Reprinted by permission of The Christian Post
By Audrey Barrick
Christian Post Reporter
Thu, Jun. 26 2008 04:50 PM EDT
More Americans are acquainted with a gay or lesbian person than an evangelical, according to a recent study.
The latest research by Phoenix-based Ellison Research found that only 24 percent of all Americans who say they are not evangelical know an evangelical person very well and 40 percent have never known any evangelicals at all, even casually. Meanwhile, 53 percent say they know a homosexual person very well and 20 percent know such a person casually.
"The study raises questions about why members of some groups are largely invisible to so many Americans," Ron Sellers, president of Ellison Research, noted.
Sellers pointed out that homosexuals are estimated to make up less than 10 percent of the U.S. population while 17 percent of Americans call themselves evangelical. Despite the larger evangelical count, Americans are more likely to know a gay or lesbian person than an evangelical.
Also, the study showed that a majority of evangelicals (62 percent), along with 75 percent of Protestant churchgoers and 77 percent of all Catholics, know a gay or lesbian person at least casually.
"Is this because homosexuals are more open than evangelicals about who they are? Because Americans are more open to knowing a homosexual than an evangelical? Because evangelicals themselves are less likely to reach into the broader community to form relationships?" he posed. "These questions are certainly open to debate."
The questions Sellers posed can also be applied to other groups, he noted. "You could just as easily ask these questions about Mormons versus evangelicals, where Americans are just as likely to know a Mormon as an evangelical, even though by any measure the evangelical population in the U.S. is dramatically larger than the Mormon population."
According to the study, 21 percent know a Mormon very well.
Statistics were more positive for born-again Christians, but only to a small extent. Among Americans who do not call themselves born again, 38 percent say they know a born-again Christian very well and 18 percent have never known one.
Among other findings, half of all Americans know a member of the Christian clergy very well, 20 percent know one casually, and 12 percent have never known a clergyperson. More interestingly, the study pointed out that among people who regularly attend worship services, 30 percent say they do not currently know any clergy members very well and 14 percent say they do not even know one, including their own minister or priest, casually.
Younger Americans are less likely to know a Christian clergyperson. Only 39 percent of people under 35 know a Christian clergyperson very well compared to 48 percent of people 35 to 54 years old and 61 percent of those 55 or older.
Even fewer Catholic churchgoers report knowing any clergy with 23 percent saying they do not know one even casually, according to the study.
Although Catholics may not know their own priest, many Americans are acquainted with Catholics. With Catholics representing a large segment of the U.S. population, 76 percent of all non-Catholics say they currently know a Roman Catholic very well. Only 3 percent have never known a Catholic.
In other findings, people who regularly attend worship services are as likely to know people across religious or irreligious lines – atheists, Muslims, Mormons, and Jews – as those who are not active in a church or the unchurched.
The Ellison study also measured Americans' acquaintances with other types of people, including those of another ethnic background and persons in a different political party.
Among non-white Americans, 92 percent currently know a white person very well. Among non-blacks, 68 percent know a black person very well. And among non-Latinos, 72 percent know a Latino individual very well. Only 44 percent know an Asian person very well and the numbers are similar for American Indians and for Jews.
The study additionally showed that many Americans are not acquainted with those on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Less than half (47 percent) of Americans who are not politically conservative say they know someone who is, and 24 percent have never known a conservative. Also, only 42 percent of adults who do not call themselves politically liberal know a liberal person and 25 percent have never known one.
Further looking into the relationships of conservatives and liberals, Sellers found the similarities more striking than the differences.
"Yes, conservatives are more likely to know a born again Christian, but two-thirds of liberals also know one at least casually," he said. "And yes, liberals are more likely to know a gay or lesbian person, but two-thirds of conservatives also know one at least casually. Liberals and conservatives may have very different worldviews, but the relationships they maintain aren’t really all that different, despite the stereotypes.”
Findings from the study, which was conducted on 1,007 adults, can be interpreted either positively or negatively, Sellers commented.
"On the positive side, the study shows the vast majority of Americans know someone of a different racial or ethnic background very well, and many also know people of different religious or political viewpoints," he stated.
"On the negative side, there are plenty of types of people many Americans have really never encountered. Four out of ten have never known – even casually – someone who has experienced homelessness. A third have never known an evangelical or a Mormon. Almost half have never known a Muslim. One out of five has never known an American Indian. One out of every four liberals has never known a conservative, and vice versa. Not knowing a variety of people has implications for how we live our lives and how we think of others."
Copyright 2008 The Christian Post. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
38 comments:
26.3% of the U.S. population describe themselves as evangelicals, according to
http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations
"The U.S. Religious Landscape Survey completed telephone interviews with a nationally representative sample of 35,556 adults living in continental United States telephone households. [...] from May 8 to Aug. 13, 2007. Statistical results are weighted to correct known demographic discrepancies."
I don't really know what this article is trying to prove, but personally I think it's promising. The more gay people a person knows, the more likely he is to see them as unique individuals and not as stereotypes or a group, which leads to better understanding. When the average Joe realizes that most gay people are NOT activists or extremists trying to overthrow society, recruit children (which is impossible, since homosexuality can't be taught), and destroy marriage -- but ordinary people just like him -- it puts things into perspective.
"Knowing" homosexuals for the sake of knowing them is irrelevant. Homosexuality will always be immoral, even if you know a million homosexuals. And it is a virtual certainty that there always be homosexual activists who will be working to hijack marriage and family; "knowing" homosexuals isn't going to stop that.
So developing personal relationships and friendships with gay people will do nothing to change one's outlook on homosexuality? That's interesting, considering that Christians believe you can change your entire outlook on LIFE simply by reading a book.
The Bible is truth, objective transcendent truth. It doesn't change based on feelings, just as facts don't change based on feelings.
Homosexuality won't suddenly become moral because I know one or one million homosexuals, and homosexuality won't suddenly become healthy because I know one or one million homosexuals. It will still be an immoral and unhealthy practice.
Based on the much larger Pew study, 26% percent, not 17%, of the U.S. population identifies as evangelical. Given that the key number in this article is inaccurate, I wonder how accurate the other numbers are. Is there any reason why The Christian Post Reporter would want to distort the numbers to make a political point?
And in what sense is the Bible "objective" truth? If that were true, there wouldn't be so many different interpretations.
For it to be "objective", you need evidence outside of your own head that you can point to. This evidence must be observable by everyone, and look the same to everyone, regardless of where they sit.
And how do people who describe themselves as gay Christians fit into your scheme? Do you get to decide that they aren't really Christians, despite their personal experience of their own faith?
I'm afraid I don't know enough about either of those figures to give a good answer. Polling results depend on a number of factors such as the wording of the question, how the question is asked, the sample size, the sample location, etc.
The Bible is objective truth because it is what God has revealed to humanity about the universe, our origins and our destiny. Its objective in the sense that, unlike humans (with our biases, prejudices, ignorance, misinformation, experiences, lack of experiences, and so on) God knows all of reality from start to finish and everything in between because he created it all. And since he knows everything, he isn't missing a part of the picture like human beings are due to those factors I mentioned above. Objective truth is unchanging because it needs no additional information on which to base any potential new conclusions.
The requirements you suppose for objective truth are inaccurate also for many of the same reasons I cited. Some people don't yet have enough knowledge to fully comprehend the objective truth, some haven't yet encountered a measure of it in their experience, and some have preconceived notions and biases that make it difficult to see the truth. You are right, though, that it doesn't come from inside your head--it comes from God, instead. And give that he is infinite, and the scope of his objective truth is almost as infinite (at least in our inability to grasp all parts of it), no human being is ever going to fully attain to it.
But the Bible gives us enough--more than enough--to understand the basics of how the universe came to be in the condition it's in, and the plans God has for the future, and how God wants us to live in the meantime.
I don't get to decide whether anyone is a genuine Christian, homosexual or not; unlike God, I'm not able to look inside a person's heart and soul to see if they've ever been born again, which is what it takes to be a Christian (John chapter 3). Jesus did say that we'll have a pretty good idea of someone's spiritual condition by the "fruit" their live produces (Matthew 7:16); in other words, while no human is perfect--even after being born again--you will generally see the person growing in obedience to God's word (the Bible), with an attitude that sincerely wants to obey God, even though sometimes we give in to temptations...for which there should be regret, if that "born again" experience was genuine.
I do believe (I practically know for sure) that there are Christians who are living a homosexual lifestyle. Author Joe Dallas is one who did for a while, till he realized that as attractive as the "gay gospel" was (a non-judgmental feel-good version of Christianity that left out holiness and repentance, especially with regard to homosexual behavior), it was not the truth, and he's left the homosexual lifestyle behind permanently.
I've never said, and I hope I haven't given the impression, that I believe it is impossible for a homosexual to be a genuine born-again Christian, or for a born-again Christian to fall into the sin of homosexuality. That isn't the case.
But what is clear from the Bible is that someone can't be actively engaging in homosexuality, with no regret or repentance and no struggle to live as God said we should, and be in a good, close relationship with God.
That goes for any sin. A person who's continually stealing from his employer can't be in a good relationship with God because that sin creates a distance between us and God (it's what initially broke face-to-face fellowship with God when Adam and Eve sinned the first time). Someone who's continuing in an adulterous relationship can't be in good standing with God.
That goes for any sin that we're not being on the up-and-up about, i.e. admitting that it's wrong and working to be free of that temptation.
I hope this has been helpful.
Thanks Bob. Knowing how you've redefined words helps to understand what you're saying.
Usually, the word "objective" means that you and I and your Aunt Martha and her friend's cousin can look at something and see the same thing.
But the problem with the style of argument that you adopt is that it's "see, it says so in the Bible, therefore it's true." Part of the problem is that not everyone interprets the Bible the way that you do, and it seems aggressive and arrogant to expect other people to shut up and adopt your interpretation just because you say so.
The bigger problem, though, is that not everyone sees the Bible as the word of God. So when you cite chapter and verse to prove your point, it just is not compelling for those of us for whom the Bible is a collection of writings by some guys who lived in the deserts of the Middle East a couple of thousand years ago. I really don't see why I should hand over control of my life and view of the world to them, much less to you and your particular interpretation.
But I'm relieved to see that you're not passing judgment on the religious faith of some Christians just because they're gay. It will be even better when you learn to extend that lack of judgment to other aspects of their lives that really shouldn't be any concern of yours.
By my reading of the Bible, that's what your God would want you to do.
Something objective is ABLE to be perceived by all; that is not the same thing as WILL be perceived by all. The definition is PERCEPTIBLE, not PERCEIVED. Objective truth is not perceived by all due to something obscuring perception, such as distortions, deceptions, bias, or an unwillingness to perceive it.
As Albert Einstein said of positivism, or the belief that what cannot be observed does not exist: "This concept is scientifically indefensible, for it is impossible to make valid affirmations of what people 'can' or 'cannot' observe. One would have to say 'only what we observe exists,' which is obviously false."
I understand that not everyone believes the Bible or believes that it applies to them. People are free to intellectually accept or reject it as they please. But that doesn't mean it truly doesn't apply to to them, any more than traffic laws apply to everyone, regardless of whether they know about them, care about them, or feel they SHOULD apply to them. If those laws are broken, sooner or later the policeman's flashing lights will intrude on the belief that the traffic laws do not apply to them.
Still, there is considerable evidence supporting the veracity of the Bible, too much and too detailed to get into here, but it's available out there if someone really wants to know. But someone really has to want to know before it can be objectively weighed. You might be surprised, but I've objectively weighed evidence for and against the claims of Christianity (I don't want to believe a lie or myth any more than the next person), and found them to be highly substantial and credible. But that's something everyone has to weight for themselves, at least as far as accepting the truth of it.
If you honestly believe the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality, then you have somehow either failed to read the numerous passages which clearly condemn it, or you have some sort of bias that allows you to override the obvious meaning of these statements. And if you believe the Bible would have me as a Christian say nothing of the truth contained in the Bible, you have also misunderstood or selectively read what it says. There are admonitions in places like Ezekiel 3:18 and in the New Testament to be "salt and light" in a decaying and dark world, to "go forth and teach others and make disciples." If a Christian intends to be obedient, a Christian MUST tell other people about the truth.
There are a number of issues and doctrines from the Bible which are not clearly and explicitly defined. For instance, some Christians disagree over whether it is morally acceptable to go to the movies, and some disagree over whether dancing is morally acceptable.
However, most moral precepts in the Bible are clearly defined and beyond any reasonable disagreement. Homosexual behavior, like murder, theft, adultery and many other behaviors, is one of them.
"I've objectively weighed evidence for and against the claims of Christianity"
Ah, yes, but by the Bob definition of the word "objectively", not by the definition used in the vast majority of the English speaking world.
The essential claims of Christianity include:
* man was born with Original Sin,
* Jesus was the son of God in a unique way different from anyone who ever lived or ever will live,
* Jesus suffered and died for our sins, and
* through faith in Jesus as our saviour we can attain eternal life.
Something like that, right?
Well, not a single one of those can be demonstrated as fact by pointing to something outside of your head. It's so because you believe it's so. Fine, if that works for you. But don't force your version of reality on the rest of us where it's no concern of yours.
I'm not saying that your God doesn't exist. Maybe you're precisely correct about all of this. But you have no evidence beyond your own personal experience, and that personal experience doesn't give you the right to tell others how to live.
I cannot empirically prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the truth claims of the Bible, as practically all of it happened thousands of years ago.
But there is tremendous historic and documentary evidence in support of the Bible's claims--evidence outside the Bible, I'm sure you'll be happy to hear. There are several references of extra-Biblical government officials and historians to the people and claims of the Bible, and they are in harmony with what the Bible says.
Archaeological evidence is continually proving and authenticating the claims of the Bible. For instance, the walls of the ancient city of Jericho were found in the 1930s, and they were found to have fallen OUTWARD (not something that usually happens when a city is attacked from outside). Also, historians once scoffed at the references to the Hittite people in the Bible because no extra-Biblical archaeological evidence had ever turned up...but it has now. There was also scoffing about King David, with many secular historians doubting there had ever been a House of David in Israel's history...until about 10 years ago when a fragment of an ancient monument was unearthed referencing the "House of David."
There are also many scientific claims made in the Bible which were not authenticated until modern or relatively modern times, such as that the earth is round, that the universe is expanding, and that our blood is what keeps us alive by circulating oxygen.
There is more solid historical proof of the existence of Jesus Christ than there is Julius Caesar. There are also more surviving ancient documents of Biblical origin than there are the Greek classics.
And in all of history, not a single thing in the Bible has been disproved or proven to be false. With that kind of track record of veracity, I found solid basis to give those other supernatural claims a serious look...and found them to be plausible, too. So much so that, like a kid jumping off a diving board into his father's arms below, I reckoned that there was sufficient reason to believe God would "hold me up" if I made the leap of faith, and I've staked my life here on earth and for eternity on that belief. And I have NOT been disappointed a single moment.
Investigating that information, along with weighing it and evaluating it, is something that each of us has to do for ourselves. Even the renowned atheist Anthony Flew did this...and just a few years ago announced that the evidence led him to the conclusion of the truth of God.
Just as we do in our criminal justice system, we should weigh all available evidence with an open mind, then make a determination based on the weight of that evidence.
I've found that the evidence in favor of the truth claims of the Bible vastly outweigh those contentions in opposition.
And in a free society, no one gets to dictate the faith or theological allegiance of another person. But someone's values must and will win out in the public square. They always have and they always will, and for most of American history those dominant values have been Christian ones. I have every right to promote the ones I believe are accurate, and attempt to convince others that they are the best course of action for our republic.
And that's what I'm doing.
Bob - i think that it's interesting that some of the historical events in the Bible are corroborated by physical archaeological evidence. But the same is true of Greek and Roman mythology, and I'm not about to start believing in Zeus and Hera and Neptune and Persephone. I suspect you're not, either.
Incidentally, it would be intriguing if the Bible describes the role of blood circulation in carrying oxygen, since it wasn't understood (at least not in Europe) that blood flow is a closed, recycled circuit until the 16th century, and oxygen wasn't discovered until the 17th century. I suspect that it was something rather metaphorical that can now be interpreted in that light, but that doesn't mean that that was what they were thinking at the time.
It's wrong, however, to say that people thought that the Earth was flat until recent times. In fact, people have known for thousands of years that the Earth is round. It's easy to see from the shores of an ocean or large enough lake, and easy to demonstrate in a boat.
But none of that is germane to my question. I asked about evidence for the important, central claims of Christianity (see my previous post). There isn't any. There can't be. That's ok, as religion and spirituality aren't mean to deal with things that can be explained by observations. But don't try to claim that it's a truth that can be objectively (empirically) known.
You certainly have a right to participate in the public discourse. But you have no right to expect that the laws of this country will conform to your reading of the Bible, just because that's how you read the Bible. Otherwise, as I've said before, we get into the game of "my God can beat up your God."
I'm puzzled by what you and people who push similar arguments think is important. Your reading of the Bible seems to focus on what we should not do, rather than what we should do. Further, your obsession seems to be with private behaviors, especially concerning sex. So colossal public sins of commission, such as waging unprovoked wars, seem to be unimportant to you. And public sins of omission, such as failing to provide support for the poor, something Jesus certainly advocated, do not appear on your radar.
The same is not true of Jupiter and Zeus et al. There is no evidence of their truth claims.
The laws of our country have for the most part over most of our history conformed to the Bible. That conformity has produced the greatest, most powerful, most free, most prosperous nation in history. And I'd like to see that success continue.
The reason it seems the Bible seems to focus on what we SHOULDN'T do is because we are essentially free to do most things, good things. It's only things that are hurtful to ourselves and others and contrary to God's character that are not allowed. The thing is, since Adam and Eve introduced sin into the world, we're all born with a "sin nature" that is predisposed to sin. So we tend to want to do the things we shouldn't do, even when there's a wider variety of good things to do.
And the obsession is not really with sex from the Biblical position. Unfortunately, secular society is obsessed with sex (homosexuality, sex outside marriage, adultery, selling sex in every facet of the media), so if Christianity is going to be the salt and light it's supposed to be, we have to counter that erroneous message. Saying that Christianity is obsessed with sex is the epitome of the pot calling the kettle black and then some. Or more aptly, the burglar claiming that cops are obsessed with burglary because they caught him.
Unprovoked wars are extremely important to Christians. That's why we fought back against Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait and restored sovereignty to our ally. That's why we finished the job that was started in 1991 and never finished, when Saddam refused to abide by his disarmament agreement. That's why we invaded Afghanistan to wipe out the elements behind 911 and the ruling government which harbored this unprovoked attack.
Christians also support the poor; it's why we establish benevolence funds and programs such as we have in my church, and why we have community poverty programs such as Love INC, which I support financially. What we do NOT support is government-coerced charity. The constitution doesn't allow it, the Bible doesn't support it, and it robs the taxpayer of his money against his will while robbing both the giver and the receiver of the blessing of freewill charity given out of genuine concern.
I'll keep it simple this time so that it'll be harder for you to avoid the key question (though you're quite good at it).
My question is, what is the empirical evidence for the important, central claims of Christianity (see my previous post for a list)?
"The same is not true of Jupiter and Zeus et al. There is no evidence of their truth claims."
Bob, I don't think that Jupiter and Zeus actually exist, or ever did, so they can't have made any "truth claims." What I said was that some of the historical details in mythology can be corroborated by physical, empirical evidence. But that corroboration does not argue for the existence of Zeus, nor do any historically correct details in the Bible establish as fact the idea that Jesus was the unique son of God who died for our sins, nor that belief in Him will bring us eternal life.
"The laws of our country have for the most part over most of our history conformed to the Bible. That conformity has produced the greatest, most powerful, most free, most prosperous nation in history. And I'd like to see that success continue."
I don't know if you've spent much time in other countries, Bob, but this obsession with "greatness" is embarrassing, as if the U.S. were some sort of two-bit backwater that just got its independence ten years ago.
Most powerful? Any astute observer of history or current events know that having the most and the largest weapons, or being about to wreak the most havoc and destruction, does not make you the most powerful in any constructive sense.
Most free? Debatable. That's especially true of middle class white guys who don't get hassled for walking down the street while black, and for people who don't have to chose between paying their utility bill or taking their kid to the doctor. Which brings us to...
Most prosperous? This is a demonstrable fantasy, even by the standard economic indicators used by mainstream capitalist economists, such as per capita income or purchasing power. And the disparities in wealth in this country are shamefully high.
Conspicuously absent from your erroneous list of chest-thumping superlatives is education. At least you have the sense not to proclaim that the people in the U.S. are anywhere near the best educated.
"Unprovoked wars are extremely important to Christians. That's why we fought back against Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait and restored sovereignty to our ally."
Revisionist nonsense. Why, then, did the U.S. support Iraq in their unprovoked war on Iran? You must have seen the photos of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein.
And why was the official diplomatic message conveyed to Hussein before he invaded Kuwait, that if he were to do so, it would be none of our business?
Why did the U.S. invade and occupy Haiti from 1915 to 1934?
Why did the U.S. send troops to intervene (unsuccessfully) in the Russian revolution in 1917?
Why did the U.S. side with France in their efforts to reestablish colonial control in Viet Nam after both WWI and WWII, despite letters from Ho Chi Minh requesting support from presidents Wilson and then Truman?
Why did the U.S. overthrow the elected governments of Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, and Chile in 1973?
Why did they send 15,000 troops into Lebanon in 1958?
Why did the U.S. invade Panama in 1989?
And so on, and on.
The short answer: always for economic and political reasons, not as a result of any threat.
And of course, the entire United States was taken from Native Americans by force, and the southwestern quarter of the lower 48 states was taken from Mexico by force.
Reality is messier than you think. Faced with the reality of what the U.S. has been involved in throughout history, you can revise your view of reality to allow you to continue to believe in all those superlatives to which you're so attached. Psychologists call this "dissonance reduction." Or, you could hold our country to a higher standard. Some people think that this is what someone who really loves their country would do.
And I've already given you my answer.
I think fear is the main reason why Christians don't accept homosexuality. "I want to accept your lifestyle as normal, but my religion doesn't allow it." Well, religion is a choice. If you really want to accept your friend's homosexual lifestyle, then choose a religion that says it's ok. Or, if you're the type of person who's strong enough not to need a book to tell you what to think, then you won't need religion at all. Either way, stop hiding behind verses like Leviticus 18:22 to justify your fear of rejecting parts of Christianity, and try looking at gay people for who they really are. If you form a personal friendship with a gay person and STILL think his sex life is immoral and perverse, and think that way only because a book tells you to, then I've got news for you: you're a homophobe.
Did you hear what you just said, Anonymous? If you want to accept your friend's immoral and unhealthy lifestyle, just pick another religion that is okay with it.
By the way, none of the major religions are okay with it, so I guess you need to find an obscure one.
Did you realize you just said, "If truth doesn't allow you to embrace morality, then abandon truth for immorality"?
Fear could be an issue for some Christians, but I don't think it is for most. I'm not afraid of homosexuals; I've known several over the years and have regular contact with one currently
Most Christians who oppose homosexuality do so from a moral and Biblical basis. The Bible makes it very clear in both the Old and New Testaments that God designed human sexuality to be expressed between a man and a woman within marriage, and God specifically states in both Old and New Testaments in multiple references that he disapproves of homosexual behavior.
I've got news for you, Anonymous: if you form a personal friendship with a homosexual and STOP thinking his sex life is immoral and perverse, you've abandoned truth and morality.
"if you form a personal friendship with a homosexual and STOP thinking his sex life is immoral and perverse, you've abandoned truth and morality."
Wrong Bob. It only means that this person doesn't subscribe to Bob truth and Bob morality.
You know, Bob, you are convincing me that your fascination with other people's sex lives and genitalia is, for you and people like you, basically a form of pornography. I really give no thought at all to other people's sexual acts. It's none of my business.
You really have almost nothing positive to say, and virtually nothing to say about what people should do, only what they shouldn't do, with an obsessive focus on sexuality.
So far you've only succeeding in making me think that you must find it titillating. Why don't you lay off the porn, stop making a fetish of other people's bodies and sexualities, and try to find something constructive to say?
KM, you are the personification of the pot calling the kettle black.
You and others like you shove sexuality, usually perverse sexuality, in the faces of the American public on a daily basis, even demanding that we celebrate it as "normal" and you have the gall to say that I am obsessed with people's sex lives and genitalia. That's a good one!
You'd like to hear me say what people SHOULD DO (because you've missed the myriad other times I've said it)? People should strive to live moral and healthy lives, keeping sexuality within the confines of marriage. Having tried it the illegitimate way, and now the legitimate way (with my wife) I can say hands-down that it is tremendously more fun, fulfilling, exciting, healthy and uplifting than sex outside marriage.
People SHOULD have sex in the best, most satisfying, most healthy way possible: as God designed it, in marriage.
And stop talking about it in public.
Bob, you're wrong, still.
Never, here or in any public forum have I advocated any particular sexual practices, nor have I advocated celebrating anyone's sexuality.
What I have argued here is that people should mind their own business, stop obsessing over other people's private lives, and stop trying to turn this country into a medieval theocracy.
Bob,
I hate to call you a liar, but I'm having a hard time believing you when you say you have known gay people over the years and are currently in contact with one.
In other threads, you've said things like "I wish I could forget all about homosexuality, I really do." Every article you write on the topic is negative and has nothing good to say about homosexuality or homosexual people -- except for the empty, obligatory phrase "I don't hate homosexuals." (as if saying that excuses your homophobia.)
I doubt that you have a single gay friend, because if you really mean what you say about wishing you could forget about homosexuality, I'd think you would try to get these awful, diseased gay people as far away from you as possible.
This acquaintance of yours with whom you have regular contact is probably in your life only because you think you can "free" him from his "destructive lifestyle." I doubt you have any genuine interest in him as a person; to you, he's just another opportunity to score points for God. And that's truly sad.
What kind of person would tell his "friend" that although he loves him, he finds his sex life to be a disgusting abomination and doesn't want him to talk about it in his presence, or in public, or at all? What kind of person would call his "friend's" relationship with someone he loves a "counterfeit," and support legislation that would deny him and his partner equal protection under the law?
Meanwhile, you expect people to stop talking about sexuality in public -- a gift from God that should be celebrated as a fact of life rather than a shameful secret -- and you have the hypocritical audacity to say, "Having tried it the illegitimate way, and now the legitimate way (with my wife) I can say hands-down that it is tremendously more fun, fulfilling, exciting, healthy and uplifting than sex outside of marriage."
Listen to your own advice: stop shoving your sexuality in my face!
Anonymous, you too sound like the kind of hypocrite KM aspires to.
Homosexuals march in the streets with "pride" events, continually demand that everyone "celebrate" their sexual perversions, demand special rights to force everyone to accept their sexual practices, and have the ultimate arrogance to demand they be allowed to call their homosexual unions "marriage."
All this activity is pressed day in and day out for years on end...and you say I am obsessed with sexuality just because I expose your lies and your agenda?
You are either a brazen hypocrite, or are simply spouting the kind of propaganda that homosexual activists have long and with some success used to silence people who know the truth.
Won't work here. Go peddle your silly insults to someone stupid enough to believe it.
Bob,
Excuse me, but what exactly did I say that's hypocritical? Why do you call them "my" lies and "my" agenda? For all you know, I could be a moderate observer, but you seem to stereotype me as one of those God-hating liberals/homosexual acvitists you despise so much simply because I question the sincerity and integrity of your "Christian love," which looks more and more like unabashed homophobia.
You seem to have a lot of pent-up anger. I'll pray for you.
I think I just heard another dose of hypocrisy. :-)
If you excuse or rationalize this behavior, then "moderate observer" or not, you've embraced it and put yourself in its camp.
Christian love doesn't excuse immorality, nor does it pretend something that is immoral and unhealthy is normal, natural and healthy. That would be like a doctor who examines a smoking patient, finds cancer, then tells the patient: "Everything looks fine! So wonderful you're living a healthy lifestyle."
If it's not simply a ploy or unwitting hypocrisy and you actually believe that's what Christian love means, you really should read the Bible very closely. Jesus didn't operate that way, and he doesn't expect his disciples to, either.
"If you excuse or rationalize this behavior, then 'moderate observer' or not, you've embraced it and put yourself in its camp."
Thanks for telling me which box I belong in, Bob. I know that's what you have to do to understand certain things. Makes it easier for you to determine whom you should hate.
I wish you would just be honest and admit what your comments and articles practically scream: you hate gay people. You hate what they do, how they live, what they say, what they represent, what they threaten to do to your beloved country. You hate them. And you only associate with them under the condition that they see things your way. If not, you want nothing to do with them and would prefer it if they magically disappeared from the face of the earth. You hate them, and you hide behind the Bible to mitigate and justify your blinding animosity.
Just be honest about it. You're starting to embarrass yourself.
Of course, you can't admit this publically -- you have a conservative Christian newspaper to run, after all, and nobody wants a hypocritical bigot representing them. So deny your homophobia all you want; you're the one who has to live with it.
I don't hate anyone, including homosexuals. I have no reason to hate them or anyone else.
I do refuse to say homosexual behavior is normal, natural or healthy because it is not.
And the fact that activists push legitimization of the behavior so hard is a travesty, because it makes it more difficult for people trapped in addiction to that behavior to get out of it when people are telling them it's just fine. It also makes it easier for others who may be confused to fall into it when so many people tell them there's nothing wrong with it from a moral or health perspective.
If warning someone from a spiritually, emotionally and physically destructive behavior is "hate" then I'm a hater. But then so are doctors, parents, policemen, and Jesus Christ himself--because they all warn people about things that will be harmful to them.
That's it, Bob. Keep hiding.
Anonymous, you too sound like the kind of hypocrite KM aspires to.
Now Bob, I've never called you any names (although I might have referred to you as a Christian, or maybe even "Christian", with the quotation marks only meant to imply that it's a descriptor that the person applies to themselves). I don't think that I've even disparaged your intentions, not deliberately, anyway.
In fact, I think that it's possible that you have sincere good intentions. But people can do some really disastrous, awful, mean things based on good intentions. Only you know what's in your heart. I'm more concerned with the consequences of your -- and other people's -- actions.
So let's not stoop to name-calling, ok?
I didn't "stoop to name-calling." I described you and your behavior: hypocrisy.
As Jesus did in Matthew 7:5 when he said "You hypocrite"
And in Matthew 15:7 when Jesus said "You hypocrites!"
And in Matthew 22:18 when Jesus said "You hypocrites."
And in Matthew 23:13 when Jesus said "You hypocrites!"
And in Matthew 23:15 when Jesus said "You hypocrites!"
And in Matthew 23:23 when Jesus said "You hypocrites!"
And in Matthew 23:25 when Jesus said "You hypocrites!"
And in Matthew 23:27 when Jesus said "You hypocrites!"
And in Matthew 23:29 when Jesus said "You hypocrites!"
And in Mark 7:6 when Jesus said "You hypocrites"
And in Luke 6:42 when Jesus said "You hypocrite"
And in Luke 12:56 when Jesus said "Hypocrites! "
And in Luke 13:15 when Jesus said "You hypocrites!"
If Jesus "stooped to name-calling," I'm in good company.
With "pride" marches, fake documentaries, demands to meet with church leaders to legitimize homosexual behavior, demands for special "rights" to force people to accept homosexual behavior, demands to serve in the U.S. military, demands to be called a woman while having a penis, demands to be called a man while having female reproductive organs, demands by men to use women's restrooms and locker rooms because they "feel" like a woman, demands to call homosexual unions "marriage," you and others who promote and defend this immoral and unhealthy behavior and force it into the public square and into everyone's faces on a daily basis...and say that people who stand against this onslaught of immorality are obsessed with sexuality and genitalia.
I'll say it again: You hypocrite!
I hope that clears things up.
I'm confused...I thought it was gay people who insist on using the Bible to justify hurtful behavior. You've now excused your childish name-calling with "Look, Jesus did it too, that means I'm allowed!"
This is what I meant when I said you seem to have a lot of anger, Bob. You just cataloged everything you hate about the "gay agenda," and you expect me to believe you when you say that despite all of this hatred, not the slightest bit of it is directed toward gay people themselves? Right.
As long as we're pointing fingers over who is more obsessed with sexuality, I did some perusing on this site and found an article on the Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco. In it, you provide a link to three pages of photos covering the event, and you even give readers the option to click on each photo to see the uncensored versions.
Now, my logic may be a little skewed (I am gay, after all), but this strikes me as a little, well, hypocritical. You consistently decry how gay activists throw their sexuality in your face, yet you provide your readers with pornography and the option to view
the very thing you're condemning. If it weren't for you, they may never have seen any of it.
You've proven yourself to be quite adept at rationalizing your actions, so I'm interested to hear what kind of biblical permission you have to show pornography on a Christian website.
Oh, are you at a loss for words, Bob? In your defense, I think the link to those Folsom pictures was provided by a commenter, not you, but you get to choose which comments get posted, so you had the chance to deny readers access to pornography and didn't. Do you think Christ approves of that?
I thought I had responded to this several days ago, but my comment must have gotten lost in etherspace.
Yes, Anonymous, your logic is skewed. Those links were provided so that otherwise ignorant people could see the unvarnished truth of what they're supporting when they acquiesce to or support the homosexual agenda.
You might find them pornographic (i.e. sexually exciting), but the people for whom the link was provided almost certainly would not. The link was provided for the same reason the pictures were provided (if I remember correctly, AFA posted them online): so that people could see the real face of what they're supporting when they support the homosexual agenda.
As outlined by Kirk and Madsen in their playbook ""After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s," homosexual activists have worked very hard to put a good face, a normal face, on their agenda, and it has worked as successfully as Kirk and Madsen had hoped for. The general American public doesn't see the obscenity, the depravity, the pain and degradation, the hurting souls or the unhealthy lifestyles of homosexuality. They usually only see the sanitized, whitewashed pretty-face put forward by the movement and aided by the "mainstream" media.
So you're hypocritical "would Jesus approve" garbage won't fly here. You can go try it on some gullible Christian, but it won't fly here.
And I am angry at the lies being spun by homosexual activists and their "useful idiots" in the "mainstream" media who present homosexuality as "normal, natural and healthy" when it is none of those things. Not only the truth being buried and lies being promoted, people are being deceived into this sin and deceived into staying in this sin. And yes, Jesus became angry at people's brazen and unrepentant sin. Anger is appropriate in the face of things like unabashed lies, attempts to deceive, behavior that endangers others, and makes a mockery of God's truth. The Bible makes it clear that anger is a God-given emotion designed to motivate us to action in the face of these things, and we are instructed not to let that anger get away from us to the point that we sin. Hopefully I won't get angry to the point where I drive someone out of somewhere with a whip like Jesus did. He did so without sin; I'm not sure I could get that worked up without going too far.
Just so that you know, the hypocritical "oh you're so angry" protest won't fly here either.
I hope that adequately answers your query (provided there is any level of sincerity in the query).
"Those links were provided so that otherwise ignorant people could see the unvarnished truth of what they're supporting when they acquiesce to or support the homosexual agenda."
That's like providing a link to Fred Phelps's website and saying, "Look, this is the real face of Christianity that you're supporting!" Use your brain, Bob. Most gay people are not like the ones you see at the Folsom Street Fair, just like most Christians are not (as) deluded and hateful as the Westboro Baptist Church. You are using an extreme minority to sensationalize the issue, turning it into propaganda and showing it as an accurate representation of average gay people. You are promoting stereotypes, not challenging them.
Contrary to what you assumed, I did not find the photos sexually exciting, but I did find them pornographic. I find it particularly odd that you allowed a link to photos that give readers the option to view the uncensored image. Isn't that a little gratuitous? Does seeing a man's unobscured penis rather than a blur really change the impact of the photo? I remember you writing an article about a show on CBS that depicts loose sexuality and how depraved it is that something like that is on television. But when it's in your best interests to show uncensored pornography, you see no problem with it.
I wonder how you'll excuse your actions when you stand before Christ for judgment.
A simpler test for determining the appropriateness of what you allowed: would you feel comfortable making a slideshow of those Folsom Street Fair photos and showing them to a church congregation?
Anonymous 1:02, In the proper setting and context, I would.
And this ain't church.
Don't let hypocrisy get in the way of using common sense.
Anonymous 12:45, I think you're pretty hypocritical, Anonymous, to talk to me about standing before Christ to be judged for educating people about the depravity that's being foisted on society as legitimate when you defend this kind of depravity. I'm willing to accept judgment (not that I'd have any choice anyway) for doing that. Are you willing to accept judgment for defending something God has specifically stated multiple times that he abhors? Maybe you are, but I'd advise thinking about that long and hard.
Westboro Baptist Church is about 9 ultra-wacko morons that no one in the Christian community defends. The Folsom Street Fair is said to be attended by nearly half a million people; I'd say one is a little more representative of the associated group. What's more, I don't know of any homosexuals who disavow this behavior (are you willing to condemn it?). The closest I've seen is when Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in "After the Ball" said the homosexual community needed to hide stuff like this from the media eye in order to make it easier for their media allies to present homosexuality as normal; but that isn't a condemnation, but a cover-up.
By the way, I seem to recall you first mentioning the Folsom Street Fair link in connection with "pointing fingers over who is more obsessed with sexuality." I think it goes without saying that the folks there are, uh, just a little obsessed with sexuality.
CBS depicts and PROMOTES loose sexuality with an intent of pushing and expanding the envelope. The intention of providing a link to what goes on at the Folsom Street Fair is educational in purpose with the intent of SHRINKING the envelope of sexual depravity by allowing people to see what it is they're supporting when they support this agenda. This is the same strategy when twisted and mangled cars are shown at a fair, or slides of drunk driving victims are shown to school kids, or pictures of aborted children are displayed--to inform and to warn.
If you don't like it, don't come back here. The choice is yours.
Post a Comment