July 23, 2014

Advertise with Stand Firm

April 8, 2011


Tec:  This Good Friday, Let’s Celebrate Earth Day

From here: 

This year, Earth Day falls on Good Friday—a profound coincidence. On the day we mark the crucifixion of Christ, let us remember that when Earth is degraded and species go extinct, a part of God’s body experiences a different type of crucifixion, and another way of seeing and experiencing God is diminished.

To fully honor Earth Day, we need to reclaim the theology that knows Earth is “very good” and holy. When we fully recognize this, our actions will create a more sustainable, compassionate economy and way of life.

  The Daily Caller has an interesting article on the subject.


Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

Facebook comments are closed.

102 comments

This has also been picked up by Ricochet:

Message to all you Episcopalians: as you reflect on the crucifixion of Christ, don’t forget to recycle a can and say a prayer to Gaia for the healing and renewal of the Earth.

[1] Posted by Branford on 4-8-2011 at 12:58 PM · [top]

Saw this story out on the Blaze yesterday.  Totally predictable and expected.  I’d of been gobsmacked if there were no nod to the day by TEC.

[2] Posted by aterry on 4-8-2011 at 01:09 PM · [top]

“A part of God’s body”? Really? Wow.

[3] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 4-8-2011 at 02:29 PM · [top]

How about we recognize that we have a civil “awareness” holiday and a Christian Holy Day falling on the same day. We can plant a tree or recycle our trash then walk to Church (or rent a prius for the day) without feeling the pathological need to conflate the two.

[4] Posted by advocate on 4-8-2011 at 03:01 PM · [top]

Let us remember that when Earth is degraded

‘Earth’ as a proper name?  One would almost think the Earth has been personified into a sentient being.  Normally the word ‘Earth’ is preceded by the definite article to set it apart from sentience.  Here we see the line between man and the rest of creation has been deliberately blurred.

carl

[5] Posted by carl on 4-8-2011 at 03:11 PM · [top]

The earth church

[6] Posted by martin5 on 4-8-2011 at 03:18 PM · [top]

I see from the linked original article that one of the resources for “Earth Day” (f/k/a Good Friday) TEO recommends is a water devotion from the Unitarians.

They are all wet.  All of them.  It’s beyond sacrilege.

From Unitariam water ceremonies, Good Lord Deliver Us.

[7] Posted by Long Gone Anglo Catholic on 4-8-2011 at 03:30 PM · [top]

Isn’t ‘Earth Day’ somewhat Terran-centric?  Maybe we should have an “Alien Planet Day” as well.  No, that’s not good either. The word “alien’ is too excluding, and it still implies that Earth is governing frame of reference.  How about an “Alternate Inhabited World” Day? 

carl

[8] Posted by carl on 4-8-2011 at 03:31 PM · [top]

Regardless of your “feelings” about terran-centricity and its evil effects on all sentient beings of whatever ilk, you must admit that this Gaia restriction is a bit much and far, far inadequate tot he conceptualization of “deity” which should pervade a “church” - ESPECIALLY ONE LIKE THE EARTH CHURCH (TEC).  I find this malephobic rationalization of nomenclature to be completely inadequate to the expression of human personhood by insistence on female-only representation.  Get over it!  There are other-than-females on the planet and this is not limited to the transgendered.  Nope.  Fully greater than half the planet has X-Y chromosomes and are male.  Sheesh.
This language is about as inclusive as 86 % of the earth church’s congregations: caucasian, upper income, upper educated people of color.  Oh well.

[9] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 4-8-2011 at 03:40 PM · [top]

By legend, the crucifixion happened right above the tomb of Adam, whose name is related to adamah, which means, “dust.” And in creation, there were the upper waters and the lower waters; and water flowed out of Jesus’s side. And, how unjust that a tree had to die to make a cross. The sermon could just ramble on from there.

It could go a little longer if one were to omit that pesky, depressing Passion According to St. John. That Psalm 22 is a bit sad, too. Let’s use Psalm 24.

[10] Posted by Ralph on 4-8-2011 at 03:51 PM · [top]

carl, I am appalled by your shocking display of insensitivity and self-centred animalian-normative prescriptions.  What about non-carbon life-forms?  Indeed, what if there aren’t any life-forms at all?

A world has to be inhabited before it becomes worthy of respect?  Frankly, this kind of carbon chauvinism disgusts me.  Earth is in the minority within the Solar System in being inhabited.  By your lights, this means the other members of our solar family are not even worth noticing.  How dare you dismiss the siblings of our Holy Mother Gaia so callously?

[11] Posted by Martha on 4-8-2011 at 04:14 PM · [top]

TEC recommends this resource: Unitarian Universalist’s Sacred Waters.  Is this what TEC Baptism now means? The only Theology banned is the orthodox teaching of the Early Church Feathers.  Lord your wrath will one day fall on their souls for sure.

[12] Posted by Josip on 4-8-2011 at 04:27 PM · [top]

[11] Martha

If you weren’t so blinded by your Zinovievite Left-Deviationism, you would realize that uninhabited planets are not at risk of degradation by dominating sentient inhabitants.  These worlds exist in a pristine and natural state uncluttered by the impositions of life forms.  The realization of this natural state is of course the Ultimate goal of Earth Day, and we must focus the inhabitants of Earth on that goal.  They cannot be expected to deal with their status as parasites until they accept that they are in fact parasites.  Blathering on about the degradation of uninhabited planets would imply that degradation can occur independent of dominant sentient life forms. It would only serve to distract the inhabitants of Earth from achieving true class consciousness.

You are a Wrecker of the Revolution!

carl

[13] Posted by carl on 4-8-2011 at 04:28 PM · [top]

I didn’t realize that Christianity and environmentalism were somehow mutually exclusive.

I thought that one of mankind’s jobs was to steward the earth? Or were Adam and Eve relieved of that duty after the Fall?

(And I notice again the stale and intellectually bankrupt tactic of describing something as a religion when it isn’t. Massacring the English language, while smugly and erroneously imagining that a point has been made, makes the speaker look stupid.)

I agree though that Christian churches should ignore Earth Day this year - or they could schedule an event on another day. Even non-Christians understand that Good Friday takes precedence for Christians.

[14] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 4-8-2011 at 04:34 PM · [top]

Still more stupidity from the people who introduced the “Stations of the Millennium Development Goals” a few years ago. Even with the staffing cuts, there are still enough creative thinkers at 815 to keep TEC firmly entrenched as the laughingstock of Christendom.

[15] Posted by polycarp on 4-8-2011 at 05:03 PM · [top]

Good Lord deliver us from the loon that infest TEO!

[16] Posted by Nikolaus on 4-8-2011 at 05:42 PM · [top]

aw fudge - loon<u>s</u>

[17] Posted by Nikolaus on 4-8-2011 at 05:43 PM · [top]

double fudge… loons

[18] Posted by Nikolaus on 4-8-2011 at 05:45 PM · [top]

[14] Gnu Ordure

I didn’t realize that Christianity and environmentalism were somehow mutually exclusive.

They aren’t.  But what is called ‘environmentalism’ has pagan undertones.  It’s not about stewardship.  It denies that man is fundamentally different from the creation in which he lives.  In fact, Environmentalism has replaced Socialism as the immanentized god of the Left.

carl

[19] Posted by carl on 4-8-2011 at 05:50 PM · [top]

But what is called ‘environmentalism’ has pagan undertones.

I’m not familiar with paganism. I imagine that some of them are environmentalists - but most environmentalists see themselves as politically rather than religiously motivated.

It denies that man is fundamentally different from the creation in which he lives.

How is man’s ‘difference’ relevant to the concerns of environmentalism?

In fact, Environmentalism has replaced Socialism as the immanentized god of the Left.

I saw what you did there,Carl. Most amusing.

[20] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 4-8-2011 at 07:15 PM · [top]

Somehow I cannot imagine the little blue-haired ladies and WWII vets doing a water ceremony or planing a tree… 

This idiocy is one of the many reasons that I walked away from TEC

[21] Posted by bdino on 4-8-2011 at 07:41 PM · [top]

The Presiding Bishop has referred to Sallie McFague’s notion of the earth as God’s body on several occasions.  McFague is not alone in postulating this kind of theology, of course.  This is pantheism or panentheism pure and simple. McFague’s book is not a particularly interesting read, unless you want a primary source for illustrating where contemporary liberal or radical theology diverges from historic Christian teaching.  But the gist of her thought is contained in an online essay in which she says:

The world as God’s body, then, may be seen as a way to remythologize the suffering love of the cross of Jesus of Nazareth. In both instances, God is at risk in human hands. Once upon a time in a bygone mythology, human beings killed their God in the body of a man. Now we once again have that power, but, in a mythology more appropriate to our time, we would kill our God in the body of the world.

And there you have it.  This is how McFague—and, apparently, the Episcopal Church (to the extent that a statement on the Church’s website can be regarded as an official position) would have us view Good Friday then and now.

[22] Posted by ToAllTheWorld on 4-8-2011 at 08:20 PM · [top]

RE: “(And I notice again the stale and intellectually bankrupt tactic of describing something as a religion when it isn’t.”

Nope—you just don’t like it being pointed out that everybody has a foundational worldview and set of beliefs and practices concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, and that that foundational worldview is a religion, even if it is merely The Religion of Gnu.  And further, the person who is smug—because he wishes to promote the idea that some people are capable of functioning without such a foundational worldview and set of beliefs and practices concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the interview—is Gnu.

Fortunately, nobody gives a fig as to whether someone that pretentiously irrational thinks—or at least, asserts that he thinks—others “stupid” for pointing out that everybody has a foundational worldview and set of beliefs and practices that guides their actions and values.

[23] Posted by Sarah on 4-8-2011 at 10:05 PM · [top]

“might we suggest that when Earth is degraded, when species go extinct, that another part of God’s body experiences yet another sort of crucifixion — that another way of seeing and experiencing God is diminished?”

It might be more appropriate if the writer would “suggest that when the Earth is degraded,” when another baby is aborted and another family line goes extinct, “that another part of God’s body experiences yet another sort of crucifixion - that another way of seeing and experiencing God is diminished.”

[24] Posted by Betty See on 4-8-2011 at 10:36 PM · [top]

Green is the new red.  This is why TEC has embraced this nonsense.

[25] Posted by midwestnorwegian on 4-9-2011 at 07:40 AM · [top]

Good Friday is meant to focus on the death of Jesus.  Anything that takes the focus off of that is anti-Christian.  The goal is to de-Christianize the church. Schori is doing a great job at that.  If Jesus really meant anything to her, this stuff wouldn’t come.

This needs to be added to the heresies list.

[26] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 4-9-2011 at 08:42 AM · [top]

BTW, anyone here writing and personally challenging her on this?

[27] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 4-9-2011 at 08:43 AM · [top]

I did Lakeland, fwiw.

[28] Posted by Nikolaus on 4-9-2011 at 11:01 AM · [top]

Right ON!!!!!!!!!!, Betty See, #24.
desert padre

[29] Posted by desertpadre on 4-9-2011 at 11:02 AM · [top]

Anyone left who does not understand why TEC is the laughing stock of believers?

[30] Posted by Exiled in Babylon on 4-9-2011 at 12:08 PM · [top]

Gnu:

No one says that Christianity and enviromentalism are incompatible.

But the believe that the earth is a part of God’s body is incompatible with Christianity.

[31] Posted by James Manley on 4-9-2011 at 12:21 PM · [top]

Last year - MDG Stations of the Cross.
This year - Earth Day Stations of the Cross.
Next year - Sexual Orientations (alphabetical) Stations of the Cross written by Spong, Robinson and Crew.
2013 - Abortion, Eugenics, InVitro, Surrogate parent, Sperm/Egg Donor, Diverse Family, Euthanasia Stations of the Cross written by Katharine Ragsdale, with help from Sibelius, Obama and Pelosi and a song by Elton John.

Then, they will have a Station of the Cross dedicated to all the demon spirits and practices of the Caananites, Jebusites, Moabites, Philistines, Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, etc.

By substituting the worship of the earth for a remembrance of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, they have embraced Gaia or Terra Mater, a Greek and Roman goddess. 

Sexual immorality and perversion is the worship of Baal and Ashtaroth, the Phonecian, Caananite and Moabite demon god and goddess. 

Abortion, eugenics and euthanasia are the worship of Molech, the demon god of death worshipped by the Ammonites.

[32] Posted by St. Nikao on 4-9-2011 at 02:50 PM · [top]

15.  It is Mother Loon and her brood who infest 815.

[33] Posted by cennydd13 on 4-9-2011 at 02:53 PM · [top]

Good Lord, St. Nikao #32, are you prophesying or putting Christopher Johnson’s Law to the full test?  Either is scarily possible.

Thanks, #28 Nikolaus.  I am going to.

[34] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 4-9-2011 at 03:03 PM · [top]

How long has TEC been supporting Earth Day? It’s been going since 1970, apparently.

TEC definitely supported it last year (Episcopal News Service article here).

So why all the fuss now? (Apart from the two dates coinciding, of course).

[35] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 4-9-2011 at 04:53 PM · [top]

[35] Gnu Ordure

So why all the fuss now?

Because the convergence of the two dates allowed the powers that be in TEC to conflate the work of Christ on the cross with the Environmental agenda.  That’s why it’s a bigger day this year than past years.  But, trust me on this.  We routinely mock and ridicule the devotion of liberal churches to this agenda.  They do not see man as a master over creation who is charged to act as steward.  They see man as a co-equal part of creation possessing neither greater nor lesser worth than anything else.  In my previous post, I did not choose the word ‘parasite’ flippantly.

carl

[36] Posted by carl on 4-9-2011 at 05:22 PM · [top]

carl, your pathetic attempt to throw dust in our eyes by the worn-out tactic of attacking me simply reveals your secret agenda.

Naturally uninhabited worlds are pristine and unsullied by the likes of humans.  But we cannot afford to ignore the kind of secret conspiracy to extend human dominion over our Mother Gaia’s brothers and sisters as revealed by that slip of the tongue in your post: “Alternate Inhabited World Day”. 

Oh, yes: I see your plan; when humans run out of space and resources to exploit, they will abandon the suffering body of Mother Gaia and inhabit alternate worlds to continue their remorseless acts of violation and exploitation.

I’m onto you now, carl, and I’m watching you!  I’m watching you very carefully!

[37] Posted by Martha on 4-9-2011 at 05:38 PM · [top]

This made no sense to me until Dean Munday made the connection between the PB’s fascination with McFague, and the Good-Friday-Earth-Day.

In addition to her earth-is-God’s-body stuff, she’s also into God as a mother.

In that context, wrong as it is, the juxtaposition at least is coherent.

[38] Posted by Ralph on 4-9-2011 at 06:41 PM · [top]

#22
Dean Munday,
The post brought to mind McFague’s books for me as well, in which she bluntly acknowledges that her theology is “not pantheist but panentheist” and somehow excusing herself on the points of minutae that ensue.  To this heresy the god is being crucified daily as we eat and live and move in ways that, in Christian terms would be called poor stewardship, but to McFague’s panthegnosticism is in fact deicide.  If the Episcopal Church has embraced this, they are no longer Christian or even western monotheists but something wholly different, a single-deity paganism, perhaps.  This, more bluntly than any which has gone before, is a reason to abandon TEC… when the crucifixion of the earth-god, an event without hope of resurrection, is more to be observed than the crucifixion unto resurrection of God himself become man.

[39] Posted by Free Range Anglican on 4-9-2011 at 07:08 PM · [top]

Unfortunately, we have been cast out of the Garden of Eden and many of us seek another way cover our naked ignorance and inability to create this Garden without God. 
Jesus offers us the gift of eternal life, He stands at the door and knocks but we are blinded by our ignorance and don’t understand the value of his offer because we are distracted by the perishable fruits of this earth.

[40] Posted by Betty See on 4-9-2011 at 09:24 PM · [top]

Here’s your irony for the day:  One of the recommended resources at The Episcopal Church’s (tm) link above is to the liturgy page at the Episcopal Ecological Network (EpEN) website - which has not been updated in two years  (3 March 2009).  EpEN’s homepage has not been updated since 3 September 2010, and their latest newsletter is from the beginning of 2010.  (And don’t go changing it quick, revisionists.  I got screen shots.)

The Episcopal Church (tm) seems far less concerned with parts of God’s body than they are with parts of Man’s body - and where Man should be allowed to put his parts.

[41] Posted by cliffg on 4-10-2011 at 12:22 AM · [top]

My former nit-wit TEC parish spent hours and hours deciding to move to glass coffee mugs and using the dishwasher rather than the blight of paper cups or - heaven forbid - styrofoam.  Then there were the coffee choices themselves, shade grown, who picks the beans, many, many questions.  What do we do with our recyclables.  Lots and lots of talk.  All of this was very important stuff.  We were green, and proud of it.  The real measure of faith was what you did with your trash, not your belief in the sovereignty of God.

No word about the Bible or scripture, especially the OT, real understanding of the Word of God.  Could not get my son confirmed, after all he didn’t even attend youth group, a clear requirement for confirmation.  Of course our visiting/training deacon had just rec’d her second divorce, she was a celebrity.  Ordination, second divorce, no problem, nothing to see here folks, move along.

Good grief.

[42] Posted by episcopal100 on 4-10-2011 at 06:46 AM · [top]

You could always use the new collects from the Diocese of Mass. Here is what the cathedral offers:
Good Friday, April 22, 12-3 p.m.: Meditations on creation offered by the Rev. Margaret Bullitt-Jonas, along with veneration of the cross, Holy Eucharist and singing of the Passion Gospel.
Congregations are invited to use the Solemn Collects rewritten and approved for use on the day, available here (http://www.diomass.org/webfm_send/1738).

[43] Posted by iambutone on 4-10-2011 at 07:11 AM · [top]

iambutone, thanks for that link to the new TEC Solemn Collects.  As the old Laugh-In routine used to go:  “Veeeerrrrrryyyy Interesting.”

This DEFINITELY needs a thread of its own!!!

In addition to all the added stuff about care for the creation, etc., I notice a few major theological issues based on a quick read:

- a prayer that seems to include Hagar’s children (Muslims) in the covenant and as heirs of God’s promises?  Yes, God made promises to Hagar & Ishmael, but the covenant was through Isaac!

- universalism - lots of references to the necessity of faith in Christ removed.  Prayers about peaceful “co-existence” added

- prayers for those who “have not received the Gospel of Christ” changed to prayers for “all who have no faith, living lives without any sense of holiness or divine presence;”

etc etc etc.

VERY VERY TELLING!

The 1979 BCP Solemn Collects are here:
http://www.justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/Special_Days.pdf
(p. 276)

[44] Posted by Karen B. on 4-10-2011 at 08:30 AM · [top]

correction, I should not have written

thanks for that link to the new TEC Solemn Collects.

but

thanks for that link to the new Diocese of Massachusetts Solemn Collects.

I do recognize these are not necessarily for wide use in the the church, yet, but may be only the efforts of one diocese.

[45] Posted by Karen B. on 4-10-2011 at 09:13 AM · [top]

Pantheist, Panentheist or placing the creation on the level of God is one of Steps on the Romans 1 Road to Perdition:
1 - Suppress the truth of God revealed plainly IN creation.  (Creation is not God.)
2 - Knew God, but did not honor or thank Him as GOD. (We are not God)
3 - Become futile in their thinking. (This is why you can’t argue with anyone detached from the Word and Truth of God. It’s an exercise in futility.)
4 - Hearts become darkened. (see Proverbs 4)
5 - Claim to be wise, become fools.
6 - Exchange glory of immortal God for images resembling mortal man, birds, animals, creeping things.
7 - Exchange the truth of God for a lie
8 - Serve the creature (self, other people, things, substances) rather than the Creator who is blessed forever!
9 - Therefore God gives them up (three times) A. to the lusts of their hearts, to impurity, dishonoring their bodies among themselves; B. to dishonorable passions and C. to a debased mind.
10 -  Women and men exchange natural relations for those that are contrary to nature, committing shameless acts with people of the same sex.
1l -  Did not see fit to acknowledge God.
12 - They receive due penalty, consequences for their error.
13 - List of due penalties, consequences: all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice, envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness, gossip, slander, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors if evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.  (these behaviors have been in evidence the gay activist, Pro-choice, Environmentalist and Moslem populations)

The last verse, Romans 1:32 is the most chilling, because it puts those who approve/affirm of the self-worship, rebellion, idolatry, sexual behaviors and orientations listed above in the same category as those who do those things.

The Romans Road to Perdition is a slippery slope downward.

[46] Posted by St. Nikao on 4-10-2011 at 09:34 AM · [top]

Typo in list of consequences - inventors *of* evil.
List is from the NIV

[47] Posted by St. Nikao on 4-10-2011 at 09:38 AM · [top]

[37] Martha

Your rejection of the New Environmental Polity marks you as a Petty Bourgeois Kulak clinging desperately to her Central Air Conditioning.  You are an insect fit only to be squashed by the victorious Proletariat.  The Revolution has no need of those who shirk their responsibilities at the critical moment.

carl

[48] Posted by carl on 4-10-2011 at 10:41 AM · [top]

#39, Free Range Anglican:

Yes, McFague calls herself a panentheist rather than pantheist.  Pantheism means that God is everything (in the universe) and that everything is God.  Panentheism means that God is in everything, but God also has an existence outside creation.  But then McFague contradicts herself.  If, in destroying the environment, we can kill God (i.e., deicide), then God apparently has no existence outside creation, which is pantheism, not panentheism.  Of course there is an inconsistency here too, since there is a lot more to creation than just planet Earth.  So McFague is not only using metaphor but hyperbole in making such a claim.

The underlying problem with McFague’s theology is seen in her book, Models of God, where she remarks, “theology is mostly fiction,” which, as she goes on to say, means that all our images of God are simply individual or cultural constructs, i.e., metaphors.  In fact, McFague is widely lauded for supposedly helping us understand that all our language for God is metaphorical.  In other words, the world of contemporary theology is praising McFague for claiming that there is no objective reality to God.

According to McFague, all our language for God is simply a projection of our needs; and we are, therefore, free to re-imagine God according to our changing needs and circumstances.  If the idea of God inherited from generations past is too patriarchal, we are free to develop feminine images of God.  If an ethical understanding of our environment is advanced by identifying God with the creation (“the world is God’s body”) we are perfectly free to create a theology that does that.  Of course, the ancients created gods according to their own needs and imaginations also.  This was (and still is) known as idolatry. 

The bottom line is this:  Does God have an existence that is objectively real, apart from our efforts to speak of him?  Are the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments a self revelation of God to us, or are they merely a fallible, human record of experiences of God from a bygone age?  Has God revealed himself in Scripture to be eternally Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?  Did the eternal second person of the Trinity, the Son, become incarnate in the person of Jesus of Nazareth? 

If you follow McFague, then none of these things are objectively true, and we are free to reinvent God as best suits our needs.  If, on the other hand, there is an objective reality to God, and he has revealed himself to us in Scripture, etc.  then McFague’s theology becomes apparent for what it is: a rejection of Christianity, not a reinterpretation of it.

[49] Posted by ToAllTheWorld on 4-10-2011 at 03:32 PM · [top]

Hi Carl,

“So why all the fuss now?”

Because the convergence of the two dates allowed the powers that be in TEC to conflate the work of Christ on the cross with the Environmental agenda.

OK, if you say so. I appreciate that PB Schori referring to the Earth as ‘the body of God’ is a bit weird, and I can understand you guys objecting to such language on theological grounds.

But what do you think the “Environmental agenda” is, Carl? Environmentalism isn’t a single movement; you could divide it up into the science (ecology, climatology, biology, chemistry etc), party politics (The Green Party etc) and direct action groups (such as GreenPeace). These groups have different agendas and goals.

We routinely mock and ridicule the devotion of liberal churches to this agenda.  They do not see man as a master over creation who is charged to act as steward.

If man is supposed to be the steward, then I don’t see any conflict between Christianity and Environmentalism. Isn’t looking after creation the same as looking after the environment (which is part of God’s creation)?

[50] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 4-10-2011 at 04:07 PM · [top]

Just more sanctimonious tripe from TEC. The environment is a concern for many people and in many different ways, but TEC’s real agenda is to find anything, anything at all, to take the faithful away from the central message of christianity.

Its only ‘environmentalism’ in this case because the TEC loonies feel that that is a cause that no-one could argue with. If ‘environmentalism’ wasn’t so popular at the moment, they would find something else instead.

[51] Posted by MichaelA on 4-10-2011 at 05:50 PM · [top]

50, Gnu, the difference is in the intent of the cations, and the value assigned to fellow humans.

[52] Posted by Bo on 4-10-2011 at 06:12 PM · [top]

#39… Preach it Bro! smile

[53] Posted by Free Range Anglican on 4-10-2011 at 06:54 PM · [top]

yoops. that’s #49… 39 was me. smile
Sunday afternoon, someone please take away my keyboard.

[54] Posted by Free Range Anglican on 4-10-2011 at 06:55 PM · [top]

Sadly predictable. Any word from the Rev. William Melnyk or Rev. Lorraine Ruppe Melnyk?

[55] Posted by Festivus on 4-10-2011 at 07:07 PM · [top]

Bo:

50, Gnu, the difference is in the intent of the cations, and the value assigned to fellow humans.

Sorry Bo, I don’t understand either of those points. Could you expound a little?

[56] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 4-10-2011 at 07:34 PM · [top]

Should have read “..intent of the actions and value assigned to fellow humans.”.

If we’re environmentalists caring for the environment, we can easily make ‘preservation’ the goal rather than ‘wise use that brings greater glory’.  For example, leaving land fallow rather then using wisdom in farming it.

As created beings serving a creator who placed us in authority over creation, we assume that every other human also has a greater value than many sparrows. Environmentalists, it often seems, would have it the other way round.

[57] Posted by Bo on 4-10-2011 at 07:44 PM · [top]

49 Yes, ToAllTheWorld !

St Thomas Aquinas in his Summa, Pars Prima, spends a good amount of time describing his proofs that Mankind can form truthful concepts about God, and use truthful statements about God.  Without that ability, there cannot be a coherent theology, he explains, and mankind would be caught in forever devising new approaches to the question of God.  I wish I had the specific chapters.

utmost

[58] Posted by utmost on 4-11-2011 at 12:36 AM · [top]

> The post brought to mind McFague’s books for me as well, in which she bluntly acknowledges that her theology is “not pantheist but panentheist” and somehow excusing herself on the points of minutae that ensue.  To this heresy the god is being crucified daily as we eat and live and move in ways that, in Christian terms would be called poor stewardship, but to McFague’s panthegnosticism is in fact deicide.  If the Episcopal Church has embraced this, they are no longer Christian or even western monotheists but something wholly different, a single-deity paganism, perhaps.

If I may interject…

Schori and her crowd are not Unitarian, or Panthesistic or even wiccan.  They are simply atheist.  They believe in no God at all other than (as Johnson puts it so eloquently) “Vague deity concept.”  But even that concept is nothing more than image and allegory for the True Enlightment of the Evolved Individual.

Lest you doubt, who was it Schori appointed as Seminary teacher? 
Spong.

Schori believes in no God other than which is the evolved individual, no Heaven except that of the communist Utopia (ruled over by herself) and no Hell except that on Earth created by bigots.  That’s why, with no final judgement, Schori and her like reckon they can do what they like.

The religion type language is just there as metaphor.  Which is why the likes of Schori LOVE it when scripture and tradition are subverted and desecrated.  I mean, if you don’t believe in God than anything that argues there is a God is just rubbish!  Subverting scripture is, in their eyes, returning religion to it’s Earthly reality – which is nothing. That is also why the TEC liberals are so smug.  They are absolutely convinced that Darwin et all has wiped out all notions of possible God belief.  So proclaim any believe in God other than as metaphor means, by definition, you are pig ignorant.

Oh, and if ‘religion’ is nothing more than metaphor for ‘being good’ (read, being socialist) then you can hijack any old religious language. None of really means anything so you can grab whatever you like that seems a good metaphor at the time. Hence all the interfaith stuff.  And it explains, ref#42 obsession about cups.  Because environmentalism is real and the God stuff isn’t.  So you spent your time concentrating on the real don’t you?

Liberalism is only a form of atheism but Schori and co have made is very clear that the are explicitly atheist being fans of Spong.

Once this is grasped Schori and co. stop being surprising and actually become very predicable.

[59] Posted by jedinovice on 4-11-2011 at 05:52 AM · [top]

This is a very sad topic. We, as TEC, cannot forget the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. We cannot forget what the true purpose of Good Friday is, that Christ died for the sins of the world so that we can have eternal life with God. We CANNOT substitute that sacrifice for some watered down Universalist-environmentalist agenda. That is tantamount to rebuking Jesus for his sacrifice, which should never be accepted and should always be condemned.

[60] Posted by jric777 on 4-11-2011 at 10:43 AM · [top]

hi Gnu, I think you’re missing the point and this is not your fault. No Christian has anything against environmentalism per se. It’s more that people who are trying to co-opt the Christian church are trying to practice a bait and switch. Heresy by omission. This goes on in other contexts as well. In the purpose/seeker/word faith churches, pastors omit any explicit Christian teachings, quote a bible verse out of context at the beginning of their sermon, and proceed to give nothing but life coaching advice on how to have better family relationships, how to improve their time management skills, etc. But at that point the church has ceased to be the church, see? It has nothing to do with environmentalism per se, which like good family relationships is a no brainer that should naturally grow out of Gospel teachings. But Gospel teachings are so much more than mere moralism, and to reduce Christianity to mere moralism actually contradicts it.

To engage in heresy by omission and reduce the resurrection of Christ to worshipping four footed beasts and creeping things is a dishonest bait and switch, and I hope you would be able to see how that is morally wrong, just as if you attended what you thought was a seminar in atheist philosophy and they tried to sell you car insurance. They’re not incompatible, but the technique involved is deceitful.

And when you say, “If man is supposed to be the steward, then I don’t see any conflict between Christianity and Environmentalism.” you seem to forget what you said previously. If there are many shades of environmentalism, then there may be some that are in conflict with Christianity, and indeed they are. What about PETA? Engaging in medical experimentation on animals to aid humans does not endanger animals as a species, yet PETA values animal well being above human well being. Do you admit this environmental thought might be at odds with Christianity, seeing as how Christian and Jewish scriptures have no problem with using animals to benefit people?

What about EarthFirst! who talk to trees and think the “killing” of a tree is as evil as the killing as a human being? They are not even interested in the question of sustainability. Do you agree that their view might be in conflict with Christianity if they would think that human stewardship of the Earth involved the death of trees was evil, even though it was sustainable?

We must get into these details if you are to honestly maintain your views. Thank you.

[61] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 4-11-2011 at 11:01 AM · [top]

gah I meant:
“Do you agree that their view might be in conflict with Christianity if they would think that human stewardship of the Earth involving the death of trees was evil, even though it was sustainable?”

[62] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 4-11-2011 at 11:32 AM · [top]

“Two of the world’s holiest religious holidays are set to fall on April 22 this year — Good Friday for Christians and Earth Day for environmentalists — and some religious leaders are preparing their flocks to celebrate both”

Gnu Ordure, post 50:
The Daily Caller article by Chris Moody, referenced as the subject of this thread, clearly refers to Earth Day as a religious holiday and there are people who practice Earth worship (WICCA?) or Environmentalism as a Religion so we should not dismiss the idea that some of the ideas inspiring this movement are religious rather than rational.
We know very little about the political influence these religious groups have on the environmental movement but clearly some people are roused to a religious fervor when it comes to enforcing environmental goals. Even the Presiding Bishop seems to equate environmentalism with Christianity but we should be aware that the religious dogma of environmentalism is not always compatible with Christianity and it does not follow that all of their religious goals are good.
The least we should do as Christians is make the effort to find out what “Earth Day” is all about and what influence the religious dogma of earth based Religions has on this celebration before we risk forsaking our Christian beliefs and mindlessly jump on the bandwagon of “Earth Day” environmentalism.

[63] Posted by Betty See on 4-11-2011 at 02:07 PM · [top]

“Earth Day” is covered by the Bible.  Religous leaders, particularly leftist religous leaders, might want to check Holy Writ before blathering on about and making idiots of themselves.

[64] Posted by Looking for Leaders on 4-11-2011 at 02:33 PM · [top]

“Environmentalism is the new socialism.”  Socialists have used aliases such as “liberal” and “progressive” for years.
Now they use “environmentalist”.  They’re still socialists.

[65] Posted by Long Gone Anglo Catholic on 4-11-2011 at 03:36 PM · [top]

hi Gnu, I think you’re missing the point and this is not your fault.

Hi SpongJohn. Yes, I do rather feel like I’ve barged into a family argument the details of which I am not familiar with. I understand that the details of the environmentalist agenda are less pressing an issue than the possibility that the PB of TEC is an atheist - or a panentheist, or whatever.

To engage in heresy by omission and reduce the resurrection of Christ to worshipping four footed beasts and creeping things is a dishonest bait and switch, and I hope you would be able to see how that is morally wrong,

I can certainly see how it’s a problem for you all…

And when you say, “If man is supposed to be the steward, then I don’t see any conflict between Christianity and Environmentalism.” you seem to forget what you said previously.

What I meant by it there was environmentalism in the sense of stewardship of the Earth. Or dominion, or rule, whichever Bible translation you prefer.

What about PETA? Engaging in medical experimentation on animals to aid humans does not endanger animals as a species.

I could perform medical experiments on you, Spongjohn, without endangering homo sapiens as a species - but that wouldn’t make it right, would it? Also note that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was founded in 1824. So animal rights aren’t exactly New Age.

yet PETA values animal well being above human well being

I don’t think so. The issue isn’t using animals per se, it’s the cruelty involved.

Do you admit this environmental thought might be at odds with Christianity, seeing as how Christian and Jewish scriptures have no problem with using animals to benefit people?

I also have no problem with using animals; or eating them. As I said, it’s a question of cruelty.

What about EarthFirst! who talk to trees and think the “killing” of a tree is as evil as the killing as a human being?

I don’t think they do. Single trees aren’t the issue. Entire rain-forests are.

We must get into these details if you are to honestly maintain your views.

How am I doing?

[66] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 4-11-2011 at 06:05 PM · [top]

Gnu Ordure wrote:

What I meant by it there was environmentalism in the sense of stewardship of the Earth. Or dominion, or rule, whichever Bible translation you prefer.

I agree. And its not just a single verse that talks about us being stewards of the earth either. Much of the Bible has this as a backdrop and it also is seen in the way that the Old Testament religion (which is designed to point mankind towards the fundamental truths about God by a variety of means including the symbolic) is intimately bound up with agricultural life.

Mind you, I also agree with Carl and SpongJohn - the type of “environmentalism” espoused by the leadership of TEC bears a superficial resemblance only to that seen in the scriptures. At a fundamental level it is quite different and, as I wrote above, I am not sure that these “church leaders” have any real commitment to true environmentalism at all.

I could perform medical experiments on you, Spongjohn, without endangering homo sapiens as a species - but that wouldn’t make it right, would it?

Hmmmm, human vivisection, anyone?

[67] Posted by MichaelA on 4-11-2011 at 06:50 PM · [top]

Gnu, pardon me, but I must ask, is the Ordure from the French (which, IIRC, is another term for bodily waste of the solid variety!)?  And, if so, why?  Pardon the pun, but does it demonstrate solidarity with the environment in that case?

Carl,
Calm down on the interplanetary rhetoric, XeniteeeDude, you’ll alert the terrans/earthlings/anthropos!!!

[68] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 4-11-2011 at 07:48 PM · [top]

Hi Betty See:

Gnu Ordure, post 50: The Daily Caller article by Chris Moody, referenced as the subject of this thread, clearly refers to Earth Day as a religious holiday

Well, he’s wrong, it isn’t. As I pointed out before, some polemicists like to call certain things religious when they aren’t. It’s a cheap rhetorical trick which serves only to confuse.

The least we should do as Christians is make the effort to find out what “Earth Day” is all about

Try reading the wiki article on it. Invented by a US Senator in 1970. Not a religious holiday. Here

so we should not dismiss the idea that some of the ideas inspiring this movement are religious

I’m not. But these days Wiccans and so on are a tiny minority. According to wiki, environmentalism is:

...a diverse scientific, social, and political movement. In general terms, environmentalists advocate the sustainable management of resources, and the protection (and restoration, when necessary) of the natural environment through changes in public policy and individual behavior. In its recognition of humanity as a participant in ecosystems, the movement is centered around ecology, health, and human rights.

ie very little to do with religion.

[69] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 4-11-2011 at 07:57 PM · [top]

test

[70] Posted by MichaelA on 4-12-2011 at 12:17 AM · [top]

Apologies for off-topic but I don’t know where else to post it: TitusOneNine has a transcript of ++Okoh’s address to the Standing Committee of Province of Nigeria last month, at http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/35896/

Points of interest for us in the West:

•  There will be a CAPA conference in Nairobi to discuss “worldwide communion” issues in April 2011 (so it should be happening now). This will involve 12 or 13 of the Global South Primates.

•  Gafcon will hold a conference “this year” in New York to bring together leaders of non-Anglican churches to create a concerted opposition to the liberal agenda on sexuality (in churches).

•  Gafcon will hold another Jerusalem Conference in 2012.

There is no mention of the next Global South to South Encounter, but the obvious time for it is in the second half of 2011, i.e. between the CAPA conference and the Jerusalem Conference.

However, the Global South Primates are going to meet with the Chinese government in September 2011 to “discuss the issue of the Christian faith”.

[71] Posted by MichaelA on 4-12-2011 at 01:35 AM · [top]

Thanks #71

[72] Posted by martin5 on 4-12-2011 at 07:30 AM · [top]

I could perform medical experiments on you, Spongjohn, without endangering homo sapiens as a species - but that wouldn’t make it right, would it?

eh. These wildebeest can be quite tetchy. Sorry if I offended you, naturally, I’d never support experimentation upon endangered species.

How am I doing?
We are getting somewhere. You admit “I also have no problem with using animals; or eating them.” All I want to get across is that “environmentalism” seems to be a bait and switch. It seems to trade on equivocation. It starts out by claiming that it only wants us to curb practices that are “unsustainable”, but then it behaves dishonestly in many instances by changing the ground and tacitly assuming that we are equal with animals or plants (in the case of the Swiss), and so would condemn practices on the basis of a bait and switch.

You see, I have no problem with them making their case. I just want them to use language with precision and make their case without equivocation of terms or honesty. If that’s too much to ask, I think it’s justifiable to just ignore them completely. Do you agree?

[73] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 4-12-2011 at 11:19 AM · [top]

Gnu Ordure, post 69:  Also from Wikipedia:
“United Nations secretary-general Kurt Waldheim observed Earth Day with similar ceremonies on the March equinox in 1972, and the United Nations Earth Day ceremony has continued each year since on the day of the March equinox (the United Nations also works with organizers of the April 22 global event). Margaret Mead added her support for the equinox Earth Day, and in 1978 declared:
“EARTH DAY is the first holy day which transcends all national borders, yet preserves all geographical integrities, spans mountains and oceans and time belts, and yet brings people all over the world into one resonating accord,”
And from here:
http://green.wikia.com/wiki/UN_Earth_Day
“The United Nations celebrates Earth Day, which was founded by Gaylord Nelson, each year on the March equinox, while a global observance in many countries is held each year on April 22. Earth day is held annually during spring in the northern hemisphere, and autumn in the southern hemisphere.”

I guess it depends on which Earth Day you think is being celebrated but it seems that “Earth Day” has been celebrated long before Gaylord Nelson, Senator Nelson or Kurt Waldheim established it and that it has a historical meaning that is perceived by many cultures.

[74] Posted by Betty See on 4-12-2011 at 11:52 AM · [top]

I think, just to be a rebel, I will mix some of my recycle-ables in with the regular trash…  wink

[75] Posted by B. Hunter on 4-12-2011 at 02:39 PM · [top]

The more I look into it, the more “Agenda 21” seems less about preserving the environment for future generations, and more about wealth redistribution, inflating bureaucracies, regulation, taxes, etc.

The liberals present us with a false dichotomy: either accept our bone headed proposals, or you want to destroy the environment.

[76] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 4-12-2011 at 03:32 PM · [top]

Hi SpongJohn,

All I want to get across is that “environmentalism” seems to be a bait and switch. It seems to trade on equivocation. It starts out by claiming that it only wants us to curb practices that are “unsustainable”, but then it behaves dishonestly in many instances by changing the ground and tacitly assuming that we are equal with animals

As I said before, environmentalism has many faces; it’s not a single entity pursuing a single agenda. So I don’t think it’s capable of equivocation or bait-and-switching.

And, I’m not sure that any environmentalists think that people are “equal” to animals. We may grant animals certain rights, eg the right not to be treated cruelly by people, but not the same rights we have.

I think I know what you mean though; there is a sub-section of environmentalism called conservationism, which has its own agendas. Conservationists are often specialists on one particular species, and they may well put the survival of that species ahead of human interests. And I agree that it may then appear that they value animals more than people.

And I agree that efforts to keep certain species are relatively unimportant and maybe pointless. The problem is that humans depend on the environment generally; and we don’t know for sure which species are superfluous to our needs and thus expendable, or which ones are vital to us. So we mess with it at our peril.

An adult human body contains approximately 100 trillion cells. 90 trillion of those are not human cells, they belong to 500 different species of bacteria. Our lives depend on them.

[77] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 4-12-2011 at 07:12 PM · [top]

An adult human body contains approximately 100 trillion cells. 90 trillion of those are not human cells, they belong to 500 different species of bacteria. Our lives depend on them.

Gnu, if there is anything I can convince you to read, PLEASE read the essay ‘Transposition’ by your countryman, C.S. Lewis, in the collection ‘Weight of Glory’.

Even if you could prove that the origins of most human cells come from something base like bacteria, this does not entitle you to make conclusions about their ultimate meaning. Again, please go to your local library and read your fellow Englishman’s essay on Transposition in the collection of essays Weight of Glory. You will not be sorry. You will see how often things of mundane meaning can be used in complex structures that point to higher meanings.

[78] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 4-13-2011 at 12:25 PM · [top]

SpongJohn, I do not think that Gnu was trying to say that the 500 species of bacteria in the human body give rise to human cells - only that we depend upon those bacteria.  There are many kinds of bacteria in the intestines that are needed for the process of digestion.  It is something of a symbiotic system between us and the bacteria.  If those bacteria were to die, so would we - or at the least, we would become very ill.

[79] Posted by AnglicanXn on 4-13-2011 at 01:36 PM · [top]

Thanks, AnglicanXn, that was indeed what I meant.

And we also depend on other exterior life-forms. If tigers become extinct,it probably wouldn’t affect us. But if bees become extinct, we’re in deep trouble. Which is why Colony Collapse Disorder is such a cause for concern for conservationists. Read the list of foods which need bees for pollination.

Forget the gnu - we need the bees.

[80] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 4-13-2011 at 04:17 PM · [top]

Yep, no one’s disputing that there are real environmental concerns. I suspect they’d be treated with greater seriousness if environmentalists stopped inventing so many fake concerns and distractions with which to browbeat people. They need to reread the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf, or the Pseudo Scientist Who Cried Global Warmi…errm *harrumph*, Any Sort Of Climate Change.

[81] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 4-13-2011 at 06:03 PM · [top]

“Gnu, if there is anything I can convince you to read, PLEASE read the essay ‘Transposition’ by your countryman, C.S. Lewis,...”
Urrghhh, do you mean to tell me that Gnu Ordure is a POM?????

[82] Posted by MichaelA on 4-13-2011 at 06:04 PM · [top]

Calm, Michael. Pull up a cucumber sandwich and sit down. Have a nice cup of tea and a Royal Wedding. That’s better…

Now this may interest you; look here, you see this little urn, Michael? It contains ashes.

And it’s ours, all ours…

Calm, Michael, calm…

[83] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 4-13-2011 at 07:22 PM · [top]

[82] MichaelA

do you mean to tell me that Gnu Ordure is a POM?????

On the assumption that POM is an acronym meaningful only in the British Commonwealth, could you perhaps define it for us under-educated Americans? smile  A Google search provided no insight.

carl

[84] Posted by carl on 4-13-2011 at 08:12 PM · [top]

I know it as pommy but her you go ....

The term pommy, often shortened to pom or pomme, in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, commonly denotes a person of British (English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish) origin. A derogatory term, it was controversially ruled no longer offensive in 2006 by the Australian Advertising Standards Board and in 2010 by the New Zealand Broadcasting Standards Authority.[1] Despite these changing views, many British people or those of British origin consider the expression offensive or racist when used by people not of British origin to describe English or British people, yet acceptable when used within that community: for example, the community group British People Against Racial Discrimination was among those who complained to the Advertising Standards Board about five advertisements poking fun at “Poms”, prompting the 2006 decision.[2]

[85] Posted by martin5 on 4-13-2011 at 08:45 PM · [top]

Here is some more:

Another unofficial explanation is that P.O.M.E. stands for ‘Prisoner of Mother England’ or that P.O.H.M.E. stands for ‘Prisoner of Her Majesty’s Exile’. However, the OED states that there is no evidence for these terms or abbreviations being used and that they are an unlikely source. It has also been suggested that POM stands for “product of Mother England”.[5

[86] Posted by martin5 on 4-13-2011 at 08:48 PM · [top]

You should search for pommy, carl. Here.

By the way, Australians and Brits insult each other all the time; but we’re just joshing.

[87] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 4-13-2011 at 08:52 PM · [top]

It’s those Kiwis that we really don’t like…..
Just kidding…..........

[88] Posted by martin5 on 4-13-2011 at 09:05 PM · [top]

Ooh cool, now I can go REALLY off topic on an etymological point… *drools*

There’s two problems with the “Prisoner of Mother England” theory (and the related “Prisoner of Millbank” theory) - there’s no evidence of the use of “pom” during the days of convict transportation, and there is no evidence that an anacronym p.o.m. (or p.o.h.m, or p.o.m.e) was ever used in relation to convicts, or written on their clothing, or whatever.

The fact is nobody knows. But I would put my money on the “Pomegranate” theory. At first it sounds strange, but much of Australian English is derived from London cockney, and rhyming slang is very common. So “pommy-grant” for “immigrant” is a credible etymology in the late 19th century.

Yes, the term has been used pejoratively. Australians use *every* term pejoratively, at some point. Always check the context: if a word is linked with “b*stard” (e.g. “G’day, you old pommie b*stard! Owzitgoin?”) it may or may not be pejorative. However if it is linked with “whingeing” (to complain, to moan, to commence law suits) as in “Gawd its another whingeing pom!”, then it is definitely pejorative.

Carl, as a seppo, I hope you follow all of this.

[89] Posted by MichaelA on 4-13-2011 at 09:46 PM · [top]

78 and other posts:  C.S. Lewis lived and worked in England but was Irish.

[90] Posted by Soapy Sam on 4-13-2011 at 09:55 PM · [top]

[89] Posted by MichaelA

Carl, as a seppo, I hope you follow all of this.

Well, I certainly had no trouble finding the definition of that word with a quick search.  I must say that as an American I find all these derogatory terms completely foreign to my experience.  Obviously the world needs a little more American egalitarianism. 

I did once attend a Renaissance Faire where a French Knight fought a British Knight for the affections of a woman.  Those of us seated on the British side were supposed to cry out ‘Stick the Frog.’  Those on the French side were supposed to cry out ‘Bash the Brit’ or ‘Slice the Limey.’  The British Knight won the fight, but the French Knight still got the girl.  Who said life was fair?

carl

[91] Posted by carl on 4-13-2011 at 10:06 PM · [top]

Carl,

Definitely no slur intended, and seppo is often used with no derogatory intent. I mentioned it because its another classic example of rhyming slang.

But as you have no doubt picked up, there is a rather rude and unpleasant streak lurking not too far below the surface in Australian culture.

I note your reference to the English losing out to the sophisticated French with the ladies. But its also we rude Australians who lost out to you well-manered Americans:

During WWII Australian men complained that the many Americans in Australia were “over-s*xed, over-paid and over here” because of their very obvious success with Australian girls (marriages, as well as less permanent relationships). However, the accounts of Australian women indicate that their menfolk needed to look at themselves. One reads comments like:

“Yanks know how to treat a lady”

“First time I had a hat taken off for me and the door held open for me was when I went out with a yank”

“Egalitarianism”? Perhaps, but also successful in other ways!

[92] Posted by MichaelA on 4-14-2011 at 12:03 AM · [top]

Carl,
Don’t be offended, the Australian sense of humour is over-rated, over-stated and Australians cannot understand why foreigners can’t understand our humour. When this happens, to my embarrassment they deduce that they (foreigners) have the problem.
Most Australian humour (that is of quality) tends to be the sort that is self-deprecating. But Michael is right there is a rude unpleasant streak lurking under the surface.

Here is an anti-Australian joke to make you feel a wee bit better:

Q: Why are Australians so well balanced?
A: They have a chip on both shoulders


I know not one fellow Australian who refers to Americans as Seppo’s. (It is cockney slang, septic tank = yank = seppo)

[93] Posted by Josh Bovis on 4-14-2011 at 12:23 AM · [top]

#93 Or a beer in both hands.

[94] Posted by martin5 on 4-14-2011 at 12:25 AM · [top]

In Schori’s case she only needs one.

[95] Posted by martin5 on 4-14-2011 at 12:31 AM · [top]

[96] Posted by martin5 on 4-14-2011 at 12:34 AM · [top]

Gnu, for the record, I’m a huge angophile. I’ve probably watched every Dr. Who before John Nathan-Turner, whom I regard as a blight upon Dr. Who. I’m also a huge fan of Are You Being Served, which could have been written by a Christian trying to prove how barren, sterile and nihilistic life is without a God to redeem it all.

I’d like to ask you, have you ever seen “The Wall”? It seems to me you are the unthinking product of education that Roger Waters was afraid of when he wrote Another Brick in the Wall. You have just unthinkingly accepted the ideological garbage that your conditioners have poured into you. Another work I’d recommend to you is C.S. Lewis’ Abolition of Man.

[97] Posted by SpongJohn SquarePantheist on 4-14-2011 at 10:59 AM · [top]

You have just unthinkingly accepted the ideological garbage that your conditioners have poured into you.

1. SpongJohn, it would very easy for me to make exactly the same comment about you guys. But if I did, I would be banned for being rude and abusive.
2. Which partcular garbage are you referring to? Environmentalism? Humanism ? Green Party politics?
3. Anyway, you’re wrong. My childhood ideological conditioning was Christian; between the ages of four and seventeen I attended CofE schools which involved daily prayers, weekly church services, and Bible-study. No mention of atheism, secularism or Green politics. So if I was incapable of thinking for myself, SpongJohn, the conditioning would have worked and I’d be a Christian now.

[98] Posted by Gnu Ordure on 4-14-2011 at 01:30 PM · [top]

From the Good Friday service:

Let us pray for all who have not received the Gospel of Christ;
- For those who have never heard the word of salvation
- For those who have lost their faith
- For those hardened by sin or indifference
- For the contemptuous and the scornful
- For those who are enemies of the cross of Christ and persecutors of his disciples
- For those who in the name of Christ have persecuted others
That God will open their hearts to the truth, and lead them to faith and obedience.

Merciful God, creator of all the peoples of the earth and lover of souls: Have compassion on all who do not know you as you are revealed in your Son Jesus Christ; let your Gospel be preached with grace and power to those who have not heard it; turn the hearts of those who resist it; and bring home to your fold those who have gone astray; that there may be one flock under one shepherd, Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

[99] Posted by Ralph on 4-14-2011 at 02:16 PM · [top]

“1. SpongJohn, it would very easy for me to make exactly the same comment about you guys. But if I did, I would be banned for being rude and abusive.”

Look on the bright side - someone, somewhere, would probably make you a bishop.

[100] Posted by MichaelA on 4-14-2011 at 06:41 PM · [top]

[100] MichaelA

Look on the bright side - someone, somewhere, would probably make you a bishop.

ROFLOLOLOLOLOL!  LOL

carl

[101] Posted by carl on 4-14-2011 at 06:46 PM · [top]

I celebrated it today by walking about on it and even jumped up and down on the earth. There was no discernable damage to it. I am sore though.

[102] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 4-22-2011 at 10:06 PM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.