We are about to roll back the clock from daylight savings time to standard time. PB Frank wants to roll back the clock to another era. He still thinks he lives in the good old days of the cold war when the cry from the libs was "can't we just get along". When the hate America first crowd thought if we (USA) just weren't so mean, the Russians would lay down their weapons and the world would be a safer place. Now they think it is our fault that Korea is still separated in two, North and South. If only we would be nicer to the North, then everything would be OK.
Korean peninsula reunification affirmed by Presiding Bishop Griswold meets President in Seoul, offers message of solidarity to Korea's Anglican Church
Episcopal News Service] Emphasizing the work of Anglicans locally and internationally in support of reunification of the Korean peninsula, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold met October 25 in Seoul with South Korea's President Roh Myoo-hyun and issued a message of solidarity to the Anglican Church in Korea.
.....It is my intention now to emphasize my Church's commitment to reunification by bringing before the United States government several concerns.
I will urge my own government to reject the policy of preemption that heightens tensions and threatens the well being of peoples both in the north and south. As the two Koreas move forward towards the goal of reunification, I will urge the United States to take the following further steps:
support and promote a nonaggression pact that will move all parties toward a comprehensive peace formally ending the "state of war" that has existed since 1953 by following through in the current negotiations to pledge not to preemptively attack the DPRK in exchange for the DPRK's abandonment of its nuclear weapons program
refrain from demonization of the DPRK in favor of supporting the building of relations between the north and south which hold the promise of peace and reunification
make every effort to invite the DPRK into the international community as a full member so that the country can develop and pursue internationally recognized norms and standards for its people to enjoy, specifically to provide humanitarian relief and development assistance to the DPRK including poverty alleviation, food aid, energy development and transportation
assure access to all mechanisms for redress of grievances between U.S. military personnel and Korean civilians in the ROK.
Liberal insanity. And this guy is the leader of the ECUSA. Lord have mercy.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Daily Office readings for 10/18/2005
Matthew 11:25-30 (NRSV)
25 At that time Jesus said, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants; 26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. 27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. 28 "Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
I recently overheard a woman at church saying she has a problem referring to God as Father. She prefers the word, parent. In today's scripture reading, Jesus refers to his Father five (5) times in three (3) verses. Now I know that God does not have a gender. But when referring to the deity, Christian tradition is to use the masculine (Father, He, Him, etc.). I don't believe it is simply a matter of linguistics however. If the english language had a neutral pronoun ( neither male, he, or female, she) I still believe the use of the masculine would be proper. Why? Well as stated above, Jesus refers to God as his father. I also believe that Jesus is God as part of the blessed Holy Trinity, and since Jesus is male then the use of the masculine to refer to God is also proper.
According to the BCP, in the liturgy, the response to the statement "Let us give thanks to the Lord our God" is "It is right to give Him thanks and praise". My parish and I am sure others as well, has changed the response to "It is right to give God thanks and praise". To many this probably is no big deal, but I believe it is symptomatic of what is wrong in today's church. In an effort to please some folks who are sensitive to these matters, we are changing our understanding of God.
For any ladies reading this, I did not state nor do I believe that God is male to the exclusion of female. He created both male and female and therefore both are found in Him. However, when referring to Him, as you can see I believe that the masculine pronoun is correct. If I hear someone referring to God as 'she', they will not get a rise out of me. I believe God is big enough to have mercy on them for they know not what they do.
25 At that time Jesus said, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants; 26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. 27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. 28 "Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
I recently overheard a woman at church saying she has a problem referring to God as Father. She prefers the word, parent. In today's scripture reading, Jesus refers to his Father five (5) times in three (3) verses. Now I know that God does not have a gender. But when referring to the deity, Christian tradition is to use the masculine (Father, He, Him, etc.). I don't believe it is simply a matter of linguistics however. If the english language had a neutral pronoun ( neither male, he, or female, she) I still believe the use of the masculine would be proper. Why? Well as stated above, Jesus refers to God as his father. I also believe that Jesus is God as part of the blessed Holy Trinity, and since Jesus is male then the use of the masculine to refer to God is also proper.
According to the BCP, in the liturgy, the response to the statement "Let us give thanks to the Lord our God" is "It is right to give Him thanks and praise". My parish and I am sure others as well, has changed the response to "It is right to give God thanks and praise". To many this probably is no big deal, but I believe it is symptomatic of what is wrong in today's church. In an effort to please some folks who are sensitive to these matters, we are changing our understanding of God.
For any ladies reading this, I did not state nor do I believe that God is male to the exclusion of female. He created both male and female and therefore both are found in Him. However, when referring to Him, as you can see I believe that the masculine pronoun is correct. If I hear someone referring to God as 'she', they will not get a rise out of me. I believe God is big enough to have mercy on them for they know not what they do.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
More Liberal insanity
Just when I thought it was safe to go out and play, there comes this headline from the ENS:
Disaster-preparedness plans needed, Executive Council says
The title sounds like a good idea. As a former Boy Scout, I know it is always a good idea to be prepared. But in the body of the article comes this:
Regret for complicity in slavery
In other action, the council became one of a number of voices in the Episcopal Church that will ask the 75th General Convention to deal with the church's historic connections to slavery.
I know I should not be surprised by anything these mentally disturbed people come up with, but I am anyway. How many times must we express regret for something we had no part in? Considering the current state of the ECUSA in trying to redefine what sin is, this would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.
I feel sorry for those who feel so much guilt for something they didn't do, but refuse to accept guilt for their own sins. Is this twisted or what?
Disaster-preparedness plans needed, Executive Council says
The title sounds like a good idea. As a former Boy Scout, I know it is always a good idea to be prepared. But in the body of the article comes this:
Regret for complicity in slavery
In other action, the council became one of a number of voices in the Episcopal Church that will ask the 75th General Convention to deal with the church's historic connections to slavery.
I know I should not be surprised by anything these mentally disturbed people come up with, but I am anyway. How many times must we express regret for something we had no part in? Considering the current state of the ECUSA in trying to redefine what sin is, this would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.
I feel sorry for those who feel so much guilt for something they didn't do, but refuse to accept guilt for their own sins. Is this twisted or what?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)