Obama-Wright Rift Reveals Divided Loyalties in Black Church

comicalcupcake »

Mon May 05, 2008 5:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

This story is getting emphasized so much because people want to know what Obama really thinks when it comes to race, not what some speech says. Actions speak louder than words. I am worried that Obama sees things in black and white instead of seeing everybody as PEOPLE.

Christian Golden Rule Bridges Divisions in 'Day of Silence'

comicalcupcake »

Mon May 05, 2008 1:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

Why do you guys take every story having to do with homosexual events as an opportunity to debate whether homosexual behavior is ok?

If it were me passing out the cards, mine would have added, "As a Christian, I do believe that homosexual behavior is wrong, as is pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, and divorce in most cases. But I believe that God loves you as you are and wants you to come to him to be washed of your wrongdoings and receive new life. I hope you will come to our next club meeting and find an embracing atmosphere of students hoping to share their faith experiences with you."

That way there would be no mixed message that Christians are standing with homosexuals in solidarity--only a message of Christ's love to sinners.

Evangelicals Say Faith is Now too Political

comicalcupcake »

Mon May 05, 2008 1:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Note: I realize politicians didn't create the internet. What I'm saying is that when evil things are widely available, they are widely used. If politicians are able to limit availability of those things, it delays the corrupting influence of them and thus does good in way that matters to God.

Evangelicals Say Faith is Now too Political

comicalcupcake »

Mon May 05, 2008 1:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

eahaddix:
"How do external acts like electing politicians and passing legislation change the internal state of men?"

By restraining evil. Take pornography as an example. Before it was widely available, fewer people looked at it, they were older when first exposed, and the looked at it less often. Now because of the internet, it is ubiquitous and people are exposed to it even unintentionally. Because of its prevalence, the idea of "normal" sexual behavior has changed--studies show that people who use it estimate that certain behaviors occur at a much higher frequency than they actually do, and that these numbers go up with regularity of use. (source: Pornified book).

When you have leaders that restrain availability of harmful material, they retard the corruption of society. (There are other useful things they can do as well, but I focused on one example).

Besides, there are good things that good leaders can do that don't affect the heart as much but are nonetheless good, like improving education (so young minds can grow in knowledge of God's creation in all its various aspects), improving transportation (so that people aren't idle and have more time to do what matters, and also to protect God's earth from pollution), improve the economy (so that people can provide for their families without dependence on aid), and improve judicial efficiency and fairness (so wrongs are righted and obligations are honored). These things, while perhaps not heavenly concerns, are no small matters and should not be dismissed so nonchalantly.

Christian Professor Resigns Over School's Divorce Policy

comicalcupcake »

Mon May 05, 2008 12:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I think both Wheaton and Gramm are doing the right thing as far as the school. If Gramm's conscience tells him that exposing his wife would be wrong in this situation, then it is best that he leaves. Sometimes bitterness toward a divorcing spouse can be a strong temptation, and maybe some faculty can discuss their marital situations without falling into it, but Gramm decided for himself that he needed to resist that temptation by not accusing his wife in front of others. Meanwhile, Wheaton has lost a good professor but has held onto its integrity.

Miley Cyrus Photo Flap Prompts Calls for Action Against Harmful Media Messages

comicalcupcake »

Mon May 05, 2008 12:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 7

It was mildly inappropriate. Miley apologized. What else can she do?

Evangelical Ministry to Send Bush Over 33,000 Petitions against Hate Crimes Bill

comicalcupcake »

Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:09 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

didymus, I respectfully submit that you don't understand 1)the bill that's being debated and 2) the larger cultural context on our continent and in Europe. Point 1: The bill seeks to punish "intimidation," which could be construed as preaching the biblical message that homosexual lust is a sin, and that the wages of sin is death. Also, versions of it would punish "incitement" to commit a crime. This means that if a pastor preaches Romans 1 on Sunday and someone who heard it assaults a homosexual on Monday, the pastor can also be tried for inciting a hate crime. This is not fiction. Which leads to point 2: This has become a reality in other countries. Pastors are tried and sometimes convicted for preaching the Bible, notably in Canada, Belgium, and Sweden. Aside from this particular bill, there is concern about the eroding rights of those with sincerely held religious beliefs vis-a-vis the GLBTQ agenda. From the rash of pride parades across the country this summer (each city finding a unique way of stifling Christian speech), to the Harper children not being allowed to wear their scripture-quoting t-shirts to school the day after the Day of Silence celebrating rights for sexual deviants, to the president's appointee for surgeon general being denied a hearing because of "hate speech" for pointing out that a person's back end has no natural lubricant, people are being told that, free speech or no, their message against the deviancy of homosexuality is not welcome. This bill is just one more shove toward that slippery slope.

Ex-Gay Success Story Not a Mormon Success Story

comicalcupcake »

Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:29 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

theazntrackstar, I disagree. It is your duty to vote for the best candidate in the race. No person running for an office will ever be perfect (personally or even on every issue), and you just have to thoughtfully choose the "best answer." I think it's clear that, even just based on what judges he would pick (let alone sanctity of life, national defense, same-sex "marriage", and a host of other issues), that Romney would be the better choice over Clinton. A form of government like ours relies on citizens who are proactive about those they choose to lead them.

Survey: More Americans Have Negative View of Immigrants

comicalcupcake »

Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:16 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Why do God's people rebel against governments that He set up for their good (Romans 13)? God never called anyone to emigrate illegally. It is essential that Christians have respect for the rule of law, which should only be broken if positive law directly commands what God forbids, or directly forbids what God commands. Not only are we scripturally commanded to "render to Caesar what is Caesar's" (obedience with the above narrow exceptions) but it also earns respect for us among unbelieving citizens. Quakers were originally exempted from the draft because of their character for obedience in all other areas of the law. The Amish were able to be exempted from mandatory schooling laws in part because the Amish children did not need school to keep them away from crime, as no Amish person that anyone knew of had ever been convicted of a serious crime. Obedience to the laws in areas where we have discretion is what will preserve our religious liberty in these increasingly secular times. If Christians encourage lawlessness, we will ourselves be outlawed. I might be for the humanitarian cause of amending the laws for future immigrants, but I am not going to take a position of ignoring the crimes of those who have broken our laws.