The Left’s Message to Samaritan’s Purse: You Cannot Be Christian
By: Dr. Michael Brown
The hateful bigotry of some in New York knows no bounds and seems to have no rational limits. Attacking a group that brings a hospital and its staffing to the city in the midst of a pandemic thought to overwhelm the system is beyond low and pathetic. The people attacking Samaritan’s Purse are human debris lower than pond scum. Faith based Christian charities that uphold all biblical values are doing an awesome job helping people all over the country and the world and deserve to be applauded for their efforts.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Surge Summary: The Christian humanitarian organization Samaritans Purse is on site in New York City, trying to serve people suffering with coronavirus. Protesters – and perhaps the mayor of the city – object because the group holds to biblical values on sexuality and marriage.
It would be one thing if Samaritan’s Purse refused to treat a gay man. Or mocked a trans-identified individual. Or discriminated against a lesbian needing medical care. But none of that has ever happened. Instead, this massive, Christian humanitarian organization which serves each person alike is getting blasted by the left for one reason only. Samaritan’s Purse is a Christian organization which employs Christian workers and which believes in the historic teachings of the Bible.
That alone is their crime. That alone is their fault. And for that unthinkable transgression, for that monstrous evil, for the crime of being Christian, they are getting protested by the left.
It was bad enough that Franklin Graham’s evangelistic ministry in the UK was opposed because of his pro-Bible comments regarding sexuality and marriage. These days, that is the price for taking a stand for biblical truth and for opposing radical LGBTQ revisionism.
But it’s far worse when Graham’s humanitarian arm, Samaritan’s Purse, which selflessly serves the sick and hurting worldwide, is opposed because their statement of faith is Christian. What on earth has happened to our society?
As John Hirschauer noted in the National Review , “the volunteers for Samaritan’s Purse put themselves in harm’s way, acting as backstops for a municipal hospital system at risk of being overrun with coronavirus patients. The group’s Evangelical Christian volunteers expose themselves to infection and disease at no charge to patients, treating the sick without regard to race, religion, sexual orientation, or any of the other identity groups under putative ‘siege’ in the United States.”
Yet last Tuesday, April 15, NBC News reported that, “a group of LGBTQ activists stood several yards away from the Samaritan’s Purse field hospital on the East Meadow lawn and blasted city and state officials and Mount Sinai Hospital for partnering with the evangelical humanitarian relief organization treating overflow patients suffering from the coronavirus.”
As expressed by Jay W. Walker, an activist with the Reclaim Pride Coalition, “How was this group ever considered to bring their hatred and their vitriol into our city at a time of crisis when our people are fighting a pandemic?”
It is true, as NBC News noted, that, “The hospital is staffed with Christian doctors and nurses experienced in treating infectious diseases.”
And these Christians donate their services to help strangers, putting their own lives at risk in a living demonstration of “love your neighbor as yourself.”
“But,” the report continues, “Samaritan Purse’s policies require most contractors and some full-time volunteers to sign a statement of faith that includes a declaration that ‘we believe that marriage is exclusively the union of one genetic male and one genetic female.’”
Oh, the horror! Oh, the hatred! How dare this Christian organization, led by the son of Rev. Billy Graham, uphold biblical values. How dare they affirm marriage as it has been affirmed by Church and Synagogue for two millennia. How dare they refuse to bow the knee at the altar of political correctness. Oh, the shame!
Writing in the New York Post on April 3, Bob McManus pointed out that Samaritan’s Purse makes it mission and message loud and clear: “‘Why did you come?’” asks its website. “The answer is always the same: ‘We have come to help you in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ.’”
And yet that is where the problem lies: They are Christians coming to serve in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. They have crossed a dangerous line – at least, in the eyes of men like Mayor de Blasio.
As McManus wrote (in classic, New York Post style), “Gotham’s chief executive this week might have accepted with some grace an offer of assistance from a crisis-tested, and devoutly Christian, emergency-relief organization — but he gave it the fisheye instead.
“It seems that in Blasville, evangelical Christians armed with tons of the sophisticated medical equipment so sorely lacking in the city right now, plus the expertise to use it, are presumptively suspect. And are perhaps to be expelled.
“Thus it was with Samaritan’s Purse, the unapologetically fundamentalist rolling rescue squad perhaps best known for the Ebola clinics it established in West and Central Africa over the past decade.”
Somehow, though, Mayor de Blasio was surprised to hear that Franklin Graham’s organization was actually – oh no! – Christian. And so he commented, “I said immediately to my team that we had to find out exactly what was happening. Was there going to be an approach that was truly consistent with the values [of] New York City?”
Ah yes, the values of New York City, the city that aborts more African American babies than it sees born every year. By far .
And the city that says: If you hold to Christian beliefs and values, you cannot serve our citizens. Not at your own expense. Not at the risk of your own lives. Not if you do it as Christians.
Better to let the COVID-19 victims pass away in their misery. We will not have true Christianity in our midst.
That is how far we have fallen, and we dare not ignore the handwriting on the wall. After all, if a Christian humanitarian organization can be protested during a pandemic for affirming biblical values, what will happen to churches and ministries during times of health and prosperity?
Fifteen years ago, I was mocked for saying that those who came out of the closet wanted to us put – Bible believing Christians – in the closet.
That now seems like a lifetime ago. For those who are still slumbering, it is well past time to wake up.
Tags
Who is online
92 visitors
As McManus wrote (in classic, New York Post style), “Gotham’s chief executive this week might have accepted with some grace an offer of assistance from a crisis-tested, and devoutly Christian, emergency-relief organization — but he gave it the fisheye instead.
“It seems that in Blasville, evangelical Christians armed with tons of the sophisticated medical equipment so sorely lacking in the city right now, plus the expertise to use it, are presumptively suspect. And are perhaps to be expelled.
“Thus it was with Samaritan’s Purse, the unapologetically fundamentalist rolling rescue squad perhaps best known for the Ebola clinics it established in West and Central Africa over the past decade.”
Somehow, though, Mayor de Blasio was surprised to hear that Franklin Graham’s organization was actually – oh no! – Christian. And so he commented, “I said immediately to my team that we had to find out exactly what was happening. Was there going to be an approach that was truly consistent with the values [of] New York City?”
Ah yes, the values of New York City, the city that aborts more African American babies than it sees born every year. By far .
And the city that says: If you hold to Christian beliefs and values, you cannot serve our citizens. Not at your own expense. Not at the risk of your own lives. Not if you do it as Christians.
Better to let the COVID-19 victims pass away in their misery. We will not have true Christianity in our midst.
That is how far we have fallen, and we dare not ignore the handwriting on the wall.
Typical over the top reaction by Michael Brown, another Messainic Jew sticking up for all the poor abused Christians who can't express their own thoughts without help from him or Dennis Praeger.
Michael Brown is a Christian and is right on in all that he said. Dennis Prager is an Orthodox Jew.
So we jump from LGBT activism to the "LEFT" ? Is this 'operation' political or compassionate? This article is definitely slanted.
Furthermore, are the protestors making a point to stand against Christians operating a medical proceeding in the park? Or, is Samaritan Purse's operating rules and policies being spotlighted?
Proper Christians do not manipulate this faith, DJTF#1! It is time to cease using Christianity and another writer's words to 'spirit' across cruel, manipulative, and insidious attitudes to others.
Too easy to refute. They both sell their opinions for profit. They prey on Christians, in my opinion.
Michael L. Brown (born March 16, 1955) is a radio host , author, apologist, professor and noted proponent of Messianic Judaism , Christian Zionism , [1] and the Charismatic Movement . His nationally syndicated radio show, The Line of Fire , airs throughout the United States. He regularly contributes articles to the Christian news platform The Stream as well as to the news site Townhall , and serves as head of the Coalition of Conscience, a Christian organization in the Charlotte, North Carolina area. He also holds a Ph.D in Near Eastern Languages and Literature from New York University .Wiki.
About Michael L. Brown
Your point? Denying that messianic Jews are Christians?
Absolutely.
What is this? Why is group of Christians writing about its persecution. Persecution, generally speaking, is par for the course of fundamentalist Christian thinking. Either endure your commitment to your doctrines and service in the field of this world, or pack up and go back home. Samaritan's Purse is hoping for praise? Why is this organization seeking after worldly praise?
They never sought worldly praise nor did they seek satanic inspired criticism for their work done in the name of Jesus Christ.
Whatever that comment means. Jesus Christ will accept Samaritan Purse's good works and will deal with its mistreatment of any fellow believer accordingly. Our role is to example the love of God. Thereby we leave it entirely up to God who will dwell in the house of the Lord forever. Times have changed since the first century church and it is ridiculous to try to live out its reality for our own. That would show no growth and development. And such a lack would definitely put the churches at a disadvantage. BTW, there is no culture war that is not of the church's own making, when it chooses to make the world behave as if it too is saved, set apart, and filled with the Spirit!
Do they not know that public and private hospitals are filled with Christian Doctors and Nurses?
Doesn't it look like the LBGTQ crowd thinks it is more important to be "inclusive" than it is to treat sick people who may die?
Next time maybe the Christians will just stay home.
I'm reminded of old racists who would say stupid stuff like "I won't let anyone black operate on me" or "I won't accept any blood from a black person".
Completely stupid.
For a good work no one should deny themselves or condemn another. However, it is perfectly appropriate to protest dividing and bigoted policies. Much water gone under the bridge, one could say.
One might wait until the 'cycle of combat' is ended, but this is a free country with choices and timelines to meet too.
I think their priorities are all screwed up then.
Surely good works should take precedent over disagreements.
What they choose to believe doesn't negate what they do.
I agree. I and others like-minded persons would look on with appreciation and some timidity regarding outcomes. However, I can see the protests example as occurring under the present circumstances in some fashion. People can choose to grumble. Hopefully, people will not choose to act negatively and do irreparable harm to a recipient or possible recipient of Samaritan Purse's 'extension.'
I will leave it at the above for this moment.
Obviously, as 75% of Americans identify as christian.
From what I read activists were protesting the fact that this organization required volunteers to sign an anti-LGBTQ 'Statement of Faith'.
Well, then, you read wrong.
They didn't ask anyone to sign anything that is anti-LGBTQ.
And what business is it of anyone's outside the organization what they as a private institution require from its members?
OMG the horror!
The old flip flop eroo
Kindly explain whatever the fuck you are talking about.
So Franklin Graham is anti LGBTQ and you are surprised that other people object to that?
they may be first class xtians, but they will bend a knee to the Constitution or forever be considered 2nd class Americans as far as I'm concerned. sorry, can't it both ways BSers. the US Constitution rules over all Americans, their silly cult only rules over the people that let it. tough shit, welcome to America.
I'll leave you to twist in the wind.
No, John, I am surprised that people bothered to protest an organization set up to help others without regard to color, race, nationality, religion or sexual preference.
Seems like they could find something worthwhile to protest other than an organization helping others in a time of need.
And that still doesn't explain WTF you were talking about in post 2.2.3.
Since they treat all patients the same regardless of race, religion, color, or sexual preference, your comment is superfluous.
Well, at least THAT makes more sense than your comment:
If you had read the article, you would know that the LGBTQ folks where protesting because the Christians where allowed to treat patients.
I guess the LGBTQ has a problem with people getting medical treatment and would prefer to decide who lives or die.
they have to in this country, or else the thing they covet more than providing charitable work flies right out the window, their tax exempt status.
"They have to", and they are.
Which makes the protest bizarre.
Why bother to protest an organization that is clearly following the law, not discriminating against anyone, and is doing all of it for free?
Senseless as the rubes who defend such nastiness.
That doesn’t at all affect who they serve? So what’s your point?
Then what is this?
Are you going to argue semantics and say that the statement isn't anti LGBTQ?
jeez they even specify genetics now, go figure...
because of the group's and everyone in the group who signed a discriminatory document in order to participate.
Frankly I would accept help from the Red Crescent if I had COVID,
but I am sure they would be protested too.
No, I am going to point out that nowhere in that statement does it even mention LGBTQ.
And if the organization provides its services without regard to race, religion, sex, or sexual preference--for free, no less--does it not seem a little pointless and rather weird that people would protest such an organization in a time when its services are crucial?
Would you rather that the organization withdraw its offerings of help to people who really need it because they want to associate and work with people who feel as they do?
The constitution speaks nothing about the rules of a religion or any of its ministries must go by in hiring like minded believers to work or volunteer for it. That’s a separation of church and state issue as courts have repeatedly ruled.
Well said. The haters have nothing here but their own bigotry and prejudices.
Got a link?
So show the class where they were required in this instance to sign anything. I am sure we can all wait.
Christian charity takes heat for anti-gay work requirements at COVID-19 field hospital
From your article....................
And your original was referred to "most" and "some", And if you analyze your article said two rejected. WOW SMH
It’s simply a pro biblical traditional marriage position that has nothing to do with who gets served at the charity. Many Christian churches require something like that of all who want to work for them. The constitution is clear as the courts have repeatedly held that a religious organization is free to require the hiring of like minded people to work for it and carry out its mission.
And it doesn't have to does it?
That's the very opposite of what our gay brothers and sisters in Christ believe.
But as I said above if the Iranian Red Crescent or the CCP itself set up shop in the same parking lot they
would attract the same amount of ire & protests.
Just for different reasons from more or less the same people.
I believe in the right to free association. This is their choice--to work with people who are likeminded.
As long as they do not discriminate against those they serve, what difference does it make?
I just think the protestors are way out of line and should be focusing on what's really important about the organization--that they help anyone they can in a critical time, for free. Which is in line with your statement about accepting help from anyone, which I would also.
Like my earlier comments about the protestors--they remind of someone who would say something like "Don't give me a transfusion of a black person's blood". It is like they don't want any help for anyone from the organization because of a difference in opinion about something totally unrelated to what they do.
How dare you be so reasonable...
Yet, you are so okay with Trump firing career government officials on a whim, because he and his conservative policies can't get them to capitulate. No buts. Private-public its all the same. Some of you fundamentalists just want everyone to give over to you, while giving nothing of yourselves to others! Except what you wish, of course. Well, even if it means sick and dying, maybe - just maybe nobody wants life from a perceived enemy!
I believe you have responded on the wrong article.
Check it out.
What makes me a fundamentalist?
I don't want anything from anybody.
You have no idea what I give to any one or any thing, so can that crap.
Then the patients can go elsewhere. That is their choice.
Other Christians are your perceived enemy? What if a close friend of yours fell sick and a Christian operated Hospital where the operators of it believe as Samaritan’s Purse does was the only one in town available would you recommend he not receive life from the perceived enemy?
@2.1.3
Here is what you do not know about me. I used to give to Samaritan's Purse for several years. Until 2012. When Franklin Graham showed a 'shade' that I did not expect by doing outrageous interviews questioning Barack Obama's confession of the Christian faith. Then, I promptly stopped contributing to the fundamentalist church's mindset and the charitable contribution call-backs began. Took a great amount of personal effort to get off the mailing list too.
I respected Franklin Graham, until he demonstrated he can not extend to a fellow believer the decency of a confession, simply because he dislikes his church affiliation. One thing for you to know and understand. None of our denominations were around in the early church, and that includes the fundamentalist doctrines and teachings (Hint: No literal interpretation (alone) of the books existed in the first-century churches.)
Franklin Graham an enemy of mine? Only if he wants to stand apart and heave pebbles, rocks, and boulders at good people just for being different from his upbringings.
There is absolutely nothing to reply to in your answer. I take nothing back.
Good. Glad to see you were persuaded.
Great. I admire conviction, even when it's wrong.
You're mistaken. But I won't dither.
Too late. You already called me a fundamentalist for some strange, strange reason.
Texan1211, easy enough. Just don't dither. Be about it. Share whatever you will to clarify or accept what is gleaned. I do not have time to 'go fish' on this!
If, from my remarks here, you can not glean what my opinion is, I got nothing else for you.
This constant barrage of you claiming I dither (Whatever the hell THAT means) is getting tiresome.
If you want to know something specific about my views, simply ask. I will clarify somewhat for those truly unable to understand.
What you personally have time for is not any of my business, nor do I care.
Carry on now.
I glean you are a Trump supporter and a fundamentalist Christian or close 'second.' How's that? If you want to make an impression Be about it. Either way an impression is traced. Got something else for me now?
"Carry on. . . . "
I do support my President. Don't you? As far as fundamentalist goes, you are so far off base you are no longer even on the same field.
I have no need to make an impression. What others think of me is their business, and I don't care what their "opinion" of me is. Just don't mischaracterize me or my beliefs and not expect to get called out on it.
I have the same thing as always for you--the truth.
Now, to end this inane conversation, please, please, PLEASE, take the last word.
Take the last word? Well, I don't mind. Hell no! I don't support this unapologetic troll sitting atop this nation. Donald Trump is a chump. A miserable old dope who has no empathy or good word for the people he dwelled with for his entire lifetime—until he realized that being president was not going to win him props from New York. What's interesting is how Trump who 'went' conservative to win-still thought that liberal New York should bow down and take his BS 'uncut' because he is president. New York had nothing for him and his troupe of yes-men. Indeed, New York is doing its best to get back its "greatness" after Trump sells-off and 'sails off.' Bon Vonage to a real "knock-off'!
Be are sick, dying, and dead and the Trump surrogate "noise machine" is full-on. Clearly Trump does not give a damn about New Yorkers when his dopy reputation is ragged and bandied about due to his shortcomings. Somebody ought to be ashamed—enough to stay quiet. But no, the republican machine is ridiculously noisy, savage, and unapologetic.
So y'all can miss me with the "might makes right" BS. My take on it: If I need somebody to blow smoke up and in—it won't be Trump, his surrogates, or his followers.
You really should take it all back...
It wasn't a Christian issue was it? They were protesting a public partnership with an obviously biased religious group.
A long as they did not interfere, who cares how they wasted their time?
So this means that the gay folks will not accept medical care from drs in public and private practice who have the same view on marriage? Are they going to require hospitals to vet their doctors religious view before hiring? Do they realize how idiotic this protest is?
Said no one.
They are/were a loose group of protesters who can't force any requirements at/in the hospitals.
Does that matter? Did the first women's liberation protesters in 1967 worry about who thought they were
( or appeared to be ) foolish,
like the Archie Bunkers of the world?
No, not at all. The protests are separate and distinct issues of policy not aid, in my opinion.
The article clearly states that the protesters said SP was not welcomed in their city to give aid.
Point it out, please.
Muslims too.
I don’t agree with their stance on LGBTQ, but I am glad for the charitable work they do.
The charitable work they do is and should be appreciated.
However, I don't have a problem with people prompting them at every opportunity to be kinder to - and inclusive of - the LGBTQ community.
They came to help people, are qualified and are doing it for free, I don't see the problem
There is no problem, other than total idiots protesting against them and the idiots supporting them doing so.
Both groups have the Constitutional rights to do so as long as no one was hurt or interfered with.
I agree they both have rights.
I am exercising mine by saying the protestors are idiots.
I side with the people protesting a fringe religious cult that enforces unconstitutional and unamerican ideologies upon it's members.
I might too, if that happens.
That isn't the case here.
SP forces no one to do anything.
People who choose to sign the pledge do so out of their own free will.
There are literally thousands and thousands of charities for people to volunteer at if they want.
And FYI, SP has the complete right according to SCOTUS to do what they do.
That they are. They are also narrow minded intolerant bigots who it seems would rather people die than be freely treated without prejudice by people who hold to a certain Biblical belief. Talk about a dumb protest.
Joining a denomination or organization is a voluntary association no one is compelled to be a part of. These groups are free under separation of church and state to set their own rules for fellowship and association. There is nothing unconstitutional or anti American about it.
Let's just say there is a problem/s and you can't relate to it/them.
The problems seem to be for the protestors. They don't want people to believe what they believe in. SP isn't trying to tell them what to believe or how to live.
My answer is the same.
Funny.. Far right wing christian cultists are the least tolerant people there are. REAL Christians are great people, these people are not real Christians.
Big difference between legal marriage and 'holy matrimony'. Secular society, holy matrimony isn't real marriage.
Holy matrimony is the only form of legitimate marriage.
Not in this country it's not!
It is. It’s a way to differentiate a real marriage from an illegitimate sham that same sex “marriage” is. We will find ways that ours are differentiated from theirs in a way that they can not obtain so that ours won’t be tainted by association with theirs.
Why do you hold homosexuals in such contempt ... denying them the ability to be legally married? Do you not recognize that as overt, gratuitous bigotry?
No, it's not! In this country, marriage is a legal institution and function. Religion (matrimony) is merely ceremonial, but is not necessary or required, and has no legal weight.
Wrong again! SSM is also legally recognized, accepted, and deemed equal to "traditional" marriage, no matter how much you complain or wish otherwise.
What a bigoted comment. But otherwise irrelevant. SSM is just as legal and valid as yours is, and vice versa.
Doubtful. Some theists cannot see or recognize bigotry when it's hidden behind the excuse of religion.
If you can not differentiate an opposite sex marriage where offspring is the natural course of two people coming together sexually without hating on two people for whom no matter how expressive, engaging, or enduring their love can be, then what sad and disappointed human beings life must be for your group!
Some people NEED God to be a creature of their expression. It is why they 'serve' or 'heed the call' in the first place. For them, God is God, because God 'suits' who they see themselves being as people In other words, God and God's Word (as they hear and perform it) props them up and fits in nicely with how they perceive the world ought to be. And, not the other way around. Love is for the 'righteous,' and to be denied those outside "the Organization."
Let's just say BS to that statement.
I agree in principle. The purpose of government is to enable legal relationships, property rights, etc. Note that marriage is an extant legal term. Some wish to deny the legal protections and obligations of marriage to others.
Religious organizations are free to continue to attach ceremonial and religious factors to the legal marriage and if some deny this to homosexuals then that it their right as a religious organization. But the legal contract that is marriage should be available to all.
Marriage is a word meaning a relationship between people with specific dynamics. Your group, your church, does not-can not own the word! It can not be trademarked.
The appropriate way to orient and view the word, "marriage," is to understand that society can authorize and practice the proceeding in the absence of religion expression or existence. The church does not and can not own the word.
Tig, I know you understand this from past discussions we've had.
This is simply right-wing association, familiarity, and foundation with a word for so long that they now generationally want to pull it to their side. It can not occur, nevertheless. The word marriage shall/will remain in the marketplace for the consumption and use by all!
I don’t object to their having civil unions or all the legal protections and health insurance and hospital rights that go with it. Calling it marriage which is a religious ceremony only intended by God to be between one man and one woman til death do us part that I object to.
Not in Gods sight and viewpoint. One is what He ordained for us and the other is an abomination in His sight.
That would be reasonable.
Which is why we need to find a term for a heterosexual marriage relationship that can be trademarked to make it unique and not available to be counterfeited by the great deceiver as the word marriage has been now.
The bottom line is that regardless of what Samaritan’s Purse and other faith based charities believe as a matter of the beliefs of the denomination they are attached to, it should have zero impact upon their ability to provide aid to people who need it any where in the world including Central Park in NYC as that is what this seed is about.
Actually, what you object to, is homosexuals having what you consider to be sacred acted upon by themselves. Your marriage "till death do you part; between a man and woman" is not impacted by what homosexuals do until death do them part. You may have come up in a tradition or joined a group with a tradition where you are expected to believe its doctrines, tenets, and creeds on society norms. Thus, what disturbs the group is a disturbance in its members.
Go for it. Good luck with walking away from your past tradition.
You merely object then to a word. And your objection is based on the false assumption that marriage is a word exclusively held in a religious context.
You are incorrect. Marriage is a word that is not limited to a religious context.
SCotUS view on marriage :
Marriage is a legal term; not just a religious term. Religions have no right to change the legal meaning of 'marriage'. Individual religions and/or churches are free to define religious marriage as they see fit and to deny services accordingly. But they have zero say on the legal meaning of marriage.
Get over it.
Are you now claiming that gay marriage is a result of actions by Satan?
while it can be, it mostly is a result of sinful people giving in to lust rather than exercising self control.
Everyone with a sex drive has lust. Giving in to lust is part of being human; hell, part of being alive.
You deem homosexual lust a sin based on the mores and values of ancient men written in an errant book. Based on that you expect homosexuals to suppress their natural sex drives, emotional dispositions, etc. Imagine if you lived in a society where you were supposed to do likewise: no relations with a woman ... all reproduction handled clinically. My guess is that you would see things differently.
The issue was the word 'marriage'. If your sister and partner wanted to get married and consider themselves married by use of the term 'married', would you be okay with that? Are you, in effect, okay with marriage as a legal term and not simply a religious term?
Well, since you and yours would not see them in legal bondage relationships for "a thousand years" a homosexual man or woman in their prime only had lust to give. I am souring on fundamentalists Christians, because y'all have too many 'oughts' against other groups, even going so far as to disdain liberal Christians who y'all should know y'all will one day serve beside in Heaven.
The positions, based on near literal biblical interpretations, are IMO counterproductive.
I have to agree. Living a life, smugly (self-righteously) condemning and negatively judging others, while laying claim to a God who is the greatest at love requires some feat of spiritual gymnastics. Even the Bible says people belong to God to ultimately judge - so why do fundamentalists feel a need to be God's stand-in. It just makes no sense. They can not explain it, because it makes no sense!
I agree again. I have no problems with civil unions being what all non religious coupling ceremonies are called with all the rights of everyone else so united. I object to calling it marriage. I don’t even object to gay couples adopting children as long as they don’t coerce a faith based charity to be the ones to set it up. Eventually biblical literalists will come up with something to differentiate our holy matrimony ceremonies with so that ours and theirs are separate and different and those who didn’t find civil unions good enough will likely try to find a way to crash that as well maybe even using government power to do it.
I took you off of impasse because as target you could interact with everyone else but me on the thread, while I as the issuer could interact with no one else on the thread.
No one really cares..
Strangely enough, most rabbis refuse to marry couples of different faiths but have no problems marrying
same sex couples. Same God, go figure.
Many Islamist would rather kill gays than let them marry. Same God, go figure.
Nobody cares what literalist believe or want. It's settled law by SCOTUS.
End of story.
Homosexuals should not care what you call their relationships, in the end. Your "objection" is noted and dismissed accordingly. Incidentally, homosexuals are not calling their relationships, "holy." They are simply practicing the marriage ritual for their own purposes. The ritual itself is 'the thing' for those who imagine it for themselves.
If you must take your big-little faith 'ball' and go home, at least,. . . can you shut all the doors behind you when you arrive? Not rude. I'm just full of the fundamentalist religious overbearing and malcontent state displayed on the field of life.
The intended use of IMPASSE is to put an end to a heated discussion that is out of hand. It is an abuse of the tool to use IMPASSE as retaliation.
You just want them to be second class citizens. Separate, but equal mean anything to you?
As has been explained to you, marriage is a legal function in this country. A religious ceremony is neither required or necessary. Ignoring that fact will not make you right.
Utterly irrelevant. We are not in a christian theocracy and not everyone believes in or follows your god. So your god's "viewpoint" is just as irrelevant as yours.
The term is called "marriage," period.
See first statement.
That's your problem then. It's a marriage, whether you like it or not. You or your religion does not own or have the trademark on the term marriage.
You already have "matrimony."
Lust is just a normal human drive. Marriage has nothing to do with lust.
You and I were heated. I wasn’t heated with anyone else and neither were you. Yet you could address other members in the thread and I could not. That’s patently unfair. Why should you get to address me through your replies to others after an impasse?
Continuing thoughts about lust or acting upon lust is a sin. Jesus said lusting after a woman was the committing of adultery in the heart. All sex of any kind outside of a one man and one woman married relationship is adultery and is sinful. Not just gay sex is sinful but all sex outside of a man and woman married relationship is.
We believe what we believe and nothing can or will change that. We will live and act on our beliefs no matter what others think, and we will provide all of our faith based charities around the world and across this country no matter what the protesters think about what the providers believe. Period. That’s what the seed is about afterall.
Your beliefs does not equal fact. Neither does your belief make you right, especially when your belief (as that's all it is and nothing more) is demonstrably wrong, as are you!
No one said you couldn't. But that doesn't actually address anything I said as far as the facts go.
And that is your preogative. But again, believe whatever you like. Belief doesn't equal fact!
No, it's biology.
Which is total BS to any rational minded indidual and is just a religious excuse to try and control people. It's also only relevant to your flavor or religion or those who actually believe that nonsense.
You will do what you wish with your faith-based charities; until, somebody stops the event; calls a suspension on your group's ability to operate; or shuts it down entirely. At which point, your group will take its faith-based charities, plural, and go home. Likely quietly.
Hardly.
From my end we were simply in disagreement. There were no emotions involved on my side and my comments to you were reason based on stated facts. Further, I saw nothing wrong (per the CoC) with your comments to me. So your use of IMPASSE was inappropriate. Using IMPASSE as a weapon is a violation of the CoC. (I did not flag it.)
I did not address you through my replies to others. You seem to be imagining that (or hyper-inferring). But if I had done so that would be wrong.
Why? You were the one who issued an IMPASSE. You think you should have the right to shut someone else out of a thread? No, that would be unfair. If you are having a heated debate/discussion and seek to end it because you think your interlocutor will not cease engaging you, then you give your interlocutor the last word and issue an IMPASSE. Your interlocutor can no longer REPLY to you and should not directly name you in the thread. You should then move on to another thread. Because the issuer of an IMPASSE can unIMPASSE, the price you pay as the issuer is to move on to another thread. The IMPASSE prevents your interlocutor from addressing you after you leave so you can move on with that protection.
The key point here is that if you were using IMPASSE properly, you would want to move to another thread. Remember, IMPASSE is to cease an interaction that is spiraling out of control. If you feel the need to issue an IMPASSE in a thread then you should do so —ceasing REPLYies from your interlocutor— and then leave the thread.
If the rules of IMPASSE are not to your liking you do not have to use the tool.
Rinse, lather, repeat. The seed isn’t about what Samaritan’s Purse believes. It’s about bigots who would rather that victims not receive free charitable services than receive them from people who honestly believe differently than the protesters do. I don’t care what you think about what I believe. Your viewpoint on what I believe is as meaningless to me as my viewpoint on your faulty reason and logic is to you.
And if all the Christians who disagree with you on the issue in question folded up their charitable efforts and went home by government decree who would step up and take our place? Do you think it better for people to suffer rather than have their needs met by Christians who disagree with you?
Fine consider yourself to be the first person I ever put on ignore. Bye now!
Apparently, that's one of your tactics.
You brought up belief.
Who said that?
If you go by belief or think belief is as valid as actual fact, then it's clear you abandoned any semblance of logic and reason. So it's quite comical that you seem to think yourself qualified enough to critique my logic and reason. Especially when I presented actual facts!
What makes you think that others would not step up? Surely, you agree with the saying: "God will make a way somehow.." So you all don't fret: Let God do it. There are some people of your faith and other faiths, even unfaithful heterosexuals you can help without pulling back.
Incidentally, if God sent you and you come and serve, but write articles complaining about the mission. . . what does that say about the ministry and its mission?
So you want to use the government to damage or destroy churches, denominations, their schools, hospitals, charities, and maybe even their tax status who refuse to abandon their belief and accept your right to marry another man as legitimate in the eyes of God?
If I went to provide services as part of s faith based charity or work for wages for a church or its ministries I’d have to sign and live by something similar to what Samaritan’s purse or Salvation Army people do and I’d be out there providing services to people freely with out conditions and the recipients of said aid would have no idea of the specifics of my beliefs besides being Christian. People receiving aid and those providing it aren’t bigots and those who protest the good works being provided and received are.
Rinse lather repeat.
[Removed]
An old saying applies "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth"
I doubt they have a problem with the work they were doing, if considered in isolation. The "protestors" are trying to communicate a message. This is one way of doing it.
Where I think they go astray is in suggesting that no one should ever partner with them to help people in an emergency. Talk about cutting off the nose to spite the face!
Instead, I think it would be much cooler if their protest was along the lines of "Thanks for your help. Consider changing the way you respond to LGBTQ people." Not with those exact words perhaps, but with that basic sentiment.
On the other hand, acting like the Samaritan's Purse people were in some kind of danger is kind of silly.
Anything run by Graham's son should be avoided at all costs.
Well, gosh yes.
Let's boycott and criticize some organization providing free, necessary medical services to all.
Makes perfect sense.
SMMFH
I wonder if anyone LGBT or secular progressive sent there for treatment refused to go saying that they would rather die than be served by medical staff who signed a statement of faith.
I just wonder why anyone cares what someone saving lives believes in.
That is the bottom line here. What Samaritan’s Purse and Franklin Graham believe regarding their Christianity is of no concern to the beneficiaries of the charities services being freely given without conditions. It’s nothing but the insane bigotry of the protesters and those sympathetic to the protesters
How many lives?
Isn't it crazy?
freedom of choice et al..
I believe in freedom of choice.
But I think the protestors are attempting to make choices for everyone in NYC, because of a difference in opinion.
Should SP be disallowed from helping, or should they only be allowed to help if they conform to what the protestors want?
Just like the protesters demanding the country open up, despite the obvious risks?
All costs? Including death if not treated there? Is dying a cost that should be part of all costs?
The story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37) gives a clear picture of God’s desire for us to help those in desperate need wherever we find them. After describing how the Samaritan rescued a hurting man whom others had passed by, Jesus told His hearers, “Go and do likewise.” For over 40 years, Samaritan’s Purse has done our utmost to follow Christ’s command by going to the aid of the world’s poor, sick, and suffering. We are an effective means of reaching hurting people in countries around the world with food, medicine, and other assistance in the Name of Jesus Christ. This, in turn, earns us a hearing for the Gospel, the Good News of eternal life through Jesus Christ.
As our teams work in crisis areas of the world, people often ask, “Why did you come?” The answer is always the same: “We have come to help you in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Our ministry is all about Jesus—first, last, and always. As the Apostle Paul said, “For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake” (2 Corinthians 4:5, NIV).
Mission Statement
Samaritan’s Purse is a nondenominational evangelical Christian organization providing spiritual and physical aid to hurting people around the world. Since 1970, Samaritan’s Purse has helped meet needs of people who are victims of war, poverty, natural disasters, disease, and famine with the purpose of sharing God’s love through His Son, Jesus Christ. The organization serves the Church worldwide to promote the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Sorry, but I don't trust that ahole one iota. I don't care how many pics you present. Feel good pictures are usually staged.
It was an about Samaritan’s Purse organization. Franklin Graham is a most trustworthy person. A truly great and generous man. One who places his faith and trust in the right place.
Dear Mayor De Blasio:
My inquiring mind wants to know:
Well, I think he was just trying to cover his ass politically. He doesn't want to piss off a whole community of LGBTQ and he is probably pissed that he has to deal with this trivial bullshit when the services the group is providing is necessary, crucial, and free in a time of crisis for his city. Maybe he is just hoping this kind of fades away.
And if it isn't what I am guessing, then he is a moron.
Just like his governor who said “God didn’t do that, we did it.”
What are you referencing? Because there are plenty of things that man does that has nothing to do with god.
I was referring to a quote by Gov. Coronavirus in the nursing homes Cuomo
So, just an unnecessary mean comment about our very qualified gov. OK. Thanks for clarifying.
Everything said about him is factually true. He denied God and sent people who’d had the virus into nursing homes where everyone was vulnerable. I’m no more supporting of our idiot Newsom gov. who is starting to go full witless aka gov of Michigan on us desperately and bitterly clinging to his dictatorial powers over us.
Fundamentalists Christians presume this country is theirs alone. That is seriously unchristian and unamerican.
He is a practicing Catholic, so he believes in god. So right there you are wrong. Your only petty gripe with the man is that he's a democrat.
As for the nursing home situation:
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo revealed he was unaware of a state policy that permits nursing home residents to be readmitted to their institutions, even after testing positive for coronavirus .
Governor Cuomo said, 'That's a good question, I don't know,' when asked about New York state's policy on admitting or readmitting people to nursing homes who had tested positive for the virus.
Governor Cuomo was probed about New York state's attitude to allowing those who had tested positive for coronavirus to enter or re-enter nursing homes, during a daily press briefing, in Albany, on Monday.
He appeared unsure in repeating the question back to the reporter: 'If you are tested positive for the virus, are you allowed to be admitted to a nursing home, is the question?'
'Or readmitted,' the reporter said.
'Or readmitted? That's a good question, I don't know,' replied Governor Cuomo.
He turned to New York health commissioner Howard Zucker for clarification, who said: 'I think the policy is that if you are positive, you should be admitted back to a nursing home.'
'The necessary precautions will be taken to protect the other residents there,' Zucker said while clearing his throat.
Neither men seemed 100% certain of the policy.
And most of us in NY like our governer and in fact so does a lot of this country.
A ridiculous sweeping generalization
The blue parts love him and the red parts can’t stand him.
In that case, are fundamentalist Christians willing to compromise with their fellow believers and others and relax their position on a literal interpretation of the Bible?
Wretchedly divisive rhetoric. Followed up with divisive policy proposals intent on non-stop conservatives and republicans dominance over the social culture and the politics of this nation.
No. No compromises in beliefs. God never changed his law or redefined what sin is.
We don’t have social control over the culture. Far from it. Preventing your side from imposing its hegemony and bigotry upon us is the real objective.
You have no idea since you are not here in this state. You didn't even know he believed in god. You just assumed because of preconceived ideas. I have friends who voted for Trump, but love Cuomo. New Yorkers actually evaluate people by how they act and not by what party they are members of.
Mike pence refused to wear a mask when he visited the Mayo Clinic. His excuse? He wanted to look people in the eyes.
Let that sink in.
Incorrect. The original bible made no mention of "gays", it was added later. And when these people find another segment of society to hate, that will be added too.
So that's what he means when he says, almost daily, "God bless you all"? You didn't just spin that, you flat out made it up. I watch his briefings with regularity and it's pretty obvious he doesn't 'deny' God.
And yet: Jesus Christ was part of the plan all alone. But, the Jewish people will not accept Jesus' plan of salvation. Why not? It is nonsense to the Jewish people. Did God 'swerve' the Jewish people in a manner they could not (ever willingly) accept?
Again with the 'war and bunker' rhetoric.
Here is what I wrote: "Followed up with divisive policy proposals intent on non-stop conservatives and republicans dominance over the social culture and the politics of this nation. "
It is an untruth straight out of the deceitful pit of hell that some conservatives and the majority of fundamentalist Christians minus a limited few do NOT want Donald Trump to continue to be an 'arrow' stabbing into the heart of the liberal worldview and secular worldview. All I can say is just stop with the . . . pretenses. Y'all suffer this jack-ass of a president simply as a tool of other groups of people destruction. As a proof of what came before: You do not even demand he be a fundamentalist Christian, like you insist of many others you lend your support!
Honesty is the best policy!
Incidentally, King Cyrus of old was a pagan leader who RESPECTED the Jewish God and the Jewish People enough to honor their faith and its traditions among themselves after capture. Fundamentalist Christians chose for themselves a "King Cyrus" who respects no one who does not bent to his ideas, snivels, lies excessively, and is a self-important, self-dealing, menace to those who stand up to his bullying and attempts at bullying.
You are the one who added and so does a lot of this country. He is not liked in states and regions across a lot of this country. Of course the rural areas of my state have our own issues with Gov. Gruesome.
Consider the source.
But Pence!!!
I am a most awesome 😎 powerful, strong 💪, and wonderful, valued source of accurate information ℹ️.
ICYDNK, vanity and hubris are both mortal sins...
The source of what? Exposing that De Blasio and Cuomo got virtually nothing right in the time leading up to the pandemic and during it?
Jealousy will get you nowhere!
Howard Zucker: Call Him Dr. Death. Wall St. Journal.
I am fine with them helping as long as they aren't pushing their religion down peoples throats. I wonder how many people Graham has welcomed into his church that are homeless and/or have covid-19?
None. Zero. White, Olestein, Copeland...all the same thing..."give us money, but if you need help, go fuck yourself"..
Graham is nothing like any of them.
Well, since they are not pushing their religion down anyone's throat, you must be just fine with them helping others. Does that mean you don't agree with the protestors?
It should mean that. They have their beliefs that I happen to agree with for the most part but that has nothing at all to do with the charitable support that they are freely giving without condition to the people of New York City and its region. The protestors are mindless here
Reference, please. Protestthelockdowns, please provide a reference.
Cooler saner heads prevailed in the city government and us people were allowed to stay and provide their services regardless of what the bigots protesting and some of the same in city government thought of their beliefs. The bottom line here and the subject of the seeded article.
Rhetoric and no reference link! Disturbing.
The seeded article is the link and the actual topic of the seed. Deal with it.
It's an opinion delivered by a clearly right-wing partisan hack? Got it.