This site has been approved by Kim Jong Un so please don't hack us.

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

Piers Morgan: Let's Amend the Bible to Endorse Gays

This would be hilarious if I didn't think this kind of thinking was epidemic among Christians.

Christian Culture News reports:

CNN’s Piers Morgan, who has described himself as a Christian, apparently thinks the Bible, like the U.S. Constitution, needs to be rewritten to get rid of passages condemning homosexuality and those describing marriage as exclusively heterosexual … so that Christians will some how change their minds to embrace same-sex marriage.

Morgan’s comment reportedly came during an interview with Saddleback Pastor Rick Warren aired on CNN on Christmas Eve, according to Twitchy.
Morgan clearly hasn't thought through anything about his religion which he professes to be Christianity.

Here's the thing. We've seen what liberals have done to the Constitution when they made it a "living breathing" document. It means we can all do whatever the heck we want and no institution shall stand against our every whim. To do the same thing to the Bible is the destruction of Christianity.

Christianity has commandments, not amendments.

Christianity is not supposed to mirror secularism folks. It's the antidote. Our natures are fallen. Our world is broken. Secularism wants to play with the pieces of a broken world. Christianity allows us to build.

*subhead*Commandments.*subhead*

Your Ad Here

26 comments:

Evi L. Bloggerlady said...

Piers would have difficulty building with Legos.

WAFMC said...

And while we're at it, let's do away with the politically correct "translations" of Holy Scripture. Those who not so innocently promote gender inclusive language assume that the person in the pew is too dumb to figure out that "mankind", for example, refers to all people. They tinker with Holy Scripture and thus neuter the word of God in an attempt to spread various ideologies foreign to Christianity. Furthermore, it's the job of the priest-homilist, not some revisionist pseudo-scholars, to explain the meaning of Scripture.

The grey language should be purged from our lectionaries.

Maureen said...

I am a woman who agrees with WAFMC. I hate that that we can't sing "God rest ye merry gentlemen" , etc anymore. And other hymns where "man" has been replaced with us. What's wrong with the classics?

Faultline USA said...

Excellent article! I agree with Evi. The man is Lego challenged!

Elizabeth said...

Time for another petition to oust old Piers?

ClassicBecky said...

A priest I know told me the funniest story about amending Scripture to include feminine gender words: He was saying Mass for a liberal order of nuns, and one of the sisters did the reading, from Corinthians by St. Paul. She said "When I was a child I spake as a child ... but when I became a WOMAN, I put away childish things." Father said that considering that St. Paul was speaking about himself, and was a man, that this must be the first example of a transgender situation in Church history! I thought I'd die laughing. Trying to be politically correct can have unintentionally hilarious consequences!

Matthew Roth said...

WAFMC,I dislike the new translation of the Gloria for that reason. 'People' doesn't fit the melody...

ClassicBecky said...

Matthew, you make me remember when the liturgy was changed from Latin to English, and all the musicians were so upset because English just didn't fit the beautiful Latin hymn music!

tomperna.org said...

Why don't we just change all of history for them too? Let's see...Christopher Columbus came to America in the Nina, the Pinta, and the Rosie O'Donnell.

Mack Hall, HSG said...

Tomperna.org has something going -- a desperate football play would be an Ellen Degeneres Pass.

Unknown said...

I think everyone should make their own bible, leaving out the bits they don't like or find boring.

They could then read the whole thing in less than two minutes every day.

It would certainly stop those horrendous annual bible reading plans where they treat the Word of God as if it were simply something to be finished and then bragged about.

La Claire said...

Thomas Jefferson actually physically cut out the parts of the Bible he agreed with and made his own Bible!!!!!

Dolores Gray said...

I saw that interview -- Piers actually said that he is Catholic, which makes it all the more disturbing.

Unknown said...

@Dolores Gray

...but makes it all the more understandable :)

Greg said...

This is the way French Revolution made 'national church' with 'bishops' being elected by everyone, even if he was an atheist. This is the way China has its own national church. We have a choice - either we want to be good, and then we grow our conscience, and listen to the Word of God (and Catholics recognizing who the Church is listen to Her,) or we want to do what we want to do and request calling us good by treating the Church as pupil, and teaching Her how to worship us.

Leticia said...

Piers needs to join the Anglican Church. Apparently they found a quote in the Bible which endorsed homosexual activity.

Wilson Orihuela said...

Hello brother and sister Catholics!!! I'm reaching out to all of you today to invite you to check out Vericast.net. Its the Hardest Hitting Catholic Podcast On or Off the Internet. Listen in as Tim Haines and I tackle the tough moral and Catholic issues of the day and hammer the heretics with the Truth of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church. Remember it's Vericast.net. Hope to see you all there!!!!!

Rationalist1 said...

You don't have to change the bible to endorse gays you just have to ignore those parts of the Bible that calls them an abomination and calls for their stoning. Most Christians no longer want people who engage in homosexual activity to be out to death so Christianity is half way there. It was done with done with witches (a previously group persecuted because of Biblical injunctions) but now most Christians while not accepting their preposterous beliefs, accept their right to them and to practice them.

Sophia's Favorite said...

@Rationalist1: In polite company, one doesn't make quite that ostentatious a display of one's unlettered cave-dwelling ignorance. Quite seriously, are you commenting by dictation? Who's reading you this blog? Because you give no evidence of actual functioning literacy.

Sadly necessary correction #1, witches were not "persecuted". Witchcraft is an intrinsically criminal act, since it is, by definition, "unlawful use of spiritual power". Innocent people were falsely accused of this crime, people were not unjustly punished for committing it. Witches don't have a belief, witchcraft is a perversion of some other belief, within the same culture. Did you think Wicca was real?

Sadly necessary correction #2, the main factor in witch-hunts was the Renaissance resurgence of Roman Law, not the Bible. Or did you not know that witchcraft was a capital crime under every Roman emperor except Alexander Severus? Pagans are witch-hunters; meanwhile, the Catholic Church, in the Councils of Frankfurt and Paderborn, declared it heresy to make witchcraft accusations—those two councils being called by Charlemagne's request, during his campaign against Germanic paganism.

PS. Number one fine English you talk, big chief queen she English same-same.

Rationalist1 said...

Sophia - I'm not sure what I said to garner such a vitriolic personal attack. I can only assume it's the way you react when someone questions or voices an opinion that differs from you.

Perhaps if you take issue with the witch analogy, perhaps I should have offered as a way to respond to the condemnation of gays in the Bible, the same reading we take to those sections of Scripture (particularly 1 Corinthians) that require women to be silent in churches and to have no teaching authority over men. We essentially ignore them today.

As to the witch allegation a re-reading of my post would reveal I said Christians and although your response may reveal that you think the only Christians are Catholics I was not talking exclusively about Catholic approach to witches such as exemplified in papal bull Summis Desiderantes Affectibus but how most Christians has stopped hunting down and persecuting witches.

Rationalist1 said...

Sophia - I'm not sure what I said to garner such a vitriolic personal attack. I can only assume it's the way you react when someone questions or voices an opinion that differs from you.

Perhaps if you take issue with the witch analogy, perhaps I should have offered as a way to respond to the condemnation of gays in the Bible, the same reading we take to those sections of Scripture (particularly 1 Corinthians) that require women to be silent in churches and to have no teaching authority over men. We essentially ignore them today.

As to the witch allegation a re-reading of my post would reveal I said Christians and although your response may reveal that you think the only Christians are Catholics I was not talking exclusively about Catholic approach to witches such as exemplified in papal bull Summis Desiderantes Affectibus but how most Christians has stopped hunting down and persecuting witches.

Sophia's Favorite said...

1. Sophia's Favorite. Get my name right or don't say it, Rationalizer1.

2. Again. Witches are not a religion. They do not exist. Never have. People who do not exist, cannot be persecuted. However, the people who believe that they exist, do not conceive of them as a separate demographic, but as compatriots who commit a crime—of which they falsely accuse their neighbors. The Latin, Hebrew, and Navajo words for "witch" all literally translate to "poisoner".

3. Catholics do not base their opposition to homosexuality on the quaint ritual-purity code of a certain tribe of Bronze Age subsistence farmers who never had the arch. We base it on reason, as Socrates did—surely you knew that one of the unusual traits of his followers was in disapproving Greek homosexuality ("the poisonous bite of the tarantula", as he called it).

This is what my "vitriolic personal attack" stemmed from. You don't know what the word "witch" actually meant, and you assume Catholics have the same attitude to Scripture as Protestants—then you urge us to shift from being Fundamentalist ones to being Liberal ones. I don't like ignorant people who start pontificating on matters they know not a damn thing about.

Rationalist1 said...

Sorry about the name. Feel free to shorten mine to Rat.

Witches are certainly a religion. Pope Innocent VIII issued a papal bull against witches and magicians in 1484 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summis_desiderantes ) I know a family who practices Wicca and while I think it's ridiculous they take it quite seriously. Witches exist in the same way as devils exist.

I didn't assume Catholics have the same attitude as Protestants. If you check my original post I said Christianity previously persecuting witches, but now most Christians do not. Both Catholics and Protestants have had a checkered past on treatment of witches with modern persecution mostly on fundamentalist Protestant sects (I believe Gov. Sarah Palin's denomination was big on that)

I suggest you get some perspective. If this is how you react when someone differs in opinion from you, then you need to deal with it.

Sophia's Favorite said...

Wicca is a fake religion founded in the 1950s by a British government worker named Gerald Gardner. It is based on the debunked theory of the 1921 book "Witch-Cult of Europe". If you think that religion has any historical reality, do you also think Madagascar is the end of a sunken continent called Lemuria and that light-waves propagate through a medium called aether? Those are other theories from the 1920s that have since been debunked.

"Witchcraft" historically refers to people who gain power to harm their enemies by deliberately violating their own culture's taboos. The Navajo word for the concept is ántiinzhin; the Hopi word is powaka; the Latin is veneficus; the Hebrew is kashaph. How, pray, did the Hopi have a name for something you are claiming is a European minority religion?

That encyclical was written, you will notice, in the Renaissance, when the pagan Roman belief in witchcraft had been re-introduced. The Renaissance also brought back a lot of other nasty Roman habits, like slavery and women as legal minors (medieval women had all the same civil- and property-rights as men, read Regine Pernoud's "Women in the Days of the Cathedrals).

I suggest you grasp this concept: you are not entitled to any opinion founded on false facts. You can react however you like to real facts, but if you form an opinion without reference to reality, you are at best a psychotic, and at worst a liar.

Rationalist1 said...

I finally figured it out, Sophia Favorite. This is a Poe(http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law ). You're a non believer like me who wants to disparage religious people by pretending to be one and acting in such an offensive fashion calling people psychotic, a liar, unlettered cave-dwelling ignorant, functionally illiterate, etc. that people reading it associate religious people with such behavior.

While I can agree with your goal of making people question their religious commitment, I totally disagree with your tactic of impersonating a aggressive mean mouthed believer who lashes with such vitriol out at any criticism. The goal doesn't justify your means.

K.C. Thomas said...

there are many Morgans who call themselves christian or catholic but do not have an indepth knowledge of christianity. They think Christ is just another person like Obama or Brad Pitt. Let us pray that they are blessed with more wisdom to seek truth and willingness to accept truth.

Post a Comment