So here is Harold Camping of Family Radio. He is clear about a few things that I will highlight:
- God is no longer in the church and it is "the end of the church age".
- Family Radio is not a church organization.
- Yet people meet on a regular basis to hear speakers, brings notes, and there is a lectern or pulpit.
- And no one even knows who might meet for these gatherings.
- We do not know when Jesus is coming back.
- But we know that we are in the last days.
- And these last days will officially end on October 21, 2011; otherwise we can't be sure of when.
Thus, we have learned that a great many facts harmonize with the conclusion that the Great Tribulation began in 1988 and ends at the end of the world in A.D. 2011. Further, that it was divided into two parts, the first part being 2,300 days and the second part being 17 years, also appears to harmonize with any and all Biblical data that relates to this subject.
Thus, we must realize that October 21, 2011 will be the final day of this earth’s existence.
Harold Camping making stuff up as he goes along. I never knew what this guy looked like until right now. Not what I expected. I was expecting something more like this:
No related posts.
Speak for yourself, you and all those attending church and giving away all your hard earn money will still be here.
Mr. Camping and myself and all those angels will be in heaven celebrating of course. xoxo See you.
First things first you must stop over posting.
Second please read your post very carefully before posting because you are rambling and not making any sense. I am sorry but I do not understand what you're saying.
I do not believe that Mr. Camping would have stated that a donkey had the holy spirit in him in order for him (the donkey) to talk. God spoke through the rocks and many other things is that mean that the holy spirit was also in them too? Not making any sense dude.
Stop making up lies about what Mr. Camping have stated.
You are not going to heaven for your lies.
As God lives and as my soul lives I am not “making up lies” I am only writing what I believe that I heard from him say on the air. I know it didn’t make sense to me when I heard but many things he say doesn’t make much anyway. I do admit that I did have a few dropped words when I wrote but I hardly think that God will send me to hell over that nonetheless it was not unintelligible. I know God did not teach you to use the word “dude” and that kind of language can reflect on you badly as well; I’m sure I do not have to go over all the implication nor should I have to quote chapter and verse. I real thought I heard rightly about the donkey; if hear it again I will listen more closely. Rather than to state that I am “making up lies” why not ask Howard Camping about the donkey? However I could clearly see that you completely believe “Mr. Camping” despite my claims that is an antichrist for which you not even address an answer. This is much serious!!! I have heard him clearly talking about the antichrist teaching of hypostatic union on family radio about ten years ago. This I’m very very sure about!!! You wrote that you will write an apology if you’re wrong about 2011; you will be wrong everything hangs on the fruit of fig tree being the jubilee. But the fig tree fruit might just as well be the bad things happening to Christian in Jerusalem which just above it within same context.
I have been listening to Mr. Camping for about 30 years now and have never heard him say anything about what you are saying.
Second, I never said you were not intelligent, or that you deserved to go to hell for your bad writing. Sorry if I came across like that.
I just said that I could not make out what you were saying because you were not making sense. I still have trouble following your line of thought. I think you must be from a foreign country perhaps?
I seriously believe that God will be taking all his children (elect) to heaven on May 21 2011 and ending the universe on Oct. 21 2011.
Mr. Camping is not shoving anything down anyones throat. Mr. Camping is not in anyway abusing anyone, or anything in any way, shape or form. If you do not agree or like what he is saying you have the option of not listening by not tuning in to his radio station. and stop picking fights with those that do believe or agree with his teachings.
Live and let live, perhaps then, peace on earth will then be achieved.
so what does this mean then? "You are not going to heaven for your lies."
stop it. you feel the need to sit in judgment of us because we are holding campings deceitful lies accountable.
you have the option of not posting anymore stuff here defending the loon.
he is an unscriptural pig.
We listen to Family Radio via AM and Short Wave broadcasts every everning in South Africa.
To God be the Glory for making it possible for us to listen to the True Endtime Gospel message as it is written in the Bible.
(Rom 16:24) The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
(Rom 16:25) Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
(Rom 16:26) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
(Rom 16:27) To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen. <Written to the Romans from Corinthus, and sent by Phebe servant of the church at Cenchrea.>
Family Radio listener (Suid Afrika)
thanks for pasting Paul's salutation in Romans. Also read the ends of Galatians, both letters to Corinth, and both letters to Thessaloniae for similar language.
be like the people of noah on those days they didn't listen to him and only 8 people were saved and the lord let them know that the earth will be destroyed in 40 days
the lord all the time let people know when he will destroy cities as this world as well
1ra. to the Thessalonians
Chapter 05
5:1 But concerning the times and the times, you need not, brethren, that I will write.
5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night;
5:3 that if they say: Peace and security, then sudden destruction will come upon them, as the pain a woman pregnant, and not escape.
5:4 But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day you as a thief.
5:5 Because you are all sons of light and sons of the day, we are not of night nor of darkness.
5:6 Therefore, do not sleep as others, but let us be sure and sober.
5:7 For those who sleep, sleep at night, and that gets drunk, gets drunk at night.
5:8 But we, we are of the day, we are sober, having dressed in the breastplate of faith and love, and with the hope of salvation as a helmet
Jonas
Chapter 03
3:1 came word of the Lord to Jonah a second time, saying:
3:2 Arise, and go to Nineveh, that great city, and proclaimed it the message that I will tell you.
3:3 And Jonah got up and went to Nineveh according to the words of the Lord. And it was big city in Nineveh, of three days away.
3:4 And Jonah began to enter the city, heading for a day, and preached, saying: This forty days Nineveh will be destroyed.
3:5 And the men of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed fasting and wearing sackcloth from the greatest to the smallest of them.
3:6 And the news came to the king of Nineveh, and rose from his chair, was stripped of his clothing and was covered in sackcloth and sat on ashes.
3:7 And he made the proclamation in Nineveh and proclaim to the order of the king and his great, saying, Men and animals, cattle and sheep, not like anything, they were not given food or drink water;
3:8 but cúbranse men and animals in sackcloth, and cry out to God strongly, and makes each of his evil way, the prey is in your hands.
3:9 Who knows if God will return and repent, and away from the heat of their anger, and not die?
3:10 And God saw what they did, who became his evil way and repented of the evil they had said they would, but did not.
Genesis
Chapter 7
7:1 The LORD then said to Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark, because you've seen just in front of me in this generation.
7:2 Of every clean animal take seven pairs, male and female, most of the animals that are not clean, a couple, the male and female.
7:3 Also the birds of heaven, seven pairs, male and female, to keep the species alive on earth.
7:4 For yet seven days past, I will rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights, and the fray on the face of the earth every living thing I did.
E 7:5 Noah did according to all that the Lord commanded him.
7:6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters came upon the earth.
7:7 And because of the flood waters of Noah entered the ark, and his sons with him, his wife, and women of their children.
7:8 Of clean animals, and animals that were not clean and birds and everything that creeps on the earth,
7:9 came two by two with Noah into the ark, male and female, as God commanded Noah.
7:10 And it came to the seventh day the flood waters came on the earth.
7:11 The six years of the life of Noah, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, that day was broken all the sources of the great abyss, and cataracts of heaven were opened,
7:12 and there was rain on the earth forty days and forty nights.
At 7:13 that same day entered Noah, and Shem, Cam and Jafet sons of Noah, Noah's wife, three women and their children with him in the chest;
7:14 They, and all the wild animals according to their species, all domesticated animals according to their species, and every reptile that creeps on the earth according to its kind and every bird according to its kind and every bird of every kind.
7:15 came, then, to the ark with Noah, two by two of all flesh that had the spirit of life.
7:16 And they came, male and female of all flesh came, as God had commanded him, and he closed the door the Lord.
7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth and the waters rose and lifted the ark, and was raised on the land.
7:18 And the waters rose and increased greatly upon the earth and the ark floated on the surface of the water.
7:19 And the waters rose far above the earth, and all had high mountains under the whole heaven were covered.
7:20 Fifteen cubits high waters rose, after the mountains were covered.
7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, and birds such as cattle and beasts and every reptile that creeps on the earth, and every man.
7:22 All I had breath of spirit of life into his nostrils, everything we had on earth, died.
7:23 Thus was destroyed all be living on earth, from man to beast, reptiles, and birds of the heaven and the earth were frayed and it was only Noah and those with him were in the ark.
7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth hundred fifty days.
if u don't want to believe and be like them this is your problem we are telling you the rest it is your task.
i am impressed that campingites keep finding this post! see you in 2012.
Skip to Content ↓Home
About
Publications
Contact
gays in the church: an economic approach
Aug 9th, 2009 by Drew Tatusko. Comments are off for this post
Tony Jones asks us: "Can you please explain to me WHY a gay or lesbian person who is in a long-term, monogamous relationship would not be able to wholeheartedly follow Christ?" He asks respondents to do so without going back to scripture passages lest it become another unproductive foray into competing interpretations and hermeneutics. Reviewing the 300+ comments it is clear that the assertion raised is that from design. Thus, non-heterosexual people are not following Christ because they are not following the laws that Christ himself observed – the one who fulfilled them but did not abolish them. I think this view suffers from myopia and needs to be corrected with a family systems economic approach. So what can we learn of God's design for family systems and what Jesus did to correct traditional assumptions of God's design for family?
Pre-Industrial Families
The assertion from design fails to take into account the economic assumptions in the family structures during the time of Jesus and Paul, among many others. The family was the center of the economy. Local currencies ran beside the central currency of the Romans. These local currencies were literally developed by the goods that a family produced. The more you put into the system, the more you would get out. Labor was the investment, not speculative investment like a home-equity loan or TIAA-CREF fund that produced interest dividends. The greater the labor force you could muster as a family, the greater the economic output.
Marriages were important for family economics because it was as much a labor investment as a way to regulate economic competition between families who owned fields and so forth. Families would arrange marriages in contracts in order to maximize and protect mutual economic prosperity. A bride was the greatest speculative investment a family of a groom would make. Boys were prized because they were the source of economic output for the family – they were cheap labor. When a family gave their groom a wife from another family, it was an investment with the promise that the bride would produce boys and thus more labor. So a dowry price for a bride was like an insurance policy in the family contract. If the bride failed to produce boys, or God forbid any children at all, that dowry would not be entitled to her should her husband die. A barren wife could result in similar ostracism. An unmarried daughter was a bad family product because she would not be entitled to the money from another family. Tax collectors were ostracized by local communities because they would leech labor production out of local economies in the form of centralized Roman currency; kind of like why the New World colonies were a bit peeved at the Brits for leeching their labor output and giving it right back to the king. At any rate, marriage was the original speculative investment for two families to make, it was not a romantic partnering no matter how romantic a few narratives paint that picture through our current relational lens.
Widows, barren women, and orphans not to mention those pesky tax collectors, were all outcast as a result of their economic leeching of the community. They could not be part of any family contracts, were not producing goods through labor to help family economies, and were economically useless. It was also why polygamy was accepted. Polygamy is a good way to maximize the number of children you have, increase the odds you will have boys, thus increase labor production, and is a great way to invest in local economies. We don't like to think of wives today as investment property, but that is exactly what they were in the time of Jesus.
Post-Industrial Families
Fast forward to the 21st century. It was only at the dawn of the post-industrial society (which we can start to see emerge with the founding of the US Federal Reserve in 1913) that we began to see women's rights, gay rights, and rights for people of color take on a full head of steam. Slaves were an important part of the labor force, but once released from slavery, there was no longer a guarantee that they would produce at the cheap price they were once producing. What to do? Ostracize them from the economy. Women were no longer investment property yet did not have equal share in the economy. All of this and more would bubble up in the civil rights revolution in the next 60 years which is as much a shift in the economy, as it is a new understanding of humanity. Women still make less on the dollar than men ironically this time because of child-rearing since that leads to less hours worked and larger fringe costs in healthcare.
So what does this have to do with same-gender relationships? With the economic assumptions that governed societies until recently, the same kind of association to a same gender relationships would have applied as to the barren woman, widow, eunuch, etc. There was no possibility for economic stability and growth and no possibility that an inheritance for a gay man would persist to a future generation of sons! If a man cannot produce a child with another man, yet is an heir to the family inheritance, it is far better for the economy to ostracize these men from the community by shunning or death. As women caught in adultery were stoned because they betrayed the family investment and could not remarry, gay men were ostracized as a matter of economic health for the community. This is likely why lesbianism was not as much of a concern and is not mentioned in the Bible. Men were the focus because the social system placed on men the greatest source of economic gain. Only economic loss would have been seen with gay men.
This makes as much economic sense as polygamy. If we travel to the Southern Hemisphere of the planet we see the same sorts of social structures operative in the various agrarian economies. Polygamy and wives that can produce sons are both central to family production of goods and labor. Hence, we also see rather consistent ostracism of gays, widows, adulterers, etc.
A "biblical family" is an economic one, not a romantic one. True, romantic love and affection can exist in these kinds of social systems, but that is not the purpose for which they are intended. This is one of the reasons why what Jesus did with those ostracized from the economic system of his day was so radical. He openly accepted widows, adulterers, and tax collectors into his new vision of what a community should look like. It is a community not founded under the economic assumptions of the law, but under the new Kingdom of grace and charity that God intends for humanity. Paul reiterates this new revealed economy in Galatians 3:
26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Something different is happening here. Jesus and Paul are both making proclamations that run directly counter to an assumed economic family system that was at the very heart of the societies in which they lived. They are revealing something radically different from the design that the people had understood God had intended for the family then. True, neither mention same gender relationships and still assume the economic importance of families that produce offspring. Even though Jesus and Paul opened the possibility for fundamental differences with respect to those ostracized from the economic system, the central unit for economic stability was still the family which required heterosexuality to be economically viable.
In post industrial societies where economies are rooted in centralized monetary systems, the family is no longer an economic unit that functions in the same way as it did in "biblical times." Children are no longer economically cost-effective for families since rather than bring revenue into a family, they are sources of economic cost. Children are thus not produced for economic reasons unless where exceptions such as welfare or prospective tax credits factor. Thrity-eight percent of heterosexual couples have no children while 90% of male couple and 77% of female couples are childless. Gay and lesbian couples also trend with more college degrees and higher median incomes compared to heterosexual couples where both couples work. Only men in heterosexual couples make the most income, but this is in large part due to the increase in income related to children. Lesbians attain higher market position, education, and incomes than other women. For total household income, gay male households earn the most total income while lesbian and heterosexual households earn virtually the same.* Thus, under post-industrial economic constraints, gay and lesbian households seem to fare as well or better in terms of economic attainment as heterosexual families. Yet adoption continues to be blocked where it is already more difficult and expensive for these couples to do when compared to heterosexual couples.
The thrust of this point is that the economic system in a post-industrial economy actually favors households without children and may favor households with same gender couples. This is not to say that the economy itself is a good to which faith should be made relative. However, the very economic structure itself has moved from family production to family consumption as what moves capital, increases income, and what makes full participation in the economy possible. It is within this kind of economic frame that we must understand the issue of homosexuality as it is in reference to the biblical notion of marriage. That we have failed to explore this fundamental difference with regard to the question of same gender relationships misses the intractable contextual frame of God's apparent design for families as a unit of economic production, to the relational purpose of family that persists in post-industrial societies.
Marriage itself is no longer an economic contract, but a relational fulfillment. To suggest that same gender couples ought not seek marriage and intimacy to pursue this same goal seems to miss the entire social structure in which marriage functions as an integral part of our psycho-social development. Rooted in the radical responses that Jesus and Paul made to their own socio-economic frame that defined "the family" it baffles the entire assertion from design today. If Jesus accepted such economically unsustainable persons then who were rejected due to their inability to produce children through marriage contracts, would Jesus reject gays and lesbians today? It would certainly be inconsistent if he did. Yet the assertion from design is ultimately tied to the economic constraints supposedly designed by God then that Jesus and Paul nonetheless disrupted and are now completely different in this day and age.
Neither Jesus nor Paul assumed the family to function in a purely economic function and thus, neither should we read our current social frame onto the assumptions about family on which they made their statements about family. But what we do know is that they welcomed those who were economic outcasts with open arms and commanded others to do the same. Christianity's de-legitimation of same gender relationships is thus an unfortunate irony rooted in a fundamentally flawed economic ignorance to the dimensions of the current family system as it compares to so-called "biblical marriage."
————————————–
*These data can be found here.
ShareThis
Posted in: LGBT, Religion, Society, Theology.
…as we forgive our debtors.
Aug 7th, 2009 by Drew Tatusko. 3 Comments
The biggest problem with the US economic system is that it relies on debt to work. The Federal Reserve is the institution established in 1913 as a regulatory agency to smooth out the banking industry primarily through the control of how much currency is available at any given time. The assets that the Fed holds are essentially loaned out to banks creating one level of debt that all of the banks that in turn lend you money to "buy" a car, house, education, line of credit, etc. They have to then find a way to make money to pay back what they owe on the assets they have. Their debt gets passed off to the consumer in the form of other interest rates. Debt becomes a commodity to buy and sell like anything else.
So what happened when the Fed cut interest rates over and over again? It made more debt possible for consumers to "buy." The Fed passed it's low interest rate down to consumers to falsely stimulate the economy with the promise that people would be able to sustain their debt long enough to pay the interest rates thus expanding markets like housing, which stimulates construction companies and banks to sell more loans. The problem is that all of this was build on literally nothing! There was no real money there, only debt and interest. There would never be enough cash around to secure the massive debts that consumers were taking on. So what does the Fed do? Slows the growth by making cash more scarce forcing consumers to shell out liquid assets in the form of tax dollars and federal budget restructuring.
This is the system we have. A central bank controls the flow of money as a means to control what banks can do and thus what kind of economic growth we can expect. It is cyclical and built not on what people actually earn, but based on how much debt and interest people can pay in order to balance the system and pay all the way up to the top of the food chain.
Debt is a form of economic enslavement. If an economy is built on debt and a promise to pay that debt back at an additional cost, people own very little (this is without even factoring in credit cards) and produce less than they actually owe. The only way for this equation to balance is if some people default on their debt, get kicked out of the system, and open up a debt that can be given to someone else. While bankruptcy helps right the ship for some people who have no choice, it does nothing for the banks since they have lost revenue in the deal. No one wins. But at least you are kicked out of the system for a time.
In many forms of the Lord's Prayer we pray, "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors." While this makes strong purchases on an understanding of the atonement I frankly don't buy, it works in this context very well. The second part of the phrase asks us to offer forgiveness to those who "owe" us something. It is an expression of charity, of grace as Jesus revealed in the Resurrection. The economic system we currently have where the most valued commodity is debt is a system that must reject charity. It only works if that charity results in someone, somewhere making additional money in order to make up for deficits in profits that charity actually creates. Tax breaks are one means of this. But true charity, giving of one's self and services with no expectation of a return on the investment is simply bad for the economy.
I am puzzled therefore at the rather vociferous social conservative movement that is assuaged by this free market capitalism built on debt, when Christian charity should work in the opposite direction. Because charity is ultimately so disruptive to the system, it captures the radical nature of a statement like "Give to Ceasar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." This does not simply mean that we need to pay our taxes and go to church where we should tithe. What Christ demands first is love of God and neighbor which means forgiveness and charity to those with whom we associate at any level. The very system of the US economy must run counter to this understanding of the world. Devotion to God is devotion to something very different than system that relies on debt to survive and grow. It relies on a love that forgives debts as an act of devotion not to profit, but to God.
How radical can Christian faith be when not held under the thumb of a system that coerces people not to love, but to self-preservation? How revolutionary is a faith that proactively rejects this system in order to build the Kingdom of God rather than be complicit in building the Kingdom of the Free Market? How much is the church progressively failing in this revolution of faith?
ShareThis
Posted in: Politics, Society, Theology.
conservatives: what is a good alternative to "obamacare"?
Aug 5th, 2009 by Drew Tatusko. 3 Comments
Rush Limbaugh clearly does not think that anything really needs to change. If you want a Rolls Royce, you need to pay for it. If you can only afford a Corrolla, well that's what you will get. If you want to stay at the Ritz, you need to pay for the Ritz. If you can only afford Motel 6, so be it. So with healthcare, if you cannot afford the best coverage, well that's just tough. It will be good enough for what you can afford. After all there is universal access to the ER if you need assistance. However, this does not factor in the extent of ER overcrowding in which the current public use of ER services results. Clearly it is the best care in the world for some with pockets of cash fat enough to buy the best care, and must not be for those who have far less earnings power.
Mike Huckabee simply wants his doctor to make a lot of money in order that being a doctor will retain it's high standard of merit. That is to say, if costs and earnings are cut in healthcare, quality will decline since there will be less prestige associated with the medical profession. Of course this assumes that all doctors currently have the same earnings potential. It also seems to feed into the Limbaugh theory since some doctors earn more based on where they practice medicine. Clearly a plastic surgeon in New York City will make more money than an ER doctor in Pittsburgh. Although there is wisdom here. With the cost of getting an MD along with the costs associated with specializing and sub-specializing in one's practice, along with the overhead costs of malpractice and so forth, a doctor needs to have a substantially higher income to balance these high costs just to get the proper training. Thus, more systemic changes would have to take place if doctors earning power was to be decreased at all.
Neither of these positions suggest that healthcare needs to be reformed, even though some polls suggest that a majority of Americans believe something needs to change. This is not limited just to those who currently are not covered, but those who have coverage that is not supporting their medical care sufficiently enough.
Do you think healthcare needs to be reformed if not, why; if so, what is the best alternative to "obamacare"?
ShareThis
Posted in: Life, Politics, Society.
on covananted same gender relationships
Jul 28th, 2009 by Drew Tatusko. 10 Comments
The Civil Union and Christian Marriage Committee of the Presbyterian Church (USA) has asked for responses pursuant to their mandate to study “the history of the laws governing marriage and civil union, including current policy debates; how the theology and practice of marriage have developed in the Reformed and broader Christian tradition; the relationship between civil union and Christian marriage; the effects of current laws on same-gender partners and their children, and the place of covenanted same-gender partnerships in the Christian community.”
Responses are due no later than August 16, 2009. Click here for more information. What follows below is my response.
======================
Civil Union and Christian Marriage Committee
Office of the General Assembly, Room 4621
100 Witherspoon Street
Louisville, KY 40202-1396
Members of the Committee,
It is a Christian obligation to acknowledge, affirm, welcome, and create an environment in which the love between two persons, regardless of sexual identity or preference, is fully invited and held to a high standard of mutual obligation between partners. I believe this because those who have struggled within the closet often cannot receive the love of God and proclaim it until they emerge as the person that God has intended them to be.
The closet is not a euphemistic metaphor to which we can casually refer in some derogatory or humorous manner. The closet is a prison cell that society has constructed for those who are not heterosexual. Yet as the witness of countless persons who have struggled within the closet and emerged alive attests, it was Christ who released their soul from captivity, and it was only out of the closet that Christ could fully be received. For it is the emergence of the person from out of the closet that attests to the power of the Gospel to liberate the lonely, the oppressed, the outcast, and the sinner to a new life in Christ irrespective of sexual identity.
Christian theology needs to be tempered with a pragmatic realism that understands one consistent feature in the map of Christian history: its functional social mutability. How Christian theology and scripture functions among people is constrained by the cultural boundaries a given society constructs. In this regard the notion of sin is a socially constructed understanding of biblical rules and mandates for conduct. What we truly believe to be absolute sin today is not the same as it was ages ago, regardless in some cases of what scripture actually says. The meaning of scripture mutates with each culture and civilization as different peoples construct different meanings of the text to communicate and reveal the risen Christ in their midst.
Many who claim authoritative interpretations of scripture maintain that women ought not hold offices of teaching men theology or holding any position of authority over men in the church or in the home. Women are commanded by God to inhabit specific social roles. The social equality of women in the West is a recent development after centuries of what we now assert were poor interpretations of the role of women as revealed in scripture. That women have a vital function in the ministry and can indeed hold offices of authority over men in theological matters is far more normative than ever and will continue to be more normative with succeeding generations. This is certainly the case within the PCUSA. The same discussions about the role of women, slaves, and people of color have taken place within the PCUSA as we are now discussing concerning homosexuality. We need to observe this from a rational perspective lest we fold into some irrational progressivism where we simply assume that our age is more enlightened than previous ages.
One reading is to assert what Paul or Jesus would have said in our current context. Such assertions inevitably take the shape of whoever is doing the arguing for a given position. As one assertion runs, Paul would have not supported even benevolent slavery today. However it is quite clear from the text that benevolent slavery was something he with Jesus most likely accepted. Such a supposed trajectory does not change the fact that there is good reason to believe that Paul supported an owner’s authority over a slave who works for no wage at all other than a forced exchange of shelter and food. This sort of authoritarian situation does not justify benevolence no matter how familial it is rendered. Most sovereign states have laws that are binding to prevent this sort of economic exchange. Yet many Christian traditions, PCUSA notwithstanding, would oppose a repeal of slavery laws or the equal treatment of women or people of other races on moral grounds rooted in scripture – the same scripture that once justified slavery. This is reasoned through how a particular social structure mediates what it believes to be the revealed Word in scripture for them at a given moment in time.
The point is that we make assumptions on how we read these texts based on variability of contextual matters. I have been on several sides of the debate regarding those in relationships other than traditional, monogamous, heterosexual relationships and the turning point was not in how I understood sin, but in how I understood love and what healthy and up-building relatedness looks like. Our society and psychology mediate our relatedness to God in often intractable ways. We can only relate to God through the media of our experience with the world. If we regulate behaviors in ways that reinforce disordered relationships between non-heterosexuals such as forbidding marriage among other things, our systems of purity and social constructs function as media that will inevitably reinforce disordered relationships with God, or altogether kill off any such possibility. Sin as something prohibitive of behavior is not the issue as much as what kind of relationships serve to mediate the ability of one to receive what is good from God and what relationships fail in that capacity. The assertion that all same gendered relationships are inherently disordered is at stake.
Can a non-heterosexual couple receive the love of Christ in their relationship more fully than outside that relationship? The evidence from same gender relationships tells us that we should affirm this claim and reject that same-gender relationships are inherently disordered. It is clear that any form of slavery is unjust and ultimately dehumanizing; and women in places of theological and biblical authority over men is up-building and not destructive to the church. Likewise we are obligated to affirm where the love of Christ is being revealed, experienced, expressed, and witnessed among those who happen to have found Him in a place that the church currently rejects as legitimate. Not to respond to this revelation of Christ is to grieve the same Spirit that gives life to the church universal.
Sincerely,
Andrew Tatusko
ShareThis
Posted in: LGBT, Letters to Churches, Religion, Society, Theology.
spitting on atheists
Jul 27th, 2009 by Drew Tatusko. 4 Comments
I have been in countless debates with atheists, agnostics, and rather vocal anti-theists on many occasions. Most of the time my discussions have been very fruitful and I think we all ended up learning something. It was actually through such heated dialogue and truly often enlightening discussion that I ironically reclaimed my faith in a new way. However, each one of the points that "Lacy" raises here, while sarcastic enough, is unequivocally true in the ways that many Christians engage people with whom they know will disagree with them – especially atheists.
What lead me to reclaim my faith in a new way was the dual combo of atheists who seemed to understand what following Christ ought to look like versus Christians who were clearly doing an abysmal job of it. It was my job by default, and there was only one other Christian who did this too, to show them that there was a faint progressive voice that was willing to listen to them before it would tell them what to believe, if at all. Most of the time it was a discussion of what Christians should believe, how they should live, and why the hell they can't seem to do it. It is this that I found lead many to argue that because so many so-called Christians behave so contrary to what Jesus commanded, that Jesus could not have been the person they said he was and that Christians claim he is today. Couple that with countless people killed in the name of religion and that evidence of human suffering trumps any corrective good that religion has done to re-wire its failures.
What is particularly sad is that the ad hominems, name calling, spam, overt condemnation, etc. are where things leave off among Christians who will follow the course of thought illustrated in the clip. They see it as their "mission" to do so. They take it as a personal offense that their God is held in utter contempt by many many atheists not because of the notion of God, but due to the distorted witness of love that they themselves purport to portray. Apparently God is not exactly powerful enough to take a beating from a very small percentage of people on the earth. But I have never thought that God takes the beating from those who openly deny God's existence.
No, the true beating that God takes are from those who brand themselves as followers of Christ and act in the exact way that Jesus said not to behave. they act not with love, but contempt like the publican, the older brother, the workers in the vineyard, etc. If you act with derision and contempt, it does not matter if you call it love and Jesus knows the difference. Remember that it was the people who were supposed to follow the witness and revelation of Christ who had him killed. And yet these Christians continue to strain the gnat of the atheists while blissfully ignoring the 2 x 4 wedged in their respective eye sockets. The atheists laugh at this obvious absurdity as they should. Some things never change. Every Christian who does follow this line of "reasoning" slams the nail deeper into Christ's body, flogs one more blow to his frail body, and offers one more spittle as he walks by.
No matter how much certain Christians piss on the legs of atheists, they will never be convinced it is raining. Christians have to embrace their failures, fully accept the legacy of torture that they inherit and move forward to do something radically different for the world and for all their neighbors. Without an embrace of our failures, we cannot grow as good human beings, much less human being striving to become what Christ demands. For without an embrace of failure, grace cannot penetrate the solid walls of egotism to re-create that which is mortally broken.
Clip found via Proud Atheists
ShareThis
Posted in: Atheist Inquisitions, Religion, Society, Theology.
← Earlier PostsSubscribe to our Feed via RSS
Subscribe via eMail
Recent Posts
gays in the church: an economic approach
…as we forgive our debtors.
conservatives: what is a good alternative to "obamacare"?
on covananted same gender relationships
spitting on atheists
quote of the day: the meaning of life
how's your "ism"?
six myths about lyme disease
under our skin: a review
sex between men is grotesque – a repost
What I Am Reading
Stuff You Might Find Here
Select Category Atheist Inquisitions (43) Blogs I Read (146) Book Reviews (17) Deep Thoughts (25) Education (65) Entertainment (11) General (18) Humor (97) Letters to Churches (86) LGBT (75) Life (93) Lyme Log (15) Media (162) Meme (1) Music (50) Politics (288) Procrastination Aid (1) Real Heroes of the Day (6) Religion (360) Science (51) Sermons (4) Society (420) Stupid Religion (40) Theology (272) Uncategorized (18) What I'm Doing (20)
Biblio/TheoBlogs
(Not So) Straight from Seminary
AKM Adam Random Thoughts
Bryan’s Thoughts
Experimental Theology
Exploring Our Matrix
Faith and Theology
Faithfully Liberal
Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength
if i were a bell i’d ring
Jesus Creed – Scot McKnight
Jim West
Ken Brown
Messages: Queer Communications with the O/other
Open Source Theology
Progressive Christian Beliefs
Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth
Scotteriology
Targuman
The Church and Postmodern Culture: Conversation
The Progressive Christian Magazine
Education
Chronicle Wired Campus Blog
Cole Camplese
Edwired
Exploring New Learning Spaces
Henry Jenkins
Knowledge Rules
Mission to Learn
Spotlight on Digital Media and Learning
Political Thinking
Amitai Etzioni
Cato @ Liberty
Democracy Corps
Positive Liberty
Reason
The Daily Dish
The Liber(al)tarian Network
The US Executive Office
The Volokh Conspiracy
Todd Seavey
U.S. Government Accountability Office
PresbyBlogs
A Wee Blether
Beloved Spear
Bruce Reyes-Chow
Church for Starving Artists
Covenant Network of Presbyterians
Deeper in me than I
Growing Where I’m Planted
Holy Vignettes
I, Geekrev
Ladyburg
Mark Time
More Light Presbyterians
Mr. Locke’s Classroom
Pomomusings
Presbyfruit
Presbymergent
Presbyterian Outlook
Quotidian Grace
Revdarth
Shuck and Jive
The Church Geek
Titled: Some Amusing Blog Pun
Tribal Church
Two Friars and a Fool
Wil Smama
Society and Religion
Beacon Broadside
Christopher Marlin-Warfield (probatio pennae)
Douglas Rushkoff
Existential Punk
http://ccblogs.org
Immanent Frame
Julie Unplugged
Melissa Rogers
Mystical Seeker
One Little Victory
PFLAG (Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays)
Ponderings on a Faith Journey
Progression of Faith
PTET
Religion Dispatches
Stanley Fish
The Beautiful Heresy
The Corner
The Daily Scribe
The Paris Project
The Quixotic Infidel
The Revealer
The Wall of Separation
The Wittenburg Door
[lab]oratory: digital theology
Inside Higher Ed
Respite and radio
Turnover at the Top
Jobs Filled and Unfilled
Religion & Ethics
Senate Confirms Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court
Diaz Confirmed as Ambassador to Vatican
Gay and Lesbian Episcopal Priests in Running for Bishop in Calif. and Minn.
NPR News
Clinton Heads To A Congo Torn By Violence
Iraq Hopeful About Release Of Americans In Iran
Tests Will Tell If Indonesian Terrorist Suspect Is Dead
Pew Forum Events and Transcripts
Event Transcript: Government Partnerships With Faith-Based Organizations: Looking Back, Moving Forward
Question & Answer: A Clash of Rights? Gay Marriage and the Free Exercise of Religion
Event Transcript: Obama's Favorite Theologian? A Short Course on Reinhold Niebuhr
U Channel Lecture Podcasts
The Lebanese Elections and Middle Eastern Democracy
A Conversation between Bill Gates Sr. and Howard Davies
Assessing the G-20 Results – Regional Perspectives
Archives
August 2009 (3)
July 2009 (14)
June 2009 (20)
May 2009 (20)
April 2009 (26)
March 2009 (20)
February 2009 (24)
January 2009 (24)
December 2008 (55)
November 2008 (61)
October 2008 (103)
September 2008 (87)
August 2008 (47)
July 2008 (32)
June 2008 (26)
May 2008 (18)
April 2008 (64)
March 2008 (89)
February 2008 (45)
January 2008 (31)
December 2007 (22)
November 2007 (21)
October 2007 (22)
September 2007 (5)
August 2007 (8)
July 2007 (5)
June 2007 (12)
May 2007 (2)
April 2007 (1)
March 2007 (2)
Info/Log In
Register
Log in
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
WordPress.org
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.© 2009 | Powered by WordPress
A WordPress theme by Ravi Varma
i know what is your problem with harold camping!!
ask mercy to the lord!!! DREW TATUSKO YOU ARE GAY!
YOU ARE GAY THAT'S WHY YOU DON'T LIKE BROTHER CAMPING BUT HE IS TELLING YOU THE THRUTH. THIS THE WORD OF GOD! WHAT ARE U DOING IS NOT WELL SEEN TO OUR LORD. ASK,MERCY CHANGE UR LIVE STYLE! I WISH GOD OPEN YOUR SPIRITUAL EYES!
Tony Jones asks us: "Can you please explain to me WHY a gay or lesbian person who is in a long-term, monogamous relationship would not be able to wholeheartedly follow Christ?" He asks respondents to do so without going back to scripture passages lest it become another unproductive foray into competing interpretations and hermeneutics. Reviewing the 300+ comments it is clear that the assertion raised is that from design. Thus, non-heterosexual people are not following Christ because they are not following the laws that Christ himself observed – the one who fulfilled them but did not abolish them. I think this view suffers from myopia and needs to be corrected with a family systems economic approach. So what can we learn of God's design for family systems and what Jesus did to correct traditional assumptions of God's design for family? YOU ARE GAY DREW TATUSKO ASK MERCY TO OUR GOD AND CHANGE YOUR LIVE STYLE FOR YOUR OWN GOOD THE LORD,OPEN YOUR SPIRITUAL EYE!
I believe that as a man, we cannot understand God's will, let alone predict when God will end the world as we know.
But for one I know that Harold Camping was born human, and will stay human. When you said he's an angel, you better do your homework and learn what's the difference between man and angel.
Apart from that, I don't care whether the world will end today, tomorrow, or next century, I will still live my live to the fullest, so I can give my best report to Him when I see Him in His Grace.
Okay. Just let me ask you one thing, will you, or any of your pack WILLINGLY give all your belonging to me, because in a short while, all those will be useless? Well, might as well give it all to me, and let me be the one rot in the profane world (as you belive to be).
Hoax, hoax, hoax.
Camping already made mistakes about the past predictions, why we should even bother listening to him anyway?
To all campingites: if you truly believe that the world will end in 2011, PLEASE GIVE ALL YOUR BELONGING TO ME. You wouldn't need it in the "future" world where you will live (as to your believe)
Christ is coming in 2011. There's too much evidence in the world of what's going on with corruption. Gay this, gay that, immorality, same sex marriage, we've al been desensitised slowly. The whole world is gone to absolute immorality. Christ is coming in 2011, whether it be May 21, 2011 or September 29, 2011 (Feast of Trumpets) or finally October 21, 2011, I can't believe this world could go on further anyway. This world is become a pig pen! Yuck, Yuck, Yuck
evidence? where does jesus say observe the evidence and predict the date i am coming back. have fun with your superstition. i will follow christ.
It's not a superstition, just as much as king Herod inquired of the wise men (learned of the scriptures) of when the christ should be born. They knew directly from the scriptures that christ should arrive in their day, read matt chapter 1. Also Daniel understood "by books" or the scriptures, the things which should and have expired. we are living in a parallel time.
In your question of observing the evidence, christ say's to "watch" and "take heed", and "when ye see these things come to pass, know that your redemption draweth nigh". Ezekiel 33, we are to be the watchmen.
Fools base their thoughts on foolish assumptions,
so their conclusions will be wicked madness;
they chatter on and on.No one really knows what is going to happen;
no one can predict the future.
Eccl 10:13-14
“O people of Israel, these prophets of yours are like jackals digging in the ruins. They have done nothing to repair the breaks in the walls around the nation. They have not helped it to stand firm in battle on the day of the Lord. Instead, they have told lies and made false predictions. They say, ‘This message is from the Lord,’ even though the Lord never sent them. And yet they expect him to fulfill their prophecies! Can your visions be anything but false if you claim, ‘This message is from the Lord,’ when I have not even spoken to you? Eze 13:4-7
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/HaroldCampingStrang...
The Danger of Date Setting
There are several detrimental consequences to setting a date for the rapture. Among them are,it Turns Believers From Faith to Sight Instead of living a life pleasing to God because of what He has done for them and because of faith in the truth of the Scriptures, date-setting leads people to trust in viable signs. There would be little living by faith. Also, if the rapture is not going to meet the Lord until a certain date in the future, there is little incentive to "get right" until that time gets close.
It Turns From Hope to Disappointment
The failures of the Date-Setters causes some to become doubtful and disappointed. They were built up for a huge event and then become dejected when it fails to come to pass.
It Causes God's Word to Be Mocked And Ridiculed
Unbelievers have a field day reminding believers of the failure of their "prophecy." They mock and ridicule both the believers and their Bible.
i think a monkey just flew out of my butt. does that count as a sign?
i thought the danger was in believing the rapture at all. since it's not in the bible.
The resurrection is mentioned many times….rapture is not in the bible. Theories abound but faith is Christ is all that really matters.
I have been listening to Camping for some years now. I have always been interested in sects spawned by the "Reformation." In America there is a long history of people predicting the time of the End. Harold is 88 and is out on a limb. He will be almost 90, God willing, on May 21, 2011. He may be called before then. I may be called before then. But I must say I shall certainly want to tune into Open Forum if we are both alive on May 21, 2011. Of course the Lord will return at the time decreed from Eternity. So, if the Lord doesn't return before May 21, 2011, or doesn't return on May 21, 2011, and I and Harold are both compos mentis, I look forward to hearing Harold's comments, if any, on May 22, 2011, if God allows. Personally I have no doubt that Harold's teaching is not from God at all. Those he has led astray and those who have allowed themselves to be led astray by his teachings have a heavy burden to come out from these heresies that Harold propagates. All those poor souls who work on Family Radio, have they bought these terrible teachings? Harold's most recent distortion of the time and nature of the Atonement begars the imagination! This distortion of Scripture is one more in the long train of such distortions born of the false doctrine of 'sola scriptura.' Peace and God's light to all who seek Him.
May 21,2011….He could not give a rational answer. I mean think about it…..If I KNEW the day of the end I'd like to go out at my post! His answer betrayed a lack of common sense. No parables….no scripture to twist….just a simple question. Be aware that if U do call in it is almost impos to have a dialogue. He simply hangs up giving the appearance of a real open forum….its a lie…lately the engineer even forgets to turn off the phone line…..all U hear is the operator……"if u'd like to make a call hang up and dial the number." I shall retire to bedlam…..Tiberias7
Sorry my first part was not posted…..Listening since 1970…..erosion of sanity…..I asked recently if He would be on the air the last week…
H. Camping sounds too much like Barney Frank for me to take seriously.
Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me…………..
The same goes for you campingnitetotheend. Read the part that says to not forsake gathering together as a body of believers. "as some have chosen to do". Read the part that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church. I do not believe that "Al Gores" internet was the heralding of the "end of the church age."
Date setters always seem to have some built in red flag indicators that deflate credibility. H. Camping has many indicators.
Check out http://www.wecanknow.com
My friend, the account of the Magi is in Matt. Ch 2, not Ch 1. The "wise men" who were probably astrologers, had more than Scripture to guide them: they were following "his star" which led them to the infant Savior Jesus. Whatever the star was – a rare conjunction of Jupiter and Regulus or Saturn, or a comet or a cluster of angels – the Magi had unique PHYSICAL evidence in the sky to guide them. They did not and could not rely solely on arcane or allegorical interpretation of an ancient prophecy to guide them 540 miles across desert from Babylon or wherever they lived. And this is the problem with Camping: instead of sticking to the facts, he uses imagination and allegory to interpret the Scriptures so you can’t tell what Scripture means for and by itself. It's all in his mind and he can't be disproved until the dates he picks are wrong. He was wrong in 1994 but he just waved it off and said he made a mistake. No apology to anyone when flat wrong like Charles Taze Russell of the Jehovah Witnesses (who used Scripture to predict that the Lord would return in 1878, then 1904 – no sorry 1914… umm, then later dates which have all passed!) And do you defend Camping's assertion that we are to stop celebrating the Lord's Supper without directly contradicting Scripture? The Church is to celebrate the Lord’s Supper as a proclamation of the Lord’s death “until He comes” (1 Cor. 11:26). Open your eyes friend, read the Scriptures by yourself. You don't need HC to interpret. The Holy Spirit is a gentleman. He will guide you and help you see the
light (beware: HC says that the Holy Spirit is no longer operating today so HC can feed you more of his heretical interpretations.)
http://www.equip.org/articles/harold-camping
http://www.chapeldulcinea.org/content.asp?id=253
But thank you for calling and sharing.
But thank you for calling and sharing.
Camping needs to preach salvation and shut up about what day the Lord will return.
this guy is older than moses and should retire, cant even understand what he is talking about
Please writye me a check for ALL the money in your bank account and date it for 5/21/2011. Because you wont need it after that day you will do this if you really belive the garbage your claiming!
He is older as you!But for sure he knows what he is talking about!?age or worldly wisdom do,nt play any role in the eyes of God,but for sure you do,nt belong to a children of God,because your comments do,nt sound humble and faithfful to the Gospel
preaching salvation is also preaching a day of salvation.I am sure you heve no idea what a salvation is!!!
i agree 100%
So you believe him even after the last time he said this? Before 94 he said 'OMG! The world will see Christ return in 94!' and uhmm….. It's past 94. … Or could you not tell? I think this guy is insane and needs to go to a mental hospital.