Comments on: A false priest preaches blasphemy in Seattle

By: PerriNelson

PerriNelson — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 09:00:17 +0000

You are completely correct Mark. Again, I could not disagree with your points. Frankly, I think your comments add to the conversation.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 07:32:16 +0000

I’m not trying to be contentious for the sake of stirring up trouble, Perri Nelson. It’s just that at times like these, being very clear about words and ideas matter the most.

Sickly ironic that “episcopos” in Greek means superintendant or overseer (referring to a pastor), and the denomination named for that word is such a complete satanic train wreck.

By: Perri Nelson

Perri Nelson — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 02:42:07 +0000

Where does the concept of evil fit within the athiest world view? If there is no god from where do we derive our rights or even a sense of morality? How can it be possible to classify anyone as evil if you’re an atheist?

These are side issues though. Whether the separation of church and state is a good thing or a weakness in our government isn’t the point of the article. Neither is whether the atheist world view or the Mormon religion are true or false. They’d be good fodder for another article, but they distract from the intent of this one.

The point is that the popular "multicuturalist" idea that all cultures and all religions are of equal validity is a falsehood. The "glowing acceptance" by the Seattle Times and the Rt. Rev. Vincent Warner of a "priest" that claims to be both a Christian and a Muslim is an example of this muticulturalist, ecumenical world view.

Christianity and Islam are mutually exclusive at the root of their doctrine. To say that they hold equal validity has only one logical conclusion. Only someone that doesn’t fully accept either of them can hold that view. When that person holds a leadership position in the church, they are teaching corruption to the church. The Rev. Ann Holmes Redding and the Rt. Rev. Vincent Warner will one day have to answer for this to the true head of their religion.

Who is nominated for the Presidency by the Republican party has nothing to do with that.

By: Playin' Possum

Playin' Possum — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 01:42:36 +0000

Separation of church and state is a blessed - from the point of view of an Atheist - aberration of modern America. I think its essential, but it is also - as any powerful thing is - inherently the seed of weakness. Mormonism is an example of the principle’s Achilles heel. Letting those evil people anywhere near power is a disastrous mistake.
As for corruption… I posit you are responsible for anyone who claims the mantle of christ. These people claim it and utterly pervert it.
And by temporizing, you are corrupted.
Forget the book of mormon; read the doctorine and covenants, read the pearl of gereat price, read the writings of the church elders. Original Christianity has more in common with Islam than mormonism. Islam in fact ascribes more divinity to the nazerite than mormons do. Divinity really isn’t a mormon concept; mormonism is more like spiritual evolutionism: God was a man and he evolved; Jesus is only the first of equals - mormons, that is…
Just because they use the same terms, are rich, and organized is no damn good reason to accept them.

By: PerriNelson

PerriNelson — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:06:01 +0000

Hate? No. But yes, the word used was blasphemy. There is no such thing as a Christian/Muslem hybrid. The two religions are mutually exclusive. That’s the point.

To be a Christian requires that you accept the divinity of Christ, because only a divine sacrifice can truly atone for sin. The penalty for sin, any sin, is death. The promise of Christianity is the forgiveness of sin through the death and resurection of Christ.

Jesus said that not only was He the Son of God, but that "I and my Father are One", indicating that He was and is God. That’s one of the central tenets of the Christian faith. The Muslim faith denies that Jesus was even the Son of God, let alone God.

The two faiths are mutually exclusive. It is not possible for them both to be correct. It is not possible to be both a Christian and a Muslim at the same time. To attempt do so is to deny essential doctrine in one or both faiths.

I don’t agree that the Church is utterly corrupt and intellectually bankrupt. Not the true Church anyway. The organizational elements of the leadership of many "churches" however are utterly corrupt and morally bankrupt. This is one of the points of the whole debate. When church "leaders" demonstrate the falseness of their faith, can they truly be said to be leaders? When they are praised by other "leaders", such as the Rt. Rev. Vincent Warner, within their church it shows how far that church’s leadership has fallen away from the true faith.

Speaking out against it isn’t acceptance of their garbage. It’s a repudiation of it. A great many people use the corruption of church leadership as an excuse to avoid religion and to justify their lack of faith. That’s because they don’t really understand where faith and devotion belong. We aren’t called upon to have faith in men, but in God. He’s neither corrupt, nor corruptible. Men are both.

As for politicians and the bureaucracy being corrupt, it stems from the same place that the corruption of much of "organized" religion’s corruption does. Men (and women) are inherently sinners. Their natural tendency is toward corruption.

I personally don’t accept the Mormon religion. I’m fully aware of their history, as well as the revisions in the Book of Mormon that don’t square up with it being a direct "translation" from the golden tablets. This has nothing to do with the possible nomination of a Mormon for President though. In fact, his particular faith should have nothing to do with wether he’s an acceptable candidate for President or not.

I didn’t even have an objection to Keith Ellison running for, and being elected to Congress even though he’s a Muslim. Nor did I care about the fact that he used the Koran during his private swearing in ceremony (no book is used in the official ceremony). My objections to Mr. Ellison’s election have to do strictly with his socialist politics.

Constitutionally there can be no legitimate "religious test" for a candidate. It’s not important to me which religion a candidate professes. It is important to me that a candidate understand that there is a standard for morality that transcends human law and understanding. It’s important to me that a candidate believe sincerely that our rights don’t come from the law, but are given to us by our creator.

But politics wasn’t the point of my post. My post was, and is, intended to point out the apostacy of a local "priest", and the fallen nature of her church’s leadership. It was also intended to illustrate what’s wrong with the ecumenical movement, and "multiculturalism" in general.

It cannot be true that all religions, or even denominations within a religion, are equally valid when they hold mutually exclusive doctrines, unless they are all equally invalid. Simple logic denies the possibility. Therefore to say that they are equally valid implies that the speaker has no faith in any of them.

The proliferation of many religions doesn’t discourage me from having faith in Christ though. Just because man is corrupt doesn’t mean that there is no God, or that there’s no salvation in Christ.

By: Playin' Possum

Playin' Possum — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 16:09:09 +0000

HA HA HA!

All this debate - and I think hate, since the word used was blasphemy - aimed at a cvhristian / moslem hybrid when your party may very well nominate a mormon for president. Everything about mormonism blasphemes the creed, which joe smith re-wrote into the articles of faith. Plagerized, that is, like all his garbage.

Your acceptance of their garbage among you is proof of my central position about the American church - it is utterly corrupt and intellectually bankrupt.

Really, when you consider how sick the church is, it shouldn’t be a surprise the politicians and the bureaucracy is utterly corrupt as well.

It stems from somewhere…

By: PerriNelson

PerriNelson — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:13:20 +0000

Mark,
I can’t disagree with what you have to say. The creeds are not sufficient to define Christian faith and doctrine. However they are among the first statements of belief in the major Christian denominations, including the Episcopal Church. It’s in that context that I use them.
I didn’t write this post to convert people. I wrote it to point out that this so-called priest(ess) is an apostate, and that her teachings violate both of the religions she professes to practice. I also wrote it to point out that the Episcopal Church has fallen far from the true faith.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 13:57:33 +0000

The fact that this woman is not a Christian is patently obvious. But, I must disagree with something you said: “In a nutshell this is the basis of Christianity.”

No. While the words of those creeds are accurate, they are not Scripture. They are not supernatural in origin. The whole basis of Christianity is the Gospel (the good news) of Jesus Christ. The Apostles’ Creed never says, e.g., why Christ died.

Look at I Corinthians 15:3-4. Christ died, was buried and rose again according the Scriptures, which indicate Who this “Jesus” was in its accurate, Scriptural context.

Christianity is salvation by grace through faith alone (Eph. 2:8), making it totally unique in a world of religions of works.

By: pyotr

pyotr — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:16:19 +0000

Mark Steyn nailed it, when he observed that in retrospect it is inevitable: the first female Imam is Episcopalian.Unfortunately, the Episcopal Church apparently is no longer guided, or constrained, by tradition, Scripture or reason, let alone constrained by them.pyotr

By: Aurelius

Aurelius — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 01:17:59 +0000

Reddings own words betray her true feeling:

"She believes Jesus is the son of God insofar as all humans are the children of God, and that Jesus is divine, just as all humans are divine — because God dwells in all humans."

By definition, that is a rejection of Christian doctrine.

She is free to believe whatever she pleases. But representing herself as a Christian Cleric, while being a practicing Muslim, is damaging to her congregation, and that faith. From reading the entire article, I get the impression that she feels that being Muslim is somehow partly a racial issue, that she was born to it, and that Christianity was simply her vehicle to worship God, until she saw the light.

She is very lucky that the days of Torquemada and the Inquisition are past. But one must wonder what the Muslim equivelant of the Inquisition will think about this…