TV channel just for Atheists –


Atheism gets its own TV channel in the US – a shot in the dark or a sign of changing times?

It is a fact of American life that even though far fewer than half the adult population attend church on a weekly basis, atheism remains an outright taboo in many corners of the country.

As we discovered on a reporting trip to Virginia earlier, non-belief is something that many Americans are too afraid to even admit to their parents, friend and teachers. Many fear alienation from the communities they grew up in, or even active discrimination from employers and teachers for their non-belief.

But in what is a sign of changing times, perhaps, next week sees the launch of America’s first dedicated TV channel for non-believers. Atheist TV launches in New York and will broadcast 24 hours a day via Roku, the internet streaming service that allows people to watch internet-based channels on their TVs. Roku only has seven million subscribers, but anyone can watch it streamed online at http://www.atheists.tv

Free-thinkers, as atheists style themselves, remain almost bizarrely under-represented in American public life and discourse. There is not a single openly declared atheist among the 535 members of Congress, and it is conventional electoral wisdom that the President of the United States has to be a believer.

The profile of atheism is very slowly starting to change, with an increasingly vocal atheist community, including high-profile adherents like Brad Pitt and Mark Zuckerberg. Even so, non-belief, is still a very long way from acceptance.

You can see the bombastic trailer for the station here, which features Richard Dawkins among other prominent atheists, talking about striking a blow for free thought, casting off the “monkey” of religious belief and the joy of “coming out” as an atheist to the world.

The channel is backed by American Atheists, the civil rights organisation founded in 1963 that takes a pretty confrontational approach to defending separation of church and state, including fighting a legal battle against the “9/11 miracle cross” being placed in the museum commemorating the September 11 attacks – which, as I’ve written before, is not a fight I would have personally picked.

The organisers tell me the channel will broadcast 24 hours, mostly with licenses and pre-recorded content, such as documentaries by the Richard Dawkins Foundation as well as a talk show titled “Atheist Viewpoint” and a call-in show, “Atheist Experience”. There’s more here.

As I’ve written before, America is secularising faster than many people realise, with the latest data analysis by Mark Chaves at Duke University indicating that even the Evangelical movement – after two decades of bucking the secularisation trend – is starting to lose traction among young people at almost the same rate as traditional churches.

So will this channel make a difference? Not immediately, since the station will initially be preaching to the (unbelieving) choir. But if it catches on, it might yet play a role in breaking the unfair link in the American public mind between not believing in God and immorality and social irresponsibility.

Depending on where you draw the line between militant atheist and “fuzzy faithful”, about 20 per cent of Americans are practically speaking non-believers – that means there should, proportionally speaking, be 107 members of Congress to represent their beliefs, or lack of it.

By that measure, that America’s atheists have a long way to go. But as has been seen in attitudes to the gay and lesbian world over the last decade, things can change quickly, and in the case of non-belief there is a latent pressure out there just waiting for recognition.

Posted in media, theology, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Church of England Anglicans Set to Remove Satan from Baptismal Rite


 

Jesus heals the man with unclean spirits named Legion Luke 8:29-30This seems to me to be a desperate effort to retain membership no matter the cost. It definitely increases an uncrossable divide with Orthodox, Catholic, Conservative Anglicans, and many Protestants. Jesus certainly knew the Devil was present.

Fr. Orthohippo

Queen Elizabeth baptism

Declaring that the devil has departed from the Church of England’s baptism service, the Guardian reported on June 20 that “a simplified baptism which omits mention of the devil” is now favored by the clergy who have test-marketed it throughout the United Kingdom. Claiming that the traditional rejection of the devil and all rebellion against God “put off people who are offended to be addressed as sinners,” clergy claimed that they found it much easier to ask parents and godparents to make vows that do not mention Satan.

Responding to a population “which sees no pressing reason to spend Sunday mornings or any other time in Church,” the Guardian reports, the new and improved baptism service also deletes the instruction to the godparents that the child will keep God’s commandments, and learn what a Christian “ought to know and believe to his soul’s health”—promising only that the church “shall do all that we can to ensure that there is a welcoming place for you. We will play our part in helping you guide these children along the way of faith.”

The proposal to delete the devil from the ritual received initial approval by the House of Bishops and will be debated by the Anglican General Synod in York this July. If approved, these changes may reveal that the Church of England is losing its sense of sin—and its need for salvation. More than 60 years ago, T.S. Eliot wrote about the sense of alienation that occurred when social regulators—like the church—began to splinter and the controlling moral authority of a society is no longer effective. He suggested that a “sense of sin” was beginning to disappear. In his play “The Cocktail Party,” a troubled young woman confides in her psychiatrist that she feels “sinful” because of her relationship with a married man. She is distressed not so much by the illicit relationship, but rather, by the strange sense of sin. Eliot writes that “having a sense of sin seems abnormal, she believed that she had become ill.”

Writing in 1950, Eliot knew that the language of sin was declining even then. Yet most of us would assume that the concept of sin was still strong because the churches—like the Church of England—seemed so strong. Looking back, though, it seems that the sense of sin was already beginning to be replaced by an emerging therapeutic culture. Within a growing culture of liberation, people no longer viewed themselves as sinful when they drank too much, took drugs, or engaged in violent or abusive behaviors. Rather, such actions were increasingly viewed as indicators that such individuals were victims of an illness they had little control over.

Sociologist Philip Rieff warned in his now-classic book of the 1960s, The Triumph of the Therapeutic, that “psychological man was beginning to replace Christian man” as the dominant character type in our society. Unlike traditional Christianity, which made moral demands on believers, the secular world of “psychological man” rejects both the idea of sin and the need for salvation.” The transformation is now complete in the Church of England.

Satan has been called an “evil genius” because he has been able to convince so many that he does not exist. In his satirical Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis creates a senior demon named Screwtape who is instructing Wormwood, his young protege, on how best to capture a soul for hell. He tells him that the most effective thing he can do to bring souls to hell is to convince people that Satan does not even exist. “The fact that devils are predominantly comic figures in the modern imagination will help you. If any faint suspicion of your existence begins to arise in his mind, suggest to him a picture of something in red tights, and persuade him that since he cannot believe in that, he therefore cannot believe in you.”

Unlike the Church of England, which is helping people move away from thoughts of the devil, Pope Francis has spoken often of Satan as the “prince of this world,” and the “father of lies.” He cautioned in his book On Heaven and Earth that, “Satan’s fruits are destruction, division, hatred and calumny.” In response, the faithful are beginning to flock to a shepherd that reminds them that it is the “work of the devil” to ignore the plight of the poor and to reject the humanity of all persons—including the weakest and least powerful.

One wonders why the Church of England will even bother to perform baptismal ceremonies at all when the real purpose of such a service has been lost. Rituals are important, though, as author, P.D. James writes in her chilling novel Children of Man. Set in a dystopian world in the year 2021 in which the entire human race has become infertile, the author describes a society in which the last child had been born two decades earlier, and where the “new trend” in cities such as London is to hold elaborate christening ceremonies for kittens—replete with flowing white christening dresses and lace bonnets for the feline newborns. In such a society, the clergy is pleased to preside over the ritual because it gives so much joy to the childless “parents” of the kittens.

The Church of England’s revised baptismal ritual will be voted upon next month in Kent at their General Synod. It will likely pass because it has been driven by a powerful division within the clergy, which is determined to demonstrate that the Church of England is a progressive church that no longer needs to recognize the need to renounce Satan in order to live in the freedom of the children of God.

Editor’s note: This column first appeared June 25, 2014 in the Washington Times and is reprinted with permission of the author. Pictured above is Queen Elizabeth II held by her mother on the day of her christening in 1926. (Photo credit: Pa)

Posted in Anglican, heresy, history, nature of evil, theology, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Just What is the Original Christian Gospel?


The Original Christian Gospel

Fr. James Bernstein | 01 November 2011
Bruce cropped(There are significant differences between Orthodox and Roman Catholic/Protestant understandings of just how we understand the Original Christian Gospel.  Here is the beginning of an excellent description of both understandings. 
Fr. Orth0hippo)
                                    Hagia_Sophia_1_s640x427    http://www.pravmir.com/the-original-christian-gospel/entire article here

It may surprise you to hear that the original Gospel—the Good News preached by Jesus Christ and His disciples—is quite different from what is prominently presented today by the vast majority of Christians in America. For many Christians, hearing this original Gospel will involve a major paradigm shift—a radical change in assumptions about God and about salvation, which is at the core of the Gospel.

The original Christian Gospel begins with—love.

John 3:16, 17 says: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.” Furthermore, the Apostle John says, “God is love” (1 John 4:8).

What Is God’s Love?

The original Christian understanding of love and salvation are shockingly different from what we are often presented with in non-Orthodox Christian churches.

First of all: God is love—even before He creates; His love is not just an expression of His will towards creation, or simply an attribute, but rather God loves by nature—because of who He is. Love is intrinsic to His Unknowable Essence.

But how is it that One God, who is perfect and lacks nothing, can be love, when love necessitates a relation to another? The issue of whom God loves before the creation of the universe is resolved in Trinitarian Orthodoxy. God is understood to be not an absolute unity or monad, but a composite unity, a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each Person of the Blessed Trinity is fully divine and for eternity loves the other two. The Trinity is an eternal union of love, existing before the creation of the universe.

This understanding of what God’s love is differs from the predominant non-Orthodox Christian understanding, which tends to see love as a created attribute of God and not essential to His Being or essence. For the Orthodox biblical Christian, God’s love is uncreated. Love, more than any other quality—more than justice, mercy, knowledge, or power—uniquely communicates to us something essential of who God is.

God’s love is manifest in His creating the universe, and in so doing condescending to make creatures that have authentic free will—and can even choose to resist His love. To create a universe that is capable of resisting His will, God had, to some degree, to withdraw His omnipotence—that is, to forbear from forcing His control over His creatures. This kind of distancing provides room in which His creatures, having free will, are able to respond to His love without being forced. Why is this essential? Forced love—which some Calvinist Protestants call irresistible grace—is not true love, because it is not given freely.

Is God Humble?

Is God’s condescension in love—in creating the universe and in His Incarnation as a man, Jesus Christ—the same as humility?

Here is the heart and crux of the original Gospel. Because God is love and loves His Creation, to which He imparts authentic free will, and condescends even further by becoming incarnate as a man, Jesus Christ, God’s love is a manifestation of humility. That is: God is humble!

The renowned author and lecturer Metropolitan Kallistos (Timothy) Ware expresses it this way: “It is as natural for God to be humble as it is to be Almighty.” He also says: “God is as humble as He is Almighty.” That is, God is both almighty and humble.

We have often heard that Jesus is humble. But we have always understood that it was only in His humanity that He was humble, not in His Divinity. The original Gospel and Metropolitan Kallistos are saying that God Himself—the Divine Creator of heaven and earth—is humble.

On one hand, God is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Creator of the universe, eternal and in need of nothing. On the other hand, God is humble! Not only God in Christ, but also the other two Persons of the Trinity—God the Father Himself, and the Holy Spirit of God.

The Scriptures speak of God’s humility:

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery [or something to be held onto] to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation [lit. “emptied Himself”], taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. (Philippians 2:5–8)

Jesus said, “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble [lowly] in heart, and you will find rest for your souls” (Matthew 11:28, 29). In fact, Christ’s Passion—His last week prior to His Crucifixion—is called in the Orthodox Church His “extreme humility.”

Christ’s humility was viewed by the original Orthodox Christians not as moral weakness but as moral strength. God’s humility is not an expression of fault or inadequacy, but a manifestation of perfection. That is, because God is perfect love, He is humble. God does not cease being humble after the Resurrection, as if humility has no eternal reality—as if it were merely a created, utilitarian, temporary quality needed to save man. Rather, God never ceases to be humble because He loves, nurtures, and sustains us without end. And this is one reason the original Christians believed that Jesus’ glorified human body retained its wounds after the Resurrection (as Thomas saw): because they are an everlasting visual reminder of His condescending humility.

That the Christian God is a God of love, who is love and manifests His love in humility, has implications for us that are staggering. This means, to begin with, that because God loves, we should love; because God is humble, we should be humble. It also means that God unconditionally loves all—the just and the unjust, now and forever—because it is only in God’s nature to love, not to hate.

Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies . . . that you may be sons of your Father in heaven” (Matt. 5:43–45). Jesus is telling us that we should love our enemies because God the Father loves His enemies. Indeed, even from the Cross the crucified God-Man prayed for His enemies, saying, “Forgive them, for they know not what they do!” And in loving our enemies, Jesus says that we become sons of our Father in heaven—that is, we become godlike (truly children of God). Then the concluding verse says, “for He (i.e. the Father) makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good.”
This understanding of the sun shining upon all alike was used by the early Christians as an example of the unconditional nature of God’s love. That is, the sun always shines light—never darkness. So then where does the darkness come from? The darkness we experience is not due to the sun withholding light; it is only due to our hiding from the light, our closing our eyes to the light. Our darkness is only due to our own blindness.

St. Anthony the Great of Egypt, founder of monasticism (fourth century), states this perfectly: “To say that God turns away from the wicked is like saying that the sun hides itself from the blind.”

Then what is the cause of suffering for those who reject the light of God in their lives? Their suffering is due to the impossibility of escaping light. The light and love of God is omnipresent; it pervades the universe, much like the Divine Light of God in the Burning Bush—the bush burned but was not consumed. And this is why David says in Psalm 139, “Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there. If I make my bed in hell, behold—You are there.”

This all-pervasive love of God was the main theme of the original Gospel. But in time, the understanding of this love became greatly distorted and perverted by unbiblical, un-Orthodox teachings.

Let us examine one such distortion of the original Gospel that pervades Roman Catholicism and Protestantism: the view that death is from God. This mistaken view is an outgrowth of the false doctrine prevalent among non-Orthodox churches that the guilt of Adam’s sin committed at the Fall is passed on from generation to generation to all mankind. This is called “the inheritance of the guilt of original sin.” This is a non-biblical teaching that neither the Jews nor the Orthodox Christian Church have ever held, either in biblical times or today.

Is Death from God?

The Scriptures say, “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, ‘Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die’” (Genesis 2:16, 17). Regardless of how the passage is interpreted—whether literally or figuratively—all interpretations assume that man turned away from God, and as a result fell from a position of intimacy with God to a state of confusion and death. This is called “The Fall.” Sin, mortality, and death, both spiritual and physical, were the direct result of man’s disobedience.

So far so good—until the next major assumption is made: that death was the direct result of a punitive sentence pronounced by God. That is, God made a law—“you shall not eat of the fruit, for if you do you will surely die”—and when Adam and Eve broke that law, death resulted from God’s punitive proclamation. That is, God Himself then made them mortal—made them die. The action and resultant punishment are understood as being of a juridical nature. In this non-Orthodox understanding of the Fall, God had no choice but to declare that Adam and Eve would die. The punitive action was demanded by a necessity to which God Himself was bound—the necessity of being just.

In contrast to this juridical view of the Fall, the biblical Orthodox view holds that when God told Adam he would die if he ate the forbidden fruit, it was a simple statement of fact. The Lord was essentially saying, “If you turn from Me, the only source of life, then death will be the outcome.” God did not say, “I will kill you,” but rather, “you will die.

Posted in catholic, christian, historical theology, history, orthodox, Protestantism, theology, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

VISITOR FLAG COUNTER


Free counters!

started November 13, 2011

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

DAY EIGHT: DIOCESE OF SC v. THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH – FIREWORKS IN THE COURTROOM


bishop-katharine-pronounces-the-blessing-' 

SC v. THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH – FIREWORKS IN THE COURTROOM

Author:

Jan Pringle

Diocese of South Carolina                NEWS RELEASE

PO Box 20127, Charleston, South Carolina 29413-0127

126 Coming Street, Charleston, South Carolina 29403

The Episcopal Church here in the USA desires to proceed in its affairs by the rule of law.
hippo cartoonWhy, then, in court legal matters will it ignore court orders? An interesting question – perhaps you can answer it yourself.

Fr. Orthohippo

 

Judge Scolds TEC for Trying to Sneak “Expert Witnesses” into Trial Without Meeting Court’s Deadlines, Violating Rules of Law

 

ST. GEORGE, SC, JULY 17, 2014 –A normally unflappable South Carolina Circuit Court judge stopped the trial initiated by the Diocese of SC to prevent the seizure of local diocesan and parish property, to scold the defendants for their intentional disregard of three court orders dealing with disclosure of expert witnesses. The defendants, the Episcopal Church (TEC) and The Episcopal Church in South Carolina (TECSC) tried to present an expert witness, Robert Klein, into the trial without having followed court’s orders.

After reminding TEC attorneys that she had bent over backwards to provide them ample opportunity to identify expert witnesses, Judge Diane S. Goodstein said, “You have violated this court three times with regard to experts and now you think you’re going to bring in his (Klein) testimony through the back door? This is not a game! Court’s orders are to be followed! You are an officer of the court. I trust we will not have any more discussion about this witness.”

Goodstein then asked the TEC counselor when Klein was hired as an expert witness.  The defense attorney admitted they had communicated with Klein prior to the last court order in June. Judge Goodstein, waving a sheet of paper without Klein’s name on it, said it was “unbelievable,” “remarkable” that his name was not on it and therefore ruled Klein’s testimony excluded. Further, Goodstein said she believed the many efforts to postpone and delay the proceedings of the trial had been a tactical decision by the defendants.

Attorneys for the defense argued at length about the propriety of excluding their witness and threatened to appeal her ruling.  Goodstein finally ended the discussion by saying, “I want the courts to assume that I have done what I have done because the defendants failed to comply with not one, not two but three of this court’s orders.”

After the judge’s scolding, TEC presented another expert witness, Leslie Lott, a trademark attorney from Coral Gables, Fla., who had a portion of her testimony excluded because she had based her opinions on the work of Klein, the earlier excluded witness.

Lott was ill prepared to testify because the defendants had only provided her with their side of the case. She had been given no information, factual or legal, about the plaintiff, Diocese of South Carolina. It was apparent through cross examination that Lott’s defense attorney had only presented their side so that she could not render an informed opinion and she simply lacked the necessary information to testify credibly.

Her testimony was interrupted when an irritated Judge Goodstein adjourned for lunch after she realized during cross-examination that Lott had not brought her documents to court.

The other witnesses were parish witnesses who had left and formed other churches, and are now part of TECSC.  Each witness testified that proper notice had been given to the congregation to vote as to whether their church remained with the Diocese of South Carolina or go with TEC and its newly formed TECSC.

About the Diocese of South Carolina

The Diocese was founded in 1785 by the parishes of the former South Carolina colony.  Based in the Lowcountry of South Carolina, the Diocese is one of the oldest religious districts in the United States and counts among its members several of the oldest, operating churches in the nation.

 

The Diocese of South Carolina is recognized by Anglican Dioceses and Provinces around the world, many of whom have broken fellowship with The Episcopal Church, and in 2013 the Diocese joined the global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans and entered into a formal relationship of Provisional Primatial Oversight with Global South primates.

Posted in church, episcopal, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Married priests trouble Vatican


Pope’s hints on married priests trouble Vatican

AFP

 
 
Pope Francis waves during his Sunday Angelus from the window of his study overlooking St.Peter's Square at the Vatican on July 6, 2014
.

View gallery

Vatican City (AFP) – Pope Francis’s hints about a possible opening on the issue of married priests are sowing confusion in the Vatican and among Catholic reformists and conservatives alike.

Twice in three months, Francis has talked about changes to the tradition of celibate priests — although he has never been precise about how exactly this could be reformed.

On a flight back from his trip to the Middle East, Francis pointed out that there were already married priests in the Ukrainian Greek Catholic and Coptic Catholic churches.

“The door is always open but we are not talking about it now as the order of the day,” the Argentine pontiff said.

It is a priority, however, for the dozens of campaign groups that have sprung up — many formed by men who have been forced to leave the priesthood to get married.

The European Federation of Married Catholic Priests estimated more than 100,000 former Catholic priests have got married over the years — a figure which would make up around a quarter of the number of current priests.

Earlier this year, 26 women who said they were in love with priests living in Italy, wrote an open letter to the pope asking for a Vatican audience and speaking of their “suffering” because of the secret lives they have to lead.

- New bombshell -

Vatican expert Andrea Tornielli said at the time that Francis was particularly sensitive to the issue as, when he was the archbishop of Buenos Aires, he was close to an Argentine bishop who renounced the priesthood for love.

The pope’s comments over the weekend have had the effect of a new bombshell after La Repubblica daily in an interview quoted him as saying on priestly celibacy: “There are solutions and I will find them.”

The comments were immediately denied by Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi who said that the interviewer — the newspaper’s 90-year-old founder, Eugenio Scalfari — had not written down the exact quotations.

“This is not at all an interview in the normal sense of the word,” Lombardi said of the one-to-one conversation between Francis and Scalfari, even accusing the newspaper of manipulating “naive readers” with inaccuracies.

It was the second time that a papal interview with Scalfari has raised some hackles in the Vatican, leading to the question of whether the pope could be using these conservations as a way of bypassing traditional Vatican communications.

Father Papas Jani Pecoraro, an Italy-based married priest from the Greek Byzantine church, which is under Vatican authority, welcomed the pope’s reported comments.

Speaking to La Repubblica, he said: “The issue could not only change the relationship between the Catholic Church and the lay world but also with other churches.”

“We have to read the times and there is no doubt that today’s society raises questions that a married priest is definitely better able to cope with,” he said.

A Vatican expert, speaking to AFP on condition of anonymity, said that as a whole Francis was seen as “an open pope”.

“With his arrival, the progressives in the Church have regained hope,” he said.

But a Vatican source said that merely pointing out that priestly celibacy is not a dogma was “no great discovery” and called for greater caution on over-interpreting papal comments.

The source said: “Some questions have been raised but this should not be seen as messages being passed on.”

In the Repubblica interview, Francis pointed out that the ban on married priests was only instituted in the 10th century — nine centuries after the death of Jesus Christ.

“The pope is sensitive to the issue,” said the Vatican expert, although many observers are puzzled as to what kinds of “solutions” the pope could have in mind and few are

Posted in catholic, church, history, pastoral, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment