|
Post by lifeandliberty on Oct 2, 2006 21:41:29 GMT -5
Life and Liberty Ministries asks that you let your voice be heard! WARNING! THIS CALL TO ACTION CONTAINS OBSCENE AND OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE! Gay Pride Virginia presented its Pride Fest at the 17th Street Farmers Market in the City of Richmond on Saturday, Sept. 30, 2006. Life and Liberty Ministries was there to share the Gospel with the attendees. The event sponsors stated the following on the Gay Pride Virginia website, "The event will be family friendly so feel free to bring the kids for face painting, balloons and magic! Vendors and food and beverage stands and will be set up throughout the marketplace for shopping along with many other attractions and activities that will cater to all members of the GLBT community." There were many children in the crowd and near the stage as one of the performers, a cross dressed man by the name of Lady Bunny, presented the most obscene and vulgar performance I have ever witnessed. During the performances, many crude statements such as the following were made. Visit www.lifeandlibertyministries.com/archives/000335.php#more to read quotes from the homosexual performer. The quotes are obscene and offensive. This is just a small sampling of the obscene statements were said from the stage in the presence of children at this event that was touted as being open to children. Many children were at the event with homosexual couples and other irresponsible parents. Even the Richmond Times Dispatch ran an article stating the following, "If the political conversations at the Gay Pride Virginia Festival didn't move people, the upbeat and often-vulgar musical medley from drag artist Lady Bunny probably did the trick. In clear platform heels, a sparkly dress and sky-high blond hair, Lady Bunny's voice carried over the crowd that filled the 17th Street Farmers' Market yesterday afternoon." On numerous occasions several Richmond Police Officers were approached and asked to do something to protect the children who were being subjected to the vulgar display and they simply told us that if we didn't like it, we could leave. "Gay Pride Virginia says that this was to be their "first annual" event. For the sake of the innocent children that were exposed to such vile filth, I sincerely hope it's their last," stated Dennis Green, Director of Life and Liberty Ministries Please contact the following Officials to express you outrage at this lack of concern for innocent children by the homosexual community and the City of Richmond. Mayor Douglas Wilder 900 E. Broad St. Room 201 Richmond, VA 23219 T) 804.646.7970 F) 804.646.7987 askthemayor@ci.richmond.va.us City Council President G. Manoli Loupassi Mloupassi@mail.com William J. Pantele pantelwj@ci.richmond.va.us Chris A. Hilbert hilberca@ci.richmond.va.us Kathy C. Graziano Graziakc@ci.richmond.va.us E. Martin Jewell jewellem@ci.richmond.va.us Ellen Robertson robertef@ci.richmond.va.us Delores Mcquinn Mcquindl@ci.richmond.va.us V. President Jackie Jackson Jacksojm@ci.richmond.va.us Eugene A. Mason masonea@ci.richmond.va.us City Attorney Norman Sales 900 E. Broad Street, Room 300 Richmond, Virginia 23219 Telephone: 804-646-7969 Fax: 804-646-6653 Norman.Sales@Richmondgov.com Commonwealth's Attorney Michael Herring 400 N. 9th Street, Suite 100 Richmond, Virginia 23219 Telephone: 804-646-3500 Fax: 804-225-8406 Michael.Herring@Richmondgov.com Thank you, Dennis Green Life and Liberty Ministries P.O. Box 862 Powhatan, VA 23139 804-492-9216 www.lifeandlibertyministries.com
|
|
|
Post by mahatma on Oct 3, 2006 13:18:44 GMT -5
It sounds like someone made a bad decision in deciding to have an explicit show at a venue advertised as being child friendly. Hopefully next year they will have a more family-friendly entertainer. I assume your ministry was not preaching about hell and damnation in front of innocent children enjoying a day out with their parents? It would be a shame if they were being subjected to inappropriate behavior from both sides of the aisle.
As far as "homosexuals and other irresponsible parents" that's just purposely inflammatory. You have a good point about people using bad language and adult topics in front of children, it's a real shame to water down that message with such divisive rhetoric.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Oct 3, 2006 14:04:34 GMT -5
These perverts have always wanted children. They are sick, sinful sinners. They need Jesus to make them healthy, holy saints.
|
|
|
Post by mahatma on Oct 3, 2006 14:11:23 GMT -5
You're a sad little man. It's like you have a little list of hateful little soundbites, and you jump into conversations to parrot one of them when the topic is appropriate.
Gays? Twisted, unfeeling perverts!
Abortion? Evil murderers
My question regarding your statement about pastors forgiving sin? Silence
My questions about inconsistencies in your yearbook interview? Silence
My question about how often you preach charity and compassion to the poor? Silence
If you expect adults to take you seriously, maybe you should learn to engage in actual discussion rather than spouting off one-liners you've been taught by your "betters."
|
|
|
Post by victorialewis on Oct 3, 2006 16:49:12 GMT -5
Here are some one-liners I've learned from my 'Better' - Jesus Christ:
It isn't loving to be silent as people are heading to hell for all of eternity.
It isn't loving to murder innocent babies for the sake of....rights, convenience, fill in the blank.
It isn't loving to expose children to perversion and lies.
I think, Mahatma, that you are confused. You think evil is good, and good is evil.
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20
|
|
|
Post by mahatma on Oct 3, 2006 17:10:51 GMT -5
Victoria,
My argument in this thread is not with the opinion that gays are sinners (though I do disagree with that opinion). My post was in response to Jesse's drive-by style one-liner, as I have seen before. I see that now he has modified the post, but in its original form it did not mention 1) Jesus, 2) sin, or 3) holy saints. It was, in its original form, a drive-by screed about "twisted, sick" people. It was hateful, and made no mention of salvation.
As far as the exposure of children to anything, I agreed that it wasn't appropriate to have an entertainer who had an adult theme to his show. Some things are not appropriate for, say, a 6 year old child. By the same token, don't you think it would be unreasonable to use the kind of strong, passionate speech you and the other street preachers are known for when addressing a crowd with children? -Everyone- should censor themselves around children, not just the other side of the argument.
As far as your opinions on my perception of good and evil, I think you are off-base. From where I stand things look pretty clear, and pretty different, than you and your colleagues present them
|
|
|
Post by victorialewis on Oct 3, 2006 20:18:32 GMT -5
Not my opinion, Mahatma. It was Scripture that I quoted. I happen to agree with all Scripture, but I can't take credit for coming up with it.
|
|
|
Post by mahatma on Oct 3, 2006 21:20:49 GMT -5
Victoria, I'm aware that we will probably never see eye to eye on the topics of homosexuality and abortion. It's good for both of us that we live in a country where such disagreements are allowed and encouraged By your not addressing the other parts of my post, should I assume you agree that people should not speak hatefully and that small children who are too young to understand it should not be exposed to strong rhetoric from anyone?
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Oct 4, 2006 16:37:50 GMT -5
mahatma,
I know you don't like my "one-liners" about homosexuals and abortionists.
But neither would you like it if I wrote an entire article or book against homosexuality and abortion.
The truth is, you simply don't want anyone to speak out against homosexuality or abortion.
You are choosing darkness over the light. You prefer lies over the truth.
As a preacher, my responsibility is to express God's views on moral issues.
But just admit it, you don't like God's views as He's expressed it through the bible.
|
|
|
Post by mahatma on Oct 4, 2006 17:01:07 GMT -5
I don't agree with God's views? I disagree with -your- views. I VEHEMENTLY disagree with many of the things you say. I am certain that is clear. But I will, as the saying goes, defend to the death your right to say them. I have -never once- told a preacher here not to preach, not to advocate for God, not to share the gospel. I only ask that people engage in reasonable discussion, remain internally consistent, and defend their beliefs in a civilized manner.
Point me to the posts where I said someone on this board should not preach homosexuality as sin. Point me to the posts where I denied your rights of free speech. Point me to the posts where those in the discussion with me deemed me unfair, unreasonable, and rude.
Call me lost if you wish. Call me a sinner if you want to. Call me evil if you must. But don't disparage my honesty or honor, and certainly don't try to yoke me to the plow of censorship.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Oct 5, 2006 8:25:12 GMT -5
Jesse, Mahatma has a point here in thsi regard:
My question regarding your statement about pastors forgiving sin? Silence
My questions about inconsistencies in your yearbook interview? Silence
My question about how often you preach charity and compassion to the poor? Silence
|
|
|
Post by ejuliot on Oct 5, 2006 9:07:01 GMT -5
You know I was thinking how hard it would be to travel and preach full time while trying to keep up with every post. I know it is hard to go to school full time and keep up with the board, but to be in ministry would be even more grueling. Then other times I wonder how many posts I miss just because I am to busy to check every thread that I previously posted on. And then other times I want to post but I don't have the time for long answers. Please guys give Jesse a break he is getting married in a 10 days and he is to busy to answer or check every thread. If the guys were to answer every single thread that was addressed to them they would never leave the boards. If you are really that curious about those issues post them and ask all Christians to contribute.Please have a little mercy. Liz
|
|
|
Post by mahatma on Oct 5, 2006 9:42:46 GMT -5
Ejuliot,
I'm happy to allow people time to respond. When I am going to have to take a little while to respond to something, I try and drop people a note to let them know I will answer later. I have tried to take into account both Jesse's busy schedule and his upcoming wedding. However, he had plenty of time to, for instance, defend Ruben the other day. He has time for one-liners.
What he has not had is the simple common courtesy to even acknowledge the questions or invoke his busy schedule as a reason for delaying discussion of the topics. If Jesse needs some time to answer then by all means, have the courtesy to tell me so and I will back off. If Jesse can't find the threads he can by all means let me know and I will provide links in a central location. If he sets a date on which I should expect him to be able to answer, then of course I will have the courtesy to give him the time.
But up till now, none of this has happened. I have come here in the hopes of honest, open discussion, disagreement, and debate. I have been met with open arms by some, and have been enjoying those discussions. On the other hand, the only time Jesse has deigned to speak to me was to level baseless accusations about my desire to censor his free speech. He has time to accuse me, but no time to answer my questions? Please.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Oct 5, 2006 11:31:10 GMT -5
ejuliot is right. It is hard to travel, preach, and keep up with everyones post.
I have never seen those questions outside of this thread. The first time I read those questions was when I read how I had not answered them?!?!?!
Let me answer these questions now. If there were more to the questions that I am missing, let me know.
My question regarding your statement about pastors forgiving sin?
Pastors and preachers should not tolerate sin. If someone sins against us, we should forgive them, or else we will not be forgiven ourselves.
My questions about inconsistencies in your yearbook interview?
Not aware of any.
My question about how often you preach charity and compassion to the poor?
My calling is to raise up laborers to preach the gospel. Taking care of the poor has not been a major theme in my preaching, but is a part of my own life. I recently took clothes and supplies to an orphanage in mexico. Typically once a year I take a trip to a third world country for charity work.
|
|
|
Post by mahatma on Oct 5, 2006 11:45:57 GMT -5
No problem. Here are some links to the appropriate threads so you will have some context for my questions and comments, and hopefully be able to provide some answers. Regarding seeming inconsistencies with your yearbook interview, see the thread here: openairoutreach.proboards52.com/index.cgi?board=sayitall&action=display&thread=1159727360The original thread in which the discussion took place was erased in Satan Scandal '07, so this is a bit of a re-post/paraphrasing thread. Regarding your statements about pastors forgiving sin, that was in this thread: openairoutreach.proboards52.com/index.cgi?board=tipspointers&action=display&thread=1154382039To whit, you mentioned preachers who were "too quick and too willing to hand out pardons to sinners." My question was about whether preachers were qualified to pardon sin since, as I understood it, only God has that ability. Regarding the poor and needy, I did not question your work with them, and I commend you for any charity work you do and kindness you offer. Rather, the question was about how often when you OA you preach against the sins of lack of compassion, lack of love, lack of charity, rather than preaching against the "sexy" sins. Here is a link to that thread openairoutreach.proboards52.com/index.cgi?board=openairpreaching&action=display&thread=1158726135In the future when I ask you questions on the board, in new threads, I can PM you a reference link if you like so that you will be better able to find the topics. If you are too busy to have a discussion on these topics now and would like to delay for a while, jut let me know.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Oct 5, 2006 11:49:12 GMT -5
If you just restate all of your questions here, I should be able to answer them.
|
|
|
Post by mahatma on Oct 5, 2006 12:01:32 GMT -5
Ok no problem. In MTV and Gangster rap you said I asked In regards to preachers pardoning sin, you said in the No Fear? No Grace! thread: and I asked In regards to your yearbook interview, there are a few relevant posts, but as the link and thread are available to everyone to read in its entirety if they wish, I will again paraphrase here. In a thread titled "OAO Made Year Book!" Jesse quoted an interview he had with a college yearbook. In response to two questions in particular, he responded with the following: and If a preacher goes out to preach, is persecuted (arrested and thrown in jail) and then has the most religiously blissful experience of his life (feeling a closer connection to God than ever in the past), and if it happens multiple times, then there is a direct causal relationship between being persecuted and being blissful. Is it not reasonable to assume that a person would seek out this feeling of bliss? Further, is it expected that a street preacher most feel the love and approval of God asa result of being persecuted? Why would a street preacher not feel most approved of, most loved, when succeeding in his calling to turn a sinner to the love of Christ? (and later as clarification in response to a question by VictoriaLewis) I paraphrased my post from the last thread which was deleted. I made a perhaps poor assumption that there would not be new readers who would be confused by the paraphrasing I did. In the original post I said something along the lines of "if we assume that there is no experience more blissful for a christian than feeling the love, presence, and favor of God..." Jesse did not state bliss explicitly. I hope that helps explain? In the original thread speaking with Rob Dog I also made clear that I was not of the opinion that the only, or even primary goal of street preachers in general was to be persecuted (I wish that thread hadn't been purged, I think it was a good discussion). I do -not- mean this question as a disparagement or rebuke against the street preacher profession or the christian faith. That being said, and with all due respect, I don't feel that your response actually adressed Jesse's words. I think that your generalizations about the motivations of street preachers are probably accurate, and I understand that all of you are willing to accept suffering as a cost of doing God's work and trying to save sinners. But most preachers I talk to, if asked about when they most felt the presence and favor of God, would answer something along the lines of "when he worked through me to save a soul." It was very surprising to read " Never have I felt more the presence and favor of God...than the times I've been arrested..." Does this not seem to indicate a pattern over time, with multiple instances, in which Jesse felt close to and loved by God as a direct result of persecution? If one feels most loved by God when being persecuted, isn't it reasonable to assume that, on some level, the person will want to be persecuted in the future to feel more of that love? So...that's a lot for one post in one thread, but you ask for it you get it
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Oct 5, 2006 12:25:13 GMT -5
1. I preach against whatever is the major sin of the audience. Outside a bar I would focus more on drunkeness. Outside a club I would focus more on dirty dancing.
When speaking in Churches, I preach about their greatest responsibilities, which are often neglected. Namely that of evangelism. Our first responsibility is knowing God and the second is preaching the gospel. These are two main themes for my preaching.
I'm not so sure that I would agree that charity is a neglected responsibility in the Church. Often, charity evangelism is the only evangelism most churches do. It is the confrontational evangelism that is neglected, so it is the confrontational evangelism that I promoted, because it's neglected.
But if I was a Pastor, and found my church to neglect charity, I would preach multiple sermons on it.
When I lead a bible study, I preached multiple sermons on charity.
But typically when I am invited to speak, it's because I am an open air preacher, and the pastor wants me to speak about my type of evangelism.
2. I do not believe that a preacher can pardon sin, only God can. When I said that preachers are too quick to hand out pardons for sin, what I meant by that is that preachers are too quick to tell sinners about God's grace, when they are not yet ready for it.
I do not believe preachers can give out pardons, but I do believe preachers MUST preach the pardon found in Jesus Christ.
3. I do not believe that Christians or anyone should do anything just because it brings about bliss or happiness. That is not the goal. Yes we are to rejoice when being persecuted, but we are not to seek out things that make us rejoice. We are to seek out the will of God and do it. That is to be our focus, God's will, not happiness.
We shouldn't seek persecution or seek after happiness, we should seek after God and His will.
|
|
|
Post by mahatma on Oct 5, 2006 12:46:10 GMT -5
Thanks for your answers. 1) Ok, I understand your position of preaching the greatest, or most obvious, sin of the audience. But when you go out to preach you pick the venue and by doing that you pick the sin you are going to preach against. And to be clear I am not, again, claiming that churches don't do charity work. But are there street preachers who go to Wall Street, or outside a casino, or outside a bank, and preach against the sin of not being compassionate to the poor, or against the sin of not being charitable, or the sin of not loving their neighbors? Do you ever undertake such preaching? If not, why not? It seems to me that, even by your interpretation of the Bible, a wealthy man who sneers at the poor must be just as bad a sinner as the openly gay, pot smoking drunkard. Aren't these people who sin through their coldness and cruelty in just as much need, if not more need, of the word of God? Why is there so much publicized talk from the religious about condemning homosexuality, and so little about condemning wealthy and uncaring men? 2) Fair enough. It just sounded odd. 3) So you honestly do feel like you are most doing God's work and will when you are being persecuted? If your goal is to do God's will, and if you feel you are most doing God's will when being persecuted, and if you rejoice when most feeling God's will, doesn't it come out to six of one and half a dozen of the other? Persecution seems to still wind up the final goal...
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Oct 5, 2006 14:30:14 GMT -5
All sin is summed up as selfishness.
And holiness is summed up as love.
So when I preach, I:
1. Protest selfishness 2. Promote love.
And in that, everything is covered.
|
|
|
Post by mahatma on Oct 5, 2006 15:56:55 GMT -5
I am having trouble finding answers or a continuation of our conversation in your latest post, though I have no doubt that the connective tissue, the ligament if you will, is there to be explored and chewed upon. It is sadly, however, there for the edification of more discerning eyes than these poor orbs in my head. I offer my most humble apologies for not clearly understanding what surely promises great wisdom in a most simple and easily digested form.
Could you perhaps elaborate on your thesis, or, dare I ask, provide more more specific and easily fathomed answers to my latest queries? I shall hold out high hope that our discussion shall continue apace, and I look forward to speaking with you further.
|
|
|
Post by Jeffrey Olver on Oct 5, 2006 16:02:33 GMT -5
Mahatma,
I typically preach most of the time with Jesse (as he and I compose team 1 of OAO)... And as an answer from me personally in regards to "picking the sin" by picking the venue; sometimes it cannot be helped. It would be unwise not to go to a bar and preach against drunkenness - however, I do fully and willingly acknowledge exceptions. Once in Athens, GA in the bar district I was approached by a woman whose mother had recently committed suicide. I was able to minister to her by the word of God.
Another instance would be at a beach in Mineola, TX. We had been preaching on and off on bikinis (and issue covered extensively in previous posts) and the brevity of life when out of the blue a group of people began to play loudly the most disgusting and abominable racist music I had ever heard in my entire life. I make no exaggerations. This opened up wide the doorway to preach on Jesus' words on hate and being filled with God's love.
But exceptions aside; when you read throug the New testament you can notice in many places Paul (especially) will use several words linked with lust in a row; fornication, uncleanness, lewedness, adultery, etc. By biblical example if a certain sin is prevalent in a particular 'venue' then it would be wise to preach on it.
But I guess you could say OAO has an unwritten policy (as should every open air preacher); expect the unexpected and always be prepared.
|
|
|
Post by mahatma on Oct 5, 2006 16:19:55 GMT -5
Jeffrey,
Sure, I don't argue the point that it is wise to preach against the sin you see in front of you. But you do choose which way your eyes are looking. So, especially since (from what I remember) Jesus talked so much about the sins of not loving neighbors, or the sins of not caring for the poor, etc. So wouldn't it make sense to, at least sometimes, turn the direction of your eyes to a location like a bank, or an investment house, or a casino, and preach against greed and cruelty to those people who are also equally lost in sin as the drunkards are? It -feels- like (and I hope this is mistaken) that sometimes preachers decide that one sin is more worthy of preaching against than another, or that one group of sinners is -more- lost or -more- damned than another.
(And I don't mean to minimize the importance of your preaching to the racist group or your other examples. I did read your whole post and was impressed by it, and I am truly glad that you confronted the racists in the one situation, and were able to offer a woman comfort in the other)
|
|
|
Post by Jeffrey Olver on Oct 5, 2006 18:43:47 GMT -5
I understand what you're saying. That impression can be given very easily. Mahatma, you're right. There's no reason for any preacher to NOT preach in front of a greedy corporate office, or bank, or school, or casino, or even court house. These (and more) are all legitimate places to preach the Gospel. Why, George Whitefield didn't even take it that far - he'd stand in a field!
One of the main reasons for the consistency you see in preaching at certain venues is that we must preach where the people are! Typically you see alot more people all at once on a Friday night outside of bars and clubs than in front of an investment house because everyone who was busy working in those different places are now all going to the same place to 'let their hair down.'
Any impression given that one 'group of sinners' is more lost than another, or one sin is more worthy to preach against than another is purely accidental.
There are groups like the Westboro Baptist (The Phelps' (God Hates F**s)) who do make certain sins a 'specialty.' Those folks need to repent. There was a shooting at one room school house in lancaster, PA (amish community) and the Westboro Baptist folks were going to protests at the FUNERALS OF a couple of small Amish girls!!! (who knows what they would have said about these folks!?!?!) These wolves showed their true selves when a radio host offered them an hour of air time if they would leave the grieving families alone. The snakes gladly took the offer.
|
|
|
Post by mahatma on Oct 7, 2006 10:14:11 GMT -5
Jeffrey, Thanks for your response. You will be shocked to learn that I strongly disapprove of the WBC and those who use tactics like theirs. Their threatening to protest the funerals of those mish girls was really the last straw for me, and I am heartened to read the news that many preachers are banding together to counter-preach them in the future, and I hope that OAO will take part in that. Our last exchange does provide a nice opportunity for us to dovetail the conversation back to the original point, so I think I will take it You and the other preachers say that all sin is equal. Any sinner (any unsaved person by definition) is going to go to hell. You all say that your preaching to homosexuals is out of love, and a desire for those people to accept Jesus and turn away from sin. Well ok, fair enough. But that doesn't really jibe with the statements in the original post and Jesse's follow-up. In the original post, the author said "homosexuals and other irresponsible parents..." If homosexuals are to be considered irresponsible parents, and if it is true that the only problem you guys have with homosexuals is that they are unsaved sinners, then aren't all unsaved parents irresponsible by definition? Jesse said "these perverts have always wanted children..." Either Jesse meant "all unsaved parents" (which it sure didn't sound like he meant) or he meant "homosexuals" (that's what it sounded like). But by what you claim your problems are with homosexuals, they are equally qualified to be parents as any other unsaved parent. Yet when was the last time christians protested an adoption by a muslim family? A jewish family? A family in which the wife is not submissive to the husband? It never happens. Christians protest adoption by gays, protest marriage by gays, etc, but never protest these things by other (supposedly equal) sinners. So why should anyone believe the words christians speak about only wanting to save souls and all sinners being equally damned in God's eyes? When your (christians preachers') explanations of intent are -so- mismatched with your actions, how is anyone to take seriously your good intentions?
|
|
|
Post by lifeandliberty on Oct 11, 2006 10:08:09 GMT -5
I spoke at the Richmond City Council Meeting on Monday and gave the Councilmembers a packet including a transcription of the video that was filmed of the obscene performance and a DVD of the same. I have heard that the Council is in agreement that the matter should be looked into.
|
|
|
Post by Jeffrey Olver on Oct 11, 2006 11:01:56 GMT -5
Mahatma, You're almost speaking my language. heh. While I think it may be unwise for different families to adopt a child; there are two institutions that God instated prior to the "fall;" Marriage and the Family. (granted, the first child born into the world was not until after Adam and Eve sinned, but the familial beginnings were present before hand.) Even within unsaved families God is testified of through it, as well as "unsaved" marriages. They are type and shadows of God's desire for all of mankind. However, within a homosexual marriage (and thusly a family) it is a counterfeit of what God desires. Men and women both accurately reflect different anima and animus aspects of God. But in a homosexual (male) relationship that anima (which I believe is feminine I may have my terms mixed up) is either missing, or twisted. (I may be misapplying my terms here, but I'm trying to get at the maculine and feminine aspects that men and women are assigned that reflect God's 'masculine and feminine' aspects) But what I meant by you "speaking my language" is that I am constantly finding myself wondering why other topics tend to be ignored. To illustrate: recently Christians everywhere were in an uproar over some blasphemous movie, I sincerely forget which it was. However, as I was looking at upcoming movies I saw some that were far more blasphemous and slanderous of following Christ. I wondered for quiet a while why no one was saying ANYTHING about these other movies. While in the aspect of eternity, 70-80 years of life is a blink. But in the aspect of accomplishments, I believe that Christians with the time and life they are given can accomplish ALOT more than some typically think they can do. Even in a 24 hour time-span one can accomplish tons of work when you cut out common distractions like entertainment; TV and other media. Dining out, etc. When you burn a candle at both ends, you get twice as much light. You're right, Mahatma. As preachers who desire, as David did, truth in the inward parts, it is a challenge to kill the mismatched intents and actions. Preachers need to say what they mean and mean what they say!
|
|
|
Post by mahatma on Oct 12, 2006 12:08:35 GMT -5
Jeffrey, I have to say, your last post threw me for a bit of a loop. First, I do try in these debates to stay away from discussion of the Bible or of scripture, as I feel it often leads to a rhetorical dead end wherein each party must demand that the other take on faith their reading and understanding of it in order to advance the conversation. Secondly, it isn't often that one hears a fundamentalist christian on a website full of biblical literalists justifying a viewpoint through the use of Jungian psychology or eastern philisophical concepts. You had me wondering, for a moment, if in the original greek the Bible made some mention of the anima and animus of God. Upon the realization though that "anima" is a Latin word rather than Greek (though of course "animus" is Greek) I realized that you must be making an interprative argument rather than a literal one. So, opening formalities having been observed, and caveats having been stated, let's continue. I understand that (as most people do) you feel the sanctity of marriage and family are holy, and it makes sense to me that you would try to defend those institutions(on a personal level, the legal argument is for another thread). That being said, and with the admission that you are probably much more conversant with scripture than I am, I have to admit that your argument for the masculine and feminine aspects of God being testified to through a heterosexual marriage doesn't sound biblical to me. Is there scripture that discusses the male and female aspects of God, or is this a philisophical extrapolation you have come to through personal thought or study? If it is not strictly scriptural then I would argue that within the paradigm of reality as expressed/understood by most of the members of this forum (i.e. biblical infallibility, completeness, and literalism) your point has no logical standing since it is not based on biblical completeness. That point aside, it seems you are still making a point that while all sin is bad, some sins are -particularly- bad. But if we are all created in God's image and if God is perfect, then -all- sin is "counterfeit of what God desires" or a twisted reflection of some aspect of God. Every sin becomes a corruption of the free will granted to us. Whether an institution was established before or after the fall should have no bearing on the seriousness of the sin, as it all leads directly to d**nation if the "funhouse mirror" is not repaired through Christ. But if we assume that the Bible does speak of God's male and female aspects and how marriage reflects them, and if we also assume that a family with a homosexual couple is -particularly- egregious in God's eyes, then your argument still doesn't hold up. Your definition of why a homosexual couple is bad would, I think you agree, encompass -all- "non-traditional" families. That is to say, you are arguing that the only correct family is a man, a woman, and some (lots of? ) kids. That's fine as far as a moral stance to take, but christians' application of that moral stance to their political and legal views are myopic at best, and at worst are directly hypocritical. The last time I heard anyone argue against a single mother having a child was when Dan Quayle took Murphy Brown to task in 1992. Where are the legal initiatives to ban single motherhood? Where is the outrage? If a man's wife dies and he is left to raise his children alone, where is the indignation over the fact that he does not immediately take a new wife in order to satisfy God's desires? Where are the marches and picket signs to protest adoption by single parents? Where is the bill being introduced to Congress to force a widowed woman to marry her dead husband's brother in order to ensure the continuation of a family "as God wills it?" edit: modified the last paragraph to allow for myopia without hypocrisy as it is, I think, a more fair assessment and less of a generalization. My apologies if you have already formed a response to the former wording
|
|
|
Post by Jeffrey Olver on Oct 12, 2006 12:24:46 GMT -5
You made some very good points. And I see the need to clarify some of my earlier points. But I will also address your most recent questions and comments.
However, in a few minutes I will be running some errands, so I don't have the time to get into it just now. Thanks for your patience and your thoughtfulness.
|
|