From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Sat Nov 15 2003 - 15:50:16 EST
Remember that Apartheid had its basis in anti-evolution and creationism.
Also people like Henry Morris as well puts forward the myth of Sons of
Ham being negroes and are of limited intelligence. (Though one son of Ham
does seem to be so!)
It is not a cogent argument of Ken Ham but rather a dishonest, and totally
unloving smear campaign designed to win over devout Christians who do not
have the knowledge to refute it.
I do not know how Ham can say it and face God on his knees or at the
communion table.
I cannot help feeling that the likes of Ham have removed 3 verses from Lev
19 - viz vs 11, 15-6 and 18 for starters but only retains Lev 18 22. and 20
13. Mark you the gay Christians must reject Lev 19 vs 18 as well to be
consistent.
If I were given a choice of YEC or allowing gays I would choose the latter
for being more moral.
And to Creationist colleges. Ole Henry's list is confused - he didnt mention
several colleges which have YEC staff - Trinity Deerfield, Taylor IN and I
personally know that several of his YEC colleges have non-YEC staff. If I as
a Brit can poke holes so easily then it msut be wrong.
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: <bpayne15@juno.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 3:22 AM
Subject: Subject: Re: Four items of possible controversy
>
> Burgy wrote: That there are those who hold the
> consecration ought to be opposed on moral grounds and are not influenced
> by Ahmanson is not contested; I know some and they are my friends. In
> point of fact I myself have no position on the consecration; there are
> rational and persuasive arguments on either side (obviously) and, not
> being Episcopal, I have not studied them sufficiently to take a position.
>
> I write: Here's a cogent argument against ordination of homosexual
> bishops. Ken Ham would argue that this vector has a common root with
> OEC.
>
> Bill
>
> Subject: Dr. Peter Jones-Christian Witness to a Pagan Planet
> From: CWIPP [mailto:perejones@sbcglobal.net]
> Website: www.cwipp.org
> NewsCWIPP #5
> Homosexual Bishops: A Theological Oxymoron
> Just when we thought things couldnít get worse, they did. American
> Episcopalian bishops celebrated our cultural moral collapse by receiving
> a divorced, openly-practicing homosexual into their august ranks. These
> meddlesome priests are out ahead of the cultural curve. Can marital
> status be refused to gays when those with the spiritual authority to
> administer the rite of marriage are already gay?
> This radical sector of the Church has abandoned any objective moral
> standard for sexual behavior. Doubtless lesbian bishops are already
> waiting in the wings. A homosexual Roman Catholic priest states that the
> ìonly authentic spirituality is gay spirituality.î Some in mainline
> Protestant churches declare polyamory (ìcommittedî group sex) to be
> ìholy.î Will we soon see be-robed bishops ordaining a man accompanied by
> his adoring bi-sexual family of three ìwivesî and the other ìhusbandî?
> Such an act will be lauded as a unique statement ìof the unity of the
> churchÖ[that] none of the rest of us can make,î to quote Douglas Theuner,
> retiring bishop of New Hampshire, reflecting on the unique ìChristian
> witnessî of Gene Robinson and his male lover.
> The Anglican communion is in shock, but this state of affairs became
> inevitable when doctrinal discipline was abandoned. Broad churchmen could
> be lax when eccentric bishops denied ìonlyî the doctrines (the divinity
> of Christ, his physical resurrection and even the biblical doctrine of
> God). But theological deviance often precedes moral degeneracy. Ideas
> have consequences. We react once the moral cat is out of the theological
> bag, but by then, there is little to be done. An unbiblical view of God
> inevitably leads to the justification of homosexuality.
> People are bending over backwards to be polite. Some optimistically
> speak of separated brethren who will come ìback together.î English
> Primate Rowan Williams declares both that the ordination of Robinson was
> done in ìgood faith,î and that ìthe effects will have to be confronted
> with honesty.î Will he ever ask the impolite but necessary question:
> ìwhat is the nature of the ëgood faithí of the American bishops?î A
> previous ìprimate,î the apostle Paul, named two kinds of faith: ìthe good
> teaching of Jesus Christî and ìthe teaching of demonsî (1 Timothy 4:1,6).
>
> Paul used strong language because the false teaching he denounced in the
> Ephesian church eventually rejected the biblical doctrine of God and the
> very nature of Redemption itselfówhich is what the demonic world has
> always done. Todayís theological justification of homosexuality grows out
> of a similar apostasy. Honoring homosexuality fails to respect the
> structures of difference (night and day, waters and dry land, male and
> female) that God as Creator placed in the world. Such distinctions are
> dismissed as mythological nonsense of no theological importance.
> Normalizing homosexuality redefines the notion of sin and thus nullifies
> the Gospel account of Christís atoning death for sinners. It renders
> meaningless the biblical doctrines of repentance, holiness and
> sanctification and makes a mockery of the church as salt and light to the
> sinful world.
> We are not dealing with another good faith version of Christianity, but,
> as Archbishop Williams should know, its antithetical opposite. A lesbian
> pastor, commenting on the conflict with the conservative wing in her
> church, said: ìMaybe we are talking about a different god.î There are not
> too many gods about whom to talk. There is the transcendent God of theism
> and there are the nature gods of paganism. The espousal of homosexuality
> is certainly a ìgood faithî position if oneís belief system is that of
> pantheistic spirituality. But such apostasy cannot serve as a basis for
> re-established communion within the confines of a meaningful Christian
> confession. The apostle Paul refuses such a mixture: ìWhat fellowship is
> there between the temple of God and idols?î
> The issue of homosexual bishops brings us to an historic moment, with
> only two realistic options. 1. Either worldwide Anglicanism will split
> definitively over the issue of truth, on the basis of Scriptureís
> exclusive ìone Lord, one faith, one baptism,î and the Creed's ìone holy,
> catholic church,î or, 2. the old ìlive and let live compromiseî will
> bring everyone back together on the basis of pseudo-Christian syncretism.
> In the final sermon at the Convention in August, 2003, when Robinson was
> voted in, presiding bishop Frank Griswold said: ìThis Convention has been
> about loveÖsomething has happened that is larger than any one
> perspectiveÖî Here, in perfectly Postmodern fashion, truth and falsehood
> have become ìperspectives,î and a new kind of church unity is unveiled.
> Citing not the Bible but the Sufi (pagan) poet Rumi, Griswold declared:
> ìOut beyond ideas of wrong-doing and right-doing there is a field. Iíll
> meet you there.î
> ìBack togetherî on this basis would be a momentous victory for unabashed
> paganism. The unifying field is no longer Christian truth but pagan
> oneness. Lutheran historian Frederic Baue's prediction would become a
> reality. Baue asks: ìWhat comes after the Postmodern?î He answers: ìa
> phase of Western/world civilization that is innately religious but
> hostile to ChristianityÖor worse, a dominant but false church that brings
> all of its forces to bear against the truth of Godís Word.î
> Peter Jones
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Nov 15 2003 - 15:52:18 EST