A religious push against gay unions
April 24th, 2006From the New York Times:
About 50 prominent religious leaders, including seven Roman Catholic cardinals and about a half-dozen archbishops, have signed a petition in support of a constitutional amendment blocking same-sex marriage.
Organizers of the petition said it was in part an effort to revive the groundswell of opposition to same-sex marriage that helped bring many conservative voters to the polls in some pivotal states in 2004. The signers include many influential evangelical Protestants, a few rabbis and an official of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Union University President David S. Dockery is one of the letter’s signers.
“We are convinced that this is the only measure that will adequately protect marriage from those who would circumvent the legislative process and force a redefinition of it on a whole of our society,” the letter reads. “We encourage all citizens of good will across the country to step forward boldly and exercise their right to work through our constitutionally established democratic procedures to amend the Constitution to include a national definition of marriage.”
The letter argues that marriage, which for thousands of years has been defined as a bond between one man and one woman, is a vital component of civil society.
“Marriage is particularly important for the rearing of children as they flourish best under the long term care and nurture of their father and mother,” the letter reads. “For this and other reasons, when marriage is entered into and gotten out of lightly, when it is no longer the boundary of sexual activity, or when it is allowed to be radically redefined, a host of personal and civil ills can be expected to follow.”
Those signing the letter cite their concern with divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, absentee fathers and the trend of some courts to make marriage “an elastic concept” that can accommodate individual preference.
Others signers include James Dobson, Charles Colson, Paige Patterson, Daniel Akin, Timothy George and Richard Land.
The entire letter can be read at www.religiouscoalitionformarriage.org.
I teach a Bible class to a group of 6th-10th graders at our church’s Christian school. I’ve selected Colson’s “How Now Shall We Live?” as our text this quarter. Just gave my final exam this morning. And even 6th graders understand the concept that we must translate the culture according the The Word, not the other way around. May God bless the fortitude of Drs. Dockery, Land, Akin, Dobson, and those who stand unswervingly upon biblical principle.
Tony, speaking teacher to teacher, do you think this is healthy for the education of your students? Religious schools of any kind…Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish…seem to be more about indoctrination than education.
What’s wrong with indoctrination of children? Doesn’t Deuteronomy 6:4-7 tell us to do so?
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
You are wasting your time, Gordon. Some people ignore the passages of the Bible that are not convenient to them. I am glad I am not in the ‘mainstream.’ I think that stream is polluted anyway.
Gordon…indoctrination? That is very scary. The whole purpose of education is to give students information that they need. It is to equip them to make decisions for themselves as adults. When children are indoctrinated, their freedom to make decisions is gone. My 6 year old son wants to go to mass with his friends from school. I do not hold him back, though I do not agree with the Catholic church on a great many issues.
I would not call what I’m “doing” indoctrination. Teacher to teacher, if we’re being candid, you and I both enter our respective classrooms with a certain perspective on “truth”. I’m confident that I’m no more guilty of indoctrination than you are. One may call his approach “open-minded” or “tolerant”, but that doesn’t necessarily make it so.
If you would take a look at this book (granted, it is written from an evangelical worldview), you would notice that many different worldviews are presented. I teach / train my students to know The Word. When you know The Word, anything that is not The Word is revealed as lacking in terms of authority.
Then how do you respond to the text I quoted?
I view it in the sense that I would the Koran or the Communist manifesto.
So you equate the Word of God with secular material. If I may be so bold as to ask a personal question, upon what does your belief in the existence of God, faith for salvation and hope of eternal life rest?
Gordon, I treat all literature the same. This “book”, the Bible, is something that I am unsure about. I base my eternal rest in the FACT that the Christ paid the ulitimate sacrifice to save my soul from fellowship with God. I don’t necessarily believe in a fire and brimstone “hell”. Not as we have become accustomed to visualizing it. But “the absence of God.” As evil as this world can be, we can see God everywhere. Can you imagine a greater “hell” than the absence of God?
“The whole purpose of education is to give students information that they need. It is to equip them to make decisions for themselves as adults.”
You’ve presupposed something here, Don, that I believe is the source of all the head-butting that’s been going on with you and…well….everybody.
Who decides the “information students need”? Is it the school board, the teacher, the curriculum supervisor? Once that individual is identified, then we must ask questions that determine this person’s worldview. Now we have some understanding of what “the information students need” will be in that particular setting. And it will be different from context to contetxt.
Whether any of us cares to admit it or not, we all have a “foundation”. We all have a home-base to which we return to determine right and wrong. While I’m not real fond of labeling folks, your home-base seems to be your vast education. If I’m being honest, education is way too subjective of a foundation. It shifts. Shifting foundations lead to collapse.
Yes. A hell in which one must face the presence of God in all of His holy, merciless anger against sin.
If you can’t stand on the Word of God, then what can you stand on? That “FACT” that Jesus died to cover our sins with his blood, how did you ever come across that truth? I suppose a little bird whispered in your ear? Give me a break.
Marty took the words out of my mouth - a “hell” that is is only the absence of God while impossible, would be nothing compared to the Hell that is more than simply hot. It is enduring the wrath of God in His judgement of those banished there for all of eternity.
A “hell” that is only the absence of God is getting off easy, in my opinion.
And this is the wrath suffered by Christ in my stead.
Jason,
not only is it getting off easy but for a sinner who has nothing but hatred for God in his heart the total absence of God is a dream come true.
“I base my eternal rest in the FACT that the Christ paid the ulitimate sacrifice to save my soul…”
That’s kind of risky don’t you think when you don’t even believe the book that fact came out of? You dinigrate the scriptures every chance you get on this site and then have the nerve to stake your eternity on what they say? That’s like believing what a compulsive liar tells you simply because you like what he’s saying at the moment without regard to all the lies he’s told. If the Bible is untrue, then its untrue, just throw it out. I’m always amazed at people like yourself who want to take comfort in the sriptures but only on your own terms. The Koran says something totally different about how to have eternal rest, how do you know that one’s not the true way? I mean if they are both equal types of literature you really DONT’ know. Maybe you should suit up with an exploding vest as a back up plan just in case this ‘died for my sins’ thing doesn’t work out.
We seem to have established two veins of this thread: the hell vs. Hell topic and the presentation of Christian topics in school systems.
I think my concern here is that while I respect teachers of our children and since I would not want a radical/liberal/pagan/whatever “preaching” in my child’s classrooms, they will not present a truly BALANCED view of opinions that differ from their own.
I understand that a teacher, especially in a public school system, cannot preach an evangelical message in their class if they want to keep their jobs.
I also know that most liberal (for lack of a better term) teachers will do everything BUT present a balanced view of Christian concepts. They’re allowed to “preach” anything but Christian concepts.
So, on one hand, if a Christian teacher presents a truly balanced view of all of the thinking on a concept, are they allowing their students to play Russian roulette with each or risk being considered “lukewarm”?
In any case, I have trouble with elevating non-Biblical texts or lowering the Bible to put them all on the same plane.
I realize this isn’t a complete thought, but rather fragmented comments from this series of posts… Fortunately I’m not a school teacher. My audiences know what they’re in for with me…(Sunday School or my own kids).
I just have to laugh.
You’re not alone, Don. I think more than a few people here are probably laughing at the inconsistencies in your beliefs.
I would be laughing if there was anything funny about what we’re discussing.
When I’m asked questions, I answer them objectively.
When I ask questions, Don just has to laugh.
Am I missing something?
Tim, I have truly become an elitist.
Don, I do not know you, and wouldn’t consider slandering you. My questions would be the same to anyone, named Don or otherwise. If this tickles your funny-bone, so be it.
I however am not laughing either. In fact, although I’m usually silent while reading Tim’s blog, I’m sad that so many of today’s comments (on this and other threads) seem to be centered around or border-line attacking you. Not that I agree with you or that you need protecting, but I believe you are in err and likewise, the rest of this community (Tim’s blog-folk) need to be careful not to make a situation worse.
Don, please understand that I (as that is the only person for whom I can speak) hope you truly know the saving (and judging) God that I know.
(I would have emailed you privately, but…)
Jason, if you’d like to email me privately…Tim totally has my permission to give that address to you.
Tim…what I am saying…it that it is very apparent…that most of your group think they have all of the answers. God, knows, I don’t. Nor do I claim to have them. You guys seem to know it all. (Zips his lips, retreating into his elitist enclave).
Don,
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, because I’ve said this time and again — We don’t have all the answers, and none of us claim to. God does, and they’re found in Scripture. We’re simply pointing out what Scripture teaches.
But I’m going to stop saying that now, because it’s obvious you either don’t understand it or are simply choosing to ignore it.
Tim, if you don’t have all of the answers, how can you point out what Scripture teaches. If it is all correct and all clear, then the answers are quite obvious…or at least one of reasonable intelligence would surmise that.
Don,
So far I have been relatively silent in regards to your posts, but I feel I have to address this issue because it is something I deal with quite regularly. Your position seems to be:
1. The Bible is problematic as a whole and cannot be taken as especially authoritative (no more so than the Koran or the Communist Manifesto).
2. I believe what the Bible says about Christ and about my sins.
3. I am committed to Jesus Christ (as commanded by the Scriptures) and I have believed on Him in the manner prescribed by the Bible.
4. I believe that the results of my faith will be eternal life with Christ, as revealed in the Bible.
(Please let me know if I have errored in adequately exposing your position). Now, I think these are not completely mutually exclusive statements, but they do indicate some problems. I really wish you would honestly consider and answer the following questions:
1. If the Bible is not authoritative, how does one go about recognizing what is and is not authoritative in the Bible?
2. Without bringing personal views (including those indoctrinated into your psyche) with you in your approach to the Bible, how do you objectively garner truth from a document replete with problems? In other words, what scientific approach do you use to separate fact from fiction without the use of subjectivism?
3. How do you trust a document that is 2000 years old (at its earliest, 4000 at its latest) to still hold any truth at all?
4. What extra-Biblical sources of truth might also be consulted in order to come up with the idea that Christ (being the Son of God) died on the cross for our sins?
5. Finally, do you agree with 1 Corinthians 15 in its presentation of what the Gospel is, or are there some things in that passage that you would reject (like the resurrection of Jesus, Sonship of Christ, or our future resurrection bodies)?
I don’t want you to laugh or slough these questions off or anything else. I want you to be honest, forthright, and introspective of your own position. You came here on your own and have made many statements of opinion and asked many questions that were answered. I, as well as others, have now respectfully asked you to answer some of our questions. Please do so. Thanks for your contribution to this thread.
D.R.
I think Tim would agree (and he’ll tell me if he doesn’t) that the Bible clearly has all the answers to the question of mankind’s separation from God and how Christ heals that separation. Scripture does not reveal all the answers to the mystery of God (the Trinity, how God becomes human, how a dead body takes its life up again, election v. responsibility, etc.) which are things we are too finite to understand fully.
Let’s remind ourselves of a couple of Biblical truths here.
We can’t argue someone into the kingdom. Either the Holy Spirit is at work in their lives opening their hearts to the truth or He is not. That’s not to say He will never open their eyes to the truth just because He’s not doing it at the moment but there comes a time to walk away and leave a man where he is to be dealt with as God sees fit rather than to continue to anwer him in his folly.
I’m anxious to see Don’s reply to Daniel’s excellent post.
As for the people that post on here regularly, I think most are like myself–they believe in absolutes that are given to us through the Word. The Bible says Jesus is the Word in 1 John. So if you don’t believe fully in the Word I don’t think one can really fully believe in Jesus. As Christians, while certainly not claiming to know all things biblical, we do not waver that the Bible is the unerrant Word of God.
Does that make any sense?
Let me add one other thing Don in response to your comment on Tim not knowing anything. You should well know that
1) When dealing with anything in regards to God, no one knows everything.
2) When dealing with anything, someone always knows more than someone else does (that’s why we have teachers and students).
3) The only thing that must be true for someone to be a teacher is to know more than those to whom they are teaching.
4) It’s ok to point out errors in others’ logic when you see problems (you-ve done it and we have done it — there’s no reason to make broad sweeping generalizations like “You guys seem to know it all” simply because one is attempting to point out errors they believe exist in your logic — we could just as well say the same for you, but that wouldn’t get us anywhere would it?).
5) It is inconsistant to be irritated at one person you believe has all the answers, and then to reject their position when they tell you they don’t. You can’t have it both ways.
So Don, please just answer the questions above, so as to help us to understand your positions better and see how you connect the dots of your belief system.
Craig — Yes, thank you for clarifying.
Thank you Larry. I agree with you completely. When you read John 6:60-69 Jesus actually does the opposite of what we normally do. Sometimes the soil must be tilled before a seed can be planted. The tilling is God’s job.
The nature of this is debate that it is between a postmodern standpoint and a standpoint that believes that the Bible is primary source for understanding God, His ways, standards, and plans for humanity. A postmodern person rejects such a tenet of belief calling it intolerant, primitive, and ignorant. But I believe that it is possible to believe that tenet withtout being ignorant and intolerant. Because of that it is not wrong to proclaim that tenet. The self-debilitating problem which Postmodernism cannot solve is that a based on a contradiction. I also believe that the origin of this fallacious thought system is that it is a premature reaction to the limits of Modernism. Modernism claimed to be answer to the world, but now we are living in a world with industrial societies which are slowly destroying the planet and modern inventions such as atom bombs which threaten to destroy the planet in one fell swoop. Modernism, like Postmodernism, is opposed to religion and therefore Christianity. The histories of both Modernism and Christianity have flaws. Postmodernism cannot offer an answer because it proudly claims that it does not have one. So I reject it. I ackowledge that it has made some contributions to the discussion on truth, but it has serious problems when it comes to my every day life and society as a whole. Every member of the aforementioned philosophical system excercises faith. I believe faith is one of the few true choices that human beings have. Every decision is then based on that foundational choice of belief. I choose to believe that Christianity (true Christianity) is the truth. This choice is based has multiple rationalities which include experience, beauty, morality, practicality, eternity, etc. Don, there is no meaning, no fulfillment in Postmodernism. It truly is an empty philosophy. I pray that you would reconsider your worldview and align it with the one presented in the Bible. You will find that if you do, as time passes, your life will be make alot more sense, have meaning, and your relationship with God will be much more stronger.
That being said I strongly encourage everyone to send a letter to their senator regarding this issue.
Thanks Josh, that clears it all up. Is it all right if I quote you in my letter to Mr. Forby? Yes the Gary Forby!
Personally, I think all this talk of defending marriage is well and good. But if we really want to uphold marriage, the best thing we can do is to create and maintain good marriages. It’s not the homosexual segment of society that is doing the most violence to marriage. It’s the epidemic of divorce in running rampant in society and even in our churches. We seem to be unable or unwilling to do anything about it.
(Zips his lips, retreating into his elitist enclave.)
Joel let me quote you an article from the May 2006 Citizen magazine entitled “I can answer that”
History tells us that altering God’s plan for marriage and families such as the legalization of the no-fault divorce 40 years ago can lead to ruined lives. Research shows that children from divorced households engage in greater drug abuse, promiscuity and academic failure. Children fare much better when they have a mother and a father at home. Same-sex marriages would intentionally create families in which children would have two mothers and no father or two fathers and no mother.
You may think this same-sex marriage is not the issue but it is. We must learn from our mistakes and defend our families. We must maintain good marriages and we must defend God’s natural plan for marriange and families and subject it to any more derogation than it has already been through.
I love you like a brother Tyler- well said.
Don,
We don’t think you are taking the high road by not answering the questions. You are actually losing our respect. Any hopes you could influence the people on this blog is slipping away right now. Do us a favor and either answer the questions or quit wasting our time. If you are only willing to interact when it is you challenging us, then there is no real conversation, and nothing you say makes a hill of beans difference. I realize they are hard questions, but if they were softballs then you could assume I didn’t respect you. Until this point I did, but I am starting to think that I shouldn’t give you the benefit of the doubt.
Good thoughts Tyler. I’m not saying that this issue is unimportant. I’m just saying that it is not as close to home as other issues involving marriage. I may not know many people who are dealing with homosexuality, but I know plenty who are struggling with their marriages. I don’t believe we need to ignore the threat of homosexual marriage or polygamy, but it seems that to me, where I live, the real threat to marriage is coming from self centered heterosexual people who are married. This is a problem of the heart first. I’m afraid we are focusing on the Law when we should be providing spiritual help and healing.
Conservatives can be abrasive, angry, judgmental and downright mean, but they are not true representatives of any of the faiths for which they claim to speak. I say that because every major religion has had its share. The real issue with these people is not their specific faiths. It’s their addiction to thinking they are right. It’s an addiction to believing they have a corner on the market of truth. In other words, it’s an addiction to a “made-truth,” that is, to a belief that the truths they’ve created in their minds are indeed absolute truths and that everyone else must be made to believe in the same truths lest they perish.
They are addicts. And like other addicts, they do not respond to logic or sound arguments. Like other addicts, in order to feel good, they must believe that their made-truth is the only reality, and they must, therefore, defend that truth against any outside influence. Like other addicts, anyone who threatens to keep them from believing their made-truths is seen as a threat to their own good feelings - or in other words, to be opposed to their brand of made-truth is to be a threat to their personal value as humans, and thus they will attack with ferocity anyone who even questions their veracity. If you don’t believe as they do, you are considered “lost.” If you oppose their political positions, you are considered “blinded by the Devil.” And if you have the gall to argue against their made-truths, you will be called nothing short of “demon possessed” or a “tool of Satan.”
I have a new slogan. “My name is Jeremy, and I am an addict.”
Let me relate this to C.S. Lewis’ The Silver Chair. When Puddleglum was debating the existence of Narnia with the Green Lady, he says “…suppose we have only dreamed or made up those trees and grass… and Aslan himself, then all I can say is the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom is the only world, well it strikes me as a pretty poor one.” The Green Lady says, “and yours is nothing more than a childish play world!” Puddleglum says, ” well I’m gonna stand by the play world. I’m on Aslan’s side- even if there isn’t any Aslan to lead it!”
I choose to be an addict to the Word. I choose to believe this ‘made-truth’ of the Bible. I will believe in the Holy resurrection of Christ even if there was no resurrection. I will believe that Jesus walked on water, even if the ’scientists’ say it was just frozen. I will believe that homesexuality is wrong, even if some people try to rationalize it.
D.R., it looks like it’s pointless in trying to get Don to answer your questions. He’s not interested in a conversation or a dialogue at all.
Don, don’t be fooled or play us as the fools, your children are being indoctrinated…with your values.
Reminds me of the history professor who said, “My books are unbiased. I just present the historical facts.”
Yeah, whatever.
Don actually does a good job of describing himself. His “made-truth” of good feelings through academic achievement assuages low self-esteem brought about by latent homosexual tendencies.
This is the very meaning of “it’s all relative.”
Don will not change his mind, and neither will we.
It is interesting; in Don’s last post beginning at “they are addicts,” he, as Craig says, describes himself while wording it as an accusation against those he disagrees with. I don’t need to be a PHD to see that.
Don,
What do you think about plagarism? Is it true that we shouldn’t quote other people’s work without attributing it to them? Is that a truth that we conservatives shouldn’t defend and is part of addictive complex?
Hmmm….maybe we should all check out this link while we contemplate that.
Here’s another link that maybe we should examine as well.
Thanks Don for the lesson in ethics.
Maybe Don isn’t even real. Maybe hes part of a liberal ‘bot net’ that posts on “Religious Right” Blogs. hmmm Red pilll?? Blue Pill??
Wow. Busted.
You know, I’ve thought Don might just be a 13-year-old girl with a decent reference library. Now I see even the library is fake.
Don
Dude it’s gonna take some serious explaining for you come back from that one. I have really tried to understand where you are comin from and I admit that some of us are not being fair and a little insensitive, but man, that plagarism thing is really bad. I think it shows that you really aren’t thinking for yourself. I really want to welcome you back into the discussion, but I think you have a HUGE apology to make.
By the way, we have kinda gotten off topic a little bit this is turning into a Christianity and Homosexuality Part 2. Maybe that’s ok though. I just thought I would bring it up.
Wow, what a slam-dunk, D.R.!
At the risk of plagarizing another person’s work, my guess is that Don is now “retreating into his elitist enclave” and will probably limit his appearances on this blog.
Actually, no, I posted that deliberately. Brian McElroy has some interesting things to say. Would you have followed my advice to check out his and others’ sites or so? No. Apologies? I think not. If anything, I feel an apology is owed to me.
You wrote something and passed it on as your own. You could have given him credit for writing it or at least put in quotes. That’s plagarism — pure and simple. Whether you did it deliberately or not, it’s still unethical. You can go on denying it if you want, but you sound silly asking us to apologize to you for calling out your mistake. Just as you refused not to answer my questions above, here again you are not helping your cause by your attitute and actions.
That’s really sad, Don. You got caught, and are now trying to rationalize it. Truly pathetic.
I went to the link and read the whole article. I found interesting points in some places but mostly that the author was very poorly informed. The guy’s main problems are 1) he doesn’t understand the purpose of the law is to illustrate God’s character and the gulf that exists between Him and man; and 2) he has chosen to judge Christ through some of His followers.
You chose to do something wrong, and its someone else’s fault….. I love it!!!!
Don, now lets discuss that PHD thingy you got…. Who did you steal that from??
Don, at the heart of credibility is integrity. None of us are perfect, but to intentionally present the work of someone else as your own, then try to blame it on things you have assumed about us really damages your credibility.
Dude I might be easier to understand if it was a few words or something but you copied and pasted an entire paragraph and passed it off as your own. If that’s not unethical, I don’t know what is. Oh and we’re not apologizing for catching you doing something unethical. You have now lost all credibility. I hope you can learn something from this experience. But I doubt that you are very teachable.
There is little doubt in my mind that there was intention to deceive here. If one reads the article cited (yet not referenced), it was not just a simple copy-and-paste, but a careful selection of the pieces/paragraphs he wanted and exclusion of those that he didn’t.
I also know that it’s easy, and has done on this blog as well, to simply state “So-and-so describes how I feel about this subject perfectly, so here’s a link/copy/etc to it”. It’s not hard. It would have required just a handful more words typed in, ideally, a URL pasted in.
Sir, it’s one thing to have a discussion and disagree. It’s quite another to intend to deceive. I could respect you (even while disagreeing) for your views and pray for you that those might change to be more in line with Biblical teachings, but now am concerned that you still have leadership over students.
My question to you, Don, is “Would you have accepted a citation from your students as you gave it to us”? I dare say you would (or should) not. If you wouldn’t, then we all know why and there’s little more to be said of it short of apologies.
Here’s a quick thought of my very own I wanted to share with everyone.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Judge not less ye be judged yourself. Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country. Fight and you may die, run, and you’ll live… at least for a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin’ to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they’ll never take… OUR FREEDOM!
You brought a tear to mine eye.
I might buy myself a Van, move down by the Big Muddy river and be a motivational speaker! Remember that Jeremy when your kids grow up and need some guidance.
Tyler, I thought about writing the same thing in the Open Blog section. How funny? Though a bit scary that someone else thinks like me in any regard.
hmm that is a bit scary. Brilliant minds think alike. My mind is buried deep within this redneck body though. My brilliant thoughts are a lot like a sulfur pit where my brilliant thoughts sort of accumulate beneath my redneck body then bubbles up to the top and BAM! (quoting emeril lagasse there) I spew a brilliant thought onto timellsworth.com.
D.R. If you plagiarize my plagiarized quote what would happen? What would that make you? These questions in my head are driving me crazy.
A plagarist of a plagarist I guess? But then that might be a good thing, since I am stealing from theives. Now if I could only think of a way to give those quotes to the poor, I could be Robin Hood, man of thoughts!
You could speak at the Democratic National Convention. They are poor in thought.