Leave a Reply

21 comments on “take the time to read through this

    • That queer people hate God and should not be tolerated, obviously. In case anyone missed it.

      I note that the pictures they claim to have of 200-300 Bibles in trash cans all over Holden, Massachusetts were not posted.

      • really?
        What a bizarre way to respond. How on earth did you get that from what was written? Not, by any chance, once again refusing to distinguish between those that are opposed to the homosexual lifestyle and those that carry out violence against homosexuals?

        I’m disappointed. Very disappointed. You win no arguments by blatantly misrepresenting the issues.

        • Frankly, I think he’s lying through his teeth. If he’s lying, then he’s doing so to support an agenda. There are too many things in his story that don’t make sense. I’ll believe that they were picketed. But I don’t believe the story about hundreds of Bibles being accepted and then thrown away in garbage cans all over town. I want to see the pictures. And I want to know what makes him certain that the people who supposedly did this were gays and lesbians.

          • Well, that’s a huge accusation. I don’t think I would ever be prepared to make such a sweeping and unsustainable accusation simply because I didn’t agree with someone.

            • I wouldn’t make that accusation just because I don’t agree with him. It’s a gut feeling. Which means I could be wrong, certainly. But there’s just a lurid quality to the account that doesn’t ring true. It fits too well the “scoffing sinner” stereotype. I’ve been to several protests and have never seen people behaving that way — acting nicey-nicey to get massive amounts of the other group’s material, just to throw them away in trash cans all over town. Generally what you get is a lot of people shouting back and forth at each other.

              Secondly, he doesn’t say how he knows that the people who are doing this were gays or lesbians. It just appears that he concluded that on the basis of their alleged actions. That raises all kinds of alarms. Gays and lesbians are not the only people who might be angry enough to do such a thing. So unless they were wearing tee-shirts that said, “Hi, I’m queer,” or kissing each other within eyesight (which I doubt since he says they were acting straight in order to get the free Bibles), I want to know how he concluded they were gay and lesbian.

              And, what does he mean by, “we need to love and respect all individuals unconditionally – but not tolerate”? How do you love someone unconditionally and yet not tolerate them? That makes no sense, unless he defines “love” very differently from me.

              • And, what does he mean by, “we need to love and respect all individuals unconditionally – but not tolerate”? How do you love someone unconditionally and yet not tolerate them? That makes no sense, unless he defines “love” very differently from me.

                on the contrary, I think he defines it exactly that same way that Jesus does when He says “go and sin no more”. Are you suggesting that such should not be said to those in sin? If so, then you’d have Jesus shut up as well.

                • Are you suggesting that such should not be said to those in sin? If so, then you’d have Jesus shut up as well.

                  God has the right to say it, since God knows a person inside and out — God can see into a person’s heart. Another person, however, cannot see into another person’s heart, except to the extent to which that person opens up.

                  I can think of numerous exhortations in the New Testament to avoid saying anything judgmental. I think this is because the authors recognized that only God has the fullness of wisdom and knowledge to have the right to judge a person — and that the chance for hypocrisy to result is too great.

                  In my book, to say that you love and respect someone means that you are willing to listen to that person and consider that they’re experience has something to teach you — even, or perhaps especially, when you don’t like what they have to say.

                  It’s hard. Even while typing that, I recognized my own failings in that regard.

                  But it seems to me that someone who says at the outset that he or she is not going to tolerate someone or something, that what this implies is that there is no chance that listening will be full or complete.

                  • then, sadly, you make that presumption about Jesus. He was very clear on a number of moral issues.

                    If He had the right to do so then why is it wrong to simply repeat his moral teaching? Is it somehow redundant if someone else repeats it?

                    • If the repetition of a moral teaching (or anything) does demonstrable harm, then IMO it is wrong.

                      Nothing occurs in a vacuum, and in this society there is considerable discrimination, abuse, and exploitation of people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered. Much of this has happened with the complicity of law enforcement officials who look the other way or de-prioritize it. None of this is a secret.

                      This has a negative repercussion for Christian preachers too, because now it’s not possible for you to just simply repeat what the Bible says, because when a preacher says anything against homosexuality, it occurs in the context of discrimination and abuse and is poisoned by it.

                      Furthermore, when Christians picket a school in Massachusetts with hideously anti-gay signs because a student wrote an essay about Ellen Degeneres, or when Christians picket schools to protest the Day of Silence, it is not simply “repeating” what’s in the Bible, because it’s not like anyone in America can say they haven’t gotten the message. It’s harrassment, and it contributes to the fear that many people like me feel.

                      I’ve mentioned before the litmus test of judging an action by the fruits it produces. You cited the example of the adulteress. If Jesus was a staunch upholder of moral law, he would have had to agree with the mob that she deserved to be stoned. After all, there were several witnesses to her adultery, which is what the Law of Moses called for. Instead, he saw the hypocrisy of the people in the mob for what it was, and decided to contradict the Law of Moses. He judged them by the evil fruits they sought to produce.


                    • This has a negative repercussion for Christian preachers too, because now it’s not possible for you to just simply repeat what the Bible says, because when a preacher says anything against homosexuality, it occurs in the context of discrimination and abuse and is poisoned by it.

                      as long as you persist in this blatant misrepresentation of all those that have a disagreement with you and refuse to distinguish between principled opposition to homosexual behaviour unprincipled violence then you will never reach those you want to persuade.

                      If you want to preach to the choir, by all means do it. But then you are no better than those that you claim to oppose. In fact, you’re worse:

                      “Dear Lord, thank you that I am not like these people who always speak hate without ever seeking to understand others.”
                      That’s called hypocrisy.

                    • If Jesus was a staunch upholder of moral law, he would have had to agree with the mob that she deserved to be stoned. After all, there were several witnesses to her adultery, which is what the Law of Moses called for. Instead, he saw the hypocrisy of the people in the mob for what it was, and decided to contradict the Law of Moses. He judged them by the evil fruits they sought to produce.

                      He acknowledged (judged) her sin and He forgave it. He judged their sin, and they weren’t repentant. And I always wondered how they just happened to be “witness” to her sin. Hehe. Perhaps the hypocrisy is deeper than what we can know from the scripture. I mean… where was the man? Weren’t they supposed to stone them together? Even if it wasn’t a Rabbi’s son, it’s suspicious they only presented the woman. And though that’s interesting to think about… this was my original point: He acknowledged (judged) her sin and He forgave it. He judged their sin, and they weren’t repentant.

    • Perhaps to shine some light on some left-wing hypocrisy? It’s pretty sad when valuable material is thrown in the garbage when no one is forcing anyone to take it… it’s a gift for those who want it. The lack of character it would take to be that deceptive is noteworthy. Whatever happened to freedom of speech… isn’t that something valued anymore? I’m not throwing these questions at you personally… I’m just thinking that there is a lot to consider in this blog article.

    • well, a number of things.

      First, I want Anglican friends to be reminded of the desperate state of much of ECUSA so that they’ll pray and do what they can.
      Second, I want to remind revisionists what their actions are, and that they’re noticed.
      I want to encourage my friends who are faithful.

      just for starters.

  1. It would have been nicer if the bibles had been recycled instead of thrown away, but I confess the thought made me smile. Thanks for sharing that. 🙂

Leave a Comment - but please pay careful attention to the house rules