The Radicalization of the Church

The Radicalization of the Church

There are 89 comments on the American Thinker story from Jun 9, 2013, titled The Radicalization of the Church. In it, American Thinker reports that:

For decades, radical left theology has been making gradual inroads into the nation's churches.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at American Thinker.

Ocean56

AOL

#62 Oct 4, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
They did? What exactly was she regarded for?
Ironically enough, Mitt Romney explained it pretty well in a speech he gave to a group of women graduates back in May. Here's a link to an article that gives a pretty good analysis.

**********

http://www.alternet.org/mitt-romneys-advice-r ...

Mitt Romney's Advice for Recent Female Grads: "Have a Quiver Full of Kids"

Don't expect wealth and power, Romney warned the women of the Southern Virginia University's graduating class. Just get married and make lots of babies!

by Kristen Gwynne - May 3, 2013

This week, Mitt Romney delivered an interesting commencement speech to the (very Mormon populated) Southern Virginia University's graduating class. Sharing his secrets for "abundant living," Romney urged the new grads to go out, get married, and procreate like crazy.

'Get married,' he said, and “Have a quiver full of kids if you can.”

Also, hurry. Staying single until your thirties could be a big mistake. A quiver full of kids aren't born over night.

“Some people could marry but choose to take more time, they say, for themselves. Others plan to wait until they’re well into their 30s or 40s until they think about getting married,” he said,“They’re going to miss so much of living, I’m afraid.”

Girls, forget about establishing a career before you get married or have children. Why spend your body's prime child-bearing years working, when you could be breast-feeding on a much smaller salary?

As Romney reminds the class of Southern Virginia University, wealth is not guaranteed. Not everybod knows how to cut corners, exploit workers, and watch the profits rise. Even fewer are born into the power necessary to accumulate wealth in America. Anybody biologically capable, however, can make a quiver full of babies.

“I don’t think God cares whether you get rich,” he warned the crowd.“I don’t think he hopes that your business will make a huge profit. I know a lot of religious people who think God will intervene to make their investments grow. Or he’ll get them a promotion. To make their business a success. But life on this earth is about learning to live in a place where God does not make everything work out for good people.”

BUT. If you find a mate and procreate, you're all good!“Every one of you here today as a graduate can live an abundant life,” he told the students.“Every single one of you. You will not all be rich and famous and powerful, but each of you can live an eminently successful, rewarding, abundant life.”

Romney, on the other hand, will remain rich and famous and powerful. But not everybody can do that. So just shut up and get pregnant, already.

**********

Yep, there's no doubt in my mind where the Mittster wants women to be; in the home, barefoot and pregnant, chained to a stove. But I have no problem imagining that Catholic fanatic Rick Santorum making the same kind of speech.
Ocean56

AOL

#63 Oct 4, 2013
Dan wrote:
Nope. Wrong. You can have your own opinion but not your own facts.
Oh, I think the facts about the Catholic Church's position on contraception are pretty danged accurate, Dan.

You can defend this toxic religious institution all you want, of course. But again, I'm not buying what you keep trying to sell.
Ocean56

AOL

#64 Oct 4, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
Also this venerated jargon will amount to "knowing her place" and "accepting her lot in life"" being a virgin" and "giving birth as directed".
Exactly! Dan may try using different words to explain the whole "veneration of women" thing, but the message will be the same.
Ocean56

AOL

#65 Oct 4, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
Come on Dan....explain it to us wayward women. Quit dancing, you chose to step into it....now finish it.
lol I can't wait for this one. Hmmm...I think I'll use the waiting time to make some popcorn, and grab an ice-cold soda to go with it. This should be REALLY good.:-)
Ink

Levittown, PA

#66 Oct 4, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
The church disagrees with you.
Wishful Thinking
Ignoring the mountain of evidence, some maintain that the Church considers the use of contraception a matter for each married couple to decide according to their "individual conscience." Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. The Church has always maintained the historic Christian teaching that deliberate acts of contraception are always gravely sinful, which means that it is mortally sinful if done with full knowledge and deliberate consent (CCC 1857). This teaching cannot be changed and has been taught by the Church infallibly.
There is no way to deny the fact that the Church has always and everywhere condemned artificial contraception. The matter has already been infallibly decided. The so-called "individual conscience" argument amounts to "individual disobedience."
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control
So you believe the church is wrong?
I do believe that this particular Bishop is wrong.
I also understand the Church's postion on contraceptives. It isn't that the contraceptive is bad, it is the behavior and culture it creates.

Pope Paul VI predicted grave consequences that would arise from the widespread and unrestrained use of contraception. He warned, "Upright men can even better convince themselves of the solid grounds on which the teaching of the Church in this field is based if they care to reflect upon the consequences of methods of artificially limiting the increase of children. Let them consider, first of all, how wide and easy a road would thus be opened up towards conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality. Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men—especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point—have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion" (HV 17).

No one can doubt the fulfillment of these prophetic words. They have all been more than fulfilled in this country as a result of the widespread availability of contraceptives, the "free love" movement that started in the 1960s, and the loose sexual morality that it spawned and that continues to pervade Western culture.

Indeed, recent studies reveal a far greater divorce rate in marriages in which contraception is regularly practiced than in those marriages where it is not. Experience, natural law, Scripture, Tradition, and the magisterium, all testify to the moral evil of contraception.
Ink

Levittown, PA

#67 Oct 4, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. If one wants to be a "member in good standing" with the Catholic Church, one has to accept the Church's regressive teachings on contraception.
What is a member in good standing? A sinless person? LOL
Ocean56

AOL

#68 Oct 5, 2013
Ink wrote:
I do believe that this particular Bishop is wrong.
I also understand the Church's postion on contraceptives. It isn't that the contraceptive is bad, it is the behavior and culture it creates.
And what "behavior and culture" does contraception create, Inky? Other than putting the WOMAN in control of her own reproductive process and deciding for HERSELF when or IF she wants to be a mother, that is. I know the Catholic Church definitely considers THAT a threat...to the church's authority over women, of course.

Personally, I believe that's the main reason for the church's hatred of contraception...that it puts WOMEN in charge of themselves, as opposed to the church being in charge over them. That's one of the main reasons I kicked the toxic baggage of Catholicism to the curb. I refused to have a bunch of male clerics in dresses making such personal decisions for me when I alone had the right to make them for myself. It's wonderful how much freedom a woman has when SHE's in charge of her life.

Secularism = FREEDOM. No dogmas required.
Ocean56

AOL

#69 Oct 5, 2013
Ink wrote:
What is a member in good standing? A sinless person? LOL
The way I interpret it, the term "member in good standing" means a person who accepts the regressive and oppressive teachings of the Catholic Church without argument or question. Thank goodness that ISN'T me.

Why any woman would want to give away all her personal power to make sexual and reproductive decisions to such a draconian religious institution like the Catholic Church is beyond me. That's one of the benefits of being Catholicism-FREE (CF); that I KEEP mine.

Secularism = FREEDOM. No dogmas required.
Ink

Levittown, PA

#70 Oct 5, 2013
Ocean56 wrote:
<quoted text>
The way I interpret it, the term "member in good standing" means a person who accepts the regressive and oppressive teachings of the Catholic Church without argument or question. Thank goodness that ISN'T me.
Why any woman would want to give away all her personal power to make sexual and reproductive decisions to such a draconian religious institution like the Catholic Church is beyond me. That's one of the benefits of being Catholicism-FREE (CF); that I KEEP mine.
Secularism = FREEDOM. No dogmas required.
We don't have a 'member in good standing' catagory.

We all just love God and try to be good people hold on to what we know is right in a very hedonistic shallow narcistic society.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#71 Oct 5, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't have a 'member in good standing' catagory.
We all just love God and try to be good people hold on to what we know is right in a very hedonistic shallow narcistic society.
Seriously?

What you are holding on to is a two thousand and counting year old book of male hierarchy that treats women as property written by sheep herders who stole many of their stories.

Speaking of hedonistic shallow narcissistic you need to look no further than the RCC. The Inquisition, the crusades, the no women allowed in the hierarchy, the pedophiles, etc. have no room to talk. Their history precedes them. Buy a clue Ink. You are welcomed to believe such nonsense, you are not welcome to try to enforce your beliefs on society.
Ink

Levittown, PA

#72 Oct 5, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously?
What you are holding on to is a two thousand and counting year old book of male hierarchy that treats women as property written by sheep herders who stole many of their stories.
Speaking of hedonistic shallow narcissistic you need to look no further than the RCC. The Inquisition, the crusades, the no women allowed in the hierarchy, the pedophiles, etc. have no room to talk. Their history precedes them. Buy a clue Ink. You are welcomed to believe such nonsense, you are not welcome to try to enforce your beliefs on society.
No I'm not. There is no male hierachy in my life. You make your life what you want it to be.
Hedonism, shallowness and narcisism is found everywhere. Even in the RCC but I'm am not unable to recognize it for what it is. My life does not depend on what goes on in the RCC although I am very hopeful that Pope Francis will make many needed changes. I don't have to hate the Church as you do. There is good in all places.

“And the Horse You Rode in On”

Since: Sep 08

Minneapolis

#73 Oct 5, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
No I'm not. There is no male hierachy in my life. You make your life what you want it to be.
Hedonism, shallowness and narcisism is found everywhere. Even in the RCC but I'm am not unable to recognize it for what it is. My life does not depend on what goes on in the RCC although I am very hopeful that Pope Francis will make many needed changes. I don't have to hate the Church as you do. There is good in all places.
Hating the church would take too much of my precious energy. I discard it as mythological nonsense, male written, male based delusional and insignificant. I think that about sums it up.
Ink

Levittown, PA

#74 Oct 5, 2013
Morgana 9 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hating the church would take too much of my precious energy. I discard it as mythological nonsense, male written, male based delusional and insignificant. I think that about sums it up.
By all means save your energy.

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#75 Oct 6, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly, you don't know and don't care. The problem is that it makes you inaccurate and therefore not credible.
The various Christian denominations are based on the same dogma, the difference is how they interpreted that dogma.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#76 Oct 6, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
C'mon, Ocean.
The RCC placed a woman at the highest level of regard in Christendom that any person ever attained.
They're no more "anti-woman" than I am. I mean, you disagree with them on things, but running a bseless smear out isn't really any service to your arguments.
Dear Dan,

That is simply NOT true.

The RCC does NOT recognize a woman's capacity for receiving the right to wield authority. Plain and simple.

The person you are replying to is not "running out a baseless smear."

She is right.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#77 Oct 6, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
The article isn't focused on gender interests per se. The author, a woman, by the way, indicates and then elaborates that syncretism is the issue at hand.
Syncretism is NOT the issue at hand. Faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the issue at hand.

Fay Voshell, M. Div., Princeton, makes a wholly inaccurate assertion in this article.

Hidden among her diatribe against a modern realization of the patristic roots of Traditional Christianity is a subtle misdirection.

She writes, "Unfortunately, if the impulse of the Main Line denominations has included a syncretism that includes worshipping a pantheon of gods and goddesses, the response of the conservative churches to the relentless pounding of a left-leaning, secularist world view has often been flight rather than fight."

Nothing could be farther from the truth. There is no "worshipping" of a pantheon of gods and goddesses. But, that is the accusation she makes.

The reference Voshell makes is to the Church service in which the participants conducted a sort of "communion" from the general perspective of some tribal American Indians who acknowledged the sacredness of the animals and spirits that their lives were dependent upon. This is an understanding of the basis for THEIR faith in the living hierarchy of Wa-Kon-Tonka, mostly from the Lakota Sioux.

If the communicant cannot see from the paralled perspective of the person to whom the Gospel of Jesus Christ is being brought, there is no soul-depth communication that allows the essential bridge between alternate understandings to be built.

Do you think that Jesus was unable to see from these alternate perspectives? On the contrary; it is intuitively understood that Jesus clearly saw from these perspectives and that this seeing was the basis for His mercy and forgiveness. That is the lesson of the Woman at the Well.

How easily we forget and abandon our full faith and reliance on our own rebirth in Christ.

The Psalm reads, "Yea, though I walk through the Valley of the Shadow of Death, I shall fear no evil."

The Valley of the Shadow of Death was most likely is a real place. It is believed to have possibly been one of several canyon entry/exits to the Dead Sea, a long portion of one peculiar part of which is a darkened, narrow pathway, bounded by high, unscalable rock walls, that is NEVER exposed to direct sunlight and in which a traveler may be attacked from the shadows.

Another possibility is that it is a reference to 'The Valley of Hinnom, located near the southen border of Jerusalem. There was some nasty shtuff there in the early days, like human sacrifices [2 Chronicles 28].' Google it.

The point being that the true "Christian" is brought into a rebirth in the Spirit of the Light of Christ, carrying this Light within oneself and in doing so, is able to venture fearlessly into the very basis for the greatest adversities to the Gospel.

Rev. Ken

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#78 Oct 6, 2013
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course that's why she's venerated.
No. Actually, that is their excuse for her veneration.

She is held to be a virgin and depicted as unsullied by sexual desire unleashed in order to provide proof of the sinless birth of Jesus.

That is part and parcel of the Christian ethos and myth.

Jesus was a man. His cellular body undoubtedly contained the male set of Y chromasomes.

How He came into carnation is regarded to be a "Christian" mystery.

But, consider:

If His body did not contain the male set of "Y" chromasomes, instead being an expression of only the "X" set received from His mother, Jesus would have been a male-oriented transexual.

He was not. He was a regular old heterosexual who had an obvious relationship, sexual or not, with Mary Magdalene.

In fact, an extraordinary relationship in which both Mary Magdalene and His own mother were among the few to first encounter the Risen Christ and thereby to have first been assigned the task of spreading the Gospel.

Rev. Ken
Ink

Levittown, PA

#79 Oct 6, 2013
Long Night Moon 13 wrote:
<quoted text>
The various Christian denominations are based on the same dogma, the difference is how they interpreted that dogma.
And how do yoyu interpert that dogma?

“Dan IS the Man”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#80 Oct 6, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
And how do yoyu interpert that dogma?
Mythological.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#81 Oct 7, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear Dan,
That is simply NOT true.
The RCC does NOT recognize a woman's capacity for receiving the right to wield authority. Plain and simple.
The person you are replying to is not "running out a baseless smear."
She is right.
False.

They dimply don't teach that women don't have authority.

They cannot be ordained, but that doesn't mean that they cannot have any earthly authority i.e. the arguments being presented here (i.e. "sheep", etc.).

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 4 min broken WOODEN WHEEL 6,522
News End of Boy Scouts' ban on gays prompts elation ... 22 min Wondering 87
News Gay wedding cake at center of Colorado Appeals ... 1 hr Wondering 727
News Who's That Toy Boy Madonna? 5 hr Waldo Simmons 1
News The Year's Craziest Right-Wing Conspiracy Theor... 7 hr Freebird USA 7
News Clerk to quit, cites 'moral conviction' 10 hr Joe 134
News Religious liberty is rallying cry after gay mar... 12 hr Jaimie 445
More from around the web