An article posted on SFGate.com by Justin Berton, Chronicle Staff Writer, on New Year's Day proclaims, "Biblical Scholar's date for rapture: May 21, 2011."
The article tells how Harold Camping, who runs Family Radio, an evangelical station with a global following, has a laugh over the "fairy tale" Mayan prediction for the world's end in 2012 (as portrayed in the new movie).
As an 88-year-old alleged biblical scholar who claims to have studied the Bible for nearly 70 years, and states "he has developed a mathematical system to interpret prophesies hidden within the Good Book," he then makes his own prediction, claiming May 21, 2011 will be the "end of times."
Camping is the same so-called biblical scholar who prophesied for two years that September 6, 1994 would be Judgment Day. A day when dozens of his gullible flock gathered within Alameda's Veterans Memorial Building to "await the coming of Christ."
Unsurprisingly, a day that came and went without the heavenly trumpet blast, and Camping reaching for any excuse to cover up his faux pas. He settled on the possibility that he might have made a mistake on his calculations.
He made a mistake all right, but it has nothing to do with his mathematical calculations.
However, it obviously did not deter him from giving the old cosmic roulette wheel another spin, and coming up with his present prediction. Nor did his egg-faced followers forego their loyalty and, in fact, have helped sponsor and spread his present message around the world.
Answer me this: how does a self-proclaimed biblical scholar, with 70 years of studying the Bible, never come across the words of Jesus claiming that "no man" will know the time of his return, only God?
But of that day and hour knows no man, no, not the angels, but my Father only. --- Matthew 24: 36
A fact which is stressed various times in God's word: for instance, Matthew 24: 35-51, Mark 13: 32-37, and Luke 12: 35-48.
Then why does a so-called scholar continue to engage in the same foolish action that brought such laughable disgrace to himself, his followers, and his alleged faith?
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful: but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves wise, they became fools. -- Romans 1: 21-22
And:
As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool returns to his folly. --- Proverbs 26: 11
Needless to say, I would urge you not to be as this man and his followers. Do not be overly concerned about the day or hour, it is not for us to know. Likewise, do not allow the foolish interpretations of those who take the Bible out of context to destroy your faith. Just continue to do your best, and be as Christ-like as possible. Let God handle the rest.
[Quotes and facts about Camping taken from Justin Berton article in SFGate.com]
Showing posts with label Religious Controversy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religious Controversy. Show all posts
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Overly Pious Pulpit Proclamation
From all the negative Christian related news stories in the past couple weeks, a person could easily question whether extra effort is made by the secular media to find such unbecoming fare over the holidays, or if the radical fringe element hiding under the Christian banner increases their efforts at this time. Sadly, it is probably a combination of the two.
Two days before Christmas we were introduced to the latest publicity-oriented claims by Rev. Fred Phelps, of the infamous Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church. A church that holds a conservative title, but proclaims extremist beliefs. A church known for unChristian-like hate-filled speech, such as hatred towards homosexuals (not just the act of homosexuality), and equally known for publicly protesting funerals of fallen servicemen.
Rev. Phelps' latest overly pious pulpit proclamation attacks pop star Lady Gaga. He insists, "God hates Lady Gaga," and proclaims she is a "hussy" and a heathen for "seducing a generation."
Excuse me, but am I the only one who sees a correlation between Phelps and Mayor Augustus Maywho from How the Grinch Stole Christmas?
Just like Mayor Maywho stuttering and stammering when asked by little Cindylou, who could quote the Book of Who better than he could, I see Phelps equally stuttering and stammering when asked to show any chapter and verse in the Bible to back up his ridiculous claim that God hates any human: individually or collectively.
Though it is true that the Bible claims there are consequences to sin, at no time does it claim that God hates the sinner. Quite the opposite, in fact, since it proclaims:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. --- John 3:16
It is my fervent prayer that a bible-reading Christian be inspired to go to the bible-thumping Phelps and the WBC congregation, to kindly tell them that, in the spirit of the holidays, it's not too late for them either. Afterall, God loves them as much as He loves Lady Gaga, or any old Phelps-like Grinch or Scrooge.
[Phelps quotes taken from Marc Schneider article on PopEater.com]
Two days before Christmas we were introduced to the latest publicity-oriented claims by Rev. Fred Phelps, of the infamous Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church. A church that holds a conservative title, but proclaims extremist beliefs. A church known for unChristian-like hate-filled speech, such as hatred towards homosexuals (not just the act of homosexuality), and equally known for publicly protesting funerals of fallen servicemen.
Rev. Phelps' latest overly pious pulpit proclamation attacks pop star Lady Gaga. He insists, "God hates Lady Gaga," and proclaims she is a "hussy" and a heathen for "seducing a generation."
Excuse me, but am I the only one who sees a correlation between Phelps and Mayor Augustus Maywho from How the Grinch Stole Christmas?
Just like Mayor Maywho stuttering and stammering when asked by little Cindylou, who could quote the Book of Who better than he could, I see Phelps equally stuttering and stammering when asked to show any chapter and verse in the Bible to back up his ridiculous claim that God hates any human: individually or collectively.
Though it is true that the Bible claims there are consequences to sin, at no time does it claim that God hates the sinner. Quite the opposite, in fact, since it proclaims:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. --- John 3:16
It is my fervent prayer that a bible-reading Christian be inspired to go to the bible-thumping Phelps and the WBC congregation, to kindly tell them that, in the spirit of the holidays, it's not too late for them either. Afterall, God loves them as much as He loves Lady Gaga, or any old Phelps-like Grinch or Scrooge.
[Phelps quotes taken from Marc Schneider article on PopEater.com]
Monday, December 28, 2009
Another Anglican Faux Pas
It appears the Anglican church is getting its share of publicity this holiday season. In recent posts I dealt with the controversial billboard of Joseph and Mary sponsored by an Anglican church in New Zealand.
This new controversy springs from the Church of St. Lawrence, an Anglican congregation in York, England.
The Reverend Tim Jones transitioned from his seasonal sermon of Mary and the birth of Jesus to a discussion on the poor and vulnerable.
During his speech Father Jones advised his congregation to shoplift: stipulating that shoplifting from a large retail chain was preferable to prostitution, burglary, or robbery.
Jones furthered informed his parishioners that it would not break the "thou shalt not steal" commandment, because it "is permissible for those who are in desperate situations to take food that they might not starve."
"I do not offer such advice because I think that stealing is a good thing, or because I think it is harmless, for it is neither," states Jones.
He is further quoted as saying, "I would ask them not to take any more than they need. I offer the advice with a heavy heart. Let my words not be misrepresented as a simplistic call for people to shoplift."
Naturally, these and the rest of his statements were quickly comdemned by the local constabulary.
Anne McIntosh, the Tory MP for Vale of York, said: "I cannot condone inciting anyone to commit a criminal offense."
Likewise, Archdeacon Richard Seed, states: "The Church of England does not advise anyone to shoplift, or break the law in anyway."
Rev. Jones may honestly feel his advice springs from compassion for the poor and destitute, but that does not absolve him from misusing his position of spiritual authority by not only condoning, but encouraging his parishioners to commit criminal acts.
Furthermore, his insistance that stealing is "permissible" is not entirely factual. God's word does state:
Men do not despise a thief, if he steals to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; --- Proverbs 6:30
But it goes on to say:
But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house. --- Proverbs 6:31
Is that really what Rev. Jones thinks is the best option for the poor and destitute? After all, it is highly unlikely that his parishioners are professional thieves. Therefore, for those desperate enough to take his poor advice, how many will get caught and find themselves in a worse situation than before?
Jail time, costly fines, a criminal record: making a wrong choice during a tough time when temptation is great can quite easily ruin the rest of their lives.
Similarly, Jones would not be on the proverbial hot seat, if he had not made his own foolish choice to take God's word out of context, and publicly proclaim it as fact.
Someone close by him needs to remind Rev. Jones that "the lesser of two evils" is still an evil choice. It is far better to put forth the time and effort into discovering a positive alternative.
[Primary facts and quotes came from a Chris Brooke article in dailymail.co.uk.]
This new controversy springs from the Church of St. Lawrence, an Anglican congregation in York, England.
The Reverend Tim Jones transitioned from his seasonal sermon of Mary and the birth of Jesus to a discussion on the poor and vulnerable.
During his speech Father Jones advised his congregation to shoplift: stipulating that shoplifting from a large retail chain was preferable to prostitution, burglary, or robbery.
Jones furthered informed his parishioners that it would not break the "thou shalt not steal" commandment, because it "is permissible for those who are in desperate situations to take food that they might not starve."
"I do not offer such advice because I think that stealing is a good thing, or because I think it is harmless, for it is neither," states Jones.
He is further quoted as saying, "I would ask them not to take any more than they need. I offer the advice with a heavy heart. Let my words not be misrepresented as a simplistic call for people to shoplift."
Naturally, these and the rest of his statements were quickly comdemned by the local constabulary.
Anne McIntosh, the Tory MP for Vale of York, said: "I cannot condone inciting anyone to commit a criminal offense."
Likewise, Archdeacon Richard Seed, states: "The Church of England does not advise anyone to shoplift, or break the law in anyway."
Rev. Jones may honestly feel his advice springs from compassion for the poor and destitute, but that does not absolve him from misusing his position of spiritual authority by not only condoning, but encouraging his parishioners to commit criminal acts.
Furthermore, his insistance that stealing is "permissible" is not entirely factual. God's word does state:
Men do not despise a thief, if he steals to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; --- Proverbs 6:30
But it goes on to say:
But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house. --- Proverbs 6:31
Is that really what Rev. Jones thinks is the best option for the poor and destitute? After all, it is highly unlikely that his parishioners are professional thieves. Therefore, for those desperate enough to take his poor advice, how many will get caught and find themselves in a worse situation than before?
Jail time, costly fines, a criminal record: making a wrong choice during a tough time when temptation is great can quite easily ruin the rest of their lives.
Similarly, Jones would not be on the proverbial hot seat, if he had not made his own foolish choice to take God's word out of context, and publicly proclaim it as fact.
Someone close by him needs to remind Rev. Jones that "the lesser of two evils" is still an evil choice. It is far better to put forth the time and effort into discovering a positive alternative.
[Primary facts and quotes came from a Chris Brooke article in dailymail.co.uk.]
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Overzealous in New Zealand? --- Part 2
With regard to the "appropriate" issue, I find myself going against the majority of commenters in the articles, news reports, and blogs that I have read so far. There are an overwhelming number of comments utilizing words such as, poor taste, degrading, gross, deplorable, sacrilegious, and blasphemy.
Ironically, 99.9% of these negative comments fall back on standard rhetoric. It appears that they blurt out the first thing that comes to their mind, and cannot even give a logical explanation for their alleged belief. And if anyone puts down their comment, or adds an opposing view, both parties begin a kindergarten-style yelling match with various bouts of name calling.
Such activity is self-defeating: especially from a Christian standpoint. They claim to be defending God, but they do so in an ungodly manner.
The non-Christian, taking part in the squabble of just viewing the proceedings, uses the un-Christ-like actions of the professed Christian to solidify their choice in not becoming a Christian; even though their actions may be just as infantile.
All of this relates to one of the primary reasons I began this blog. What good is claiming an opinion or belief in something if you cannot explain why you believe it, or how you arrived at that opinion?
Personally, I found the majority of comments more deplorable than the billboard depicting Joseph and Mary. After all, they were both human, therefore subject to human emotions, thoughts, and frailties. And we know from God's word that Joseph originally thought Mary had been unfaithful, until he was visited by the heavenly host, and told otherwise. So wouldn't it be just as human for him to consider all the possible ramifications once he became convinced of the uniqueness of Mary's pregnancy?
Furthermore, Joseph and Mary were married, and eventually had additional children: since God's word tells us Jesus had brothers and sisters. So why is it unimaginable to consider the God-ordained position of a husband and wife sleeping together?
For those that are married, don't you and your spouse sleep together?
The artwork on the billboard is extremely benign: there is no nudity, and, in fact, Joseph and Mary are not even touching. Thus, there is nothing outright dirty or gross about it; unless it is assumed as such by the viewer.
With regard to the caption, "Poor Joseph, God is a hard act to follow," why should we disagree?
We modern-day Christians have the luxury of God's word readily available. We know that Jesus was the only sinless human who ever lived; and, though we know we are to aspire to be Christ-like, we also know we will never reach that ideal in our human form.
Is it then so hard to believe Joseph must have had similar thoughts and beliefs with regard to God?
In the church representative's own admission, they just hope the ad gets people talking about the Christmas story. Is that a bad thing? --- Of course not.
So why all the controversy and hoopla? --- Simple; the secular media spun the story in such a way to push more buttons, and people jumped on the bandwagon, as usual, without taking time to think anything through.
Would Christ be upset at the billboard? I honestly do not think he would, and here is one of the reasons I have come to that belief:
But Jesus said, Forbid them not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part. --- Mark 9: 39-40
Anything can be used for the glory of God if it is utilized with a righteous intent. Just as any Christian can tarnish the truth in the eyes of unbelievers if they act un-Christ-like.
With that in mind, I encourage you all to think before you speak, and consider the ramifications before you act.
Ironically, 99.9% of these negative comments fall back on standard rhetoric. It appears that they blurt out the first thing that comes to their mind, and cannot even give a logical explanation for their alleged belief. And if anyone puts down their comment, or adds an opposing view, both parties begin a kindergarten-style yelling match with various bouts of name calling.
Such activity is self-defeating: especially from a Christian standpoint. They claim to be defending God, but they do so in an ungodly manner.
The non-Christian, taking part in the squabble of just viewing the proceedings, uses the un-Christ-like actions of the professed Christian to solidify their choice in not becoming a Christian; even though their actions may be just as infantile.
All of this relates to one of the primary reasons I began this blog. What good is claiming an opinion or belief in something if you cannot explain why you believe it, or how you arrived at that opinion?
Personally, I found the majority of comments more deplorable than the billboard depicting Joseph and Mary. After all, they were both human, therefore subject to human emotions, thoughts, and frailties. And we know from God's word that Joseph originally thought Mary had been unfaithful, until he was visited by the heavenly host, and told otherwise. So wouldn't it be just as human for him to consider all the possible ramifications once he became convinced of the uniqueness of Mary's pregnancy?
Furthermore, Joseph and Mary were married, and eventually had additional children: since God's word tells us Jesus had brothers and sisters. So why is it unimaginable to consider the God-ordained position of a husband and wife sleeping together?
For those that are married, don't you and your spouse sleep together?
The artwork on the billboard is extremely benign: there is no nudity, and, in fact, Joseph and Mary are not even touching. Thus, there is nothing outright dirty or gross about it; unless it is assumed as such by the viewer.
With regard to the caption, "Poor Joseph, God is a hard act to follow," why should we disagree?
We modern-day Christians have the luxury of God's word readily available. We know that Jesus was the only sinless human who ever lived; and, though we know we are to aspire to be Christ-like, we also know we will never reach that ideal in our human form.
Is it then so hard to believe Joseph must have had similar thoughts and beliefs with regard to God?
In the church representative's own admission, they just hope the ad gets people talking about the Christmas story. Is that a bad thing? --- Of course not.
So why all the controversy and hoopla? --- Simple; the secular media spun the story in such a way to push more buttons, and people jumped on the bandwagon, as usual, without taking time to think anything through.
Would Christ be upset at the billboard? I honestly do not think he would, and here is one of the reasons I have come to that belief:
But Jesus said, Forbid them not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part. --- Mark 9: 39-40
Anything can be used for the glory of God if it is utilized with a righteous intent. Just as any Christian can tarnish the truth in the eyes of unbelievers if they act un-Christ-like.
With that in mind, I encourage you all to think before you speak, and consider the ramifications before you act.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Overzealous in New Zealand?
A story by the Associated Press hit the wires last week regarding a church sponsored billboard in New Zealand that depicts Joseph and Mary side-by-side in bed. Both lay on their backs; Joseph on the left, Mary on the right, with the bedspread pulled up to their shoulders. Mary dreamily gazes upward. Joseph gazes downward, dejected and forlorn. The above caption reads, "Poor Joseph, God was a hard act to follow."
The sponsoring church is St. Matthew-in-the-City, an Anglican congregation located in Wellington.
According to the Huffington Post, the "progressive Christian" church hopes their ad will "get people talking about the Christmas story."
Unfortunately, the gist of every article and news report I have perused about the billboard centers around the "inappropriate" and "poor taste" issue regarding its marketablity. Not a single news bite stressed the Christmas story.
As a marketing strategy, if sparking interest in the Christmas story was their only goal, the Anglican church obviously failed. However, if part of their goal was to simply put God on the minds and tongues of the populace, they succeeded. It has already become a global controversy.
So what do you think? Did the St. Matthew-in-the-City church overstep the bounds of decency and good taste? Or did they simply find a way to push peoples buttons and spark a global dialogue? And, if so, does the end justify the means?
I know this is a brand new blog, but it would be nice to get some feedback from those of you who are visiting, concerning this issue. It is an interesting topic, with a multitude of possibilities. So I will close here and allow some time for comments to be made before continuing on with additional parts of the post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)