It doesn’t, thanks.

On another note, here is one of those leftists right now…

http://politiquevert.wordpress.....abeth-may/

Unfortunately for us both, I’m stuck en route to Placentia, Belize, with nothing better to do than harass the poor buggers at The Politic.

“Then I guess we have to take at face value that other things she talked about could have been imagery as well. If you don’t believe in it, why talk about it? If it is not truth, what possible reference could it have to the truth that you ARE trying to communicate?”

That didn’t make sense the first time you said it, and it hasn’t gotten any wiser since then. Are you suggesting that the only who believe wisdom can be drawn from the Bible and applied to real life are Biblical literalists??

“Does that degree have any distinction with reference to the potential legal ramifications the endorsement of her invitation and use of the pulpit suggests? My response is, given historical events, the answer is or would be likely no, had this speaker been a conservative speaker slamming a liberal position.”

That’s not very clear, but if it’s just one of those petulant “Well, the LEFTISTS do it all the time” observations, I think I’ll just let it sit there.

a) There’s nothing particularly odd about a Christian addressing a Christian audience in a Christian setting by using Christian imagery.

Ok.

b) To use Biblical imagery does not imply an acceptance of its literal or historical truth.

Then I guess we have to take at face value that other things she talked about could have been imagery as well. If you don’t believe in it, why talk about it? If it is not truth, what possible reference could it have to the truth that you ARE trying to communicate?

c) An invited sermonist is not necessarily uttering Church doctrine, and does not speak for a Church to the same degree as an ordained bishop.

Does that degree have any distinction with reference to the potential legal ramifications the endorsement of her invitation and use of the pulpit suggests? My response is, given historical events, the answer is or would be likely no, had this speaker been a conservative speaker slamming a liberal position.

a) There’s nothing particularly odd about a Christian addressing a Christian audience in a Christian setting by using Christian imagery.

b) To use Biblical imagery does not imply an acceptance of its literal or historical truth.

c) An invited sermonist is not necessarily uttering Church doctrine, and does not speak for a Church to the same degree as an ordained bishop.

Those were my points. They arise directly from and respond to your original post.

A swing and a miss.

And you’ll make sure to let me know when you stop beating your wife, right? Thanks for coming out. Nothing like winning an argument by pretending your opponent isn’t saying anything.

If you do somehow find anything that says an invited sermonist is speaking on behalf of a church with the same authority as a bishop, do let me know, won’t you?

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/aug/04081002.html

Quote:
“should their church’s become involved in “partisan” political activity during the then-upcoming 2004 federal election they would risk losing their tax-exempt status.

According to the federal agency, to avoid being ‘partisan’ means to not address issues on which the competing political parties have opposing views. Dawna Lynn Labonté, a media relations officer for the federal Minister of National Revenue, told LifeSiteNews.com that not only would churches be penalized for telling congregants to vote for a certain party or candidate, they would also be penalized for coming out strongly on an issue on which the parties were opposed, such as abortion or same-sex ‘marriage’.” (Emphasis mine)

Now, would you or would you not say that a church body that invites a guest to come in and expound on “issues which the competing political parties have opposing views” to their congregation constitutes becoming “involved”? She was not a member of the congregation. She was an invited guest, which strongly implies endorsement of her viewpoint.

And I KNOW that if a Canadian church invited Fred Phelps to deliver a guest sermon, Balbulican would be falling all over himself to remind everyone that Phelps was not an ordained spokesperson for that church.

Oh brother . . .

Umm…this statement makes no logical sense at all. Sorry. She suggested that humanity had not learned the “lessons of the Garden of Eden”. I fail to see what your elaborate linguistic contortions have to do with that fairly straightforward assertion.

Gosh, you keep pulling out all these interesting theological points that are utterly new to me. And I thought I knew something about Christianity. Silly me.

Care to share your canonical authority for this statement, Reverend Edwards? Or is this another tenet of that very special “Christianity in its truest sense”, vouchsafed only to yourself?

On the contrary. there were many cries for delisting churches after the Catholic Bishop Henry spoke up vocally during the debate.

Bishop Henry attempted to use his position as a member of the clergy to threaten politicians as well as (some read it) demanding the law be used in particularly ideologically violent ways.

There is a huge difference between the expression of an opinion, and attempting to coerce people by means of threats – physical or spiritual.

It is quite arguable that Bishop Henry was stepping over that line, and using church resources to do so. (Let us not forget the privileged status that Churches enjoy in this country with respect to taxation and numerous other legalities)

Since any other political lobby is, under Canadian tax law, ineligible for tax exempt (charitable) status, it is quite arguable that churches which act in the capacity of political lobby organizations should be subject to the same rules – at least to the degree that church resources are used in the lobbying endeavor.

I am perfectly happy to concede that she may have been using the garden of eden as imagery. The question then becomes, what is global warming an image for? You haven’t made a case for differentiating one “image” from the other from her words. If one is mythical, then both are. If one is not mythical, then neither are, at least in terms of understanding basic English grammar and syntax if not in truth.

Ah. I guess I missed the step where Elizabeth May was appointed to the rank of ordained spokesperson for the Church. Got a link?

Well, at least you’re acknowledging that you’re generalizing. That’s a good first step.

So. Elizabeth May, a Christian, speaking to Christians in a Christian setting, uses Christian imagery and language to illustrate her point.

Yes, I can certainly see why that astonishes you.

When you say nutty things, you attract nutty people. May must be trying to win back Kevin Potvin’s loyalty.

Now THAT, my friends, is a straw man. I don’t know of a single Christian that espouses that idea, INCLUDING Kathy Shaidle.

This ain’t the dark ages, people. There is no holy jihad instituted by Jesus Christ.

Shrug. Some “left wing politicians” are no doubt against what you personally define as Christianity “in its truest sense”, as are some “right wing” politicians. As long as you’re personally selecting the definition of “Christianity in the truest sense”, you can, of course, assert anything all. I personally think the version of “Christianity” espoused by hatemongers like Kate Shaidle is as far from Christ’s vision as you can get, but I don’t make the mistake of thinking “right wingers”, as a class, share her sad, sick version.

“She uses “the garden of eden” in in a manner consistent with being held as an actual truth, verified by science.”

She also uses the phrase in a manner consistent with being held as a symbolic or mythical spiritual teaching. Don’t be silly.

As for my “preferred lens”, I guess I’m playing the odds. My sense is that most Christians don’t believe in the literal truth of a Garden of Eden. You’re interpreting her words that way because, I supposed, it’s a mockable belief. Unfortunately, it’s not borne out by the article. So sorry.

Also, it is a matter of record that Elections Canada gave some very specific threats to many Christian organizations and churches during the last two election campaigns with regards to endorsing candidates or parties, and the possible loss of charitable status if they failed to comply.

Look it up.

And as for what a “true leftist” would do, your statement makes the exact point. As long as the Christian remains in the closet, everything is fine. But one thing that has been made clear, any man or woman of faith who runs for office, leftist opponents will trot out the “Will they check their faith at the door, or will they IMPOSE A THEOCRACY???” question to knock them down. The seed of doubt will be used against them.

It doesn’t happen every time but it happens enough to generalize about.

And any true ‘leftist’ would not have a problem with a religious person in government, so long as they did not allow their beliefs to direct government policy.

She uses “the garden of eden” in in a manner consistent with being held as an actual truth, verified by science. To use it in conjunction with references to “proven science” implies both have equal veracity. She did not suggest one was fiction and one was not. There was no differentiation as far as the article is concerned (I wasn’t there so I didn’t hear the whole sermon).

Or were you suggesting that her references to global warming were in fact references to a symbolic literary device meant to pose as a euphemism for the end of the world, a common myth amongst all people groups and religions? After all, according to you, if one is simply a myth, so too could the other be.

Or are you simply perhaps reading this story through your preferred lens of understanding instead of through the lens of the speaker, whose communication paradigm can be the only source for deriving her intended meaning?

Shane’s mock astonishment relies for its impact on a silly cliche: that “lefties” (whatever they are) are somehow anti-Christian. Thus his chortle at the fact that Elizabeth May believes what other Christians believe. To Shane, this seems to underline some contradiction: to those who recognize the straw man, it points out how little many of conservative friends seem to know about the diversity of Christianity.

Shane, did you read anything in your source that suggested Ms. May’s view of the Garden of Eden is any more literal than the belief of any Christian who sees it as a deeply symbolic moral story of our origins rather than a literal, historical account?