Need Another Reason To Be NOT Thankful for Evangelical Leaders This Week?

Tony Perkins

Well, Tony Perkins is happy to oblige.  Last week on James Dobson’s radio show, Perkins said the following about President Obama and the Obama administration:

I have no doubt, as you look back over the last two and a half of years of this administration, that the President has used his bully pulpit—he has done public policy but beyond the public policy that he’s pushed for—that it’s created an atmosphere that is hostile toward Christianity. And we’re seeing this played out all across this culture. And the courts have been emboldened by this. And now you see the military doing it as well. There’s no end to this as long as you have someone who is the Commander-in-Chief, who is the president of this country that has a disdain for Christianity.

This was reported by Christianity Today.  As you might expect, some hateful comments toward Obama show up under the short article.  That neither surprises nor disappoints me.

But here’s what does disappoint me: The editorial board of Christianity Today, the supposed keepers of a more thoughtful, centrist evangelicalism, have not spoken out against Perkins.  While they won’t hesitate to chastise those to their left — Brian McLaren or Jim Wallis, for example — they seem loathe to drop any bad ink on Perkins, Piper, Driscoll, or anyone to their right, regardless of how offensive and antithetical to the gospel are the words or action of these leaders.

Here’s hoping that CT will use this coming election year to call the far-right wing of evangelicalism to a more civil rhetoric.

  • Brian

    Tony, do you really believe CT will actually say anything that can be viewed by its prime money source as supportive of President Obama? Follow the money.

  • http://www.amchurch.co.uk John D’Elia

    Thanks for that, Tony. I agree 100%. It seems we’re running out of thoughtful prominent evangelical leaders these days…makes the ones we have all the more valuable.

  • Matthew Brake

    I agree that it’s a little biased. I think the comment about Obama having a disdain for Christianity was a little uncalled for.

    I DO think that Obama uses the bully pulpit, and I think he does so more than Bush ever did (but Bush also had GOP majorities in Congress so there wasn’t necessarily the need to).

  • Dan Hauge

    Stories like that make me believe in parallel universe theory. I’d love to see what their examples are of Obama using his pulpit to preach disdain for Christianity. (Probably some examples of him not sufficiently chest-pounding ‘American exceptionalism’, which is of course identical with Christianity).

    The other thing that strikes me is that FOTF has been bemoaning the ‘cultural hostility’ to Christianity for decades, this is just the latest incarnation.

  • Frank

    Perkins is being truthful so why should anyone censure his comments.

    • http://www.randybuist.com Randy Buist

      Seriously? Go watch more Fox News.

      • Frank

        Wonderful Randy! I mean if you have nothing of value to contribute you probably should just keep quiet unless you like looking foolish!

        • http://www.RandyBuist.com Randy Buist

          Frank,
          One could argue that Perkins is being truthful that the Obama administration is not trying to change laws regarding abortion. At the same time, they are pushing for kindness toward the homosexual community. From the biblical text, love of God and love of neighbor are always the trump cards. The current right-wing platform against showing equal value towards homosexuals flies in the face of the ‘golden rule.’ Period.

          Do you want a tutorial on the less than biblical stance of the far-right and immigration reform, caring for the poor, caring for the marginalized, stopping the spread of AIDS in Africa, or helping people find their way out of poverty so they can eat, drink, and find shelter.

          The entire premise of the far-right is to cut taxes on the wealthy and preserve their ideal of family — all while allowing businesses to care for only the bottom line and expecting government to stay out of its way.

          If you want to take a trip to Kenya with me and visit kids whose parents have died of AIDS (the Republican far-right wants to cut foreign aid to Africa and elsewhere), if you want me to introduce you to people who are homosexuals and have been kicked out of their families who claim to follow Jesus, or if you would like me to introduce you to my sixty latino employees, I can arrange for any of these encounters.

          I was once on the far right. One of my sisters dated Eric Prince, the founder of Blackwater, for a summer. I have family members who recently shared dinner with Rick Perry and his wife along with Glenn Beck and his wife. I involved with business at the highest corporate levels.

          Yet, if we are to honor the biblical text, then the words of Perkins, like much of the far-right idea of the world, fall on shallow ground like seeds hitting ground incapable of living into the fullness of the kingdom of God.
          For Perkins to tell the world that President Obama is ‘anti-Christian’ shows his lack of knowledge of the President’s faith as well as Mr. Obama’s deep commitment to the ways of Jesus. For someone to blindly follow the words of Perkins is a pathetic failure to have a passion for knowledge, wisdom, goodness, kindness, and the ways of the kingdom of God.

          If I’m perceived as terse in my comments, it’s rather tiring to hear people claim to follow Jesus and yet they leave the poor, the hungry, and the sick, alongside the road while passing by in their $65,000 SUV and demanding another round of tax cuts on the rich.

          • http://www.RandyBuist.com Randy Buist

            What the hell is that supposed to mean?

          • Frank

            Randy I understand your anger but it seems a bit misplaced here. You have made some incorrect assumptions. It’s easy to do when anger controls you. Perhaps you should step back a bit to get a more realistic perspective?

  • Craig

    What to do?

    Let me offer a free idea to a major Christian book publisher: initiate a book series (“Themes from the Left”?) which pairs respected evangelicals with specialists on a given theme as co-authors. The book titles might follow this form: Evangelicals, meet X. Replace “X” with “Rawls,” “Keynes,” “Cosmopolitanism,” “Animal Rights,” “American Under-exceptionalism,” or any other theme that is likely to open minds and shake the average evangelical’s confidence in the reigning conservative dogma.

    I see two ways you can go with this: (1) Attract big names (the Krugman/Nussbaum/Chomsky class) by using a sort of in-depth interview/dialogue format with an influential and intellectually respected evangelical (this might be someone who is sympathetic to the ideas, or who could at least be regarded as fair-minded, so not an Al Mohler type). (2) Ask lesser known specialists (non-celebrity academic specialists who are still good at communicating ideas) to spend their sabbatical co-authoring such a book.

  • Jason

    Frank–do me a favor and explain to me how Perkins is being “truthful.” In what specific ways has the president used his “bully pulpit” to create a hostile environment towards Christianity?

    • Frank

      Sure! He has consistently taken positions against the Christian bible: abortion, gay marriage and Israel.

      • Melody

        And he’s also blamed non-”Christian” (read: non-Western) culture on the demise (read: genocide) of American Indians in the 19th century. Is that truthful, or just plain nasty and prejudiced? I hope to God you choose the latter.

        • Melody

          Oops, mea culpa. I was confusing Perkins with Bryan Fischer of AFA. I tend to do that at 1:30 am. But they both use personal bias and falsified sources to support their ungrounded claims. This is why both the FRC and AFA are considered hate organizations.

          • Frank

            Yes of course anyone how doesn’t agree with your skewed view is hateful and a bigot.

            Yawn!

      • Melody

        And besides, what he says about gay marriage and abortion is not truth (meaning factual). It is his opinion based on fear and prejudice, not the facts. “Because the Bible says so” is not going to convince anyone who uses intellect.

        • Frank

          What an intellectually dishonest statement from you. If you use intellect there is no other conclusion than male-female unions, theologically, biologically, evolutionary, psychologically and socially.

          • Aph

            “If you use intellect there is no other conclusion than male-female unions”
            That is not a conclusion reached using reason. That’s an opinion. Your opinion.

            In particular saying that heterosexual unions “biologically, evolutionary, psychologically and socially” are the only option. There are homosexual couples, therefore “biologically, evolutionary, psychologically and socially” it’s happening.

          • Frank

            Ok I’ll try again.

            If you use intellect there is no other healthy and intended conclusion than male-female unions, theologically, biologically, evolutionary, psychologically and socially.

            It is the only reasonable answer. Please make your case otherwise.

          • Aph

            Adding “biologically, evolutionary, psychologically and socially” to your opinion doesn’t make it an accepted theory in psychology, biology or sociology.

            Homosexual relationships exist in humans as well in other animal species. That is a fact. It’s your personal opinion that it’s not “healthy” for evolution (whatever healthy even means in that context), biology, psychology and sociology. If you want to be taken seriously you’re going to have to provide evidence for your opinion, not just insist that’s the way things are.

          • Frank

            Alp there is ample evidence towards the veracity of my statement. Do some research. I happy to flood this board with it but it will take it off-topic.

            Homosexual behavior is indeed seen in the animal kingdom but its been proven that it is about power. Search for The Animal Homosexuality Myth by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo.

            Anyways why would anyone want to be like an animal?

            So what is your evidence for your position. Start scripturally (since this is suppose to be a Christian blog) and we can take it from there.

          • Aph

            “Alp”
            I presume you meant Aph.

            “there is ample evidence towards the veracity of my statement. Do some research.”
            How this works is you make a claim, you provide the evidence, not the other way around.

            “its been proven that it is about power”
            That statement is completely untrue. Proven by whom? When? What peer reviewed study shut the door on that matter? To what degree? Are you saying that within the discipline of sociology that is a completely undisputed idea? That it has universal acceptance? That the case is closed?

            “Anyways why would anyone want to be like an animal?”
            What does this even mean? You brought up biology. Are you trying to suggest that evolution and biology don’t apply to humans or that we have a completely different biology from all other animals? I’m mystified.

            I think you’re missing my point. My position is that you want your opinion to be a fact, but it isn’t. My position is that you don’t have a clear understanding of what you’re trying to be an authority on.

            You claim homosexuality is not biologically healthy (still not clear exactly what that means), but you offer no evidence. You claim it’s evolutionarily unhealthy, a statement that doesn’t even make sense. What would unhealthy evolution look like? You provide no evidence to backup the claim that it’s psychologically unhealthy nor even advance a reasonable sounding hypothesis.

            I will continue this if you are going to be reasonable, otherwise I’m going to save myself a headache and move along.

          • Frank

            Aph first of all it is you that must provide evidence as it is you that seems to want to redefine things. It is not my job to do your research. The data is out there if you dare to look for it. I have pointed you in the right direction.

            If you understand evolution at all you would know that if indeed homosexuality has any genetic basis it will ultimately be mutated out of existence.

            Homosexuals suffer greater health risks and diseases, medical and psychological. Look it up!

            One only has to look at our biology to understand what a healthy sexual expression looks like.

            Theologically there is no evidence whatsoever that God condones and blesses homosexual relationships, quite the contrary actually.

            Since I am in a helpful mood I will keep pointing for you:

            CDC Analysis Provides New Look at Disproportionate Impact of HIV and Syphilis Among U.S. Gay and Bisexual Men

            “Using to numb the pain: substance use and abuse among lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals.” Published in Journal of Mental Health Counseling, Jan 2008, Vol 30 # 1, pp. 31-48; Author: Weber, Genevieve N.

            Two recent studies reported in the same issue of Archives of General Psychiatry (October 1999, vol. 56, no. 10) have found significantly higher levels of mental-health problems in the gay population than the heterosexual population.

          • Melody

            It is clear, Frank, that you do not wish to have an intellectual discussion, so I’m not the one bring dishonest here. All your claims come from either the Bible or deceitful far-right sources who love nothing more than to disparage the LGBT community. If the Bible didn’t say gay sex was wrong, would you still condemn homosexual attraction? Notice that even the Bible doesn’t address attractions.
            And on your point about STDs: That is one of the most misinformed, biased statements I have ever seen. There are far more I agree with Aph: You are conflating
            Back to my original point: You can’t use the Bible to make an intellectual

          • Aph

            “Aph first of all it is you that must provide evidence as it is you that seems to want to redefine things.”

            Alright, it appears you’re going to willfully refuse to understand my point. That’s fine.

            “It is not my job to do your research.”
            Just start by doing your own, since you seem to be obsessed with commenting about the same thing over and over again the least you could do is make an effort to be intellectually honest.

            “If you understand evolution at all you would know that if indeed homosexuality has any genetic basis it will ultimately be mutated out of existence.”
            This is a spectacular sentence. What you’re saying here is indicative of someone who doesn’t have the slightest understanding of what evolution is or how it works. If I had to pick the most stunningly inaccurate part it would probably be the phrase “mutated out of existence.” That’s meaningless. Really. I don’t know what you’re basing that little hypothesis on, but not anything modern biologists would recognize as evolution. I would be love to know how you imagine evolution works. Really. Please tell me you believe something as stunningly simplistic as homosexuals wouldn’t pass on their genes.

          • Frank

            Alp if I were you I would just stop posting. You sound foolish at worst and clearly biased at best.

            Do you not understand natural selection?

            If and when there is any evidence whatsoever that there is a gay gene, it would have come into existence due to a mutation, as all evolutionary changes do. And natural section will eventually mutate it out of existence. That is if you believe in then science of evolution.

          • Aph

            “Alp”
            I presume (again) you meant Aph, Farnk. Seriously Afrnk, my name has three letters and “l” isn’t even one of them. I’m not sure how you intend to convince anyone you have even the slightest grasp of biology, psychology and theology when you consistently fail to spell a three letter name. Really Knarf, it’s not that hard.

            “And natural section will eventually mutate it out of existence.”

            On what do you base that brilliant little nugget? There are some good books out there on the modern theory of evolution. Some kids books with delightfully descriptive pictures if you need to start lite. See, there would need to be a specific selective pressure in order to, as you put it, “mutate it out”. Little tip to help you out, that’s the “selection” part of natural selection, just ask and I’ll explain the natural part if it’s giving you trouble.

            “That is if you believe in then (the?) science of evolution.”
            If by “believe” you mean “have been convinced it’s currently the best model to describe speciation” then yes, I believe.

            “gay gene”
            Oh it’s a gay gene we’re looking for, I think that’s the issue. All this time we’ve been looking for the gay molecules.

            Seriously though, we are looking for some configuration of alleles as a link to homosexuality, and I suppose that’s what you’re calling a “gay gene”, but I think you’re failing to grasp that an absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. It’s likely it’s a compound of biological factors that stretches beyond a simple “gay gene”.

            Have you considered sticking to things you understand? Biology may not be your strong suit.

          • Frank

            Aph yes that’s your name.

            I suggest you take a course in biology before you look even more foolish. Do I really need to post the results of a simple google search on evolution and natural selection?

            Come back after you learn a few things and then we might actually be able to have a cogent discussion.

          • Aph

            So you’re going to stick with this strategy of willful ignorance? Refusing to respond to anything? You haven’t managed to say a single thing that makes sense and you provide nothing to support yourself but vague ideas of mutation and a very narrow personal interpretation of the bible. I’m tapping out of this in that case. It’s pointless to talk to a wall.

            See, I’ve met a lot of people like you. You don’t understand anything about biology or psychology. I’m guessing you’ve never seen the inside of a science classroom, but it wouldn’t matter if you did because you don’t won’t think critically. You’ve probably never honestly evaluated an intellectual position in your life. You use weird little half understood factoids you’ve memorized as a pseudo-intellectual shield. Any direct critique of them you uncritically deflect by whimpering that the other person doesn’t know anything. It’s a transparent ruse. You’re clear as glass el Franko.

            You really have only one goal. You have built this world around you in which your idea of god confirms what you have known all along about homosexuals (I shudder to think whom else) and it’s your job to do all god’s judging for him. I’ve never managed to find the part of the bible that people like you keep taking to heart. I’ve never managed to track down that passage where Jesus commands his followers to go out into the world, rant to people that they disagree with, judge those they believe are sinning and work to ensure anyone that doesn’t fit their ideal be labeled and marginalized. You may have a different bible Frank-o-reno, you might want to check on that.

          • Frank

            Wonderful speach Aph! *clap*clap*clap*

            I guess I’ll do what you are unable or unwilling to do… research.

            Mutations, DNA Repair, and Evolution
            Thus, mutations are not always a result of mutagens encountered in the environment. There is a natural—albeit low—error rate that occurs during DNA replication. In most cases, the extensive network of DNA repair machinery that exists in the cell halts cell division before an incorrectly placed nucleotide is set in place and a mismatch is made in the complementary strand. However, if the repair machinery does not catch the mistake before the complementary strand is formed, the mutation is established in the cell. This mutation can then be inherited in daughter cells or in embryos (if the mutation has occurred in the germ line).

            Together, these different classes of mutations and their causes serve to place organisms at risk for disease and to provide the raw material for evolution. Thus, mutations are often detrimental to individuals, but they serve to diversify the overall population.

            http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-mutation-441

            Natural selection

            Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift.

            The Process of Natural Selection

            Darwin’s process of natural selection has four components.

            Variation. Organisms (within populations) exhibit individual variation in appearance and behavior. These variations may involve body size, hair color, facial markings, voice properties, or number of offspring. On the other hand, some traits show little to no variation among individuals—for example, number of eyes in vertebrates.
            Inheritance. Some traits are consistently passed on from parent to offspring. Such traits are heritable, whereas other traits are strongly influenced by environmental conditions and show weak heritability.
            High rate of population growth. Most populations have more offspring each year than local resources can support leading to a struggle for resources. Each generation experiences substantial mortality.

            Differential survival and reproduction. Individuals possessing traits well suited for the struggle for local resources will contribute more offspring to the next generation.

            From one generation to the next, the struggle for resources (what Darwin called the “struggle for existence”) will favor individuals with some variations over others and thereby change the frequency of traits within the population. This process is natural selection. The traits that confer an advantage to those individuals who leave more offspring are called adaptations.

            “Survival of the fittest” is a phrase originating in evolutionary theory, as an alternative description of Natural selection.

            Therefore is there is a gene mutation that is a factor in homosexual feelings, eventually it will be eliminated through evolution.

            Of course there is no evidence whatsoever that gay is genetic. Instead the evidence leans towards environmental factors including but not limited to: broken family structure, abuse, father and mother relationships, hormonal abnormalities, early sexual experiences.

            In other words, scientifically, no one really knows.

          • Aaron

            Same-Sex Pair Bonding in Animals

            Just as in humans, animals often form long-term same-sex relationships. In species in which this normally occurs in heterosexual couples, that shouldn’t come as a great surprise, but it does come as a surprise in species where heterosexual pair-bonds don’t normally form for long if at all. This is true of bottlenose dolphins, which are not known to form heterosexual pair bonds, but which do in fact form homosexual pair bonds, including sex, and often lasting for life.

            In animals in which “bachelor groups” form, such as bison, gazelles, antelope, sage grouse and Guinean cocks-of-the-rock, it is not uncommon for same sex pair bonds to form and last until one or the other member of the pair departs the relationship and breeds. It is also not uncommon for homosexual preference to form among members of such bachelor groups; when offered the opportunity to breed unencumbered with members of the opposite sex or the same sex, they choose the same sex.

            The human pattern of bisexuality also appears in animals. In some cases, animals prefer same sex at one point in their lives, and change preference later. They may even change back and forth. In some cases, animals may seek sex with partners of either sex at random.
            In animals with a seasonal breeding pattern, homosexuality can even be seasonal. Male walruses, for example, often form homosexual pair bonds and have sex with each other outside of the breeding season, but will revert to a heterosexual pattern during the normal breeding season.

            Not At All Unusual

            Lest you are tempted to believe that all of this is highly unusual and well out of the ordinary, you’re in for quite a surprise. Homosexual behavior is not only common, but even more common in other species than in humans. While numbers are hard to come by, there are a few that present some interesting patterns. In ostriches, male homosexuality is much more common than bisexuality, but among mule deer, bisexuality is more common than homosexuality. Among our closest living relatives, the bonobo chimpanzees, few if any are either exclusively heterosexual or homosexual. Indeed, all that have been observed are exclusively permanently bisexual.

            Homosexuality in the animal kingdom is an undeniable fact. It is as natural as can be. Since it is so common, it is therefore logical for the opponents of gay rights to try to explain it away.

            Trying To Explain Away Animal Homosexuality

            “Pseudo-heterosexuality.” This is the favorite explanation of gay rights opponents. They claim that homosexuality in animals is the result of a shortage of, or unavailability of, heterosexual mates.

            There are a number of problems with this hypothesis.

            First, in many species with skewed sex ratios, homosexuality is often seen more frequently in the sex which is in shorter supply rather than in the sex with a surplus of individuals.

            Second, in some species where homosexual bonds form in a surplus sex, the other sex does not form homosexual bonds when it is in surplus. Humboldt penguins are an example. Males form homosexual bonds when there is a surplus of males, but females do not do so when they are in surplus.

            Third, in other species, homosexual mountings occur with the same frequency regardless of whether there is a surplus, and sometimes even more frequently among balanced populations than skewed ones. Indeed, among yellow baboons, between 17% and 24% of younger individuals engage in same-sex mountings, when their sexes are roughly equal in their population, but among older yellow baboons, the males eventually outnumber the females by two-to-one, but homosexual mountings occur in only about 10% of such older individuals.. just about the exact same percentage of homosexuals within the human species.

          • Frank

            First of all people try to anthropomorphize animals in many ways. It’s a common error in relating to the animal kingdom.

            Homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom is widely observed but there is nothing “sexual” about it. Much like rape in prison it is an act of control over another, an act of dominance.

            The real question is do you want to live like an animal? Is that what you are suggesting? Do you also want to kill and eat your young? Throw your own feces around? Kill and eat another human? Be driven only by survival? Not be able to reason?

            You are grasping at straws now!

          • Aaron

            “..bottlenose dolphins, which are not known to form heterosexual pair bonds, but which do in fact form homosexual pair bonds, including sex, and often lasting for life.”

            What part of the preceding English words do you somehow not comprehend, Frank??

            I know it must frustrate you that the naturality and normality of homosexuality and bisexuality within biology and almost all animal life, including our own species is well documented by now.

        • Melody

          (Continued)
          You are conflating your opinion with fact. It doesn’t work that way….
          There are far more heterosexuals with STDs than gays, so perhaps no one should have sex? Pretty absurd if you ask me.
          As to proving whether God blesses homosexual unions, no one can, one way or another. For the last time, you can’t use the Bible to make an intellectual argument. I am not the one being dishonest here.

          • Frank

            Actually Melody you really should stop being so dishonest due to your bias. The data is all there showing the unhealthy results of homosexual unions. Also the bible clearly only blesses heterosexual unions and has nothing but bad things to say about homosexuality.

            Prove me wrong if you can. But we all know you cannot so what will your next diversionary tactic/attack be?

          • rey

            They should stop having it before and on the side of marriage.

          • Aaron

            The only desperation here is your denial of common sense, rationality, reality, reason, and basic Science when it comes to this issue.

        • Frank

          Aaron it would be better for you to just say “I don’t know” then to continue to deflect and obsfucate the issue at hand. You are sounding desperate which is understandable given that your position is incredibly shakey with no credible support.

          As far as the bottlenose dolphins if I were you I would do more research.

          IN THE LAST DECADE, however, Paul Vasey and others have begun developing new hypotheses based on actual, prolonged observation of different animals, deciphering the ways given homosexual behaviors may have evolved and the evolutionary role they might play within the context of individual species. Different ideas are emerging about how these behaviors could fit within that traditional Darwinian framework, including seeing them as conferring reproductive advantages in roundabout ways. Male dung flies, for example, appear to mount other males to tire them out, knocking them out of competition for available females. Researchers speculate that young male bottlenose dolphins mount one another simply to establish trust and form bonds — but those bonds actually turn out to be critical to reproduction, since when males mature, they work in groups to cooperatively gain access to females.

          http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/magazine/04animals-t.html?pagewanted=all

          • Aaron

            :-) I replied to the wrong comment.

            It should go here. That said, the only desperation here, Frank, is your denial of common sense, rationality, reality, reason, and basic Science when it comes to this issue.

        • Frank

          Aaron if you wish to ignore the facts that I post that is your business. Your stubbornness is much like a toddlers stubbornness. Truth and reason has no effect.

          Not only are you in denial about the validity of your position but you also seem to be in denial about your effectiveness of your argument. Maybe someone who is close to you will fill you in for your own good.

          The biological and evolutionary path has been an interesting diversion but since science has no idea why someone is gay it’s really not all that relevant.

          Still waiting for any scriptural support that God condones and blesses homosexual unions.

          • Aaron

            I’m not worried… looking at all the different articles on here, I see 99% of people plus myself find you irrational, illogical, and not very Christian-like.

          • Frank

            If those 99% think and reason like you I am ecstatic to be a part of the 1%.

          • Aaron

            Yes..as I said.. :-)

          • Frank

            Still deflecting I see. Where are those verses again?

          • Aaron

            Frank, really man… why haven’t you tried to resurrect the Inquisition so you can condemn all the ‘heretics’ ??? Or… better yet for yourself… why haven’t you gotten therapy on your own homosexual longings…. since out of the thousands of perceived or so-called ‘sins’… that is the one you constantly obsess about?

            Really…. some intense therapy would do you some good, and then you might stop inflicting your innate negativity, and darkness of soul, on those around you… under the ludicrous shield of ‘Christian loving thoughts’… Hitler called himself a ‘Christian’ just as well, but his condemnation and dislike of many portions of Humanity fooled no one more than you do…

          • Frank

            Oh Aaron hopefully someone who cares about you will be honest with you about how foolish you sound. I mean if you simply want the last word without actually proving anything about what you believe, then have it. I am sure you will go away thinking you somehow triumphed or proved something. Amazing how far people will delude themselves instead of facing the the truth.

            So Aaron my gift to you is the last word. Enjoy.

  • http://thegrenzian.com Robb Ryerse

    CT is centrist? Certainly, they are not militant like many on the right, but I wouldn’t describe them as “centrist” either.

  • K Helmers

    Well said. I wish “a generous spirit toward others, even those we disagree with,” was on the family values platform.

  • jason

    Frank–That’s a very general answer. I mean specifically. When and where did he take these positions?

    • Frank

      Has Obama done anything to protect the unborn? No! Has Obama said or done anything to reinforce biblical marriage? No!

      • Jordan

        Perhaps his initiatives on Fatherlessness, partnering with mentoring programs, etc. would be ample evidence of protecting the unborn. The impact of these programs is far more realistic than changing the law. Changing the law won’t stop abortion, it will only make it more dangerous. Obama is actually making moves to reduce the systemic issues that lead to abortion as the preferred option for women.

        I haven’t heard Obama supporting polygamy, so I guess you are right in him not reinforcing biblical marriage.

      • rey

        He’s done quite a bit to protect the unborn from ever getting ahead in life once they’re born.

  • http://www.randybuist.com Randy Buist

    It’s always about the money my friend. Always. Always. Always.

  • Randy Buist

    Frank,
    Could you please explain my misplaced assumptions.

    • Frank

      I can but it would be better for you to realize them on your own but I’ll get you started.

      You assumed I am “far right” simply because I state that the bible provides ample evidence that homosexuality is sinful and those who believe it is not have zero scriptural evidence.

      I don’t drive an SUV.

      You claim the “far right” are not Christians which is quite ironic given the nature of this thread.

      • rey

        “I don’t drive an SUV.” But do you buy American or Japanese?

  • Charles

    I know I’m feeding the troll here, but I just have to say that Frank’s narrow position on same-sex attraction and marriage (and other issues) is exactly why I am no longer a “Christian” in Frank’s eye – which is fine by me. I want to part of an organization that twists the teachings of Jesus in such a way as to marginalize groups of people. I don’t care what Frank and his ilk think. The New Christianity that has been part of the emergent discussion for years is much closer to what it means to follow Jesus than the narrow-minded bigotry I see in conservative Christianity. (There, I feel better now…)

    • Charles

      make that “I want NO part of an organization…”

      • rey

        Freudian slip?

        • Charles

          Perhaps, same result.

    • Frank

      “I want to part of an organization that twists the teachings of Jesus”

      Looks like you already are!

      • Melody

        Jesus never said a word about homosexuality. You can’t use the Bible to back up your position there.

        • Frank

          Jesus said all that need to be said here: Mark 10:2-12

          So where is your scriptural support for your position? Still waiting…

          • Melody

            Frank, this is my last response to you, both now and in the future, because you have shown no signs of wanting to learn or engage in a discussion civilly. You have belittled me and essentially called me a liar, accusing me of using diversionary tactics, when I am above that kind of pettiness. Reply if it makes you feel better, but don’t expect me to read it this time.

            I don’t need to back up my position scripturally. The Bible is literature inpsired by history, not a definitive guidebook for all humanity. Unlike you, I do not believe the Bible is the infallible word of God, nor that it is the final authority for anyone. Its components were written by fallible men and canonized b

          • Melody

            Its components were written by fallible men and canonized by fallible men between 200 B.C. and A.D. 400. The New Testament was compiled by the early church leaders, and even then, it was not finalized until over a 1000 years later, at the Council of Trent. Even today, disputes continue among Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians, as each major denomination has a different canon. This means that what you claim to be God’s only inspired word is different for different groups of people.

            The fact is, you can’t prove that authentic, homosexual attractions or relationships are sinful, even with your literalistic view of the Bible. It only references certain contexts and occurences of homosexual acts, but never unequivocal loving relationships (though it is widely accepted, except among conservative Christians, that David and Jonathan, and the centurion and his slave whom Jesus healed, were lovers.)

            You want me to back up my position scripturally? Fine.
            From 1 John: God is love. Perfect love casts out fear.

            Being afraid of accepting gays and/or condemning them isn’t love.

            Before signing off, I should tell you, Frank, that I used to be like you. I was completely convinced that the Bible was the definitive authority for everything and that if the Bible says being gay is wrong, it’s definitely wrong! Then I got out of my conservative small-town bubble, moved to the big city for grad school, and actually got to know real, live gay people and became very close friends with non-Christians and learned what following Jesus was really about. It’s not about imposing moral traditions; it’s about loving people and not misjudging them.

            I can’t make you change your mind about LGBT people, or even more importantly, approach discussions with a open mind and a civil tone. Only you can do that. I hope you do, someday.

          • rey

            “Its components were written by fallible men and canonized by fallible men between 200 B.C. and A.D. 400. The New Testament was compiled by the early church leaders, and even then, it was not finalized until over a 1000 years later, at the Council of Trent.” (Melody)

            “The Bible is literature inpsired by history, not a definitive guidebook for all humanity.” (Melody)

            “[I] learned what following Jesus was really about. It’s not about imposing moral traditions; it’s about loving people and not misjudging them.” (Melody)

            So if the Bible is just literature why do you believe Jesus ever even existed as opposed to him being simply a literary character or device?

            You seem pretty certain that you are “following” him. Are you following a historical man or a literary fiction?

            As to the statement “It’s not about imposing moral traditions” I guess you missed the passage where he tells the woman caught in adultery “go and sin no more.” Sure he didn’t stone her, but he did tell her not to do what she was doing.

            And when he condemns the Pharisees for “devouring widows’ houses” how intolerant he was! Why, It’s not about imposing moral traditions; it’s about loving people and not misjudging them. Yeah right. That’s why he talks about people going to hell to burn for all eternity if their hand offends them and they don’t “cut if off”–because he was some big tolerant hippie fag.

            But it really boils down to the question of whether he is even a historical individual or a literary device–a fictional mouthpiece for the gospel writers–for that determines whether its even worth arguing what he said and did. If you establish yourself as a true follower of a fictional character, what have you accomplished?

            “I follow Captain Kirk’s teachings better than you.” Oh no, I feel so ashamed. If you don’t even believe Jesus is real, what the hell is the argument about? except that deep down you know Frank is right and it pisses you off.

          • rey

            “I don’t need to back up my position scripturally.”

            You don’t need to claim to be a Christian either. As you say, you “got out of [your] conservative small-town bubble, moved to the big city for grad school, and actually got to know real, live gay people and became very close friends with non-Christians”–you might as well take the next step in your enlightenment and become a a gay yourself (assuming you haven’t already) and admit to being a non-Christian. Its seems right now you are simply in denial of what has taken place. You want to claim to still be a Christian–some emotional attachment to the character ‘Jesus’ who you apparently believe is nothing but a fictional literary character. But one day you will undoubtedly lose all your attachment to this character, since nothing he says matters to you. You’ll wake up and realize, or finally admit to yourself, that you find him irrelevant.

          • rey

            enlightenment there is in air quotes

          • Frank

            Melody your most telling and relevant comment is this “I don’t need to back up my position scripturally.”

            I’ts because you cannot. One day you may actually admit to yourself and break free from your deception.

        • rey

          Jesus supported the moral aspects of the Torah, which just so happens to condemn male homosexuality at least.

          • rey

            This was in response to Melody’s statement “Jesus never said a word about homosexuality” in case that wasn’t clear.

          • rey

            “Being afraid of accepting gays and/or condemning them isn’t love.” (Melody)

            And the Torah disagrees in the verse where it says in Leviticus 19:17 “You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.”

            In the same breath with the command to Love your neighbor as yourself is the insinuation that you do not love your neighbor if you don’t rebuke him for his sins — because obviously the interpretation is he goes on in sin and is condemned because you didn’t warn him, then you ‘hated him in your heart’. So how is accepting homosexuality as a alternate lifestyle loving your neighbor? Per Lev 19, its hating him–by pretending he is a-OK, you are condemning him–you prove your hate by not trying to warn him.

          • Aaron

            It seems like rey has never heard of the following teachings?

            Luke 6:37

            “Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

            Matthew 7

            “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?

            Matthew 5:39
            “But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”

            Luke 6:29
            “If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them.”

            Ephesians 4:2
            “Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love.”


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X