http://www.timesunion.com

Quoted Text

8 shot, 2 die in church, mission attacks

By GEORGE MERRITT, Associated Press
Sunday, December 9, 2007

ARVADA, Colo. -- A gunman killed two staff members at a missionary training center early Sunday after being told he couldn't spend the night, and about 12 hours later four people were shot at a busy megachurch in Colorado Springs.
     
Colorado Springs police Lt. Fletcher Howard said a suspect had been detained in the shootings at the New Life Church, but a church member who was locked down at the church Sunday afternoon said a security guard had shot and killed the gunman. Authorities in Arvada, a Denver suburb about 65 miles north, said no one had been captured in the shootings there.
It was not immediately known whether the shootings were related, but Arvada authorities said they were sharing information with Colorado Springs investigators.
The program that runs mission training in Arvada has a small office at the New Life Church's World Prayer Center.
A gunman in a black trench coat and a high-powered rifle entered the church's main foyer about 1 p.m. and began shooting, according to the church member, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the police department had asked that it release all information.
The church's 11 a.m. service had recently ended, and hundreds of people were milling about when the gunman opened fire. Nearby were parents picking up their children from the nursery.
The gunman was killed by a member of the church's armed security staff, the source said. Four people were shot, and the source did not know whether the shooter was one of the four. A SWAT team was searching the building for an explosive device, but the source could not confirm any details.
Howard, who had characterized the shootings as occurring outside the church, declined to say whether the suspect had been shot.
Three people were taken to Penrose Community Hospital in Colorado Springs, where they were listed in critical, fair and good condition, said hospital spokeswoman Amy Sufak.
The first shooting happened at about 12:30 a.m. at the Youth With a Mission center in Arvada, a Denver suburb, police spokeswoman Susan Medina said.
A man and a woman were killed and two men were wounded, Medina said. All four were staff members with the center, said Paul Filidis, a Colorado Springs-based spokesman with Youth With a Mission.
Arvada Police Chief Don Wick said the suspect spent several minutes speaking with people inside the dorm. Peter Warren, director of Youth With a Mission Denver, said the man asked whether he could spend the night. Several youths called on Tiffany Johnson, the center's director of hospitality.
"The director of hospitality was called. That's when he opened fire," Warren said. Johnson, 26, was killed.
Warren said he didn't know whether any of the students or staff knew the gunman. "We don't know why" he came to the dormitory, Warren said.
Witnesses told police that the gunman was a 20-year-old white male, wearing a dark jacket and skull cap, who left on foot. He may have glasses or a beard. Police with dogs searched the area through the night, and residents of nearby homes were notified by reverse 911 to be on the lookout. Medina said residents were asked to look out their windows for any tracks left in the snow during the night. About 4 inches of snow had fallen in the area in the past day.
New Life Senior Pastor Brady Boyd said security at the church had been beefed up after the shootings in Arvada, but he did not elaborate and did not take questions.
"Fortunately for New Life Church, we had a plan in place that was put into play immediately," he said. "Our prayers right now are for the people that were injured and their families.
New Life was founded by the Rev. Ted Haggard, who was fired last year after a former male prostitute alleged he had a three-year cash-for-sex relationship with him. Haggard, then the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, admitted committing undisclosed "sexual immorality."
The New Life church is one of Colorado's largest with about 10,000 members.
In addition to Johnson, killed in Arvada was Philip Crouse, 23. Youth With a Mission said Johnson was from Minnesota and Crouse was from Alaska.
The missionary center identified the wounded as Dan Griebenow, 24, of South Dakota, and Charlie Branch, 22, whose hometown wasn't immediately known. One of the men was in critical condition, and the other was stable, police said.
About 45 people were evacuated from the Youth with a Mission dormitory and moved to an undisclosed location.
The missionary center is on the grounds of the Faith Bible Chapel. Cheril Morrison, wife of chapel pastor George Morrison, said Crouse had just hung up Christmas lights at her home and that Johnson was "an amazingly beautiful person."
Mimi Martin, who lives near the center, said she received the warning call at about 9 a.m. warning neighbors to keep their doors and windows locked.
"Why would anybody want to hurt those kids?" Martin said.
Darv Smith, director of a Youth With a Mission center in Boulder, said people ranging from their late teens to their 70s undergo a 12-week course that prepares them to be missionaries. He said the center trains about 300 people a year.
Filidis said staffers are usually former missionaries themselves and that the "mercy ministries" performed by trainees include orphanage work. He said he didn't know where the group being trained in Arvada was going to be sent.
Youth With a Mission was started in 1960 and now has 1,100 locations with 16,000 full-time staff, Smith said. The Arvada center was founded in 1984.
------
Contributing to this report were AP Religion Writer Eric Gorski and writer Colleen Slevin in Denver, and writer Judith Kohler in Colorado Springs.

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

Carl Strock THE VIEW FROM HERE
Turn the other cheek? Not today
Carl Strock can be reached at 395-3085 or by e-mail at carlstrock@dailygazette.com.

    One group of people who never fail to crack me up are Christians. Take the bloody episode the other day in Colorado Springs, at the New Life Church, a megachurch founded by Ted Haggard, if you remember him.
    What happened? Some crackpot walked into the church firing a gun, and an armed security guard mowed him down.
    Very well, you say.
    But then the security guard gave thanks to God for keeping her hand steady, and the new head pastor, who replaced Haggard, praised her for saving a great many lives, which she probably did.
    These are the same people who insist that the Bible is “the authoritative Word of God … inspired, infallible and inerrant” (according to their Web site), presumably including the clear and much-quoted instruction from Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior, to “love your enemies” and to “turn the other cheek.”
    The same people who beat others over the head with this lofty ethical teaching and insist that without it we would descend to the level of brutes. The same people who make such a big fuss about Christian compassion and Christian love.
    But lo: When someone comes in the door shooting at them, they do just what us heathens do — they shoot back. And they take the precaution of engaging an armed guard, too, when trouble is in the air, to make sure they’re ready, which they did in this case.
    The hilarious thing is, the discrepancy doesn’t faze them. And if you question them, as some bloggers have been doing, they will simply dig up a bloodthirsty quote from the Old Testament about arming yourself against your enemies and be as pleased as if they were the very footsoldiers of a supernatural being, which of course they think they are.
    Also, I’ve noticed, they are ready in any emergency to credit their supernatural being with whatever turns out in their favor while conveniently ignoring the rest of the story.
    Thus, in the Colorado Springs case, they were full of admiration for the power of God in steadying the hand of the security guard, but it apparently didn’t occur to them to wonder who steadied the crackpot attacker’s hand, allowing him to slaughter four innocents.
    This little problem, and others, popped up in readers’ responses to the story in the Denver Post, which I have been perusing online.
    “My problem is how in the heck God helped her kill this guy when He could have prevented it in the first place,” one reader wondered.
    Christians are impervious to this sort of analysis. If God could help the guard shoot the attacker (apparently her bullets didn’t actually kill him; one of his own bullets did), couldn’t he have simply stopped the attacker ahead of time? And if he is responsible for one steady-handed shooting, isn’t he also responsible for the others?
    “I think if we were able to understand God, he certainly wouldn’t be powerful enough to save us,” offered one budding theologian on the Denver Post’s Web site.
    They are the most self-satisfied people in the world.
    Look at the New Life Church’s Web site, under Statement of Faith, and you will find this serving of gruel:
    “Heaven is the eternal dwelling place for all believers in the gospel of Jesus Christ”— meaning them.
    “After living one life on earth, the unbelievers” — meaning the rest of us — “will be judged by God and sent to hell where they will be eternally tormented with the devil and the fallen angels.”
    Can a people complacent enough to believe such a thing be troubled by the discrepancy between shooting an attacker and simultaneously insisting that one ought to turn the other cheek? I don’t believe they can.

Quoted Text

But then the security guard gave thanks to God for keeping her hand steady, and the new head pastor, who replaced Haggard, praised her for saving a great many lives, which she probably did.

Kind of like steroid filled sports player box of rocks praying to God to win a game........ :o

As for turning the other cheek....I think it means not to take on the 'bad feelings' of another person and becoming lost in their world view......like ignoring people like Britney Spears, Manson, Pink, Hillary Clinton etc.....they shouldn't be studied so much that they take up so much space in our heads......

Were Jim Morrison, Jimmy Hendrix, Janice Joplin etc artists????-----they were freakin' druggies with wacked out minds....do we study them?--you betcha.....

I disagree with Carl Strock on this one. One church in Colorado is not the litmus paper for all. I felt it was a waste of an article.

I also believe that there are many many more important issues that reflect our area that he could be finding time to articulate about.

Any time anybody puts ANYTHING to their beliefs, the press in general calls it a litmus test for every single person of the same belief all around the world.  And not just Christians.  Remember what the media was saying 9/12/01?  Essentially that all Muslims were the worst thing.  Now, it's the Christians.  Now, they usually will hang out when it is a Christian and give it more play to show the evil within the Christian Church, but they always show the horrible things.

The media will always show the horrible things about religion cause they must feel that if they print the positive side than it will be assumed that they are promoting it..GOD FORBID!

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

Only inconsistency is in Strock’s thinking

    OK, Carl, I will take the bait (Dec. 13 column, “Turn the other cheek? Not today”):
    Once again, Strock has challenged the Christian faith, this time in regard to the recent shootings in Colorado Springs.
    He takes issue with the security guard’s claim that God steadied her hand when she tried to stop the shooter. He sees an inconsistency in the belief that God would help her aim, but not stop the shooting from happening in the first place.
    God gives us the freedom to choose how we will behave. The gunman did not want God to stop him, he chose to act the way he did. The security guard did ask God to help her. Ultimately, God did intervene, and topped the gunman through the actions of the guard who sought his help. God gives us the freedom to choose to follow him — or not.
    Strock also questions the Bible’s instruction to “turn the other cheek.” This teaching is given in the context of seeking revenge. We are not to retaliate against another when they seek to hurt us. The difference is motivation. The security guard did not aim her gun for the purpose of “payback,” but to protect others from harm.
    MARY BETH KNAPP
    Princetown     

The media is just a pendulum.....we just tend to say "they said this they said that." Who cares what they say.....it's the sheep that are to look up and take heed.....

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

What Jesus meant by ‘turn the other cheek’

    Re the Dec. 13 Carl Strock column, “Turn the other cheek? Not today”: Mr. Strock failed to grasp what Jesus meant concerning “turning the other cheek.”
    This passage in the Sermon on the Mount has to do with responding to personal insult. The use of force by the security guard in the Colorado church shooting had nothing to do with personal affront. Force was used to preserve life.
    Justice is not a heathen idea that is incongruent with the ethics of Christianity. To assert such a viewpoint is to misunderstand men and women of faith who serve in the military, in law enforcement and on the bench in the judicial system — who may be called upon to take a life to preserve life.
Justice and love are both integral to the Christian faith. It would have been selfi sh, and not loving, for the guard to turn a deaf ear or stand idly by when it was in her power to stop the bloodshed.
At the moment of the shooting, it was not a question of acting contrary to one’s faith (as Strock suggested), but rather a question of being courageous or cowardly. Thankfully, for the sake of others, she was brave.
WAYNE BRANDOW
Galway
The writer is pastor of the Bible Baptist Church of Galway.

I think what Mr.Strock was trying to show is that other religions have views about life sacred that would be more important to them and when they tout them as "God did this for me because I am(whatever religion)" , the Christians blow them out of the water with the likes of"They dont know any better"(what is better, other than what you already know) or "They were trampled because God thought they were evil"(we dont even know what a sex offender is)....etc etc......

As for turning the other cheek---it just means keeping the world out of my heart and head---people are different and I can barely know myself much less a crazed irrational(to my outside understanding) shooter.....I believe Tom Cruise is more right than wrong about psychology/psychiatry and the drugs/therapies that evolve out of not really knowing another mans heart/mind........

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

It’s hard to act like Jesus with a shooter on the rampage

    As a Christian woman not affiliated with a church, I can certainly understand Carl Strock’s derision of Christians in our age of megachurches (now with armed guards!) as the face of Christianity.
    In his Dec. 13 column, he observes, “When someone comes in the door shooting at them, they do just what us heathens do — they shoot back.” Yes, love of life and self overrides everything in a moment of crisis (not to mention daily living). Self-preservation is a powerful instinct, and we are all capable of unthinkable actions given the right circumstances.
    Christians should be humbled by this fact, realizing the war is not with other people but our own flesh and baser instincts. How unlike Jesus, who in his moment of crisis, implored Peter to put down his sword and was led away like a lamb to slaughter.
    As Christians, we profess to believe Jesus is alive and living in us through the Holy Spirit. But in order for this to happen, we have to “die to self” so the Holy Spirit can manifest itself. Until people can see Christ and not Christians, this dance of hypocrisy and derision will persevere.
    I have found it to be a full-time endeavor to die to self. Any transformation has been the fruit of a quiet life of solitude, prayer, contemplation and study. It’s difficult to “look away from all that districts unto Jesus” (Hebrews 12:2) in our modern day churches with their building funds, prosperity preaching and political agendas.
I take comfort from Emily Dickinson, who was once described as the patron saint of biblical commentary in the poetic mode: I know that He exists, Somewhere — in Silence — He has hid his rare life From our gross eyes. There, but for the grace of God, go I.
ROBIN BUNNELL
Esperance

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

Carl Strock THE VIEW FROM HERE
Turn the other cheek? Look again
Carl Strock can be reached at 395-3085 or by e-mail at carlstrock@dailygazette.com.

    Well, the Christians are coming at me, so I suppose I ought to keep my head down, but I will recklessly stick it up one more time and see what happens.
    I said a week ago it was funny that the fundamentalist believers out in Colorado Springs were thanking God for steadying the hand of their security guard, allowing her to shoot down a deranged attacker, while at the same time professing belief in the “inerrancy” of the Bible, which includes a clear injunction from Jesus to turn the other cheek.
    It wasn’t the first time I had such a thought. I have it every time I hear believers assert that the Bible is perfectly true right down to the most fabulous particulars about how many animals sailed on Noah’s Ark. Why aren’t they protesting our war against Islamic terrorists? I wonder. Aren’t we supposed to turn the other cheek to those who strike us first? Isn’t that part of the Bible just as “inerrant” as the creation tale?
    The incident at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs gave me the opportunity to bring it up. A guy shot and killed two church members at a camp some distance from the church, then traveled to the church, shot and killed two more people outside and then busted inside, whereupon a security guard, a church volunteer, shot him three times and stopped him, and thanked God for helping her.
    I asked, isn’t there just the tiniest contradiction there?
    Well, how the believers huffed and puffed at the suggestion.
    “A bigoted old man,” one reader called me in an e-mail, promising never to read my column again.
    But what I liked best were the explanations. My favorite appeared as a letter in this newspaper a few days ago, from a Baptist minister.
    He confidently declared that I “failed to grasp what Jesus meant.” He said the instruction to turn the other cheek “has to do with responding to personal insult” and that shooting back at an attacker is simply “a question of being courageous or cowardly.” To contend otherwise, he said, is “to misunderstand men and women of faith who serve in the military,” which I thought was especially funny.
    Another writer declared that the turn-the-other-cheek teaching “is given in the context of seeking revenge.” She said, “the difference is motivation … the security guard did not aim her gun for the purpose of ‘payback’ but to protect others from harm,” therefore it was OK.
    Isn’t it wonderful how they know these things? And how do they know them? Well, I suppose the same way Thomas Aquinas or Reinhold Niebuhr or any other theologian has known what he claims to have known — by closing their eyes, turning their face heavenward and receiving divine guidance. It’s not something you can look up.
    What’s funny is that the fundamentalist believers are not interested in inventive explanations or rationalizations when it comes to the old creation tales. They insist on taking those at face value. But when it comes to a clear and unambiguous ethical instruction, it’s something else.
    Oh, no, they say, Jesus didn’t mean it that way, he meant something else, which I, in my pathetic ignorance, fail to grasp.
    Well, students, here’s the relevant passage from the book of Matthew, chapter 5, King James Version: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.”
    And from the book of Luke, chapter 6: “Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you. Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.”
    Do you see anything in either rendering that allows you to gun down a malefactor who is coming at you? Do you see anything to indicate that it has only to do with personal insult? Anything to indicate that motivation is crucial, so that if you shoot someone not for payback but to protect others it’s OK? Anything to suggest that serving in the military and going to war is the right thing to do? Anything to support the contention that courage vs. cowardice is the crucial point.
    I don’t. Not at all. In fact, the exact opposite.
    Why don’t these supposedly Bible-believing Christians accept the words of Jesus for what they plainly are? I guess for the same reason that the rest of the world doesn’t accept them: They’re impractical, that’s all. That’s why they explain them away, which they have been doing since the days of St. Augustine, at least, coming up with umpteen fanciful reasons why that particular teaching and many other passages in the Bible must mean something else — which, however, they are not prepared to do with the childish creation stories.
    So they’re an entertaining bunch, these Christians, and I get the biggest kick out of them.
    In response to some readers, I do understand that not all Christians are biblical literalists who squirm out of the passages that inconvenience them, but I use the label the way the squirmy literalists use it themselves, calling themselves “Christians” as if they had a monopoly on the religion.
    I use it with a touch of irony, I hope. And I feel free to do this, whereas I don’t do it with other equally nonsensical religions, because I think they have opened the door to it by trying to force their beliefs on the rest of us and by constantly beating their breasts in public and making a big show of their faith, including at the highest levels of government.
    When I hear a candidate for president asserting belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, and when the president himself appoints people to high office based on such faith, I think it’s fair enough for a lowly gadfly like me to poke good-natured fun at them and point out a few inconsistencies.
    The injunction to turn the other cheek, paired with unabashed support of military and other violence in self-defense, is just one of those inconsistencies. Don’t get me going on the whole list, or we’ll be here all night.

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

Time for Strock to quit bashing Christians

    Re Dec. 20 Carl Strock column, “Turn the other cheek? Look again”: I have to say that although I believe Strock is an intelligent man, his childish behavior is beginning to get out of control, and is really starting to offend the majority of Gazette readers — including me.
    How many times does Strock have to attempt to pick apart Christianity and make all Christians out to be idiots? We get the point — he thinks Christians are stupid, ignorant and blind to the truth. Guess what? I think the same about him, so please, stop it! I have never heard Strock slander any other religion in his column, so it’s not as if he is fairly beating up anyone who believes in a higher power — he purposely picks out only Christians.
Need I remind him that Christians founded this country? The original Pilgrims came here to escape religious prosecution, and now we are here dealing with it every day from people like him!
From now on, I would appreciate it if Strock keeps his negative religious views to himself.
JEREMY KERGEL
Ballston Lake

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

Strock shouldn’t take Bible so literally himself

    Re Carl Strock’s Dec. 20 column, “Turn the other cheek? Look again”: It amazes me how frequently Carl Stock mounts his journalistic steed in an all-out campaign to debunk Christianity.
    With his lance poised for the joust, he rushes headlong with fury to knock his opponent to the ground. But those of us on sidelines watch with amusement because, when the dust settles, we find his lance thrust strategically through the heart of a straw man. Of course, this takes no intellectual muscle and gives him the illusion of victory.
    While he complains against Christians who take the Bible literally, he goes on himself to read “turn the other cheek” as literally (and thus as incorrectly) as those he complains about. So what are we to make of this? In addition, he cavalierly dismisses the two “detractors” who attempt to set him straight on the matter by suggesting that they got their information directly from God. Maybe, but I suspect they looked it up.
    And despite Stock’s protestations to the contrary, he can look this up too. I did. A little investigation will show that in ancient Near Eastern societies, a slap on the cheek with the back of the hand expressed a severe form of public dishonor. Thus, by “turning the other cheek” Jesus tells his disciples to forgo retaliation and forfeit payback in deference to showing restraint toward the accuser. Strock’s literal interpretation takes none of this into account.
    Hence, his complaint against Christians who see no inconsistency between “turning the other cheek,” which discourages personal vengeance and “protecting the innocent,” which encourages public justice, strikes me as pure bluster. No inconsistency exists, and to say so merely invites another joust with the straw man.
    JEFF KIMBLE
    Scotia

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

Those who would quiet Strock have it all wrong

    Is Jeremy Kergel’s Dec. 26 letter, “Time for Strock to quit bashing Christians,” a thinly-veiled call for the censoring or outright silencing of Carl Strock when he bashes Christians?
    Since over 80 percent of the population of this country identifies itself as some form of “Christian,” preserving and respecting the individual religious and other liberties of the rest of our citizens, (including the 30 million of us who have no religion at all) is vital.
    Carl Strock’s writings are a healthy reflection of a diverse, dynamic and open society, with constitutionally protected rights of free press, expression and full religious liberty. To request he cease and desist writing on any topic because it may offend someone or some group is intolerant and no less than un-American.
    The remedy to speech you disagree with is more speech — not less. This was the vision of our founders (who by the way, were not all Christians, but in fact mostly deists).
    Keep up the uncompromising rationality, Carl!
    TOM KELLER
    Clifton Park

I happen to like Mr. Strock's columns whether I agree with him or not. I don't consider his latest article as 'christian bashing'. It is just another view. And listening or reading another's views can either change your previous way of thinking or strengthen it! Lighten up there Mr. Keller, Mr. Strock isn't trying to rewrite the Bible.

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

Strock isn’t persecuting, just criticizing Christians

    Re the Dec. 26 letter by Jeremy Kergel, “Time for Strock to quit bashing Christians”: Kergel is upset over comments made by Carl Strock [Dec. 20 column]. But Strock is expressing his opinions — which is protected by the First Amendment.
    Mr. Kergel is doing more than expressing his opinion. He is outright calling for Strock to stop expressing his. This is about as un-American as it gets. He also goes on to say that Strock is persecuting Christians by criticizing them and singling them out.
    As he points out, the Pilgrims did escape religious persecution when they came here to start a new life. The difference is that they were actually being persecuted. Criticism and persecution are two entirely different things. One is allowed in this country, rightfully so; the other is not.
    Having just come back from living in China, I got a chance to see what religious persecution really is. A perfect example: You can get into trouble with the Chinese government for even suggesting that religious persecution is going on. The lack of rights in China, and other nations like Saudi Arabia, couldn’t be more different than the rights we enjoy in our free society.
    Mr. Kergel shouldn’t be trying to stop anyone from voicing their opinions and criticizing anything — including Christians. He should, as should any American, be concerned if our right to speak out and make criticisms about any topic was ever to be taken away.
    ERIC MIX
    Scotia

     

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

Carl Strock THE VIEW FROM HERE
Praise the Lord, pass the prosperity
Carl Strock can be reached at 395-3085 or by e-mail at carlstrock@dailygazette.com.

    Well, quite the little firestorm I ignited the other day with just one innocent observation about our Christian brethren, in case you have been reading the letters to the editor, which are not even the whole story. You ought to see my e-mails. You ought to hear my telephone messages.
    You would think I had signed a pact with Satan himself, when all I did was point out that these Christians who huff and puff about the Bible being the perfect word of God have no qualms about shooting back at people who shoot at them despite the clear injunction in the Bible to turn the other cheek They even thank God for steadying their hand.
    How they fumed when I pointed it out, in the case of a Colorado Springs church. I could hardly believe it. They called me an idiot. They called me a bigot. They accused me of bashing Christianity. They preached, they railed, they fulminated. A few of them even explained to me that Jesus obviously didn’t mean what he said, which I enjoyed most of all, coming from people who are strict literalists when it suits their convenience.
    Which is exactly the point: when it suits their convenience, like when they find a passage in the Bible that promises them they’re going to heaven, or when they fi nd a charming story about Adam and Eve or Noah’s Ark. But not when they read a clear but slightly impractical moral instruction.
    There are dozens, hundreds, maybe even thousands of inconvenient passages in the Bible that they ignore, which I wouldn’t belabor if this were a simple matter of somebody’s private religion, but it’s not. Fundamentalist Christians are exceedingly public about their faith and have even succeeded in making it a test for high office, so I consider it fair for a lowly gadfl y like me to point out the discrepancies in this much-ballyhooed faith of theirs, which they are forever hitting us over the head with.
    Take for example the instruction from Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount: “Lay not up for yourselves treasure upon earth … but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven,” and his statement that “It’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God,” and his further instruction, “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast and give to the poor.”
    If you know of any Christians who take those words literally, please let me know. I would love to hear about it. Especially if you know of anyone who has sold all he has and given it to the poor. Not just worked as a missionary in some poor country or lived modestly, but literally sold all he has and given it to the poor. And I’m talking about modern American fundamentalists.
    Fat chance! So far from taking those words to heart or even paying the slightest heed to them, many self-advertised Christians these days are followers of what’s known as the Prosperity Doctrine, or the Prosperity Gospel, which is just old-fashioned materialism plus feel-good self-help, slathered over with praise to the Lord.
    It’s a big thing, in case you haven’t noticed. It is the theological foundation of most of the megachurches that you hear about, like the one in Houston presided over by Joel Osteen, which holds its services in an 18,000-seat sports arena and attracts millions of television viewers.
    Did someone say treasure upon earth? Rev. Osteen embodies his own doctrine by living in a home valued at $1.3 million.
    “God wants you to be rich,” was the byword of one of the early Prosperity preachers, Jim Bakker, before he was sent to prison for fraud.
    There are a lot of these Prosperity preachers. One of them is the exquisitely named Creflo Dollar, in Atlanta, founder of Christian World Changers Ministries and proud owner of two Rolls Royces.
    Another is Joyce Meyer of Missouri, who travels in a private jet and says, “There’s no need for us to apologize for being blessed.”
    Yet another is Kirbyjon Caldwell, a former investment banker and bond trader, with a degree from the Wharton School of Business, who turned to the ministry and built a huge Prosperity following in Texas. He’s President Bush’s guy, the inspiration behind the “faith-based initiatives.” It was he who introduced Bush at the 2000 Republican convention and gave the benediction at both of Bush’s presidential inaugurations.
    He is the author of a bestseller, “The Gospel of Good Success: A Road Map to Spiritual, Emotional and Financial Wholeness,” which President Bush actually wrote a plug for on Amazon.com.
    We’re not talking about some obscure little splinter movement off in the hollows of Tennessee.
    A Time magazine poll found that 17 percent of Christians describe themselves as part of the Prosperity movement, and 61 percent say they believe God wants people to be prosperous.
    How do they do that in light of the very clear words from their Lord and Savior?
    Easy. Just flip around through the hodgepodge of history, poetry, letters and legends that make up the Bible and find a random phrase or two that suits their convenience.
    Did somebody named John in the early church write a letter to an elder named Gaius and begin the letter by saying, “I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health even as thy soul prospereth”? Fine, then they use that and say, See? God wants us to prosper. Which is one of the passages that they actually do use: 3 John 2.
    You don’t need a doctorate in theology to see it’s a shuck.
    In short, Christians who insist on literal belief in the Bible don’t believe literally any more than I do. They just use the Bible as a cover for doing what they would do anyway, whether it’s selling real estate or shooting back at people who attack them.
    If they like something they say it’s the word of God. If they don’t like it they ignore it or claim it doesn’t mean what is says. And then they call me a bigot for pointing it out.
    I won’t get into the barbaric practices and primitive taboos of the Old Testament, which they also obviously do not accept. I just confine myself to the words of Jesus, to make the point as clear as possible.
    Prosperity Gospel, indeed. Don’t try to kid me.

BINGO Mr.Strock.....

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

Many Christians heed Jesus’ call to follow him

    In Carl Strock’s Jan. 6 column, “Praise the Lord, Pass the Prosperity,” Mr. Strock asks if any of us Christians (he refers to Christianity as “this much-ballyhooed faith of theirs”) take the words of Jesus literally, and that he wishes to hear from any of us who believe in Jesus’ words.
    I wish to suggest, very gently, to Mr. Strock and to anyone else who questions Jesus’ words, the following: When our savior is talking about the need to not lay up for ourselves treasures upon earth but to lay up for ourselves treasures in heaven, and to sell what we have and give to the poor, and that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter heaven, he is simply telling us to do one thing — follow him.
    He is telling us that to focus on money, power and status in this life eventually is only going to lead to unhappiness. Instead, over and over in the Gospels, Jesus says two very simple words, which say it all: “follow me.”
    Follow him. As in, watch the things he does, listen to what he says and follow him. Jesus did not spend his time hobnobbing with the wealthy and powerful. Rather, Jesus spent his relatively short time on earth healing the sick and the lame, attending to the poor and lonely, giving sight to the blind, redeeming sinners — people like me and you.
    Finally, I have one other thing to say: I want Mr. Strock to know that I am praying for him every day. If he doesn’t want me to bother, too bad. I’m doing it anyway.
    REV. ALAN HART
    Glenville
The writer is a deacon at Christ Church in Schenectady.

I think Rev. Hart misunderstood what Mr.Strock was trying to say....Mr.Strock was saying the same thing....he was basically talking about the Coulters and O'Reilleys' type of 'Bible beaters'.....

According to God we are a "...stiff necked people..." and we cant correct other people unless they are seeking and looking......we can only correct ourselves and....as Jesus states "...follow me(Him)..."

I think that Mr. Strock is missing one thing. For anyone who has dabbled in reading the Bible would find that Jesus spoke in parables. And remember it isn't money that is the root of all evil.....it is the LOVE of money!!!

http://www.dailygazette.com

Quoted Text

Things don’t just ‘happen’ without creator’s hand

    I noted recently that Carl Strock said he would be on vacation, and he would like to hear from some of his readers.
    It seems that he likes to make fun of those who have a faith in God. Well, I hope he had an enjoyable vacation and enjoyed some of God’s creations, even though he might not admit that they were God’s creations. He seems to believe a ridiculous theory that he was descended from a monkey.
    He probably does his columns sitting at a computer, which designed itself, and drives a car, which designed itself. How can he call his writings “The View From Here,” and be so blind to the fact that there is a design in creation that didn’t [happen] by accident! There are others who share his blindness.
    If you were privileged to see “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” [the 2008 documentary by Ben Stein], it showed how some teachers were fired just because they mentioned that creation by God also should be taught. After all, if the blind lead the blind, they will both fall in a ditch. Our schoolchildren deserve better than this.
    CALVIN B. NAUMAN
    Schenectady

When the blind leads the blind Rome burns and short of becoming Spartans there is no need to defend anything because nothing becomes a plumb line or foundation on which to stand......and if we become Spartan warriors we are animals and very close to Baal and human sacrifices....... :-/

And they want to take away guns.......ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha......only need some rocks and sticks to do the deed......

clevebtch's Blog
by clevebtch

Judge Rules on Athiest Holiday
Mar 22, 2008 | 9:44 PM
Category: Entertainment

Report This Post

In Florida, an atheist became incensed over the preparation of Easter

and Passover holidays. He decided to contact his lawyer about the

discrimination inflicted on atheists by the constant celebrations

afforded to Christians and Jews with all their holidays while atheists

had no holiday to celebrate.





The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the long

passionate presentation by the lawyer, the Judge banged his gavel and declared, 'Case dismissed!'


The lawyer immediately stood and objected to the ruling and said,

'Your honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians

have Christmas, Easter and many other observances. Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur and Hanukkah...yet my client and all other atheists have no such holiday!'


The judge leaned forward in his chair and simply said, 'Obviously your

client is too confused to even know about, much less celebrate his own

atheists' holiday!'





The lawyer pompously said, 'Your Honor, we are unaware of any such

holiday for atheists. Just when might that holiday be, your Honor?'





The judge said, 'Well, it comes every year on exactly the same

date---April 1st! Since our calendar sets April 1st as 'April Fools

Day,' consider that Psalm 14:1 states, 'The fool says in his heart,

there is no God.' Thus, in my opinion, if your client says there is no

God, then by scripture, he is a fool, and April 1st is his holiday!


Now, have a good day and get out of my courtroom!!

EXCELLENT!!!!

Wow, that's great.  Got a link for that blog?

I think the blog is http://community.myfoxclevland.com/blogs/clevebtch

Quoted Text

Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali: Radical Islam is filling void left by collapse of Christianity in UK
By Martin Beckford, Religious Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 5:11PM BST 28/05/2008



The Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, claimed the "social and sexual" revolution of the 1960s had led to a steep decline in the influence of Christianity over society which church leaders had failed to resist.

He said that in its place, Britain had become gripped by the doctrine of "endless self-indulgence" which had led to the destruction of family life, rising levels of drug abuse and drunkenness and mindless violence on the streets.

The bishop warns that the modern politicians' catchphrases of respect and tolerance will not be strong enough to prevent this collapse of traditional virtues, and said radical Islam is now moving in to fill the void created by the decline of Christianity.

His claims, in an article published in the new political magazine Standpoint, come just days after he accused the Church of England of failing in its duty to convert British Muslims to Christianity.

Dr Nazir-Ali claims in the new article that Britain, previously a "rabble of mutually hostile tribes", would never have become a global empire without the arrival of Christianity.

But he said the Church's influence began to wane during the 1960s, and quotes an academic who blames the loss of "faith and piety among women" for the steep decline in Christian worship.

He says Marxist students encouraged a "social and sexual revolution" to which liberal theologians and Church leaders "all but capitulated".

"It is this situation that has created the moral and spiritual vacuum in which we now find ourselves. While the Christian consensus was dissolved, nothing else, except perhaps endless self-indulgence, was put in its place."

The bishop, who faced death threats earlier this year when he said some parts of Britain had become "no-go areas" for non-Muslims, said Marxism has been exposed as a nonsense but went on: "We are now confronted by another equally serious ideology, that of radical Islamism, which also claims to be comprehensive in scope."

Asking what weapons are available to fight this new "ideological battle", the bishop said the values trumpeted by modern politicians such as "respect, tolerance and good behaviour" are "hardly adequate for the task before us".

"The consequences of the loss of this discourse are there for all to see: the destruction of the family because of the alleged parity of different forms of life together; the loss of a father figure, especially for boys, because the role of fathers is deemed otiose; the abuse of substances (including alcohol); the loss of respect for the human person leading to horrendous and mindless attacks on people."

The bishop added that Christian hospitality has been replaced by the "newfangled and insecurely founded" doctrine of multiculturalism, which has led to immigrants creating "segregated communities and parallel lives".

He said many values respected by society, such as the dignity of human life, equality and freedom, are based on Christian ones. But he warned that without their Christian backbone they cannot exist for ever, and that new belief systems may be based on different values.

"Radical Islamism, for example, will emphasise the solidarity of the umma (worldwide community of the Muslim faithful) against the freedom of the individual.

"Instead of the Christian virtues of humility, service and sacrifice, there may be honour, piety and the importance of 'saving face'."

In an implicit criticism of the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent claim that the adoption of some parts of Islamic law is unavoidable, Dr Nazir-Ali said: "Recognising its jurisdiction in terms of public law is fraught with difficulties precisely because it arises from a different set of assumptions from the tradition of law here."

He said that the Church of England must retain its importance in public life even if it does not remain privileged as the established church.

"It is necessary to understand where we have come from, to guide us to where we are going, and to bring us back when we wander too far from the path of national destiny."

Quoted Text

The bishop warns that the modern politicians' catchphrases of respect and tolerance will not be strong enough to prevent this collapse of traditional virtues, and said radical Islam is now moving in to fill the void created by the decline of Christianity.

Respect and tolerance of Christianity is almost politically incorrect these days. Christianity gets bashed for every little thing they say, do or argue for or against. But yet respect and tolerance of the Islam belief is upheld and protected and accepted, sometimes in the name of 'hate crimes'. So in the end....

It is politically correct to respect and protect the Islam religion.Never to speak a negative word about it.
It is politically correct to bash the Christian religion.
It is politically incorrect to speak of Christian morals or values. And if you do, it is called 'intolerance'.

We aren't even allowed to show the collapse of the twin towers as it may be offensive to the Muslims. :-/