, Delay and Company by Karen Tumulty, the spotlight is on DeLay and his pastor for their sins.

While on the one hand, Delay and his paster, Ed Buckham, were holding hands in prayer for the God's guidance, the other hand was busy blocking the protection of tax cuts for low-income workers, creating legislation for Medicare prescription-drug plan that benefits pharmaceutical companies yet disguised as benefitting seniors, and accepting gifts in exchange for political muscle and favor.

The Bible says, "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save [alone] save him?...Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." (James 2:14&17)

And, "Though believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" (James 2:19-20)

Lent: What's This?

2005-03-12T04:51:00.000-08:00

Lent is said to be the 40 days before Easter where one seeks repentance through sacrificing something (Catholic) or gets closer through reflection.

But nowhere in the Bible do we find an example of Lent. The one passage though that comes to mind when abstaining from meats is this: "Now the spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils...forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats..."

Oh how man tries so hard to be righteous on his own terms. For righteousness does not come from observing the traditions of men but rather through repentance in Christ name and by obeying the commandments of God.

Religious Essay on America

2005-03-11T19:04:00.000-08:00

I'm usually not a fan of Christianity Today as their commentators are more like blind guides two steps from the edge of the cliff, but I found this essay by David Dark entiled "The Gospel According To America," posted on their website, to be an eye-opener.

Here's an excerpt:

When the church is the blind, uncritical endorser or "spiritual" chaplain of whatever the nation decides to do, it has largely renounced its vocation as the body of Christ. It is neither the salt of the earth nor a light to the nations. And it has traded its worship of a crucified Jew for a devastatingly tribal idolatry.

To return to Jesus' historical context, it's admittedly difficult for many Americans to sympathize. Most of us are not in the position of a Jew in first-century Palestine whose status is essentially that of a slave (Phil. 2:7). For many in the world, struggling to survive under tyrannical regimes with Normal Trade Relations or Most Favored Nation Status with the United States or barely surviving under the less life-sustaining end of a global trade agreement, America is undoubtedly Rome.

And He concludes by saying this:

One would think that the enormous, mostly agreed-on, historical missteps in American history and church history would have us speaking with a bit more modesty or with some measure of apprehension concerning our karmic account, conceding that history can't be controlled and renouncing, once and for all, our pretensions toward omnipotence. As students of the witness against Babylon, Rome, and any and all antichrists, we should note how easily an emotional fantasy can become a kind of phantasm with a life all its own (test the spirits) and let the biblical witness warn us against impersonating a race chosen by God.

About the author:

David Dark is the author of Everyday Apocalypse (Brazos). This essay is excerpted from his new book, The Gospel According to America: A Meditation on a God-blessed, Christ-haunted Idea, published by Westminster John Knox Press in February 2005. Copyright 2005 by James David Dark. Used by permission of Westminster John Knox Press.

"The Passion" for Money

2005-03-11T04:04:00.000-08:00

Well it seems that Mel Gibson's newly-found fortune of $250 million or so with "The Passion of the Christ" is not nearly enough money for him. Now the recut version is out.

It wasn't enough for this Christian wanna-be to butcher the truth of the Gospels for profit once, now he's doing it again -- and right before Easter.

God or Mammon

2005-03-11T02:25:00.000-08:00

In her article entitled, GOD OR MAMMON, Cathy Young makes an excellent point about religious charities who serve the public sector and are allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation:

But what if, for instance, a faith-based social service refused to hire married women, or refused, on scriptural grounds, to put women in leadership positions? Should religious belief excuse an organization from having to follow laws against sex discrimination, particularly in the public sector? And if so, why should that exemption be limited to organizations with an explicitly religious mission? Why not extend it to the deeply religious owner of a secular business who wants to run his enterprise in accordance with the principles of his faith?

Also, in her article, she notes that The Salvation Army first provided insurance coverage to "one domicile adult." But when conservative "religious" groups like Focus On The Family cried foul they rescinded.

Unfortunately, too many "Christian" organizations are using their political muscle to promote their (un)scriptural agenda. Their "religion" -- a theology based on misinterpretation of scripture -- give them justification for inequality and injustice to any group they wish. And the government, particularly this administration, will do nothing short of supporting them because they too lack the full understanding of scripture which says: "For with God there is no respect of persons."

Don't think Ms. Young has an agenda for feminists either. She also writes:

If social conservatives tend to brush aside these questions in their conviction that religion is a socially beneficent force, liberals have their own blind spot, overlooking the fact that nonreligious dogmas in the nonprofit sector can be equally problematic. For nearly three decades, for example, federal and state money for domestic violence programs has gone to feminist groups whose missionary zeal fully matches that of any church. These programs not only serve as vehicles for a narrow sectarian ideology; they also habitually discriminate on the basis of gender, both in the provision of services and in employment.

The truth of the matter is that equality should extend across the board, period. But that is not what is happening here. The reason for this is that there is a whole lot of money at stake. That's the bottom line with "religion" today: money.

But as Christ once asked, Whose face is on the money? Certainly not God's.