Today’s Progressive Christians are the Best Christians in History. Just Ask Them!

A still image from the movie "Dogma."

By John Zmirak Published on January 31, 2017

I’ve often been puzzled when progressive Christians reject 2,000 years of biblical interpretation and apostolic tradition on crucial topics, and instead swallow whole the political, social and moral positions of fashionable secular elites.

I used to conclude that those Christians had cut loose from binding Tradition and the clear sense of Scripture in order to curry favor with the powerful, score dates, avoid government harassment, and generally win friends and influence people. I couldn’t think of any other explanation. So at various times in different venues, I suggested that such people were really adoring the golden calf, pining for the fleshpots of Egypt, whoring after strange gods, eating pork in the Temple, or worshiping Caesar. You get my drift.

Could it be that the core message of Christianity has been buried since the beginning, wrapped tight in a husk of cultural, human accretions? And it’s only now starting to sprout?

But there is one other possibility, which I’d never really considered. And it is worth taking seriously. Maybe, just maybe, progressive thinkers and activists are the best Christians in history. Perhaps the reason that they reject what every previous generation of Christians believed on a long list of subjects is that these people have finally discovered what Jesus really meant by all that He said and did. Maybe that’s the answer! It really could be that the core message of Christianity has been buried since the beginning, wrapped tight in a husk of cultural, human accretions. And it’s only now starting to sprout.

At Last, We Learn from the World What the Church Should Teach

For almost 2,000 years, Christians thoughtlessly allowed their faith to tell them:

  • That abortion and infanticide are uniquely hideous crimes, which Christians must strive in simple justice to suppress by law. This superstition goes way back, to one of the earliest apostolic books, the Didache. It drove Christians to collect abandoned infants from the walls of Rome, and excommunicate anyone who took part in an abortion.
             Now we know, of course that this is wrong. Seamless Garment Christians such as Chicago Cardinal Blaise Cupich have taught us that abortion is very sad, but no worse really than deporting illegal immigrants or cutting back Medicaid. So we can support politicians who favor unlimited abortion, as long as they’re “better” on other “life issues” such as transgender rights and climate change.
  • That the death penalty is just, and demanded by God Himself for grave crimes such as murder — not just to protect society, but to serve the State’s role as the “legitimate avenger of crime” here on earth. St. Paul thought that was why the State did not “bear the sword in vain.”
           But now we know better, and realize that it was very wrong indeed to hang all those Nazis at Nuremburg (as Pope Pius XII urged), when they could have been safely contained and even rehabilitated. That is why the European Union won’t even allow its member nations to vote on whether to reinstitute the death penalty, though it does let them make laws allowing for child euthanasia, since suffering is the worst thing in the world, and we should commit any “sin” in order to avoid it.
  • That sex was only blessed by God in a monogamous, male/female marriage. 
          But now we realize that St. Paul and Leviticus, the popes and councils and Reformers and Great Awakeners were wrong — and the U.S. Supreme Court and the IRS, Hollywood and Buzzfeed are right. For the whole of its history, Christianity (and Judaism before it) has engaged in Pharisaical discrimination against gay people, while deluding itself that there were only two types of human, male and female — when in fact there are more than 40 genders, as we have learned thanks to Facebook.
  • That Christians should defend the common good, which includes controlling the influx of large numbers of people who might claim the hard-earned wealth of natives by force, replace their culture, or even persecute their religion. Hence early Christians never demanded that the Roman Empire admit the Vandals, Goths, or Huns. Many even served in the army to keep those people out, following the advice of benighted men such as Ambrose and Augustine.
          Now we know, thanks to George Soros and the Christian groups he funds, and thanks to bold church leaders like Pope Francis, that this was wrong. We must welcome whoever shows up, in whatever numbers, financially support them, change our laws to suit them — and demonize those who complain about it.

Blessed Are the Prestigious, for They Shall Gain Credibility

Because progressive Christians have been able to grasp all these crucial truths, and see that their ancestors in the faith were so comprehensively wrong about so many crucial subjects, betraying the very essence of the Christian message of healing, love, acceptance, and consolation, there is only one conclusion we can draw: Today’s progressive Christians are the best Christians in history.

They are a much more reliable guide to what the Gospel really means than all those dead people, back in the past. An important Catholic leader, Archbishop Charles J. Scicluna of Malta, made this principle explicit in a recent homily, saying:  “Whoever wishes to discover what Jesus wants from him, he must ask the Pope, this Pope, not the one who came before him, or the one who came before that. This present Pope.” Of course, for Protestants this principle requires a little tweak. They should consult whatever Tony Campolo is saying today.

I’m not sure what would explain why the real Christian message stayed buried for so very long — since it’s divine, and was meant to spread like a “fire on the earth.” Nor can I identify which factors precisely freed it. Maybe what liberated Jesus’ message was simple prosperity, since it’s in the wealthiest countries with the most leisure time and best medical care that progressive doctrines are spreading fastest, while poor countries still tend to cling to the old, pre-Christian creed that the missionaries brought them, like hundreds of years ago.  

Advanced education at secular schools, or secularized religious schools, also seems to play a part. So do social prestige and acceptance. That would explain why Episcopalians on Park Avenue and Jesuits in Georgetown have been so much more skilled at discovering Jesus’ true message than Pentecostalists in Brazil or bishops in Africa.

To learn the real meaning of Christianity, pay special attention to scholars with advanced degrees from schools that non-Christians respect, and those with large endowments and beautiful campuses. Don’t get confused by spurious appeals to the apparent sense of Scripture, or even the words of Jesus. Remember, as a high school religion teacher once told me, “Jesus didn’t have an M.A. in Theology from Catholic University. I do.”

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Lisa Koester Xayavong

    You nailed it!

  • Hmmm…

    Perhaps your tongue-in-cheek (I hope!), especially at the end, is so much left on its own that it is at risk of being taken for intent.

  • Christian Cowboy

    I hope some one who doesn’t know Jesus doesn’t take this seriously!

    • v schraa

      Makes me think of those “CAUTION!” stickers on ladders that are put on the shelf to hold the paint can that say: “DO NOT ATTEMPT TO STAND ON THIS”. Yea, there will be some of them out there, but if they can’t recognize it for parody then it’s probably because they don’t know what it is in the first place.

      • Ronald Doub

        Maybe this a tongue in cheek emoji.

  • AndRebecca

    Wow, thank you for this article.

  • Howard Rosenbaum

    Correct. Progressives ,so called, have progressed so far ahead of the rest of us who hold to a “primitive” Christian faith. They’ve progressed right past the apostles. Right past scripturally affirming early church leaders. Right past the scripture itself. They are accelerating rapidly past sound reason & common sense as well. They’re on the fast track. The fast track to
    something other than a heavenly rest at the end of the day ..

  • LYoung

    Well, there’s nothing new under the sun said Solomon. Old lies in new wrapping.

  • Jennifer Hartline

    Whatever became of that high school religion teacher? Sheesh…

    • Jeannine

      You can read about him in Zmirak’s books!

    • Vincent J.

      Was it a Catholic high school?

  • Stephen M.

    I appreciate the message here but the way it is presented is not only being lost on some people, it’s overly snarky tone is down right childish. All of your points as to why progressive Christians have so severely twisted our faith are dead on, I just wish you’d present with a bit less sarcasm (which is crazy even for me to say, I’m sarcastic 24/7). Your message is just going to come off as “better than thou” to those who might disagree with your bullet points, unless that is your goal and you aren’t interested in showing them the light. Do you really want them to feel stupid or do you want them to look at this in a different way that helps identify the hypocrisy in their thinking? In general, this entire website could be a source of wisdom, hope, and truth in a sea of fake news and political agenda-driven entertainment if everyone just toned down the sarcasm and presented the truth like it is. It’s like when your dad looks at your essay for school and says “you can do better than this”.

  • Jeannine

    Sometimes sarcasm is the only way to go. Bravo!

  • Patmos

    It’s the same thing as when Jesus called people out for wanting to be more pleasing to others than to God. There are countless scripture to counter the progressive Christian, strange that even when you show it to them they don’t budge. Must be because they haven’t taken up the cross and followed Jesus, and are ultimately cowards with no backing whatsoever from the power of The Holy Spirit. Their end will be the second death.

  • Dean Bruckner

    Doctrines of demons come with bonus features: deception of the mind, perversity of the body and soul, hardening of the heart, and overweening pride. God save us!

    • Vincent J.

      Yes. I’m not Catholic, but we agree on this.

      Romans 1:21-22 New International Version (NIV)

      For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools ….

  • Contra to Stephen M., — please keep the snark coming. A bit of biting wit is just right. BTW, I am in the midst of “The Politically Correct Guide to Catholicism”; it’s terrific.

  • TBP100

    “2,000 years of biblical interpretation and apostolic tradition on crucial topics,”

    There is no one “Biblical tradition” or “apostolic tradition” on any “crucial topic.” To the contrary, at no point in history have Christians agreed with other Christians about these issues or on much of anything else. Christians have been saying other Christians aren’t really Christians ever since there have been Christians, and often slaughtering each other over trivialities. For a very long time the Roman Catholic Church simply denied that non-Catholics were Christians at all. On the other hand, I grew up around people who routinely referred to Catholics as “Hell-bound idol worshippers” (or worse). Tell me where the common ground is there. Tell me where the common ground between Arminians and Calvinists is. On issue after issue, Christians have irreconcilable differences with other Christians. They can’t all be true, but they can all be false.

    • Ronald Doub

      Uh. . . May you should try reading the consensus of the first seven ecumenical councils.

      • TBP100

        That some Christians at some point in the past agreed with each other on some points of doctrine does not mean the conflicts I cite don’t exist.

        • Aloha12

          That’s not really true. The disagreements between born againregenerated orthodox (note the small ‘o’) are small. For example, John Zmirak is an Evangelical Catholic and I’m a reform Protestant. On the surface one might think we quite distant Theologically, but really that’s not the case. On all the major Christian doctrines we are in agreement. Really the only disagreement we would have would be on the role of Church tradition (when you really get down to it). We are brothers and feel a kinship towards him and all other Catholics of the same stripe, yet I feel no such kinship with a liberal Lutheran or Episcopalian (for example) who is mostly likely not savedregenerate. Point being is that orthodox Christians no matter the denomination are brothers and sisters and agree on the major points of doctrine or at least the Nicene creed.

      • RedStateRanger

        Back and forth we go. I think it comes down to the question: “… and who do YOU (my emphasis) say that I am?” I can pretty much infer from the comments what each commenter would say. For those answering one way, you can explain away just about any orthodoxy. For you God is an evil trickster, an irrational tyrant, an irrelevant anachronism, or just a figment of superstitious ancient cultures. No amount of Bible quoting will suffice because there is no objective authority. You will continue to grope about and settle on the philosophy of the moment or trust that society will eventually “progress” to some collective brilliant attainment of

    • Palamas

      You took church history from Dan Brown, right?

      • TBP100

        So the Huguenots and Albigensians weren’t slaughtered by fellow Christians? Arminianism and Calvinism are compatible after all? I was hallucinating when the people I grew up with referred to Catholics in very derogatory terms and denied they were Christians at all? There was never a religious war in Europe? Catholics and Protestants in Ireland have gotten along just dandy all these years? Good to know.

        • Palamas

          “There is no one “Biblical tradition” or “apostolic tradition” on any “crucial topic.” To the contrary, at no point in history have Christians agreed with other Christians about these issues or on much of anything else. ”

          That is utter nonsense. The fact that Christians in some places and some times have done horrible things to one another (psst, the Albigensians weren’t Christians) done not mean that Christians have never agreed about anything. Here’s an example for you–Arminians and Calvinists:

          1) Agree about the Trinity
          2) Agree about the two natures of Christ
          3) Agree about the necessity of faith in Christ for salvation
          4) Agree that the Body of Christ is found in the totality of Christians, rather than one institutional expression
          5) Agree that baptism and Communion are the two biblical sacraments
          6) Agree on the canon, trustworthiness, and sufficiency of the Bible as containing all that is needed to know for salvation
          7) Agree on the necessity of evangelism
          8) Agree on the importance of the preached Word

          I could go on, but you get the point. I could do the same thing with Lutherans and Catholics, Baptists and Methodists, Eastern Orthodox and Presbyterians. You want to paint a picture of utter chaos in the church’s teaching through the centuries. The fact that there are disagreements doesn’t obviate the agreements, or make them any less consequential.

          • TBP100

            Lots of Christians can and do agree about lots of things, you’re right. Perhaps as a rhetorical device I exaggerated a bit, but only a bit. You probably can’t find a single point of doctrine that has come close to being universally agreed upon, at least not once there were more than 2-3 Christian congregations in existence.

            Christians can’t even agree about what constitutes the Bible, or which parts are to be taken literally and which allegorically or metaphorically, among many other points of conflict.

            Your statement about the Albigensians kinda proves my point. They certainly considered themselves Christians and who knows if they would have considered you a Christian? As I said, Christians have been saying other Christians aren’t really Christians ever since there have been Christians.

            And even if the Arminians and Calvinists agree upon the points above, they still espouse utterly incompatible views of salvation. If one view of salvation is true, the other is false, period, and that’s kind of the most important doctrine there is, IMO. If you’re burning in Hell, you probably don’t care about transubstantiation or whether or not Noah’s flood was a literal event or a parable. Your mileage may vary, but I would say that disagreement outweighs any points of similarity by a considerable factor.

            (As an aside, why do Calvinists bother with evangelism at all, if they really believe what they say they do about election and predestination? “Calvinist missionary” has always struck me as the most oxymoronic job description in history, and I have relatives who actually are Calvinist missionaries.)

            My overall point stands: that all, or at least most, Christian groups have always considered themselves to be the best Christians, sometimes the only Christians, including whoever who wrote this article, apparently obvious to the irony. This is hardly a new thing, and certainly not confined to modern liberal denominations.

          • Aloha12

            Some of the greatest evangelists have been Calvinists (Whitfield, Carey). Calvinists evangelize because Christ and scripture command it and the Holy Spirit within them compels them to do so.

            The main difference between an Arminian and a Calvinist is that Arminians claim that man has a part in his salvation (he must make a decision for Christ when Christ sends out the call), whereas the Calvinist says that it’s all Gods doing, man contributes nothing. They disagree not on the means of salvation which is through repentance and faith in Christ, only on whether man plays a role or not. One doesn’t consider the other heretical or non orthodox. A non essential (to salvation) disagreement.

          • TBP100

            That “disagreement” about whether man plays a role in salvation is not exactly inconsequential. Indeed, it is fundamental and renders the two viewpoints utterly incompatible, regardless of how many nonessential things they agree on. And certainly SOME of them consider the other viewpoint to be heretical or non-orthodox, although I am not going to claim I know the stats.

            And yes, I know there have been Calvinist evangelists. As I said, I am related to some (by marriage, but still). I just can’t imagine why, since if their theology is true, nothing they do is going to make the slightest difference. Nothing they do CAN make the slightest bit of difference. Nor can I imagine why Christ and the Holy Spirit command evangelization, since it’s absolutely pointless. It’s like making people go out and do the sun dance so the sun will come up when you know it’s coming up regardless.

            Nor do I understand why Calvinists don’t realize they worship a really, really evil being (the Arminian deity is evil too, but slightly less so), but that’s a whole different argument.

            But again, my main point is that it is hardly new or unique for one Christian group to consider it “better” than others. That’s been going on since the very foundation of Christianity, and much blood has been shed over it.

          • Aloha12

            An Arminian still believes that its by the merits of Christ only that he goes to Heaven, no different than the Calvinist. The only difference is that the Calvinist says that only the ‘elect’ respond to the call whereas the Arminian says that all are called and man is responsible to accept the call (repent and believe). They both agree that only by repentance and belief in Christ will one enter Heaven.

            Much in life is unknown to us. Christ called his followers to evangelize so we do. Others salvation don’t depend on my faithfulness to that charge (God can use other means if I fail) but God uses His people to evangelize the world for His reasons unknown to us.

            I don’t think we (myself, a Catholic, Pentecostal, etc.) think we’re better than other orthodox traditions than our own. We are just convinced after study and contemplation that the path we each have chosen is closest to what the Bible teaches. By no means do I consider my tradition better, just maybe more accurate and I know the others consider their tradition more accurate than mine. Great! We still agree on the majors and are family.

          • TBP100

            I really must disagree. However much the Calvinists try to pretend otherwise, their doctrine in practice boils down to this: God simply decides to torture some people forever, for reasons of his own, and not to torture others, for reasons of his own. It has nothing to do with genuine repentance, since everyone’s fate was determined before the foundation of the world. God compels them to repent (irresistible grace); they have no more say in the matter than a chess piece. This cannot be reconciled with Arminianism. And why they don’t recognize that such a being, if he existed, would be infinitely evil, I don’t know (but again, another argument).

            You are obviously very thoughtful, and have been very courteous (I think I have been a bit brash, but I hope not actually rude). I think you probably don’t believe that your group of Christians is better than others, and maybe those in your particular group don’t either, but that doesn’t change the long, tragic, bloody history of Christian sects that have thought otherwise, and in many cases continue to think otherwise.

            While in the car I will occasionally surf through the local religious radio stations. Trust me on this, lots of those people are absolutely convinced they are better Christians than anyone else. For one example, as far as I can tell the Church of Christ literally teaches that no one outside of their particular—and pretty small—denomination (although they deny it’s a denomination) is a Christian at all. They certainly teach that they are the one true church, the one that Christ personally founded. And as I mentioned upstream I grew up around people who absolutely deny that Catholics are Christians and say so in very derogatory terms. These are not isolated examples, historically.

            Yes, I know that’s not everyone, but the author of this article seems to think that up until liberal modern churches ruined everything, every Christian on the planet held the same fundamental beliefs and lived in perfect intellectual accord with each other. That just isn’t so. Millions of deaths testify to the truth of what I’m saying.

          • Aloha12

            For sure much internicene Christian blood has been shed, but not in the millions and the bloodshed that has occurred among Christians hasn’t in hundreds of years. Those numbers (millions +) are reserved for those of the Godless persuasion (Mao, Stalin, Hitler, etc.). The Biblical view on hell is that all men are deserving of it and that there are degrees of punishment. The Calvinist view is that no one ever born would ever choose Christ unless God willed it to be. Most are not called according to Jesus. This is hard to understand or accept…it is for me and I believe it, no doubt more so for those who aren’t Christians. Only way it all makes sense is if you know that God is good and loving and everything will make sense and appear right in eternity. God makes no mistakes.

            I don’t know anything about the Church of Christ but they sound pretty fringe like the Pentecostals that believe that only those who speak in tongues are saved. There are those and others like the Westboro Baptists, but these are definitely few in number in comparison to mainstream Evangelicals.

            The Church from its beginnings has fought against heretical teachings and ‘churches’. Modern day apostate mainline denominations continue the tradition. I suspect it will be this way until He returns. God Bless you my friend.

          • TBP100

            Not 100% sure, but I kind of think if you added up the dead in Christian-on-Christian religious wars, you would get to the millions. At any even, whatever the numbers, they would represent a rather large percentage of the populations at the time of a any given war.

            While we might never know Hitler’s real religious views (besides being a constant liar, he wasn’t exactly a perfectly consistent thinker even when he wasn’t consciously lying), there is no evidence at all that he was “godless.” He certainly said the opposite, and often proclaimed himself to be a Christian doing God’s work. Indeed, he had a lot of support from religious conservatives, especially Catholics. It is telling that he was never excommunicated and that the “ratlines” that smuggled Nazis and Fascists out of Europe were often organized by high-ranking Catholic clergy. Perhaps it’s not strictly internecine, but the intellectual foundation of the Holocaust lies squarely in centuries of Christian dogma, both Protestant and Catholic.

            Further, while greatly diminished, you do still see violent religious strife among Christians (witness northern Ireland). I would also argue that the only reason you don’t see more such violence is that by and large the churches have been stripped of temporal power. You’d better believe that there are people itching to bring back the Inquisition and would happily engage in slaughtering the “wrong” kind of Christians if they had the power to do so.

          • Kevin Quillen

            the truth lies right in the middle, between Calvinism and Arminianism. God is powerful enough to do as He wants, and He wants to reconcile ALL to Himself. And He will! Man’s “free will” only goes so far. Universal Reconciliation was the position of the great majority of the church for the first 500 years. Until man found a way to use Christianity to obtain and hold power. Eternal punishment is a tool to keep people in line and cowering. Christianity has been turned into “religion”. What does one say to the family of one who died apart from Christ? Sorry, but he had a chance while he lived on this earth for a few miserable years and blew it. Now for a few years of unbelief, he will be punished forever. Really? Does that sound like a loving Father? Jesus tells us to love our enemies. Would the Father do less? God is love and love does no harm. I am at peace knowing that my Heavenly Father has the power and desire to reconcile all to Himself. You just cannot get around 1Cor 15:22 and Rom 5:18 and 19 and John 12:32 (draw means to literally drag).

        • Irene Neuner

          Here is what I have discovered; Catholics, Armenians, Pentecostals, baptists and Calvinist who are true believers argue a bunch but ultimately agree. Satan has been dividing man from God And man from man for 7000 years or was in 50,000?

          • TBP100

            Have to disagree. You cannot reconcile Arminian and Calvinist doctrines of salvation. It cannot be done.

            And if all these Christian groups agree so much, why have they spent so much time slaughtering each other?

  • Philip Maguire

    Ah yes, they know what Jesus really meant to say. He just didn’t have the education to say it. No doubt they pray better than Jesus too. “Our parent, who art….etc..”

  • thushjz

    Excellent snark, we need more of this to undercut the overweening pride of haughty leftist church goers…

  • Autrey Windle

    John, you are a very funny man! I’m pretty sure you give God belly-laughs. Thank you so much!

  • Kevin Quillen

    many years ago, when I accepted Christ as my savior, I began watching Christian TV and going to church. It did not take long for confusion to set in. So many different denominations, different “truths”. I decided to determine for myself if what I had come to believe was true. Lo and behold…..I discovered that the things I believed were wrong. The big name preachers and the small town pastors that I listened to were wrong. All had credentials, all had bought into “religion”, man made ideas and theologies. The journey has been amazing! I am at peace and understand “the peace that passeth understanding”.
    By most, if not all, who post here I would be considered a heretic. That is ok with me. I encourage all to ask for guidance from the Holy Spirit and study independently, question everything, ask yourself….why do I believe what I believe? Did I come to it by my own study or is it what my pastor or father or mother said? You will be surprised.

    • Ronald Doub

      I fear he fallacy of private interpretation of scripture (lI Peter 1:21,22) is a greater danger than faults teachers because of the hubris involved.

      • Kevin Quillen

        you do not know me or my beliefs, yet you imply hubris?

    • Aloha12

      No offense, but I think David Koresh had a similar testimony. Rejecting all teaching but your own is slippery ground, in my view.

      • Kevin Quillen

        make assumptions much?

  • dick_dick

    Burger King theology:. Have it your way…. Always been an issue.

  • Tim J

    One thing the hold the progressive Christians together is hate, hate for the ignorance that hold back the “true” Christian faith. That is why they publically shame crucify anyone that doubts their righteousness. Who is crucified – my wife for starters, same as every family? Progress is a slow.

    • Frank Rothfuss

      Tim, I’m not sure that I would be classified a “progressive Christian,” but I certainly have encountered a lot of folks on both sides of this “aisle.” What I have witnessed is that those you would call progressive are not operating out of hatred but out of love (sometimes the love is over reaching, but it certainly is not hate). On the other hand, I have encountered a great deal of hateful attitudes and rhetoric on the part of those who call themselves conservative. So, your comment is antithetical to what I have witnessed and experienced.

      • doriweb

        Your experience, Frank, is exactly the opposite of mine. I have experienced a lot of hatred, attacks, venting, and foul language from progressives, while conservatives have attempted to have rational, calm discussions with them, but could not. I have been unfriended on Facebook by some folks on the left, but I have never unfriended anyone because of their promoting their political beliefs.

        • Frank Rothfuss

          Yes, my experience is the exact opposite of yours. Everything you said about progressives has been what I experienced from conservatives and vice versa. The only people who have unfriended me are those on the right.

          • Noah

            Basically my experience.

        • Noah

          I’m unfriended by the right FAR more than the left.

          The left may be louder, but they aren’t so sensitive.

  • rkt10

    All those reasons as well as the fact that since Christianity got it so wrong, was so awful for all those years, that any reasonable person would stop believing in any of it’s propaganda. So denying the existence of God or leaving the Church altogether is another good thing.

    • doriweb

      Miss the sarcasm much?

  • Frank Rothfuss

    In Zmirak’s somewhat sophomoric attempt at satire, he ends up doing the same thing he accuses “progressive Christians” of doing – allowing his political bias to influence his theology. Satire seldom allows for a balanced and nuanced commentary on the issues addressed, so the genre has a rather limited role to play is serious discourse. But there are two places where Zmirak’s satire needs to be challenged.

    1) Abortion and infanticide: as Zmirak himself states, progressive Christians do not condone either one of these things. Thereby, they stand in line with the historic Christian position. When it comes to the practical matters of living and working in a secular, political context, Christians have a long tradition of not falling into a “single-issue” stance that ignores the fact that the life in the real world is not black and white and that rulers are a mixed, moral bag – very few are absolutely good or absolutely evil; very few are completely right or completely wrong on every issue. Life in the real world sometimes requires choosing between two leaders who are both flawed.

    Old Testament prophets, not known for their willingness to compromise or tolerate immorality nonetheless supported flawed leaders and even considered pagan rulers to have been not just used but even anointed by God – cf. Isaiah, Ezra, Nehemiah.

    2) Death Penalty: “Progressive Christians” do not deny that government has the right to exercise a death penalty (or to wage war). But they do not believe that executions and warfare is “demanded by God Himself.” [Yes, there are examples of civil laws in the Old Testament which do prescribe the death penalty for certain crimes, but not even Zmirak would want to enact these civil laws today – especially, the one which calls for putting to death a child who curses his father or mother.)

    3) Immigration: On this issue, Zmirak wanders the furthest from traditional Christian theology. There is just too much in the Old and in the New Testament about welcoming the alien to even suggest that the fact that Christians did not demand admission to Vandals and Goths means that the Christian position on accepting refugees today goes against traditional Christian theology. Here the undue influence of his political leanings reveals itself in bold relief.

    • Zmirak

      I have detailed, non-satirical answers anticipating each of your objections in my book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism. Or Google my name with each of the topics. You’ll find your questions answered decisively.

      • Frank Rothfuss

        I Googled, John, but I could not find anything which answered my questions. I did find a few others who raised the same kind of questions. So, if you have some response, why not post it here?

        • Zmirak

          This system does not allow hyperlinks, but I can give you the titles:
          1) “The Seamless Garment: A Poison Pill”
          2) “When Justice Demands the Hangman” and
          3) “An Open Letter to Pope Francis on Muslim Immigration,” and also “Faith, Reason, and Open Borders.”

      • Frank Rothfuss

        OK, John, I read those articles. They did not address the objectives I raised — at least not in a direct or compelling way. In the article on the Hangman, you never discussed, nor much less provided support for, your statement above that the hangman is “demanded by God himself.” And when it comes to Pope John Paul II’s condemnation of capital punishment you either do not understand his rationale or choose to simply dismiss it. That makes your article more rant than reason.

    • RedStateRanger

      You think the fact that God used flawed leaders to accomplish his will means that he approved of those leaders? You’d better take a closer look at Nebuchadnezzar.

      • Frank Rothfuss

        Exactly. And that is why I don’t think that God approves of Donald Trump either. Almost everything he stands for goes contrary to the Biblical values and norms.

        • RedStateRanger

          The fact that Trump is president says that God approved of that–nothing happens that is not His will. How He will use Trump remains to be seen. But “everything he stands for goes contrary to Biblical values and norms”? You are buying into the liberal meme. He actually is demonstrating quite a bit of righteousness so far (I’m thinking of “let your yes be yes and your no be no”). In truth, the actions of all of us contravene Biblical values. That is why we need a Savior.

          • Frank Rothfuss

            I don’t think you have your theology straight, Red. According to the Bible (e.g., Rom. 1), a great deal of what happens in our world is neither God’s will nor God’s doing. As for Trump, well I do have to agree that he is doing things which he said he would do. The problem is that the things he said he would do are the things which are inconsistent with Biblical values and norms.

          • TBP100

            “The fact that Trump is president says that God approved of that–nothing happens that is not His will.” You realize you have just totally negated free will, eliminated moral agency and turned human beings into cosmic chess pieces?

          • RedStateRanger

            Ah, the Calvinism vs. Arminianism dilemma. To say that all is up to man’s moral agency would negate God’s being sovereign over His creation. He is sovereign. If, when, and where He intervenes is His prerogative. We can choose to obey or not to obey. He accomplishes His will regardless of our intention.

        • Irene Neuner

          I think Trump is an answer to prayer for Christians. He respects the God I worship, the values I have, the free nation I was born into. He is a leader. The last president we had was a puppet. You might be saved but you are a stinky sinner just like him.

          • Frank Rothfuss

            Only if Christians were praying for the US to turn away refugees, create trade wars, alienate our allies, tax the rest of us to give big tax breaks to the wealthy, and spend billions of dollars on an unnecessary wall while our bridges and roads are deteriorating. Only if Christians were praying for a president who is an incorrigible liar, a narcissist, a business man who stiffs his workers and his vendors, an adulterer who goes around grabbing women.

          • Ryan

            One of the policies of Obama in 2015 included the, “Terrorist Travel Prevention Act.” The seven nations named in the ban were named by the president of the last administration. All Trump did was enact the ban the last administration was afraid to do because of PC.
            As far as the wall, how many people who are in this country illegally have the right to be here? A green card holder is here as a privilege, not a right, when they overstay the date on their card they become an illegal immigrant.
            Jesus said to obey the laws of the land, I take that to mean the laws of the land you happen to be in as a foreigner as well.
            Obama mentioned the infrastructure as well when pushing the 840 billion dollar gift to the wealthy, as you and I know, the infrastructure went by the wayside when the money was given.
            I am not sure why you brought Bill Clinton into the argument.

    • Zmirak

      I have detailed, non-satirical answers anticipating each of your objections in my book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Catholicism. Or Google my name with each of the topics. You’ll find your questions answered decisively.

    • “1) Abortion and infanticide: as Zmirak himself states, progressive Christians do not condone either one of these things.”

      How can you qualify that statement? I’ve come across plenty of Democrats or liberals who have claimed to be a progressive Christian who very much endorsed the idea that a mother should have the sole right to kill her own child. But if there is a “progressive Christian” platform that I’ve missed where it’s spelled out what progressive Christians are supposed to believe I’d be grateful to see it.

    • Irene Neuner

      We love our current church however we finally realized it is liberal while definitively taking the entire Word as God breathed. One thing they do not do is take a firm stand on abortion. I think that they do this for two reasons 1. Half the church votes liberal and 2. They don’t want to offend anyone. To not condem is to condone. To not speak is to speak. There really isn’t and middle ground.

  • Ruby Pearl

    Excellent! A billion thumbs up!

  • Gary

    Given the current definition of “progressive”, “progressive Christian” is a nonsensical term. Progressives are never Christians, and Christians are never progressives. The world is full of people who claim to be Christians, but aren’t. You cannot be a Christian while you deny what the Bible says.

    • Noah

      That’s the argument of all who claim Jesus.

      One Q: how is it loving to kill someone?

  • dghtunes

    Yes, they’re apparently even better Christians than Jesus was!

  • Patti Newberry

    It doesn’t matter what any of us think!! Super intelligence does NOT get it with God!!! When we stand before Him the accounting will be given. Jesus said, “My yoke is easy and the burden is light”! We cannot figure out God, His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. The simplest, illiterate person is able to know and love God and stand before Him perfect through the shed blood of Jesus Christ!!

  • James Weaks

    LOL and spot on.

  • RedStateRanger

    Brilliant. But alas, satire and irony are lost on “progressives.” They probably see this as an endorsement. Truth doesn’t shame them in the least.

    • mjmiddleton1953

      My thoughts exactly!

    • I got to this article because I was reading a post on progressive Christian Miroslav Volf’s Facebook page whereas he stated, “US already has the strictest refugee vetting system in the world. Increase the refugee quota! Prioritize refugees vulnerable to the worst forms of abuse!”

      Someone in the comments of his post linked this article. It had several likes on it. So those likes are either from Volf’s detractors or the progs indeed got lost in the satire.

      • Noah

        Right??

        As if we’re supposed to care about the last of us.

  • Cam

    So progressives endear themselves to the secular by viewing our possessions as gifts from God rather than “hard-earned wealth”? And we further endear ourselves by sticking up for those who are of different national origins or sexual orientations. If you’re going to embrace the homophobia of Leviticus, you also need to embrace its hospitality of foreigners. Sorry. And we endear ourselves by accepting gay marriage (which Christ never mentioned and only affects 5% of the population) while conservatives fully accept remarriage (which Christ specifically condemned but affects half the married population). Those secular people sound pretty noble.

    Your conclusion directly contradicts your basis. “The liberals contradict the way things have always been, but look at how they just want to fit in.”

    • Dave Biddle

      The law of israel pertained to foreigners living in the land. There was one law, God’s law through Moses, and that law did not change because the foreigners didn’t like it. It pertained to the Israelitr and the foreigner. There was never a Mosaic law welcoming Baal worshipers to dwell in their land. Regarding your claim that Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, you know very well that Christians have shown that you are absolutely wrong. He affirmed marriage as being by God’s purpose and will and being between one man and one woman. The very creation shows this as woman was taken from man. And childbirth is the very expression of a man and his wife becoming one flesh. Jesus lived by the Old Testament scriptures and He clearly affirmed them over and over. I don’t know how you view your wealth and honestly, it doesn’t matter. There are rich wicked people and poor righteous ones. What matters is that you follow Jesus in spirit and truth. TRUTH. That means not lying and misrepresenting the Lord so it fits with your morals. You are making yourself a friend of the world to the end of being at enmity with God when you abandon God’s word which is perfectly clear on matters of homosexual marriage and practice.

      • Frank Rothfuss

        Dave, if you take a literalistic interpretation of the Old Testament, you end up supporting things like capital punishment for children who curse their parents. No one takes this kind of literalistic interpretation. We all struggle to discern the ethical principles behind the revealed will of God and how to apply them in our contemporary context. It is a misreading of the Bible to suggest that the USA is like ancient Israel. We are a democracy, not a theocracy or a monarchy (or the kind of combination of these two which describes Israel under their kings). One of our fundamental principles is the freedom of religion. Therefore, you suggestion that we should not welcome Muslims because the Mosaic law never welcomed Ba’al worshippers is not solid hermeneutic.

        • Zmirak

          What he establishes is that “Welcome the stranger” is NOT a unilateral, exceptionless moral norm, but conditioned by real world circumstances. That’s why Augustine didn’t welcome the Vandals, or medieval Christians the Mongols.

          • Frank Rothfuss

            So, tell me, do you have any Biblical examples of when refugees or people seeking sanctuary were turned away? Because the overwhelming (if not unmitigated) examples in Scripture are for welcoming refugees and those who are in danger.

          • Zmirak

            I’m not arguing exclusively from Scripture but from Apostolic precedent of understanding Scripture. Find me ONE Church Father who cited these OT passages to argue that Christians should favor admitting Goths, Huns, etc. This isn’t a proof-texting game. You pretend that the plain meaning of Scripture was opaque to Augustine, Aquinas, Calving & Luther–none of whom read it this way. But it’s crystal clear to you.

          • Frank Rothfuss

            Actually, Dave, you’re the one who brought up the Old Testament. All I asked for was one example to support your contention. Didn’t seem like too much to ask.

          • Zmirak

            I’m not Dave.

          • Frank Rothfuss

            Sorry, John. But I think you recognize that it was you who brought up the Old Testament, and it is you I have asked to provide one example to support your contention.

          • Zmirak

            I mentioned it w/ regard to death penalty, which we CAN’T label as evil if God demanded it. He cannot order what is intrinsically evil. Read Aquinas on that.

          • Nehemiah, the great example of a Holy Spirit led leader built a wall to keep out Israel’s enemies!

          • Frank Rothfuss

            John, I would agree that we can’t label the death penalty as evil, but there is a difference between saying that God established the death penalty as a punishment for certain “crimes” in the civil law for Israel and saying that God demands the death penalty today. We do not call the death penalty evil. We recognize that it is permissible. We just don’t think that this is the best thing to do in the vast majority of cases. This is a different era. The USA is not Israel. What might have been right in the past can still be wrong in the present.

          • Kevin Quillen

            I would be careful using Augustine. He is primarily responsible for giving us the unBiblical view of eternal punishment in “Hell”

          • Irene Neuner

            I just read Revelation this morning and it said “and hell and death were thrown into the lake of fire.”

          • RedStateRanger

            Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

          • Frank Rothfuss

            Lack of evidence is lack of evidence. If you are going to argue from the Scripture, you have to have something in Scripture to argue from. To argue from Church Fathers without Scriptural basis is not compelling to those of us who are heirs to the Reformation.

          • Marshall P

            How liberalism grew the ELCA

            1987 (year of their merger): 5.2 million
            2015: 3.6 million

            The ELCA approved the ordination of non-celibate gays in 2009: it lost a half-million members in 2010-2011, so clearly there was a cause/effect relationship in this case between gay issues and membership decline.

        • Nehemiah, the great example of a Holy Spirit led leader built a wall to keep out Israel’s enemies! The Godly culture needed to survive as a practicality. I am sure trade with Samaritans and other cultures continued, but all within the control of God’s culture limits as the Israelite leaders were able to determine.

      • Cam

        Citing a response to a passage is pointless hermeneutics. If you want to counter my claim that Christ never mentioned homosexuality, cite a passage where he did. Looking to God’s creation is a reasonable assessment of his intents. But, as with scripture, you can’t stop after you’ve found what supports your pre-conceived notions. More than 450 animal species have been found to engage in homosexuality. Women’s bodies are programmed to miscarry embryos with chromosomal abnormalities. When you’ve complied with every edict in Leviticus, you can criticize others who haven’t. “Judge not lest you be judged.”

    • guerito777

      we endear ourselves by accepting gay marriage (which Christ never mentioned and only affects 5% of the population)

      You are correct in saying that Christ never mentions it, but your position assumes silence is approval. Why not assume silence means he agrees with the existing OT position and by His silence it remains in effect?

      • Cam

        Christ was also silent about OT prohibitions against eating shellfish and mixing different types of threads. That’s likely because they have absolutely nothing to do with his central messages of compassion, charity, and forgiveness. Prohibitions against the natural expression of one’s innate sexual orientation also have nothing to do with these messages. He was, however, compelled to repeat the Golden Rule because that relates directly to his central messages.

      • TBP100

        In terms of the law it simply doesn’t matter what Jesus said or didn’t say about anything. We permit divorce and remarriage, despite his strong opinions on the matter. I haven’t seen any county clerks denying marriage licenses to divorced people, or bakers refusing to make cakes for them. Unless you can come up with a compelling secular reason to ban gay marriage, or homosexuality, you have no right under the Constitution to impose your beliefs on others.

        And of course, almost none of the other OT restrictions are legally in place. We are perfectly free to blaspheme, eat shellfish, work on the Sabbath, create graven images and break all kinds of OT laws (not the ones that involve harming other people, though).

        And why exactly did an omnipotent, omniscient being create laws that had to be corrected or overturned? That’s a puzzlement.

    • Irene Neuner

      Homosexuality is totally disgusting and unnatural and nobody needs to read the Bible to know that. Nobody needs to read the Bible to know that the unborn fetus is life and it should be prioritized over ‘women’s rights’. We are living in an upside down world.

      • Cam

        Again, more than 450 animal species have been observed to engage in homosexual behavior. It is therefore perfectly natural. It’s disgusting that some people hate others for traits over which they have no control. I’m perfectly content prioritizing access to health care over keeping transgender people from using bathrooms.

        • Irene Neuner

          My 2 year old was ushered into the bathroom this morning because he stuck his hand in his poopy diaper. His Dad was crying disgusting types of words and falling apart — this is our fifth child.

          Just because we told him that what he did was disgusting doesn’t mean that we don’t deeply love him.

          I have zero hatred towards people who do disgusting things. I just don’t want them to be rubbing it my face, teaching my children, forcing others to serve them with cakes and photos and employment.

          I lived in a predominantly gay neighborhood for while and appreciated the way they keep there homes. Generally they have great taste.

          I am guilty of disgust towards the point of hatred towards obese people but I know it’s a sin and God is working on my heart concerning this.

        • Irene Neuner

          What animals do is not a basis that I would use to determine what is natural and normal for people.

          Cows eat there babies placentas. Cat eat their kittens excrement to clean them. Males roosters will peck each other to a bloody pulp for a dominate position with the flock. I don’t even want to bring up what super disgusting things my dogs do here on our farm.

          I think rather that we DON’T want to act like animals. Don’t you?

          • Cam

            I’ve found that homophobes invariably trot out the “unnatural” argument only to retreat from it after being informed that homosexuality is quite natural. You all need to find a different term.

          • TBP100

            Actually, I think the whole natural vs. unnatural argument is not helpful. If it exists, it’s natural, period. But that doesn’t speak to whether it’s good or bad. Cancer is natural, just for starters. It’s really bad for humans, but it’s completely natural. Homosexuality could be natural and still bad. It isn’t bad, but it could be, and the reason it isn’t bad has nothing to do with whether or not it’s natural.

          • Ryan

            You hit the nail on the head with the dominant factor, it is what most animals do and it looks like something else to those who want it to mean what they want it to mean.
            It seems that those who like to say things are what they want them to be are probably looking forward to acting like animals just to be different from everybody else.

        • RuthER

          That is correct: animals do not have control over their instinct to pro-create. Humans make a decision to engage in the activity. Animals do not experience intimacy in the act nor do they face each other and experience mutual enjoyment and giving, as a male and female human would.

          • Cam

            Oh, “animals do not have control over their instinct”? So why did you cite nature when trying cast gay people as aberrations? Like everyone else on this thread, you’re making this up as you go along.

      • TBP100

        And yet God set up the human reproduction system in such a way that 70-90% of pregnancies* end in natural abortion by the body, with no human intervention at all. It’s kind of hard to reconcile that with the idea that God really, really cares about fetuses. In fact, given infant mortality rates that prevailed until recently, and which still prevail in many parts of the world, it’s hard to see that even actual babies mean that much to him. Remember, he could, presumably, have set things up any way he wanted, but that’s how he did it.

        And plenty of people don’t find homosexuality disgusting at all. More and more all the time, in fact.

        *For the sake of argument I’m using the definition of pregnancy often used by the anti-choice crowd: that it starts at conception, rather than the usual legal/medical definition that it starts when the fertilized egg implants.

        • Irene Neuner

          How many baby boys did God allow to be thrown in the river or murdered around the time of Moses? How many babies did Herod kill in the time of Jesus? How many babies were offered as sacrifices to pagan gods?

          ” Not one sparrow falls to the ground that your Heavenly Father does not see.’ The Words of Jesus

          God teaches us what love and compassion is and he absolutely cares about his creation and life.

          We know from Leviticus that if a man cause a pregnant woman to loose her baby even by accident there was a penalty for that.

          • TBP100

            And there’s also supposedly a magic formula that will cause un unfaithful pregnant woman to miscarry, i.e. induce an abortion.

            Your first paragraph kind of makes my point for me. If this God exists, he really doesn’t give a damn about fetuses or babies.

          • Thomas

            I’m not sure I understand your point. How many children and pregnant women die in auto accidents? How many children and pregnant women died in Aleppo? How many children are killed by their parents in child abuse; and pregnant women by their spouses? I’m sure He sees and knows of each and every one of them.

        • Thomas

          You forget that God has power over life and death, and He has NOT delegated that power to mortal humans. In His vastly superior intellect He can exercise His power in ways we cannot possibly understand.

          • TBP100

            Assuming facts not in evidence.

            And even if so, we are still left to figure a lot of stuff out on our own and act accordingly, since God does not bother to instruct us in our day to day decision making. One of the things I can’t figure out is why God set up the human reproductive system the way he did if he really cares about fetuses, or why he ordained the slaughter of so many children on so many occasions if he cares about children.

          • Thomas

            Your comments are both intelligent and insightful. I can’t really answer them because I don’t have God’s intelligence. We are imperfect, so it is understandable that our bodily reproductive system is imperfect. Why he permits children to be killed, like at Passover, I can’t even venture a guess. He’ll tell us someday when we meet Him. Until then we can only walk by faith.

    • Irene Neuner

      Furthermore I have found that liberals or progressives are just completely unable to prioritize. To avoid offending the Muslim Brotherhood the O administration will not label them as a terrorist group while Egypt and UAE will. Trump in contrast says US citizens first which is his job. Ahhhhh how refreshing.

    • RuthER

      Jesus never specifically mentioned homosexuality because he didn’t have to. It was understood as a fact of life and cultural morality that it was perversion. Wrongful unions of male and female throughout history and the Bible are mentioned because they are male/female unions. It is considered obvious in light of nature that there is no such thing as “union” between two males or two females. And both/all so-called “alternatives” are misusing the human body as purposes by God and even just by nature, if you don’t believe in God. In fact, the parts involved are damaged even if it a male/female misuse of the organs.

      • Cam

        Pretty much everything you’ve said is inaccurate or illogical. So Jesus only discussed things that weren’t addressed elsewhere in the Bible? Over 450 animal species have been documented to engage in homosexual behavior. So homosexuality is quite common in nature.

      • RuthER

        Perhaps if Jesus had come to the Romans he might have specifically mentioned homosexual behavior. Anyway the ones making it into a big issue are living today and not two thousand years ago. Christians are compelled to give attention to it even though there are far more widespread issues and hurts to deal with. That is part of the evil of politicizing such things. It’s a distraction, and our enemy is satisfied.

  • Time4AChange

    Progressive “christians” have narratives that they have to fit the Bible. Can’t have inconvenient truths messing up a good leftist narrative.

  • justfeddup

    FANTASTIC READ! Don’t really know if the Progressives will actually understand what they have read. They will be in complete agreement with “We know better now”. Just as Christ said, “Think ye I will find faith on earth when I return”.

    • RuthER

      He will find faith, but I doubt much of it will be from the West.

  • lindenman

    Kein Wunder! Progessives in general believe they’re the most humane and enlightened people ever, or at any rate that they’re living in the most humane and enlightened times. Why should progressive Christians be any different?

    What’s that? Original sin? Pfft. How unoriginal.

  • honesttoGod

    Well, I’m glad that it’s only progressives who are self-satisfied and smug… Abortion is dealt with in the very old text the Didache, which was written almost certainly at around the same time– likely even before– some of the books in the New Testament canon. Interesting then, that the canonical books don’t mention it at all, especially since a contemporaneous Christian text does, so the practice couldn’t have been that obscure.

  • Mo86

    The term “progressive Christian” is a contradiction in terms.

    • David Marshall

      On the contrary, “non-progressive Christianity” is a contradiction in terms. Most of the world’s progress has come from the Gospel. I just don’t think it’s progress for men to mate with men, or women with women — that’s more like regress into social insanity, in my view.

  • TBP100

    Numbers 5:11-28. Pretty clear. If an unfaithful woman who is pregnant drinks the “bitter water” she will miscarry. That seems like a magic formula to me.

    First of all, of course this doesn’t actually work. And second, it indicates that God doesn’t particularly care about the fetus, who is innocent, regardless of his mother’s status.

    How many fetuses and actual babies died during the various slaughters commanded by God (Amalekites, Canaanites)? How many in the Flood?

    • Irene Neuner

      Just read it. The bitter water is to test whether her husbands jealousy is true or false. There is no pregnancy or miscarriage mentioned. You inserted that for your convenience.

      If it were there I hardly think it is enough to say that God does not care about fetuses which is the Latin word for baby.

      He is so sensitive to sin and evil that our thought life disqualifies us for standing before him.

      You should ask God to open the eyes of your ❤️. You are bound and blind.

      • TBP100

        But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

        “‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

        23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[e] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse

        Pretty clear, I think. And again, God apparently set things up so that as many as 90% of pregnancies abort naturally (estimates vary, and that is the high end, but still…). No human intervention at all. I’ve really never gotten a coherent explanation for why that is if God loves fetuses and babies so much and hates abortion.

        I know “fetus” is Latin for “baby” but the meaning has changed in English. That happens sometimes.

        If God is so sensitive to sin and evil, why did he create so much of it? And yes, if there is an omnipotent and omniscient creator, then he created everything he purports to hate, when he could easily have done otherwise (being all-knowing and all-powerful). If sin and evil exist, it’s because he wanted them to, for whatever strange reasons of his own.

        • Irene Neuner

          TBP100 what Bible are you reading. I read from the King James.

          • TBP100

            Doesn’t matter, the meaning is the same. God instructs people who are suspicious of their wife’s fidelity to force her to drink a potion which will cause a miscarriage (i.e. an abortion) if she has been unfaithful. This does not square with the idea that God cares about fetuses or dislikes abortion.

            And as far as I can tell you haven’t addressed the main point at all. If God so loves fetuses and hates abortion, why did he arrange it so that the vast majority of pregnancies abort naturally? Presumably he could have set it up any way he wanted, but that is how he did it.

          • Ryan

            There is nothing in that scripture that points to abortion or miscarriage, nothing. You simply take the scripture out of context to mean what you want it to mean. You have trolled this on here before.

          • TBP100

            Except where it says “miscarriage,” of course.

          • Ryan

            There is only one place in the Bible that the word miscarriage comes up. and it is not in Numbers. What you are taking out of context to cause doubt is nothing more than a curse on a woman who has committed adultery. Nothing more, nothing less. But you more than likely reading from the same text the last guy brought that up did. It is a lie but you don’t have a problem with just taking for granted someone read it at one time or other and that is good enough for you. You add a lie to another lie and think you are smarter than the last liar. You aren’t any smarter, if you had read the passage, you would have known that.

          • TBP100

            And yet that is what the translation I read says, and many people agree with it. Don’t you find it slightly problematic that the omnipotent, omniscient author of the Bible can’t be bothered to make sure what he intends to say is clear, and accurately translated?

            And again I ask, not really expecting an answer: if God loves fetuses so much, and hates abortion so much, why did he set up the human reproduction system in such a way that 70-90% of pregnancies end in a natural abortion?

          • Ryan

            70-90% is an extremely high number. The human reproductive system wasn’t set up to be an abortive factory as you would like to believe. Look in Genesis and you will see what happened. Did God create the drug problems some women have that cause abortions? how about the stress many childish men put women under that can cause miscarriage? How about falls? if you really want to get petty about what causes women to have miscarriages you will find there are many, many causes. But in all your, “intellect?” you choose to blame God.
            My wife had an abortion with our first child, the child was badly deformed and died in her womb, causing her a great amount of pain. Later we found it was from the effects of agent orange I was exposed to in the jungles of Vietnam. Other veterans told me they had the same experience with their wives.
            But, hey, you go ahead and blame God, you don’t show enough intelligence to think there are other causes for anything. You want to gain some real knowledge about what to do about what is coming on the surface of this planet? read the Bible, it will show you so you won’t be drowned in fear of what you will see.

        • Ryan

          Do you have proof God created sin and evil?

          • TBP100

            It’s a logical necessity if there is a creator, and that creator is omnipotent and omniscient. He created everything. Since he can make no mistakes and knows exactly how everything is going to turn out, everything that exists is the way it is because that’s the way he wanted it to be. Otherwise he would have created it differently so there would be a different outcome.

          • Ryan

            The creation was perfect, man was created last and given a free will. Even the angels were given a free will. Pride overtook one who was Gods favorite and he turned against God and took a third of the angels with him. It was that angel who knew the difference between good and evil who tempted the woman who in turn tempted the man.
            Don’t you think God saw all this going down? The curse brought about by their actions against what God said brought the curse on the perfect creation. What God was hoping for didn’t turn out as He hoped. He had already prepared for that possibility of man making the wrong choice.
            Satan created evil and passed it on to man, God didn’t do that. It was mans own will that moved against the will of God by following the suggestion of satan and brought on mankind the consequences of stepping out of Gods will.
            You can blame or accuse God all you want, you have the free will to do so, but even though you probably don’t believe in God you will still face Him at some point in your life. It would be good if you were not a stranger when that happens, but, it is, your choice.

          • TBP100

            Again, this is fine until you factor in omnipotence and omniscience. Since God knew exactly what would happen if he did A instead of B, and he chose to do A, that means he decided that that was the way he wanted things. Otherwise, he could have gone with plan B (or C, or D or…).

            Just for one example, If God knew in advance that Lucifer would rebel and created him that way anyway, then he wanted Lucifer to rebel, since he could have created Lucifer in such a way that he didn’t rebel. This applies to everything in fact, from the smallest subatomic interaction to galaxies colliding. If there is an omnipotent, omniscient creator then absolutely everything is exactly the way the wants it to be, because he could have done it differently, but didn’t. Ebola exists because he wants it to exist. Hell exists because he wants to torture people in it. The Holocaust happened because he willed it. You just can’t escape that if you believe God is both all-powerful and all-knowing.

            I would argue, actually, that the writers of the Bible didn’t think that. The god of the Bible, especially in the OT, while obviously more powerful and knowledgeable than humans, is clearly not all-knowing and is in fact, fallible. He screws up creation, resulting in the fall. There is nothing in the text to suggest he knew about the fall in advance. It came as a surprise to him, whereas an omniscient being can’t be surprised. When he asks questions there is no indication that he already knows the answers. There is that “chariots of iron” thing. On several occasions he expresses regret about something he has done. How could he regret something he did in the full foreknowledge of what the result would be? Why didn’t he just not do it, if he knew it would turn out badly? If I know for absolute certain something bad will result if I do something, I don’t do it. Why isn’t God that smart?

          • Ryan

            According to the word Lucifer was one of Gods favorites and was in charge of music in heaven. But he filled himself with pride and turned against God because he then wanted to be God. Your circular reasoning doesn’t allow you to think beyond what you want to think.
            You say you wouldn’t do something if you thought it would be bad if you did it, but you more then likely are speaking from experiencing the bad from doing it in the first place. If you are human you then said to self; I knew that would happen, but I did it anyway. Unless you are the perfect person you can relate to that.
            God is sovereign, He gave man and angels the right to follow His will or their own. You have a choice, God is not responsible for the choice you make. Just like Lucifer, he made a choice. God didn’t make him fill himself up with pride even though Lucifer knew the consequences, he made his own choice just like you or I do every day. You can blame God all you want, it still comes down to you, not Him.
            If you think you are smarter than God, try creating life.

          • TBP100

            Again, negated by omniscience and omnipotence. Free will and choice cannot exist if there is an all-knowing, all-powerful creator.

          • Ryan

            So, you do not have a free will nor do you make choices? You have chosen not to believe in God and are doing your best to try to make others not believe in God, looks like you just contradicted yourself.

          • TBP100

            No, I don’t believe that there’s a god. I’m just pointing out the logical impossibility inherent in trying to reconcile the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient creator with the idea of free will. If such a being exists, then absolutely everything else that exists does so because that’s the way he wanted it. Free will is an illusion and we have no more moral agency than chess pieces. This is an inescapable conclusion if you believe in that being, no matter what name you give him.

            I have a complicated view of free will. I don’t think our will is nearly as free as we like to think it is (too much is contingent on things outside our control, including our genetic makeup and the circumstances into which we were born and live) but I don’t think it’s entirely nonexistent, either. As with many things, I don’t claim to have the definitive answer there.

            But I do know that free will is not compatible with the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful creator, because it’s a logical impossibility, like a three-sided square.

          • TBP100

            If there is anything an omnipotent, omniscient being CAN’T do, it’s hope (or be surprised). If you speak of “possibilities” you rule out God’s perfect foreknowledge. Something that is known with absolute certainly ahead of time is not “possible,” it’s determined.

            And again, if God created Satan, knowing infallibly what he would do, and chose to create him anyway, then yes, God created evil, consciously and deliberately. It’s the inescapable corollary of his absolute power and absolute knowledge.

          • Ryan

            So, you are saying that God can’t hope or be surprised at or for anything that man could or would do?
            God is sovereign, He can do anything He wants to do. If He wants to believe his creation of man could be better than man has turned out, then why wouldn’t He hold on to that hope even until the time the man or heavenly being turned to the opposite? God is the creator of hope, why would you think He would not have any hope? Surprise? He created that as well, why would He not be able to use anything He created? remember, He is sovereign, are you?
            The scripture asks the question; “are you able to question your creator by asking why He created you?”
            Again, you have a free will to believe or disbelieve, there are blessings with belief and consequences with disbelief. The, choice, is up to you.
            If all you want to do is tear down someone else beliefs for your own amusement, there will be consequence. Your will, in defiance of His will, there will only be one winner in the battle.

          • TBP100

            “So, you are saying that God can’t hope or be surprised at or for anything that man could or would do? ” Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. It is an inescapable conclusion if you believe in an omnipotent, omniscient creator. Even such a being could not do the logically impossible. If you know the ending of the movie, you can’t be surprised at it, and you can’t hope it will turn out differently. Even if you’re God. Especially if you’re God, in fact, since you’re the one who decided in advance how the movie will end and there’s nothing anyone else can do about it.

            If God knows, infallibly, everything that is going to happen, then everything that is going to happen is predetermined, which means free will doesn’t exist. Again, this is inescapable. Omniscience and free will cannot coexist.

            “He is sovereign, are you? The scripture asks the question; “are you able to question your creator by asking why He created you?”

            Essentially, you are saying “might makes right.” Most theology, and as far as I can tell, all theodicy, is an attempt to provide moral justification for that idea. While an all-powerful being COULD do anything he wants (or he wouldn’t really be all-powerful), but how does that automatically make what he does moral?

          • Ryan

            If you don’t believe in it, why do you troll these sites? What is in it for you?

          • Thomas

            Ryan is right. You have neglected to factor-in free-will. God wants you to CHOOSE Him, and allows evil so that you have the choice. Evil is the opposite of choosing Him. I am excited at the thought of joining Him some day as a respected friend.

          • TBP100

            No, I have not neglected to factor in free will. I am saying that “free will” does not, indeed cannot, exist if there is an all-powerful, all-knowing creator. If everything is known with absolute certainty, then everything is predetermined and free will is an illusion. Even this discussion of free will was fore-ordained and we can’t do anything about it. This is even more inescapable if the being that knows the future is the creator: he created the universe in the full knowledge of everything that is going to happen, so everything that happens does so because he wanted it to happen. He could have chosen to create the world in any infinite number of other ways, including ways that did not include sin, evil, or his own nemesis, but he chose this one.

          • Thomas

            Ask Him when you see Him. I think you will be astonished at how much smarter He is than you. Any being that can keep track of billions of humans, let alone trillions of animals (sparrows) has an intellect infinitely superior to mine. Your logic on the concept of free-will is somewhat like chasing your own tail, I think. This is my last post in this string. We just have to agree to disagree.
            –Thomas

          • TBP100

            You haven’t shown me how my logic is invalid, but OK. If you’re done, you’re done, but I’m really interested in how free will can be reconciled with omniscience and omnipotence. I’ve never seen any even remotely convincing argument.

          • RuthER

            Even though I disagree with your other comments I believe you are correct here. Evil is not God’s equally omniscient enemy. Satan is God’s tool.

        • Irene Neuner

          It does matter which translation you use. KJV, ESV, Orthdox Jewish, Geneva 1599 (according to one source 17 different versions) say nothing of pregnancies and miscarriage. It’s the NIV that your quoting which I think our church uses but we don’t use it at our home.

          Anyway God didn’t create evil but he did create beings that brought evil into the universe. He gave us the option to love him or hate him. You can’t make someone love you. You can reach out and love them but ultimately the other person in the relationship must choose to reciprocate.

          What I don’t understand as a Christian is how unbelievers can refuse the conviction of the Spirit. I wish all mankind was saved and Jesus ruled the earth.

          Do you believe that we evolved from fish? Do you think that natural selection is the engine of evolution. Natural selection demands that something exists to select from. Do you think the original DNA helix just designed itself?

          The thing that actually turned my attention to God was the election of our puppet president Obama. Made so little sense to me that my whole world construct broke down. And God’s Spirit said silently, Fear God.

          • TBP100

            The Bible is pretty much useless if crucial matters depend on which translation you use. Who decides which translation is the correct one?

            If God created the beings who created the evil, then he created the evil itself, if you believe he is all-powerful and all-knowing. If he does something in the full and absolute foreknowledge of the results, and has the power to do otherwise, but chooses to do that something anyway, then he is also choosing the results. There is simply no way around this. If God is omniscient and omniscient, then absolutely everything that happens happens because he willed it. If you think he is fallible and not absolutely in control, then it’s a different matter, but I don’t know any professing Christian who thinks that.

            Muslims don’t understand how non-believers can resist the conviction of Allah. Hindus don’t understand how non-believers can resist the conviction of Brahma. I’m sure Aztecs didn’t understand how non-believers could resist the conviction of Huitzilopochtli. Do you see what I’m getting at? If you had been brought up in a Muslim household, you would almost certainly be a Muslim, if you practiced anything religion at all.

          • Irene Neuner

            TBP100,
            First the bitter water test in numbers is only different in one translation the NIV all the other widely used translations say nothing of prenancies or miscarriage.
            Second, it is not a crucial matter.

            Concerning the rest of your dialog about God I will respond with this. Job was a good man in God’s eyes, Satan recieved persmission to take away everything good from this man including his health. After thousands of words of dialog about who God is, was, isn’t and who Job was, is, isn’t God speaks. One of the first things God says is this,

            “Who is this who darkens counsel without knowledge.”

            TBP100 you know a lot but if you want to know the truth you will find it in the Bible.

          • TBP100

            I don’t see how anyone can read the book of Job and not realize that the deity portrayed therein is irredeemably evil. Seriously, would you allow your children to be tortured and killed to win a bet? Would you have a right to do that, just because you’re their parent?

            And if God is really omniscient, what is the point of the bet in the first place? Didn’t he KNOW how Job would act, infallibly? And wouldn’t Satan know that God was omniscient and that the bet was futile? The whole story makes no sense at all if God infallibly knows the outcome.

          • Irene Neuner

            Life if a test. Jesus teaches us, “Fear not him who can kill the body but are are not able to kill the soul, rather fear Him who can kill both Soul and body in hell.”

          • TBP100

            Again, if there is a God, who knows everything infallibly ahead of time, then there is no “test.” “Test” means that the outcome is unknown.

            It’s like those “experiments” we did in high school chemistry. The outcome was known in advance (although not necessarily to the students), so while they were useful in teaching us the mechanics of science and such, they weren’t really experiments.

            If God knew infallibly that Job would past the test, why torture him and kill all those people, except out of sadism? For that matter, even if he didn’t know the answer in advance, why was it important enough to torture and kill all those people?

            And you didn’t answer my question: what kind of person (or “entity” if you prefer) allows his children to be tortured and murdered to win a bet?

          • Irene Neuner

            TBP100 Read Numbers 5 in our pew Bibles at church and it was NIV and the text said nothing about miscarriage or babies. The thigh rots and belly swells. Online NIV translations do use the words miscarriage and baby but it is exclusive to NIV. Interesting to me.

            You asked what kind of a person or entity allows his children to be tortured? Short answer …only God and I think that some Christian’s/saints have allowed their children and loved ones to be tortured because of refusing to deny Christ.

            Here is the only way I can speak to this …it’s how you choose to look at it. Half full or half empty? Are you thankful that you have life? Would you rather never to have been born than to have been put to the test and given a chance?

            I am glad that I was given life and I have unfortunately experienced enough torment in my life to have wished for death more than once. The least and most momentary was delivering five babies. For me that physical pain is was so intense that you are unable to think about life or death let alone stand up straight and loosing even involuntary controls over your body.

            I know many others bear things that I could never bear and I would rather never hear or know.

          • Noah

            And here I thought life was a gift, not a test.

            We have a terrible success rate on it, considering less than 1% or so of humanity thinks they know Jesus.

          • Thomas

            The Bible is the INSPIRED word of God. That means that humans were inspired to write it. God did not take ink and paper and write it Himself. So, it is a human effort to write down the word of God, and therefore prone to some inconsistency and poor wording. All in all though, it came out pretty good.

          • TBP100

            Here again, this works unless you believe God is omnipotent. An all-powerful being could, and would, make sure there were no inconsistencies or poor wording.

          • Thomas

            Yes, evil entered by a created being, an angel, not a human. Just as God want us, so does Satan, and God permits him free will just as He does us. Also, God will hold each of us accountable for the wisdom that has been revealed individually to us. The aborigine, the non-Christian, even the secular atheist, will be accountable on the basis of faithfulness to what God has written on the heart.

  • lightbulb1217

    What’s most difficult for me about this article is that it mentions the Bible, God, and Jesus quite often, but its sarcastic and insulting tone is hardly Christ-like or God-glorifying. Maybe the article is something of a venting exercise, which we all need to do sometimes, but I wish it didn’t have to be in a forum that can stir up bitter division and drive people away from the gospel.

    I think what’s most tragic is that, as we’ve seen in the comments already posted, there are non-believers reading this (who may very well be seekers for all we know given that they’re reading an article on this topic) who feel insulted and who certainly are not inspired to give the church a chance after reading this.

    I am a progressive Christian and I was purposely looking for conservative articles to help me stay open minded by learning more about opposing viewpoints. There is something of a stereotype that highly conservative Christians are close minded, self righteous, and judgmental, and I was seeking to dispel that in my own mind because I know that can’t be true. I’m afraid reading this article has backfired in that regard. Although I disagree with all of the author’s bullet points above and have the Bible verses to support it, I get the impression that the article seeks more to mock liberals than to encourage substantive discussion. I hope we can all find ways to help bridge the gaps between conservative and liberal Christians instead of widening them.

    • Dr_Grabowski

      Is it just possible that over time you have acquired slightly prissy, prim-and-proper ideas about what is “Christ-like or God-glorifying?”

      Was Jesus not “Christ-like?” He said,

      “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are”

      and

      “You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.”

      and

      “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean.”

      to say nothing of

      “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?”

      The Bible is an earthy, realistic book that meets us where we are, which is usually a bad place.

      Even God referring to His own in both Testaments as His “sheep” is none too flattering.

      Indeed, the Bible has many Godly examples of sarcasm, here’s Elijah’s in I Kings 18:

      Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. “Baal, answer us!” they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made. At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.”

    • David Marshall

      Light Bulb: I respect your goal. My first article here at The Stream argued (during the primaries) that no Christian should vote for Donald Trump, and my most recent that liberal and conservative Christians should dialogue respectfully over immigration.

      However, Jesus himself could be rather sarcastic, at times, to put it mildly. And along with sarcasm, I do detect what appear to be some pretty formidable historical arguments in this article. Do you not recognize their force, despite the tone? (And let’s face it, the “can’t we all just get along” type articles don’t do nearly so well on either side of the aisle.)

  • Stumbalina

    Condescending and judgmental. Sounds exactly like what Jesus would say……?

  • LOL. You do realize that all the first Christians were pacifists and anti-death penalty right? That you couldn’t belong to the church if you supported capital punishment or had a violent occupation like the military, right? I I guess what you’re saying is that every Christian until AD 300 was a “progressive” then, right?

    Can’t take your church history class for you…

    • Noah

      ‘when they could have been safely contained and even rehabilitated.’

      Yes…….Pretty sure dead people can’t come to faith or ask for forgiveness.

      But what is even more poignant is the loads of scripture in this post.

      With a sprinkle of the current Pope being a heretic.

    • Zmirak

      I studied Church history at Yale with Jaroslav Pelikan, thanks. Bans on Christians in army were because of pagan rites required for soldiers. Read Peter Leithart’s “Defending Constantine” for documentation.Church didn’t oppose death penalty either. No evidence for that whatsoever.

    • Irene Neuner

      No way! Nonsense. There is no anti death in the kingdom of God. Believe or get the justice you deserve which is eternal torment. No serious Christian with any sense can be a pacifist. Jesus says fear not him who can kill the body but not the soul. Rather fear him who can cast both body and soul into hell. Like I am speaking to my six year old about what is fair.

    • RJ

      Matthew 8:10 –
      “When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.”

      I’d rather be a soldier who had Jesus Christ say that about me than be a Pharisee, scheming evil for the sake of impressing my community with how holy I am, all while boasting about keeping the law which forbade Jews from capital punishment.

      Were the Jews less violent for abstaining from capital punishment when they manipulated the Romans into killing Jesus?

    • Benjamin Corey.

      Out of concern for your eternal soul and its eternal destination, I have a message from the Lord that I must share with you.

      I do hope that you take it to heart:

      Teaching Lies

      You who claim to be Mine, but who exchange My Truth for a lie, beware. Your calamity is coming, and twisted versions will not help you then. I warn you in love, for it is not My will that any of you perish, but you will suffer terrible woe who have twisted My Truth and taught it to My sheep.

      I will not hold you guiltless who have exchanged My Truth for your own version of truth. I will not hear your pleas who have taught mistruths as My Word. You have misrepresented Me and your eternity waits. It is not a pretty one. You who have felt comfortable in your pulpits teaching My precious ones that sin is allowed, that I am not a God who judges. Repent now, for your end is at hand.

      Judgment begins in My House and that judgment starts now. I will strike you with incurable diseases, you who refuse to represent Me truly, you who teach lies and call them My Word. I will strike you and I will refuse to hear your pleas for mercy, and worse awaits you after you leave the earth.

      I AM a God who judges His people, as My Word declares, and I will judge you now who refuse to repent of teaching lies.

      Romans 1:21-32
      …(21)Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. (22)Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, (23)And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

      (24)Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: (25)Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

      (26)For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: (27)And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

      (28)And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; (29)Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, (30)Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, (31)Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: (32)Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them…

      Source: Glynda Lomax; Prophetic Word from the Lord (04/13/2017)

  • Olive

    Dang it, you’ve convinced me! I guess we really are the best Christians in history!

    You’re welcome to join us, my friend.

  • Thomas

    You must be careful about sarcasm. Many, if not most people, don’t get it, and they take every word literally. The younger, the less likely they are to get it. I just don’t use it in family or in business.

  • Publius V. Publicola

    Apparently some Archbishops (Scicluna?) haven’t been well catechized alsol!

  • RJ

    Early Roman Christians were about as familiar with the Jewish male/female only marriage as they were with the Jewish diet that abstained from pork & shellfish.

    In other words – not much.

    Are we really to believe that early Greco-Roman Christians who were receiving the Holy Ghost and martyring for Christ but ignoring Leviticus with regards to sanitation, diet & same sex intimacy were NOT in the covenant while Jews who were following that law and rejecting Christ were actually in the true covenant?? Isn’t this specifically covered in Galatians by Paul (who ironically puts forward the most anti-gay scripture) while documenting even the disciples fighting amongst themselves about it?

    I think a mistake is being made by putting Trans together with the gay/gay marriage issue. Even LGBT community is at war with each other over this issue and I think, with the advancements of modern science & medicine, this issue is going to become even more pronounced (God help us).

    I believe it’s pretty self evident that male/female is a spiritual identity as much if not more so than a biological one… I’m also pretty sure a convincing argument can be put in place that immeasurable damage is being done to children with the normalization of such a psychiatric disorder and that because of that damage, it would be a sin to let it be done to children… But is there any scripture that anyone can put forward on sex changes??

    I can’t think of any, and I mean directly (other than woman becoming “man-like” which could also be used to reference this rise in militant feminism in general, but not specifically trans). I also can’t imagine that such an issue like this was left unaddressed by Christ, knowing the impact it would have in these last days.

    Christians need to really start dealing with this trans topic asap…

  • Sashabill

    “Progressive” Christianity is just warmed over liberal politics, with a thin veneer of God talk (The “God” part is pretty much optional.). It can be described as “casting ones pearls before swine,” or “salt which has lost its savor.” Their theme seems to be “Come unto me all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you controversy,” to borrow a phrase from Hal Lindsay.

Inspiration
Joy in the Hurricane
James Randall Robison
More from The Stream
Connect with Us