Last week, after a flurry of debates and protests broke out over Barack Obama’s selection of prominent megachurch pastor Rick Warren as the invocation deliverer at his inauguration, openly gay singer Melissa Etheridge and her partner stepped into the ring in hopes of avoiding another “reverse smear-the-queer.”
“At times, it seems that the media presents us with target after target to smear, as if to say to us, ‘THIS IS THE GUY HOLDING YOU BACK!! GO GIT 'IM!!!’" wrote Tammy Lynn Michaels in an edited version of her blog last week.
“And it does seem that my lovely gay family is so bruised and battered and ready to fight back that we attack and deem someone anti-gay, and ready to smear, simply when they don't want the word ‘marriage’ brought into our gay ceremonies,” she added.
But Michaels, who also goes by Etheridge’s surname, said she is starting to think that there are “well-meaning and loving people” who are not at all anti-gay but simply don't want the word “marriage” used to describe the relationship between two individuals of the same gender.
“The word marriage is a religious, holy, word that people who go to church on Sundays are told belongs to them. Like yarmulke, menorah or matzo,” she wrote, referring to other terms held sacred by people of faith.
Michael’s comments follow Etheridge’s recent meeting with Southern California pastor Rick Warren, who was the keynote speaker at an event the award-winning singer was also invited to perform at.
Though Etheridge said she had only heard of Warren after “the man we (the gay community) helped get elected seemingly invited a gay-hater to address the world at his inauguration,” she decided to have her manager reach out to Warren and say "In the spirit of unity I would like to talk to him.”
“He (Warren) explained in very thoughtful words that as a Christian he believed in equal rights for everyone,” Etheridge recalled in an article that appeared last week in The Huffington Post.
“He believed every loving relationship should have equal protection. He struggled with proposition 8 because he didn't want to see marriage redefined as anything other than between a man and a woman,” she continued.
“When we met later that night, he entered the room with open arms and an open heart. We agreed to build bridges to the future.”
Like her spouse of 5 years, Etheridge called for understanding from the gay community.
“Sure, there are plenty of hateful people who will always hold on to their bigotry like a child to a blanket. But there are also good people out there, Christian and otherwise that are beginning to listen,” she wrote.
“Maybe in our anger, as we consider marches and boycotts, perhaps we can consider stretching out our hands. Maybe instead of marching on his church, we can show up en mass and volunteer for one of the many organizations affiliated with his church that work for HIV/AIDS causes all around the world.”
Michaels, meanwhile, went as far as suggesting that the gay community not fight so hard for the word “marriage” but instead for the rights that come with it.
“Let's say I am wearing a baseball cap,” she wrote to explain her point. “Now what if I want to call it a yarmulke? You know, it's basically the same thing, but one is missing the sun visor. I don't call my caps yarmulkes because that is a religious name for a hat that is worn by religious people. Continue >>
RSS
is it a faux paux to use three puns? should i not have hogged all the good puns?
oh you guys just keep caking it on. but you batter be careful or you'll get your just desserts!
Doing puns here is such a cake walk....
jester, 'bout time, but next time get your own pun! LOL!
sorry, i thought that last joke was the icing on the cake. sorry.
jester, I have not know you to ice a good pun war before.
lets all sing!!!!
my bonnie lies over the ocean...
my bonnie lies over the sea!
my bonnie lies over the ocean!
o bring back my bonnie to me.
c'mon, don't be shy. join in on the chorus!
briiiiing back
briiiiing back
or bring back my bonnie to me to me!
Bonnie,
"Prophet, it is outright LYING to say that I said that. It is YOUR opinion, not mine."
So now you're stretching it too, I see...
The more I think about the same-sex marriage issue, the more I realize that churches should not be doing job of the government. Here is a sensible article from Oregon: http://www.dailytidings.com/2009/0105/stories/0105_marriage.php
If we could see clearly, we could get to a point at which Saddleback Church, for instance, would not perform gay marriages, and First Congregational Church of Ashland would.
Well, one has to earn a crust somehow.
Yeah, those pun wars are so crumby.
Maybe ruby wants to have cake and eat it?
Scones instead of stones, eh!!! It took my wife 2 hours on line to find a good recipe for Devonshire cream but BOY was it good. :)
At least Ruby hasn't been subjected to one of the pun wars yet....
Seems to me that things have become a little heated, when I'm sure nobody really wants that....I have an idea, it always works..everybody goes away and has a nice hot cup of tea(milk first), and a biscuit..works every time, now don't you feel better.
Sorry if you or anyone else was insulted. I wanted clarification, but I didn't want words put into my mouth that I did not say (That to me is lying. I don't know what you call it.).
I guess it's OK to insult me, even though you don't know me, either.
Now, now Bonnie...you're acting like Clyde....
Your statement "Wow. Ramifications of hate crimes bills? Are you saying that it's OK to commit hate crimes against homosexuals?"
So far off legal and Christian logic that we were trying to be nice about it. Your statement made it sound like Christians would actually be interested in committing crimes against people. Please have a clue what you are posting about before you insult other people. You might want to get to know some of the folks here before you make too many judgements like saying someone is lying.
Prophet, it is outright LYING to say that I said that. It is YOUR opinion, not mine.
Hi Believer, quickly passing through before I go to work.
They showed a number of clips but the one song thay showed in its entirety we Witches Promise. Ian Andersaon was interviewed, he looks quite normal these days no staring eyes if you get my drift. They also talked about the albums Aqualung and Thick As A Brick. Never into them myself but might give these two a listern.
Genesis where lumpedin with prog and whilst there may be an overlap I have never had them in quite the same bracket.
Steve
Bonnie,
But it's really not stretching anything. That's where the homosexuals are trying to get with their hate crime agenda. They're trying to make it so that if you speak out against homosexuality, it will be a hate crime.
Quote Prophet: "Now I may have stretched it a little..."
More than a little, as that is not at all what I meant.
You have every right to your opinion, whether I agree with it or not, but in the future, please avoid "stretching my words a little" and then using them against me to make your point.
Did you guys know that Jethro Tull were part of a Christian album. No kidding!!! When Kerry Livgren from Kansas got saved he did an album called "Seeds of Change" and 2 guys from Jethro Tull (buddies of his) were listed in the credits. I'm not sure what they did but Kerry doesn't really sing. He only sang on one song and that was a duet (kind of strange for his own album).
steveh20, did they perform live or were they past performances since Ian Anderson has got to be somewhat old, but if they were live did he do his one leg performance?
mtg, but as I said if same-sex marriage were to become the law of the land or the state I am living in I would still disagree with it, but at the same time I would respect the right of same-sex couples to get married. Where I would draw the line however is if ministers were required to perform those marriages in spite of their spiritual beliefs or if churches were forced to allow their sanctuaries to be used for these services even though they as a church were opposed to same-sex marriage for biblical reasons. But until they become legal I will continue to do everything legally possible to keep them from becoming legal and do it in a way that shows no disrespect or violence toward those who support it becoming legal.
i agree with proph and dp. all hate crimes do is let people know that certain ethnicities and lifestyle choices are more important than other people. i think equality is what we need. hold on.....we've already got it! if you kill someone you're a murderer, whether you or the victim is white, black, fuscia, ecru, straight, gay, quasi-semi-bi-tri sexual, male, female, other....
"If you have not come across BBC Player yet, try it, its great."
It only works in Britian!!! (It says so when I tried it. Copyright stuff and all.) :(
"Are you saying that it's OK to commit hate crimes against homosexuals?"
The laws are already there without the hate crime laws. Hate crimes happen to many people of all races, beliefs, sexual preferences, religious beliefs and the list goes on.
For example, setting a fire on the back steps of a Morman ward is a hate crime. Do you hear the "we need hate crime laws" people wanting to add that? Of course not. Don't be silly. Hate crime laws aren't about stopping hate. It's about targeting it. Many want churches to lose their tax status if they preach that gay is not OK as "hate speech" because they HATE THE CHURCH!!! Hate crime bills have never been about stopping hate so let's not kid ourselves.
believer: "mtg, depending on why you're opposed to gambling wouldn't you do your part to keep it from spreading such as to allow casino gambling in a state or region?"
Yes, I would - and I did. But the lottery (one of the worst forms of gambling) took hold in my state anyway. Now, poor whites and blacks and others, instead of buying food and milk, are sending middle-class white students (mostly) to the state's universities and colleges. If I were a cynic, I would say that racist, elite, old white men (like some in my family, actually) had actually hatched up this lottery as one more way to keep the lower classes low.
That's a very different thing from two people (of whatever sex) choosing to commit to one another (with hopes - not always realized, I expect, of being completely faithful to one another). Marrisge is actually quite a conservative concept. We should applaud gay people's wanting to commit to a faithful relationship.
"Hi DP, first of all, the new Dr will be this gentleman"
:)
bonnie,
You said "Wow. Ramifications of hate crimes bills? Are you saying that it's OK to commit hate crimes against homosexuals?"
Now I may have stretched it a little, but as I pointed out, hate crime bill would make homosexuals worth more than anyone else. Or a black man. I get so fed up when a black man kills a white man and it's a "gang initiation" or just "a murder". But when a white man kills a black man? All hell breaks loose and it's this big huge hate crime. What's up with that? So under the hate crime, if a homosexual kills a heterosexual, the gay man can be tried under the hate crime bill? You really think that would happen? No. Because they would cast the gay man as the victim regardless of what happens.
Quote Prophet: "You equated speaking out against homosexuality to a hate crime."
I did not. Show me where I did that!
Quote believer: "bonnie, so then the testimonies we hear from both men and women who were homosexual but are no longer homosexual, they are either lying to us or themselves or both?"
Yes.
bonnie, so then the testimonies we hear from both men and women who were homosexual but are no longer homosexual, they are either lying to us or themselves or both?
mtg, depending on why you're opposed to gambling wouldn't you do your part to keep it from spreading such as to allow casino gambling in a state or region? And that is what I feel my responsibility is as a Christian toward those issues that are contrary to God's Word.
DP
Its here on BBC Player
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00gqgtw/b00gqfsv/Doctor_Who_Confidential_The_Ten_Doctors/
If you have not come across BBC Player yet, try it, its great.
Believer
Thought about you yesterday, BBC 4 had a night of prog rock, lots of Jethro Tull.
Steve
Hi DP, first of all, the new Dr will be this gentleman
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7808697.stm
No'I don't know of him either, try to watch the Dr Who confidentil announcing him if they show it on BBC America, I'll be suprised if they don't.
Just one other comment, yes, space time is curved, thats a fact of which there are experiments to prove it, its the reason the planets orbit the Sun. Mass(the Sun) curves spacetime, the curve then directs mass(the planets)in their velocities.
BW
Steve
Bonnie,
I know what you mean. I enjoy spending time with my family as well.
Now, to the subject. You equated speaking out against homosexuality to a hate crime. Those who killed Matthew should have been charged with murder. As far as saying that someone who killed another person because the murderer did it while robbing them is different than someone who murdered a homosexual, a african-american, or a jewis absurd. That is saying that a homosexual is worth more than anyone else. Sorry. All murders ends a life that shouldn't have been...regardless of why.
And as for Matthew Shephard...it was indeed a tragedy that should not of happened. But those who killed him were not Christians. And Christians are being murdered by the thousands every day, and no one seems interested in putting a stop to that.
mtgburrell, thanks for the link.
Quote: Prophet
"Wow...way to backpeddle. First you call it hate crimes then you call it prejudice.
"I wonder who it was that did all those violent attacks on the LDS group after proposition 8 passed? Could it be the gay community? Were any of them charged with hate crimes? Most definitely not.
"Now if the tables had been turned....wow what a difference that would make. I think it's pathetic that the gay community tries to play the martyr, when they are the aggressor."
Wow, you folks have been busy. Way too much to reply to, as I am enjoying time with my family. But since Prophet, you are putting words into my mouth, I'll respond to you.
I agree that attacking the church in retaliation for the prop 8 vote was not the smartest thing the gay community has ever done. It just gives more fuel to your "the church is the real victim here" fire. And yes, there should have been more arrests than there were.
To believe something based on ignorance, hearsay, and myths rather than fact is prejudice.
Hate crimes that should be punished to the fullest extent of the law refer to things like the beating death of Matthew Shepherd ten years ago.
Show me where I ever said otherwise.
http://www.matthewshepard.org/site/PageServer?pagename=mat_Matthews_Life
And Daniel Paul, speaking of facts, no one has been able to scientifically prove that homosexuality is a choice. There is no known "cause." But for the real proof, ask people who are gay, and the overwhelming majority of them will tell you that they were born that way. Do you believe the "experts" in the various Christian counceling organizations or do you believe someone who lives it?
Anyone who claims to have been "cured" of homosexuality, when being honest with themselves will realize that they are still gay. They have simply denied their natural attractions and become celibate or married someone of the opposite sex whom they are incapable of loving the way they ought to love and be loved.
Every person has needs. Every person wants to be loved. I believe God wants this for all of His children.
believer, that's a good and thoughtful answer. Of course, as the Christian that you consider yourself to be, it is your duty to speak out against anything that you think goes against the Word of God. You do, of course, realize that there are many Christians today who do not read that Word the same way you do. Add these people as voters to the voters who do not even know the Bible (or care about it) and soon many of the hot buttons ballot items that some Christians are "personally opposed to" (abortion, gay marriage, polygamy, etc.) will be legalized and will become the norm. I, for instance, am personally opposed to gambling, but I cannot stop others who want to gamble. I am opposed to abortion, but I cannot stop a woman who wants to end her pregnancy. I am not opposed to gay marriage, and I suppose I'd better get used to polygamy. It is surely coming back. (And just as surely, for most of history, the standard for marriage has not been one-man-one-woman. It has been one-man-many women. Who knows, nowadays there may be more one-woman-many-men marriages. Neither polygamous plan will ever appeal to me, but I have no authority over other people's marriages.)
Another factor: Courts, both state and federal will in the future tend to follow religious principles less and less. It's inevitable.
Back to my point (which I've almost lost), you certainly must keep making your point of view known, supporting scriptural "norms," as you understand scripture.
(If I had not taken a dessert break mid-way through my comment, I might have been able to say all I had to say in about four sentences.)
mtg, while I can agree that all people should be protected from harassment and violence against them for whatever reason, I cannot agree with legitamizing practices that are contrary to the Word of God and if these practices were legalized I would respect people's right to practice them, but I would still be personally opposed to them. But I also believe our opposition should be voiced and carried out in ways that show respect to all regardless of their views in the matter.
Let's say that at 18 years old I chose to be gay. Shouldn't my government protect my right to choose this? Don't all of us make choices every day for which we expect - even demand - protection under the law? I personally dougbt that gay people have "chosen" their orientation anymore that I chose mine. But they still have a right to be protected by law, especially since our nation is not a theocracy, our common law is not Bible-based (at least, not to that extreme).
steveh20, I very much appreciated your 1:23 PM post, but when my son was in high school they had some speakers who came from a pro-homosexual group who were telling the teens that if they experienced the things you shared that they were clearly homosexual, but like you I do not believe that but see it more as you said a stage in a person's maturing process, but not that all people necessarily go through them. And that's what I also encouraged my son to share with his friends as well.
Steve just take a look at the web sites Narth has what you seem to want plus more. While there may be exception to the rule, which I doubt, it is safe to say in light of the evidence out there that homosexuality is for the most part a product of the way we were brought up. Gods Blessing In Christ Tom
Bonnie
"I don't call that a hate crime. I call it prejudice.'
Wow...way to backpeddle. First you call it hate crimes then you call it prejudice.
I wonder who it was that did all those violent attacks on the LDS group after proposition 8 passed? Could it be the gay community? Were any of them charged with hate crimes? Most definitely not.
Now if the tables had been turned....wow what a difference that would make. I think it's pathetic that the gay community tries to play the martyr, when they are the aggressor.
"so coming down on either side is a little presumptive."
One thing I learned in the news business is that there is way more faith than fact in the world. To some degree fact is based on what one believes as there is little proof to base most of what we say is fact. For example, until someone actually goes far enough out in space you can only assume you are seeing things correctly. Science has a curved space theory so one could say that those stars are actually not that far away or say they are even further out. We 'accept' some things as fact because they simply make sense but we do not have conclusive evidence to prove either way.
Tom
I used "all" because of your post stating being gay is a choice so there seemed, no other option. Thanks for the sites though, do you have though any peer reviewd scientific tests etc...which really might count as proof.
Thanks
Steve
Seems to me that theres no proof either way, so coming down on either side is a little presumptive. By gay though I'm not talking about those who go through gay stages, such as teenages who have same sex crushes, or those who are bi curious at diffrent stages of their life etc..
Ah steve I find it interesting that you said all----Hmmmm What I can give you is web sites that can present you with evidence for Homosexuality being a choice. Again granted a hard one but a choice non the less. Narth, exodus international, Focus on the family, Love won out, this is where you can get good infomation if you want it. Homosexuality and the politics of truth Satinover, There are many studies that put the burden for same sex attraction on evinviroment, ie the way we were raised or not. Anyway this is a good start. Then to top it off the Bible is clear on where it stands. Gods Blessing In Christ Tom
Hey Steve. Here's the bottom line. There are many people who were gay all the way but are now straight. They made a choice to be straight. If it was not a choice this could not happen. Their choice changed them. God released them and they are now straight. God released them the same way He has released people from alchohol and drug addiction.
The proof is in peoples lives. If being gay is not a choice then being straight isn't either. Yet, the evidence says choice can change. This is a dangerous concept to gays who trust in the misinformation that they are born that way. There is no medical proof they are born gay. Still, that is the criteria for protection under civil rights so they MUST have been born that way or they don't get the rights. This is the whole issue which has surrounded Prop 8.
"It is not "chosen." "
Proof please.
Thanks for the link mt, really good article. The writer certainly has their head screwed on the right way.
Cheers
Steve
http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2009/01/03/features/life/22-gaymarriage.txt
Here's yet another well-put article on the "slippery slope" we are (so many of us) finding ourselves on these days.
Tom
Could you just give a brief list of the evidence you site, for or against the reason for homosexuality, that leads you to the conclusion that in all cases it comes down to choice. Could you also site your sources.
Thanks
Steve
oh yea, is it prejudice to be against something or some life style that is done by choice? How is it prejudice to be against something that is contary to Gods Laws? Are we as Christians supposed to look the other way when choices are made and laws are past for lifestyles that are contary to Gods laws on which I might add this country was founded on? Again there are laws on the books enforce them. Gods Blessing in Christ Tom
Sorry Bonnie if you look at all the evidence for or against the reasons for homosexuality you will see that one is not born "gay" thus it is a choice one makes. Granted it is a hard choice to not follow what one believes there sexual preferences is but a choice none the less. So again there are already laws on the book to protect and bring justice to those who cause one harm. They do not nor should they have special treatment. Again have you looked at other countries and what has happened to the right of others when so called hate crime laws were? doesnt sound like it. Gods Blessing In Christ Tom
Hi everyone! The Christian Post now has a Facebook page that you can join to show your friends what you're reading and to also get your friends engaged in your Christian news discussions! Check it out and spread the word! http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Christian-Post/41093998634
"'Wow. Ramifications of hate crimes bills? Are you saying that it's OK to commit hate crimes against homosexuals?'
"Only if you're ignorant enough to call it a hate crime to say that homosexuality is a sin."
I don't call that a hate crime. I call it prejudice.
"why should a life style that is chosen by an someone have more protection then any other?"
It is not "chosen."
There are anti-discrimination laws on the federal books, but these laws have been added to over the years, naming specific groups that should have been implicitly covered in the original law, yet who were still being targeted unfairly. These kinds of specifications extend to hate crimes as well. Gays aren't asking for special treatment; they are asking for equal treatment.
yes bonnie the ramifications of the hate crimes bills trying to be passed in various states and at the federal level. Have you heard what has happen because of these laws in other countries? Canada for one Sweden for another England for another. Arn't all violent crimes ones of hate? and why should a life style that is chosen by an someone have more protection then any other? There are laws on the books already to protect and to seek justice for those who are caught up in criminal activlties. Gods Blessing In Christ Tom
"Wow. Ramifications of hate crimes bills? Are you saying that it's OK to commit hate crimes against homosexuals?"
Only if you're ignorant enough to call it a hate crime to say that homosexuality is a sin.
Oh, yeah....and then homosexuals turn around and say similar things about Christianity and it's alright?
Quote Tom: "...refuses to see the ramifications of civil unions or gay marriages or the hate crimes bills that are trying to be past."
Wow. Ramifications of hate crimes bills? Are you saying that it's OK to commit hate crimes against homosexuals?
I didn't read down through all of the comments, but to the original point of the article, either it's ALL marriage or none of it is - from a legal/civil point of view. I don't have a problem with the term "marriage" being used only in religious ceremonies, since the religious community seems to think that banning gays from actually calling it marriage will somehow protect it from being tarnished or poisoned (Actually, the horses are already out of the barn, but shut the door if you think it will help.).
wordbased, I agree with you totally and in fact I saw what you're talking about in some of the people I counseled while in the field of substance abuse who said things like I may be an alcoholic but at least I'm not a junkie or those coke addicts who thought they had more class than alcoholics. And you're right also that we can't measure victory over our pet sins and temptations if we're in a place where they are not being tested. That being said that does not mean we must remain silent when issues such as same-sex marriage and the legtamizing of the sexual practices of homosexuality or any other sin or sinful lifestyle become an issue for public debate, but at the same time we must be about the business of being honest with our own shortcomings as well as doing the work with the help of God by the power of His Holy Spirit working in us to allow us to have victory over sin and the temptations that lead us to sin. And at the same time we need to let others know that they to can experience victory over sin and the temptations that lead them to sin as well. If all we do is stand against sin then we fall short of what God would have us to be doing, we not only need to stand aginst sin, but let others know they can have victory and that it all begins by coming into a personal relationship with God through the person and finished work of His Son, Jesus Christ alone.
Hello wordbased
Speaking only for myself, I find the concept of, the shadow, as esposed by Jung in relation to those things within us that we might be ashamed about(taking it that we should be ashamed and are not just reflecting a wrong opinion) and would want to deny. The way ahead in this respect seems to me to be to admit this, shadow, exists and rather than deny it as part of ones personality, embrace it as part of ones self, at this moment one can start to deal with it and become more intergrated and whole.
Steve
Well, don't I feel put in my place by the Brain Trust of God Himself that post in here. You can believe what you will but the reality is that my statement still stands. If there is going to be any change in society, repentence must be the path with the first steps made by the Church. You folks who walk in victory over porn addiction are to be commended. However, a view into your heart will uncover some other issue that would make you embarrassed if shared in open forum. That is the nature of the beast. Absence of awareness or absence of temptation are both poor indicators of victory.
forgiven, thanks for sharing that info about that site.
chris1980, so what is it your amening that he said?
"HTTP://WWW.SOUTHBENDTRIBUNE.COM/APPS/PBCS.DLL/ARTICLE?AID=/20090101/LIVES09/301019998"
I read it, too.
It only points out that the definition of marriage has been arbitrary to men. Inspite of God defining what marriage is since the beginning of time.
Amen to everything David Hart has said on this thread. Preach it, brother!
"HTTP://WWW.SOUTHBENDTRIBUNE.COM/APPS/PBCS.DLL/ARTICLE?AID=/20090101/LIVES09/301019998"
I read it. It's interesting that the Government can define "organic" but people get all bent when the political system is used to define "marriage".
"believer wrote: "I had my wife put a filter program in my computers" "
Our pastor has actually preached step by step instructions on how to find where someone has been and how to lock out sites via passwords and such! Pastors need to meet this head on. There is even an accountability group in our church where a list of every site you visit is logged and sent to your accountability partner via email.
Still, if a person can't display the picture in public then it shouldn't be available to the public via the net without the same precautions as a 'club'. The internet laws are far more lax then the city laws concerning the very same thing.
mtg, I think your right since wordbased had a couple of other typos, but who knows.
HTTP://WWW.SOUTHBENDTRIBUNE.COM/APPS/PBCS.DLL/ARTICLE?AID=/20090101/LIVES09/301019998
Did anyone read this article? Any remarks?
"Christian poser" is quite insulting.
Honest post, believer. Thanks. That's not my particular problem, but my wife should put a filter program on my 2nd, 3rd and 4th helpings of food!
Prophet, was that "poser' not a typo? Didn't he mean "poster?" I think so.
believer wrote: "I had my wife put a filter program in my computers"
Thanks for always being so candid. I know of some who struggle, they use, I believe, a program called Angel Eyes.
prophet, as a matter of fact I do struggle with porn and that's why I had my wife put a filter program in my computers that only she has access to in order to make sure I don't even go near those sites, that being the case based on what wordbased said I should be leading a campaign to champion the rights of ministers to look at porn, I mean after all if I can get the majority to agree with me then of course God will be okay with me looking at it and if my wife has a problem with it she's just being a fundamentalist and closed-minded because now I've got God on my side, NOT!!!!!
Daniel wrote: "We have used the word minister in it's noun form. Jesus used it in its verb form."
Everything Jesus did was a verb! Amen! He left us, His Body, an example to be action, a verb!
Prophet wrote: "Just because "70%" of the church is involved in porn, doesn't mean that I am. Or believer. Or Online4Him."
Or Forgiven.
"The divorce rate in the Church is the same as outsiders; the view rate for porn is aprox 70% in the Church; there are common-law couples in our pews."
I do have mixed feelings about your post. Here's the deal. We are all sinners. We always have been. Our church is made up of quite a few hurting people who have problems. The goal of the church is to minister to hurting people. Quite frankly, medical people "minister to hurting people". We have used the word minister in it's noun form. Jesus used it in its verb form.
Your statement would be like saying "most of the people in the hospital are sick". Well, of course! You will only find perfection in Christ. We are made perfect in Him...we are not perfect without Him.
But I do like the fact that Christian "posers" will use that scripture like candy. "Take out the splinter in your own eye first..." like wordbase just did. He said because the divorce rate is so high in the Church that we don't have the right to speak out against sin. We're not talking about the whole church. Just because "70%" of the church is involved in porn, doesn't mean that I am. Or believer. Or Online4Him.
wordbased
"Give me a break! Go fix your own houses first."
I do. Any other excuse you want to give to keep the truth from being told?
word, a majority of evangelical conservative Christians who post on these sites are very concerned about both the divorce and porn issue and the negative impact they are having in both the home and the church, but that does not mean we turn our backs on an issue that we believe will legitamize sexual practices that are contrary to the Word of God.
The Christian posers in here may have forgoten some statistics. The divorce rate in the Church is the same as outsiders; the view rate for porn is aprox 70% in the Church; there are common-law couples in our pews.
And we think that we have the right to point a finger of accusation at the world? Give me a break! Go fix your own houses first.
How can folks like artm remain so doggedly ignorant of history? artm wrote "The Relationship that the word Marrage infers (sic) is not one that I have chosen, But rather God has determined what the Word Marrage implies, It is the Union, or relationship between a " Man and a Woman ".
God did that, Not me, Not a Christian, and not a Court." (sic: artm's capitalization and punctuation)
An article from today covers some of this history in an impartial way, I think. Here it is below. Happy New Year, all!
HTTP://WWW.SOUTHBENDTRIBUNE.COM/APPS/PBCS.DLL/ARTICLE?AID=/20090101/LIVES09/301019998
The Relationship that the word Marrage infers is not one that I have chosen, But rather God has determined what the Word Marrage implies, It is the Union, or relationship between a " Man and a Woman ".
God did that, Not me, Not a Christian, and not a Court.
Hello elbib
Whilst adultery can of course just have a sexual side that is not always the case, to put it down to just lust misses the root cause of it in some relationships. Just being listerned to, taken seriously etc..can be far more powerful.
Steve
Personally I don't see the problem with gay people having relationships sanctioned by the state,in the UK for the past few years we have had civil ceromonies for gay people which gives their relationship legal reconition and confers the same rights under law (tax, pensions, etc..) and responsibilites(a most important word) as a hetrosexual marriage. This is fair for those living in a democracy and not a theocracy.
Steve
What I stated prior goes for both men and women.
Yes, Tom you are right. Homosexuality is a fleshly lust as is adultery. They are both sinful lusts that must be abandoned by all who are controlled by those lusts. These sinful actions have nothing to do with love. Those who have come out of homosexuality have succeeded in overcoming the sinful lust of the same sex, so they may abide in the design of God for sexuality. The person who stops committing adultery has succeeded in overcoming the sinful lust of more than one woman so they may abide in the design of God for sexuality. It's as simple as that. Only someone who cannot or will not accept the truth of God will be in denial of this.
I find it interesting that despite all that has been written concerning being healed from same sex attractions. SOme like our friend DH just cover their eyes and say na na na I can not hear you. They discount the real life testimonies of thousands that have been healed by Gods mercy amd left that life style. I guess he knows more then they do. I find it interesting that despite all the evidence that has been presented in the differant media outlets and right here on this web site some such as our own feelfine refuses to see the ramifications of civil unions or gay marriages or the hate crimes bills that are trying to be past. I guess it is a case of see no evil hear no evil speak no evil. I pray that God will open their eyes to His truth, to His righteousness, to His Savior. Gods Blessing In Christ Tom
Daniel wrote: "Gays will become a "privileged and hated" class of people if they keep it up."
Wow, this statement is so on target. Unfortunately. Too many in the gay community believe their biggest threat is the religious. It's the vast numbers of ungodly, unchurched folks that I'd be concerned with.
"They won't do it the constitutional way, but they will bend the constitution to make it their way."
They've done the same with the Bible. After all, Jesus didn't say only, right? Gays will become a "privileged and hated" class of people if they keep it up.
Daniel Paul
Well, you know the gays are going to keep pushing that line. Because each time they do, it moves just a little more. And a little more. And a little more. And then one day a judge is going to make a judgement for their favor (even though it would be completely unconstitutional) and set the legal world into a tizzy. And laws will be changed. And gays will have their way. They won't do it the constitutional way, but they will bend the constitution to make it their way.
"Now, specifically, exactly which right(s) have you lost or are in peril? "
That would be the right of the church to not be associated with something sinful. A church could ask a gay person to leave their restaurant if they were displaying affection in an offensive manner which they could do to anyone. Clearly offensive displays of affection would be connected with a civil union.
The goal of this action is to force churches to say gay is OK. It is not. It is sin. That will not change as long as God says it's disguesting.
Plus, these people were wanting to rent the facility for a private occasion. It was not open to the public. If a restaurant was to be rented by the wine tasters international, the restaurant would have the right to refuse if wine was to be served and they are a dry establishment.
The only thing all these lawsuits is going to accomplish is lawyers isolating gays from the mainstream just to protect the church. It is foolish to force the church. It is petty and hateful. This is the basis of the pro-gay Bibliophobe adgenda.
dh, didn't finish my thought in my last post to you, while I believe it is in a person's best interest to allow God to be involved in their recovery there are people in recovery who have chosen not to allow God to be involved who seem to be enjoying successful recovery. The only problem that I have is that they don't see that recovery is not their biggest need in God's view, rather their need to come into a personal relationship with Him through His Son, Jesus Christ is their biggest concern and often times entering into that relationship will be the very thing that God uses to set them free from whatever issue they are struggling with.
Amen. It seems that we have Christians who believe in God, but deny His power. A God who designed their bodies, who formed them, who created the heavens and the earth. But yet, He is so small that He cannot fix a simple problem like homosexuality. Hmm. Makes me wonder if they serve the same God I do.
dh, plus not all addictions are medically related or a medical problem, since if that was the case a pill could be developed to fix all addictions. But as prophet said, the person has to acknowledge they have a problem and then have a desire to overcome that problem and realize it will take work and time and in many cases they may relapse, but they can be healed. And while it's true if they look to God and allow God to be a part of their recovery there chances of recovery are increased and if they continue to allow God to be a part of their recovery their chances of relapse are lessened.
Only God can change a person, and only if that person truly wants to change.
"so not only do they go back into the closet, but they lie about their recovery as well and I guess all recovering addicts and alcoholics are simply lying as well."
You are begging the question (want mustard with that baloney?). Furthermore, you are creating a non-sequitur with a correlation of sexual orientation to addiction.
Studies have observed considerable self-deception as a result of reparative "therapy." The reasons for entering into this process are the same reasons that engender self-deception.
Addicts have medical problems caused by their addiction. Gays have an ACCEPTANCE problem in some (although shrinking) circles. An addict must change in order to live. Gays have a panoply of options.
dh, either there are two Dr. Robert L. Spitzers or we're reading two very different reports, as I said mine was a report from his 2003 research report on reparative therapy.
Spitzer's OWN published and peer reviewed study was based upon self-selected participants. I'm willing to bet that, of 100 evangelicals, 15 or more will claim to have changed. In the general population that drops to about 3%.
"Reports of complete change were uncommon."
To be fair, "there is evidence that change in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapy does occur in some gay men and lesbians."
However, "some gay men and women construct elaborate self-deceptive narratives (or even lie) in which they claim to have changed their sexual orientation."
There is no clinical evidence supporting the idea that this therapy has any lasting impact on changing a patient's sexual orientation and there is clinical evidence that that it can, in fact, be harmful causing depression - even suicide.
The dark side: http://www.gayhealth.com/templates/common/feature.html?record=962&searchwords=REPARATIVE
Tammy Lynn Michaels, "i'm starting to think that there are indeed some people... some well-meaning and loving people... who are not at all ANTI-GAY, that's not why they don't want the word marriage used... they are merely RELIGIOUS. and for religious (archaic) reasons, they want to stay safe and respectful to WHAT THEY'VE BEEN TAUGHT."
Genuine saints are anti-sin, desiring that no one receive the wages of sin (death), but to receive life in Christ. They are not "merely RELIGIOUS," but in relationship with their Father in heaven. They are not led by "archaic reasons," but led in paths of righteousness for His name's sake (Ps 23:3), and yes, they want to be obedient and respectful to the truth that God has and is teaching them.
isn't that nice. two lesbains defending a christian. all is right in the world now.
dh, just visited a site from NARTH about the report done by Dr. Robert L. Spitzer who is cited as saying he saw no harm in doing reparative therapy and that he is opposed to having this type of therapy stopped, this was the conclusion of his 2003 report.
dh, touche, but I was referring to posters who post on these sites and specifically Christian posters who are opposed to same-sex marriage.:)
dh, so not only do they go back into the closet, but they lie about their recovery as well and I guess all recovering addicts and alcoholics are simply lying as well. Have you ever read any of the testimonies of these so-called recloseted individuals, I have and it sure sounds like they have been truly set free from homosexuality as well as alcoholism and other addictions, but once again if the program they went through is reputable they also warned them about the possibility of relapse, the same way any Pastor or Christian leader will warn new Christians that just because they have been set free from sin does not guarantee that they won't ever sin again when in fact they will, but that doesn't make them a failure nor does it mean they are no longer saved.
"ifeelfine, do you see anyone on this or any other site promoting or advocating divorce? "
"ON LINE DIVORCE - $299"
http://www.3stepdivorce.com/states/newyork.shtml?gclid=CN-htcfp6JcCFRdinAodZ1aaCg
"dh, tell that to those who have been set free by reparative therapy"
My OPINION is that they are simply re-closeted - pretending to be straight for varying reasons. Robert Spitzer's opinion is more compelling: "For the vast majority it is not possible for them to change their sexual orientation ... It may help 5,000 people, but harm 500,000," He has also said that "the Christian Right, with its intolerance of, and opposition to homosexuality, will use [his] findings in its campaign to prevent gays and lesbians from gaining civil rights protections."
"dh, tell that to those who have been set free by reparative therapy"
My OPINION is that they are simply re-closeted - pretending to be straight for varying reasons. Robert Spitzer's opinion is more compelling: "For the vast majority it is not possible for them to change their sexual orientation … It may help 5,000 people, but harm 500,000,†He has also said that “the Christian Right", with its intolerance of, and opposition to homosexuality, will use his "findings in its campaign to prevent gays and lesbians from gaining civil rights protections."
Nobody should feel the need to mask their sexuality due to intolerance.
ifeelfine, do you see anyone on this or any other site promoting or advocating divorce?
"You obviously haven't read the story here about the gays in NJ who sued a church and won because the church wouldn't rent their property to the gays for a civil union."
I have read it; You need to understand it. This was a secular facility that happens to be owned by the Church. It serves the general public. It is not a house of worship. If a Christian Church owned a restaurant that was open to the public, they could not refuse to serve Jews or a gay couple.
Now, specifically, exactly which right(s) have you lost or are in peril?
DavidHart: "Christians have NOT lost any rights nor are they in danger of losing any rights."
Please see an article on this site today.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20081230/nj-rules-against-church-group-in-gay-rights-case.htm
"Which of your rights specifically are being taken away by same sex marriage (civil unions)? "
That would be the right for church property to be used in manners consistant with church doctrine. You don't have to look any further that the recent NJ case. The judgement is no different than the church being forced to rent out to a bunch of drunks wanting to have a party. WE have the right to view right and wrong in accordance with our religious beliefs. The gays are using the courts to take away that right and have succeeded in NJ. Congradulations. These gays have committed treason along with the judge for undermining the US Constitution.
"Christians have NOT lost any rights nor are they in danger of losing any rights."
You obviously haven't read the story here about the gays in NJ who sued a church and won because the church wouldn't rent their property to the gays for a civil union.
So much for your position being accurate in any way shape or form. While gays are attacking the church on all fronts you are posting that we are not in danger. Please get your head out of the sand and look at what gays are going to the church.
Tammy Lynn Michaels, "I am a poet, a wife, a mother, a baker, a philosopher, a lesbian."
Actually, there is no wife in a female gay relationship, or husband in a male gay relationship. God has established in his unchanging word what constitutes a true marriage and who holds the office of husband (man) and the office of wife (woman).
iff,
The concern is what rights to freedom of religion will be hindered or taken away for both the institutions and the christian. Another concern seems to be what doors will be opened for others to challenge their right to marry.
tom: Which of your rights specifically are being taken away by same sex marriage (civil unions)? Again, that kind of language adds nothing positive to the discussion. Divorce is a greater threat to families than same sex relationships.
dh, tell that to those who have been set free by reparative therapy not only from the issue of homosexuality but other issues as well. I'm not saying it works for all people the same way AA or NA doesn't work for all alcoholics or addicts, but it does work for many people. But like anything the person must first admit they have a problem and they are willing to do what it takes to overcome that problem, plus they need to always recognize that relapse can and does occur, but that relapse does not mean the person has no choice or that the reparative therapy wasn't effective.
DavidHart - Please repost your comments of Mon Dec 29, 2008 9:42 pm. I accidently hit Flag while trying to copy your comments to respond. It was unintentional and in no way was meant to silence your opinion. Please accept my apology for the inconvenience. I welcome your input into the discussion. Publius96
"He believed every loving relationship should have equal protection. He struggled with proposition 8 because he didn't want to see marriage redefined as anything other than between a man and a woman"
But if the so-called loving relationship includes sexual sin, does the relationship still qualify for protection?
Protection by society? Protection by God?
"Why are you so intolerant of those who become straight?"
You are projecting and attempting to frame an argument that I have not made.
Discarding your rhetoric, I DO oppose reparative "therapy." 1) It has no basis in medical science and; 2) The "results" are minuscule and; 3) The risks far outweigh any potential gain. At BEST, people are empowered to pretend that they are straight while still craving same-sex satisfaction. Exhibit A is Ted Haggard who admits to being in a sham marriage and admits to having considerable same-sex cravings.
"We as Christian who follow what Scriptures says are suppose to be silent while our rights are being taken away"
This is called turnspeak ( http://www.tips-q.com/content/turnspeak ). Christians have NOT lost any rights nor are they in danger of losing any rights. The First Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees those rights.
This is a false argument. It reminds me of the manufactured fuss over the Fairness Doctrine in spite of the fact that neither Obama (who has stated his opposition) nor any legislator has proposed that it be reinstated.
"preposterous and toxic "pray away the gay" programs."
Why are you so intolerant of those who become straight? You have made a statement which qualifies as hate speech and yet you think you take the high road. Your post shows intolerant Bibliophobic anti-civil rights politics.
Your hate-speech intolerance is what is toxic.
Why should we attack Etheridge? She is entitled to her point of view. It is Warren who lied in support of Proposition 8. It is Warren who compared gays to pedophiles. It is Warren who promotes the preposterous and toxic "pray away the gay" programs.
We make our point and essentially won this battle. Obama was tone deaf and Warren seems to be reaching out more. We'll see.
David Hart
http://www.tips-Q.com
"Now if I apply that thinking to this situation, if they afford us the exact same rights, who cares what it's called?" she concluded.
Yes, they might gain the exact same rights. They might even find an apostate church to attend that will ease their conscience and lead them into a ditch, but out of all this gain there will be no profit. "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" Mt 16:26.
I wonder if Etheridge is going to be "attacked" by the gay movement they way they have also attacked Warren. time will tell but it is nice to hear atleast an attempt to be a voice of reason and understanding from the Etheridge camp.
If you bother to read some of the interviews by speakers of the homosexual movement you would see that that is exactly what they are trying to do feel fine. Did you bother to see the near riots after prop 8 passed? the threats? Did you read about what has happened in those countries that passed hate crimes law? We as Christian who follow what Scriptures says are suppose to be silent while our rights are being taken away so they can feel a sense of well being for a life style they choose to live? and is contary to what God says? Sorry ifeel if we dont speak up the rocks will. Gods Blessing In Christ Tom
rolln4him: I know tons of gay folks and they pretty much want what the rest of us have. The agenda is not "designed to take down those of faith." When you use that kind of language, that adds nothing positive to the discussion.
It's important to know that Rick Warren is not Jesus Christ (nor does he think this), but he does have an impact on the cultural wars. Ethridge and crew are wonderful to try and seek "unity", but they don't represent the whole of their side either. Let's face it, the gay agenda wants nothing short of full rights, be it marriage or otherwise. The agenda is designed to take down those of faith.