I have never discussed Mormonism on this blog although as a Reformed, Evangelical Christian I do not agree with Mormon teaching. Nonetheless, I want to give praise today to a Mormon gentleman who is being harassed by the gay community in Sacramento and else where.
Scott Eckern is the artistic director of California Musical Theatre which includes The Music Circus a long time institution in Sacramento. He has been employed by the Musical Theatre for 25 years.
Now because he gave a donation of a $1000 to the campaign for proposition 8 even his job is in question. The Sacramento Bee reports that the board of directors are holding an emergency meeting this afternoon because of the many complains about Eckern's gift. If Eckern loses his job it means that those who contribute to the cause of traditional marriage might need to worry about their livelihood.
Evidently, the Excutive Director of the Musical Theatre group put out a press release stating that, "Any political action or the opinion of Scott Eckern is not shared by California Musical Theatre. We have a long history of appreciation for the LGBT community and are truly grateful for their long standing support."
Well, yes, that is well and good, but do they also have a long standing commitment to a free democracy where all can support with their own money those views that they hold dear. Or must all of us who support traditional marriage give away our rights including our jobs.
Supposedly Eckern's name is all-over gay activist sites, including a blacklisting one which has published his "name and professional affiliation along with those of others who made contributions."
This is simply lawlessness at work in the hearts of individuals. Eckern is to be praised for standing up for traditional marriage.
Update:
In another article in the Sacramento Bee , Scott Eckern has stated "I understand that my choice of supporting Proposition 8 has been the cause of many hurt feelings maybe even betrayal. It was not my intent. I honestly had no idea that this would be the reaction," and "I chose to act upon my belief that the traditional definition of marriage should be preserved. I support each individual to have rights and access and I understood that in California domestic partnerships come with the same rights that come with marriage."
Also, "I definitely do not support any message or treatment of others that is hateful or instills fear. This is a highly emotional issue. I have now had many conversations with friends and colleagues and I now have a better idea of what the discrimination issues are, how deeply felt these issues are and I am deeply saddened that my acting upon my religious convictions has been devastating to those I love and admire… I am deeply sorry for any harm or injury I have caused."
He also "donated $1,000 to the Human Rights Campaign, which works to achieve equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans."
The emergency meeting of the California Musical Theatre was canceled. A lot of this is a sham and a shame. A sham because so much pressure was put on Eckern and a shame because so many people cannot see that the kind of pressure put on Eckern is not at all like the civil rights movement where people were willing to put their life on the line but is a form of bullying. Pay your money and apologize or be harassed out of a job.
If you don't think Eckern was pressured read this at New York City Theater
54 comments:
Ah, intellectual fascism! It's been a long time coming.
Christians, orthodox Jews, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and many more should be ready for what is coming.
Will our new President-elect stand up to it or 'go with the flow'?
You have named it exactly right Toby.
I think it's been here for a long time, Toby. Now it's entering a golden age. Free speech is only for the politically correct, I fear.
Just preparing for Bible Study tonight. The Jesus I Never Knew, Phil Yancey. We're doing the Beatitudes. Can't help but think this is part of what Jesus is telling those who listen. For standing with God, you will be persecuted- but take heart, you're also blessed.
Even as I write that, Jesus still doesn't make sense to me. But he is Lord.
What does it mean to love, not revile, turn the other cheek- in the face of such, well hatred, revulsion, and violence?
That guy who gave is brave, may he receive our good God's reward. In this life, and the next.
grace & peace,
dm
"I now have a better idea of what the discrimination issues are, how deeply felt these issues are and I am deeply saddened that my acting upon my religious convictions has been devastating to those I love and admire…"
Are you saying this is a lie, and he just said that to keep his job?
Sad story either way.
Carl
Wow. I've been following this and can't help but notice the deep echos back to "Macarthy-ism." I thought our nation learned it's lesson the first time. I guess not...
You do realize that any gay person can be fired from any job at any time in nearly any state simply because they're gay, right?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
This is also no different than the boycotts organized by groups like Focus on the Family. Again, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I do love how shocked (shocked!) straight people can be that one of their own might get fired. How unfair! How horrible! Fascism! McCarthyism. LOL
How near-sighted. How hypocritical. How sad.
And yet for how many years have you ignored calls for employment non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? I assume, Viola, that now you've been convinced that such protections are needed? ;)
Sorry, I simply don't feel too bad for Mr. Eckem.
I agree Andrea,
Putting people on a blacklist does remind me of Macarthy-ism also.
Alan,
You write,
"You do realize that any gay person can be fired from any job at any time in nearly any state simply because they're gay, right?"
First of all I don't believe in job discrimination for anyone except in the case of those with violent behavior or child molesters. There various jobs they should not be allowed to have.
Second I would protest a person not getting a job because they are gay. That of course does not include ordained positions you know how I feel about that.
Third I know discrimination in getting jobs can happen--but I don't believe it is something to automatically expect.
Finally I don't believe that anyone who gave money against proposition 8 has been put on a black list.
"First of all I don't believe in job discrimination for anyone except in the case of those with violent behavior or child molesters. There various jobs they should not be allowed to have."
Great. I hope you have been as active in protesting LGBT job discrimination as you have been in promoting Yes on 8. I have no doubt that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act will be coming before Congress in the next term. I will be sure to let you know when it is coming up for a vote so that you can write your legislators and ask them to support it. (BTW, knowing your objections, ENDA excludes religious organizations from enforcement.)
"Third I know discrimination in getting jobs can happen--but I don't believe it is something to automatically expect."
Non-scientific polling, I know, but I would say the majority of LGBT people I know are completely closeted at work for fear of being fired, and I live in a very liberal town.
"Finally I don't believe that anyone who gave money against proposition 8 has been put on a black list."
The names of donors who gave to Yes on 8, were published on the web by the Yes on 8 campaign themselves, *NOT* by the No on 8 folks. I believe that campaign finance disclosure is completely reasonable. I think voters should be able to know who and which organizations are actually behind a ballot proposal.
You can find a complete list of donors here:
http://mormonsfor8.com/
which is a Yes on 8 site.
I can understand why people who donated to this proposal would not want their names published. If I were found to be supporting Proposition Hate, I would want to remain anonymous too.
Third I know discrimination in getting jobs can happen--but I don't believe it is something to automatically expect.
And that is supposed to mean what? So what should an openly gay person expect?
Alan,
I was writing about a blacklist site not one exclusively for mormons who are for 8. And I could give you the URL here but I am not going to do anyone the favor.
I am sure you can find it on your own.
John,
It means there are laws against discrimination in hiring. Although it is often hard to prove you have been discrimanated against it does happen But I think rarely in this century. California Musical Theatre is a case in point!
"I was writing about a blacklist site not one exclusively for mormons who are for 8. And I could give you the URL here but I am not going to do anyone the favor. "
And again, you haven't made a case for why this discrimination should not be allowed but that employment discrimination for LGBT people should be.
Nor have you made a case for how this is any different than the myriad boycotts organized against Ford, Disney, France, etc., etc., etc., by Focus on the Family.
"It means there are laws against discrimination in hiring."
Which do not protect LGBT people. Period.
You really should educate yourself on these matters, all the information is out there.
I have worked for years, in many fields, and in most of them, I have worked side by side with gay coworkers. Granted I am not gay, so I cannot speak to discrimination that they have experienced. But, from being on the hiring side, the issue of someone's sexual orientation has never come up. Their are always questions of experience and attitude, and as a wise woman once told me, "you need to hire attitude, skills can be taught." So I have always looked for attitude.
I think discrimination comes in, because many in the homosexual community want to force their identity on those they meet. I can't tell you how many times I have been in a conversation, and the other person says something like,"I'm gay, and proud of it, do you have a problem with that." Or one time, I was giving a presentation and a gay couple that I knew was present. Afterwards, they told my wife that I did well, because they had done everything they could to make me uncomfortable.
I find the above type of situation to be common place, and frankly I find it very irritating. I do not go up to people and say, "I'm a conservative, Christian, heterosexual, do you have a problem with that?"
I'll tell you, though I think that the life style is incorrect, it is the attitude that I find deplorable. There is a huge difference between boycotting a business, which can choose to change and end the boycott, and targeting an individual, in a country that supports the right to freedom of political and religious speech, or at least it used to.
The gay community is trying to force its way into every area of society, buy using force and fear, they are being the bully. No matter how just the cause, the ends never justify the means.
I think discrimination comes in, because many in the homosexual community want to force their identity on those they meet.
Would this include say, parading pictures of your wife (and perhaps children)on your desk, telling us how 'proud' you are of them, forcing your sexuality on the rest of us by blatantly bringing your wife to the office party, and everyday flaunting your sexuality by flashing your wedding ring around so everyone is forced to see it?
I can't tell you how many times I have been in a conversation, and the other person says something like,"I'm gay, and proud of it, do you have a problem with that."
Really? Ever wonder why folks might feel the need to say that to you, Tim?
I am around a few lgbt folks too. That isn't my experience. You ought to attend a PFLAG meeting sometime, Tim, and hear some stories of real people speaking about their daily confrontation with prejudice.
Thanks Tim,
I think what is forgotten here is that for a Christian who believe that the Bible teaches that homosex is sin, and I believe it does, that when another person says, ","I'm gay, and proud of it, do you have a problem with that." its like they are saying "I'm committing adultery and proud of it" or "I'm stealing from the poor and proud of it," etc. And then adding onto it "do you have a problem with that?"
And of course we do have a problem with the homosex part, because according to the Scripture it is sin.
I think maybe a good answer might be, with, hopefully, a kind smile on your face, I do have a problem with homosex because I believe it is a sin, but I still like you as a person. You could go on eventually if you get to know them well and talk about Jesus Christ and how he died on the cross for all of our sins.
Tim,
"I can't tell you how many times I have been in a conversation, and the other person says something like,"I'm gay, and proud of it, do you have a problem with that.""
That's weird. I've known many gay men and women and never have I heard or witnessed any of them saying such a thing.
John Shuck's question does come to mind. Why do you suppose gay people single you out for such comments?
Easy Viola,
That doesn't seem like good advice. To be too offensive and in your face like, even if it is a legitimate tit for tat, it can only turn people away from the Church and maybe even from God.
Human souls should be treated like flowers in God's garden. I am sure he would not appreciate you trampling on them - for whatever reason.
But if you treat them right, He will introduce you to some truly miraculous gems that only He knows about.
Carl
Carl,
If somebody asks, you should be honest with them, to do otherwise is treating them disrespectfully. If they don't ask your opinion that is another matter all together.
Someone left this verse on my latest posting, "Ezekiel 33:8, "Suppose I say to a sinful person, 'You can be sure that you will die.' And suppose you do not try to get him to change his ways. Then he will die because he has sinned. And I will hold you accountable for his death." And it fits very well.
John,
The main point that I was trying to make, was that ones attitude sets the mark concerning how others will view them. We all say don't judge a book by its cover, but that is what society does over and over. Try reading dress for success, if you want some interesting examples.
I think that there is a big difference between having a picture of my family on my desk, inviting my wife to a party, or wearing a ring, than announcing my sexual orientation to everyone in the room.
I have been to many parties where others have brought their same sex partners, and there was no issue over who was or was not wearing a ring.
That is, there are many heterosexuals that are willing to let bygones be bygones, but they find it offensive when it is thrust into their face. I do think that it is a sinful lifestyle, but it is not my place to judge the world, it will be a sinful place. But, I don't have to accept others pushing their sin in my face either.
For the majority of the instances where the "I'm gay ..." phrase has occurred, it has been at a college setting, although it happened a lot when I worked at night clubs also. There have also been many such occurrences in the news over the last few years, and from members of two Christian denominations that I was once a member of. I think that if you have not seen this happen, at least second hand, then you must be putting your head in the sand when it comes to these issues.
I find it interesting that there is such an outcry for equality, when the average household income for same sex households is almost double that of opposite sex households, $76,000 to $41,000. It does not seem like their earning potential is being hindered at all.
As to what Alan said, 'You do realize that any gay person can be fired from any job at any time in nearly any state simply because they're gay, right?' I don't know what state he is talking about, but that is illegal in California, and I would hazard a guess that it is illegal in most if not all states.
California is a right to hire state, which does mean you can fire someone anytime that you want to, but not because of discrimination of any type, including gender and sexual orientation. Those are the kinds of things you get taken to court for.
The issue isn't about discrimination, it is about one group disliking another group, and wanting to remove any lines of differentiation, like marriage, which is an institution that is protected, in part, to ensure the future growth of our nation, because married couples have kids, and we need children if we want the USA to be here in the future.
What I see, is people being attacked, by the homosexual community and their supporters, both financially, verbally and physically (at recent demonstrations), because they don't agree. The heterosexual majority does not condone the type of hate and violence that I see from the other side, and when it does occur, it polices its own.
Say what you will, but proposition 8 would not have been an issue, if a court had not overstepped its authority, and created a "right" where no right ever existed.
"The issue isn't about discrimination, it is about one group disliking another group...."
That is absurd. Gay people do not dislike straight people. First of all, I doubt you know anything like enough gay people to make a blanket statement about what all gay people like or dislike. That statement is nothing but an absurd stereotype. It's a lie. We simply want to be treated fairly under the law. I think you should consider your words more carefully before stating such absurd and false stereotypes.
"The heterosexual majority does not condone the type of hate and violence that I see from the other side, and when it does occur, it polices its own."
You have *got* to be joking. You're actually comparing a little shouting at a demonstration to tying someone up to a fence, beating them until they can't breath with the butt end of a gun, and then leaving them to die? You're comparing some yelling at a demonstration to tying a gay man with a rope around his neck and dragging him behind a pickup truck until his head is torn completely from his body?
Of course there are fringes on both sides, neither of which should be tolerated for their violent actions. Neither should they be held up as a stereotype for what all gay people or all Christians are like. But we must admit that, when it comes to violence, LGBT people have been at the receiving end of it, from Christians, throughout history. So don't try to play the martyr with me, Tim.
"As to what Alan said, 'You do realize that any gay person can be fired from any job at any time in nearly any state simply because they're gay, right?' I don't know what state he is talking about, but that is illegal in California, and I would hazard a guess that it is illegal in most if not all states."
You are right, Tim, you do not know what I am talking about, nor do you know what you are talking about. Only half of the states in this country have employment non-discrimination laws that apply to sexual orientation, not "most" or "all". Also, the federal government has no law that forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. You really should educate yourself on these issues before you make patently false statements.
"I find it interesting that there is such an outcry for equality, when the average household income for same sex households is almost double that of opposite sex households, $76,000 to $41,000. It does not seem like their earning potential is being hindered at all."
Really? That's your argument? You think we make more money so people should feel free to discriminate against us?? Wow, that's absurd. First of all, I don't know where you got your numbers, but the numbers I've seen say that gay men earn between 10-32% less than similarly qualified straight men, on average. Other studies have the numbers more equal. I have never seen a single study that stated that lesbian couples earn as much as straight couples. So then, the best one can say is that the evidence is mixed. However, even if it were true that gay couples earn more on average than straight couples, that has nothing to do with sexual orientation, but is due to the fact that women, on average, make less than similarly qualified men. In any event, again, that's hardly a reason to excuse discrimination, as you imply.
"I have been to many parties where others have brought their same sex partners, and there was no issue over who was or was not wearing a ring."
You are lucky then.
Now I for one prefer to keep my professional life and my personal life separate. I think that, in general, folks in the workplace are entirely too familiar. I feel that if I've been hired to do a job, that's what I do.
However, in my last job, I spent 4 years avoiding conversations with my colleagues that deviated in any way from any professional discussion. Because, I knew that if we became friends, they would ask simple questions about my life that I could not answer without lying, for fear of being fired. They however spent every lunch hour having conversations about seeing movies with their wives and husbands, what they did last weekend with their spouses and their kids. They brought their spouses to after-work events, etc. , etc., etc. In other words, they were blatantly flaunting their sexuality.
I, on the other hand, spent 4 years at that job changing pronouns from "we" to "I", so that no one would know about my husband.
I took off my wedding ring every morning before I went to work so I wouldn't get fired.
So please spare me having to listen to straight people tell me that job discrimination never happens. It's a lie.
Viola wrote, "I think what is forgotten here is that for a Christian who believe that the Bible teaches that homosex is sin, ... And of course we do have a problem with the homosex part, ... I do have a problem with homosex ..."
Wow... Um.... whew. A little obsessive, about the "homosex" eh? LOL Why is it that so many straight people I know are so much more obsessed with gay sex than any gay people I know? It's a little creepy, actually.
This may be shocking or surprising, Viola, but gay marriage is actually not about sex. If it were, there would be no reason for the marriage part, since, as I'm sure you well know, people can have sex without marriage. The rate of premarital sex in this country is nearly 90%. So when straight people stop obsessing about sex, fornicating at rates of 90%, and committing adultery at rates of nearly 60% then maybe they'll have a shred of moral authority to start lecturing gay people about it.
Unless you're willing to admit that straight marriage is only about sex, which, given the evidence, may indeed be the case. ;)
Tim,
There is so much misinformation in your comment that it is hard to know where to begin.
Alan addressed many of those issues.
It is one thing to simply admit that you aren't comfortable with gay people or think "homosex" is a sin.
But to pass on misinformation violates a commandment somewhere. Bearing false witness, I think.
This piece of twisted logic, I find interesting:
The issue isn't about discrimination, it is about one group disliking another group, and wanting to remove any lines of differentiation, like marriage, which is an institution that is protected, in part, to ensure the future growth of our nation, because married couples have kids, and we need children if we want the USA to be here in the future.
Alan already corrected "the one group disliking another group" error. I want to address something else.
Yeah, many married couples have kids. And thousands of married couples just lost their rights in California that would have helped them in raising their kids!
There is a couple in my congregation. Two men who have been together for a long time. They have a little boy who comes with them to church. He is nursery age. One of the dads takes a turn in the nursery with the other parents and volunteers.
This little boy is a relative of one of the dads. For whatever reason his birth mother couldn't raise him.
They would get married, if they could and as a couple adopt this boy, if they could. It sure would make it easier for the little boy and for this family.
It would be good for America to care for our families.
You could be supportive of this family and still not be comfortable with gay people.
You could allow them those basic rights and still think homosex is a sin. There is no inconsistency in that.
You can believe that people who practice paganism are behaving in a sinful way. But you can still support pagans being married in the eyes of the state, right? You don't have to marry them in your church. But you don't begrudge them the right to marry, do you? And to raise their children even if they raise them in a pagan religion?
You don't have to accept "homosex" as OK. Fine. You don't have to accept paganism as OK.
But you can allow them basic rights, freedoms, and protections.
Alan
First of all, the data comes from the US Census and is readily available.
I find it intriguing that you would rail on about a stereo type that I make, and then go on to make your own.
I'm not sure why you think that I am playing the martyr, since a martyr is one who is persecuted and usually killed for witnessing to their faith. I do not think that I have claimed this.
When you use the phrase, "nearly any", that implies a majority. You then say that 50% of states have anti-discrimination laws, this seems to refute the point that you originally made. And as I said, I was speaking about California.
I do not understand why you think that a person talking about their family is somehow forcing their sexuality on you. Your rational does seem to be valid. I think that is is very unfortunate that you have not felt comfortable mentioning your private life at work. I have worked with gay men that did the same thing, and would never mention what they did in their private life, and even if their significant other was present, they would never make any illusion to their relationship. The thing is, everyone new that they were gay, and we didn't ostracize them. I think that yours is often a self imposed isolation.
The thing that you seem to be missing, is that even though many Christians will never accept certain behaviors as being correct, they will usually accept the person who is sinning. This is not just about homosexuality, it is about any sinful lifestyle. It could be a life of crime, or drug addiction, or many others. We dislike the behavior, not the person.
You bring up the topic of premarital sex, but that is sinful too, according to Scripture. That is the rule that we as Christians must live by, not any rule formulated by mankind.
I think that you should stop and consider the situation. You are living in a country, that is Christian in origin, built on a foundation of freedom, that was originally formulated by Christians and no one else. If you examine any non-Christian nation, meaning one outside of traditional Christendom, or the western world, they are not in any way accepting of homosexuality. In many countries it is punishable by death. It is only in countries like the united states that it is protected in anyway, and you ask why? It is because of the Christian influence, because it is the Christian influence that has taught that it is ones lifestyle that may be in error, but that does not condemn the person. We cannot tell who God will elect to save, it could be the most abhorrent person, or the nicest, we can not tell.
Marriage is about having children, that is why it is protected, whether you like it or not, it is their to support the growth of our nation, and protect the rights of women and children, who have needed it historically.
"Marriage is about having children, that is why it is protected, whether you like it or not, it is their to support the growth of our nation, and protect the rights of women and children, who have needed it historically."
I don't know why, but this comment reminded me of my Muslim friend who was explaining to me that it is because they love and feel so protective of their women that they require them to wear burqahs. To protect them because they have needed it historically.
Carl
"First of all, the data comes from the US Census and is readily available."
The US Census figures for who is living in committed relationships are flawed because of how they asked the questions. So, while I'm willing to say that the data is anything but certain, you cling only to numbers that support your point, which is disingenuous at best.
In any event, you did not answer my objection to the data: Why does it matter how much money LGBT people make, how does that possibly excuse job discrimination?
"You then say that 50% of states have anti-discrimination laws, this seems to refute the point that you originally made." The point I made is that job discrimination is legal all over the country and that there are no federal laws to prohibit it, and that only half of the states have laws to prohibit it. So no, those facts do not refute any point I originally made. They do refute your incorrect assertion that "most if not all" states have such laws. They do not.
"I do not understand why you think that a person talking about their family is somehow forcing their sexuality on you."
Actually I was being ironic, because I do not believe that such simple discussions are "forcing their sexuality" on me. However, over and over I have heard folks like you say that precisely the same behavior from LGBT people is forcing their sexuality on poor, fragile straight people.
You wrote, "I think that yours is often a self imposed isolation."
I'm really quite amazed at the audacity and arrogance that it would take for a complete stranger, whom I have never met, who doesn't know where I worked, nor doe he know the people I worked with, to believe himself to be an expert on the situation. So it's my fault? Really? Such stunning arrogance, it really is unbelievable.
You can continue to turn a blind eye to job discrimination in this country if it makes you feel better, but I honestly cannot figure out why admitting such events do actually happen is so difficult. I would think, given how open and accepting you're trying to portray yourself, you would be incensed at such discrimination and want it to be exposed and stopped, rather than ignoring it and blaming the victim.
"It is only in countries like the united states that it is protected in anyway, and you ask why? It is because of the Christian influence, "
Actually, Christians voted in favor of Prop 8 by huge majorities. Christians vote against employment non-discrimination bills by huge majorities. Christians vote against gay adoption by huge majorities. And in our denomination, Christians vote against LGBT ordination. So you'll pardon me if I don't offer some Christians a medal for their so-called "protection."
BTW, perhaps you're not aware of how your writing reads, but you speak of Christians as if I am not one. Just FYI, I was born and raised in the church, got my undergraduate degrees at Calvin College (yes, named after *that* Calvin), and am an ordained elder in the PCUSA. So when you say "Christians believe X" understand that you're not speaking for everyone.
"Marriage is about having children"
If you believe that then outlaw any marriage that does not result in procreation.
"and protect the rights of women and children, who have needed it historically."
Actually, historically marriage was for the purpose of buying and selling women as chattel.
"You bring up the topic of premarital sex, but that is sinful too, according to Scripture. "
And where's the constitutional amendment against it? Why is it that these amendments only apply to behavior you consider sinful if it's LGBT people who are involved, and yet constitutional amendments against heterosexual premarital sex, divorce, or adultery are never proposed?
I've asked this here before and still have not gotten an answer. Why is it that you only propose constitutional amendments to ban the "sins" of LGBT people, but never turn the focus on yourselves in similar situations such as fornication, adultery, divorce, and/or remarriage (which is adultery, according to Jesus).
Perhaps it is like CS Lewis said, “Those who do not think about their own sins make up for it by thinking incessantly about the sins of others.”
and
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ~ C.S. Lewis
John,
You are correct, I can support another"s right to marry, and if prop 8 had failed, then I would support the laws of our state. That does not mean that I have to agree with those laws.
I am not sure what the issue is with the couple that you mention, but I know a gay couple that has adopted two children. I do not know the specifics, but they were able legally adopt the children, so your friends should be too.
The point about marriage, is that heterosexual couples produce children, and same sex couples don't, at least not without artificial or what would be extra-marital (I don't know what to call it) means.
If it is just about supporting families, then the issue should include single parents, and not be about marriage.
It is my understanding that a gay couple in California has similar rights to a married couple, but they do not have the moniker. Could you let me know what right a gay couple does not have, that a married couple does? I would be interested to know.
I noticed that you used the phrase "comfortable gay people," assuming that I am not. nothing could be further from the truth, there are many people that I am comfortable with that I think are living a sinful life and they are not all homosexual. There is a difference between being comfortable and agreeing. I am very comfortable with my wife, but I can tell you we don't always agree with each other, and on some things we will always disagree. That does not mean that we can't live together, nor does it mean that I have to change my views on everything.
I would never say that the issue of homosexuality is an easy issue, but that is why we need to rely on the Bible for our guide. That does not make it any easier to make society work, but it does give us a guideline to reach for.
Some have mentioned that it all depends on how you read the Bible, it doesn't necessarily say that homosexuality is wrong, but this is only possible if one detracts from Scripture. The modus operandi of the liberal is to ignore large or small parts of the Bible, saying that is not what God meant, or the it is just the words of a sinful man. That is not something that I am willing to do. If one chooses not to believe God's word, that is fine, but make the choice. If you start cutting and pasting in the Bible, there is nothing that can't be removed, there is nothing that can't be doubted. The message of the Bible should be a goal that we strive to achieve, rather than trying to make the Bible meet the man's expectations.
Alan.
Gay marriage may not be about sex but nonetheless they do have sex with each other that is an important part of marriage. I just recently was reading an example Martin Luther gave for allowing a woman to get a divorce. It was because her husband refused to have sex with her and give her the blessing of children. I believe the Bible has something to say about that also. Like don't defraud your spouse.
On the other hand sex outside of a marriage between a man and woman is sin. And by that I mean any kind of sex. Does that mean we are not to love the sinner? Absolutely not; we are called to love the sinner.
Alan,
I just saw this quote you put in your comment to make your point:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ~ C.S. Lewis
I wonder, do you see your insistence that all believers accept the homosexual lifestyle as Christian and good, a moral issue? Because it seems to me that when I read the comments on my and other blogs that is your main topic always couched in words that that is the moral thing to do.
It seems to me, and I don't mean this in a mean way but this is what it feels like, that this,"but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end," is what you are doing.
"Gay marriage may not be about sex but nonetheless they do have sex with each other that is an important part of marriage."
I would say it's importance is rather minimal in either heterosexual or homosexual marriages. I think the emphasis on sex is one reason why 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce ... straight people seem too obsessed with sex, and when the newness or infatuation wear off, they're in the lawyers office faster than you can say "irreconcilable differences."
"Absolutely not; we are called to love the sinner.'
And pass constitutional amendments against them! :)
Unfortunately no one seems interested in passing constitutional amendments to restrict sinful heterosexual behavior like fornication (which affects 90% of people) or divorce (which affects nearly 50% of heterosexual marriages). If such behavior is not so awful that it rises to the level of concern that demands a constitutional amendment to forbid it, even though those behavior affect millions and millions of people, it's hard to believe that gay marriage, which affects less than 5% of the population meets that standard.
It's equally hard to believe that the institution of marriage is so fragile that it is more harmed by some tiny minority of LGBT people getting married, but is yet impenetrable to the rampant heterosexual fornication, adultery, and divorce in our society.
"I wonder, do you see your insistence that all believers accept the homosexual lifestyle as Christian and good, a moral issue?"
Where have I ever once said that I insist that anyone think anything? Perhaps you're confused and thinking of someone else? If you can find a quote that I have made where I insist that other people must believe that the "homosexual lifestyle" (whatever that means) is good, I'd be happy to read it. Please provide that quote and a citation so I can see where I said it, because I honestly don't remember ever saying it.
So let me be clear: I don't care if you think the "homosexual lifestyle" (whatever that means) is good, bad, or indifferent. I. Don't. Care.
If you don't like gay marriage, if you think it is wrong or sinful, here's the remedy for you: don't have one.
I am married. I don't care how you feel about that. I don't care what you think about that. I don't care what you believe about that because my marriage does not affect you in any way whatsoever. I highly doubt that you and your spouse are going to get divorced tomorrow simply because I got married 7 years ago.
It is you who does the insisting. It is you who insists that you must force your beliefs on me. By banning gay marriage you are forcing me to live in a way counter to how I was created, not to mention violating the principles upon which this country was founded. The opposite is not true. If gay marriage was allowed, you could still hate it as much as you want, but no gay marriage would in any way affect you.
Before you make the analogy, this is not like abortion, where some people (not me) would say that it is a choice that does not affect anyone else. Because obviously there is a person who's life it affects very much.
But in gay marriage, my marriage affects me and my husband, and that's it. Marriage licenses aren't like restaurant liquor licenses, in which there are a limited number, so if I use one, you can't.
So again, I do not insist that you believe anything. I don't, quite honestly, care what you believe. I would prefer to be left alone to live my life without your interference.
Alan,
You deny the credibility of the census data, but you do not give another source for the statistics that you mention. How can I possibly check the credibility of your data if you don't give a source.
The reason I mention the earnings, is that the gay community isn't being force to take underpaying jobs, which is a classic sign of discrimination, though not the only sign.
I never said that job discrimination never happens, it seems to me that this post starts because of job discrimination against someone who supported prop 8. discrimination against a man who evidently worked with a lot of gay people, and there was never a problem until he disagreed with them.
I always find it interesting when people try to prove they are Christian based on the church or school that they attend. I am not saying that you are not a Christian, only that attending church does not make you one.
Coming into an organization, and demanding that the rules be changed, because they do not allow you enough power, because you happen to live in a way that is against the rules of the organization, and then calling is discrimination is a bit much. The Church, meaning the entire universal church has never embraced the ordination of homosexuals, because it is against Scripture. That does not mean that they cannot be members of the church, but that they should not be in the leadership, because the Church holds its leaders to a higher standard than its members.
I also am an elder in the PC(USA), and I was a member of a PC(USA) church until last month. I take my ordination and my faith very seriously, and part of that is upholding Scripture, even when I find it convicts another or I. I don't know about you, but when I read the Bible, I often realize how far off the mark I am, I never try to discount a passage, no matter how miserable it makes me feel, because it shows me my sins. Arguing for the legitimacy of ones sins is against God himself.
When I state "Christians believe," I am talking about the norms of orthodox Christianity. It may be of interest to you that there are more Christians outside of the western world, than are in it, and they tend to be much more theologically conservative than Christians in the USA.
I find that it saddens me greatly, that you would break the rules of your denomination, and allow yourself to be ordained. Supposedly that is against the Book of Order, which means that you did not truthfully answer your vows of ordination. But then again, it is obvious that the PC(USA) is incapable of doing anything about that, since the PJCs have shown that they are incapable of making a decision on the issue, and just straddle the fence, saying it could not have happened, because it is against the rules.
It is because of the ineffectiveness of the PC(USA), in that it is unwilling to embrace the true authority of Scripture, in that it is the Word of God, that I left the denomination, which I am sure you are glad to know. I think that the fact that you were ordained, and would argue against something that is clearly stated in the Bible, gives question to how mature your faith is.
I am sorry that the above sounds harsh; I suppose it is.
Viola,
You said to Alan: "It seems to me, and I don't mean this in a mean way but this is what it feels like, that this,” but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end," is what you are doing."
Unlike Alan, I'm not gay. I'm not part of that minority group. I don't feel the oppression or the torment that he does. One thing is for sure though; I can see the injustice of the utter hubris contained in your statement.
He is the tormenter!!!
Silence the one for crying out in pain. Maybe we can pretend he’s not really there. Your torment comes from within yourself.
"You deny the credibility of the census data,"
No, I didn't deny they were credible. I said that they were flawed.
"but you do not give another source for the statistics that you mention."
Here are a couple:
http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/Bias%20in%20the%20Workplace.pdf
http://paa2006.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=61196
If you google the topic, I'm sure you'll find many, many more. We can play dueling statistics if you like, but again, my point was not the statistics, My point remains that even if I were to agree that your statistics are correct, it does not excuse discrimination, as you implied.
"I always find it interesting when people try to prove they are Christian based on the church or school that they attend. "
I didn't. I hate to hurt your feelings, but I honestly don't feel the need to prove anything to you. I gave you that information so that you might have some more context for your comments regarding my background, because you seemed to be making some incorrect assumptions about me.
"I never try to discount a passage, no matter how miserable it makes me feel, because it shows me my sins."
Good for you. Neither do I. If you're attempting to imply that I do discount passages of Scripture, please give me a direct quote, with a citation, in which I have done so. If you cannot do so, I'll accept your apology if that was what you were implying, or your clarification if that was not what you were implying (though it seems pretty obvious to me.)
I believe that Scripture is the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ. I believe it is the inspired and infallible revelation to the Church universal. If you can find some place in which I have made a statement contrary to that position, please let me know.
"Supposedly that is against the Book of Order, which means that you did not truthfully answer your vows of ordination."
Again, how arrogant! I find it amazing that you could be so arrogant! When did we meet, Tim? Because honestly you pretend to know so much about me, and yet I cannot remember where and when we met. What is sad is that you actually think that this arrogance is appropriate, and after I, a brother in Christ, admonished you on it once, you did not repent, nor even pretend to apologize, but you did it again!
I absolutely answered my ordination vows truthfully. I seem to have forgotten that you were at my ordination, Tim, so perhaps you can tell me which one do you think I did not answer truthfully? Or perhaps you can provide a recording of that from my ordination, or witnesses who were there, to back up your case? Otherwise, I would appreciate it if you would, at the very least, stop calling me a liar, and it might also be nice for you to apologize for doing so without any evidence.
"that I left the denomination, which I am sure you are glad to know. "
You are sure that I'm glad of it, are you? Again, how would you know? You are so arrogant, Tim, I really pray that you will repent of this arrogant attitude that you apparently believe you know what feelings are in the hearts of people whom you have never met!
I have always said that I want the church to find a path toward unity. I have always said that I believe that the church is stronger with all of it's parts, it's hands, it's feet, it's head and it's heart, it's conservatives and it's liberals. If you believe you know of some place where I have said otherwise, please tell me. If not, it would be nice, and I'm asking you again as a brother in Christ, if you would stop bearing false witness against me.
You might remember that there is a prohibition against bearing false witness in the 10 Commandments. Twice now you have done so. Look it up. It's in a little book called "The Bible." It appears that you discount that bit of Scripture, Tim. So perhaps you weren't being entirely truthful when you said, "I never try to discount a passage."
If you were being honest when you wrote, "no matter how miserable it makes me feel, because it shows me my sins." then I hope you will reread Exodus 20. And I hope that you will not, in the interest of trying to save face here on a public blog, "argue for the legitimacy of your sins" of bearing false witness.
"I think that the fact that you were ordained, and would argue against something that is clearly stated in the Bible, gives question to how mature your faith is."
And I don't think, even though I am astounded by your arrogance, and even though you have born false witness against me, that I have any right to question how mature is the faith of a complete and total stranger. So I guess that's just another difference between the two of us, brother.
You know, Tim, just ignore my last comment. Clearly Tim, we are not going to convince each other of anything. And clearly you cannot have a conversation without pretending that you know my heart better than I do, and without bearing false witness against me.
That is unfortunate.
I don't have any problem with disagreements as long as people can do so agreeably. I don't mind people arguing their case forcefully! We do not, after all, want to be like the Church at Laodicea. ;) But there's a difference between forceful arguments and bearing false witness. There's a difference between a passionate response and arrogant presumption. It isn't clear to me that you know those differences. And now we've gotten off topic, and you've decided to make this personal, about me, my ordination, and your beliefs about the lack of maturity of my faith. I'm simply not interested sinking to that level.
So I don't see any point in clogging up Viola's comment box with such nonsense. I've said my piece here, several times, now and I'm as sick of repeating myself as anyone else is of reading it, I'm sure. :)
You're welcome to have the last word.
Peace.
Tim thank you for your contribution here. I do agree with you, to say you will uphold the constitution while living in unrepentant sin is dishonest and harmful to the church.
And Alan you surely understand that you either have to disregard scripture or find some way to reinterpret it to say you are a practicing homosexual and still believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.
Arthur don’t attempt to psychoanalyze me again or to put others down in your comments or I will once again delete you and it doesn’t bother to me if you, as you did before, go though deleting all of your other comments.
I find that it saddens me greatly, that you would break the rules of your denomination, and allow yourself to be ordained.
It saddens me greatly that you allow yourself to be ordained when you consistently bear false witness against other human beings.
I am not sure what the issue is with the couple that you mention, but I know a gay couple that has adopted two children. I do not know the specifics, but they were able legally adopt the children, so your friends should be too.
I will just go and happily report that to them. Since you know so much about the laws of Tennessee.
You operate under an illusion. Apparently, this illusion makes you feel better. That is the way it is when people like you argue for the legitimacy of your sins.
The point about marriage, is that heterosexual couples produce children, and same sex couples don't, at least not without artificial or what would be extra-marital (I don't know what to call it) means.
Just because people are gay or lesbian, it doesn't mean their reproductive organs don't work. Some same-sex couples have children from previous marriages (like straight couples). Some have children via some reproductive technology (like straight couples). Some raise children of relatives (like straight couples). Some adopt (when they can) like straight couples.
Some straight couples do not have nor desire children. Their marriages don't count then?
If it is just about supporting families, then the issue should include single parents, and not be about marriage.
Wait a second! You just wrote in your previous response to me that marriage was important for families:
like marriage, which is an institution that is protected, in part, to ensure the future growth of our nation, because married couples have kids, and we need children if we want the USA to be here in the future.
Why don't all straight people then raise their children as single parents? Under this logic, straight people shouldn't be allowed to get married either. They can just raise their kids as single parents.
It is my understanding that a gay couple in California has similar rights to a married couple, but they do not have the moniker. Could you let me know what right a gay couple does not have, that a married couple does? I would be interested to know.
Why ask me? I am not gay and I don't live in California. Here is a link that answers that very question. It took me a total of ten seconds to find it on the internet.
Facts
Just scroll down to find marriage vs. domestic partnership in California.
I noticed that you used the phrase "comfortable gay people," assuming that I am not. nothing could be further from the truth, there are many people that I am comfortable with that I think are living a sinful life and they are not all homosexual. There is a difference between being comfortable and agreeing. I am very comfortable with my wife, but I can tell you we don't always agree with each other, and on some things we will always disagree. That does not mean that we can't live together, nor does it mean that I have to change my views on everything.
I stand corrected. You are comfortable with gay people. So, if you can live with your wife even if you don't agree with her sinful lifestyle, then why can't you allow openly gay people to serve the church or allow gay and lesbians to have the right to marry?
The message of the Bible should be a goal that we strive to achieve, rather than trying to make the Bible meet the man's expectations.
So if it is because of the Bible that gays and lesbians should be prevented from civil marriage, then why don't you object to atheists or pagans marrying?
"And Alan you surely understand that you either have to disregard scripture...."
Prove it. Prove where I have done so, or you are simply bearing false witness against me, just as Tim did. You all keep alleging this idea that I disregard the Bible, well then prove where I have said so. Cite where I have made statements in which I have said that some verse in the Bible doesn't apply to me or that I ignore it.
Put up, or shut up, as they say.
Or, apologize for bearing false witness.
The fact that I do not agree with you as to what the Word says does not mean I disregard the Bible, Viola. It only means that I disregard you, which is, perhaps, a greater sin in your eyes.
Viola, I find it odd that you get angry with Arthur for attempting to "psychoanalyze" you, when you do not hold Tim, for example, to the same standard, in his belief that he can read my mind. I find it odd that you chastise Arthur for putting others down (behavior I didn't see, but which I agree is out of line) and yet you yourself bear false witness against me.
Seems a bit inconsistent.
Unless of course you can find a quote in which I have said that I discount, disregard, or ignore Scripture. In which case, I'll be glad to apologize for saying that you bear false witness against me.
I wonder, Viola, will you hold yourself to the same high standards of discourse?
"I wonder, do you see your insistence that all believers accept the homosexual lifestyle as Christian and good, a moral issue?""
BTW, Viola, your blog, and your rules of course, but I notice that you didn't address my previous question as to where you believe that I have said that I insist all believers accept the "homosexual lifestyle" as Christian and good.
Just so I'm clear, do you not answer questions yourself, and only demand answers from others who comment here, or do you answer questions as well? I'm only asking because I've noticed now a couple times where I have asked you questions, but you seem to refuse to answer them, even though I try to answer all of yours. If this is a particular comment policy of yours, please let me know so that I won't expect you to answer my questions in the future, and won't bother expecting other sorts of typical conversational behavior and etiquette.
Thanks.
Otherwise, perhaps I'm just being impatient, and you're preparing a comment in which you document exactly where I have said that I insist "that all believers accept the homosexual lifestyle as Christian and good." If so, I apologize for my impatience.
Alan,
As an elder in the PC(USA), you have given your oath to uphold the stipulations that follow below.
b. Do you accept the Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments to be, by the Holy Spirit, the unique and
authoritative witness to Jesus Christ in the Church
universal, and God’s Word to you?
c. Do you sincerely receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of our church as authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do, and will you be instructed and led by those confessions as you lead the people of God?b
d. Will you fulfill your office in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture, and be continually guided by our confessions?
I am sorry that you find my position arrogant, I don't mean it in such a way, and I have no illusion that I am perfect, if notice I said try, I never said I uphold Scripture perfectly, but I would like to.
I want to make sure my facts are correct, so that you will not again accuse me of bearing false witness.
Within the current post you state:
1. That you are gay.
2. That you are an ordained elder in the PC(USA)
3. That you are married to another gay individual
4. When you were ordained, if you answered the questions in the Book of Order affirmatively, you promised to uphold both the Bible, and the confessions of the church.
5. If you are ordained, then it is assumed that you answered all the questions affirmatively.
Westminster Larger Catechism (WLC) Q. 5, states that the Bible teaches what man is to believe, and what God requires of man.
WLC Q. 24 Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature. (1 John 3:4, Gal. 3:10,12)
WLC Q. 76 (my paraphrase, due to length) The repentant sinner so grieves for and hates his sins, that he turns from them to God.
WLC Q. 78 (paraphrase) sanctification is imperfect, because there is a remnant of sin that abides within us, that man war against the spirit, and be foiled by temptations, causing them to fall into sin.
Q. 91 the duty of man is obedience to the revealed will of God
Q. 96, The moral awakens the conscience of man, so that he might flee from the wrath to come.
Q. 99.5 What God forbids, is at no time to be done.
Q. 139 forbids homosexuality, and unlawful marriage
In Scripture:
Lev. 18:22, You shall not lie with a male as with a woman;
Rom. 1:26-27, 26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men...
Alan, there are many more that I could list, so if your statements are truthful, which I believe, then you are not in accord with the confessions or Scripture, as the ordination questions require.
Question 76 in the WLC says that the sinner hates his sin, but you argue for yours. It seems clear that you think that homosexual activity is not sinful. The Bible and confession disagree.
If you answered in the affirmative when ordained, then you bore false witness, before God.
I would never stop you from living the lifestyle that you choose, but I would try to remove your ordination if it were within my power, because as an elder in the church, it is my duty to protect the rest of the members from false teachers, and if you are stating the truth, then you are teaching a false gospel in your church, if you are teaching others in your church that homosexuality is not sin.
The only way that you can make that argument from Scripture, is by removing something from Scripture, or changing Scripture.
Show me in the Bible where it states that everyone should have the right to be ordained in the church.
II Timothy 3:16-17, 16 All scripture is inspired by God and isb useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.
I know that you do not like what I am writing, and hope that is you think that I have gone astray from the word of God, that you would show me how I have done so.
Just start with 1 Timothy 1:8-11 to 1 Cor. 6:9, go to Romans 1:26-32 to Matt 19:4-5. Then go to the Hebrew Bible, etc. On top of that go to the Book of Order to G-6.0106b and then go to the book of Confessions to both the The Heidelberg Catechism (Q.87 with answer and The Larger Catechism Q. 139 with answer.If you try to reinterpret any of this I am not going to pay any attention because the Scripture and all else is very clear.
Tim,
If I had known you were going to all that trouble I would have already been out the door shopping which I need to do. Thank you.
Tim,
"As an elder in the PC(USA), you have given your oath to uphold the stipulations that follow below.
b. Do you accept the Scriptures of the Old and New
Testaments to be, by the Holy Spirit, the unique and
authoritative witness to Jesus Christ in the Church
universal, and God’s Word to you?"
Prove that I do not. Prove it.
"c. Do you sincerely receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of our church as authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do, and will you be instructed and led by those confessions as you lead the people of God?"
Yes. Prove that I do not.
"d. Will you fulfill your office in obedience to Jesus Christ, under the authority of Scripture, and be continually guided by our confessions?"
Yes, prove that I do not.
WLC Q. 24 Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature. (1 John 3:4, Gal. 3:10,12)
We all sin, Tim. All of us. If we ordained only those who never sinned, we would never ordain anyone.
"WLC Q. 76 (my paraphrase, due to length) The repentant sinner so grieves for and hates his sins, that he turns from them to God."
I do repent from my sins. Prove that I do not.
"Q. 91 the duty of man is obedience to the revealed will of God"
Indeed, and none of us are.
"Q. 99.5 What God forbids, is at no time to be done."
Indeed, though we all do all the time. Total Depravity, Tim look it up.
Q. 139 forbids homosexuality, and unlawful marriage
That is a lie, Tim! Do you think I don't know the WLC, or at the very least cannot look it up??? Wow. Question 139 never mentions homosexuality.
Tim, just repent from your bearing false witness against me. Stop trying to rationalize your sin.
In Scripture:
Lev. 18:22, You shall not lie with a male as with a woman
A ceremonial law. Read the confessions about the differences between juridical, moral and ceremonial laws and how we are to treat them differently.
I find it interesting, though not a little cowardly that you would quote Lev. 18:22, but not Leviticus 20:13, Tim. Shall I remind you of that one?
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
Will you be the one to kill me, Tim? After all, if you don't kill me then you are clearly violating your ordination vows, and you're clearly disregarding the clear Word of Scripture.
Rom. 1:26-27, 26 For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men...
Yes, men who were heterosexual acted against their created nature. That has nothing to do with men who are created homosexual. If you read it in the original languages those distinctions are obvious.
"Alan, there are many more that I could list, so if your statements are truthful, which I believe, then you are not in accord with the confessions or Scripture, as the ordination questions require."
And you have born false witness so neither do you.
Question 76 in the WLC says that the sinner hates his sin, but you argue for yours.
I do not argue for a single sin. My sexual orientation is not a sin. However, even so I do not "argue for" it, any more than I argue for right handedness. It simply is. I expect people to treat me fairly and equally and not lie about me as you have.
"It seems clear that you think that homosexual activity is not sinful. The Bible and confession disagree."
No YOU disagree. That's the real problem here. I disagree with YOUR INTERPRETATION. That's my only sin, to which I reply, Guilty as Charged!
"The only way that you can make that argument from Scripture, is by removing something from Scripture, or changing Scripture."
Nope. I just disagree with you. You are not Scripture, and you are not God, and to hold your interpretation up as Scripture is nearly blasphemous.
"Show me in the Bible where it states that everyone should have the right to be ordained in the church."
Show me where I have ever said that everyone should have the right to be ordained in the church, Tim.
Again, I have responded to your comments, while you ignore mine. I find that even more evidence of your continued arrogance! Tell me Tim, please explain to me why you believe that I should justify myself to you, when you refuse to answer my questions? Are you better than I am, for some reason? What is that reason, and can you explain it to me?
In my previous comment I asked:
"If you're attempting to imply that I do discount passages of Scripture, please give me a direct quote, with a citation, in which I have done so."
You have not done so.
I asked you to prove your assertion that I was glad that you have left the church, which is a lie.
You have not done so.
I asked for evidence of your assertion that I lied during my ordination. You provided none.
Stop bearing false witness, Tim. Repent!
Tim, I wasn't going to comment back to you because again, we're not going to convince each other, and yet you felt the need to respond to me, even though I said it wasn't necessary. But now all you've done is continue your personal attacks against me. You continue to bear false witness against me. You refuse to apologize for your lies and misstatements about me. You refuse to give clear examples where I have said the things you accuse me of saying.
Tim, obviously I'm not going to convince you of anything. And, since you cannot provide even one shred of evidence for your accusations, you are not going to convince me or anyone else of anything.
I suggest we just stop before your posts get even uglier and more personal. I have tried to remain as cordial as possible, given your personal attacks and your lies about me. It is unfortunate that you haven't given me the same respect.
But now I've answered your false allegations. I'm done with you.
Thanks for the "conversation" such as it was, given you never actually responded to anything I wrote. In the future, perhaps if you're willing to actually converse with me instead of simply shouting at me and lying about me, we can have a more reasonable conversation, which I would welcome.
Peace
Viola, I'm wondering if you will answer any of my questions?
Seriously, if you're just not going to, that's fine, I'm just wondering if I should expect you to follow usual good etiquette and answer questions, as people usually do in conversations, or if you're going to continue to ignore my questions.
Alan,
I cannot respond to your allegations, because I truly do not see where I have lied. You may dislike my opinion, and you may dislike the Scripture references that I quoted, to answer your questions, but that does not make them lies.
You are correct in stating that I could have quoted Leviticus 20:13, there are a number of verses that I could have quoted, but I did not think that I need an extensive list to make my point.
As to question 139, if you look up the terms used in the WLC you will see that the definition includes homosexuality, that is from webster, not I.
By the way, I started my last post, before you said that there was no need to reply.
Lastly, I feel like you are hiding behind the allegation that I have lied, without say how I have lied. Interpreting the Bible differently than you does not make it a lie, it just make one of us wrong, and I am content to stand by the traditional exegesis of Scripture, along with Calvin, Luther, and Berkhoff.
It is obvious that you cannot admit that you are one who would like to see the majority of the church change their view, based on little recognized interpretations of Scripture, based on rationalizations, rather than the clear meaning of the verses concerned.
You may try to prove me wrong if you like, if wrong I will admit it, but that does not make me a liar. By calling me a liar, you are sinking to the level of insult, especially when you do so, with out explaining why you think I am lying, with clear examples, or don't make the allegations.
Tim,
I have attempted to end this unproductive conversation several times now, and yet you continue to make unsubstantiated allegations impugning my character and my motives. We're not going to convince each other, and I would be happy to end this, but I will not allow your continued unsubstantiated allegations about me go without response.
You have taken a discussion about job discrimination and decided to make this a personal attack on me, for no reason that I can see. I mentioned that I'm an elder, simply to provide context for my comments, not to provide you fodder for personal attacks. You seized on that information for no reason other than to attack me, a total stranger. I don't bear you any ill will, nor am I angry, just disappointed.
I have asked you a number of questions, and you continue to refuse to respond to any of them. Instead, you hypocritically state that I am insulting you! You ask for examples (which I have clearly given) without giving any of your own. I have stated over and over again where you have made statements or assumptions that are incorrect. Reread my comments if you missed them, they're all there.
And then even though I have made it clear we should end this, you continue the attacks, and make unfounded assumptions about what I am saying and why I am saying it, as if you know me, which you clearly do not. You may continue to impugn my character and my motives, if you wish. For my part, I do not know why you refuse to respond to my questions, why you refuse to provide evidence for your baseless assertions, but unlike you, I will not make assumptions about you simply because you refuse to do so.
So, since you refuse to answer my questions, and you refuse to provide any proof of your allegations, there's no sense in continuing to repeat them over and over and over. Your refusal to engage in real conversation is nothing but rhetorical bullying. You have embarrassed yourself, whether you realize it or not. You have used this thread simply as a pulpit in which to attack me because I'm gay, not to debate the actual topic. Perhaps you're not embarrassed about that (more's the pity) but I am embarrassed for you, and I don't think it is good behavior on my part to continue to give you more opportunities to do so. It isn't good of me to continue to enable your bad behavior and continued bearing of false witness against me, and I have already done so far too much of that already, for which I apologize.
Again, I do wish this "conversation" could have been a real conversation. But real conversations go in two directions. An interrogation is not a conversation and I don't owe you an explanation, or anything else.
Peace.
Alan,
Tim has not lied, rather he has stood with Christians and their interpretations throughout the centuries and the present century. Please do not post here again because you continue to twist everyone’s word's including the Bible's, the confession's, and the Book of Order's to no avail. On top of that you keep insulting other people and I feel that is unnecessary.
"This post has been removed by a blog administrator."
Sad words from a blog that is called "Naming His Grace".
Alan had made a comment at the end of the post you deleted about how you treat disagreement. I have to say that I've experienced it myself where I respond to your questions but you don't return the kindness.
He expressed more and more frustration at your refusal to honestly engage him in dialog, ignoring his questions and resorting to personal attacks, projecting on to him your idea of what he might be thinking rather than addressing the words he actually wrote (this is a limited media, all there is are the words on the screen) and then your only answer to his frustration is to delete him.
I think that when you set up a blog called "Naming his Grace" you assume a certain responsibility of at least trying to be graceful with other people's questions.
Otherwise, what is the Grace you are naming?
Otherwise, how are people to believe you know what you are talking about? What grace are you a witness to? What grace are you promoting?
I find it very disturbing and disappointing.
The Holy Spirit said it best when he inspired the apostle Paul to write:
"If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal"
Carl
Carl,
It is not love to allow someone to badger you and try to control what you say on a blog, especially your own blog. If Alan or you want to disagree with me or anyone else that is fine, but trying to control others with words is not allowed here.
Viola,
I understand your sentiment, but if you had made an effort to provide a graceful response at the outset, you could have taken the discussion down a whole different direction.
It seems instead that you are using your blog to badger others but don't like don't like to feel badgered back.
That's your prerogative, but I'm only here because the title of the blog intrigued me:
"Naming His Grace"
What does that mean to you?
Carl
Hmm,
Carl, this blog posting honored a man who stood up for what he believed in and got blacklisted for it. If you want to say that you think it was okay for him to be blacklisted go ahead.
I reported today that there has so far been ten LDS churches vandalized in this area since the election, and I do think that is wrong.
If you want to say it is okay, go ahead, but do not start telling me where I am wrong as a person. I know I am a sinner very well. But I simply will not have anyone any more playing word games on my blog.
I think this should be the end of the discussion and unless you simply want to say that you think gay sex is okay and that you disagree with me on that subject or on the subject of Scott Eckren, please do not comment on this post again.
Viola,
"on the subject of Scott Eckren"
I am confused. I thought you were upset because, by his apology under pressure from those "intellectual fascists", he had renounced his faith.
Or was it your sense that he just lied to keep his job. If so then why did he then resign?
I think saying he was black listed is a bit of a hyperbole. He bit the hands the feed him so naturally they were pissed. But then he apologized and admitted the error of his ways and all seemed forgiven. Till he resigned.
"think this should be the end of the discussion"
Does that mean you're not going to talk about the meaning of "Naming His Grace"?
Not even a hint?
Carl
Post a Comment