.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Bully Pulpit

The term "bully pulpit" stems from President Theodore Roosevelt's reference to the White House as a "bully pulpit," meaning a terrific platform from which to persuasively advocate an agenda. Roosevelt often used the word "bully" as an adjective meaning superb/wonderful. The Bully Pulpit features news, reasoned discourse, opinion and some humor.

Thursday, June 22, 2006

RE: RE: Sexist Trinity?

"Lover, Beloved, Love" is a pretty good way to explain it to those who may not get it otherwise.

No, it isn't. It is confusion. It is more of Satan's whispering. "Sexism" is a stupid construct created by feminists to browbeat gamma males. The phrase conveys nothing of the truth of the situation. It is also very subtly anti-trinitarian. If you didn't get it before you heard the phrase, you are actually farther from the truth after hearing it.

...because the traditional phrasing promotes men as superior to women.

As far as Christianity is concerned, they are, so what?

Presbyterian Legislative Committee chair, Nancy Olthoff, says the decision doesn't alter the church's theological position, but merely "provides an educational resource to enhance the spiritual life of our membership."

I have some bad news for you, Nancy. God's Word is not subject to committee review. You might want to reflect on that for a while.

6 Comments:

Blogger RT Miller said...

This misogynist version of Christianity that Steve seems to be promoting just doesn't make any sense (& shouldn't) to any body with half of an operational brain. Ignorant (willfully or otherwise) individuals who would like to make "biblical" excuses for their sexist beliefs can selectively choose a number of verses from the Hebrew & Christian bibles that would seem to support their claims that men are superior to women -- as well as host of other bigoted positions-- in the eyes of "Christianity".

If it wasn't so sad it would be hilarious.

Let's see, a motley collection of documents that was assemebled a couple of millinea of ago (translated a few hundred years ago) is completely infallible and totally relevant in everyway for a person living in today's world? (That is unless it tells you give all of your worldly posessions to the less fortunate, etc., of course.) There are so many verses that for some reason or another get ignored b/c "the times have changed," but other ones just keep right on being cited and exploited by hordes of the ignorant & mean spirited as justification for their evil, ignorant ways.

If you were planning a party would you use an etiquette guide from the 1st century BC? Maybe one from the time of the Kingdom of Israel, or one from 16th century Europe? Get real, of course not. So then why would one base the foundation of gender roles in today's society on texts that are thousands of years old?

Unfortunately there is but on sad, sad answer to this last question: IGNORANCE. Ignorance is on the rise not only in this country, but around the world. When i hear whackos like Muqtada al Sadr and Steve Brenneis spew hateful, fundamental religious BS i think i know why.

Thursday, June 22, 2006 9:49:00 AM  
Blogger Andy W. Rogers said...

One could easily say you're spewing hateful BS yourself... Don't get yourself so worked up.

Thursday, June 22, 2006 10:02:00 AM  
Blogger RT Miller said...

Any real Christian should be worked up when they read the stuff Steve says "in the name of Christianity." You're not offended? Are you a Christian? Do you think that Christian doctrine includes male superiority over women?

Ignorance is a bitch.....

Thursday, June 22, 2006 10:13:00 AM  
Blogger Steve Brenneis said...

Tucker doesn't know how to spew anything but hateful BS. And BS, it is. While he was only half paying attention in his religion classes, trying to see around the alcohol and pot induced haze of the previous night's partying, he heard something about some first century documents and how they came to be used in the church and how some people came to take a legalistic view of them. Being unable to actually think for himself, he applies that process to all Christians, while at the same time convincing himself that he has moral authority to re-invent Christianity as he sees fit.

In all honesty, I used to try the same kind of simple-minded and cowardly arguments myself, but then I grew up and learned the truth. I keep a hopeful spot for Tucker that the same will happen for him, but believe me when I tell you, it's not an easy place to keep.

Thursday, June 22, 2006 10:32:00 AM  
Blogger Andy W. Rogers said...

What is a "real Christian"??? One that agrees with you???

I'm not offended by what Steve said... Likewise, I'm not offended by what Nancy Olthoff of the Presbyterian Legislative Committee said either. Life's too short to get worked up about it all.

I consider myself a Christian and I love women... With that said, I haven't heard women get offended by saying, "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" either.

Thursday, June 22, 2006 8:58:00 PM  
Blogger RT Miller said...

A real Christian is one who cares more about love than about doctrine.

A real Christian is one who truly cares about the well being of his fellow man. (& i don't mean telling someone that you truly are disgusted by that you're praying for them.)

A true Christian has faith in God, but also has faith in the teachings of Jesus. Good deeds alone cannot save your soul -- but faith alone cannot save you either.

A real Christian will give a beggar not just his coat, but his shirt too.

A real chrisitian is an egalitarian -- they know that all races, sexes, & religions are equal before the eyes of God.

A real Christian acknowledges & repents for their own sins instead of chastising others for their sins.

A real Christian strives for wisdom, understanding, & "to love their neighbor as their self."

To be a "real Christian" is more than a tall task, and there are very, very few of us that live up to it.

I, myself, am but one of the many who cannot. I do hope for a day when all of us who do consider ourselves Christian can believe AND BEHAVE as such.

Friday, June 23, 2006 8:32:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home