The left hates The Salvation Army. That’s all you need to know about the left.
By: Dennis Prager
The lefts hatred of the Salvation Army is vile and irrational. The Salvation Army is right to insist that a legitimate marriage is between one man and one woman and all else is a sham. The Salvation Army provides much needed assistance to many people around the world.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
We all know some individuals who are so obviously good and kind that we are certain if anyone were to dislike them, that’s all we would need to know about the person. We would immediately assume he or she is a bad person. To hate the manifestly good is a sure sign of being bad.
Such is the case regarding the left’s hatred of The Salvation Army. You don’t have to be a Christian — I am not — to appreciate the goodness of the people who run and work for The Salvation Army. They devote their lives to helping the poorest, the saddest, the loneliest and the most troubled among us — completely irrespective of race, gender, transgender identity, faith or no faith. And they do it for almost no money. They do it because of their Christian faith.
They provide these downtrodden people with not only food and shelter but also human warmth and love. And they offer the people they care for the one thing most likely to get them out of their predicament: meaning. They offer it; they do not coerce it. And while the vehicle for this meaning — Christian faith — may not be your faith or mine, so what? It takes a truly narrow-minded bigot to want to deprive people of meaning just because that meaning is rooted in faith or in a faith other than their own.
Yet, leftists — most especially LGBTQ groups, which spread a remarkable amount of hate in the name of “love” — seek to crush The Salvation Army. They threaten and pressure whoever supports The Salvation Army. “British pop singer Ellie Goulding,” the Wall Street Journal recently reported, “threatened to cancel an appearance at the Dallas Cowboys’ Thanksgiving halftime show, which will celebrate the army’s red-kettle campaign, unless it made a ‘pledge or donation to the LGBTQ community.’ She backed down after the Salvation Army assured her it serves needy members of that community.”
Most depressing of all, Chick-fil-A, a business owned by a Christian and heretofore run according to Christian principles, caved in to LGBTQ organizations’ pressure and stopped funding The Salvation Army, while it has also donated to a left-wing group that hates the good, the Southern Poverty Law Center.
I never thought I’d see the day when The Salvation Army would be hated by a substantial number of Americans or lose the support of a Christian-run business.
But given the left’s loathing of virtually all things good — such as America, Israel, traditional Christianity and Judaism, the Boy Scouts, the nuclear family ideal, Thanksgiving and America’s founders — it is not surprising.
As I have said for years, the left destroys everything it touches: music, art, Christianity, Judaism, economies, universities, high schools, late-night comedy, pro football, women’s likelihood of finding happiness, men’s likelihood of maturing, the Boy Scouts and the innocence of children (think “Drag Queen Story Hour” for 5-year-olds at libraries), to cite some of the more obvious examples.
And while it destroys good institutions, the left never builds a viable replacement. Is there a left-wing equivalent to the Boy Scouts, a left-wing institution that helps mold boys into responsible men? Of course not. The left destroys, but it builds nothing — except state power. Or, to take the present example, is there a left-wing equivalent to The Salvation Army? No, there isn’t.
“We believe we are the largest provider of poverty relief to the LGBTQ+ population,” The Salvation Army said in a statement after Chick-fil-A announced its decision. As the Wall Street Journal concluded, “Considering it serves nearly 25 million people every year, that’s likely true.”
But all the good The Salvation Army does means nothing to the left. The left judges people or institutions not by their behavior but by their beliefs. And The Salvation Army believes — as has every civilization in recorded history, and as former President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton did until a few years ago — that marriage should be defined as the union of a man and a woman. To the left, that belief outweighs helping 25 million people including married gays.
One of the great puzzles in contemporary American life is whether there is anything the left could do to make Americans understand how destructive it is. If suppressing free speech at colleges and on the internet, fomenting interracial anger, supporting those who wish to annihilate Israel, allowing (and even encouraging) teenage girls to have their healthy breasts surgically removed if they think they are a boy and trying to crush The Salvation Army don’t do it, probably nothing will.
Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His latest book, published by Regnery in May 2019, is “The Rational Bible,” a commentary on the book of Genesis. His film, “No Safe Spaces,” comes to theaters fall 2019. He is the founder of Prager University and may be contacted at dennisprager.com .
Copyright 2019 CREATORS.COM
Article is LOCKED by moderator [smarty_function_ntUser_get_name: user_id or profile_id parameter required]
Tags
Who is online
97 visitors
But all the good The Salvation Army does means nothing to the left. The left judges people or institutions not by their behavior but by their beliefs. And The Salvation Army believes — as has every civilization in recorded history, and as former President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton did until a few years ago — that marriage should be defined as the union of a man and a woman. To the left, that belief outweighs helping 25 million people including married gays.
One of the great puzzles in contemporary American life is whether there is anything the left could do to make Americans understand how destructive it is. If suppressing free speech at colleges and on the internet, fomenting interracial anger, supporting those who wish to annihilate Israel, allowing (and even encouraging) teenage girls to have their healthy breasts surgically removed if they think they are a boy and trying to crush The Salvation Army don’t do it, probably nothing will.
The fact that you would post this tells me all I need to know about the faaaaaaar right.
Dennis Prager doesn't know what he is talking about. They disown gays from their community. Maybe he needs to go back to shul and remember his own roots better, which btw, does not disown gays.
It's obvious by the comments that this seed is nothing but a bunch of hot air.
"But given the left’s loathing of virtually all things good — such as America, Israel, traditional Christianity and Judaism, the Boy Scouts, the nuclear family ideal, Thanksgiving and America’s founders — it is not surprising."
It's ridiculous statements like this that truly divides us.
On one hand we have the left that says "Hey, can't we ALL just get along, regardless of race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, faith or lack thereof?" while some on the right shout back "Screw you! You America hating, Israel hating, Christian hating, Jew hating, Boy Scout hating, family hating, Thanksgiving hating, founders hating left! We hate you!".
Is there any value responding to such nonsense? Is there any point to refuting such a ludicrous statement or point out that nearly 80% of Jewish Americans vote Democrat? That the vast majority of Democrats and those on the left consider themselves Christians, love Thanksgiving, love our country and families and Boy Scouts so much they want to share all those things, even with those who don't happen to look or worship like they do.
It really is sad to watch you post this pointless divisive drivel day after day here on NT. You're not convincing anyone of anything other than that your brand of faith is toxic and chock full of lies but for some reason you don't seem to care.
[deleted]
Hmm mmm! Now that gets my "Amen" Of the Day! I was thinking it, but you put my outrage into words! Thank you!
That gets the BS of the year award!
"Three leading Democratic presidential candidates have recently signaled their support for some form of “reparations” for black Americans, broadly, if vaguely, backing the idea of compensating the descendants of enslaved people in the United States."
That is not a plea to get along. That is stoking racial hatred to get votes!
I want to start by stating, I take no position on reparations for descendants of slavery. Based on the arguments I have listened to, I could go either way on it.
I will take a position of your asserting that 'bumping together' Dismayed Patriot's quote with a quote from the Washington Post as being a non-sequitar. It does not follow. For what happened to slaves in this country and any 'workable' remedy within and around that issue, is a wholly separate remedy distinct from what this country is working to become since the Civil War and abolition of slavery.
As for your 'pandering' claim, well you offered nothing to support it besides griping.
Why You Shouldn’t Donate to the Salvation Army—Ever!
The Salvation Army is not exactly a charity, as many people assume. It is a religious sect, and a fundamentalist one at that. It is part of the Religious Right and it has an agenda just as they do.
Like other fundamentalists they think abortion should be outlawed. They write: “The Salvation Army deplores society’s ready acceptance of abortion, which reflects insufficient concern for vulnerable persons, including the unborn.” Get that? The “unborn” are persons. That is in line with the “personhood” campaign to define every fetus as legally a person. Similarly you can count them out when it comes to defending the rights of individuals to terminate their own lives in the face of unbearable pain and misery. They say: “The Salvation Army believes that euthanasia and assisted suicide undermine human dignity and are morally wrong regardless of age or disability.” Yep, I sure would feel more dignified, if my mind was gone, and I was bedridden, lying in my own urine and feces while suffering pain — instead of being able to choose to terminate my life before that happens.
On alcohol and drugs they don’t want legalization or harm reduction strategies. As they note there are “both spiritual and temporal dangers inherent in the use of alcoholic beverages” and the church “believes total abstinence to be the only certain guarantee against overindulgence and the evils attendant on addiction.” They also believe there is a “direct connection between the incidence of addiction and the easy availability of alcoholic beverages and the increasing social acceptance of their consumption.”
No gambling either, they say that “engages its participants and promoters in an exercise of greed contrary to biblical moral teaching.” “We believe gambling is wrong, regardless of any perceived benefit of entertainment, charity, or personal gain, even when its destructive influences may not be seen on an individual basis.”
How about gay people? Well, they try to sound enlightened by saying “same-sex orientation” is not blameworthy but “requires individual responsibility and must be guided by the light of scriptural authority.” If they stopped at “individual responsibility” there would be no problem. Instead they toss in the Bible and then say this means homosexuals “are called upon to embrace celibacy as a way of life.” Sure, celibacy, that worked so well with Catholic priests, didn’t it? Thus they oppose marriage rights for gay couples because “There is no scriptural support for same-sex marriage as equal to, or as an alternative to, heterosexual marriage.” I would note there is also no “scriptural support for cars as an equal to, or as an alternative to, riding an ass into town.” They even try to say they will accept gay people in their church and don’t discriminate, provided they “accept and abide by The Salvation Army’s doctrine and discipline.” In other words, gay people are fine provided they don’t actually have a relationship, remain celibate, and only shake their tambourine to raise money for the sect.
The church, remember the Salvation Army is a church, says that marriage is “the loving union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.” I think that “for life” part precludes divorce for heterosexuals, and, of course, it precludes all marriages for gay people at all. And marriage “is the only proper context for sexual intimacy.” Otherwise it is “abstinence before, and faithfulness within, marriage” but only for opposite-sex couples. Gay people are NEVER, NEVER, NEVER to have sex. They also push the myth that marriage is “God’s institution” and that God invented it. They no more believe marriage evolved than they believe humans did.
And, since gays can’t marry, can they at least have a wank? Well, it’s not clear but they can’t if they look at erotica which the Salvation Army opposes “in all of its forms.” They also promote the lie of the Right that porn “is clearly linked with prostitution, sexual abuse and assault, and other forms of sexual exploitation.” They claim it “promotes deviant sex and violence” — I was so naïve I thought the Old Testament did that; it is pretty kinky book with fathers and daughters fornicating, multiple wives, etc., and there is more genocide there than in the worst blood and gore film around.
And don’t think you have a private right to erotica. They say it is “not an issue of private morality alone,” and that people “have the right to protection from enterprises that erode society and exploit persons.” What does it mean when you say people have a “right to protection from” something? If you have a right to protection from assault it means that the act of assault is a crime. It means those who assault are arrested and may be imprisoned. When you have a right to protection from murder it means that murder is a crime, as is attempted murder, and those who try, or succeed, in such an endeavor are arrested, tried, sentenced and imprisoned. It is clear they want the law to censor erotica under penalty of prison.
They also urge people to “start or join grassroots efforts to protect your community against pornography.” And they even have a “click here” button so you can download information on how to do that. And where does that information come from? Focus on the Family, of course. In other words, the Salvation Army directly promotes one of the most active Religious Right groups around. Meanwhile Focus on the Family quotes a Salvation Army official who says erotica “is prostitution for mass consumption.” (Note to libertarians, they would oppose legalized prostitution as well.) The brochure the Salvationists distribute says all porn is technically illegal and the problem is that “law enforcement agencies at the local, state or federal level do not enforce obscenity laws.” The Salvationists, and Focus on the Family, note “Active, informed and vigilant citizens are needed in every community to ensure laws are enforced and community standards are maintained.” Get that, what we need are more vigilant fundamentalists trying to impose their moral values, through the force of law, on the rest of us.
So, the “right to protection from enterprises that erode society and exploit persons” means people should be arrested for producing and selling porn, perhaps even for owning it. And since it is not just “an issue of private morality alone” don’t take naughty videos of yourself and your partner, presumably even if you married (which means straight, and for life).
But, wait a second. If there is a “right to protection from enterprises that erode society and exploit persons,” and since the Salvation Army already said that alcohol and gambling do just that, aren’t they also hinting gambling and alcohol production should be criminal offenses as well?.
They also say they support human equality and then put in enough loopholes to indicate they don’t. They say they support “the Biblical and Christian imperatives of human and civil rights.” So, if the Bible says you can have the right they are fine, otherwise, not so much. They don’t oppose discrimination per se, just “unlawful, unjust, or immoral discrimination.” Apparently “moral discrimination” is fine, such as denying gays the right to marry because it isn’t a “Biblical and Christian… civil right.”
Libertarians, and conservatives will both be appalled to learn the Salvation Army believes: “All people have a right to secure the basic necessities of life (e.g., food, clothing, shelter, education, health care, safe environment, economic security.) So along with their socially conservative agenda they are very Left when it comes to a “right” to health care and a “right” to shelter, education and “economic security.” They claim all people have a “right” to a “just wages and benefits” but fail to define what that means. Rights are something other people have to respect, and how do they respect your right to health care? Not by leaving you alone, but by being forced to fund your health plan.
So what kind of governance would exist if we implemented the ethical system of the Salvationists. First, there would be no decriminalization of drugs, a reimplentation of prohibition, a war on gambling, and erotica would be illegal. Gay people would not be allowed to have sex, let alone marry. Abortions would be illegal. And if you think all of this is rather unbearable you aren’t allowed to commit suicide either. And before the Religious Right starts having wet dreams over the Salvationist ideal society they should remember it also teaches every person has a “right” to health care, economic security, just wages and benefits, education, etc. We are talking about very active government with fingers in every aspect of human existence.
Next time you see one of those annoying bell ringers, remember your donations do more than feed some hungry people. It goes to a fundamentalist sect with the same agenda as the rest of the Religious Right. It allows them to promote brochures on how to bring the law down on people who don’t live according to their religious morality. It is used by them to promote a political/religious agenda, not just to help people in need.
There is nothing wrong with helping people in need. If you want to feed hungry people give to a food kitchen for the hungry. What you don’t have to do is donate to an organization that has a “charitable” public face, while pushing a fundamentalist, religious agenda behind the scenes. The only reason the Salvationists are not as open as their good friends at Focus on the Family, is that they, unlike FOTF, rely on naïve, charitable people for their donations. In a way, that makes them worse. At least Focus on the Family is upfront about their political agenda and only people who support that agenda donate to them. But the Salvation Army has their agenda hidden behind a wall of “human needs” which allows them to dupe a lot of well-meaning individuals to fund an agenda they would not normally support.
This is actually well-written and has it finger on the pulse of the subject matter. Tessylo, come to the head of the class, please!
Help Disaster Survivors
Over 90 million Americans become victims of natural disasters every year.
Help Disaster SurvivorsServe the LGBTQ Community
40% of homeless youth in the United States identify as LGBTQ
Serve the LGBTQ CommunityProvide Shelter
More than half a million people experience homelessness in America every day.
Provide ShelterCure Hunger
Every day, almost 50 million Americans face food insecurity.
Cure HungerMeet the Greatest Need
Eighty-two cents of every dollar given to The Salvation Army goes to work in the community in which it was donated.
Meet the Greatest NeedOvercome Poverty
14% of Americans live below the poverty line.
Overcome PovertyCombat Addiction
Alcohol abuse kills 75,000 people in the United States every year.
Combat AddictionShare God's Love
8 out of 10 Americans believe spiritual faith assists in disease recovery.
Share God's LoveAssist the Unemployed
Among homeless people, nearly one in three suffers from a mental health disorder.
Assist the UnemployedEquip Families
Almost half of all high school students report the presence of gangs or gang members at their school.
Equip FamiliesFight Human Trafficking
On average, victims first enter the American sex trade at 13 years old.
Fight Human TraffickingServe Veterans
Veterans make up 8% of the homeless population in the U.S.
Serve VeteransLove the Elderly
Each year, depression affects 7 million Americans over the age of 65.
Love the ElderlyBrighten the Holidays
Each year, millions of children don't have any Christmas gifts to unwrap because there's no money in the budget.
Brighten the HolidaysStop Domestic Abuse
Every hour in the U.S., 400 women become victims of domestic abuse.
Stop Domestic AbuseTeach Kids
40% of kids who live in poverty are ill-equipped to enter elementary school.
Teach KidsThe Salvation Army Mission Statement
The Salvation Army, an international movement, is an evangelical part of the universal Christian Church. Its message is based on the Bible. Its ministry is motivated by the love of God. Its mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs in His name without discrimination.
1.4.2 is an absolutely outstanding comeback,
even though it's just another cut and paste from the SA website.
Now tell me again why we are supposed to fall down in awe of the Trump economic miracle?
You can discuss that here:
|
A. The Salvation Army believes that marriage should be defined as the union of a man and a woman.
B. To the left, that belief outweighs helping 25 million people including married gays.
The Salvation Army is sending out a mixed and 'conflicted' message. Either the institution's
Else the confusion will remain and need 'ironing' out repeatedly.
1.4.2 is an absolutely outstanding comeback. Emphatically.
Cause Omarosa said so !
That’s simply ridiculous. The Bible says that legitimate marriage is one man and one woman for life and that all sex of any kind outside of that is adultery. It also says to help the poor and the needy victims of natural disasters, based on their needs. So we will neither give up our belief that same sex sex is an abomination to God or our commitment to try to help all who are legitimately in need regardless of any thing but said need.
A display of some passion, at last! Spoken with conviction. I can accept that you will help the "abominable" same-sex couples in need as a Christian duty alongside others you aid. However, do not let it surprise you that some people, including the same-sex couples you aid, may experieince a complex time explaining the mixed, conflicting message. BTW, I can comprehend how the message emanates, still you (all) need to RECONCILE it for clarity-sake.
What is the position of gay Christians on HA's claim that God is opposed to gay marriage and that God considers homosexuality an abomination?
There are all sorts of interpretations of the Bible. Does HA's interpretation stand as true or is there a rebuttal?
Doesn't he say being gay is a choice, so gays are choosing to piss god off? Or that they aren't "true" christians?
I'd wager he thinks his interpretation is the "true" one and any other differing interpretation is wrong.
HA says that God considers homosexuals abominations even today. Others consider homosexuality a sin. Some do indeed claim that homosexuals cannot be true Christians.
Given all of the above, there are plenty of homosexual Christians. What is their position on this? It seems odd that they would agree with bigoted positions. Thus they must have an alternate interpretation of the scripture which emboldens the bigotry.
My (and your) interpretation is that the Bible is not divine so do not worry about the mores & values of ancient men. But for those who consider the Bible divine this poses a problem.
Could it be that gay Christians consider these positions correct??
Yes, but certain "die-hard" Christians will claim homosexual Christians are not "true Christians" or that one cannot be homosexual and a Christian, or similar such nonsense. We've even heard some make very those claims before.
Agreed. Perhaps they don't take the bible so literally as some do?
Indeed. And that can also mean problems for anyone else who doesn't subscribe to that particular belief or view.
Agreed. And do gay Christians not have an alternate interpretation of this operative scripture?
It seems Christians can't even agree on what their bible says or what their god actually wants. Go figure.
God has turned the faith over to us as stewards. It is no longer law. It is called: "Liberty." It is called: "Spiritual." And what you see is men and women walking along gladly in the glory of spiritual freedom in counterwise sadly, in it's chaos. It is to be the case, for now, that we are the stewards navigating various paths!
This physical existence is not spiritually perfected, TiG. For if it was so there would be no longer need for holding on to faith.
That reads as though your position is that the Bible has been replaced with spirituality.
Actually, the New Testament is about spirituality:
It is the Bible which explains our Christian way of life to us. (Leading us to liberty and the varying doctrines, customs, teachings, and dogmas believers hold in their respective Christian cultures.) Societies, people, individuals , have been pulling 'threads' of their choosing out of the Bible 'forever' in order to cause the Word to work for them. It is not a problem-until it done with harm in mind.
Personally, I agree that a person has the right to speak their own OPINION in regards to their religious beliefs.
However, IMO....NO ONE.....NO ONE has the right to usurp the right of the Creator by casting their own judgement of another human. Only the Creator has that right, and I have NEVER read anywhere that the Creator has given ANY human being that right.
However, there are those who do go against the deity that they worship by usurping their sole right to judge all humans. And yet they still call themselves Christians, which flies in the face of the deity they claim to worship.
Well not everyone holds your beliefs of a make believe creator so they do not have to live up to your standards of some imaginary force.
Ultimately one takes the Bible as divine or not. HA clearly does and holds that God's declaration of abomination stands until today. He is using the Bible to explain his view of the Christian way of life: in this case his advice to all homosexuals is that God holds their natural desires to be an abomination. Others go so far as to say that God views all homosexuals as abominations. Others claim that a homosexual can never be a true Christian.
This all stems from the obvious verses in both the OT and the NT. The problem, of course, is that these verses are held to be the divine word of God. Seems to me that homosexual Christians would disagree with this on the grounds that God is known in the abstract and not from literal words in a book. That is, they know God in a spiritual sense and do not take the Bible to be divine. Thus they reject the abomination notions as simply the mores & values of ancient men and not how God views them.
If that is how this is resolved then why even bother with the Bible? If the Bible cannot be used to confidently get God's divine message — no method to discern God's true intent from words that are merely attributed to God — then how does one take anything in the Bible to be more than the words of ancient men?
They have that right. And others have the right to challenge them (and should).
In the case I brought up, the individual is declaring that God judges homosexuals to be abominations (even today) based on verses in the Bible. In this case the individual is holding that his interpretation of the Bible is truth and then uses that as a basis for bigotry. When a 'holy book' declares that homosexual acts warrant the death penalty, that provides a strong foundation for bigotry.
In my way of thinking, if a 'holy book' calls for the death of those who engage in homosexual acts or condones the practice of owning other human beings as property or makes claims (e.g. worldwide flood) that contradict what we know based on modern geology, etc. then I would find the 'holy book' to be nothing more than the work of men. After all, it is mere human beings who tell us this book is holy. Why trust other human beings — especially when the book they claim to be the divine word of a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. God is demonstrably errant and contradictory (just what one would expect from a work of mere human beings)?
Depends which part of the Bible you read. Mosaic law allowed for polygamous marriage and divorce.
I wonder if a man who has more than one wife is committing adultery against one wife when he has sex with another? Is it adultery if a man who is married (to one or more wives) rapes an unbetrothed virgin, and is then forced to buy her from her father?
If so, should the adulterer be stoned (in accordance with law) before or after his wedding to his new bride?
Or maybe we shouldn't take moral instruction from sources so obviously devoid of morality.
We do have Christian liberty, which is the reason (in the first place) why Martin Luther was seminal in starting the Protestant Reformation pulling out from the Catholic Church our mutual faith and giving it to the people. The past being prologue.
There is saying in Christendom: " None of us have a Heaven or Hell to exercise judgement over. God is the judge."
Paul actually wrote a most salient position for Believers to exist in:
At the end of the day, the believer is to live humbly and not arrogantly putting him or herself above "all." I understand it is easy to get ahead and to deceive oneself into thinking one is doing God "a favor," but we do a true disservice when believers' band together to create a makeshift Heaven on Earth. This place is not the Heaven sought after, for in that Heaven—God is truly present and in control.
Here, especially in a republic, believers should strive to live according to their belief system, and as the case is, distinct doctrines they involve themselves in. Allowing others to live as they so choose in hope that if possible they make come to trust in God too—or not.
The interesting thing you seem to ignore is Christian faith is reasonable , but not formal logic. That is, it is anchored in the Bible and it bears itself out through study.
You are attempting to apply formal logic to faith. The easy answer would be for God to call the whole 'exploration' of faith (and any accompanying doubt) off and to just appear, sat in the public square of our universe, speak and explain, God-thought.
For God's own purposes, God has placed humanity apart and alone to deal with its issues of life, time and space, while simultaneously reaching out to mankind to strive to 'come up' higher spiritually .
Thus, it is God who sets the stage— spiritually . It is God who is issuing the 'Call' to the world— spiritually . And a myriad of us who reveal its receiving at some point, time, stage of life!
Paul at one point writes of his faith in a flippant manner to make an important, larger , wholesome point:
Paul is calling his life's work and that of many who have come after him, "foolishness." That is to be clear, this methodology God has chosen for us: To stand in the square and persuade ourselves to consider God and "Come" - is to put it nicely -a difficult, slow, tedious, definitely painful, despairing, and at times a deathly proposition.
NOTE: I have a distraction around me just now that has 'shot' the rest of my thoughts on this. I will address the rest of your comment (accordingly) later in another comment.
How can it be reasonable given the many varied interpretations? How can it be anchored in the Bible when Christians read the Bible in such very different and contradictory ways?
No I am not. I am pointing out that the Bible is errant and self-contradicting and that Christians (et. al.) disagree on what it actually means. Nobody knows yet Christians argue over whose interpretation is right. Worse, per my point, some use the Bible as the foundation for bigotry.
Then what is the point of the Bible? It cannot be read at face value and higher level interpretations yield hypotheses, not truth. One clearly can make the Bible 'say' whatever one wishes it to 'say'. Further, God has not stated that the Bible is His divine word. People have made that claim. Why trust people?
Specifically now, when a fellow Christian claims that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God, do you agree?
Circular logic and special pleading.
What I continue to get trying to parse through these responses is basically this: The Bible is interpreted spiritually. That is, the Holy Spirit works with each believer to interpret the Bible accurately. If one is not a true believer, one will not have the help of the Holy Spirit and thus one cannot possibly interpret the Bible.
Trouble is, the Holy Spirit apparently guides different 'true believers' to contradicting truths. One 'true believer' understands that God deems homosexuality to be an abomination. Other 'true believers' directly contradict that. The 'true believers' are all over the map.
No matter how many levels of mystical indirection one applies here, the bottom line is that the meaning that people get from the Bible is demonstrably contradictory. It is a verifiable (and obvious) fact. So no matter how that meaning arises, the Bible demonstrably does not yield truth. How that can be ignored is quite an item of psychological curiosity.
Agreed.
To me, it wouldn't be a problem, if it didn't seem to frequently lead to some sort of bigotry. Some Christians think homosexuals are abominations. Some think that women are meant to be second-class citizens (occasionally dressed up in pretty words as "complementarianism"). And some just think nonbelievers are too stupid to understand what they're reading about those beliefs, because if they could understand it, they'd believe it, or they can't understand it unless they throw away their reason and believe it. Either way, nonbelievers are seen as "less than" - lacking something some believers insist they have (but can't demonstrate or support rationally).
If they could all just say "I believe this because it's what I've been taught, but your beliefs are equally as valid as mine, and I have no right to judge you an abomination based on beliefs you may not share", well, life would be better for everyone.
How is any of life "everything"? We find ourselves "slaves" to making sense of order and chaos.
The "many interpretations" which serve as a 'hard' point for you is really not as damaging to faith as it appears. More injurious is the arrogant and flagrant acts by men and women who abuse themselves (and others) with "the Book." I won't go further into the history of this - instead leave it up to you and others to know and learn.
As you can well know and understand words are interesting elements, and different people, cultures, customs, and celebrations exist for how people perceive life and deal with it dynamically . That is, we speak many languages in this world and not all communication elements can convey across exactly. Now then, if the Bible was meant to speak to one set or tribe of people it could be concise in its understanding. However, this is not the case. The Bible speaks to the world. Consequently, it has to be translated, and other nations - even other groups pull out of it what is memorable, "visual" to their understanding, what helps them process it. More later on this point. This is a complex point and needs more "unpacking." There is not substitute for 'studying to show oneself approved.'
Bigotry is wrong and can be evil. It should not be done. That is all I can write on this.
People can make alternative realities if they wish. (See file under Trump Administration Politics.) However, this is the honest work believers (it is too big a task for me to undertake alone) can undertake to perform: To unify the faith under a narrow set of beliefs, yielding peace as a goal. Not this political and spiritual unrest. On this I will agree. Again, I, we, can only do so much when people choose to exercise their liberty to cause chaos and seek sordid gains. There is not substitute for 'studying to show oneself approved.'
John wrote this on the subject:
Paul wrote on this wise:
All I can say at any point is, since we are 'captured' to be people of faith - There is not substitute for 'studying to show oneself approved.'
NOTE . Now I need to take a "coffee break." (Smile.)
Indeed. Faith by definition is unreasonable. And irrational.
Are you pitting homosexuality against a wide range of Christian spirituality? I will say this. We, "homosexual Christians" or "Christians who 'once were' homosexual" to use Paul's phraseology, are either:
As to Heartland American specially and the Evangelical Christian Right, what I have to say to I will say in due time. In my own words, manner, and over time. It is not going to be an 'easy' transaction. The words on the pages of the Bible are what they are. They are in 'black and white.'
That said, there is a practical application rule of life to take stock of here to. Jesus stated it along the lines of:
That verse translates to: Apply wisdom abundantly and often to make life work in the present .
Does not change the fact I brought up. The Bible, demonstrably, yields different meaning to different people and the meanings are contradictory. That alone shows that the Bible is not reliable as a source of information. It really does not matter how one explains the differences because, at the end of the day, the contradictions remain and thus the unreliability of the Bible as a source of divine information remains an indisputable fact.
I don't think anybody has made that claim.
He doesn't need to. As you said:
If that is your conclusion than that is your choice. Need I remind you that you do not experience a life of faith to make judgements, snap or durable, for others. You make it abundantly clear over the long haul that you have not walked a single day in this belief system that say, men and women like Pete Buttigieg labor in everyday.
Given the number of denominations out there, it's the only rational conclusion. The Bible has multiple interpretations. Seeing that this is so is not wishful thinking on the part of nonbelievers; it is a reality borne out by the fact that there are multiple sects who are distinguished from other sects by their adherence to those multiple interpretations.
One does not need faith to see that it is so, and having faith does not negate that fact.
CB I am raising an obvious point. A homosexual Christian either holds that God considers homosexuality an abomination or not. I would expect that a homosexual Christian would not believe in a God who deems him/her an abomination (or equivalent). Thus a homosexual Christian necessarily would object to the characterization by other Christians that God considers homosexuality an abomination. They would argue that God would not create human beings as homosexual and then deny them the right to be true to their sexual orientation.
The other logical option is that a homosexual Christian considers him/herself an abomination. That option I have dismissed as unlikely.
My comments have been about the Bible. I am noting how improper it is for people to make judgments on others based on the ancient mores & values written in a book.
Indeed, I have never been a gay Christian. I am, however, interested in how gay Christians respond to fellow heterosexual Christians who claim that the God they believe in thinks homosexuals are abominations. One would expect that a gay Christian would disagree with that characterization. Something like: no, God does not consider homosexuals to be abominations.
A rhetorical thought: Don't use faith - if it offends your sensibilities. Let those who can use it do so, and 'pray' they use it mostly between themselves.
You feel liberated and clear to speak on behalf of: 1. Homosexuals. 2. Christians? Let's take a moment to reflect that you are neither homosexual or a person of any faith in God. Perhaps, one should consider what the 'workers in both fields' bring through and in experience to this table.
Mayor Pete Buttigieg is my object lesson for now. He and I assume his spouse are people 'walking and living out' their faith in God, while in a marriage relationship. And, going forward I will stop belaboring the marriage as "same-sex." Let that be understood. This couple will let God decide their obvious end. Whether or not what Paul or Moses or anyone in church leader has decided. There is a practical application, that is, where 'the rubber meets the road' in all our spiritual walks. Sexuality just happens to be a 'hot' spot.
Still, it does not follow that someone can or should or must stand outside the margins and 'ping,' pontificate, judge, or vainly attempt to "make hay" out of the real life circumstances of other people's circumstances. The Buttigiegs' has read the words of the Book, read that he and Chase can interact with God through faith alone (and if you wish I can lay out his argument on faith alone for you). As it relates to his sexuality, Pete and Chase trust God to give him any insight or insights God deems fit. —End of narrative.
In this sense, the homosexual marriage bed is private.( Hebrews 13:4 4 Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.)
I am homosexual and abstaining; and, it presents me with many interesting and at times confusing challenges and ways of looking at life. That is no different than for anybody heterosexual who faces challenges and confusions and ways of looking at life while abstaining from sex, facing divorce, giving up fornicatin', or giving up: lying, stealing, murders, et ceteras for a spiritual way of looking at life.
Well, I would like you to particularly consider that I have abundantly supplied you with interesting responds for deep consideration.
Generally speaking, God or as if you prefer, the grandest possible entity, does not consult with me about what God desires. My 'role' is simply to do my best as a servant, who have undertaken service to be the best possible believer I can be. I can not forswear the words written on the page, I, the Buttigiegs', and all other homosexuals of faith can only do what we to follow after our beliefs and leave judgment for our decisions humbly in the hands of God. If after our days our lives are individually tested :
There is imagery in the Bible of God's testing us with refiner's fire. That is, as I stand before God in my mind's eye, I will not have to open my 'mouth' so as to speak, for the chaff and 'foolishness' of me shall be 'boiling' or 'winded' away to reveal my true essence—if it is pure or not. I won't need to utter a spiritual word.
I agree TiG. And there are many who do just that. They try to cherry pick and use words of the Bible to try and justify their own bigotry toward those who are different from themselves physically, or have different beliefs. They deem them to be sinful and worthy of death.
They refuse to acknowledge that their choosing to condemn, demean and denigrate others is itself sinful, seeing themselves as righteous and worthy to sit at the right hand of God.
The overly self-righteousness of some here on NT who see themselves as having a 'divine' right to preach their own beliefs to others and feel the right to demean and denigrate anyone who does not adhere to their own beliefs are sinful and worthy of death. This judgmental condemnation of others is a direct contradiction of what they haughtily preach to others from their 'Good Book'.
In fact, the only one they have the right to judge is themselves. And if they were truly as pure and free of sin as they like to think they are, the world would be much more peaceful and free of hate.
JMOO
If you are reading my comments you will notice that I am doing the opposite. I am wondering what the homosexual Christian position is.
Well other Christians seem to think that God has clearly stated His intent. HA, for example, has stated that God did and still does consider homosexuality an abomination. I am surprised that you do not deem that to be wrong. Do you think HA is correct??
From my perspective, since I realize the Bible is simply the words of ancient men, it is easy to dismiss passages such as Leviticus 20:13. But for those who think the Bible is divine, it is striking that there is no push-back when people use Leviticus 20:13 to publicly deem homosexuality to be an abomination in the eyes of God.
That should be a giant red flag that the Bible cannot be taken as divine.
Like democrats, atheists, humanists, and republicans: Christian beliefs, customs, and attitudes are not monolithic.
Well, what is a giant red flag is you are repeating yourself, TiG! Need I remind you that you caution others NOT to keep repeating themselves? See Heartland American about his arguments, assuming he is not a she. I don't recall if that has been fully made clear or not! (Smile.) As for me, I have been making my 'case' since last Saturday on this one. I have decided not to be repetitive much. As for other Christians, they do what they do, and hopefully it is walking by their faith in larger part more than less!
Interesting that you will not state that it is wrong for Christians such as HA to speak for God and insist that homosexuality was and is an abomination in God's eyes.
When you read articles like this: " Court sides with student who branded gay people an ‘abomination' " where the legal system affirms bigotry if expressed as a religious belief (and note that this was predicated on what is written in the Bible) do you have no opinion? When you see conservative movements to prevent (and now, to threaten the legality of) same-sex marriage do you have no opinion?
Well, in my opinion it is wrong for someone to use the Bible as justification for bigotry. It is wrong for societies to make laws based on religious beliefs. I think some should rethink why they blindly hold to words penned by ancient men. Ancient Hebrew mores & values do not apply today. Societies have grown well past slavery, blood sacrifices, etc. and many are growing beyond ancient bigotry as well. All of this growth necessarily goes against the Bible and thus societies are implicitly stating that the Bible is not the divine word of a perfect god. Clinging to ancient verses such as Leviticus 20:13 as if divine is net bad and people should challenge those who —even today— deem homosexuals abominations based on the Bible.
Odd that you do not challenge such thinking.
Odd that you keep repeating yourself while chiding others for repetition. It's all whether. . . . Disturbing.
I will say this once more:
Now as to you, Tig. Instead of trying to stir up that which is not applicable to your understanding—
Is there any thing you, as an Agnostic atheist find abomination? Anything at all (not directly homosexuality related). For instance: Is there a rational answer for pedophiliacs being "born that way."?
I would like to hear you out this and other abominations you find in society - as doing so might inform me of why you have strong passion over homosexuality.
I never do.
What makes you think that?
I never said people couldn't use faith or pray or whatever.
I can state that it is wrong to deem homosexuals as abominations. I can back up that statement with solid reasoning and facts. You apparently cannot do likewise.
Well, yeah, that's kinda what TiG has been saying.
A reasonable belief is consistent. Inconsistent, sometimes even contradictory, beliefs cannot be reconciled with each other and declared "reasonable".
Is there any thing you, as an Agnostic atheist find abominable? Anything at all (not directly homosexuality related). For instance: Is there a rational answer for pedophiliacs being "born that way."?
I would like to hear you out this and other abominations you find in society - as doing so might inform me of why you have strong passion over homosexuality.
We have been talking about biblical bigotry against homosexuals and now twice you have segued into pedophiles. You actually 'go there' twice —implicitly drawing an equivalence— instead of standing up to biblical bigotry against homosexuals.
Fascinating.
Well, CB, the Bible makes no statements against pedophilia. In fact, pedophilia (as we define it today) was a common practice in those days and this is reflected in the Bible. Typically the pedophile was a man and the victims were some of his wives or slaves (or soon to be wife or slave). So when I state that pedophilia is immoral and despicable, will you refrain from doing likewise because the Bible condones it?
Don't forget about slavery.
You have been obsessing over homosexuality and a need to have all Christians (including the Buttigiegs') renounce it and/or the Bible accordingly over it—for your own purposes. Despite, I should point out, all that I a known homosexual and Christian have written above. But, I digress.
There is nothing fascinating about it. When it comes to child-rearing and living in a loving relationship with a woman you love—I would ask questions and eventually give deference to your statements. For the obvious reasons of your experiences with both as the case may be, and my lack. As a result your continued rehashing the same questions is not fascinating. It is disturbing.
Is the Pedophile "born this way"? And how is it his or her state of "born this way" different from the homosexual "born this way"? On what do you reason the difference. Curious.
He asked a simple and straightforward question about it and you've been continuously dodging the question. Why is that?
You wrote plenty and avoided addressing the question throughout.
What is fascinating is that most people nowadays have the good moral sense to object to bigotry on sexual orientation yet you will not do so.
I will not risk another-fill in the blank- so miss me with that one, please I BEG of you Gordy! /s
I won't make this personal. I simply won't. Please, don't be angry with me.
Hi CB,
I would like to kick into the discussion here. Here is what we know scientifically.
People are born homosexual. There are structural differences in the brain of homosexuals. This can not be altered just like the color of your eyes.
Pedophilia is considered a mental disease since pedophiles are almost always created. It comes from being molested when a person is young. Obviously, not all people who are molested will turn out to be pedophiles, but almost all pedophiles were molested as children. Mind you, since most pedophiles are molested as children, this becomes a hardwired behavior, and those are almost impossible to change.
I will. Heh Heh
I usually agree with your stance on a lot of things. I hardly ever come on to religious threads.
IMO people can believe what ever they want as long as it's not pushed on others.
Not to sound to personal yet I thought you were gay.
Like I said, people can be as religious as they want, I will just never understand making oneself lonely or miserable, maybe miss out on things in life, just to appease God.
I think God would want people to be happy, and yes, part of that is having an intimate relationship. Whether or not some approve.
Times change and people change. Even in the Methodist church they now allow women pastors. They have always been allowed to marry. Adultery is not the same as premarital sex. Guarantee you everyone in the church as done it. Probably even the pastor.
Of all the things in the world for God to worry about, I think sex is way down on the list. If it is even on it. A natural fact of life.
I have heard that time and again. Continuing the cycle.
They even did an SVU episode on it once.
Good choice. You should never make it personal.
Hi Perrie! To be clear you are saying that pedophilia is not an orientation sexually? Or is what you describing a distinction without a difference?
And I don't have the time right now to research - well may be I do - what was said about homosexuality when it was listed as a 'disorder' for it was so. For most of my life!
Hi CB,
Pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. It is a mental illness. Pedophiles may prefer their own sex or the opposite sex, but it is about control.
I am kind of surprised by what you said about homosexuality. It has been known for some time now, due to MRI imaging and postmortem examination, that the physical structure of gay people is different than that of straight people.
Scholarly findings:
Mass consumption:
That should keep you busy, LOL!
Hi Ender! Thanks for the compliment! I need it occasionally.
To be clear, I am not unhappy. And I take my 'knocks' and loneliness in life along with other beneficial activities on balance. As you may know, there are many forms of attraction and many reason people throughout time memorial have opted out of relationships: To solder; to command; to have a well-developed career; a widow or widower; devotion to a Cause; priestly devotion to God, etceteras.
As Perrie established above thereabouts, and as I have blogged about some time ago (2018) ( see here )
There are homosexual congregations scattered about America. So if I really needed "it" I have an idea of where to begin my journey to getting involved.
Sex is not its own "be all" that states it all - for not becoming or staying spiritual!
Peace.
True, yet it should not be any type of barrier.
Really the great 'old' days of the 90's. I am-was- talking about the 'old-old' days of the 70's and before. Be back later.
pedophilia is not a sexual orientation. It is a paraphilia.
Homosexuality has been off the "disorder" books for decades now.
What risk? It was a simple question. I'm not sure why you continue to avoid it.
Yes, see I am such a 'regular kind of guy.' One of the "good" ones. La de da! /s
I have not suggested sex of any kind should be a barrier to spirituality. That is what some of the others here are doing as they try to pull words out (or put them in) my 'mouth.'
I will say this spirituality is definitely far and apart from sexuality, in and of itself. It is where my "head" is (most of the time). (Smile.)
You can not be sure of plenty things Gordy. (You "got it" that way.)
I'm the homosexual here, so it kind of goes with my diligence to know when homosexuality 'cleared' from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. I've known it long enough to have 'forgotten' the particulars about it!
Wait, . . . let me. . . OKAY! "Pile on." I'm ready now.
Indeed.
Someone declares that God, per the Bible, deems homosexuality to be an abomination and that this is true even today. What would prompt someone (especially one who is himself Christian and homosexual) to let that stand unchallenged? And worse, to refuse to articulate a position on this matter.
I did a little research on this. Apparently there are organizations out there within Christianity which encourage homosexual Christians to find a meaningful life but without engaging in homosexual activities (intimacy, marriage, etc.). They claim that homosexual activities go against the teachings of Jesus and are thus wrong. In short, people are convincing other people to suppress their natural sexual orientation based on words in a book written by ancient men.
Well Tig, here is some really good news: NT is not suppressing any passions of atheists it appears. "Rock on!" "Steady as she goes!" "And all that jazz!" /s.
NT is not suppressing passions of homosexuals either. I suspect most of us would encourage homosexuals to be who they are and not be held back by ancient human-sourced words based on the naïve understanding of sexual orientation held by the ancients.
90 gay and straight men and women. 30 +30+30? Not a very big group. So, . . . what does this study suggest (or was it remiss) in determining the reason some heterosexuals become "Trade" who love to spend and 'love on' homosexuals-> for long periods of their lives?
Do you consider sexual orientation to be an intrinsic characteristic of an individual or do you think it is simply a choice?
My answer is this:
I was born heterosexual. It was not learned and it certainly is not a choice. I expect that homosexuals hold that they were born homosexual and that their orientation is not a choice either.
Now that is some spinning. That is not what I meant and many here are wise enough to know it. But, I am moving on now. You can continue to do this thing you do without me if you want. Sadly, this discussion is deteriorating and breaking down along its "routine" tracks.
Evolution of gay rights from 1967 to today
Those 'by-gone days' —When homosexuality was not an a little less chic and vogue.
Your point?
Obviously, being 'born this way' was not a popular theme not so long ago in a land not so far away. I'm guessing some of us here were' alive and kicking' in those days?
This is rather well known history. What point are you making by stating what I think is obvious to most everyone here?
Well, since you said, "most everyone" assume it is directed to those left out here. You were alive back then, maybe? If so, did you tell 'most everyone' including the 'officials' and their journals about homosexuality and how we were "born this way." How did it work out - if you did? Did anybody listen to the 'lofty' discussion around or nearby?
Is there a point to be made here?
Completed.
'same sex sex is an abomination'
How so?
Y'all just need to mind your business and stop peeking in peoples' bedrooms.
I wholeheartedly agree with your point, Tessylo!
No, I do not consider myself an abomination based on the words of the Bible. Now that I have answered your question, let me hastily point out to you that your are asking the wrong question. The proper question would be more of:
The NT writer Paul in Romans 1 makes a long argument about homosexuality being against God and under wrath, but not punishable by death. Paul states that homosexuality is a sin against God and as such should be repented of, that is turned away from, and acceptance of Jesus Christ. Repentance and acceptance being Paul's remedy for homosexuality.
Good question, Tessylo! Now then, you can 'run' with this or you can come back so we can advance this line of discussion farther. There is more to this area of interest, but I will hold at this point. I make a commitment not to 'sugar-coat' any of it. Straight-talk all the way!
You are correct on counts 1 and 2. So considering this:
HA is using OT Mosaic law and claiming that God authored that law and that it remains in effect today. That is all the justification any so-disposed Abrahamic religious person needs then to employ the infamous bigotry of the Westside Baptist Church: "God hates fags".
I presume you then refute biblical bigotry against homosexuals. What you believe God (Yahweh, the Father) rules in the OT is no longer applicable and, instead, God (Jesus) has downgraded homosexuality from an offense punishable by death to a sin. That is an improvement, but even Jesus holds that homosexuality is a sin whereas heterosexuality is not. What a mess it is trying to work around the many flaws of the Bible.
Several ground rules are a must:
NOTE: I will assume you accept these two must if you reply back to this comment.
I don't have a luxury of saying God was wrong in promising (giving word - God can not lie) Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that God was going to over time make the nation of Israel an 'innumerable people.' What I can suggest is this: for the times involved - pregnancies, (new) babies, and overall low death rates increase population. Moving on.
Next, as it relates to the Mosaic Law. Whatever law God uttered to Moses to present to the people falls under God's prerogative. For me, there is nothing gained by attempting to "defeat" what God, who twenty something years ago successfully altered the trajectory of my life, by attempting to pull apart God from Moses.
The text won't sustain the effort at modification, and it would be wrong of me to "detach" the OT context from the OT statements and meanings. BTW, that is why I wrote straightforward to Tesslyo. "No chaser added"
"God hates fags." People, like Westboro Baptist Church members, have been making a myriad of decisions on behalf of the Bible since it was laid down in a condensed form. We have been over what translations, false teachers, false apostles, and false Christs have "accomplished" using 2000 years of liberty found explained in the NT to believers no longer under strict laws. Having written laws makes understanding easier; having spiritual liberty makes understanding extremely personable.
What people do with their liberty they are individually and collectively responsible for in this 'era' of life. God can not be held responsible for extending liberty to humanity-only to have mankind complain about humanity's use of liberty to harm and hinder others.
Homosexuality as sin. Paul wrote homosexuality is a sin in Roman's 1, period. End of narrative. But, then Paul moves on to make other arguments about personal liberty in Christ, about faith alone, and about individuals coming to their own heartfelt conclusions about what it is they do. This last, placing all acts done by humans as their responsibility—unless a time comes when they spiritually decide to change or face God's deciding on their circumstances. That is, 'one on one' with God.
Tig, by now and as you can draw from my start here (it is only that too - a start much more to add) there is no simple answer for you to glom on to. This is not me being coy, omitting, or ambiguous, the totality of the text deals with difficult issues sparsely in some places and for that we have to consume the meaning of the Book as a whole.
I accept that you may not be interested in consuming the totality of the Bible. Unfortunately, until you do, till you have the Bible "explained" and elucidated to you, then you will always have limited and poorly parsed conclusions.
Personal note. I started reading the Bible as one unit from cover to cover, because of the many voices speaking across the Christian spectrum. It did not take me long to figure out that between the omissions, the commissions of speakers, the deliberate 'betrayals' that if I was ever going to get to the "meat" and leave the "elementary" matters people retread across, I had no choice but to commit time to studying and showing myself approved biblically. I have done that steadily since the 1990's.
No, CB, I reject your claim that the demonstrable, obvious flaws of the Bible are due to my ignorance.
Nowhere in your response do you state that you refute or support biblical bigotry against homosexuals. Your response was a lot of words that net down into: no comment. I have plenty of 'no comment' comments from you so I have no interest in continuing a dialogue that will produce only smoke.
Now on this:
It is exactly that. In your response to Tessylo you gave a rare actual, direct response. You stated that you do indeed consider the OT to declare homosexuality an abomination punishable by death and that in the NT homosexuality is treated as simply a sin with no specific punishment. I agreed with you and noted that this raises at least two key problems:
In response, we have what you just wrote. Nowhere do you touch on the contradiction of an omniscient God changing His mind. That is, if God considers homosexuality an abomination worthy of the death penalty, even if it applied only to Hebrews, that is a rather harsh moral statement about homosexuality itself. There is a major disconnect between Yahweh and Jesus on this matter and you claiming to not want to second-guess God is simply ignoring the obvious contradiction.
Nowhere do you recognize the double-standard of homosexuality being a sin (per Jesus) whereas heterosexuality is not. God makes homosexuals who, when acting on their nature, go against God. So why does God make homosexuals: setting them up to fail? If God only wants heterosexuals He has the power to make that happen.
One who has the answers to 'explain' to others should actually do so. Actually explain the disconnects in a direct manner to show that these are indeed perfectly sensible. Failing to do so illustrates that the problem is not other people's lack of biblical knowledge but rather that the flaws of the Bible are real.
That is not the point of my paragraph. I will reshare it:
Have you read the entire Bible? Have you had any of it explained or elucidated to you? How much of it? This is my ignorance about what you have or have not done. If you have not done so, then I question how you derive your conclusions from isolated sentences and segments.
I did not expect an answer would be forthcoming.
I am preparing my answer now, TiG. I wrote the above and stepped out until now. In fact, I have yet to finish reading your entire comment at this writing. (Smile.)
"No comment." (Continuing on down the page now.)
Tesslyo does not have a track record of discussing 'round and round' with me. Tesslyo will get straightforward responses, unless and until it becomes or heavily favors a futile practice.
As for you, I give you my comments and you figuratively piss on them, leave them on your 'cutting room floor,' or as far as I can glean may 'cast them into outer darkness.' None of which means I owe you a response you yearn for, nevertheless. Take it or leave it. It's not my duty on NT to go out of my way to make all my answers pleasing and "fulfilling" comments to anybody. The day that occurs, well, it won't.
You agree with me—a rare moment of thanks! Next, God's mind changing-or did it? How long was Jesus prophesied to appear and fulfill the law? The aftermath being the Mosaic Law would fall away and spiritual life would come into being? You may or may not know that the tribe of Israel were under "Law" - they had no doctrine of "indwelling Spirit." That latter brought in the church age.
To phrase the question another way: Since Jesus is the second person in the Trinity, and Jesus (the Son) says he always does what God (the Father) tells him, why would Jesus not know what God would do from eternity regarding humanity?
One should endeavor to comprehend what the idiom, "Alpha and Omega" means in Christian theology.
Interesting. A so-called established "contradiction" between God/Son/Spirit:
Question: Can God not avoid causing contradictions, in God-self?
It is impractical for the only 'vehicle' for the creation of babies/children/adult humanity to be a viable sin. Heterosexuality, a sin? Forbid such a thought from your mind!
Why is there a host or 'universe' of troubles in this universe?
I did not agree to be nice, I agreed because I think you wrote something, directly, that is correct.
Your posit is that God's intention is to deem homosexuality an abomination with the penalty of death and then later on have Jesus downgrade it to a sin and make it no longer an abomination? In other words, whatever happens no matter how contradictory, it will be deemed God's plan. The words of ancient men with all their flaws will be accepted as divine because the 'Lord works in mysterious ways'.
A contradiction identifies a flaw. A perfect God would have no flaws.
Notice how this does not address the point I raised; just a dodge.
The point:
Why is it a sin for two human beings to be intimate, be married, etc. just because they are of the same gender when it is not a sin for mixed gender couples? After all, it is God who determines sexual orientation. This is basically a setup to fail.
I'm sorry. The question or dodge or whatever you wish to label it goes something like this:
Can a man guilt-trip God?
I SUGGEST YOU ASK GOD WHEN YOU GET THE CHANCE.
It is now clear to me you can not agree (again) with anything I say about this. You should go off on a quest, a 'prayer' quest even, to locate and ask of the Source (Greatest Possible Entity).
Are you suggesting that I asked that question in any way, shape or form??
Okay? And you needed to share this why?
Well, did you comprehend what the idiom, "Alpha and Omega" means in Christian theology yet? If so, share please.
Otherwise, your retreat to a trite 'talking point' of doubting simply because you can not and will not consider it is duly remarked upon.
You dodged the question:
Whether or not God is perfect or flawless is NOT the question! Do answer the question.
You quote my question and then instead of answering it, proceed to double down with one of the most abstract references one can make in Christianity. Hint: this is why our discussions fail. It is because of your incessant tactic of avoiding taking a stand and directly answering a question.
Read what I wrote:
That means that not only can God avoid contradictions, God necessarily does so. Otherwise God could not be perfect. Per the definition of God, of course.
Hello?
So if God is contradicting Himself in the Bible that illustrates that the Bible is flawed because it deems God to be perfect. See?
You ask that style of a question when you ask, "[Hey!] If God only wants heterosexuals He has the power to make that happen.
Where in all the world do you see only things "God wants"? Has it crossed your mind that what God wants is for the universe to evolve (unfold) slowly, methodically, and upward? That God is not in a rush to get to "Omega" state?
Does that seem probable or improbable to you?
I agree to disagree. I do not accept and can not accept any personal attack from you. Please move this discussion forward and desist attempting to make this personal. Do stop now.
Of course. But it is a direct contradiction to deem homosexuality an abomination subject to death penalty and then deem it NOT an abomination subject to the death penalty.
It is not as if homosexuality has changed.
Argumentative.
John 10.
30 I [Jesus] and the Father are one .”
Q. Can God not avoid causing contradictions in God-self?
See?
Distinguish calling out tactics from personal attacks. They are different. If someone deems a comment as a deflection, that is not a personal attack. This is obvious and I should not need to explain it to you.
In a still, calm voice: "Why"?
Nothing to 'see'. You did not make a point. You quoted scripture without explaining the point you are trying to make.
Because X AND ¬X is a contradiction.
@1.4.91
I will not do it. Keep your personal attacks or whatever you call them off me. You understood the situation when you engaged it. That's all.
I have no interest playing your games CB. You cannot deal with direct questions and instead choose to spin a silly smokescreen of you being the serious interlocutor and me being the mean disruptor. Given that NT is small enough for most everyone to know the truth, you are wasting your time and I have now zero expectation that you will engage in honest discourse.
We are done.
The fact that you choose not to see or answer the question I asked is creating a new problem.
Jesus and God are One - is self-explanatory to me. What about it confuses you. Please clarify.
The OT law of homosexuality and The NT sin of homosexuality (according to Paul) are not the same thing. @1.4.81 You told me you understand much about the Books distinction! (This is 'driving' the discussion off any 'beaten' path out into the 'desert,' btw.)
DITTO. EMPHATICALLY. As much as it lies within me, I will not attack you no matter what you write ever again. I am going to miss not getting an answer to the meaning of Alpha and Omega in the Bible from you. Oh well.
What is clear to me at this time is you did not come seeking a fuller discussion on the subject matter of homosexuality in the Bible and how homosexuals like the Buttigiegs' are Christians spiritually devoted to God. You 'arrive' to teach. And do so, on at least two subjects you apparently have never cared to 'master.'
I have read the bible cover to cover several times and I agree, the OT homosexuality and those described by Paul were likely different folk. However, this is a distinction without meaning. Both versions, whether gay monogamous relationships or loose carnal rent boys, were condemned by ancient Hebrew law.
Now, that doesn't mean gay relationships should be condemned, of course they shouldn't. Why would you condemn someone for being born the way they were born? Should we condemn Republican legislators born with deficient frontal lobes who are incapable of recognizing when they're drowning in their own hubris? Of course not, we wouldn't have any Republican legislators left if we did that.
So, we need to come together, recognize the bible is an ancient selection of cobbled together myths from dozens from many different authors, none of whom likely had any relationship with the actual creator of the universe and thus could never speak the creators mind in regards to homosexual behavior.
Now, if you want to take a cat of nine tails and self flagellate because you imagine the author of the bible believed their God was violently against homosexual behavior, that's your choice. But remember, more than 1,500 species have exhibited homosexual behavior. If God wanted all things to be "straight", and only humans have free will and are self aware, why are there, at minimum, 1,500 different species that exhibit homosexual behavior?
It saddens me that you thought to insult me. When I saw you had written a comment I came running to see it with a smile on my face. "Cat of nine tails" indeed!
If you want to have this kind of discussion, come forward and be straightforward. I will engage you as someone who ' walks the walk' not like those individuals trained in an 'ivory tower' of book learning on the topics alone. When you make a valid point to which I must agree - I will acknowledge it straightforwardly. And, do expect that I will lay out my case at my pace.
... or anything else.
Adding on: belief in a sentient creator does no harm that I can see; in fact, it probably brings net comfort. And as long as the believer realizes that he/she does not posses actual knowledge of this entity —that the belief is speculative—, then the belief is entirely rational. Critically, this dismisses all the various beliefs that come from religion. Everything 'known' in religions comes from other mere human beings. Nobody now or historically, to my knowledge, has ever verifiably communicated with God. Religious beliefs are all nothing more than accepting as truth what another human being has simply claimed as truth. And the worst case is blindly accepting ancient mores & values (e.g. homosexuality is an abomination) as truth.
Religions and 'holy' books are best left as historical artifacts. Instead, for those who believe in a sentient creator why not try to understand this creator by learning of that which it has created? Study the cosmos, learn about quantum dynamics, marvel at geology, botany, archaeology, genetics, biology, etc. This is real and based on fact, not the imaginations of mere human beings.
Big deal what your Bible says. It doesn't rule me or this country.
Just to make it clear what HA wrote in that comment you replied to (in case people forgot):
Biblical bigotry.
This is pontification. On one hand you acknowledge science does not know or "nobody can evidence God" to you, but you are not willing to keep an open mind, and on another hand you dismiss and relegate all "god talk" (organizations, institutions, thought processes) to the trash-bin of science.
You repeated write that - spiritually uplifting books of the godly kind which have in the past and present continue to effectively change millions of people's lives FOR THEIR GOOD, such books should be shelved and casted down as merely something people who have come before did out of their collective ignorances to suit their "condition." You place limited to no comparable value of spiritual books to what people are doing today in the present science age. As I stated in beginning this paragraph, human lives, on and off the brink of existence, ARE being changed through the narratives written and memorialized in the Bible. Undeniable. Evidential. Measurable.
I would daresay on any given day the spiritual nature of humanity is UPLIFTED and CHANGED as often by considering God and the Bible (and other sacred books) as are uplifted and changed by the sciences combined. The two disciplines are not in competition. Who could, would, find fault with this?
Those who appear to disregard or hate spiritual things and those who behave similarly toward the sciences, must both widen their individual pipelines of understanding to encompass a world where all that is good, proper, and wholesome can enter. Thus, leaving nothing of value out.
I'm sorry that you felt insulted by something in my comment, I certainly meant no offense. What I was trying to convey is the recognition that while the bible contains many ancient wisdoms, it also contains a lot of ancient bias and discrimination. I know millions of Christians would claim they love the bible and defend it vociferously, yet I don't know any of them who have stoned to death their disobedient children. Sure, they proclaim loudly their adherence to the bible when it comes to homosexuality, but when their teen refuses to listen they don't think "Well, I better go gather some stones...". The real mystery is why so many take the biblical condemnation of homosexuality so seriously but have such a lax attitude towards so many other things the bible also condemns.
So what I was trying to say is, you can take as much or as little from the book as you wish. The fact that it contains so many contradictions proves it is not, as a whole, divine in origin. So why get hung up on something that was likely just ancient farmers opinions about sexuality?
An open mind to a sentient creator means that one acknowledges the possibility and is willing to review supporting evidence. Given I have made it abundantly clear that this is my position, it is intellectually dishonest to state otherwise.
An open mind does not mean accepting as truth that which is merely hypothesized. It means nothing at all to me that people claim divine truths. Show me, do not simply make claims. You apparently think that one cannot have an open mind unless one believes without evidence ... on faith alone. You are conflating open mindedness with wishful thinking.
You have an overabundance of people who are GOOD PEOPLE witnessing across history about the power and influence of God's Spirit in their lives. You have a "perfect" example of a homosexual married couple, the Buttigiegs', who maintain close contact with Christianity and faith, but you choose to dwell on the negative. You can do that. It won't change how those of us who focus (like the Buttigiegs' do) on the positive behave, nevertheless.
You have no proof that I am "wishful thinking" - none at all. So why bother with that 'flight of fancy'? And I am actually glad that you state that it means "nothing to you that people claim divine truths" or words to that effect, because at long last you are making plain that you have a lack, just like everybody else. You look to science alone for your proofs/truths. That is not the only 'arena' in which human experiences reveal themselves, however.
They simply think this is God's Spirit. They do not know. The fact that so many people hold these beliefs for so many centuries and not a single one of them has ever demonstrated, objectively, that this is anything more than their own wishful thinking, is actually evidence that these beliefs are emotionally based.
Another fabrication from you that is the exact opposite of what I have been arguing. My argument is that the negatives about homosexuality from the Bible support continued bigotry. I label this biblical bigotry. You see the hatred / bigotry from fellow Christians not from atheists. Pay attention to what is actually happening. You have HA stating that God today considers homosexuality an abomination and me saying that is nonsense — those views are from ancient men, not from the grandest possible entity. You do not challenge HA. That is fascinating.
Until you or someone else provides evidence supporting your position that you have direct knowledge of God (the unique, omniscient, omnipotent sentient creator) your claims are groundless. Your claims are by default a product of your mind. What takes them from mere thoughts / beliefs into reality is evidence. Nobody has ever provided any credible evidence that they have directly communicated with God (as defined). With all the people trying to do so for so many thousands of years, the fact that we still have nothing is actually evidence (not proof) that claims are all false.
Now if you have directly communicated with God, explain how you pulled that off and how you know you are not simply being fooled by your own emotions. And if you do not claim direct communication with God then you are simply accepting as truth what mere human beings claim. I do not recommend being so trusting of human beings.
Do you know whether or not is "ancient farmers" opinions? What does this kind of talk do to advance discussion? Dismayed Patriot do not take this the wrong way, but when one is offering to have a serious tone to discussion why 'spit' at the same time?
The Bible, any book or set of books, written about actual lives, are going to supply 'organic' dynamics you, me, or any and everybody else will dispute and dislike. Attempting to do what is good in black and white terms would soon require us all to look inward, and excise our own flaws and faults. So much so that it will hurt, maim, and injure us. It is so much easier simply to not try. To simply not excise anything. To just do what we will, despite any other major concerns.
I am not here to defend every nuance or 'error' in Christian judgement by others. So don't look to me to do this. I will only share and defend what I believe, what I do, who I am devotionally. Others can speak for themselves. Yes, I see and read these others I interact with here. I am sure you have seen me in action with all.
Nothing about human beings and human understanding is ever simple. Loving God and displaying spiritually ain't going to be easy either.
People do not hold emotions or feelings which go against their innate 'grain' for a lifetime or even non-stop for many, many, years. Do not project onto believers what you think you know about this.
Missed the point yet again. What you quoted should be rebutted by illustrating that there are people who actually have demonstrated direct knowledge of God; a factual record of the phenomenon. You cannot, of course, even with countless billions of people making this claim, so we get the unrelated response you delivered.
Clearly you have no direct knowledge of God either (unless you wish to illustrate otherwise) and thus hold beliefs that do not come directly from God but from mere human beings who claim truth. You believe them sans evidence. I demand evidence.
In short, I am not at all impressed with your claims of knowledge. Thus far you make claims, deem others incapable of understanding religions and the religious and avoid direct challenges.
The 'beauty' of Tig is consistency. Heartland American is rather 'hit and miss' in discussion. Tig is consistent and "hound-ish" in imposing logic onto faith and its adherents. I do address Heartland American directly about his views—when s/he chooses to engage on the "blue moon special." If you know what I mean. No shame in my game there.
And you keep focusing on the "ancient men" I ask you: What about "modern men and women of this great faith"? Can you see us? Can you see us, religious men and women of all stripes, loving and exploring the texts of our sacred books to fine the good we can demonstrate to all?
This article pointed out on one hand the lashing out at LGBTQ folks, and then it was brought out (by HA) that dogma and doctrine has not overwhelmed true assistance in action by the Salvation Army fundamentals to aid and assist poverty-stricken LGBTQ youths and adults. That is a positive assertion that can not be denied - if true. The churches - made up of people - is finding ways to stand against what its texts labels a moral turpitude and stand for demonstrations of love and grace to its purveyors.
I remind you of this one thing as well. Being a believer in the Christian God can be as natural to some homosexuals as homosexuality itself. You need to understand what motivates the Buttigiegs' of this world, as one 'model' and example of this.
Bigotry, biblical and otherwise, is largely rooted in fear of something. I, for my part, am observing more churches are rising up to talk through ways to get more of their resources into the hands of the "third rail" of homosexuality. I may post some churches explaining to their congregations how they plan to address this. Fear of the "godless" homosexual is diminishing incrementally among the faithful publicly. Privately, homosexuals have always been near and around the churches. Much of humanity learns lessons of right and wrong by cutting their teeth on church, temple, mosque teachings.
God is Spirit. What makes you think Spirit communicates naturally? Didn't you SAY @1.4.131 above you have an open mind ? Well, have you tried opening your mind to SPIRITUAL evidence?
Not everything humanity is dealing with and experiencing is naturally occurring in this universe. Stop limiting yourself to one discipline. Diversify!
And yet is YOU who never misses a 'table' set for an opportunity to engage believers! Believers, who otherwise my settle some of the painful and deadly attitudes and activities some people commit in their mal-practice of Christianity (in our case). Alas! It is clear that for believers to 'talk' they must do so with a 'megaphone' of sorts over some here.
I reject this claim of yours. The issue here is that you choose to accept no one else stances on matters of faith or homosexuality. A Christian homosexual is for you a 'confusion' and a malformed 'creature.' Still, the evidence belies your idea. There are many, many Christian homosexuals, and if churches have anything to do about it, there may be millions more of us! Time will tell, however.
HA is a man (for future reference).
I focus against following the mere words of ancient men and recommend following modern knowledge. Accepting as truth what a mere human claims when that claim cannot be substantiated is a mistake. So never go by what someone claims, go by the evidence. Go by what is knowable and known, not what is merely stated.
And that is true. Societies worldwide have grown past the mores & values of the ancient authors of the Bible. Slavery, for example, is almost eradicated. Most everyone today knows that it is immoral to own another as property in spite of the Bible. Also, many societies have grown far past the ancient views that women were effectively property of men. Thankfully, societies in general have evolved well beyond the mores & values of the ancients.
And that alone should cause you to realize that the Bible cannot be divine. Even those who think it is divine usually have the good sense to ignore the most egregious of its directives and examples. Yet, for some reason, many cannot take the step to acknowledge this reality and its implications.
Of course. People interpret the Bible and their religion in all sorts of ways. People cherry-pick, insert their own meaning, etc. There are lots of ways to weave a belief of one's choosing. But that belief is not following the Bible and people should recognize that. In other words, if one is not following the Bible as written —if they must make adjustments— then clearly they do not really believe it is divine anyway. If one considers slavery immoral, then by that very fact one rejects words of the Bible that ostensibly came from God and thus one clearly does not consider them divine. So if any part of the Bible is deemed to not be divine then by what criteria does one determine which parts are divine? How arrogant would it be for a mere human being to pretend to know which parts of the Bible are divine and which are not? Clearly, if this is the word of a perfect God then it should be taken as written. ( Of course, even if one tried to take the Bible as written it is impossible to do so. Not only is it the result of many translations, but the original text is mere fragments. )
I agree, and that is good. But note that this means people are foregoing biblical divinity in yet another dimension. That is good too, IMO. When, now, will people realize that the Bible is merely a book and toss out the notion of divinity altogether? It is either divine, partially divine or not divine. If fully divine then homosexuality is an abomination and slavery is okay. If not divine we have a perfectly rational way of interpreting the Bible (i.e. this is how ancient men explained God to their contemporaries). If partially divine then nobody has the pay grade to decide which are the divine parts and which are not.
You can reject all you want, but each time you declare that others do not understand the Bible or religion properly (or are incapable of doing so) you prove that my claim is spot on.
I am not going to simply accept what you say as correct. You need to demonstrate it. Make an argument backed by fact.
You should avoid making up shit and attributing it to others. This allegation is offensive. Hint: there are many Christians who do consider the Bible divine and who reject passages such as Leviticus 20:13. Those Christians, if homosexual, are not confused. As for malformed, that language comes out of the blue. You own that kind of thinking, it is not even close to my view.
I don't see that in any of T;G's comments. In fact, he said "You have HA stating that God today considers homosexuality an abomination and me saying that is nonsense" so it would appear he doesn't think you a 'malformed creature' at all. There are those here who do feel that way about Christian homosexuals and believe that label is a misnomer because they don't believe homosexuality and Christianity to be compatible.
T;G was point out "the negatives about homosexuality from the Bible support continued bigotry" which they do. I don't think there's anyone who would argue that Christianity as a whole has been all warm and welcoming of gay persons. I think most would argue the exact opposite since the facts show most established Christian churches are vocal in their opposition to homosexuality. Divorcing your wife is also considered a sin in the bible, but you don't hear hardly any Churches continually condemning those who've been divorced. We don't question those who self identify as a "Christian divorcee" or think that is "incompatible" with Christianity, yet divorce, sex before marriage and adultery are all condemned just the same as homosexuality in the bible.
I, for one, accept your stance, which seems to be that of a gay man embracing the bibles wisdoms while discarding or ignoring the parts that condemn homosexuals. I think it's hypocritical of those Christian churches who reject and condemn homosexuals but don't also reject and condemn sex before marriage or divorce with the same vehemence.
Thank you. This, however, is status quo. It is much easier to engage in debate if one ignores the position of the other interlocutor and instead puts ugly words in his mouth.
I do not think CB discards or ignores the condemnation part. He seems to think God (as Yahweh) purposely deemed homosexual acts as abominations subject to death all the while knowing that He (as Jesus) would later downplay this to an ordinary sin (no death penalty). (Why the inconsistency? Because God works in mysterious ways.)
Seems to me CB tries to defend the entire Bible as divine. This is what ultimately leads him to exasperation because he is trying to defend the indefensible with people who ask probative questions.
Therein lies weakness in your argument:
And you attribute such changes to what? What are you implying? Be clear.
Well now, that is just rich coming from you. You are telling people how to interpret faith now. You? The same one who admonishes people to throw faith into the trash bin for all time. I like how you play up the books of the Bible as divine and to be followed word for word by its believers - even as you read its pages you find stories upon stories of human failure, tragedies, and series on series of disobedience.
Obviously, the Bible is not divine. It is a book about people who often fail to measure up; it is about death, burial, and resurrection, is about changes in human character, it is about war and peace. It is starts out about faith and ends with faith. However, you care about none of that specifically.
Another straw man. TiG never said they don't exist. They can have existed, and still wrote fiction. J. K. Rowling exists. That doesn't mean that Harry Potter does.
What expression of nonsense is this? Slavery, has outlived its usefulness. It is a 'talking point' for you and others merely because you think you can show God up over it. Well, you have yet to prove that slavery ended because of a secular leader come to power who passed 'everlasting' judgement on the practice. That said, I have no interest in a protracted slave 'debate' with you or anyone else again. All I will say is render proof that a secularist leader ended world slavery without the aid of others.
TiG never said the biblical writers didn't exist. If he did, point out where please.
There is no proof anyone has ever had a life changing spiritual event to occur either, other than what they claim. It more likely a mental change brought on by a significant event. Something along the lines of "mind over matter." Regardless, that still doesn't negate the logical inconsistencies or contradictions in god and the bible.
I'd say it's due to our increase in knowledge, science, and understanding of the world around us, as well as knowledge and understanding of different societies and cultures as interactions occurred. Of course, that is a very simplistic explanation. Adhering to ancient norms and ideas, as religion and churches have tried to do, only results in stagnation.
Where did I claim that individual people did not exist??
Another strawman? Yes, CB, the Bible does contain some historical facts. You act as though I claim the Bible is a work of total fiction. Slow down on making up shit and try to instead focus on what I actually write.
I did not state that nobody has ever experienced a life-changing spiritual event. Good grief man get a grip. All sorts of people have had their 'come to Jesus' moments. This happens a lot in prison and in situations where people have hit what they consider their low points in life. In these cases social factors and promises involved by the message of Jesus is appealing (comforting).
What I did write, if you were to ever carefully read it, is that after thousands of years of recorded history and countless billions of believers who are motivated to have solid evidence of being able to communicate with God, we have no verifiable evidence that this has ever occurred. Now if you think I am wrong all you need to do to make your case is to show the evidence. Not claims: real evidence. Documented, verified results.
*GASP*
Lol
Be clear? All you need do is read what you just quoted.
The changes are attributed to human evolution ... in particular, societal evolution.
It is so easy for you to write such nonsense from you 'vantage' point of standing outside the faith looking in. It's 'cute' but not innocent to watch you try to tie God to a period in the history of the world. God can't change and yet God does change. Confounding to you, isn't it?
Have you figured out the meaning of this expression yet: "I [God] am Alpha and Omega." (Hint: Alpha means beginning; Omega means ending.) A lot of CHANGES has and will continue to play out between the two points in time and space.
I don't like it any better than you do.
FWIW, though, Nicholas Flamel was a real dude. But I think he died well before he reached 665 years old.
Do not cuss at me, Tig. What does Letivicus 20:13 which is Mosaic Law from 6,000 plus years ago thereabouts have to with you wanting to castrate Christianity before you shove it into a modern day science trashcan? You do not respect Christianity as a viable matter; how the heaven can you respect the Pete Buttigiegs' of this world? Christian homosexuals are as valueless as the Bible to you. Where am I wrong?
It's a logical contradiction. If god is perfect, as some theists claim, then any change either means god is now imperfect (anything other than perfection is less than perfect) or god was initially imperfect and changed to perfection. Either way, god was imperfect at some point. God should not need to change if he and/or his "plan" were perfect.
Where do I tell people how to interpret faith? Follow the logic if you can:
The conclusion (3) (since I am sure I must explain this too) comes from the simple fact that if someone truly believed the Bible divine, they would never presume to make adjustments to it. They would read it plain and accept it as such. Thus if the Bible claims homosexuality is an abomination they would hold to that. And if they read that Jesus deems homosexuality a sin they would not see a conflict since an abomination certainly must at least be a sin.
Thing is, people cherry-pick and reinterpret the Bible all the time. That is like facing God and telling Him that he is wrong. Clearly they do not actually believe the Bible is divine.
Nice mangling of my point. First, I speak of the Bible (and other holy books), not faith. Second, I do not speak of tossing into the trash bin but rather putting on the shelf along with other classics of literature. Dishonest spin. My position on faith is that it should be grounded. As I have noted, it certainly makes sense for someone to believe that there is a sentient creator. As long as they realize that this is speculation (faith) and is not knowledge, then the position is rational. Compare that with religions that go well beyond the speculative belief in a sentient creator into the creator's powers, features, looks, personality, plans, desires, emotions, exploits, etc. And then we have those who claim that they (insignificant dot on an insignificant planet in a medium solar system which is 1 of 100,000 in the galaxy which is in turn 1 in 100,000 in the known universe) can directly communicate with God.
I do not consider the Bible divine. Have you not noticed? I do the opposite; I note why it is demonstrably not divine.
Yes. It is obvious.
As I have noted, the Bible is one of the greatest literary works in recorded history. You really have no clue what I write do you? My criticism of the Bible is that it is taken by many to be divine. Ask HA if he thinks the Bible is the divine word of God to be taken as literally true.
Now, in closing, you actually realize that the Bible is not divine? If so, then why do you take any of it to be the word of God? Why try to equivocate on Leviticus 20:13 when you could have easily joined me in noting that these are Mosaic laws written by ancient Hebrew men who claimed they came from God so as to better control the people?
And if you realize the Bible is not divine, then why presume to know God from it? Do you think that God is omniscient just because some ancient authors said so? Do you think Jesus was actually God just because it is written in a book that is not known to be divine?
Very odd.
Not to me. The God of the Bible does not exist because, as defined, it is a contradiction. If there is a sentient creator, it is not that defined by the Bible. So, I am not confounded in the slightest.
Bringing up irrelevant sidebars again. CB, did it ever occur to you that if I did not know something I could Google it? The fact that I ignore this and other diversions from you does not mean I lack knowledge; it means I am not going to play your chase the tangent game.
I was expecting you to figure that out on your own but I guess not. So now I have stated it explicitly. Get it?
Not sure what you mean by 'discard' or 'ignore' - the bible is a collection of books under one cover. It is naive to thing that the Jews under law - should equate to the new faith system created by faith should ponder placing themselves under Jewish law or 'control.' The wisdom one encounters in the Bible is one of how to take something timeless and let it fit the times one lives in.
Incidentally, is Tig a literalist now? Does he really believe that what God did yesterday; God is beholden to doing today and in the future? One should go and learn what such phrases mean in biblical usage. Stop projecting and nailing 'wooden' meaning into it. The only result being one becomes as 'stiff' in their understanding as those they rail against.
As for Tig and me. We're "old heads" on this running debate. I know what Tig means. Lord knows, he has been offering the same arguments since "day 1" of our first encounter (on NewsVine). I got all his points, all his notes, all the nuance points on Tig. (Smile.)
If you cannot bear someone to use the word 'shit' in a sentence then do not make shit up and you might not have to read it.
You are utterly confused. By your own doing. Looks to me like you cannot separate your own strawman inventions from what I actually write. Stop trying to put words in my mouth and maybe you will not ask such ridiculous, confused questions.
You are wrong pretty much on every count. In fact, I am surprised when you write something to me that is not wrong (or entirely irrelevant). Note that I have never mentioned Pete Buttigieg except in response to you inserting him into the dialogue. But he seems to have his shit together. Seems to me other Christian homosexuals might want to follow his lead since he seems to have found a way to be a Christian while living a full life as he sees fit and not in fear of ancient words in a non-divine book.
The super-majority of my family and friends are Christian. Thing is, most all of them have a healthy perspective. They believe in a god (of sorts) but pay little attention to the Bible and to their religions. They basically operate on the Jesus is Love theme and try to do good and avoid doing harm. I respect that.
Who claimed that a secularist leader ended slavery? Stop making shit up. Slavery died out (almost entirely) due to societal evolution.
Let me explain this to you since clearly you do not understand my point.
My point is that God made a moral statement about homosexuality. Given God deemed it an abomination and then made His view crystal clear by assigning a death sentence to homosexual acts, God made a very clear moral statement.
Since God is defined to be perfect and omniscient, that means that God does not make mistakes and does not lie. If God says that homosexuality is an abomination punishable by death He certainly, at the very least, is making a moral statement.
Do you think that a perfect, omniscient God would change His mind on the morality of homosexuality?
See, HA is being consistent. He reads the Bible as divine and realizes that God is always right and never lies. Thus the clear statement in the OT stands.
To me, in contrast, this just shows that the Bible is not divine. To hold the Bible divine, one would have to believe that the arbiter of objective morality, the perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator of everything considers His homosexual creations to be immoral. This is one of many hints that the Bible is a book written by human authors with no divine guidance.
Then you have no excuse when you misrepresent me. So explain why you do so.
Noted and read. That's all I got for you on this one.
Maybe you can explain what the bible means by "God is Alpha and Omega"? Please proceed. It will only take up a little of your free time.
Specious nonsense. That is what you get when you stand outside the Bible and try to "teach" faith to people inside. I can't bear this. It really is pointless. You have your logic apart from faith. Stick with that, because it is NOT what Christians are relating to when reasoning spirituality through the Bible.
I know. I know. I know. That is the "mysterious God at work". . . "hoax" - I'll channel you naming it that. Still won't change the fact that you do not know what the heaven you're discussing spiritually, nevertheless. And, that is as nice and straightforward as I can put that.
Thank you for your indulgence, sir. What else would you like from us? /s
It means you don't take the books seriously. Good heavens, countless times you say its myth, flim-flam, "ancient men" perjorative. Why would you ever consider that I think you view the bible as divine (unless it would be, "divine comedy.")?
Yes, people are funny and interesting in their affections all kinds of ways. But, what does this have to do with you again? I mean, you're outside the faith: Are you a religion "mass deprogrammer"? /s
And I do not take the books of the Bible as divine - it is not language I use. (And were I to, I would have to 'run' a check on what you mean my the term anyway.)
"These are Mosaic laws written by ancient Hebrew men who claimed they came from God so as to better control the people." — TiG.
In closing, I have no words. Your works speak volumes.
The last thing I would do is try to teach faith. I would teach critical thinking, not faith.
No, it means I do not take them to be divine. I used the word 'divine', so you should stick with what I wrote and not replace it with 'serious'. Changes the entire meaning.
Again I agree that I do not consider the Bible divine. You seem to be stuck on a point of agreement.
Good.
Or do you disagree with any of the above?
Alright. That did it. As Christians, neither Pete Buttigieg are I need a non-stop "chatterbox" about other people's goodly ways of life! I mention Pete and other Christian-homosexuals believers (there are many) because you never bring them up. What Buttigieg has found is right there in the pages of the Bible 'recorded' by Paul as Christian liberty. The Old Testament (tutor) has liberated its New Testament "graduates" out from law into the spiritual. It is you who seem to get it wrong hanging out in the Old Testament with Right-wing Evangelicals. The former to deconstruct other people's faiths (unsuccesfully, inspite of diligence and long hours) and the latter because they imagine they do God a favor to keep OT laws alive in today's world.
Pete Buttigieg is interesting because he is out front leading the pack (Episcopalian style). And guess what? He didn't need the Evangelical Right Wing or an atheist "movement" to steer him to hate his Christian centering. Indeed, the Progressive Christian Left is a thing and rising now!
Actually I just noticed you cussed me again. No comment.
Still "teaching" the OT are you? Odd, being that you disdain those Books that you inhabit it. Wonder why you go on and on and on about it, though.
Another in a long series of fabrications. You cannot seem to engage me without creating false narratives. I do not hold the OT divine. The problem stems with those who do.
Is Paul 'divine'? If it was written by Paul does that mean it is the word of God? Think this through now.
Yes, I used the word 'shit' in a sentence again.
Oh do you disagree that 'God is always right and never lies'?
Where do I suggest disdain for these old books? Link? Is it possible for you to not fabricate falsehoods about me?
Correction. You try to teach denial of faith.
Tig, emphatically.
I agree you wrote the above @1.4.158.
This is also wrong. I encourage critical thinking. I have lost count the number of times I have stated that believing in a sentient creator does make sense as long as one realizes that the belief is speculative. It makes sense because it is possible and the belief is very abstract. That is faith. Now, I do indeed wish to dissuade people from believing all sorts of details about a human invented God simply because other human beings claim that this is true.
In short, belief in a sentient creator is one thing. Belief in the details of religions without evidence is an entirely different matter.
Your statement is incoherent. I can not stop to update your lack. It would take too long. (A new discussion even.)
I do not take the Bible to be divine. I have stated numerous times that I take it to be one of the most important pieces of classical literature. Can you not see the difference?
Afraid to address my explanation? Forces you to actually commit, eh?
And, yet you are "faithful" to continue. . . . Grand.
Really? You do not know if you consider words written by Paul to be divine or not?
When Paul wrote, were his words truth - directly reflecting the truth of God?
This is not a difficult concept to understand. But I understand that this is yet another question you refuse to answer.
Confirmation bias.
Oh do you realize that the Old Testament teaches about the NT Jesus' advent? (And that the New Testament supercedes what you argue from the Old Testament?) No, you do not realize this. Clearly, don't.
Q. If God had an Old Testament contract and displaces that one for a NT contract - is God a liar, or has God acted to fulfill the OT prophecies/words?
You barely 'peek' out of the of the Old Testament books and you want to venture out into Paul? I don't have extra strength, TiG. So sorry.
Show me the NT contract of which you speak.
( Yes, I am aware that you cannot accomplish that because nobody knows what they are talking about when they speak of the new covenant. It is a concept without content. )
This is not about me in any way. But, I agreed you wrote the above @ 1.4.158 .
The New Testament books, TiG? If you disagree you will have to clarify your question. (It's late. Good night.)
Yes, CB, I wrote that. Now what part of that do you think is incorrect?
This is what real debate is about. Specifics. Take a stand.
The OT has about 600 laws in it. Which of these laws are replaced / revised by the new covenant? Specifically how? Prove your answer by delivering the new covenant. Claiming that the entirety of the NT is the new covenant is an admission that you do not have a clue.
( And I know that you do not have clue here. Nobody knows the specifics of the new covenant because it is not defined. )
Bluff called.
What the heaven? Patience, it is a virtue. Too spent already. See you again.
I don't have to do any such thing. Your statement speaks volumes:
You keep repeating my statement as if there is something wrong with it. If you think you have something be specific. What are you afraid of?
On my way out (next) you can explain if you care to what to what you mean we do not have a new New Testament convenant/contract? Do you think the civil laws of the Old Testament govern the Church age? You need to be clear, because you have lost me on how to proceed with my reply (tomorrow not tonight). Thank you.
So...you got nothing then? Duly noted.
You seem to be the biblical "expert." You need me to explain a biblical concept to you? Or the logical contradiction of the idea that god doesn't change, but does change?
The concept is simple. Christians routinely speak of the OC and the NC (old and new covenants, respectively) when equivocating from the harshness of the Mosaic laws. In particular, moral, ritual and ceremonial laws such as those found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy which are directly attributed to God (The LORD said ...) are deemed to be obsolete due to Jesus' death and the NC which was brought forth. Other Christians believe that only some of the OC is replaced and the rest intact. The problem, of course, is that unlike the OC where one can list 613 laws there is nothing definitive about the NC. This ambiguity (and, indeed, absence of definition) allows Christians to make any vague claim they wish about the NC.
In short, the equivocation of 'that was the OC, we are now operating under the NC' is meaningless. This should be clear to you in our 'discussion' since HA holds that Leviticus 20:13 (part of the OC) has survived into the NC whereas others consider that to be OC and obsolete (the interpretations are, of course, all over the map).
There is no answer you can provide to my question because the NC is not specifically defined. My point is that you cannot claim that the OC is replaced by the NC (implying all the laws of the OT are no longer applicable) because you (indeed, nobody) has a specific definition of the NC. It is a concept devoid of content. It is a contract with an opening paragraph but no details.
* (by the way, the OC in Judaism has a very, very different meaning than how Christians use the term)
So you 'delay' and do not answer the question: :What the bible means by "God is Alpha and Omega"?
If you do not know, it is easy-peasy to write. "Don't know, CB." Or, words to that effect.
Just think "5 hours ago" according to your @1.4.200 timestamp you could have advanced the discussion forward (even from the comfy "bleachers"), and you chose to waste it on a worthless back and forth.
Several points:
This is not me handing out "make work" to you. Answering these questions with inform me of what you are getting at and where your thinking is right now.
We can continue this elsewhere outside of HA's control.
Okay. Please 'drag' my last comment/questions over to the new article along with anything you move for yourself. Thank you.
okay
[DELETED]
I work in the kitchen every sunday evening, thanksgiving and christmas while you sit on your ass making up bullshit
Our SA here is totally supported by the communities and the cities they assist.
This independent liberal spent years as a bell ringer. This is just more Heartland Institute propaganda.
I love the Heartland Institute. They are a great American scientific research institution. They are 109% correct on the issues they discuss.
They are not recognized or credited as a valid scientific institute.
Can't even get the math right.
Says the one incapable of sorting out a typo from a basis for a personal attack on me
Not a personal attack and you're still wrong with that statement, typo or not.
The Heartland Institute is nothing but a far right wing propaganda machine.
Actually Heartland is a great center for science and research and is an awesome think tank. [deleted]
Still an erroneous statement.
You know know all that because they tell that to you. You also believe Trump
So is ours. They do great work to support the needy in the community and our community supports them in their efforts.
One of my dearest friends was brought up in the Church of the Salvation Army. And first let's establish, that it is a particular protestant faith that started in England, which is where his family is from.
When he became a young man, he decided to come out of the closet so to speak, but never to his family, since he thought they would disown him, because that is what they are supposed to do. It took him till his 50th birthday to tell his parents.
His mom thought long and hard on this and said she didn't believe that god made mistakes and that he was too good a person ( he is ) to be a mistake. His father accepted him but never spoke of it.
My friend is still a Christian but is a member of a more accepting church. The one thing he will never do is give to the Salvation Army since he told me something that most people don't know. Their job is not strictly charitable, but to convert, too. He still gives to charity, but not that one.
Want to help people? Give to "Doctors without Borders" or "St. Judes", where no one is turned away.
Used to be a paramedic and am seriously considering doctors without borders. Hell, I'm in my 60's. Who else is going to hire me?
My daughter has done it for years and says it is an amazing experience. And yes, they will take you in a heartbeat.
One of my nieces was in the peace corp. in Africa. She wanted to go back but now has 2 toddlers to deal with. Funny how life makes our choices for us.
Damning Salvation Army: the left's newest, most disgraceful low
By Rich Lowry
December 6, 2019 | 7:31pm
Opinion
Shutterstock
Damaging photos of Pete Buttigieg have surfaced — ringing a bell for the Salvation Army.
The images of the South Bend mayor and Democratic presidential candidate participating in the Red Kettle Ring Off, a friendly competition between officials from South Bend and near-by Mishawaka over who can raise more for the Salvation Army during a day of bell-ringing, date from 2017.
The gay publication Out reported them as if it had broken a major, or at least a noteworthy, story. “Pete Buttigieg Volunteered for the Homophobic Salvation Army,” read the headline. The piece noted, accusingly, it’s “something he’s apparently been doing for years. He also held a mayoral event at a Salvation Army center in South Bend last year.”
If you think that volunteering for an organization raising funds to provide food and housing, among many other services, for the needy is an inherently praiseworthy act, you haven’t been following the woke left-wing activists cutting a swath through American culture.
Any institution, no matter how storied or how generous, is subject to a punitive campaign of social ostracism that is often highly effective. In today’s environment, what seems preposterous one moment is inevitable the next, and after one target is ground into submission, another is quickly found.
The Salvation Army would seem a bridge too far. Its red kettles are iconic, as much a part of Christmas as Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer or “Miracle on 34th Street.” During the heavily commercial Christmas season, the red kettles are a token of charity and fellow-feeling. It takes a perverse worldview not to have fond feelings about this tradition, which is spectacularly successful on its own terms, raising about $150 million a year.
But the commissars of political correctness aren’t amused, and don’t let sentimentality interfere with their dictates.
They’ve already accomplished what would a few years ago have been considered impossible — bullying the explicitly Christian restaurant chain Chick-fil-A out of its donations to the Salvation Army. The Army is now so radioactive that the pop singer Ellie Goulding threatened to cancel a halftime performance at the Dallas Cowboy game on Thanksgiving, kicking off the red kettle campaign, over the group’s alleged anti-gay bigotry.
The first thing to know about the Salvation Army is that it is a church, founded by the Methodist preacher William Booth. He started his Salvation Army, with military ranks for its clergy, to reach the hungry and the needy through service. With nearly 2 million members and a presence in roughly 130 countries, it is a spectacular example of, as Billy Graham once put it, “Christianity in action.”
As such, it obviously reflects Christian morality. “Soldiers, the core group among members,” one religious writer explained, “take covenant vows that cover doctrine, loyalty, willingness to evangelize and help the needy, and clean living (no alcohol, drugs, gambling, pornography or profanity).” The Army’s position that marriage should be between a man and a woman isn’t an exotic invention, but standard Christian teaching.
The idea that the Salvation Army has an anti-gay animus stems largely from its opposition to anti-discrimination laws that it worried would impinge on its conscience rights, and criticism over its policies regarding transgender people at its shelters (especially the practice of some shelters of assigning people to a male or female facility depending on their gender at birth). The organization had made clear again and again, though, that its services are available to all.
Commenting on the scandalous Buttigieg bell-ringing images, the press secretary for the left-wing Alliance for Justice opined, “I know the photos are 2 years old, but still, I can’t help but wonder if Mayor Pete just looks at what LGBTQ activists have been working on for years and then chooses to spite it.”
Or perhaps he was rational and broad-minded enough to appreciate the massive good done by one of the most admirable institutions in the country.
Commenting on the scandalous Buttigieg bell-ringing images, the press secretary for the left-wing Alliance for Justice opined, “I know the photos are 2 years old, but still, I can’t help but wonder if Mayor Pete just looks at what LGBTQ activists have been working on for years and then chooses to spite it.”
Or perhaps he was rational and broad-minded enough to appreciate the massive good done by one of the most admirable institutions in the country.
These are confusing 'accounts.' Either the Salvation Army is doing good for the LGTBQ community in which case the community should say so, or it is not doing good for the LGBTQ community and the community has the duty to speak out against it.
Maybe this is the matter of mixed and conflicting messaging from the Salvation Army—a phone call should settle all discrepancies in the mass media. These two organizations need to sit down and talk this out! It is not enough for some writer to point fingers in one direction or another—which only fuels the dilemma and not inform anybody!
What does the democrat presidential candidate who is a mayor and married another man say about the issue?
You could or should (in this case) be informing me! It is your article! I only know this much about the incident of his appearing because of you!
You obviously didn't read my post here: 3 and went straight to the upcoming elections. My feelings about the Salvation Army Church goes back to my friend's experiences in the 70's and 80's. You were not raised within the church, nor are you gay. Please don't make this a political statement. It had nothing to do with politics.
It has a lot to do with politics. The secular left attacked them and made it so. I’m not a member but I have like mayor Pete volunteered for them and bought from their thrift stores.
What evidence do you have of this?
An article by a guy whose two publications are banned from this site because of his extreme views?
It's just hearsay by a hate monger.
Good for you, HA. But this has nothing to do with being secular or not. This has to do with Church practices, and since you are not a member, you don't have to live with it.
It is so tiresome to see these woe-is -me articles about "Christians" every day. 75% of the country is still Christian, churches are thriving , and enjoy free speech and tax exemptions.
The ones that are crying every day are the "Christians" who want Christianity to run this country, and that will never happen. We dont have a theocracy.
It is a drag to see this baloney on this forum every day though.
I had to Google that because I couldn't believe it.
I stopped going to church in high school when I made it known to my parents who I never saw go to church that I was a non-believer. I don't think I know anyone who goes to church.
From The Pew:
I guess I was slightly high. The % has been falling in the last couple decades and I just took my best guess. In 1990 Christians were 85%
I'm sure there are quite a few Christians who dont go to church regularly. If you believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ you are a Christian whether you go to church or not.
I once had a survey call me up and ask me what my religious affiliation was and when I said none the persisted. They said, we're not asking if you go to church..what is your religion?...
So I kind of think the numbers are a little inflated. There's a bit of lag with regard to people who have stopped being religious but are still being counted as members of their former religion.
When I just Googled it I found 74%.
I have considered going back to Church in order to engage my community. I was raised Catholic but if I went back it would be as a protestant most likely because that is the active church in my neighborhood.
As for the metaphysics and theology of it all I think I can come up with something that maps the holy trilogy onto what science tells me is true.
I'd be all about the compassion and the works.
But I am just not quite there.
You might find Dr. Hugh Ross to be quite interesting.
Just Googled him.
I don't think evolution vs. intelligent design is where I will get hung up in reconciling faith and reason.
But thanks for making me aware of him.
Dr. Ross has a very interesting correlation of Genesis with Big Bang cosmology.
Yeah, I saw that in Wikipedia.
I'm a little more worried about JC rising from the dead, etc.
Why does Jesus rising from the dead worry you?
It's where the challenge of reconciling reason and faith comes into play.
John and Gulliver, I am as faithful in Jesus Christ as "all git up" and the last time I attended a physical church service was in the 1990's. That being made clear, I have dedicated my life daily since 1993 to my faith, its system of belief, and study and devotion. There is even an orthodox church which believes the church era has ended already, and they live collective lives of service to the faith apart from gathering in large structures—I am not a member, nevertheless.
This is a tad different than you, because you clarify your position as non-believing.
See? There is meaning breathed into the breadth of these ancient writings.
You can't un-see being raised as a Christian.
8 years of Catholic school and religion class leaves a permanent mark.
Only 8?
lol, try 16
In HS I became an agnostic and then an atheist.
I found it striking how many people thought it was rude to declare that you were an atheist like you were expected to say you were an agnostic so you didn't hurt any feelings.
Not that I actually went around declaring anything at all, but by the time I was a Senior in HS I could no longer justify saying that I had doubts about whether there was a God or not. If people asked, they got an honest answer.
Today, I am just struck by how it makes no sense for there to be anything at all including us asking why the hell are we even here. There should be nothing at all. No time. No space. No energy. No big bang. No conscious thoughts. Nothing. But here we are.
Most of us on NT go by agnostic atheist (when labels are at play) because it is technically correct and because it distinguishes us from the unsupportable views of the gnostic atheist ('there is no god'):
agnostic atheist = 'not convinced there is a god, but one cannot rule out the possibility'
gnostic atheist = 'there is no god'
I know, the ultimate existential question. But, of course, that applies to a creator too. When religious people answer the question of: 'why is there something rather than nothing?' with: 'because God created something out of nothing' they ignore the fact that 'God' is something. The obvious next question is: 'why is there God rather than nothing?'.
Ultimately, life is too short to dwell on this stuff.
We just have to make the most of this life we have left before us.
Yes but I cannot resist the logical question. If someone believes in a creator because it answers the something vs. nothing question I feel compelled to give them a hint that their logic needs to be revisited.
Okay. (Smile.)
Yes Gulliver, the "Why' is a question. Clearly we have not been provided all the answers to fill in its 'blank.' However, logic surely dictates that nothing can not ever create something. I suggest God or 'Whatever' reserves the answer, for now.
Also, nature and reason clearly demonstrate understanding goes beyond what we can sense: 1) See. 2) Hear. 3) Touch 4. Smell. 5. Taste.
Gravity is experienced (and depended on by all) every day and sensed by no-one.
I was always an atheist even though I spent 12 years of perfect attendance in Sunday school and read the bible twice (mom and dad).
It’s called a reasoned rational faith.
That's called an oxymoron.
[deleted]
kind of like political independent?
Nothing like that if you understand what a political independent is.
A political independent is an individual who does not simply adopt the positions of a particular party. Basically this is an individual who employs critical thinking and comes to their own conclusions. Further, one can be registered for a particular party and still be a political independent. There are R independents, D independents, Green independents, etc.
An independent is the antithesis of group-think — believing something true simply because other humans (who one trusts) claim it is true.
The problem with your argument, and it is a fatal problem, is that you assume that one cannot decide to support a political party and also make an independent decision to do so based on logical, well thought out conclusions.
John if only you would read what I write. Here, read this:
How did you miss this??
John,
To add to what tig said, independents decide issue by issue and these issues can span the political spectrum. When they vote, they vote by who best fits the issues that are important to them.
Now that comment is kind of ignorant. Please define your idea of a political independent.
Tig implies that only independents think critically. And yes, he does say there are Democrat independents and Republican independents, but the fact remains that someone can think critically about issues and still support a party. I will admit that someone who is a "Democrat independent" could reasonably decide to vote for a Republican or two, but they will generally vote for all the Democrats, because they know that the Democrats will push for the policies the person likes.
I wish we had "independent" legislators who vote issue by issue. It used to be like that, there were liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, but they are an endangered species.
I saw it, I dont believe you need to be an independent of any party or no party in order to think critically about issues.
John, it truly amazes me that you refuse to read (comprehension) what I write. Take this:
Now compare that with what I wrote (third time this is shown to you):
When I write R independents and D independents, ... I am explicitly noting that one can be an R or a D (or ...) and still be a critical thinker — still be a political independent.
Hello?
Fourth time:
I sometimes find myself dependent ,
on independents, but it depends.
I was once drafted by the Salvation Army,
as a fashion model, as that is where i discount shop for my often admired fashion, as i'm a fashion statement, known as a question mark, but with an exclamation point, that i'm rarely capable of making, so i find myself, like everyone else,
pointless. My arrows are bowed, so i tie one on
I agree with this line of sharing. I am a democrat (by choice and not by dictate). I have voted republican in the past and could again in some future all things being equal. However, the LIES, omissions, commissions, and intellectual dishonest are a non-starter for me and contemptible. In fact, since I lack confidence in this president, his republican House and Senate, I am near to invalidating the Republican Party establishment (including on social media) in my view.
I suspect you'll only get silence as a reply Perrie.
I'm sorry this happened to you.
Not a member but do like what they do.
Read here: 3
Well, this is a hard read. Dennis Prager, really? You know it must be nice to be born in a heterosexual body in a heterosexual country in a hetero-centric world. It must be be nice to be the 'apple' of a heterosexual God.
Heartland and Dennis, just so you know it can be a living hell on Earth, with many forms of desperation, self-loathing, confusion, fear, paranoia, and depressions - all which can masquerade as joy; as making the best of a bad situation; as presenting one's body in 'heck of' ways over the course of life; as never quite settling on what's right and what's wrong, as . . . .
To keep reading how you never really belong in the minds of some people. That's damn depressing (one more time).
CB,
There are plenty of churches that will accept you as you are in the place that you are. That is what my friend found out.
Also, Dennis is going against his own faith, by saying what he is saying. This is nothing more than political hackery.
I know, dear Perrie. You know the funniest thing about this (Apostle Paul gets into with this in his writings to the Churches) is spirituality governs the mind, it disciplines, mutes desire, but it does not erase the past, memories, or wholly repeal attraction and need (bonding; attention; affection).
I will confide that I am not suffering from desperation, self-loathing, confusion, fear, paranoia, and depression. However, acceptance is an odd 'bird' too.
I have found that there are some truths to living life with boundaries and balances too. I see new children being birthed from other children I knew growing up all around me. I see these numerous relationships that span a lifetime between husbands and wives. I see healthy family traditions and sometimes participate in them.
Being 'in' and made a part of heterosexual society does not change the fact that one is yet 'out.' As I grow older I am 'startled' that my flesh still would want to be loved. That at times my flesh wants to be altered. That at times, the closeness of a friend can sent false 'signals' that can stir up thoughts and memories. . . but, the signals are not what they appear to be. . . . Because, they really are not attraction at all.
So much to say. . . . And, all of us are what we are. . . .
Let me move on.
There are moments. . . when my friends can see the 'play' in me and they respect me for it it seems. There are moments when the 'play' comes out among strangers and I can actually imagine one of them walking up and striking me (the terror). Again, this is imagining. But, this is is about what I go through to be me, physically 'coupled' with the spiritual. It is not a game. It has it challenges. It has its rewards. All people of faith will tell you so. My challenges are uniquely mine as theirs are unique for them.
Reputation. There is family to know, love, and be a part of. There is 'making your own bed and laying in it.' There is social relationships and connections to hold dear. Then, there is just wanting to let one's hair down and be spiritually-involved free me. But, the relationships will stay, fracture, modify, or break. . . .
Finally, I come across someone who writes like Dennis Prager (he is not a stranger to me from years ago I used to check out his radio show) has above, and he is put in my line of sight "via Heartland American" and I realize that some people are so selfish to think that as relatively good as they have it in a world "made" for heterosexuals dreams, -they can not ever accept that I struggle to have lived young and now am learning what it means to walk in a spiritual way while carrying in myself my physical yearnings that are not 'dead.' Yearnings that really don't want anything much these days with the exception of just being 'remembered' and allowed to come out and play once in a while.
By the way, I can say that I find Pete Buttigieg to be profoundly interesting. He is someone who has grabbed Christianity, politics, same-sex marriage, and the marketplace of ideas and holds and dares to sway a myriad of hearts and minds. Buttigieg is a possible future for this 'thang' we're living through. He is a pioneer.
He is indeed. I like the man, but I don't think that he can win. I think there is too much of this out there, and that people are not quite ready for a gay couple in the White House. But he is a trailblazer and I tip my hat to him.
I agree. And have heard some friends say as much. Mr. Buttigieg has stepped across the threshold of "the Black" that had the audacity to hope and who demonstrated that he and his family could maintain standards in the White House-even in the worse of circumstances, and grace and decency need not depart, nevertheless.
Moreover, Dennis Prager is an 'old' radio head. He is extremely popular on the Christian-Right circuit. The reason I wrote here as I have done is to simply express how complex issues of religion, Bible, and homosexuality are when they intermingle. It is not a simple matter of 'Black and White.' Life happens in these spaces, as it did in the pages of the Bible. Being spiritual people did not make Ancient Israel and it does not make the Church, certainly not the churches, perfected. We 'toil' at life more or less along with everybody else.
Dennis makes it clear that while he respects evangelical Christianity, he’s a conservative Jew.
I am sorta glad you refreshed my memory of him. I do know this about him, but it has been a while. Mostly what I recall right now is Prager U and his voice. He certainly must be older - no doubt about it.
You are a bit exotic in what you choose to write. Try 'consuming' the whole comment offered once and a while. It can only give more depth, height, width, and breadth. This is about so much more than identifying Dennis Prager to this group.
Yeah Heartland American, I kind of expect you will not engage substantively other's comments by now.
Prager U is a great educational source. I highly recommend it to all.
I sincerely do not understand why one would hold true to a faith that deems his/her person to be 'bad' simply due to how one is born. There are plenty of ways to believe in a creator entity that do not require one to hold true to (or even pay any attention to) ancient Hebrew writings.
After all, most Christians have a very limited understanding of their faith. Most (in my experience) abstract the NT (and OT) into a handful of basic principles that all can be summarized as 'God loves you, be a good person and you will be good with God'. It is actually amazing how easy it is to shock lifelong Christians (especially Catholics by the way) with some of the stuff that is attributed to the grandest possible entity (God) due to the ignorance and ancient mores / values of the biblical authors. They were only taught very sanitized stuff and most have never seriously read the Bible.
Bottom line, why hold true to bigotry stemming from ancient times? You can always believe in a benevolent God who created everything and who, one would at least expect, cares for everything and everyone without petty bigotry. That is, logically one would expect God to care for all His creations.
There is, and can only be one God. By definition the GOD is supreme. So if there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Odin, or other gods of antiquity, or the Christian god or the roster of Hindu gods, they all end up in one place, the one and only and Supreme GOD. Religions are cultural expressions of human beings attempts to understand and commune with their creator, and differ because they were formed at different times in different places and by different cultures.
The Bible is interpreted in 2019 by sincere people as a book that represents the beginnings of the Judeo /Judeo Christian faiths, but is brought as best they can into present times.
I dont know why atheists pretty endlessly insist on treating religion as if it is frozen in time thousands of years ago.
Only if you define God to be singular (as you do). Remember, ancient Greek, Romans, Indians, etc. had multiple gods.
Polytheism is not allowed by you?
Quite true. But they are attempts to understand their perceived creator. No evidence that a sentient creator exists. They may all be wrong.
Have you ever investigated Answer In Genesis? They are sincere in their beliefs and are quite willing to distort science in the process.
Why do you think atheists think that way? Is it atheists who claim that the Bible is divine? Do atheists quote scripture and deem it divine truth? The problem of which you speak does not come from atheists John.
I for one advocate breaking free of the Bible (et. al.) and try to understand one's god by understanding that which he ostensibly created.
There can only be one GOD. Anything in multiples is less than the one God. Just like there can only be one HIGHEST point on a mountain.
If you insist. I wonder how you would have fared in ancient Greece (or modern day India).
I'm surprised you think could be more than one GOD. You study the subject so much.
John, there is no evidence that I am aware of that leads one to conclude that there must be a singular god. If you have some, please let us know.
This may be an example of a carefully worded statement so I will have to pay attention to my reply. There are plenty expressions in this life of material acts and actions that humans can perform, and yet are opined upon as not being in the interest of humanity or self. Example: Pedophilia. These people are born this way, but people are uncomfortable with is form of expression.
There was a time in our land when people thought better of this activity. And the persons "born this way" were permitted to do so. However, it is an oddity and a danger in most regions of the United States toda y.
I Corinthians 10:
23 “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive.
That may be true for you, but not for every one.
Your own Bible lists as one of the commandments: "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have any strange gods before Me.” ...
How can there be "strange gods" if there is only one?
I hope so; I always try to be clear. But I think you are implying that I am trying to trick you. No, I am expressing a thought with an implied question.
Man's laws vary over time and are not divine. I do not see the relevance of comparing man's laws to God's (ostensibly) laws. Your Corinthians reference at best implies that homosexuality (per the Bible) is not beneficial and not constructive. That position is well known (and specific in other verses) and is the foundation of my question.
Best I can tell, you did not say anything.
( By the way, do you disallow mountains with twin peaks ? )
When discussing fantasy, why put limits on your imagination?
The definition of "GOD" as some want to make would likely preclude any other equal powers. However, that doesn't mean that definition is the correct one. What if (if there is a creator) it is just one of many, the creator of our universe, while there may be a whole race of "GODS" all creating their own universes, one for each of the countless possible multi-verses.
Or perhaps, like some Christians even believe, "GOD" is more than one entity, a "triune" Godhead, father, son and holy spirit. Perhaps other versions of such a being could include thousands of pieces. In Hindu they also have essentially a trinity with Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma forming the Trimurti. But they also have many other Gods who are other faces of the same being, facets of the same divine gem each displaying a different aspect or virtue.
There is as much chance of millions of "GODS" of equal strength exist as there is of one God, or no God. The odds are all identical so really no need to be surprised. Until we have some actual evidence that indicates any creator, it's impossible to have a truly constructive debate about who or what it is or to try and define its abilities/powers. We might as well be debating whether Superman could defeat Galactus in a DC vs Marvel crossover. Saying "There can only be one GOD" is a bit like saying "Superman is dead, they can't bring him back, resurrection is impossible in the DC universe!". The fact is, there are no absolutes when you're using your imagination.
Hi Veronica! I would like to interject here if only because I may not get a chance to come back to it in the case JR does not.
The mention in the Bible about " strange gods " is a reference to idols. False gods that some people make for themselves in place (substitute) of what the Bible refers to as the only God.
This is shared in Isaiah 44:6-48 : I will post a bit here:
Isaiah 44:6-48:11 New Living Translation (NLT)
The Foolishness of Idols
6 This is what the Lord says—Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord of Heaven’s Armies:
“I am the First and the Last;
there is no other God.
7 Who is like me?
Let him step forward and prove to you his power.
. . . .
9 How foolish are those who manufacture idols.
These prized objects are really worthless.
The people who worship idols don’t know this,
so they are all put to shame.
10 Who but a fool would make his own god—
an idol that cannot help him one bit?
11 All who worship idols will be disgraced
along with all these craftsmen—mere humans—
who claim they can make a god.
They may all stand together,
but they will stand in terror and shame.
12 The blacksmith stands at his forge to make a sharp tool,
pounding and shaping it with all his might.
His work makes him hungry and weak.
It makes him thirsty and faint.
13 Then the wood-carver measures a block of wood
and draws a pattern on it.
He works with chisel and plane
and carves it into a human figure.
He gives it human beauty
and puts it in a little shrine.
14 He cuts down cedars;
he selects the cypress and the oak;
he plants the pine in the forest
to be nourished by the rain.
15 Then he uses part of the wood to make a fire.
With it he warms himself and bakes his bread.
Then—yes, it’s true—he takes the rest of it
and makes himself a god to worship!
He makes an idol
and bows down in front of it!
16 He burns part of the tree to roast his meat
and to keep himself warm.
He says, “Ah, that fire feels good.”
17 Then he takes what’s left
and makes his god: a carved idol!
He falls down in front of it,
worshiping and praying to it.
“Rescue me!” he says.
“You are my god!”
. . . .
20 The poor, deluded fool feeds on ashes.
He trusts something that can’t help him at all.
Yet he cannot bring himself to ask,
“Is this idol that I’m holding in my hand a lie?”
Funny thing about the "scripture". It was written by MAN. and as I said to John Russell - that is your belief not every ones. I believe in many gods & goddesses including the one written about in the man made Bible. I just see the entity they worship as the one & only completely different. And I do not mean that in a good way.
No, not trick me. It is a reference to the detail nature of your use of words.
I deliberately tried to make my point by stepping away from the faith, specifically Judaism. Jewish marriages in biblical times could take place at what we would consider minor ages today. If you are aware of this, then we can move on. If not, then we can spend sometime addressing it. It was not a problem for those "God-inspired" periods.
Do consider this, laws are made for people and followed by people. Spirits, it is thought, are not 'bothered' by needs and urges of a sexual nature or interest in reproduction.
So when you write about "how one is born," there are a great many things we are born to do which we do not do. So there are other considerations.
To be clear, this Corinthian reference mentions not homosexuality in its context. I don't recall it as doing so anyway.
As to what is "beneficial" and constructive about homosexuality - or human sexuality or sexual acts in general, well that all depends on a 'battery' of factors—including mind, body, and spirit.
My 'offer' was not a criticism of "many gods." (The strong wording by Isaiah, notwithstanding.) Indeed I knew not of your beliefs to do so. No offense intended. It was simply an aid to enhance and clarify a point (re: "strange gods").
I was raised Catholic - I know all about the wording & how one is supposed to take the word of God as gospel & not question, but question I did & since answers are not a part of organized religion I left & opened my mind to the wonders surrounding us without organized religion. You did not offend me simply because I have learned everyone has their beliefs & it does not matter what you think of me & my beliefs because you don't have to live them.
Laws are made by people.
Okay, I guess. Exchange is the nature of discussion. And I am certain I have not stated one large or small word or opinion about your beliefs today. (Smile.)
How many twin peak mountains do you know that both peaks are the same height? There is still only one highest point. I live 60 miles from a twin peak mountain. Mt. Shasta.
all but one of my female friends but she has the best smile
Someone has missed the point entirely.
Ah, but CB you seem to want to inform me of something I am well aware of.
Okay. Now I know this about you on several accounts since you shared it above. (Smile.)
Same here Veronica. In my youth my Maternal Grandmother would take me to church with her every Sunday. She was a member of the RLDS, and expected me to follow through with church attendance when I returned home. When I didn't, she refused to have anything to do with me from then on. She through me away because I would not adhere to her religious beliefs. Yet, she called herself a true Christian.
That was one of the many things that turned me away from organized religion, in addition to other things that I learned and experienced in my life that awoke me to the truth about organized religion, it is not the organized church that destroys people, it is the people themselves by allowing themselves to be controlled by it.
Thus, I turned to the religious beliefs of my Cherokee ancestors and have lived a very happy and harmonious life with Mother Earth and all who share it. To me, that is true happiness, and what I think the Creator really wants of us all.
Well said. I am not patronizing you either. I really mean it. People are messing up religion. And, it will take people laboriously acting to help bring some balance to it.
I was too young to have any knowledge of the Salvation Army or what kind of organization they were, all I saw them as were our saviors. They never once asked about our religious association, if we believed in God, or any religious matters. They just asked us what we needed and did their best to help us. Their commitment to help others in need as best they could was what they focused on.
And that made me think that their hearts really were with the Creator and what He truly wanted of us as human beings. Not someone walking around claiming their piety while holding their hand out for payback when people have nothing to give.
To me, they are the true soldiers of the Creator.
I, too have embraced the religion of my ancestors. I delved deeply into my Celtic heritage and found my way to Wicca and enjoy the fruits and bounty of Mother Earth. I am happier and more at peace than ever before. The guilt and tiring journey of my Catholic days is gone and I find joy in so many more things.
Peace and joy fill you at this time and throughout the new year.
Yes him. I like articles from and videos from Dennis Prager. He’s a great American.
Too bad. So sad. I wonder, not very often though, if God knows this creation is not pressed copies of Dennis Prager. Small reflection there. Heartland American, here is a provocative thought:
Do you find God to be petty?
Many years ago I used to listen to Dennis Prager and he is not even remotely the same person any more. I recently caught some of his stuff and it was full on wingnut. He's a Trumper, pushing the same lies and crap. His values are not what they used to be, back in the day he recommended a book I consider one of the most meaningful I've read, but today I wouldn't bother to read anything by him or recommended by him, his values have been warped.
War on charity.
You're kidding, right? I didn't realize they were the only charity out there.
Here let me help you:
This is where my family's charitable trust does its research.
I can't imagine going through life convinced every interaction is some grand political statement.
Give money to help the homeless? You hate gays!
Go to a wedding at a plantation? You love slavery!
Use Apple products? You support child slavery!
Etc etc.
[deleted]
You are focusing on the wrong things.
I can't imagine going through life not caring about facts.
Fact: The Salvation Army has tried to limit and prohibit gays from their Church activity. They don't in the case of need or aid.
Fact: Why would you want to have a wedding where so many suffered?
Fact: I have never said anything about Apple.
And don't you ever call me a jihadist, because I don't go around murdering innocent people in the name of Allah. I would flag that insult, but I won't waste my time.
Really? What percentage of their budget is dedicated to killing/imprisoning gays? It'a charity so they'd have to disclose that, right?
But I guess I should flag that, to keep the moderation consistent.
Fact: Why would you want to have a wedding where so many suffered?
That's not a fact. About 10 years or so ago, I went to a wedding at a plantation house in McDonough, Georgia, very near the setting of Gone with the Wind. It was a beautiful setting and a great wedding attended by black and white guests. No one, certainly not the black guests, seemed to think their attendance somehow constituted an endorsement of slavery. I guess there weren't enough northern liberals there to tell everyone how to feel.
My guess is that the black slaves, should they be able to look down upon their descendants celebrating a wedding in the Plantation House, would probably be very happy to see their descendants enjoying the beautiful mansion in a way they were denied, and get a kick out of their descendants be waiting upon by some white servers and bartenders. The beautiful house and property didn't enslave anyone, people who've been dead for over 100 years did.
Fact: I have never said anything about Apple.
Probably because you've used an Apple product and don't want to have to avoid using them out of principle. Apple exploits kids and props up totalitarian governments. It does a lot more actual harm to people in the world today than charities and nice houses. Again, if people took this sort of thing seriously and applied it across the board, they could never leave the house or buy anything without "supporting" terrorism, slavery, child labor, environmental destruction etc.etc..
And don't you ever call me a jihadist
I didn't. Look what I wrote again. I used jihad as defined by Merriam Webster as a crusade for a principle or belief to describe the movement that makes these sort of complaints. If jihad is such an offensive word, substitute in crusade. NO fair reading of what I wrote could twist into claiming I said you murder innocent people in the name of Allah.
would flag that insult, but I won't waste my time.
Well yeah, it would be. Calling an action a jihad or crusade is not a personal insult.
[Deleted]
Read up. Long before you responded, I amended my response to be clearer.
Because they would tell the bride and groom how the felt? Along with how the felt about the food, too?
I'm glad you said guess since you have no idea of how they felt. I, on the other hand, have heard blacks say how they feel about these places from them. I don't have to guess, and no, I didn't tell them how to think... they educated me.
OK another insult. Boy, you are on a roll. So basically, you are saying that I have no ethics. Well done! Well, guess what? Deregulation has made it nearly impossible to buy from America. Have you walked through a Macy's lately? There is not one item made in the USA and almost all made in China or Indonesia, never mind electronics. I would if I could. But funny how you backed off of the falsehood of implying that I ever said anything about Apple products to what I was thinking.
And don't play semantics with the word Jihad or Jihadist. You know what it implies. You could have used any other adjective, but you picked one of the most offensive.
And your final comment I will flag, but I will restore the first. Maybe he just couldn't believe you would use that term on me and fully got your intention.
Good points. I hate it when progressive minded attempt to mind read an infer intent even after a reasonable explanation was given.
Why should current owners of these homes be penalized now and financially punished now for what people dead for well over one hundred years ago did there?
Exactly. These war on people also target the Fellowship of Christian athletes and many other faith based charities that are backed by denominations that support biblical one man one woman for life marriages.
I have begun giving and shopping at our local AMVET store instead of the Salvation Army or the Good Will. I support many charitable organizations, St Judes, World Wildlife Federation, and a few local (The Sisters of Mercy) just to name a few. I have issues with places that put stipulations on their activities or charitable organizations that make their CEOs millionaires. But that is just me.
Yup, their CEOs make at least 100s of thousands of dollars a year and their employees probably make minimum wage.
I was talking about Salvation Army.
I don't give to Salvation Army or Goodwill.
I usually donate to Purple Heart if I have any items.
I actually don't have a problem with the CEOs making good money. They have to eat, too, and many work hard for that money. I do have a problem when a nonprofit's CEO makes good money while employees make minimum wage (or sometimes less). If a nonprofit like Good Will employs people in order to help them, they should pay them enough to actually help them, rather than using them for cheap labor.
I don't either if they earned it.
I agree with you.
Disclaimer, there is no attribution to the accuracy of this chart and in spite of the "via Snopes" claim.
here is the closest article on Snopes.
I wonder about the accuracy of the CEO of the Salvation Army, one General Brian Peddle of London UK.
The average SA thrift shop manager makes 50K
The average regional director of Finance makes $115,000 a year.
Peddle is the international leader along with his wife Rosalie (Commissioner Peddle),
Hudson is the USA National Commander
not a lot out there on Hudson..
The SA has an amazing chain of command, all very well compensated, apparently, except for soldiers...
An interesting compromise that may help relieve tensions on the Christian-Gay issues.
Controversial compromise
Bill aimed at balancing LGBT agenda and religious freedom gets some support but alarms both sides
Post Date: December 06, 2019
Rep. Chris Stewart (Alex Brandon/AP)
A Republican congressman on Friday introduced sweeping legislation he says will balance the rights of religious and LGBT people, advancing a controversial religious freedom approach.
The Fairness for All Act (FFA), introduced by Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, would make sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) protected classes under the federal Civil Rights Act.
The bill would prohibit anti-LGBT discrimination in employment, housing, education, and public accommodations. That includes retailers, banks, and healthcare service providers. The bill also seeks to protect a measure of religious freedom, exempting churches and religious nonprofits from the anti-discrimination rules. But for-profit business owners would be subject to the rules, unless they have fewer than 15 employees.
Some LGBT and religious groups oppose the measure, saying they are skeptical such an approach will make headway in Congress.
Stewart’s bill marks a new phase in a yearslong process: It's the first time advocates of this approach have convinced a legislator to introduce such a bill in Congress.
The FFA approach has made inroads among some religious groups. Most notably, the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities (CCCU) and the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) endorsed FFA last year. Following a backlash, NAE has since backed away from its advocacy and was noticeably absent from Friday’s press conference.
The main religious freedom groups driving the effort forward—the CCCU, the 1st Amendment Partnership, and the Center for Public Justice—have partnered with the American Unity Fund (AUF), a politically right-wing group that pushes LGBT rights. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the biggest proponent of the approach. The bill has also won the support of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
CCCU President Shirley Hoogstra said in a statement to WORLD that the bill balances “the rights of the religious and LGBT communities in a comprehensive, balanced, and enduring way.”
Stewart’s bill hearkens back to the “Utah Compromise” a nondiscrimination law with religious exemptions that passed in the state in 2015.
“Neither side has to lose in order for the other side to win,” Stewart, who is Mormon, said at the Friday press conference announcing the bill.
Andy Crouch, a CCCU board member, said in an email to WORLD that FFA is a legislative response to the Equality Act, which contains no religious exemptions: “We urgently need a clear alternative to the Equality Act that protects the freedoms and dignity of all Americans. Just having it in the public record as a legislative alternative is worthwhile.”
The Equality Act would prohibit people of faith from claiming the protection of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in litigation, effectively ensuring that an LGBT person’s claim of discrimination in the public square would win by default. In May, House Democrats unanimously voted to pass the Equality Act with the support of eight Republicans. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has indicated he will not bring the act to the chamber’s floor for consideration.
The FFA approach is controversial among both major LGBT and religious groups. LGBT-rights organizations such as the Human Rights Campaign and Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) oppose the bill. GLAAD tweeted, “Let us be crystal clear. We will NEVER compromise away the protections of every LGBTQ person from discrimination in order to satisfy those who wish to use religion as a weapon for discrimination.”
Leading religious conservatives have long opposed the idea of FFA. In 2016, more than 75 Christian leaders issued astatement calling the plan a “serious threat.” Signers included Princeton University’s Robert P. George, Southern Baptist leaders Albert Mohler and Russell Moore, Jeff Myers of Summit Ministries, several top Catholic bishops, and Franklin Graham of Samaritan’s Purse.
Last month organizations including the Heritage Foundation, Family Research Council, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, and Concerned Women for America sent an opposition letter to Republican House leaders. They say the bill does too much to extend SOGI protections to public accommodations—something the Utah Compromise did not touch.
Greg Baylor, a former CCCU board member and the leading higher education attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom, said he has “serious concerns about the harms [the bill] would inflict on a variety of vulnerable populations.” He explained that it would allow biological males to compete in girls’ sports and have access to girls’ locker rooms and bathrooms.
Some debate whether the bill would protect conscience rights of medical professionals who object to participating in transgender transition procedures or drug treatments. In response to my questions, Stewart’s office said the bill keeps RFRA in place and includes an accommodation allowing medical professionals to decline participating in transgender transitions. But groups like the Heritage Foundation say those protections aren’t explicit enough.
Jamison Coppola, legislative director at the American Association of Christian Schools, said any attempt to enshrine SOGI into federal law “[uses] the government to force one side to act in ways inconsistent with their deeply held beliefs.”
As of Friday, eight Republicans had co-sponsored Stewart’s bill, but no House Democrats pledged support. Supporters Friday did not say they had someone to introduce a twin bill in the Senate.
With the release of the bill, supporters also announced the formation of the Alliance for Lasting Liberty, co-chaired by Tim Schultz, president of the 1st Amendment Partnership, and Tyler Deaton with AUF. The group exists to push for the advancement of FFA legislation.
In an email to WORLD, Stewart said he is “anticipating a long conversation about this in the House of Representatives. This is not a bill that will be passed into law in 2019 … introducing the bill is just the start of an important process.”
Read and noted.
nope. not now, not ever. Unconstitutional, by the document that allows religious cults to exist in this country, within the confines of the law.
Well I think that the court will provide the conscience clause exceptions for religious reasons ultimately. So perhaps there’s no need to compromise.
How could anyone with morals want discrimination to be legal?
Oh wait, they couldn't.
I doubt most thumper trumpsters know the meaning of the word compromise.
sorry, no bigotry riders on the US Constitution for the mass hysteria crowd. my conscience dictates engaging in heaping public humiliation on thumpers promoting or attempting to impose unamerican religious dogma into our secular legal system. that's my religion, which is as valid as any other belief system here. obviously some of the flock have wandered too far from church property and need to be assertively herded back before they hurt themselves.
He might be a right wing republican they allow discrimination all the time
I am very thankful for the Salvation Army, and donate to them as I can, both monetarily and in goods.
My Parents and I were survivors of the 1949 flood when the levee broke. It was one of the worst floods Fort Worth TX has ever had, and many people lost their lives.
I was 4 y/o, we were living a housing community that had been used for housing military officers and they family during WWII. They were pretty much thrown together and could not withstand the onslaught of the huge flood waters that were pouring into the area. Our house was located on the street that was right along the levee, so when it broke, our area was the first to get inundated. As the flood waters rose my Father carried me and my Mother clung tightly to my Fathers belt as he walked toward higher ground.
We first arrived at a two story apartment building and thought we might be safe. But, the flood waters continued to rise, and we went up stairs to the second story. However, as the levee continued to crumble under the heavy flood waters. But, it was not long until the flood waters began to reach the floor of the second story, so they called for a boat to come and take us out.
Once we were able to reach dry land were taken to a shelter. All my Father had on was he slacks. Both my Mother and I were in our pajamas, and no shoes for any of us. We were wrapped in blanks to help keep us warm.
The Red Cross was the first to come around and was SELLING hot coffee and juice. As we had lost everything we had no money. And they never once offered us an clothing.
About an hour later, it was about daybreak and we were traumatized and exhausted. Then the Salvation Army personnel came around an offered food, coffee, tea and juices, for FREE.
They also took us over to an area where all sorts of clothing was laid out for kids, men and women, also for FREE. So my Parents and I were able to find some clothes that kind of fit us in the piles, and some shoes that sort of fit, but much better than being barefoot.
Then we were bused to another building where we could contact our family and waited for my Grandparents to come and get us.
Three days later we were able to go back to our home and it was leaning backwards off its foundation onto the house behind us. It was so very sad to see everything we had covered in mud and stained. All we had was the clothes on our backs thanks to the Salvation Army.
So from that time on I have always been grateful to the Salvation Army for truly caring about the people more than the money, and saved us from having to suffer the humility and embarrassment of having no clothes or shoes because we had no money to buy them from the Red Cross. I have never donated anything to the RC and never will.
Dignity restored. Thank you for sharing this, Raven. Sometimes all these 'surface conflicts' can leave us struggling to look for the true soul of an organization. We can always appreciate honest to goodness kindness and outreach. That is what you strongly felt then and its influence has carried over a lifetime. I value your sharing. Know this from me. With all that is going on in our shared world today, your speaking up for the Salvation Army helps balance our understanding of the organization somewhat.
I am taking all of what has been said in. Also, I thanked Heartland American for a point he made in pointing me, us, in the direction of a link on The Salvation Army website to read about their good works for LGBTQ people. I am sure there is more to this story—in either direction. It does go to illustrate where practical daily life matters people and doctrinal positions can be complex and downright strange at times.
Thank you for your kind words of understanding, CB.
As many here know I am not a Christian, but, I am truly Spiritual. Human kindness and care for others is an important matter for me, much more than their Religious interests. The Salvation Army has always been there for the tragic events around the world and offering help and assistance to those who need it, be it in the way of clothing, food medical care or simply compassion to try to help victims deal with their mental, emotional and physical suffering.
They don't use the donations from others as a means to profit for their organization as the Red Cross does. The Red Cross puts money above all else.
Some times the Salvation Army may not be the first on site at a tragedy, but, they offer the most and don't expect to get payback from those in need, in addition to the free donations their organization enjoys from others who give it to freely help others, and expect it to be used in that way.
For the Salvation Army this has nothing to do with trying to convert others to their own religious beliefs, it is meant to put human being's needs and care first, above and beyond. That is where the true heart of their organization is, and always has been.
Some may differ with me, and that is fine, they may have their own story to tell as I do, but, I do not bring religion into the picture when it comes to helping others in times of need. That is where the heart is. That is all that matters to me.
I humbly thank you for sharing and increasing my understanding of the organization you know. I have been so blessed in my lifetime to not have experienced (to date) catastrophic destruction, even as I hear about it all around me. It is good for me to 'record' the reputation for good that organizations hope 'word of mouth' can bring them. (Smile.)
CB, let me know how much longer you want to continue dialogue here. There are some I no longer talk to on any matter regarding religion, origins, logic, or ethics issues with. When you have said all you want to say on the topics here, let me know and I’ll lock it as I haven’t lately kept up with this one. I support the Salvation Army and their charitable activities.
Heartland American, I am blushing a bit that you would consider me to make such a decision. Well here goes: I did want to ferret out a point that I closed out the night last evening (Tuesday) with Tig @ 1.4.201 regarding the covenants Old and New. There was something left over and needing clearing up . After that, depending on how it goes, Tig and I can take it somewhere else or end it. I will reply to you sooner whether than later Wednesday. (Smile.)
I suggest you write an article on this and take this out of HA's control. Obviously HA is trying to engineer a situation where you get the last word by cutting off all rebuttals. Pretty much takes the cake on slimy tactics.
If you do not want to write an article, I can do it if you want to continue.
Regardless, if HA is done with his article he should close it and not engage in slimy tactics.
Hmm. Well you do it, please. I will join you there. I am still in need of some rest today. I have been doing some projects 'off-site.' And, this old boy needs a couple of 'clicks' longer resting in the 'hay.' Sore today.
Tig, I can not speak to any "engineering" which closes discussions or articles by scheme.
Ok