Publisher of African-American homosexual magazine accepts Christ and leaves homosexual lifestyle – Good for her. I pray for her strength and perseverance, because she’ll be catching some major grief. The GLBT lobby doesn’t care for people who burst the myth that change isn’t possible.
Terrific debate between Greg Koukl and Deepak Chopra (30 min. video). I thought Koukl did a nice job of defending the Christian worldview and exposing some of the flaws in Chopra’s New Age thinking.
A good overview of the abortion / breast cancer link controversy
Terrific site for Christian theology – Mongergism.com
Former ACLU boss linked to child p*rn – no wonder they protect it as “free speech.” As I Can Plainly See pointed out, why can you Google Mark Foley and get tons of recent hits and Google this guy’s name and only get five? Why is the mainstream media ignoring this?
Greetings from Mount Perspective: Oh, those awful, awful traditional marriage proponents. Read this short little post and see if it makes a difference which side said it. If it were reversed the MSM would go (even more) unhinged.
Just when you thought Al Gore couldn’t get any more hypocritical, it turns out that his “carbon offsets” (which would be a joke even if they were legitimate) that allegedly balance out his enermous energy use were purchased from a company he owns.
13 thoughts on “Weekly roundup”
If I may add to your first note (re: LGBT African-American magazine publisher), well, it’s just the week for it, I guess. If you watched the Academy Awards, both Jennifer Hudson and Forest Whitaker thanked God and credited Him with helping them through their lives.
FW: .”And God, God who believes in us all. And who’s given me this moment, in this lifetime, that I will hopefully carry to the end of my lifetime into the next lifetime. Thank you.”
JH: “Definitely have to thank God again. I can’t believe this. Wow, I don’t know what to say but I thank you all for helping me keep the faith even when I didn’t believe. Thank you and God bless you all.”
(One need not be a devout Christian to see how faith and a strong sense of morality and family does great things for people.)
Thanks for the insight, Bridget. When I see what persecuted Christians endure around the world it is very humbling. So it is nice when those in the U.S. come out of the closet (so to speak).
I’m not sure if that’s insightful – you’re giving me too much credit. 🙂
Objectively, if you look at what the Judeo-Christian principles do for people, it’s almost impossible to say anything bad about it’s effects. (Messengers occaisonally leave a bit to be desired, as can details of the various religions.)
Nevertheless, the Western world is a free world; the Islamic world is not. Christianity originally spread through the lower classes and women during the days of the Roman Empire, mostly because of the message of equality in God’s eyes: that we do not own each other, nor is any person inherently more worthy of human dignity than another.
That includes women. As far as women’s rights go – although the Catholic Church leaves much to be desired, Jesus was quite a feminist (feminism = equality of women).
Continue, on a smaller level, to Alcoholics Anonymous, where a key part of the 12 steps is acknowledging a higher power. It is really only the people who acknowledge something greater than them who can fight their disease. Ashley Smith, of course, is another good example of how Christianity can transform lives.
As for Christians coming out of the closet… I agree. Jennifer Hudson didn’t have an easy life growing up, but you can’t help but think that her faith kept her away from the problems that plague a lot of African-Americans (most of which have to do with lack of a family structure and lack of belief in their future). If people aren’t at the pinnacle, it should be because they lack talent or put other things first (like family) or are happier working at the lower levels, not because they don’t have any faith and don’t give themselves a chance.
One need not be Christian to see that as a benefit of Christianity. It irks me, too, when people are too narrow-minded to see that.
Hi Bridget – thanks for those comments. It is so refreshing to hear that kind of perspective from someone outside the church. For example, I have heard from too many people inside the church who parrot the line that Christianity is anti-women.
I am neither a Catholic basher nor a Catholic apologist, though they have quite a few points of doctrine that I strenuously disagree with.
For example, I have heard from too many people inside the church who parrot the line that Christianity is anti-women.
I don’t want to ruin your blog with anti-Catholic statements, but I think that “anti-woman” would not be a bad way to describe that faith. It does not allow women in the clergy, nor may priests be married (unless married and then converted to the priesthood, as I recall); the entire heirarchy is devoid of women. I can’t find it now (getting late), but there is a passage in the Bible which describes an appropriate wife for a priest; one may infer that God intended for priests to marry.
Anyway… the Bible was obviously written during a very sexist time and reflects that. Most of the passages dealing with adultery involve only women; a man may divorce a woman, but not take her back if she has been “defiled” by another man; a man who suspects his wife of adultery but lacks proof may bring her before a priest to be cursed, but there is no corresponding provision for a man who has been unfaithful. Both a woman and a man may be stoned for extra-marital relations; a woman alone may be stoned (if she is not a virgin when she marries); but (at least as much as I’ve read, which isn’t much), a man alone will not be stoned for having pre-marital or extra-marital sex.
I wish – wholeheartedly – that the various sects of Christianity would address this head-on. (As I’ve often said, the solution to sexism isn’t to tell women that they can act as badly as men; it’s to tell men that they need to act as well as they want women to act.) Nevertheless, the message of equality before the eyes of God and salvation depending on accepting Christ as a saviour is very egalitarian. I’ve nnticed, anecdotally, that Christian men treat women very well: there seems to be a value placed on women and who they are.
I’m explaining myself badly. More later.
Hi Bridget – you might be thinking of this passage, which obviously shows that there were no restrictions on church leaders marrying (“overseer” probably means Bishop). There are similar passages for other types of church leaders. Religions and denominations are welcome to create whatever rules they like, but the prohibition against priests marrying is man-made.
1 Timothy 3:1-5 Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)
You are right that many passages only mention only men, but typically the guidance works for women as well. Leviticus 18:22 says, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable,” but it is clear that lesbianism would be prohibited as well. Proverbs were written to Solomon’s son, but nearly all are just as applicable to women.
I have thought about blogging on this topic in more detail but haven’t done all the research on the more controversial passages. There are some smart, orthodox Christians weighing in on both sides of the issue of women in leadership roles.
Thanks for your thoughts – feel free to add more!
That might be the passage – I’m thinking of one that includes something about a woman who has never been married before, how marrying a widow isn’t right, as he must be her first marriage, etc.
There are prohibitions which apply to women on account of being sexual and applying to men, such as, do not lie with your sister, mother-in-law, mother (as that is a wrong against your father’s marital bed), etc.
Two interesting propositions here provided with no evidence whatsoever:
1) “The GLBT lobby doesn’t care for people who burst the myth that change isn’t possible.”
Once in a while someone decides to “change” their orientation, and each time it happens, some conservative opines about how the “rabid” LGBT lobby will eviscerate them. Of course, no evidence is presented that this ever happens, but its a nice way to demonize the “LGBT lobby.” I say, “prove it.” Find me a site where HRC, or GLAAD, or NGLTF, or any other major LGBT group disparages this woman.
As for the myth of change, it isn’t LGBT people alone who are bursting the myth, so-called Ex-Gay organizations such as Exodus International are doing it all on their own. Sure, they still use the word, “change” but they don’t mean it the way you do. Most of these organizations no longer claim to change someone from homosexual to heterosexual. On its website, Exodus states, “But we find hundreds of former homosexuals who have found a large degree of change–attaining abstinence from homosexual behaviors, lessening of homosexual temptations, strengthening their sense of masculine or feminine identity, correcting distorted styles of relating with members of the same and opposite gender.” So it seems they’re no longer buying the “myth” either.
2) As for the link to the snarky article about the Castro, it’s easy to say, “Oh, look how hypocritical the gays are” without actually providing any evidence that people agree with this small group of folks. For instance, here’s a blog that addresses that very issue:
Hmm….looks to me like they’re pretty critical, as are lots of other folks. I know it’s shocking, but not all gay people are actually responsible for some of the ideas of a few.
Alan, it is a strong delusion. Not everyone will have their desires changed. Some people who quit smoking have cravings for the rest of their lives. But changed behavior = change.
The San Francisco Castro district dig was clearly at the MSM for their hypocrisy. I gave those living there a free pass.
P.S. Not sure why your comments didn’t post right away – they got picked up in the filter for some reason and I don’t check that every day.
Two of Britain’s best known homosexuals are revealed today on AOL to hav been previously married to women. Many now claiming to be homosexual have previously fathered children. Why is it possible for someone to change ‘orientation’ from hetero to homo, but not the other way round? And if the answer is that they were always homo but were fooling themselves, why doesn’t that apply the other way round?
Neil, looks like my comments are appearing now. Please feel free, by the way, to do a little housekeeping and delete my duplicate comments above, I don’t mind a bit.
Terry, I never said change isn’t possible. It might be possible — there’s just no evidence. I also never said that some people aren’t terribly confused about their lives. You’re arguing against things I never said.
What I said is that even the so-called experts on “change”, e.g. Exodus, do not define “change” as a “change” in sexual orientation.
Your question, “And if the answer is that they were always homo but were fooling themselves, why doesn’t that apply the other way round?” is completely disingenuous. Sorry, Terry, but I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck yesterday. 🙂
You ask that question as if you’re saying, “Well if some people appear straight but are fooling themselves then isn’t it possible that some people appear gay but are fooling themselves?” Seems like a reasonable position, IF you then advocated that BOTH groups should be helped to find out the truth about themselves. But neither you nor Neil really believe that, right? You fully support the confused gay-acting straight person seeking counseling from Exodus to become truly straight, but you’re certainly not going to advocate therapy for the straight-acting gay person to become truly gay.
You are right, I would not advocate that. I would never encourage someone to go through therapy to get them to do something that is physically, spiritually and emotionally destructive.
Glad the commenting thing got fixed; I’ll delete the earlier ones. Gotta keep the blog tidy!
“You are right, I would not advocate that. ”
I didn’t think I would be misrepresenting you by making that assumption. 🙂
“Gotta keep the blog tidy!”
A man after my own OCD heart. LOL