Jack Kemp forwards this:

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/04/the_bigger_problems_of_georgias_governor_nathan_deal.html

A NOTE FROM TIM, A CATHOLIC:

This fight has been ongoing for a long, long time. In fact, it is the same fight that spawned the Protestant Reformation, and prior to that was at the core of the many heresies fought by the Church (not always successfully; Islam is Arianism and Manicheanism with an Arab flavor, for instance.) The cultural changes triggered by the Renaissance opened the door to Protestantism, which is indeed Christian though with an independent and reform minded spirit, and that shattered the cohesion of the Christian world, which was divided between the several Patriarchies of the Orthodox faiths and the Catholic. While I think the Protestant Reformation was a good thing, by and large, I do think it opened the door to some very bad stuff, primarily the atheistic Liberalism that stalks the world today. The Enlightenment ended with Robespierre, the guillotine, Karl Marx, Nietzche, and a host of others who would remake the world if it killed us. The spirit of the modern age is rebellion, rebellion against God, against the Church, against Nature even. And that is precisely what is at work here.

The catholic Church fought the good fight with the Counter-Reformation, but a part of that effort was to "modernize" the Church as a way to take one of the big criticizms away from the Protestants. It was often argued that the catholic Church promoted ignorance and superstition to amaintain power. (It did not; science as we know it was developed by the Church, and the most infamous case, indeed, the only real case that critics of Catholicism can point to with any degree of accuracy is that of Galileo, a clergyman who, as a Papal State citizen, openly defied his King - the Pope - and refused to simply teach heliocentrism as a theory rather than as fact, officially recognized by the Church fact. He was treated as kindly as any such rebel would be in that era.)

So many Catholics joined the "modernism" bandwagon, arguing that societal changes mean we have to stop taking the Eternal Things so literally. Concepts of modesty, of sexual morality, of authority, of familial cohesion were eschewed as "old fashioned" by the modernists. In fact, it was this movement among Protestants that led to a rebellion and the creation of the Fundamentalist wings of Protestantism in the latter 19th and early 20th centuries. Unfortunately the fight over Darwinian Natural Selection gave the churches collective black eyes (even though they did not actually lose the argument) and at least many in postions of authority in Catholicism vowed "never again". These are the worldly Catholics, the people who support every Progressive fad, be it gay marriage or the welfare state or open borders or the nuclear freeze movement, what have you.

But a religion can only be stretched so far before it no longer really exists, and frankly what is the purpose of being a member of a religious faith if there is no there there? There certainly are more entertaining ways to spend a Sunday than in a church pew, and this content-less Christianity is leading to an emptying of those pews as a result. As a Catholic I can attest to this. No churches I have ever attended have ever dealt with anything but the most mundane and calorie-free drivel, with the homily generally being about how we should all just get along. It's Barney the Dinosaur meets a sclerotic ritual. I've watched as people have drifted away over the years, and to be honest I show up as late for mass as I can and leave as early as I can, because I am offended by what the liberals in the Church have done to it. There's no point to it anymore.

And there is no spiritual fortress one can take from Catholicism anymore. Why bother with it if we don't know right from wrong, if relativism is all there is? If we cannot judge reality and subjectivism than there is no reason bothering with it. If everyone winds up in the same place at the end Christianity is immaterial. In fact, it is as many atheists would argue, a pox upon humanity, a bunch of killjoys and prudes getting in the way of the freedom of others, a freedom that says you can do whatever you want because it's your decision. In a world with transcendant Truths that is a monstrously erroneous statement, but it is how these people think. They rejected God and thus all Truth.

What caught my attention in this essay was this statement from Dr. Coates:

"Each church will have to decide how to walk through this marriage equality debate. I think we should respect those who choose to allow their ministers not to perform same-sex weddings out of their own deep convictions, and I think we should respect churches that choose to allow their ministers that right, for they make their choice out of deep convictions, too… I say this: I do not always know what the truth is, but I can always tell what love is. I believe love is the greatest of all, and to do the loving thing will always be the right thing. Most congregations will eventually find their way there.”

End quote.

This is an astonishing post-modern statement of moral relativism and, frankly, a denial of the primacy of God. It is in fact a rebellion against the very concept that God transcends our existence and that we know eternal truths because HE TOLD US. This is a denial of the inerrency of Scripture.

The Apostle Paul stated unequivocally that homosexuals would not enter the Kingdom of Heaven (nor would the effeminate i.e. transsexuals.) He lumped them in with fornicators, adulterers, the wrathful, thieves, murderers, etc. This was repeated throughout the New Testament, where homosexuality was called an abomination. That was nothing new; it was likewise looked upon in the Old Testament. This was not just to be mean; it was because the Almighty, Creator of all things, intended sex to be for reproduction and the creation of new families, with two complementary individuals becoming "one flesh". Homosexuality is a parody of that, a thing that bears some resemblence to the original but cannot in any way ultimately satisfy the purposes of sex and marriage. It is much like arsenic; arsenic bears a close molecular similarity to phosphorus, a necessary substance for living tissue. It is this similarity that makes arsenic so dangerous - it tricks the body into using it like phosphorus, then it does not work. Ingesting arsenic is generally deadly to most organisms. Homosexuality may not physically kill you, but it will kill you spiritually, and it will cause great pain and suffering in this life.

Which is why the loving response is not to celebrate "gayness" as is demanded by Coates. Would it be the loving thing to give a person an apple with arsenic injected inside? On the contrary we would consider that a horrible, vile, evil act. Yet Coates wants us to simply close our eyes - or worse - and let these people perish so we can say we were loving. How loving is it to watch a man drown without tossing him a life preserver? And this is very much the duty of a Christian church, to act as a spiritual life preserver. Excusing homosexuality is an act of spiritual violence. That does not mean we mistreat them, because we are all sinners, have all fallen short. Homosexuality is no greater sin than many others, certainly no worse than adultery or tail chasing, or being a stinking drunk who neglects his responsibility or what have you. That does not mean it is any better, either, even though gay people suffer greatly from their condition prior to embracing the lifestyle and, yes, it is a sad and unfortunate thing. But in the end this will not make them happy, and it will lead to eternal unhappiness. If we carry what we are with us into eternity, then the weight of this will be ever with them. Christ came to free us from this. Love does in fact mean having to say you're sorry - and sometimes say you are wrong.

No father punishes his small child out of hatred. Conversely he doesn't let him run wild out of love.

So there are two huge errors in this pastor's thinking. He does not believe in self-evident truths, the very backbone of the American experiement. (Funny he quotes Jefferson yet ignores Jefferson's appeal to Natural Law.) The second error is that love is accepting of all THINGS and not of all people. Hate the sin and love the sinner? Not in the world of this dude; you either are a hater or a lover. You have to take it all.

Which is why militant homosexuals (and other militant liberals) invented identity politics in the first place. It was a way to attack Christianity by making it an all or nothing proposition. A gay person is indivisible from his or her sexuality; it is what defines who they are. As a result you cannot criticize what they DO without being guilty of a direct attack on who they ARE. Cute trick. If you say "you are a wonderful person and I love you but it's not good that you do this" you are a hater because you are, in their warped way of thinking, negating the entire first portion and attacking them personally.

Look at it this way; I am overweight and have a doctor's appointment tomorrow. I'm going to get an earful and i won't like it. Does that mean my doctor hates me? No; he's trying to do his job and help me to be healthier. I could simply say "fatness is my identity" and then any suggestion that I lose a few pounds can be met with rage at the attack on me. But no matter how I choose to look at it in the end the doctor is simply doing what doctors are paid to do. He wants to keep me alive longer.

Of course identity politics serves many useful purposes for the Progressive Left, and by getting everyone at each-oother's throats they can move in quietlly and steal power. Just look at the things that have happened since this whole debate erupted years ago; we are now talking about laws needed to defend the right of Christians to not be forced into joining a celebration of homosexuality. Just ten years ago the gay community assured us that nothing like this would ever happen. This was a tool, a wedge issue used to drive Christianity into the shadows. If we cannot live our faith, if we cannot be a candle in a dark place, what purpose is there to our religious rituals? The Left has always known that, and they have always sought to push Christians under the covers. The endgame is to destroy the Faith so we can all be good little liberal atheists.

Sadly many in the Church today go along with this. Pope Francis was supported by the "Lavender Mafia" in the Vatican, a group of pro-homosexual priests and Bishops who have wanted to "modernize" Catholic teaching. In fact, this Pope, when asked if homosexuality was a sin, replied with "who am I to judge?" Well, you are THE POPE and that was the job you ran for when you were elected. The Pope is supposed to judge moral and spiritual actions. Yes, he's not supposed to judge PEOPLE but he certainly has a right and duty to judge the morality of certain issues based on the Bible and Catholic teaching from the past. Francis is very happy to judge some things; he loves to judge capitalism and those who pursue wealth as somehow immoral, and he is obviously sympathetic to socialism, despite the teachings of his predecessor in Rerum Novarum. So it's only certain issues this Pope will judge. Sadly, homosexuality is mentioned as an evil in the Bible - free enterprise is not.

This is a centuries old fight, one ultimately between those who would convert the Gospel of Jesus Christ into a social gospel, a mere code of ethics and institution for providing charity, and those of us who think the salvation of souls is the primary purpose of Christ and His Church. Jesus once said "if thy right hand offends thee, cut it off, if thy eye offends thee, pluck it out." Why? Because these things shall pass away, but if your attachments to your sins and worldly things keep you from Heaven than you have truly lost everything.

We aren't here to enjoy this world. There are eternal consequences to our beliefs and acts. Too many christians have forgotten that.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2148 words, total size 13 kb.