Now here’s a Lutheran church that I found interesting (for lack of a better word): Ebenezer Lutheran Church, San Francisco - ELCA. Particularly, you may be interested in attending the Christian Goddess Rosary every Wednesday at 7:00 PM. Now before the Roman Catholic crowd starts up with a mantra about how Protestants are a disorganized blueprint for anarchy, you might want to visit Junia's Daughter:Reflections of a Catholic Woman Priest.Here's my 2 cents: CS Lewis once said, "God himself has taught us how to speak of Him." I would add, the male imagery found in Scripture does not depreciate women- anymore than the examples of feminine images depreciate masculinity. The Goddess Lutherans pray, "Our Mother who is within us we celebrate your many names." When Jesus taught His disciples to pray, "Our Father", I would not have stopped him to point out His use of a masculine image. I'm the type of person who just does what an almighty God tells him to do. Since Jesus spoke infallibly, I can rest assured that however he taught me to pray is the right way to pray. This is but another aspect of sola scriptura. We must continually conform ourselves to its clear teaching, regardless of our agendas. I would challenge these ladies to examine their feminist tradition in light of sacred scripture. One cannot sift Christianity through feminism. Christianity comes with a particular vocabulary.
Posts
43 comments:
Good grief! I wonder if the ELCA can even be called that anymore if they tolerate stuff like this. I think their abbreviation should be E?CA.
I don't know what to say. I had to go to the links you provided to see this for myself.
I know the ELCA is liberal, ummm... very liberal, but...
I had no idea that the ELCA would let one of it's member churches go so far off to actual cultism!
James
Not all Lutherans are the same, the ELCA has long lost its base, I do not think they openly confess the BoC.
Besides, as Frank said, what is on the sign is not really important now a days.
Another example of how utterly stupid you fools are! There are no women priests in the Catholic Church you clowns! If they pretend to be, then they aren't much different than you heretics are.
Why did you erase that last comment? It was perfectly legit. Have you seen her picture? What kind of moron would post a picture like that?
Hi Dan-
I will simply delete any comment that offends me. I've allowed you to post all sorts of stuff. You are free to disagree with what I write- but i'm not going to let you be offensive. I think i'm being quite fair.
James
No your not being fair.
You allow others to write extremely offensive things. My point has been made well with all those silly comments.
I noticed that you did remove the other post. I am wrong. I will stop the silly comments now. Hopefully you will continue to remove those offensive comments towards Catholics and stick to the facts (which you get wrong of course).
Back to my earlier point (without the absurdities now). How do you feel it justified to compare these feminists in the Lutheran persuasion to those who pretend to be Catholic? The Church has made it quiet clear that woman cannot be ordained as priests. There is a fundamental difference here. If a particular protestant church denies women preachers, then they can go next door to another church that will allow them. What's worse is the fact that they can claim biblical support in the same fashion as other protestants do. What makes your interpretation any better than theirs? Especially in the light of the fact that you bastardize parts of scripture that doesn't fit with your agenda.
woops.."quite"
You know what, this is where you could use the Catholic Church to better illuminate why we call God "Father."
But as for now, is that all you've got? Because Scripture tells us so? Well, why is that the case? Why does Scripture tell us so? I'll play the devils advocate here.
Dan, you place to much stock into the Roman Catholic institution!
If you look at
1 Thessalonians 5:19 Do not put out the Spirit's fire; 20 do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Test everything. Hold on to the good.
In 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21 we see that we are commanded to listen to God and test all things and to hold on to what is good. If you leave the authority of interpreting God's Word to someone else, then you are not doing what God has commanded you to do, and you leave yourself open to the whims of mere men.
Now I believe you may have read Acts 17:11 before:
Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
If in Roman Catholicism the teachings that the "teachers" (in today's terms, the magisterium) teaches supposed to be the final authority, then why did Luke say that the Bereans were right to examine the Scriptures to see whether what Paul proclaimed was really true or not?
This mantra about us using our own interpretation of God's Word is about to make me go screaming into the streets! God commands us to use His Word to test all things and to use the Holy Spirit as our guide. By blindly obeying the Roman Catholic institution is actually disobeying God blatantly!
The Roman Catholic institution is in no position to "better illuminate why they call God 'Father'." Not just the ECLA and/or this one church posted on this blog, even especially the Roman Catholic institution uses false teachings that is better illuminated by mere men and not of God. These people in the ELCA who are blatantly disobeying God and His Word is a problem that they will face either here on the Earth or much worse, not on the Earth.
Are these women from this church disobeying God? Well, duh! But I think you need to worry about the plank in your own eye (meaning the false teachings from the Roman Catholic institution) before you worry about the speck in everyone else's eye!
The Catholic Church has never ordained women priests. Shame on you Mr Swan.
Junia is a heretic and a satanist; why else would she have an upside down cross on her website.
Again shame on you Mr. Swan. Legitimate Protestant churches have ordained women priests but the Catholics have stayed firm. Shame on you, Mr Swan. You are no better than the Catholics you accuse of slandering Protestants.
Ric:Dan, you place to much stock into the Roman Catholic institution!
If you look at
1 Thessalonians 5:19 Do not put out the Spirit's fire; 20 do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 Test everything. Hold on to the good.
In 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21 we see that we are commanded to listen to God and test all things and to hold on to what is good. If you leave the authority of interpreting God's Word to someone else, then you are not doing what God has commanded you to do, and you leave yourself open to the whims of mere men.
Dan: Well, you're wrong here bud. I am allowing the Church, who put the Canon together through the infallible direction of the Holy Spirit, to be guided by that same Spirit and infallibly interpret Scripture. You would not have the Scriptures if it were not for the Catholic Church my friend, and this very idea of yours results in having multiple denominations. Besides, what you are attempting to condemn me of doing, you do the very same, except in your case, you rely on Luther or Calvin or anybody else to interpret Scripture for you. The only thing you have done with this objection is to shift the argument further back onto yourself.
Ric: Now I believe you may have read Acts 17:11 before:
Acts 17:11 Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
If in Roman Catholicism the teachings that the "teachers" (in today's terms, the magisterium) teaches supposed to be the final authority, then why did Luke say that the Bereans were right to examine the Scriptures to see whether what Paul proclaimed was really true or not?
Dan: How about paying attention to the context of the Scriptural passage. There was a contrast being made between the Bereans and the Thessalonians. Paul was arguing from the Scriptures (Old Testament) with the Thessalonians, and they revolted, while only some converted. However, the Bereans, instead of having a knee-jerk reaction against Paul's arguments from Scripture, went to the Scriptures to test Paul's premise.
It's very simple Ric. When the Church argues from the Scriptures, then go to the Scriptures and check out the argument. Go to where the argument is being made from, and not Pastor Bill.
Ric: This mantra about us using our own interpretation of God's Word is about to make me go screaming into the streets! God commands us to use His Word to test all things and to use the Holy Spirit as our guide. By blindly obeying the Roman Catholic institution is actually disobeying God blatantly!
Dan: This is an uneducated comment. Where in Scripture does it say that Holy Writ is the sole authority? Jesus said in Luke 10:16 "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." He told Peter in Mt. 16:18 "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Unlike you, I am following Jesus' command.
Ric: The Roman Catholic institution is in no position to "better illuminate why they call God 'Father'." Not just the ECLA and/or this one church posted on this blog, even especially the Roman Catholic institution uses false teachings that is better illuminated by mere men and not of God. These people in the ELCA who are blatantly disobeying God and His Word is a problem that they will face either here on the Earth or much worse, not on the Earth.
Dan: This is simply foolish talk. You have not substantiated any false teachings promulgated by the Catholic Church. I have dimantled your Berean argument. Your heresy didn't even exist until the so-called 'Reformation.' What about all those Liturgies dating back to the Apostles. They didn't have a Brother Billy standing at a podium reading from the King James bible then. The summit of the Church's life was found in her sacred liturgies. You cannot deny this and remain intellectually sane.
Ric: Are these women from this church disobeying God? Well, duh! But I think you need to worry about the plank in your own eye (meaning the false teachings from the Roman Catholic institution) before you worry about the speck in everyone else's eye!
Dan: Well that's right. I forgot. You don't need to substantiate anything. The accusation is enough, right?
By the way Ric, you still haven't given any reasons as to why those feminists can't refer to God as Mother.
Dan, I say you say, whatever!
All I know is that God is right!
As for given any reasons for as to why feminists can't refer to God as Mother, I have not offered any up, but if you are asking - I'll answer.
I can go into a long theological explanation on why they can't (or should not), but for simplicity's sake I'll just refer you to Matthew 6:9.
Uh Ric, Christ established the Catholic Church...this is historical fact. Even any secular anti-Catholic/Christian institution will tell you that. Granted, you wouldn't hear this from Pastor Billy over at Bible School and Seminary.
So, is God the "Father" a male? Or is Jesus only appealing to the culture? If you say that God the "Father" is a male, then you'll get laughed off your rocker. If Jesus is only appealing to the culture, who at this time regarded women as less then men, and wouldn't allow a woman to be a witness for anything, then when the culture has changed from its misogynistic ways, so to does humanities understanding of God, who is Spirit. Jesus went against the culture in small ways, like conversing with the woman at the well, and making Mary Magdalene the first witness to the Resurection.
(I disagree with the feminist perspective.)
Ric, keep in mind those points. Jesus was talking to a culture who considered women to be less than men, and not able to be witnesses.
Dan,
I can see that you are the typical Roman Catholic Kool-Aid drinker, and you will not discuss nor reason. So please have a nice day.
In God's Eternal Grace,
Ric
That's right Ric. You can't provide an argument. Before I give one for you, I'll wait an see if at least Mr. Swan can muster one.
Great copout though!
You know what Ric? You state that I do not want to discuss nor reason these things. I have addressed your arguments, and have asked you direct questions. Do yoau expect me to make your conclusions for you? Because I disagree, and show you why your arguments are faulty, that must entail that I do not want to discuss or reason these things? Come-on now!
Dan,
The reason you will not receive a serious response from anyone on this blog is pretty obvious to even the simplest onlooker - you have the mentality of a seventh grade school lunch bully, and interaction with you seems just about impossible. This is my honest opinion of you after reading about a dozen or so of your posts. If you are offended at my appraisal, you very well should be, since it is a request for you to grow up - which in turn identifies you as immature and childish.
I speak for myself here, although I am sure others would concur, but your posts remind me of really bad jokes that noone finds funny. You're like the Andrew Dice Clay of Roman Catholic Apologists, at first you seem witty and interesting, but then you regurgitate the same old, nasty, filthy, outdated material.
Your approach is unworthy of a serious response, so don't be surprised if you get completely ignored sooner or later - it's ineveitable.
MasterJedi, I concur!
So basically Master Jedi you don't have a response either. That is typical. Hide behind what ever excuse you want to. If you can't respond...you can't.
Yeah, you're definitely getting closer, I don't have a response because your arguments are so devestating and unanswerable. Sorry to disappoint, but you clearly have self destructed quite a few posts ago, which has deterred just about everyone from considering to engage you in discussion. In case you forgot, you may want to reread your first few posts here, on the other hand you may not - it was quite embarrassing. The fact that James had to delete your comments (which I don't think has happened to anyone in the history of James' blog), should be a subtle reminder of how poorly you've represented yourself and your denomination.
Dan, you are starting to remind me of Kenny Banya, a has been, a hack.
Let me help you out with some "respectable" material for your next act. Try this, it's a bit toned down:
"Why do they call it Ovaltine?
The mug is round.
The container is round.
They should call it Round-tine."
It's GOLD Danny, GOLD!!!
MasterJedi, you still don't have an argument, so you stall? Why put yourself through this? I thought that I wasn't worth responding to, but you come on here again to make comments. If you can't handle the argument, then let it go. It really looks silly for you each time you post here, claiming to be able to demolish my arguments but never addressing them.
Are you going to address the arguments next time MasterJedi?
"Hopefully you will continue to remove those offensive comments towards Catholics and stick to the facts (which you get wrong of course)."
An honest question here, Dan. You talk about the offensive comments made towards Catholics, yet you appear to be blind to the comments that you yourself make. In fact, your first posts here on this blog contained "fools," "morons," and "idiots" in the wording. Why are you setting up a double standard here? You can reply if you like. Or not. But I will be praying for you no matter how belligerent your answer may or may not be.
Gojira, I thought dan was a Roman Catholic?
Hi Rick,
Yes, he is.
I just find it very telling that for some reason, he can't live up to what he demands from others.
If you were following along, chronologically speaking, I came on here being rude. This was done for purposes of illumination. It has been my experience that while it is unacceptable for your oposition to be rude, the same standard does not hold true for you. My example illuminated this fact. I confronted Swan over this assuming he would just ignore my opposition's rudeness. I was wrong. He eventually erased the other person's rudeness as well.
I can understand that you want to keep focusing on this and not my argument. However, if you fell inclined to move-on and address the argument, then I welcome your response.
By the way, I don't believe in Swan using a double-standard in passing over my rude comments. He has every right to delete any comment he so chooses, and I understand this. I have to commend him for the way he handled this affair. He didn't ban me. He didn't (in the end) result to a double-standard for a Catholic. He didn't assume a martyr complex like James White either. Apparently he handles things (at least in this small experience here) very differently than the majority of anti-Catholic web-sites that I have visited. It never mattered how I came on to this site. I could act very meek, or extremely rude; it never mattered.
Like I said, you can address the argument, or harp on this all day long.
Gojira, I guess it's just like his "church", the "do as I say and not as I do" mentality!
Ric
Still no argument Ric?
I would very much agree Ric. I would also say that has been more than amply demonstrated.
Still no argument from you either gojira? Is this the best that you two can do? To solely focus on me and not my arguments? Is this how you expect to win? Ad hominems? You two have posted several times since I've made the challenges, and each time you can't seem to make a response to the arguments; instead, I have become the sole focus of your attention.
Say that I am just like my church doesn't mean anything except for the fact that you unable to bring a valid argument.
I'm just curious, do you even have a response? If you do, are you afraid to bring it? Or are you simply stalling, hoping for someone with a greater command of the issues to post something so that you can later hop on and say "yeh, that's exactly what I was going to say?"
I'm re-posting this here just in case it was over-looked:
dan said...
I'm going to take on James Swan for these absurd comments of his. First Swan attempts to make a difference between St. Paul's conversion story because it is in Scripture, and these other conversion stories because they are not in Scripture. This is ridiculous; it is a distinction without a difference. They both relate to how each individual is brought to a fuller understanding of Revelation. I'm sorry, but is there a Scriptural mandate that there can never be any conversion story unless it is related specifically in Scripture? No, there isn't. There is nothing in Scripture that hints towards Sola Scriptura either, but who cares, right?
Another absurdity penned by the imagination of Swan is that those conversion stories written in 'Surprised by Truth' are to be condemned because they are stories of folks who have converted to an "alleged infallible church magisterium." Oh, that was clever. The only problem for Swan is, despite the dreamworld that he and other ahistorically-minded protestants uselessly subject themselves to, the infallible Church Magisterium was commissioned by Christ himself. Or did Luther throw out those Scriptural passages too along with "Jimmy?" I guess that's what happens for those who hold up the historically-faulty 'Sola Scriptura' banner. It is a shame that even Scripture doesn't call for this. Oh, that's right, Scripture says that, 1 Tim 3:15 "if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." Well let's just redefine 'Church' to whatever fits our fancy. That's the protestant way!
What is Swan's point? He attempts to make a distinction between Paul's conversion with other's conversions. That Paul's was to Christ, while the other people's were to the 'Babylonian Whore.' Unfortunately again for Swan, his assumption is without any merit. Tell me Swan, what were all those liturgies being celebrated in the Early Church? I don't recall reading anywhere, in any historical document, Pastor Billy at the First Baptist Church in AD 100 preaching a non-liturgical service out of the King James Bible.
Now one of the most hilarious statements made by Swan was where he indicated his complete and utter (White's favorite word which he loves to use during debates) ignorance of the doctrine of infallibility. He brought up Galations Chapter 2 incedent with Peter. Bravo! Bravo my anti-Catholic friend! Unfortunately again your comments prove your ignorance, and are useless in this discusion. Instead of reading Pastor Billy's Primer on the Doctrine of Infallibility, why don't you learn it from the source my friend?
This says it all.
And he's not even a Christian.
These radical feminist innovators are NOT true Lutherans at all! The ELCA itself is so FAR AWAY from genuine Confessional Lutheranism! There are some traitors within the LCMS (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod) itself - but as a whole the LCMS has resisted the infiltration of radical feminism and leftism (euphemistically calling itself "liberalism") a lot longer!
God calls Himself FATHER (not MOTHER) for a very important reason: A human father begets children apart from himself, whereas a mother bears children by receiving seed from outside herself and incubating them within herself for a time until it is born.
Admittedly, we can only speak of God metaphorically as Father when we compare God's act of Creation to a human father's role in begetting children. For God does not need to impregnate anyone. He created all things ex nihilo without any partners or sources. But let us move beyond the particulars of procreation in which a male NEEDS to impregnate a female in order to procreate.
We know that it is not the mother but the father that initiates the procreation. The voluntary action of the father and not the mother is the "principle" or "source" of the WHOLE particular process of procreation of the particular child of which he is the father and she is the mother. This time the calling God Father is now analogous and not just metaphorical. The voluntary act of God is the "principle" or "source" of the whole process of Creation no less than the voluntary act of a human father is the "principle" or "source" of the whole consequent process of procreation. Thus it makes sense that God is TRULY and REALLY Father, and that it makes absolutely NO sense at all to call God Mother (because the act of the mother is not the "principle" or "source" of the process of procreation: the role of the mother was only triggered by that of her male partner in the procreation), and in the role of the mother, the child develops entirely within herself until it is born, whereas God's role in the Creation cannot be in anyway analogous to this female role.
Therefore it makes NO sense to call God Mother. It only makes sense to call God Father. As a corollary, it only makes sense to address God as He / Him instead of She / Her.
Hi Jean:
This blog entry is over 10 years old, and at this point, I don't recall writing it! I did take the time today to go back and fix the hyper-links in this blog entry using the Wayback Machine from the Internet Archive. The links reflect what the pages would've looked like 10 years ago when I referred to them.
JS
Post a Comment