Pictured above is the Chick Fil a 'grilled chicken sandwich'.
Chick fil a shouldn't be in the news in any derogatory way, but, "Oh, those Craaaazy Democrats!"
An election year happenin' is the only reason the Dems are in high dudgeon over sweet little old
Chick Fil A. Check it.
They close on Sundays, you know. Because the guy who owns the restaurant is a (whisper it!)
Christian! One who actually believes what God says, about a sabbath and (uh oh!) homosexuality.
Okay, so the Democrats are having a bit of trouble energizing their base, as their base and the rest of the country are hurting from the whoopin' on the economy that this Admin has administrated (in the name of fairness, don'tchaknow!).
So the Dem leadership, seeing their base ready to vote for "Anybody but Obama" gins up the alleged controversy of the Chick Fil A owner actually exercising his right to freedom of religion. Which they've been complaining about for years!
They don't care if I exercise that same right-who ever heard of me?
But he's a NAME. Someone they can vilify for holding religious beliefs which are different than theirs...how very, very bigoted (open minded?) of them!
Speaking of jerks, I DID mention a two-fer in the title of this post. Part Deux!
More than soup nazis, the Palestinian Authority (which is funny in itself as there are no Palestinian people)
has begun jailing miscreants who eat food in public during (wait for it.....) Ramadan!
Even non Muslims can be (and have been) arrested for the sin of eating in public during a Islamic fast...in the
P.A.'s non-country, on their non-streets. I'll put a link to a post about this in the comments.
SO! If I had a Chick fil A grilled chix sand in hand, and I were walking in the territory where the Palestinian
Authority claims to have...uh...authority...I could be imprisoned. Sweet little ol' me!
I do have an ace up my sleeve, though-I would write to President Obama and tell him that I was a high school substitute teacher on vacation kidnapped by Somali pirates who just happened to have a condo in the P.A.'s non-country.
I'd be out of there quicker than Michelle Obama running from a fundraiser held by Sarah Jessica Parker!
30 comments:
as threatened:
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3693/sharia-crackdown-by-palestinian-authority
More August fun! Less than 100 days until the Election, when we find out whether God thinks that we've been humbled enough yet.
If Obama wins...red sky at morning, and batten down the hatches. four more years of no Spring.
If the other guy wins...maybe, just maybe God thinks that we've suffered enough. Unless he's worse.
Truett and Dan Cathy (and presumably the entire Cathy family) have been exercising their freedom of religion and speech for decades, and no one has ever said boo. They have shuttered their restaurants on Sundays as long as they've been in business, and, again, everyone is fine with that, except maybe people who wish they could get those tasty waffle fries seven days a week. What has changed is that the Cathys have acknowledged that they give money to groups trying to curtail other people's rights; they make no bones about it, and have no intention of stopping. They have every right to do this, of course, just as Americans have every right to decide what businesses to patronize based on any criteria they like. I believe this is known as the free market.
(So far the boycott, or rather the reports about the possibility of one, seems to have had the opposite of the intended effect: a day or two ago CFA supporters organized an anti-boycott, and CFA restaurants nationwide had lines around the block.)
Hi Lucia-"have acknowledged that they give money to groups trying to curtail other people's rights;"
in who's opinion?
'Other people's rights'-are they actually 'rights' protected by the Constitution?
According to the WIKI for DOMA:
"The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) (Pub.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419, enacted September 21, 1996, 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C) is a United States federal law that defines marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. The law passed both houses of Congress by large majorities and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. Under the law, no U.S. state or political subdivision is required to recognize a same-sex marriage treated as a marriage in another state. Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriage for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, and the filing of joint tax returns."
Now, Lu, just because Democrats, including Bill Clinton, have changed their minds about DOMA, and even though President Obama has declared that it will no longer be enforced in courts...that doesn't change the fact that the law is in place, has not been repealed.
Here's my opinion:
"What has changed is that the Cathys have acknowledged that" is not actually the case. What HAS changed is that the Democrats are about to lose the Presidency, and possibly both the House and the Senate, so they are trying to energize their base by raising a fuss over Chick Fil a's alleged hate crimes (aka supporting groups which are in favor of DOMA).
Look who is causing the fuss: the mayors of Boston and Chicago, die hard Dems. My opinion is that they are not outraged by Chick Fil a but by the possibility of Dems losing power. In other words, this is a political ploy rather than a call for (human) rights.
Another thing-is it within the purview of Mayors to decide "YES" or "NO" on which (legal) businesses can do business in their cities?
If the Mayor of Denver (just an example-another big city) decided to not allow "Burger King" to franchise in the city because the leadership of "BK" gives money to Planned Parenthood...would you see that as an overreach, an abuse of power? I sure would.
Another thing-is it within the purview of Mayors to decide "YES" or "NO" on which (legal) businesses can do business in their cities?
Believe it or not, here you've hit on something I'm uneasy about too. I see it as similar to a municipality's keeping or running a business out of town because it serves everyone regardless of race (which, of course, happened any number of times during the Jim Crow era and the civil-rights movement). I don't actually know what means Menino plans to use to keep CFA out of Boston, but if he intends to hogtie them with red tape and drop-kick them off the end of Long Wharf, I'd oppose that as an abuse of power, much as the darker angels of my nature might enjoy the spectacle. It's been suggested that any mayor wanting to exclude CFA could simply pass a law requiring all fast-food restaurants to be open seven days a week; I haven't decided how I feel about that one. (Btw, I'm talking only about Menino here simply because I live in the Boston area and I know nothing about Chicago.)
Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right. Racial segregation was the law throughout the South between 1896 (Plessy v. Ferguson) and 1954 (Brown v. Board of Education). Do you think that was good law? Of course not, and I have the same opinion of DOMA.
As for your belief that this is a fake controversy ginned up by Democrats to boost their fading electoral hopes, here again we'll have to agree to disagree. I've read reports that the Democrats plan to include support of same-sex marriage in their official party platform for this year's election, and that is unquestionably a political ploy based on the calculation that anyone who'd decline to vote for them just for that reason would never vote for them anyway, and it may excite young voters, amongst whom Obama's support has indeed slipped since 2008. But my guess is that the national Democratic establishment sees CFA as a minor culture-war skirmish if they're aware of it at all.
I've also heard anecdotally that some of the people who stood in those long lines to support CFA said they actually favored same-sex marriage but wanted to protest the infringement of the Cathys' right to free speech. This makes me sad. A boycott is an expression, not an infringement, of that right.
(You may or may not recall that Mike Gallaugher changed his ISP from Verizon to Comcast shortly after I started reading his blog, because Verizon donated to organizations of which he didn't approve. Surely I or anyone else would be entitled to eat at McDonald's instead of CFA for the same reason.)
(I've also heard anecdotally that CFA practices hiring discrimination against divorced people. Assuming that this is true, how do you feel about it?)
" CFA practices hiring discrimination against divorced people. Assuming that this is true, how do you feel about it?)"
I doubt it, Lu-sounds like the kind of stuff created to confirm a prejudice, much like: "Christians hate Gays!" If it is true (which I doubt)...I don't like it.
"fake controversy ginned up by Democrats to boost their fading electoral hopes, here again we'll have to agree to disagree."
okayfine-but the Chick Fil A people held the same beliefs last year, and the year before,etc.
I'm assuming that they have contributed monies to groups in the past that are on the Democrats naughty list...why now? What started the 2012 Chick Fil a hatemonger olympics? I suggest that this is politically motivated.
"Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's right."
Exactly how I feel about Abortion.
" Do you think that was good law? Of course not, and I have the same opinion of DOMA."
And we are each entitled to our Constitutionally protected opinions. But both DOMA and Abortion are the law of the land that we live in. President Obama may think that he can ignore the Laws of our country that he doesn't like, but I believe that that behavior is wrong, that it leads to anarchy (which may be President Obama's intention, if we are to believe anecdotal evidence).
As for Mike Gallagher-I know of him, but just a little. I don't listen to the radio much and I don't have TV service right now.
What he does as a 'personality' in changing his ISP doesn't matter to me-if someone wants to boycott something, they should go for it-but I have no interest in joining boycotts because someone else doesn't like something.
I'm boycotting TGIFridays right now
not because of any political axe-grinding-I've never had good food there; it's been substandard the last few times I've tried it.
bye the bye-the racial segregation thing you started with-you do realize that the Republican party grew out of the Abolition movement, as an anti-slavery political group?
And that the Republicans in the 1950's/1960's were the Civil rights party? That the Democrats, from George Wallace to Huey Long stood in the way of desegregation?
I just checked on wallace at the Wiki-here is his most famous quote:
"In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."
They don't make democrats like him anymore...right?
Re divorce, as I said, I heard it purely anecdotally, and I have no idea if it's true or not. I really didn't have any particular ax to grind there, I actually wanted your opinion. It happens :). The supposed reason for it is that both Jesus and Paul condemned divorce ("what God has joined together, let no man put asunder"). Interestingly, many Christians who strongly oppose homosexuality and gay rights don't seem especially bothered by divorce, and I'm not sure why.
Of course the Cathys have always held the same beliefs, which, again, isn't enough to get anyone to organize a boycott. Like a lot of people I think their beliefs are bigoted and wrong, but I recognize that they have a perfect right to hold and express them and that I'm not going to change their minds. The difference is funding antigay organizations, which just got on a lot of people's radar. The Democratic Party may have engineered that; I've seen no evidence, but if you have, by all means cite it. Otherwise, let's agree to disagree, on that among other things.
Not Mike Gallagher (whose work I don't know), Mike Gallaugher, former proprietor of the blog Christian Conservative, where you and I met, so to speak.
Yes, I know the genesis of the GOP, aka the Party of Lincoln, and its record on civil rights. I'm also familiar with LBJ's legendary remark as he put down his pen after signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, "We have lost the South for a generation." (If indeed he said it, he was wrong: it's been more than one.) And then came Nixon's Southern Strategy, and the rest, as they say, is history.
Hi again, Lu-concerning divorce (and homosexuality and 'gay rights') my opinion is that this is a world full of sinners, saved and unsaved, and while we are here (before we get to Heaven) Christians lead imperfect lives where we make mistakes and trouble for ourselves. I am as imperfect
and depending on God's Grace as every other Christian.
I know many Christians who have divorced; some have re-married, just like everyone else in the world. I don't personally know any Christians who struggle with homosexuality (that I know of), but I know Christians who drink, smoke, make bad choices and sometimes divorce their mates.
God hates divorce, but even in ancient Israel it happened. It is supposed to be one man/one woman for life, but even the wisest man in the world, King Solomon messed up bigtime with hundreds of wives, many more concubines,all against God's stated Will. I'm no smarter than Solomon. Or Dick Solomon.
If I were in a relationship with a woman who had been divorced I admit that it would be an issue that we would have to work out...but it wouldn't be a 'deal-breaker' so to speak.
I was once involved with a lady who was in chaos-this was 30 years ago-she lived with a guy she was trying to leave, got pregnant and had an abortion. I didn't condemn her; I knew the tumult she was going through-I comforted her and tried to help her straighten out her life.
We went our separate ways because she couldn't get over the fact that I was a Christian. I moved to Missouri and she married some other guy.
Oh, THAT Mike! sorry-it seems like ancient history now-I don't remember his switching providers, but that WAS a few years ago.
Mike and I spoke on the phone once, had a nice conversation.
I used to check his site for updates, but even that was like four years ago.
Back to the Cathys: " The difference is funding antigay organizations," I'm curious, Lu-which ones have they funded?
I promise not to make a donation if you tell me;)
Time for bed-my life is in a bit of tumult right now, though nothing as drastic as my friend faced all those years ago. I need sleep.
Where in the OT did God say "one man and one woman for life"? Again, really not trying to be snarky here, really asking. Many of the patriarchs of Israel had multiple wives and/or concubines: Abraham had Sarah (who btw was his half sister) and Hagar, Isaac just had Rebekah as best I recall, and Jacob/Israel of course had twelve sons and one daughter with two wives and two concubines. And, as you point out, David and Solomon came later. I don't recall anything in the OT, even a passing comment, saying that this was really not how things were supposed to go. Nor, for that matter, do I know of any explicit prohibition of polygamy or of concubinage anywhere in the NT.
In 1 Timothy 3:2, one of the listed qualifications of a bishop is that he must be "the husband of one wife." This could just mean married, or still married to his first wife, never having been divorced or widowed, but it seems an odd way of saying it; it could also mean having not more than one wife at a time.
As for divorce, again I don't recall anything specifically about it in the OT, though there's probably something in Leviticus and/or Deuteronomy; it doesn't seem to have been considered at all unrighteous until those NT prohibitions. (I will admit that I've read parts of the law books and found them rather heavy going.)
Here's the thing about divorce and homosexuality: according to you, both are sins; you know divorced Christians and accept them as still Christian because, after all, we all sin. You talk a lot more about homosexuality than about divorce, inveighing against the former and linking to sermons on it (I'm thinking specifically of one by John MacArthur, which I found an interesting beast, but I digress). Do you think a practicing homosexual can also be a Christian? (As far as I'm aware the Bible says absolutely nothing about being gay, that is being sexually attracted to the same sex.) If not, why not, and how is a gay person different from a divorced person?
Oh, sorry, I meant to say: I hope things get less tumultuous. Speaking of which, now I have to go pack for a two-week vacation.
Oh, and I also meant to say: this article and articles it links to have particulars on those organizations.
Where in the OT did God say "one man and one woman for life"?
"Genesis 2:24-25 (HCSB)
24 This is why a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh.
25 Both the man and his wife were naked, yet felt no shame."
I believe that Jesus is God, the same God as in the Old Testament, so I trust His exposition:
"Matthew 19:3-9 (HCSB)
3 Some Pharisees approached Him to test Him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife on any grounds?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” He replied, “that He who created them in the beginning made them male and female,”
5 and He also said: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?
6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, man must not separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked Him, “did Moses command ⌊us⌋ to give divorce papers and to send her away?”
8 He told them, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of the hardness of your hearts. But it was not like that from the beginning.
9 And I tell you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
I don't think that I write more about homosexuality than divorce, but it might be that that topic pings your radar more often.
Here's an easy way to remember what is or isn't sin:
ANYTHING that is not of faith is sin. If God calls something 'sin' in His Word, that, to me, is definitive. I cannot by faith say that something God refers to as sinful isn't sin.
I believe that with "What God has joined together let no man put asunder" quite simply means One man and one woman join together in marriage, and it should be a lifelong compact.
Not multiple spouses. Even where it is seen in the Bible (and it's there a LOT) it is never mentioned as a good thing, a Blessing from God.
With that said, Christians who do divorce need to seek forgiveness from God and you know what?
He grants it. And what God has forgiven is done and in the past.
Breaking this up into two parts.
"Do you think a practicing homosexual can also be a Christian? (As far as I'm aware the Bible says absolutely nothing about being gay, that is being sexually attracted to the same sex.) If not, why not, and how is a gay person different from a divorced person?"
A Christian who is homosexual recognizes that it is sin and repents, which means agreeing with God that it is sinful and seeking to stop 'practicing'.
He or she may fall back into the sin, just as a Christian who is an alcoholic may 'fall off the wagon'
and get drunk. They may have to seek forgiveness many many times for failing to live a holy life as God requires of His children.
I'm not homosexual, but I have my own sins which plague me, and I am often coming before God in repentance.
"(As far as I'm aware the Bible says absolutely nothing about being gay, that is being sexually attracted to the same sex.)"
Um...agree to disagree, Lu.
"Leviticus 18:22-24 (HCSB)
22 You are not to sleep with a man as with a woman; it is detestable.
23 You are not to have sexual intercourse with any animal, defiling yourself with it; a woman is not to present herself to an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion.
24 “Do not defile yourselves by any of these ⌊practices⌋, for the nations I am driving out before you have defiled themselves by all these things."
Leviticus 20:13 (HCSB)
13 If a man sleeps with a man as with a woman, they have both committed a detestable thing. They must be put to death; their blood is on their own hands."
"Romans 1:26-27 (HCSB)
26 This is why God delivered them over to degrading passions. For even their females exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
27 The males in the same way also left natural relations with females and were inflamed in their lust for one another. Males committed shameless acts with males and received in their own persons the appropriate penalty of their error."
I think you will agree that no one is going to want to have sex with someone of the same gender unless they are homosexual, so I'd say that the Bible does pretty clearly condemn homosexuality.
There's a 'famous' Christian singer who 'came out' as homosexual a few years ago and is proud of who he is, even though the Bible condemns homosexuality. Is he a 'real' Christian? Not if he doesn't agree that what God calls sin is actually sinful. Not if he doesn't repent.
It's great that you get vay-kay, Lu-I hope that you have a great time.
If I could go anywhere on vacation, I would head to Lithuania, Norway, Ireland.
Not Syria.
I have a new post up, but decided to post Ann's latest column here:
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-08-01.html
I knew the Ryan stuff, but not the other.
Doug,
I'm a strong supporter of civil gay marriage, BUT I think Rahm Emanuel grossly overstepped his bounds. You can't deny people permits for their religious or political beliefs. I didn't even think Dan's comments were outrageous (although I'm wondering if he thinks civil marriage for heterosexuals should ALSO follow the Biblical mandates).
Now, about Mr Cathy's donations. One of them is to the Family Research Council. The Family Research Council is listed as a hate group by the SPLC for a number of reasons, including the fact that they use the studies of discredited researcher Paul Cameron (trust me, the guy's a kook). Peter Sprigg of the FRC said, on public television, that he'd like to see gays "exported" from the US.
Tony Perkins, the FRC President, has appeared before the Council of Conservative Citizens several years ago. This group is comprised of white separatists who oppose "race mixers". Perkins has also [allegedly] paid David Duke of the KKK for his mailing lists, perhaps because he thinks racists can be useful in providing funds for more anti-gay campaigns.
So yes ... the FRC is shady.
SPLC? As in Southern Poverty Law Center?
They would say that I'M a kook, a hate-filled gay-bashing Doma loving kook. I ignore them.
I thought that FRC sounded familiar-James Dobson created FRC as an outgrowth of Focus on the Family.
James, it might not shock you to discover that I am in agreement with James Dobson on many subjects.
I don't recall ever giving money to Focus on the Family, but I might have. I don't know FRC or Tony Perkins from Phillis Diller, but Focus is cool.
I part ways with them in some respects, which is fine, as we are not autonomonmonmons.
James, I would be surprised if the the Chick Fil A folks DIDN'T give money to groups that you don't like. Private citizens can do whatever they want with their dough-look at all the bucks going to President Obama's re-election-talk about throwing good money after bad!
If the general public deserves a say in how the Cathys spend their money...fair is fair, James. YOUR finances should be scrutinized-how DARE you pay to see Lewis Black in concert! Don't you know that he is hateful towards some on my side of the aisle?
(Just guessing on Lewis Black, of course. It's a tough economy, and not everyone can afford Bill Maher tix.)
"(although I'm wondering if he thinks civil marriage for heterosexuals should ALSO follow the Biblical mandates).
I certainly do, James, as you might have inferred from other comment in this stream. But I also recognize that, try as we might, even Christians fail to live up to the mark of Holiness set by God. Sometimes even Christians divorce, get drunk, do drugs, act like unsaved people. What sets us apart from the rest of the world is that God doesn't allow us to remain in such a terrible state-He humbles us, and brings us to repentance.
Actually, the SPLC did NOT designate Focus on the Family as a hate group.
You might find the following post interesting. It's by a Christian counselor who isn't really a radical liberal: he assists and encourages gay Christians to live either as celibates or heterosexuals, but he still finds the FRC troubling.
http://wthrockmorton.com/2010/11/30/splchatelist/
"One should be able to trust Christian groups to provide accurate information and nuanced analysis. However, on issues relating to sexual orientation, I cannot trust them. For me, this lack of trust spills over to other domains as well, creating a significant problem with credibility. I hope my fellow believers will not defend these claims simply because those making them are Christians."
Again, I'm not suggesting that CFA should be denied permits based on their religious or political beliefs. This is fascist no matter which side of the political spectrum it's coming from.
However, it's important for consumers to know where their money is going so they can make an informed decision. Every company makes contributions to organizations or causes we may not agree with ... it's all a matter of degree and where we're willing to make compromises.
James-
I will keep this simple, as it's been a looooong week:
You are right, of course, that SPLC didn't designate Focus on the Family a hate group...and I never said that they did.
Did they so designate FRC? You tell me.
I looked at your Throckmorton, followed a few links; keeping it simple,here's a thumbnail to help you differentiate between true Christians and cultural christians who become psych professors:
A true Christian accepts God at His Word, all the books from Genesis to Revelation. What God calls sin we call sin. What God calls Holy we call Holy.
Anyone who raises objections to what God has stated cannot, truly cannot be a Christian.
It isn't as if Christians are misinterpreting Scripture to make it 'say' something that God didn't mean. Non-Christians put a lot of faith (!) in the idea that Christians are wrong.
What they really mean is that, if God does indeed call homosexuality a sin...then God is wrong.
Get your head around that, friend.
Doug, all of those verses you cite re homosexuality have to do with homosexual behavior. They say nothing about sexual orientation. What of someone who, as you put it, struggles with homosexuality, but doesn't act on their urges?
Lu, I had a nice answer chewed up by the blogger software.
In effect, you know the answers that I will give as well as I do.
Behavior isn't in a separate category from 'not acting on urges', because God looks at the heart.
Here's a small sample where Christ was teaching His disciples:
"Matthew 5:21-22 (HCSB)
21 “You have heard that it was said to our ancestors, Do not murder, and whoever murders will be subject to judgment.
22 But I tell you, everyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘FOOL!’ will be subject to the Sanhedrin. But whoever says, ‘You moron!’ will be subject to hellfire."
The Apostle John stated it this way:
"1 John 3:15 (HCSB)
15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him."
and also, about committing adultery-the thought is the same as the action:
Matthew 5:27-28 (HCSB)
27 “You have heard that it was said, Do not commit adultery.
28 But I tell you, everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
This is the same for every sin.
Mankind (ironic title) has proven itself incapable of 'not acting on urges'.
Here's the capper:
"Mark 7:18-23 (HCSB)
18 And He said to them, “Are you also as lacking in understanding? Don’t you realize that nothing going into a man from the outside can defile him?
19 For it doesn’t go into his heart but into the stomach and is eliminated.” (As a result, He made all foods clean.)
20 Then He said, “What comes out of a person—that defiles him.
21 For from within, out of people’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immoralities, thefts, murders,
22 adulteries, greed, evil actions, deceit, promiscuity, stinginess, blasphemy, pride, and foolishness.
23 All these evil things come from within and defile a person.”
Yet elsewhere in the Gospels it's what people actually do that matters. Mt. 25:31-46 (among others).
You mentioned earlier that many people falsely believe that Christians hate gay people. I don't believe this of all Christians, but some act as if they do. You don't want gay people to have the right to marry the person they love, or to be free from the fear of being denied work or housing because of who they are. (You would call equal employment or housing opportunity laws "special rights," by which you mean the rights most of us take for granted.) If that's not hate, what is it?
Hi Lu-No one will do anything (take any actions) without first conceiving it-so it is impossible to separate intent (urges) from actions-they are all of the same thing. Of course we, as simple humans, can only gauge and respond to 'actions' but, as noted above, God looks at the heart where all the bad stuff originates-I'm simplifying, but you know what I mean.
"I don't believe this of all Christians, but some act as if they do."
Conversely,I don't believe that all 'gay' people hate Christians, but some (many) act as if they do. Loudly while holding banners. That's a push.
"You don't want gay people to have the right to marry the person they love, or to be free from the fear of being denied work or housing because of who they are."
100000000000.000000000 wrong, Lu.
(Zeros added for emphasis)
I can sum it up for you in just a few words, as I've had lots of practice:
I and the rest of the 'fundi' Christians care only about pleasing God, not man.
God is pleased when we trust Him and accept Him at His word.
If God calls something sin, we accept that that IS sin.
If sinners-WHATEVER THE SIN-don't like that, their problem isn't actually with us,but with God.
Lu, if God said that homosexuality was just dandy with Him, it would be just dandy with me.
But He doesn't say that in His Word, so we are where we are.
What you call hate I call rejecting the world's opinion and respecting God's opinion.
Since I paid for the whole half hour on my soapbox, let me add that I don't expect non-Christians to "Be Christlike".
I expect non-Christians to lead what the Bible calls sinful lives, and I'm never surprised when they do.
If two people want to live together, it is none of my business, and I stay out of it.
It is a different story for Christians, because even though we all still struggle with sin, we are called to a higher standard, trying to please God.
So...if two Christians, male and female, decided to live together unmarried(Here is a super big point, please pay attention, Lu) AND they go to my church...then it is a concern for my church congregation. If it happens at a neighbor church it would be their business, and I would stay out of it.
When 'fundamentalist Christians'
(you know who we are) speak out about marriage being between one man and one woman (hopefully) for life, we are not only confirming what God has said in His Word, but also six thousand years of human history. In nearly every culture
'one man and one woman' is the accepted norm for marriage.
The 'gay marriage' idea is, in the grand scheme of history, about two minutes old.
It also gets voted down in nearly every election in our country, though the activists keep getting it put on ballots as is their right.
It's MY right to vote no, and, if it ever does come up in an election, that is what I will do.
Who hates? Who gets all worked up?
The homosexual activists who butt into my Christian life and try to tell me how to think.
The Abortion activists who butt into my Christian life and try to tell me how to think.
The illegal alien activists who butt into my Christian life and try to tell me how to think.
The...you get the idea. Christians are repeatedly told to stay out of
"our bedrooms, our abortion clinics, our lifestyle" but the multi-activists make it their business to get in our faces and tell us how we should live.
The haters.
"One man, one woman" has been the norm for six thousand years? You seriously believe that? We've already talked about the prevalence of polygamy and concubinage throughout biblical history: even in the NT there is no explicit condemnation of either. And the practices have continued in many cultures since then.
Nobody's telling you how to think. If you don't like gays or gay marriage, feel free to shun them and refuse to recognize it. Your church doesn't have to perform same-sex marriages if it doesn't want to. And if you want to hang your bigotry on God, feel free to do that too.
To quote my favorite Christian blogger:
There are, broadly speaking, two kinds of evangelism practiced and promoted by American Christians. One is hospitable and the other is not. One approach aims to cross lines and to erase boundaries. The other aims to draw lines and to enforce boundaries.
The latter always pretends to be the former, but that pretense is exposed by the way its practitioners determinedly stick with what isn’t working. When their approach offends, alienates and ostracizes the very people they claim to be trying to “reach,” they never reconsider or readjust that approach. They double down.
Because the truth is that their approach is working. It’s working perfectly. It’s doing just exactly what it was designed and intended to do: offend, alienate and ostracize.... Widening the gap between Us and Them was the plan and the purpose all along.
And then you can claim you are persecuted, but don't expect an outcast to believe you.
Lu, do you believe that you are bigoted? That you have prejudices?
I have a good reason for asking.
Yes, I do. Every time I think I've overcome them, I am rudely proven wrong. I suspect your reason is a desire to prove me wrong, politely if possible, in which case go ahead.
" I suspect your reason is a desire to prove me wrong,"
nope-keeping it simple, none of us is free from bias; our worldview is shaped by our experiences, good and bad.
My good reason for asking has to do with your opinion of my beliefs-let me put it in a nutshell:
You may think that I am a blinded, misquided soul for believing in a God whom you cannot recognize.
Because my God doesn't exist (to you),my reaching back into the Scriptures where homosexuality is condemned is simply a case of one present day bigot seeking confirmation for his prejudices by aligning with some ancient bigots who were just as clueless as I am.
Do I have that about right? I can't be right, because my God doesn't exist; He is not the author of those hateful old writings. It was just men hating men who love men (cue the Steve Goodman song).
Lu, I know that I can't convince you of anything;we've been at this battle for too many years.
God is God, and He is real.
I'll say that until the day I step into eternity. Have a good night.
Yes, that's about right. It's been my experience that people of faith see themselves reflected in their faith. I used to work with a very sweet Muslim guy who was, if anything, more appalled by 9/11 than the rest of us. "Islam is a religion of peace," he said. I told him it was for him because he was a man of peace.
For some people Christianity is about love, but for you, again in my experience, it's about exclusion, about Us vs. Them.
It's also been my experience that I'm wrong a lot, so I try to keep that in mind. I could be wrong. So could you.
And of course, Lu, your opinion is based on the premise that our God does not exist. Kinda shaky foundation to live on, friend.
"For some people Christianity is about love, but for you, again in my experience, it's about exclusion, about Us vs. Them."
It's absolutely about exclusion, Lu.
Christ 'tasked' us Christians with what? Circling the wagons, putting up walls and keeping people from Heaven?
No-He gave us the mission of spreading the Gospel, declaring to all people that they can be saved, that Salvation is offered to all.
We're not excluding anyone, Lu-we LOVE it when someone accepts Christ and is brought into our family!
The exclusion, the making of a "Us vs. Them" dynamic comes about from those such as yourself who reject 'Inclusion'.
Have a good night.
I can't force myself to believe what I disbelieve. I can't make myself believe that the noonday sky is green, or 2 + 2 = 5, or eating spinach will make my hair fall out. Nor can I make myself believe in (a specific version of the Judeo-Christian) God.
What I believe to be false is to you so clear you can't understand why everyone else can't see it, so you conclude that God must not want us to (or something like that).
Go back through your posts: how many of them are about how wrong certain people are, generally public figures you disagree with politically: Barack Obama, Bill Maher, Michael Moore, people with respect for Eastern religions, Janeane Garafolo. The punchline is always that they may laugh now, but you'll have the last laugh in Heaven while they roast in Hell.
How many of your posts are about how you find joy in living as a Christian? Your last one is, and I enjoyed it. Cats we have with us always. (Mine have the thing about fresh food too. My theory is that they want to be sure there's always food in the bowl. I could draw a parallel to the folks who gathered manna to save for the next day, because they didn't trust God to provide what they needed when they needed it. Not an exact parallel, of course, since dry cat food is edible, at least by cats, for quite a long time.)
"What I believe to be false is to you so clear you can't understand why everyone else can't see it, so you conclude that God must not want us to (or something like that)."
Not true, Lu, and you know it. I have stated often that the faith to believe is a gift from God, so it isn't that I 'can't understand why everyone else can't see it'-I know exactly why most people do not believe.
How do I pray for someone's Salvation? I ask God to have Mercy on them, and to give them the Faith to believe.
"Go back through your posts:"
"The punchline is always that they may laugh now, but you'll have the last laugh in Heaven while they roast in Hell."
Lu, you go back through my posts and bring evidence of me 'laughing' at the idea of anyone going to hell.
I do mention public figures, and I do reject all other faiths as being false, but you will find time and again my wish that hell were empty and Heaven be full. I don't rejoice or find any pleasure in the idea of anyone going to hell.
I will have too many family and friends there to make it something to gloat about.
But you are right-there will be laughter in Heaven, and no more tears or pain, but not because of people being in hell.
"How many of your posts are about how you find joy in living as a Christian?" I have no idea. I don't keep score, but I am generally happy; having been a Christian for over 30 years is a big part of that. It comes out in my posts.
Cats-I usually keep them out of my computer room except when I'm in here-this room is the refuge for my philodendrons which the cats have chewed on.
Post a Comment