The Clergy Project

Message from the mixed-mode (a little minnemooseus/a little Adminnemooseus):I like your message, but to me it seems to be part of a number of messages that is causing this topic to stray off course. I suggest that you plug a more condensed version of it into the YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology topic. At that topic, it stands a good chance of getting a POTM nomination out of me.Moose (and a little Adminnemooseus)

4 Lutheran Missouri Synod
6 Southern Baptist
12 Covenant Presbyterian changed to nonAdmin mode, /sighThis message has been edited by Asgara, 11-26-2005 12:20 PM

Yes that is surprising but I also pointed out that there is a divide in the Reformed churches on the issue and the Covenant Presbyterians apparently are going liberal on this point. 4 Lutheran Missouri Synod are an extremely small number compared to the Lutheran ELCA on the list (did you count those?), and 6 Southern Baptists out of how many in that denomination? The list is overall and remains overall simply a list of liberals and the conservative clergy and congregations are not represented.

This is a complete non sequitur, Mike. And one that starts out with an ad hominem argument of the worst kind too. "Reasonable person" sure does address the facts of the argument there, huh? And "heavily biased?" Does that make sense? Somehow a literal reading is peculiarly biased? As compared to what? The evo reading isn't "heavily biased?" A literal reading is a reading that simply reads it straight as written. No fancy interpreting involved. So if somebody strongly asserts that you should respect the text as written, that's "heavy bias?" And no one can "claim to understand scripture this thoroughly?" As thoroughly as what? As thoroughly as the simplicity with which it is written? Simply reading it as it's written, taking what it says straight, is about some kind of difficult "understanding?" Good grief, that paragraph of yours is a nightmare of illogic. Yes he would Mike. Science is not omnipotent. Evidence is just evidence, it's not absolute truth. Scientists may be brilliant and clever of course, but God is the one who knows the truth and all they have is their finite and flawed intelligence.And I see Moose has nominated this Mike the Wiz post for a POTM, and I must second it as it is the most amazingly magnificent piece of illogic I think I may have seen at EvC. It can't be admired enough.This message has been edited by Faith, 11-26-2005 02:11 PM

When accessing the link provided by PaulK in the OP,Page not found - University of Wisconsin Oshkosh University of Wisconsin OshkoshWe find a site that presents its point of view. The site opens with the page that essentially says, here is the information you were seeking.On the other hand, reference the link provided by Faith:
What Conservative Protestants Believe - BeliefnetOn my first visit, I was greeted with some popup about winning a million dollars. On the second visit, the top of the page was inhabited by an ad for Angel Bracelets, with the powerful healing properties of natural gemstones. A link on the left side takes one to "Belief-O-Matic" where even it you don't know your faith, the magical web site does.Could it be that the basic concepts of these two sites and the differences between them provide us with a clue as to the mental state of the site owners?Let’s see, proponents of evolution say, here are the facts. The others say, Oh my God, win a million dollars, wear magical jewelry that will enhance your life.What can we conclude from this bit of information?

Faith,Will you please give me your short and concise defition of liberal clergy and of conservative clergy?Thank you.

I would be a bit careful about drawing conclusions from this. What you are seeing is the difference between a non-commercial site and a commercial site.Maybe there is more money to be made peddling God than peddling science. But I'm sure you can find some commercial sites with science information, and some non-commercial sites with creationist information.

quote:

---

Sorry to change it on you. I decided I didn't want to open that can of worms here but I guess it's opened. It's understood in conservative churches that a Christian is one who submits to God's word as the rule of his life. The Bible is God's word and God's word cannot be disputed. My own pastor reiterated this recently, when he said there is no other kind of Christian than a "Bible-believing" Christian, although we use that qualifier a lot in venues like EvC for the sake of discussion because so many claim the title.

---

What you are disputing is origin, not evolution.God's word can most certainly be disputed and should be and must be.
"Come let us reason together" - he invites any and all.
Reason is the catalyst, never ever emotion.
The world and all that is in it, is a gift to be explored, to know. I'm fond of jigsaw puzzles, putting the pieces in their proper place until it is a picture - it is our duty to do so with what is beneath, and above, and all around.
Joy!

Not much, unless it might be that websites come in a variety of formats. That is, you seem to have the erroneous impression that the site I linked represents my views. Far from it, beliefnet is like the Religious Tolerance website, totally uncommitted to any particular belief system. Both are usually pretty good at giving objective information however.

Sure. Conservative clergy adhere to the Bible as God's own revelation even when it brings them into conflict with the ideas and fashions of the world, including worldly morality and science, while liberal clergy are willing to compromise the Bible with such worldly ideas and fashions, rejecting some parts of it if necessary, reinterpreting parts to fit the world if they can.

Didn't say one word related to evolution or origin at all. I'm talking about the definition of a Christian. Not by a genuine Christian. Yes, and if you read that statement in its Biblical context, it is clear that what that means is He is inviting His errant people to reason about their sins, to understand that although their sins are very bad He is a merciful God who will forgive them if they turn from those sins and obey Him. You are apparently reading your own idea of what "reason together" means into the Bible. "Catalyst" for what? And who said anything about emotion anyway? You are welcome to your opinion, but it has nothing to do with the definition of a Christian.

and Those statements seem to imply that the people that signed the resolution of the Christian Project are not "Real or Genuine" Christians.We've tried to determine what a Christian is in other threads, but with little success. Perhaps within this thread we might get a little further.Here we have a list of over 20,000 individuls that claim not only to be Christians, but Christian Clergy.So, what defines a Christian, not Christ-like, but a Christian?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

What does it mean to be a christian?According to history, it means that if you are not christian, you should be killed. Witness the Inquisitions. Ask the Jews.It means that if you do not live the lifestyle christians preach, you should be killed. Wittness current christian position on homosexuality.Have you actually read your bible. Lets start with exodus? This says if you believe in the christian god, you shall overthrow those who do not. This says that you shall not allow non believers to live where you live. If you are a christian you are obligated to kick me out of your country.This is just a tiny sampling of the hate and intolerance of the bible. To be a christian means to accept, endorse, and carry out this will of your gods. (and yes, the bibles does say there are multiple gods)

I don't agree with that. You picked and referenced the site. To a degree, that does mean you do endorse their message and and along with that, their presentation.Should a good christian site endorse the concept of "Look here, get rich quick!"?Should a good christian site endorse the concept of magical jewelry to make you a healthy and better person?With your link, did you direct us to a site with good christian values or not? I am trying for a yes or no here.

---

Truth fears no question.bkelly

Did you bother to check the site bkelly? It is not a Christian site as you implied, but a generic marketing site that caters to any and all beliefs as well as no beliefs at all.Regardless, there is no connection between the nature of a site and particular information that may be found there. Even a purely marketing site might have decent definitions of the varioous religions they market to.To assume that Faith endorses the marketing portions of the site or the other religions it markets to is simply silly.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion