Also sometimes referred to as secular, modern, or humanistic. This is an umbrella term for Protestant denominations, or churches within denominations, that view the Bible as the witness of God rather than the word of God, to be interpreted in its historical context through critical analysis. Examples include some churches within Anglican/Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, and United Church of Christ. There are more than 2,000 Protestant denominations offering a wide range of beliefs from extremely liberal to mainline to ultra-conservative and those that include characteristics on both ends.
|•||Belief in Deity |
Trinity of the Father (God), the Son (Christ), and the Holy Spirit that comprises one God Almighty. Many believe God is incorporeal.
Beliefs vary from the literal to the symbolic belief in Jesus Christ as God's incarnation. Some believe we are all sons and daughters of God and that Christ was exemplary, but not God.
|•||Origin of Universe and Life |
The Bible's account is symbolic. God created and controls the processes that account for the universe and life (e.g. evolution), as continually revealed by modern science.
|•||After Death |
Goodness will somehow be rewarded and evil punished after death, but what is most important is how you show your faith and conduct your life on earth.
|•||Why Evil? |
Most do not believe that humanity inherited original sin from Adam and Eve or that Satan actually exists. Most believe that God is good and made people inherently good, but also with free will and imperfect nature, which leads some to immoral behavior.
Various beliefs: Some believe all will go to heaven, as God is loving and forgiving. Others believe salvation lies in doing good works and no harm to others, regardless of faith. Some believe baptism is important. Some believe the concept of salvation after death is symbolic or nonexistent.
|•||Undeserved Suffering |
Most Liberal Christians do not believe that Satan causes suffering. Some believe suffering is part of God's plan, will, or design, even if we don't immediately understand it. Some don't believe in any spiritual reasons for suffering, and most take a humanistic approach to helping those in need.
|•||Contemporary Issues |
Most churches teach that abortion is morally wrong, but many ultimately support a woman's right to choose, usually accompanied by policies to provide counseling on alternatives. Many are accepting of homosexuality and gay rights.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
America is undergoing the great Darwin re evolution. Do to their survival mechanism kicking in white women across the the nation are heeding Barack Obama's call and are mating with the black man. Our new language will be hip hop. When you place a telephone call an automatic message will be played that states, "If you don't speak hip hop, hang up". Big black ears will listen to your phone calls and you will be fined if you refuse to speak hip hop. Get down white women and welcome to the new world order.
George Davis, the naked former mayoral candidate , was arrested again -- on May Day, no less -- and has reached a scientific conclusion:
"From my field experience with public nudity, I can state that the only people who have emotional problems with public nudity are angry people, excessively authoritarian personalities, and fundamentalist religious nut cases."
Oh, and he thinks Pope John Paul II was a big fan of nudity.
You can read his entire letter after the jump.
Open letter from George Davis:
“I didn’t know that they arrested writers in San Francisco.” said my “homeless” cellmate who didn’t care if he slept on the sidewalk or a county jail cell floor in a city that didn’t care either.
May 1, 2008 was my sixth arrest by police by police count for public nudity to create a Free Body Culture political movement. This was my tenth arrest from a civilian perspective that any time you are in a locked police room, you are under arrest. Since nudity is not a crime in California unless a person is lewd and San Francisco juries tend to be fair and reasonable, the District Attorney has consistently discharged all citations, including this May 1 arrest.
I have to admit to some past ambiguity to my efforts to create a Free Body Culture movement to end the mentally regressive nudity taboo. This time I was arrested for organizing a book signing for my new book, Weapons of Mass Deception. This is clearly a very political book that, besides advocating for a European styled FKK Free Body Culture movement, is highly critical of the San Francisco political machine, the San Francisco mayor, San Francisco Police Department, the American Military-Industrial Complex, the American Prison-Industrial Complex, and other contemporary political issues. Now, clearly, I am being arrested to suppress these ideas.
On a personal level, most people consider me a quiet, polite, slightly intellectual, sometimes funny guy. If there was a line formed of people who didn’t think nudity was a big deal, I could be placed in front of that line. Obviously, my arrests show that I am wrong. This is a big deal.
From my field experience with public nudity, I can state that the only people who have emotional problems with public nudity are angry people, excessively authoritarian personalities, and fundamentalist religious nut cases. In San Francisco, this is at most maybe 2% of the population. Admittedly, these people are squeaky wheels. Are these the people you want to boss you around? Are these the people that you want to dominate the political sphere or your life?
By the way, some of the biggest nudist supporters are thinking religious people like Pope John Paul II.
If you have any critical doubts about the truth of what I have written, I hope you take efforts to learn more about nudism and the nudity taboo. I plan to add a forum page to the Internet site, www.freebodyculture.com. In fact, the first topic I would like to put up would be the answer to the question, “What harm would befall a child who saw a nude adult?” I don’t have an intelligent answer other than “none”. To contribute to the forum, email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
I plan to return to Fisherman’s Wharf on Wednesday, May 7, 2008 and thereafter to the Southeast corner of Beach and Taylor by the statue of St. Francis from noon-3, weather and no schedule conflicts permitting, to continue work on educating people on the FKK Free Body Culture movement. See you there.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
July 1, 2008
B. Hussein Obama has it in for America's evangelicals. That is evident in his anathema of evangelical leader Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family.
Evangelicals stand at the direct opposite of B. Hussein's creed. He is a moral relativist. That is, for B. Hussein there are no moral absolutes.
To state it in other terms, B. Hussein defines morality by "situation ethics." That twosome was quite popular among liberals a few years ago; the term has since faded out as a frequency. However, it means that the specific situation governs the ethic of that situation.
For example, if a female concludes that her situation would be better served by slaying her womb infant, then her ethic is pure in having an abortion. There is no biblical absolute standing in her way.
Consequently, B. Hussein who believes in situation ethics supports killing womb babies. He is a prime celebrity among abortion enthusiasts. He goes so far as to aggressively support post-birth abortion.
Further, B. Hussein is a typical theological liberal and is encouraged nationwide by that religious block. There are denominations based on theological liberalism, the latter in opposition to biblical theology.
Such mainline Protestant denominations include the United Church of Christ (Congregational), Unitarian-Universalist Society and Episcopal Church. There are large segments within Roman Catholicism that are like unto the Protestant theological liberal base.
Evangelicals on the other hand uphold the biblical ethic as set by the Almighty God. Therefore, there is no situation ethics allowance. There is no moral relativism. There is no theological liberalism tolerated.
Evangelicals are theological conservatives, absolutists, adhering only to the Scriptures for their moral definitions.
B. Hussein has belonged to the theologically and politically liberal United Church of Christ, the latter's administration now assertively supporting him in every move he makes.
In addition, B. Hussein was reared by a mother who believed all-religions-are-fine. That is what B. Hussein believes at the forefront of his so-called "faith."
While he claims daily to pray to Jesus, it is the Muslim prophet Jesus who can fit quite conveniently alongside Buddha, Confucius and so forth. B. Hussein's Jesus is not the incarnate deity of the Bible. If he were, B. Hussein would not transgress against Jesus' moral teachings.
While he claims to be "Christian," such is defined in the theologically liberal parlance, not the evangelical, biblical definition.
Add to this that he has Islamic trappings all over his history and mindset. In his book, "Audacity of Hope," B. Hussein states: "I will stand with the Muslims. . ."
Yes, that is written in the context of Muslims coming under various injustices in society.
Therefore, the reality is that if elected to the Oval Office, Muslims within B. Hussein's first week will claim injustices of some sort. With whom then will the new President align himself? He's already told us. It is with the Muslims.
If Muslims go so far as to claim injustices leveled against them by evangelicals, evangelicals will be B. Hussein's immediate enemy while Muslims will be his obvious friend.
Naturally Muslims know that sentence is in his book.
It is underlined in their consciousness. They will hold B. Hussein to it. If he moves away from that declaration, all hell will break loose. B. Hussein knows that. Even while courting evangelicals, B. Hussein knows his Islamic allegiance as stated on paper in his book.
In addition, B. Hussein's father was Muslim and stepfather was a practicing Muslim.
Moreover, B. Hussein has stated in "Dreams of my Father" that "I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites."
And further in that same book: "I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race." This is a confession to his being anti-white and pro-blackism, the latter preached by Jeremiah Wright.
While being pro-blackism, B. Hussein adds to that his pro-Muslim persona.
Now B. Hussein proclaims that he will expand George W. Bush's faith-based programming. And what is that move? It is a move to fool evangelicals in particular for they have much to lose if that program is deleted.
And why did B. Hussein conduct outdoor gospel concerts in the South? To fool evangelicals.
And why does B. Hussein meet cordially with America's evangelical leaders? To fool them.
And he in fact did fool some of them. Take for instance Rick Warran of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California. Warren had B. Hussein speak from his so-called evangelical platform on a Lord's Day.
Wait until B. Hussein gets into the White House. These evangelicals will wish they had stayed true to the traditional evangelical definition of being only biblically aligned, not politically opportunistic.
If B. Hussein gets onto Pennsylvania Avenue, it will be one hell of a nation for evangelicals, for certain.