-
Seat of Liberalism
January 21, 2013 | 25 comments
-
Abortion’s Holy Worker
August 1, 2012 | 122 comments
-
Spiritual Decay
November 16, 2011 | 593 comments
-
End of the Mainline
September 21, 2011 | 30 comments
-
Too Messy Even for Liberals
April 27, 2011 | 24 comments
Eminentoes
Whatever Happened To Jennifer Knapp?
Is there an audience for a lesbian Christian rocker?
After an intense burst of publicity following her decision to come out as a partnered lesbian, folk rock musician Jennifer Knapp is now touring for a different audience.
Later this week, the former Christian music star will lecture at a liberal United Methodist congregation in Sacramento alongside New Hampshire’s Episcopal Church Bishop Gene Robinson, whose 2003 election sparked a schism in the global Anglican Communion. Robinson is arguably the most prominent homosexual religious official in the country. Knapp’s co-starring with him showcases her shift from popular evangelical performer to lesbian icon and outspoken Religious Left activist.
Knapp is hardly the first artist to abandon contemporary Christian music (CCM). But where other artists moved into secular music, with its broader audience, Knapp has mostly taken her folk rock to smaller circles — still with religious themes, but with strikingly different priorities from traditional Christians.
A Dove Award-winner who was also Grammy nominated, Knapp released her last album in 2001 and then stepped away from her music career the following year, moving to Australia and then formally announcing a hiatus in 2003. Knapp entered into what she later disclosed as a lesbian partnership.
“I’m certainly in a same-sex relationship now, but when I suspended my work, that wasn’t even really a factor,” Knapp told Christianity Today in an April 2010 interview.
When Knapp reemerged in 2009, public acknowledgement of her lesbianism led to interviews with Larry King and the prominent homosexual publication the Advocate, as well as the extensive Christianity Today interview.
Knapp declined to offer specifics about her relationship, citing privacy. She did complain to CT about the stereotypical “conservative evangelical who uses what most people refer to as the ‘clobber verses’ to refer to this loving relationship as an abomination, while they’re eating shellfish and wearing clothes of five different fabrics…” Of course, she was likening biblical taboos against homosexual behavior to Old Testament prohibitions about seafood and certain clothing.
This summer, Knapp has performed at three events that starkly contrast with her former traditional Christian image.
On June 21, Knapp performed at “Pride and Faith Seattle,” an event at St. Mark’s Episcopal Cathedral sponsored by the Episcopal Diocese as part of the city’s gay pride festival. She was introduced by a homosexual Episcopal priest who did not direct his opening prayer to Jesus, God, or seemingly any higher being at all, but instead prayed to the audience. From there Knapp went on to offer the audience music and humorous banter, and shared the stage with lesbian comedian Lianna Carrera for a question-and-answer session.
Playing “Fallen,” a seeming ode to her female lover, Knapp exclaimed: “If God doesn’t understand how hard I’m trying, I guess I’m screwed.”
For her part, Carrera sang a ranting song aimed at the religious right, noting Old Testament commands to execute adulterers “like Anthony Weiner and Arnold [Schwarzenegger],” and noting the prophet Abraham’s nephew Lot had sex with his daughters,* while deriding the Bible for purportedly treating women as property. “The relevancy of Scripture is something to consider,” Carrera sarcastically crooned. [*Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this story erroneously quoted Carrera’s lyrics as saying God had sex with his daughter (Mary) — the author regrets the error.]
The weekend of June 25, Knapp appeared at the “Wild Goose” festival in North Carolina. Convened by Religious and Evangelical Left activists, the festival served as a mixing pot of liberal political advocacy and post-modern “emergent” theology. As usual, Knapp trumpeted her sexuality rather than citing faith. According to Religion Dispatches, she specifically asked during a set at Wild Goose, “Did anyone here not know that I’m a lesbian?”
While festival organizers proclaimed a “big tent” of inclusion, speakers repeatedly criticized supposed adversaries such as political conservatives, evangelical Christian leaders, the United States government and even contemporary evangelical praise-band leaders. Especially singled out for disdain were Southern Baptists, who were openly ridiculed by almost all of the major speakers.
Most recently, Knapp performed for the joint meeting of the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America (BPFNA) and the Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists (AWAB) at Eastern Mennonite College in Harrisonburg, Virginia July 4-9. The two groups worked hand-in-hand together, introducing Baptist congregations to the liberal “fabulousness that is us” in the words of AWAB leader Robin Lunn. Billed as a “peace camp,” the event demanded pacifism and slammed Israel. As part of AWAB’s efforts to affirm alternative sexualities, campers were invited to the “Prom for ALL,” and coached, “Come in drag or come in your PJ’s!”
Back in Seattle in June, Knapp confessed: “I thought after I came out, I’d never be invited to a church again.” In actuality, Knapp boasted, she’s been invited to even more churches since her coming out. Of course, her new church audiences are staunchly liberal and mostly smaller than typical evangelical audiences.
About the Author
Jeff Walton directs the Anglican program at the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C.
Melvin| 8.10.11 @ 6:54AM
Hmm Seattle (or at least the burbs of it,)and this is now an area where the majority of the residents think its perfectly acceptable to have sexual relations with farm animals.
In your face homosexuality is so....yesterday.
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 8:47AM
Fat ugly old men and women shouldn't talk about pretty lesbians.
Brad| 8.10.11 @ 9:06AM
Yeah.
So shut up, Alan.
Melvin| 8.10.11 @ 9:58AM
Would you be saying the same thing if she was a fat ugly Lesbian, with hair growing out of a mole on her lip?
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 10:29AM
No, I would ask why it is you care at all about a lesbian, former-Christian diva, when so many issues of vastly more importance and interest can be written on. If you don't like or care about this diva then why spend one second thinking about her?
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 11:39AM
Why do you care?
You're commenting all over the page.
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 1:15PM
"Why do you care? You're commenting all over the page."
I did not write the piece, Doc.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 1:30PM
Nice non-reply reply.
No one forced you to read the piece, and no one's forcing you to comment, either.
You chastise others for daring to think this is important when there are so many other "issues of vastly more importance", yet you're reading it and commenting on it yourself.
Do you have a sense of irony?
Or do you simply enjoy being an ass?
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 1:42PM
"yet you're reading it and commenting on it yourself."
YOU are the one making a big Shidoo about a lesbian; a person, I might add, who is better looking than you. I think you are insecure, oversensitive.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 1:44PM
Actually, I have yet to actually type the word "lesbian" (until now), or even comment directly on the article.
Again, Alan...Nice non-reply reply.
Intellectually, you're shooting blanks. Typical Lib.
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 1:32PM
...so first,
please ask Walton why he wrote it. Jennifer is not Lizzie Borden or Leona Helmsley.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 1:45PM
I don't have to ask the author why he wrote it.
It's safe to assume that it's something he finds worthy of mentioning.
Again...What's YOUR excuse?
...crickets...
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 1:49PM
I think now that you guys can't pick on blacks, you will pick on homosexuals.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 2:06PM
LOL!
There's ole' Alana, again...purposefully avoiding the issues with the same tired, old non-sequiters!
That Alan! What a card!
(Alan...You're a joke.)
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 2:17PM
I think you are a congenital liar, Doc. Only way to go from here is to hook you up to a polygraph to discover why it is you pick on gays.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 2:20PM
Hah-Hah-Hah!!! Tee-Hee!!!
There goes Alan, again...He's his own BIGGEST fan!
Ya' know, it's so DANG funny how clever he thinks he is! (But just between you and me, I don't think he's really that smart - but he IS a good poseur!)
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 3:02PM
You are picking on gays, and no amount of obfuscation could possibly hide it.
A half century ago you would have been defending desegregation.
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 3:05PM
...I mean segregation! 50 years ago you would have said:
"desegregation is a matter of the people to decide, not courts. Whites want to be separate but equal.
A free people have a right to refuse service to anyone they wish, but if a negro wont serve me I'll bust his chops."
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 3:09PM
Actually, Alan, it was the Democrat Party - your Party - that defended segregation.
Alan, with every post, you demonstrate your lack of intellectual fiber. If patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, then crying "racism!" or "homophobia!" is surely the last refuge of the Liberal.
Your "tricks" are not even original. They're straight out of the same playbook that the Left has been using for 50 years.
Like I said before, you're a joke.
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 3:32PM
You know very well the southern Democratic party of pre-segregation is not the same as today. Lincoln's GOP is unrecognizable in 2011.
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 3:35PM
I mean pre-desegregation. You know that when Little Rock was first school-desegregated in the late '50s, Southern Dems (but not all naturally) were furious.
Now Southern Dems are much different.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 3:52PM
Actually, the "pre-segregation" Democrat Party has a lot in common with the modern Democrat Party!
BOTH use the black population's status to further a political objective.
The difference is that the "pre-segregation" Democrat Party was up front about how much contempt they have for blacks, while the modern Democrat Party is very good at hiding that fact to deceive blacks.
Funny how black rates of illiteracy, poverty, and illegitimacy have gone UP since 1965, isn't is Alan?
You're in over your head, Alan...
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 6:18PM
The GOP has never done better helping blacks except as tokens.
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 6:22PM
at any rate, the Republican party of Lincoln was not similar to the GOP of today, no more than the Democratic Party of Stephen Douglas was like the Dems of today.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 7:42PM
So there were no Christians in the GOP in 1860?
Or, are you implying that they would have accepted openly gay homosexuals?
You really ARE clueless...
Occam's Tool| 8.11.11 @ 12:37AM
Really---that accounts for all the Southern Black Congressmen until the Democrats shut it down...
The Democrats have always looked upon Blacjks as tokens---witness Daley in Royko's Boss.
Occam's Tool| 8.11.11 @ 12:38AM
"blacks."
Alan Brooks| 8.11.11 @ 2:13AM
What else can I offer, all I have is race baiting. NAMBLA Rocks!
NotALibertarian| 8.10.11 @ 12:32PM
I care because she is being intellectually dishonest when she compares homosexuality to eating shellfish and diverse fabrics. Jesus made it clear that the Lord continues to consider the sexual immorality forbidden by OT Law -- adultery specifically -- to be a serious sin, and Paul, his apostle, confirmed that this includes homosexuality.
It seems that Jennifer Knapp is just an attention-seeking liar.
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 1:18PM
"Jesus made it clear that the Lord continues to consider the sexual immorality forbidden"
Jesus lived too long ago to be an authority of homosexuality; it is comparable to turning to Aristotle for modern advice.
YeloStalyn| 8.10.11 @ 1:29PM
To imply that man hadn't practiced homosexuality very long at that point would also be the same as saying he hadn't figured out hetero sex by then either... which would be rediculous.
You really may be the thickest person I've ever heard/read.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 1:31PM
That may be the STUPIDEST thing you've ever said.
Why do you still cling to Marx and Keynes?
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 1:34PM
Jesus, as Aristotle, lived in a very superstitious era.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 1:47PM
The world of 2,000 was no more or less superstitious than the world of today.
For example, 50% of the US population thinks that spending = saving...
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 1:48PM
That was meant to read "2,000 years ago..."
Vern Crisler | 8.10.11 @ 10:08PM
Dittos Dr. Right....
Margie| 8.10.11 @ 2:03PM
"Jesus, as Aristotle, lived in a very superstitious era."
"Jesus lived too long ago to be an authority of homosexuality; it is comparable to turning to Aristotle for modern advice."
Alan, you speak of Jesus as if He no longer lives. Do you not realize that He died on the cross concerning Sin, and that God actually rose Him from the dead?
He lives, Alan!
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 2:20PM
"He lives, Alan!"
Jesus' legacy lives, if that's what is meant by spirit. But Jesus is dead.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 2:36PM
Actually...wrong again.
One of the cornerstones of Christian belief is that Christ is still alive.
In fact, His ascension was witnessed by thousands, and 12 of the Apostles died violent deaths defending what they had seen.
Yes...It's a matter of Faith. But it's a Faith that saves, and it's not based on wishful thinking.
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 2:59PM
I don't take my cue from you, or the Bible.
Esp. not you.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 3:15PM
Alan, honestly...No one care who you choose to take your "cues" from...
But it REALLY seems to bother you that some people do look to the Bible, doesn't it?
Alan, please...Like many people on this forum, I've seen your type before. Your stance hides, poorly, a deep-seated insecurity that you're NOT the Master of your own destiny, and that acknowledging that simple fact may mean some difficult personal decisions.
So rather than examine what those decisions may be, you choose to ignore them, and metaphorically shoot the messenger.
So let me ask, Alan...
From what source DO you take your "cue"?
Das Kapital?
The DailyKos?
The Advocate?
Whatever it is, until you understand the temporary nature and futility of all man-made endeavors, you'll continue to be a seeker who doesn't even know what he's seeking.
In other words, you'll be an eternally unhappy Liberal.
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 3:41PM
The Bible is not the only holy book. Mormons are as pious as anyone, but they don't read your Bible.
The Bible is the most popular, but not the only holy book. The Urantia Book, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, all of them, are holy books.
The market covers everything, including holy books, that's the way it is in pluralistic liberal democracies; the public picks and chooses. Don't argue with me about why... ask Adam Smith.
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 3:42PM
"Das Kapital?
The DailyKos?
The Advocate?"
Portnoy's Complaint!
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 3:54PM
So you enjoy masturbating with fresh cuts of steak?
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 3:59PM
Ummm...Actually, Alan, Mormons DO read the Bible.
The difference is that they have chosen to add a wholly new book to the Bible, and they call that book "The Book of Mormon."
Yes, Mormons are nice people. So what? The Book of Mormon is completely devoid of any historical or scientific claim to the truth. In fact, it's existence is contradictory to the Bible, but that's a complicated idea that I won't bother explaining since you have a serious knowledge deficit in that area, already.
The Koran? The Bhagavad Gita?
Alan...simply because someone claims to be in possession of the truth does NOT make it so.
YES. I'm saying that the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita are FALSE. Deal with it.
And your reference to Adam Smith is bizarre, to say the least. Religion is NOT about democratic pluralism and free markets. That doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't coexist, but they're completely different.
Carnifex| 8.10.11 @ 4:11PM
According to whom? You can go into any LDS bookstore and find the KJS version in multiple cover styles.
Carnifex| 8.10.11 @ 4:18PM
Sorry, that should be KJ.
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 6:27PM
"The Book of Mormon is completely devoid of any historical or scientific claim to the truth."
Then they do not read the same Bible as you do if such an addition was made. And you would deny religion in America has been commercialized, that it is part of the marketplace of ideas?? and would you deny the role of pluralism is important even in religion?? you bend over backwards to deny.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 7:49PM
Wrong again!!!
You really don't know what you're talking about.
Christians and Jews BOTH revere the Old Testament of the Bible; the difference is that Jews do not read the the New Testament.
In the same manner, Mormons revere "The Book of Mormon" while Christians do not.
And yes, the Book of Mormon has no claim to historical or scientific accuracy. You're not all that familiar with it, so you might want to quit while you're...behind.
Margie| 8.11.11 @ 8:34PM
"And you would deny religion in America has been commercialized, that it is part of the marketplace of ideas??"
Hi Alan,
It is true what you said, but there's a difference between Religion and being Christian.
That's why unless you know what the Bible actually says, you will have all sorts of your own ideas about what God really desires from you, (all of us).
I bet you didn't know that God hates Religion.
I bet you didn't know that He cannot stand prayer by rote.
I bet you didn't know He doesn't require sacrifices and sacraments and burning incense and solemn assemblies?
When Jesus came to be the Saviour of those who are destined to believe in Him, He actually fulfilled everything that the Law and the Prophets spoke about in the Old Testament~ making Himself the Way to God, nailing the requirements of the law to the cross in His Body.
Did you know that what He desires is for you to know Him?
Alan, I implore you dear sir, to kindly consider these things. Not because I said them, but because they're true.
I'm no better than you, in fact, I'm far worse~ and every one of us is like refuse before God. Yet He offers us a way to be restored.
Salvation comes through Jesus Christ, who is alive and hears your prayers.. when you are being sincere, and that goes for anyone.
I mean, all I did a few decades ago was ask Him to reveal Himself to me, along with my promise to be faithful to Him for the rest of my life, and He did it. He promises to do the same for you if you ask Him humbly to do so.
We all think we're little know-it-alls to some degree. But look what the Bible says:
"If any one imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know.
But if one loves God, one is known by Him. 1 Cor. 8:2 & 3.
Look at that~ we can actually become known by Him. And there is nothing~ nothing on earth more wonderful than that.
Jesus died on the cross concerning the sins of the world~ and that HAS to include you!
KyMouse| 8.10.11 @ 7:42PM
Ms. Knapp mentioned "eating shellfish"? When discussing laws given in the time before Jesus, it's important to see if they were superseded or fulfilled by the New Covenant in His blood. Some laws, for example, pertained only to Jews, and some only to Jews when the Temple was standing.
The Holy Spirit (God), inspired the apostle Paul to write in Colossians 2:16 that we should let no one judge us with respect to food or drink, etc.
However, throughout the 1,400 or so years that the Holy Spirit was inspiring the writers of the Old and New Testaments, He never repealed the prohibitions against any form of fornication, which includes homosexuality (the Greek "porneiai," found in Matthew 15:19, for example, covers all forms of fornication, including prostitution, adultery, and homosexual behavior).
From Genesis 19:4-5 to Revelation 22:15, the Holy Spirit warns against these sins.
Go ahead and scoff, but each of us will answer to Him.
Darwin Forever in Delaware| 8.10.11 @ 12:35PM
So many of the posters on this site rage against homosexuals. If this were Nazi Germany, these same posters would be the ones demanding the SS round up the homosexuals and send them to be gassed at the nearest concentration camp.
When reading some of these comments, I sense the most disturbing, raw hatred--a vicious vehemence that makes me wince.
P.| 8.10.11 @ 12:54PM
D. F. in Delaware,
You surely cannot mean what you write. No way.
No one here is rounding up anyone or anything. Nor do they wish to.
What alarms and causes lament here is people (perhaps like you?) who willingly choose to throw their lives away.
Nope, no hatred here. None. Disdain for sinful behavior, yes. Just the same as if I were standing amongst a group of dedicated junkies right now.
I'd be encouraging them -- strongly -- to stop the nonsense and repair their lives.
Because I wish for them the best life possible -- in this life on this earth AND the life ever after.
That is an expression of love.
Margie| 8.10.11 @ 12:59PM
"So many of the posters on this site rage against homosexuals."
Not true~ we speak against Sin, because God hates it, and souls are lost to Hell because of it. It separates us from God, and He is in the business of saving lost souls from Hell.
Those lost souls can only be saved by believing and receiving His Words, and turning from the sin that is sending them to Hell.
It's called the Gospel of Jesus Christ~ and no Christian ever became a Christian without first having to face the fact that sin is sin.
How can one repent if they are in denial of their sin?
"But to all who received Him, who believed in His Name, He gave power to become children of God;
who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God." Jn. 1:12 & 13.
Seek| 8.10.11 @ 2:30PM
Where in the New Testament does Jesus denounce homosexuality? It must be a brief passage.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 2:42PM
You're playing rhetorical games; nice try.
There's LOTS of things that Christ did not specifically mention. For example, his opinions on "ObamaCare" and the cancellation of "Desperate Houeswives" can be debated by reasonable people.
However, to pretend that the New Testament does NOT have anything to say about homosexuality is either willfully misleading or willfully ignorant:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Or...
Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
And how about the Old Testament?
Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
Actually, it wasn't even a nice try...It was kind of sad.
Nick| 8.10.11 @ 5:14PM
Seek,
"[Christ] said to them: Have you not read, that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh."
- Matthew 19: 4-5
God didn't say that a man should cleave to another man, or, that a woman should cleave to another woman, did He?
Sometimes, you guys make this too easy!
YeloStalyn| 8.10.11 @ 1:00PM
Really? Care to share where anyone on Am Spec that disapproves of homosexuality has asked that they be rounded up?
You'll find places where we have asked that they repent... stop lying about their lifestyle (it's not safe, primarily among males) (it's not monogomous by and large... although there are some) (it's not Christian nor is it accepted by Scripture)... stop indoctrinating children that it's OK (the children's book about the penguin with two mommies or daddies or whatever it was for example). But to round them up? That's absurd.
It's not illegal to be homosexual. It isn't illegal to petition your state to recognize gay marriage (but it is to demand it from the Fed and it's also just as legal for people to oppose it in their state). If they're not breaking the law, they can do what they want... but let me do what I want to. I want to restrict them from restricting me... but I do not want to restrict them from being them. And I would wager the vast number (therefore the mainstream) of Christians would agree. You're bound to find some crazies (just the guys who kill abortion doctors... that's not right either)... but by and large, Christians do not want to kill or round up homosexuals. To say so is dishonest and indicitive of "a vicious vehemence that makes me wence."
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 1:10PM
Sorry, but anyone who identifies themselves as "Darwin Forever" might as well be wearing a sign that says "I don't understand science, and I don't care, either".
Keep practicing your wince, though...We're close to reclaiming this country.
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 1:26PM
... Darwin F:
these wingnuts are oversensitive when it comes to sex. Perhaps they are squeamish.
Besides, Jennifer is a Fox; there may be a small amount of jealousy involved.
Guys, you take the Bible too seriously, the Bible doesn't tell you everything, it doesn't tell you how to shine your shoes or part your hair.
You can't even run your life from reading ANY amount of books.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 1:33PM
Actually, the Bible teaches you how to deal ANYTIME with ANY situation (or person) you may encounter.
In that regard, Alan, there's nothing original about you or your shtick.
As the Bible says: "Only the fool in his heart believes there is no God."
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 1:35PM
"As the Bible says: 'Only the fool in his heart believes there is no God.' "
Not the swine God you worship.
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 1:37PM
The GOP pig God you worship shall burn in Hell for all eternity!
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 1:52PM
Oh, yeah...that makes sense.
Alan, you're a typical Liberal. When you have nothing left to contribute of any intellectual substance (which usually happens pretty quickly with Libs), you resort to base, vulgar insults and silly attempts at "shocking" comments to try and distract people from realizing that you haven't a clue about w3hat you're posting.
Sorry, Alan...But we knew that long ago. We keep you around for the entertainment value.
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 2:23PM
I don't say Margie worships a pig God- she uis sincere- but you are not.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 2:59PM
Really? How so? Please...enlighten me.
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 3:14PM
Apropos this thread, you are hiding the fact you want to pick on gays. Saying 'love the sinner but not the sin' isn't accurate; you don't care for gays or their orientation. Now, you don't have to like gays at all..
but they don't have to like heteros at all.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 3:28PM
Oh, Alan...You've found me out!!!
Listen everyone...per Alan Brooks: I WANT TO PICK ON GAYS!!!
Ok...Are you ready? I'm gonna' do it! Ready? Here it comes!...No, wait...Hold on! I gotta' spit out my gum...OK! Now I'm ready!! OK...1, 2, 3!!
"Gays are, like, so gay!"
HAH-HAH!!! Bask in my vicious homophobia!!
Watch out, San Francisco! Here comes the pogrom!!!!!
Mwooh-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!!!!!
(That was supposed to be an evil laugh. Did it work?)
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 1:49PM
Really?
Please...enlighten us.
Careful, Alan...your faux-intellectual veneer is crumbling.
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 2:29PM
Well, some are sincere, some use Jesus as an ideological weapon; maybe 50%.
For every Reverend Billy there is an Elmer Gantry.
I mean the way you guys diss (you obviously don't like her much) Jennifer, you ARE being swinish. She is merely a young lesbian singer, nothing more- you almost act as if she is a menace.
However, it's not all that bad of you;
you are only picking on her because she is an easy target: you can depict her as a lesbian corrupter of Christianity.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 2:47PM
Alan, you're an intellectual lightweight and a complete phony.
Once again, you're trying to deflect the issue by bringing up yet another meaningless non-sequiter.
I haven't "dissed" Jennifer Knapp at all. In fact, up until now, I haven't mentioned her. Truth be told, until I read this article, I'd never even heard of her.
Not ALL Christians like "Contemporary Christian Music". Despite what others think, we're not a monolithic crowd moving in lock-step.
That's for Liberals.
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 2:52PM
"In fact, up until now, I haven't mentioned her. Truth be told, until I read this article, I'd never even heard of her"
My comments were not aimed soley at you; you are merely one blogger; you think too much of yourself-- calling yourself Doctor!
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 2:55PM
Do you think all the comments I write at this blog are for you? you are a Doctor Quack, not Doctor Right.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 3:29PM
Right.
I guess that's why you respond to everything I post?
And this isn't a blog, Einstein.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 3:01PM
The ones who use Jesus as an "ideological weapon" are the Left.
I know what the Bible says. I don't need to make it "fit" to our modern age, or distort it to suit my political preferences.
Nice try, though...
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 3:20PM
Then we are even.
I don't have to fit my beliefs to your commercial religiousness, to your idiosyncratic worldview.
Obama is right to fight you; he and his sort have been right all along. You want others as scapegoats.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 3:35PM
...Yawn...
Whatever.
You labor under the false belief that anyone on this board, myself included, has a stake in what you choose to believe or disbelieve. You misinterpret disagreement as a personal affront.
What Obama has to do with this discussion I can only wonder...
Occam's Tool| 8.10.11 @ 1:20PM
Darwin would note that homosexuality is an antisurvival trait.
I don't care what adults do with other adults in their bedrooms, so long as they don't shove my face in it. I agree that for long time companions, survorship rights and next of kin legal rights hould be arranged for. But I do not support gay marriage, as we are facing a child production crisis and we need more sturdy heterosexual marriages---and this does not help.
As a Jew, screw your SS comparisons, asshole.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 1:35PM
O.T.:
THANKS for pointing that out!
Homosexuality IS contrary to the Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis (it's NOT a "theory"...It doesn't qualify).
The Darwin-loving Left always conveniently overlook the innately anti-Darwin aspects of homosexuality.
Darwin Forever in Delaware| 8.10.11 @ 1:48PM
How is it anti-Darwin when Darwin himself noted the high incidence of homosexuality among many animal species. Yes. homosexuality is rampant in the animal kingdom, of which we are a part.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 1:57PM
The "high incidence of homosexuality" in the animal kingdom?!?!?
Excuse me, but...
BWAH-HAH-HAH-HAH-HAH!!!!!
WHAT are you talking about???
Are you actually trying to equate the documented but highly uncommon same-gender "partnering" that some animals exhibit in order to share resources like food and shelter with human homosexual behavior?!?!?!
Do you realize how absurd that is???
"Homosexuality" - the desire for physical, pseudo-sexual interaction with members of one's own gender that attempt to mimic normal, heterosexual behavior - is NOT "rampant" in the animal kingdom.
That's a bald-faced lie.
If you stand by this claim, then please cite Darwin's quotes, and provide adequate examples.
...I'll wait.
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 2:57PM
Doesn't matter, you are scapegoating gays, using the same arguments used at Stormfront.org
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 3:37PM
Never heard of it.
Oh, let me guess...Sounds like a Neo-Nazi website.
Alan, I knew you were unoriginal, but with each and every post, I'm learning about how deeply unoriginal you are.
And I know that frustrates you, since you obviously see yourself as being clever and witty.
Oh well...Life is full of hard truths.
Margie| 8.11.11 @ 8:42PM
I think Darwin was a walking Freudian slip.
What say you, Occam?
Nick| 8.10.11 @ 1:25PM
Darwin Forever in Delaware,
"If this were Nazi Germany [...]."
This is such a spurious argument. The nazis were run by homos. Ever heard of Ernst Rohm?
Ernst and his cadre of perverts ran the SA, i.e., Sturmabteilung. The Storm Troopers were the paramilitary wing of the nazis. You have heard of the Brown Shirts, haven't you?
Rohm and his merry band of homos were killed during the Night of the Long Knives, in order to appease the Wehrmacht, who feared Rohm's SA. So, did Hitler.
Hitler could care less about homosexuality. He was a neo-pagan.
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 1:28PM
No, Hitler killed thousands of gays; maybe not lesbians, but many many gays.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 1:36PM
Are you therefore disputing that Rohm was a homosexual?
And Himmler, too?
If so, you're wrong...as usual.
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 1:46PM
Hitler did NOT like homosexuality.
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 2:48PM
Hitler had Rohm killed, June 30th, 1934.
Himmler had gays killed by the bushel, tens of thousands- perhaps more.
What a liar you are.
Nick| 8.10.11 @ 3:10PM
Mr. Brooks,
Hitler and Rohm were good friends until Adolph thought Ernst was plotting against him. And, Hitler was well aware of Rohm's homosexuality, and, he didn't care.
It was Himmler who didn't approve of homos. But, Heinrich also wanted the SS to supplant the SA. So, he might have used Rohm's homosexuality to turn other nazis against the SA.
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 3:27PM
"Hitler and Rohm were good friends until Adolph thought Ernst was plotting against him. And, Hitler was well aware of Rohm's homosexuality"
No, not real friends, more like allies. And in his July speech to the Reichstag, Hitler made a great deal of Rohm's and other SA members homosexuality to justify the killings of a few weeks before.
And of course Himmler used Rohm's homosexuality to turn other nazis against the SA!
Nick| 8.10.11 @ 4:30PM
Mr. Brooks,
Rohm was a good friend of Hitler's.
They were both involved in the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923. They were tried together for treason in 1924. Hitler charged Rohm with building-up the SA while Adolph was still in prison. And, Hitler called Rohm back from Bolivia, in 1930, to serve as the SA's Chief of Staff.
Hitler was well aware of Rohm's homosexuality, and did not care.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 3:39PM
Nick:
Himmler WAS a homosexual.
That's not even open to debate. It's been known for decades.
Nick| 8.10.11 @ 4:14PM
Doctor Right,
This is the first that I've heard that Himmler was homosexual, and I've been studying WWII since I was seven.
He had a wife, mistress, and children by both. I know that this is not dispositive of his sexuality, but, a quick search yielded no confirmation that he was homosexual.
Are you sure it is Heinrich Himmler that you mean? Can you please provide a source for this claim?
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 4:32PM
Nick:
I will admit to being stumped. I, too, am somewhat of a WWII buff, and I had always heard (and read in numerous places) that Himmler WAS a homosexual.
Nonetheless, I'm also having difficulty locating a source.
However, I did find this, and while it's not specifically about Himmler, it does make interesting reading:
http://constitutionalistnc.tri...../id12.html
Nick| 8.10.11 @ 5:32PM
Doctor Right,
Thanks for the link!
The only reason I questioned the premise, that Himmler was homosexual, is because I watched a documentary a few years ago called Hitler's Henchman which went in-depth into Rohm's homosexuality.
When they got to the Night of the Long Knives, they specifically said that Himmler had always disapproved of Rohm and his cadre of homos. Rohm and his lieutenants would take vacations together and commit all sorts of debauchery.
Himmler bought into the whole Aryan-as-Tuetonic-knight garbage the nazis promoted. He thought homosexuality did not fit in with Aryan superiority, according to the documentary.
As I implied, above, Himmler could have just been using homosexuality as a scapegoat to get rid of his SS rivals, Rohm and the SA. Himmler was, above all, a supreme opportunist.
I would find it very interesting if Himmler was, indeed, a closeted homo.
Thanks again.
Occam's Tool| 8.11.11 @ 10:18PM
Goering was an opioid addict who was placed in the violent ward of a Swedish psychiatric hospital at one time. Nice guys, these.
However, his brother, ALBERT Goring, was a hero on a scale with Oskar Schindler.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 3:38PM
So you're denying that Himmler was a known and notorious homosexual???
If so, PLEASE go on the record with that opinion.
Go ahead.
Occam's Tool| 8.10.11 @ 9:03PM
And Hitler had 1 testicle, according to the MD who performed the autopsy on him. So?
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 4:27PM
Actually, the NAZI movement was intellectually driven by homosexuals, and was steeped in homosexual culture!
http://constitutionalistnc.tri...../id12.html
NotALibertarian| 8.10.11 @ 1:37PM
"So many of the posters on this site rage against homosexuals. If this were Nazi Germany, these same posters would be the ones demanding the SS round up the homosexuals and send them to be gassed at the nearest concentration camp."
Actually, Darwin, what you are spouting here is historically known as "blood libel" -- horrible false accusations against a group intended to turn the masses against that group. The irony is, YOU are attempting to slander the traditionalists here the way Hitler and his ilke propagated ugly slander against the Jews. Perhaps you should re-think throwing the term "Nazi" around.
big bob| 8.10.11 @ 1:43PM
I find it interesting how the left takes normal discourse and characterizes it as "raw hatred -vicious vehemence" when there is only a civilized discussion going on. THen, the next stage is to stop the real discussion and to address the person who is completely deluded, yet is redirecting the discussion, even to the point of causing everyone to back off on their justified comments. This is actually right out of Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky. Very predictable and very boring.
the only raw hate I see in public is coming from the left...and that covers the entire spectrum!! We could talk about Wisconsin for hours, for example. But this comment is unfounded and irresponsible. Period.
Nancy| 8.10.11 @ 10:37AM
I'm happy for Jennifer that she has found love with a same-sex partner.
Anna K. from Emory U.| 8.10.11 @ 10:39AM
Below are some examples--lovely examples-- of heterosexual "unions" from the Bible.
“Lamech [Noah’s father] married two women, one named Adah, the other Zillah.” (Genesis 4)
“Sarai brought her slave-girl, Hagar the Egyptian, to her husband and gave her to Abram as a a wife.” (Genesis 16)
“When [Rachel] gave [her husband Jacob] her slave-girl Bilhah as a wife, Jacob lay with her, and she conceived and bore him a son.” (Genesis 30)
“Esau took Canaanite women in marriage: Adah daughter of Elon the Hittite and Oholibamah daughter of Anah son of Zibeon the Horite, and Basemath, Ishmael’s daughter, sister of Nebaioth.” (Genesis 26)
“When a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved, if they both bear him sons, and the son of the unloved wife is the elder, then, when the day comes for him to divide his property among his sons, he must not treat the sons of the loved wife as his firstborn in preference to his true firstborn, the son of the unloved wife.” (Deuteronomy 21)
“If, on the other hand, the accusation [by a newlywed man that his bride is not a virgin] turns out to be true…then they must bring her out to the door of her father’s house and the men of her town will stone her to death.” (Deuteronomy 22)
“When a virgin is pledged in marriage to a man, and another man encounters her in the town and lies with her, bring both of them out to the gate of that town and stone them to death; the girl because, although she was in the town, she did not cry out for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife: you must rid yourself of this wickedness.” (Deuteronomy 22)
“When brothers live together and one of them dies without leaving a son, his widow is not to marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother is to have intercourse with her; he should take her in marriage and do his duty by her as her husband’s brother.”(Deuteronomy 25)
“David’s two wives, Ahinoam of Jezreel and Abigail widow of Nabal of Carmel, were among the captives.” (1 Samuel 30)
“Sons were born to David at Hebron. His eldest was Amnon, whose mother was Ahinoam from Jezreel; his second Cileab, whose mother was Abigail widow of Nabal from Carmel; the third Absalom, whose mother was Maacah daughter of Talmai king of Geshur; the fourth Adonihah, whose mother was Haggith; the fifth Shephatiah, whose mother was Abital; and the sixth Ithream, whose mother was David’s wife Eglah.” (2 Samuel 3)
And that's just a scattering of items from the first quarter of the Bible; we haven't even gotten around to Bathsheba yet, or to King Solomon's 700 wives and 300 concubines, but I think I have made my point and made it well.
John R| 8.10.11 @ 10:49AM
Anna, you're one hell of a provocative devil.
But I've got to give you credit: When you want to make a point, you make it with whiplash precision.
Let's give this gal (this devil) her due. She's got the ammunition, and she lets it fly.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 11:44AM
She's got ammunition, but she's shooting blind and hasn't hit a single target.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 11:43AM
EMORY is doing you a disservice, sweetie.
And WHAT exactly is your point?
If you have one, spell it out.
If not, maybe you should go back and read the Bible with a teensie bit of context, since you feel free to comment on it.
While you're at it, please make note of all the specific verses that condemn homosexuality. There's at least 6.
Then make note of all the verses that support homosexuality. (Here's a clue: There's ZERO.)
Veronica| 8.10.11 @ 12:25PM
Doctor Right-Wing Nutter,
Scroll down and read Emma Grimes. Perhaps you can understand her gist.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 12:39PM
Veronica:
I understand it completely.
Like yourself, and the poorly educated Anna K., she's wrong.
Wanna' argue facts, Missy, or do ya' just want to be another pissed-off Lib?
....yawn...
Seek| 8.10.11 @ 2:32PM
Anna seems to have a better grasp of the domestic despotism recommended by the Bible than most people I've known.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 2:49PM
The "domestic despotism"???
BWAH-HAH-HAH!!!!
So the Bible is literally forcing you to stop being gay?
REALLY??
Liberalism really is a mental deficiency.
Occam's Tool| 8.10.11 @ 9:07PM
Old Testament Domestic Despotism. Uh-huh.
In Orthodox Jewish marriages, oftentimes the women not only ran the households, they ran businesses, so the men could devote more time to study. Jewish Marriages are hardly Patriarchal. Consider---the "Jewish Mother" is an archetype of loving and manipulative control. There is no equivalent hyper-controlling Jewish dad stereotype.
The reason men are told to do the majority of the synagogue praying is so women can be free to deal with the unpredictable demands of a family (and business).
NotALibertarian| 8.10.11 @ 12:39PM
Intentionally or not, Anna K. has posted a specious list here.
Most of what is posted are actions that the Bible clearly says greatly displeased the Lord. Some of them occurred before the Lord gave the Law to Moses. Nothing on this list amounts to approval of homosexuality.
Darwin Forever in Delaware| 8.10.11 @ 1:53PM
Anna's list shows very plainly the barbaric "marriage" examples as illustrated in the flawed and ethnically irrelevant Bible.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 2:01PM
"...the flawed and ethnically irrelevant Bible."
OK, I take it back!
You actually managed to say something even MORE ridiculous than the previous comment about "rampant homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom"!
HOW is the Bible flawed, or "ethnically irrelevant"?
And to which ethnicities is it "irrelevant"? Swedes? Kenyans? The Irish? Croats?
C'mon...This should be REALLY interesting!
Occam's Tool| 8.10.11 @ 1:22PM
Anna:
Why are you a seminary student? Are you aware that current Jewish religious law does NOT sanction polygamy? Do you have any kids of your own? Do you plan to in the future? Do you have any idea of what the hell you are blabbering on about?
Andrea P.| 8.10.11 @ 3:36PM
As a student of Anna's--my favorite professor-- I know she never responds to the acrimonious posts that succeed hers. She's too refined and sophisticated to argue with swine-headed idealogues like so many of your plainly are, especially the obnoxious, name-calling Dr. Right.
As I am a gay student, Anna asked me to go to this site to see how hateful the GOP can be toward gays.
I'm here, and it's a revelation. Members of the GOP need to be a little kinder, gentler, a little more tolerant of people who are different.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 3:47PM
Dear Andrea P.,
Not only is "Professor" Anna K. utterly devoid of facts, logic, and knowledge of scripture, but she's also a moral coward.
She's a coward for not having the courage to come back to an ANONYMOUS message board and debate her opinions.
And she's also a coward for sending one of her students to check out the board and see how her "facts" have been disputed.
If "Anna K." represents the level of intellectual discourse at EMORY University, then it is truly a pathetic place. And if you're one of her students, then I truly pity you, especially since you seem to admire her.
If this website's forum is a "revelation" about the GOP, then please...WHAT does it reveal? And please...use specific, concrete examples of the "hateful" attitudes you describe, and NOT your feelings.
When you leave University, you'll find that the real world does not have much use for your "feelings". The real world prefers facts, and marketable skills. If "Anna K." is someone you admire, I'm afraid you'll have precious little of either.
Nick| 8.10.11 @ 3:56PM
Andrea P.,
"[...] to argue with swine-headed idealogues like so many of your plainly are, especially the obnoxious, name-calling Dr. Right. [...] Members of the GOP need to be a little kinder, gentler, a little more tolerant of people who are different." (Emphasis mine.)
How very tolerant of you, Andrea. You're not being judgmental, at all.
Hypocrite.
Tina B| 8.10.11 @ 4:06PM
"She's too refined and sophisticated to argue with swine-headed idealogues like so many of your plainly are, especially the obnoxious, name-calling Dr. Right."
Ya gotta love somebody who uses terms like swine-headed idealogues and obnoxious and then calls the other guy a "name caller".
Can you say airhead?
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 4:18PM
Tina:
I suspect that "Andrea P" and "Anna K" may be the same person.
NotALibertarian| 8.10.11 @ 1:26PM
On what plane of logic is it acceptable for people to insist "JESUS never said ANYTHING against homosexuality! JESUS never said ANYTHING against homosexuality!" and then attempt to list off very selective passages of the OT -- not uttered by "Jesus" in person -- to make some point?
You cannot have it both ways. Either accept the WHOLE of the Bible on the subject, or stop running around claiming victory because Jesus didn't personally say anything against homosexuality specifically.
Darwin Forever in Delaware| 8.10.11 @ 1:55PM
And then there was John, Jesus's favorite . . .
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 2:02PM
"Favorite" what???
Sonny, may I give you a little bit of advice?
If you want to learn about what's in the Bible. then read the Bible...NOT "The Da Vinci Code."
Nick| 8.10.11 @ 1:34PM
Anna K.,
You have made no point, at all. You have only shown your ability to copy and paste.
Your comprehension of the Sacred Scriptures, and of God's plan, is completely lacking. Try studying the Bible before typing such inanities, and you won't embarrass yourself, as you did with your previous comment.
Darwin Forever in Delaware| 8.10.11 @ 2:02PM
Regarding Anna K's post:
The Bible may, indeed does, contain a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by CRUDE, UNCULTURED human mammals.
Anna, I'm with you. The marriages in the Bible are crude and uncultured, and that was your point.
Perhaps Jennifer's partnership is more loving and dignified than what you would find in the bible.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 2:04PM
So let's see if we understand:
Anything in the Bible that supports the Liberal-left view of life should be taken absolutely literally, and accepted as fact...
But anything that disputes the Liberal-left view of life should be ignored and/or discarded?
Is that about right?
Typical Liberal foolishness...
Dr. Right's Medical Physician| 8.10.11 @ 5:16PM
Doctor Right,
How many times have I told you not lose your temper and act like a raving maniac?
You've already had three heart attacks, and another is on its way if you do not COOL IT.
You're sitting there in your wheelchair wearing Depend diapers fuming about your condition, and foaming at the mouth over the remarks of a few mild, intelligent posters.
Get your caretaker to put a nitroglycerine tablet under your tongue now! There's no time to waste.
(and speaking of waste, tell her to change your diaper)
Nick| 8.10.11 @ 3:22PM
Darwin Forever in Delaware,
"The Bible may, indeed does [...]."
Well, which one is it? May, or does? You are now arguing with yourself. Why should I take you seriously?
If you weren't so ignorant about how the ancient world treated its citizens, slaves, wives, children, and law breakers; you would know what a great leap forward God's Commandments, and the Mosaic Law (not always the same thing, by the way,) actually were for human rights.
Please, go educate yourself about the Sacred Scriptures.
Darwin| 8.10.11 @ 5:54PM
The Ten Commandments? They're a little inadquate and flawed, don't you think?
It's obviously too much to expect that a Bronze Age demagogue should have remembered to condemn drug abuse, drunken driving, or offenses against gender equality, or to demand prayer in the schools. Still, to have left rape and child abuse and genocide and slavery out of the account is to have been negligent to some degree, even by the lax standards of the time.
I wonder what would happen if secularists were now to insist that we honor the verses of the Bible that actually recommend enslavement, mutilation, stoning, and mass murder of civilians.
There are many more than 10 commandments in the Old Testament, and I live for the day when Americans are obliged to observe all of them, including the ox-goring and witch-burning ones.
Religion is not just incongruent with morality but in essential ways incompatible with it.
Yes, the bible itself is incompatible with morality.
Andrea| 8.10.11 @ 5:56PM
Wow!
Darwin, your counter to Nick is breathtaking!
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 6:06PM
Yes, breathtakingly dumb and predictable.
To say that the Bible is incompatible with morality is intellectually incoherent.
There is NO morality with secular humanism. To assume that there is means you don't know much about history, the Bible, philosophy, or secular humanism.
Only a college student would be impressed by Darwin's "response" to Nick...
Truth to Power| 8.10.11 @ 7:36PM
Maybe a sophomore?
Nick| 8.10.11 @ 10:51PM
Andrea,
No need to be so sarcastic towards Darwin, he's on your side, don't ya' know?
Nick| 8.10.11 @ 6:01PM
Darwin,
"Religion is not just incongruent with morality but in essential ways incompatible with it."
Only to the completely ignorant, such as yourself.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 6:04PM
Actually, genius, we're NOT bound by the Law of the Old Testament, anymore.
Occam's Tool| 8.10.11 @ 9:12PM
613 Commandments, many of them now antiquated or impossible.
Judaism is the religion that laid down the Moral Basis for a Nation that has contributed possibly more than any other to science in the last few centuries, certainly on a per capita basis.
It is much more appropriate to judge Margaret Sanger by her Racism, for example.
Occam's Tool| 8.10.11 @ 9:09PM
The crude and uncultured marriages in the Bible---such as found in Maccabees or Esther or Ruth, for example.
big bob| 8.10.11 @ 1:44PM
What would your point be again? I forgot.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 4:54PM
Are these the kinds of intellectual pursuits that you engage in at EMORY?
"Check out our Emory Looks at Hollywood series: From the question of whether Harry Potter is a Christ figure to the 'X-Men' origins to 'Transformer' robots' potential dangers, our faculty offer insight into Hollywood movies."
http://www.emory.edu/home/acad.....index.html
Louis Jenkins| 8.10.11 @ 6:29PM
Dear Anna K from Emory U:
That's quite a bit of reading, and most I am familiar with, however, they're still in a heterosexual realtionship(s). You do not mention much, if anything, about homosexuality. Now, go ahead and find the scripture based verses that states that homosexuality is okay. I do not hate the homosexual, I only wish they would come to the realization that it is unacceptable in God's terms, not mine, nor any of the people's preceptions here. Why did King David or Solomon have 700 wives? Most likely because they could afford them. Call me looney, call be a Bible thumpin bitter clinger, or whatever, but I believe the facts are facts.
Mondo Kewl| 8.10.11 @ 2:10PM
I'd be happier if she'd show us some pics...
Shwing!!!!!!!!!
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 2:36PM
If it were somebody world famous who was outed, it would be a big shidoo, but Jennifer Knapp??
You act as if Jennifer is the Queen of Sheba, and she was caught humping.
Mondo Kewl| 8.10.11 @ 2:51PM
I don't think she's into humping...
Scissoring, maybe, but not humping.
Doorgunner| 8.10.11 @ 6:44PM
Utterly secular conservative here.
If you're just joining the thread be prepared for some really tiresome anti-gay/pro-gay, Jeebus Lives/No He Don't crap below.
That being said, who's with me on hoping for some really hot lesbian Christian rocker on lesbian Christian rocker somewhere down the road?
The Bishop| 8.10.11 @ 7:04AM
Hmmm, faith and pride. Don't those tend to work against each other?
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 8:50AM
It has become literally Unbelievable:
America is broker than any nation ever has been, and you are worried about lesbians, Christian or otherwise??
Is AS run by seniles?
ManassasGrandma| 8.10.11 @ 9:44AM
Who said we were worried? But cultural and financial decline go hand-in-hand. Cultural confusion leads to financial confusion.
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 10:26AM
Then you ARE worried.
Truscan Pliades| 8.10.11 @ 10:45AM
Am/Spec goes bonkers at the very thought of two same-sex partners loving each other.
Am/Spec readers literally foam at the mouth at such notions. Hetero, hetero, hetero, hetero is their tiresome chant.
I've been reading this blog for a couple of years and I see the homophobia over and over and over.
Alan Brooks| 8.10.11 @ 2:43PM
"Who said we were worried? But cultural and financial decline go hand-in-hand. Cultural confusion leads to financial confusion."
This is remote causation, it is like saying Mark Sanford's assignations caused a .000000000005
decline in the markets for 2.7 hours, 8.2 minutes, 19.4 seconds. You are paranoid AND superstitious.
Seek| 8.10.11 @ 2:33PM
How does lesbianism fit in with a Standard & Poor's bond downgrade?
Mondo Kewl| 8.10.11 @ 2:53PM
Easy.
Less lesbians = less sale of porn = less internet porn subscriptions = MASSIVE downturn in dot.com revenue = double-dip recession.
Andrea| 8.10.11 @ 6:00PM
And how heterosexual men love to watch lesbian porn. Heterosexual men really get off on seeing two women going at it.
Heterosexual men LOVE lesbian porn more than any other porn. See the paradox?
Mondo Kewl| 8.10.11 @ 6:07PM
Jealous??
You're probably one of those butch Lesbo types who go around pretending to look like a guy.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 11:53AM
The cultural, political, and financial decline of America are all intertwined...And ALL linked to runaway Liberalism, the philosophy of the stupid.
That all ends soon.
Seek| 8.10.11 @ 2:34PM
Is that a threat or a promise? And can I keep my Joan Jett CDs once the revolution comes?
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 2:54PM
Promise.
And "No".
Occam's Tool| 8.11.11 @ 9:56PM
Not even "I love Rock N' Roll?"
Occam's Tool| 8.10.11 @ 1:25PM
Alan:
No stable marriages=no stable production of children or stable raising. No stable production/raising of kids=no future workers to support Welfare state "entitlements"=bankruptcy and societal dislocation.
Clear why this is relevant now?
In addition, We aborted 50 million potential workers. The Liberals are being hoist by their own petard. Eternal Verities are such for a reason.
Papa | 8.10.11 @ 6:02PM
Fifty million!
How in hell could this country contain 50 million more humans?
Nick| 8.10.11 @ 6:06PM
Papa,
This country could contain 100 times that amount of humans, easily.
Occam's Tool| 8.10.11 @ 9:16PM
Quite easily, papa. You obviously know nothing about this country's size. Incidentally, who's going to wipe your tail in the Nursing Home since there will be fewer young workers. You remind me of that idiot who was arguing that MDs will love to take insurance that doesn't cover their costs rather than have an "empty" office---news for you---just like the offices of MDs in the future will be neither empty nor filled with Medicare crap payers, so your retirement entitlements will not be there unless you have young workers to pay for them. I presume, Papa, that you are an older Baby-Boomer.
Trebuchet| 8.10.11 @ 8:20AM
Well as my old Irish Gran Muther would say, " You can bake a turd in the oven but it won't make it a biscut".
Veronica| 8.10.11 @ 11:07AM
Your grandmother was as dirt common as you seem to be.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 1:13PM
Aaaaaah, there's that classic ole' Liberal love for the common man (or grandma) that we all know so well!!
Veronica, you're nothing more than an unoriginal, spiteful Liberal. Unfortunately for you and lots of other Liberals, the bloom is off the rose. America has begun to awaken to your phony preening and posturing. You dimwitted elitists and your idiotic social and political philosophies have driven this country into the ground...
...But that's about to change in 2012.
Nervous..?
Veronica| 8.10.11 @ 2:05PM
Nervous? Not at all.
We young progressives are the future. You, old man, have one foot in the grave and the other at your local medical clinic.
I've read many of your posts, and you strike me as grumpy--grungy and grumpy.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 2:18PM
The future?
Now THAT'S funny! You young "progressives" couldn't even organize a trip to the toilet without government assistance, let alone successfully manage a country.
We've seen the consequences of "progressive" movements in the past, like Communism, Naziism, and Socialism...and all of those fantasies were built on the bones of 100 million corpses.
Modern-day "progressivism" is something that only ossified, bitter old lefty college professors teach and that their wide-eyed, inexperienced, dopey college students believe.
Sweetie-pie, "progressivism" in the USA is on it's last legs...And in November, 2012, we'll put it out of it's misery, and ours, forever.
You're on the wrong side of the tide of history.
Occam's Tool| 8.10.11 @ 4:58PM
The best comment on the Future that I have seen is by Leonard Cohen---"I have seen the Future---it is Murder."
Keep supporting Israel bashing, the abortion of Children, and the spread of Sharia, Veronica and your ilk---You will understand fully well when it is too late why you should have repented.
Knapp is an idiot.
Papa | 8.10.11 @ 6:05PM
Democracy is a progressive movement.
DEMOCRACY! Dunce.
Tina B| 8.10.11 @ 4:15PM
And I've read two of your posts and you sound like a pompous ass. Pretty grumpy and grungey yourself.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 4:23PM
Whatever, Anna...or Andrea...or Tina...
"Grumpy" I'll cop to any day.
But being called "pompous" by a Lib...Now THAT'S just too ironic...
Tina B| 8.10.11 @ 5:28PM
No, No Dr R, I was responding to Veronica then, and Andria earlier, and I do not find you pompous, rather erudite, and very often right on the money!
I was disagreeing with the women writing to so vehemently defend lesbian sexuality as a non sin and use Christianity in some way to do this. I love Jennifer Knapp's voice and her early music was beautiful. However her stance as a "Christian Lesbian" is a non-sequitur. I pray she wakes up.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 4:24PM
Oops! Sorry, Tina!
I get confused when the indents stop!
Nick| 8.10.11 @ 5:39PM
Veronica,
No, my two sisters, one with 4 kids, the other with EIGHT, are the future.
Liberals don't reproduce. They think children are a disease. Or, a burden, as President Downgrade famously said.
Your only hope is to try to indoctrinate as many skulls-full-of-mush as you can, while they are at college.
Occam's Tool| 8.10.11 @ 9:17PM
Nick,
G-d Bless, that's wonderful. I hope they're like you.
Nick| 8.10.11 @ 10:48PM
Occam's Tool,
Thanks, for the kind words. I'll pass them on.
Their mothers are doing a great job teaching them right from wrong. I do what I can, when I can.
My Eight is Enough sister homeschools her clan. Their oldest, my niece, graduated this year. We are trying to get my other sister to homeschool her 4 kids. She is showing signs of cracking! Let's hope!
G-d Bless!
DaveD| 8.10.11 @ 8:51PM
Veronica, if progressives are the future, I'm damn glad I'm well over the hump.
Trebuchet| 8.11.11 @ 9:00AM
Your generation has been dead for years now we're all just waiting for you to stop twitching.
Trebuchet| 8.11.11 @ 9:03AM
just to be clear I was responding to Veronica the progressive zombie in my former post
Pelligrino| 8.10.11 @ 8:30AM
Never heard of her. And, yes, I'd be glad if she dropped the Christianity label. As she is not one.
One cannot place gay, homosexual, or lesbian before the word Christian.
Truth does not work that way.
She'd do good to view the 700 Club TV broadcast that featured a formerly gay man in the broadcast's long segment/testimony segement. It aired on Monday night of this week. This man stated it all very clearly and concisely: He, as a gay, was openly rebelling and mocking God. He has now found peace and LIFE -- real life -- by jettisoning Satan's shackles.
I think that man has found real peace. And purpose for his life now. So go view that segment, Ms. Knapp.
Let us hope and pray the same for Ms. Knapp before it is too late for her.
But a warning for Ms. Knapp: We're really tired of your sort. You are given talent from God for His purposes -- not for your own follies. You are given life not to mock God or distort the truth of the Bible. I hope you realize there are real consequences for leading other sheep astray. Even if it is just 25 people hearing you twang away on your guitar.
And: You are a bit too old to be so blind.
Aimee Sims | 8.10.11 @ 8:35AM
I think we're missing the point here. Ms. Knapp (who also, by the way, recently wrote the foreword for an anthology of poetry from Gay Christians and friends around the world called RAW: A Poetic Journey - Finding a Way from Conflict to Revelation published by NuWine Press) is not aiming for smaller audiences, she's aiming to open minds. Christianity is slowly beginning to live up to the ideal of "whosoever believeth in Him will not perish" that means, Knapp's true audience is GROWING to include Gays, Lesbians, straight, transgender, rich, poor, disabled, blacks, women, whites and all those who believe in the unconditional love of the cross. Besides when did it become OK to dissuade someone from spreading the gospel just because their hearers may be few?? I think someone's caught the "mega-church is better-church" virus!
ManassasGrandma| 8.10.11 @ 9:40AM
"Gay" means merry. Homosexual- or Lesbian - impulses are inherently disordered and homosexual sex is seriously sinful. And two guys with an anal fixation do not a marriage make. There is no common ground between your position and mine. And both positions have freedom of speech, or should. If they don't, then you break up the country. But that would be YOU breaking up the country.
Peter McGrath| 8.10.11 @ 10:56AM
Aimee, Ms. Knapp's evangelism is in doubt when when she admits about her faith, "Sometimes I question why I keep holding on to it." Obviously, she has nearly abandoned her faith and, as such, is not likely to be "spreading the gospel" as you suggest. Her apostasy is sad and disheartening - she is a lovely young person who has lost her way.
Emma Grimes| 8.10.11 @ 10:59AM
Excellent point, Aimee! Thanks for your insight.
YeloStalyn| 8.10.11 @ 11:01AM
John 3:16 is the quick and dirty of it... and it's important, but it fails to include a lot of other stuff about what it means to turn from the flesh towards Christ. To truely accept Him means to accept His laws and morals. Part of that is to cast aside the ways of the flesh in favor of the ways of the spirit. And when God Himself declares certain things to be an abomination, we are not in a position to say otherwise. I can not say I follow God, but only on what I want to follow Him on and therefore be a Christian. It doesn't work that way. As such, a gay person CAN be a Christian... just as any sinner can. And they can still commit that sin (as we all sin even after being born again)... but are they giving into temptation and know that it's wrong? Are they, afterwards, repentant about it because they know they gave into the flesh and sin rather than the Spirit? Or... which is the seeming case with Knapp and others like her... are they justifying these sins by saying, "I say I love Jesus, He says He loves me, that means I can do whatever I want." That's rather prideful. How anyone can rationally come to that sort of conclusion after being exposed to the whole truth that is the Bible can only do so by rejecting the truth... and with it, God Himself.
Peter McGrath| 8.10.11 @ 12:25PM
Yelo has touched on the concept of "Cheap Grace" brought forth by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a brilliant Lutheran pastor and writer who was martyred in a Nazi death camp in April 1945.
Read more about this concept, and Bonhoeffer's extraordinary life, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T.....scipleship
Pelligrino| 8.10.11 @ 12:58PM
Peter, thank you. Yes, Dietrich Bonhoeffer is superb. Superb as a role model. And a very fine Christian thinker, writer, pastor.
Anyone who is unfamiliar with Bonhoeffer, please, read him.
Tina B| 8.10.11 @ 4:20PM
And wonderful Bonhoeffer was willing to die for his beliefs. Many modern liberal so called Christians can't even give up sex for a season to please and serve our Savior, and men like Bohoeffer were willing to die to serve Him.
Nick| 8.10.11 @ 11:11AM
Miss Sims,
Any message that asserts homosexual acts are okay, is, in fact, preaching a false gospel.
Sexual acts committed outside of marriage are repeatedly condemned by God, in the Sacred Scriptures. Homosexual acts, i.e., sodomy, are an abomination to God.
It's pretty hard to ignore these facts and simultaneously spread the Good News of Jesus Christ.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 11:58AM
Please don't misquote ""whosoever believeth in Him will not perish".
Taken out of context (which you have done) renders this statement absolutely meaningless.
Satan believes in Christ; is he saved?
Or do you not believe in Satan?
The full and proper quote is:
"1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God: and whosoever loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
2 Hereby we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and do his commandments.
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
4 For whatsoever is begotten of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that hath overcome the world, even our faith.
5 And who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood.
7 And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one.
9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for the witness of God is this, that he hath borne witness concerning his Son.
10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in him: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he hath not believed in the witness that God hath borne concerning his Son.
11 And the witness is this, that God gave unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath the life; he that hath not the Son of God hath not the life.
13 These things have I written unto you, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, even unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God."
Please note that Verses 2 and 3 mandate that we "keep" His commandments. That means we don't do things that He has told us NOT to do...like Homosexuality, among other things.
Margie| 8.10.11 @ 1:14PM
Dear Dr. Right,
I was composing my post as yours was already posted and I didn't see it till after I posted mine.
I didn't mean to ride on your coat tails~ :^).
But happy to see like minds in Christ nonetheless.
big bob| 8.10.11 @ 1:48PM
I was just getting ready to comment that no one was willing to quote the politically INcorrect I John. Thank you for doing just that.
Margie| 8.10.11 @ 12:18PM
"Christianity is slowly beginning to live up to the ideal of "whosoever believeth in Him will not perish".
You are quoting Jn. 3:16, which says:
"For God so loved the world that he gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life."
You are trying to justify the sin of homosexuality here, but you must take care to read Jesus' warning in John 3:36. Apparently, believing isn't enough. He calls Christians to actually obey His Words as well:
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him." Jn. 3:36.
So, what you are trying to do simply will not work.
Then you say, "Besides when did it become OK to dissuade someone from spreading the gospel just because their hearers may be few??"
What you and she are preaching is NOT the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but your own chosen gospel. One that promotes Sin.
You cannot serve two masters.
"No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." Mt. 6:24.
NotALibertarian| 8.10.11 @ 12:44PM
What Ms. Knapp is "spreading" is horse manure and pretending it is the true Gospel. The *true* Gospel is that anyone who believes in the Lord and desires a pure, Godly life will receive forgiveness for *past* sins and help from the Lord to "Go And Sin No More".
Occam's Tool| 8.10.11 @ 1:33PM
Evangelical Christianity IS Better than Liberal Christianity. I say this as a Jew. I have lots of reasons why this is so. Before the "Liberal Christians" start slashing at me, here's why:
1) Evangelicals tend to be societally Conservative. Therefore, they protect freedom of religious practice as an absolute right, even when they are in disagreement.
2) They tend to support Israel and Jews because they are Conservative and tend to be Philo-Semitic, because they also respect hard work and achievement. (Even you, Dr. Right. Sorry, but I think the world of you. You fall under the Righteous Gentile provisions of Judaism, even as you protest.)
3) They recognize that there is an evil philosophy threatening Christianity and the West---Sharia, much better than Liberal Christians do. This is because unlike Liberals, they are NOT focused on their Gonads.
4) As a graduate of TCU, and someone who practiced in 'Bama for 7 years, Evangelicals are also generally nicer people that Liberal Christians. (I say this as a Jewish guy---my dog is only indirectly in this fight (see 3).
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 8:10PM
O.T.,
I do believe you have just paid me an incredible compliment.
I don't believe that I deserve it, but nonetheless, I am grateful (and humbled).
D.R.
Occam's Tool| 8.10.11 @ 9:28PM
Yeah, I did, D.R. I certainly meant to. Please note (1), (2) and (3). Your remorseless logic drives you to protect my kids and I. Whether we disagree theologically, and I know you feel that my beliefs doom me, there is still (2) and (3), and since my beliefs have the concept of the "Righteous Among The Nations," honest disagreements are honest disagreements---to me,(1), (2) and (3) predominate. (In your view, there truly is no "compulsion in religion"---that would be a false victory, useless dross.)
Now, again, you may disagree with me. But I can still do that respectfully and with a great degree of respect for you---as I do Margie.
My view is always who would I trust with the Future of my Children. Based on how you think, you could babysit for my babies anytime, as could Margie. Given that my G-d is one of History and Children are the Future, yes, that is a very high compliment, and one deserved by you.
I disagree with you on very few things, but I uunderstand and sympathize with your views even when they are not mine. G-d Bless.
Occam's Tool| 8.10.11 @ 9:29PM
Oops, I guess that should be "my kids and me." Too much watching "It is I---The Scarlet Pimpernel!"
JimP| 8.10.11 @ 3:18PM
It appears that she's not spreading the Gospel so much as using it to justify being homosexual by using selected passages to rationalize her behavior, and too her new preference for liberal/progressive politics: or is she now a lefty because they like to pretend homosexuality is compatible with Christian doctrine? Homosexuality is a sin just like heterosexual adultery is a sin. A priest or minister who openly advocated fornication/adultery as being in accordance with scripture would be and should be defrocked. What next, 'Christians' who worship the devil? She should repent, do penance and go and do her very best to sin no more. She should not be undermining Christianity with this kind of self indulgent, self justifying behavior. We all sin, but we don't try to pretend our sins are A-OK with Jesus and preach/spread such nonsense. Some sins are tougher than others to overcome or control. She's got a tough problem. With sufficient prayer she can overcome it. We should all pray for her too.
JimH| 8.10.11 @ 8:53AM
I know the Bible says men should not lie with men, but is anything said regarding women? I am curious as to where the Christian attitude to Lesbianism come from.
Brad| 8.10.11 @ 9:08AM
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature."
Romans 1:26
'Nuff said.
big bob| 8.10.11 @ 1:50PM
And the verses after that are not so good for the ones who participate or encourage homosexuality. It's all there.....
Pelligrino| 8.10.11 @ 9:19AM
Jim, you're a smart guy and can figure something this simple and straightforward out for yourself easily enough in the various Bible passages.
However, since you ask -- and there may be others:
Jim, let's start with what Paul wrote in Romans. Romans chapter 1. The whole chapter is great and understandable the first read through. Also, Paul, gets right to the point; he doesn't mince words.
To narrow in on what you ask: Romans 1:23 - 32 (verse 32 directly apply to Ms. Knapp and Aimee Sims, a poster above)
But two verses make it plain as day: Romans 1: 24 and verse 26. Rather explicit, I would say.
Folks, it ain't old fashioned and something just for old, gray-blue haired grannies to be reading. Open your Bibles and read them. Every day. Just a short passage or two that won't take more than 10-12 minutes. Do this for just 4 - 6 weeks and you'll have covered a lot of scripture.
And you'll be amazed at how it changes your life -- for the good.
And you'll know the truth. God does not hide it from us; it is right there.
Again: It seems to me that Romans 1, verse 32 sums up Ms. Knapp and her fellow travellers. The word "death" in this verse means eternal damnation.
JimH| 8.10.11 @ 9:25AM
Thanks Brad and Pelligrino. I wasn't being smart. I know that there are a number of Biblical scholars here who could tell me and I was curious ( and a bit lazy, I could have checked myself).
Emma Grimes| 8.10.11 @ 11:03AM
Rubbish. All of these verses that pertain to same-sex love were written by illiterate desert dwellers who had numerous wives and slaves and thought the world was flat as a pancake, and stoned to death anyone who disagreed.
Please, don't quote these ignorameses to me.
yaya yaya| 8.10.11 @ 11:05AM
Ha! I laughed into my coffee cup and spilled some on my shorts.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 12:01PM
If they were illiterate, the HOW did they write it?
And if those verses are found in books of Scripture known to be written by highly educated men (like Paul, a Pharisee, or Luke, a Physician), then how do you justify referring to them as "illiterate"?
And BTW...it's spelled "ignoramuses", Ms. Rhodes-Scholar.
...typical Lefty. Full of self-righteous opinions, short on facts...
Veronica| 8.10.11 @ 12:29PM
Doctor Right, reread Anna K. from Emory U. and you will see how civilized the "scriptures" are regarding love and marriage. Read what she says four or five times.
Doctor Right| 8.10.11 @ 12:44PM
I did.
And I've actually read them before...may times.
What Anna K. wrote is utterly IRRELEVANT to the discussion.
If we are discussing the Christian view of homosexuality, and if we are using the Bible as the source for those opinions, then there is ONLY one conclusion:
Homosexuality is a sin.
You may not like that conclusion. To that end, you may try to distort it to suit your own purposes.
Whatever.
The mistake you're making is to think that my opinion matters. It doesn't. I have no wish or desire to see you or anyone else condemned for sinful behavior. NOR do I have the authority or power to do so if I did wish to do so.
The only opinion that matters here is God's opinion, and on that issue, His word is quite clear.
Again...You may choose NOT to believe that. Well, that is your choice. Christianity is all about choice. No one forces you to believe, and no one forces you to accept. The choice is yours.
But...so are the consequences.
Pelligrino| 8.10.11 @ 1:02PM
Thank you, DR. I appreciate your posts here in this thread today. And I hope readers like Veronica take note of how you are trying to word it for them -- like the recent post above.
Let us hope that they see the Light. I'd rejoice if they do.
Veronica| 8.10.11 @ 2:11PM
Thank God for the liberal church. We shall endure, and we shall refute those crude, uncultured, scientifially false and unethical verses in the bible that condemn homosexuality, as Jesus would Himself. Jesus had not one word to say on the matter.
Onward Christian Soldiers marching as to war,
With the Love of Jesus going on before
YeloStalyn| 8.10.11 @ 2:53PM
Reading the Bible in piecemeal as you seem to want to do is akin to watching a football game, discarding all the times your opponent scores (especially when they score more than you), then proclaiming that you won the game and that what the other team did doesn't count.
You can't pick and choose like that. Well... you can. You can read the Bible and say, "I like that... I'll adopt it. I don't like that... I'll discard it." But doing so means you're NOT a Christian. Maybe a good person... but NOT a Christian. You can't be something merely by claiming it. I can't be black simply by saying I am. You have to BE something to BE something. I don't know why liberals don't get it. Just like a RINO... they're not Republicans... they just say they are.
So, you see... you can like the idea of Jesus' love... but if you truely accept that love, you must accept the rest of it. I mean, if Jesus is who He says He is... then who are you to question it? Who is the pot to question the potter?
As such... you are free to discard His declaration of homosexuality as a sin. You are free to SAY you are a Christian (although those who are would plead that you do not... or more accurately... that you actually become one). You are free to do as you wish. But that doesn't change truth and that's something the liberal church will never understand. They can't make gravity go away just by feeling it should.
Louis Jenkins| 8.10.11 @ 6:47PM
Dear Veronica:
How are you going to get a refute? The authors who wrote the passages are long past human life. You are correct in that Jesus did not say one word on this matter. But there's a lot that Jesus didn't say if you take the scripture correctly. It is hard to imagine Jesus being so tight lipped, but perhaps he was. However, the Bible, New Testament or Old, does condemn homosexuality. It would be best not to call the writers, whoever, crude, uncultures, unethical, etc.
Margie| 8.11.11 @ 9:51PM
Hi Veronica,
Do you know that the men who wrote the Bible were motivated by God and wrote what they wrote specifically because they were appointed by Him to do so?
Therefore if you want to be intellectually honest with yourself you must admit that God condemns the homosexual "lifestyle".
NotALibertarian| 8.10.11 @ 12:47PM
The only people who think Anna K.'s post is some kind of triumph are people who know nothing about the Bible.
Occam's Tool| 8.10.11 @ 1:34PM
Yup, Ignoramuses like Abraham, Moses, Hillel, Akiva---funny thing, Emma, their names have lasted Millenia---yours is going to be wrapped around dead fish today.
big bob| 8.10.11 @ 1:52PM
What? sort of like the S&P making judgements about credit? You don't like it so you demean it? How liberal of you.
Tina B| 8.10.11 @ 4:29PM
You sound more ignorant than anything posted here. Illiterate desert dwellers? Just happens that what we taday call the Holy Bible is the greatest best seller of all time, and must have been written by someone other than those illiterate desert dwellers.
LMFAO! (Sorry, Lord.)
Nick| 8.10.11 @ 11:29AM
Pelligrino,
"Open your Bibles and read them. Every day."
Excellent advice.
As Saint Jerome said, "Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ."
RCV| 8.10.11 @ 11:43AM
St Paul was an amazing guy, but a fallible human, as he himself would have and did acknowledge. What he said in his letters to friends are not God's words, but Paul's. Every single one of those quotes comes from his pen, not God's. You can look in vain for a single word by Jesus about homosexuality, which did not seem to loom in his mind as a major sin, unlike self-righteousness, people juding others instead of leaving that to God, and indifference to the poor and despised of society.
P| 8.10.11 @ 12:18PM
So, RCV, because you now share with us through your pen, well, keyboard, that these words from Paul are just, well, correspondence....
Will you be there to vouch for me when the Lamb's Book of Life is read?
Will I be able to say, "Hey! Hey now! Wait a second....I listened to and followed what Brother RCV said. Yes, I did. And Brother RCV told me that his word -- typed on a modern computer and shared for the world to see on the internet -- was just as legit as anything Paul wrote by hand 1,980 years ago.
In fact, RCV's writing trump Paul's.
I followed RCV's teachings because, after all, RCV's writing were far less stringent and less straightjacket than (stuffy) old Paul's.
So I rejected those overbearing epistles in the New Testament. And followed them -- RCV's teachings.
Yep. That's what I did in these last 26 years of my life. In fact, I passed these RCV teachings on to my family and some neighbors, too.
"So, God, Isn't that good enough for the salvation of my soul? And my wife's soul? -- The RCV way?
After all, RCV said so."
Nick| 8.10.11 @ 12:23PM
RCV,
I dealt with your argument, from a couple of weeks ago, when you asserted that Saint Paul would have considered it blasphemy to claim to speak for God. You must have missed it. So, here it is again:
"Saint Paul called himself an Apostle, which means one who is sent as a messenger.
"Since Paul claimed that it was Christ who sent him, and also claimed that Jesus Christ was both Son of God, and God; Paul was claiming to speak for God.
"Paul also acknowledged that there were members of the Church who were prophets, who had received their gift from the Holy Spirit. Prophets, also, speak for God."
Christ didn't say anything about homosexuality because it wasn't an issue among the Jews. Christ, as a Jew, perfectly kept the Law of Moses. Are you going to claim that the Mosaic Law has nothing to say about homosexuality?
Nick| 8.10.11 @ 7:48PM
RCV? Hello? No reply?
RCV| 8.10.11 @ 11:56PM
Hey, Nick. Homosexuality was indeed an issue among the Jews, as the OT indicates, and as Paul seems to concern himself with. Christ didn't. It's obvious from his preachings what sins He most focused on and preached about.
You are right about St Paul's claims to preach the Gospel of Christ as he believed himself called to do so by God. I personally do not equate his teachings with the Word of Jesus, which is obviously free from error by definition. Just as I revere and respect the Holy Father and his teachings, I left the RC because I do not believe them to be infallible. Men are indeed inspired by the Holy Spirit; that does not mean, however that they do not err in understanding that inspiration or in translating it into words. God could choose to speak to us directly, as He did when He was incarnate on earth. He chooses not do so. We are each left to sort out His truth from what we have been left.
I have spent much of my life reading and studying the Bible as well as Bible scholarship on it's history, origins, transmissions and translations. Although I have read every word of it many, many times, I do not profess to know its contents as well as you or Margie, whose expertise in that realm I respect and admire. But my studies have led me to conclusions about that great Book, or more accurately, collections of various books and writings that are different than yours and Margie's. There isn't room to discuss that complex subject in detail in this post. But suffice it to summarize my views by saying that to me, these various writings that we call The Bible differ in authorship, differ in authoritativeness, and differ greatly in inerrancy. My conclusions are similar in many regards to to those Jefferson came to after his years of study of the Bible and of Jesus's teachings. (Believe me, I am not equating my feeble abilities with those of that genius, whom I so admire.)
Nick| 8.11.11 @ 11:01AM
RCV,
Oh good, I was beginning to think you were ignoring me!
My second point was that Christ didn't have to deal with homosexuality because it was not an issue in first century Judea, Galilee, and Samaria, the primary areas of His ministry. There was no Jewish party that was advocating for the rights of men who lie with men as with a woman.
Christ did make it clear what was the proper role for men and women:
"[Christ] said to them: Have you not read, that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh."
- Matthew 19: 4-5
As far as Saint Paul is concerned, he made it perfectly clear when he was offering his own opinion and when he was preaching the Good News, e.g., when Paul tells the unmarried and widows that they should remain unmarried, like himself (cf 1 Cor. 7-12).
But, in Romans 1:26-32, Paul is clearly listing acts that are sinful and contrary to the "ordinance of God." People who engage in these sinful acts (including homosexual acts) are "haters of God" (v. 30). These are not Paul's personal opinions.
(Unlike Christ, who spent very little time in Gentile areas, Paul was dealing mostly with Roman pagans in the Hellenized provinces of Asia and Greece. Rome was already becoming a more permissive society, which would lead to its downfall.)
If you chose to disregard Paul's own opinions, that is up to you. But, if you chose to reject Paul's teachings on the Gospel of Jesus Christ, you are putting your soul in danger. Because the Good News that Paul taught was the same Gospel as Matthew's, Mark's, Luke's, and John's, i.e., it was the teaching of Jesus Christ. To reject this teaching is to reject Christ Himself.
You flatter me with your kind words, thank you. Although, I am far from an expert in the Sacred Scriptures, I am a neophyte. My intent is not to change your conclusions, only to correct the misconceptions that I saw. As you know, I would say that Christ left us His Church to teach us His Good News, so, we wouldn't have to figure out His Truth on our own.
In conclusion, any scholarship that tries to deny Christianity's long and well documented history of condemning homosexual acts, is, quite frankly, teaching a false gospel.
God Bless!
RCV| 8.11.11 @ 11:21AM
Thanks, Nick. Always a pleasure to speak with you. Pardon my late response above, but sometimes real life interupts with my postings on TAS!
Nick| 8.11.11 @ 7:51PM
RCV,
No problem, and thanks for the response.
I always enjoy sharing my faith.
Margie| 8.10.11 @ 12:41PM
Paul was appointed to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, and to know His will.
The will of God is plain to everyone who has "eyes to see".
And His will is clearly written throughout the Bible, and He hates homosexuality.
Concerning the Apostle Paul's appointment by God, it is written of here:
"And he said, 'The God of our fathers appointed you to know His will, to see the Just One and to hear a voice from His mouth; for you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard." Acts 22:14 & 15.
Christians who say that it is sin are simply speaking God's truth and are in agreement with Him.
It isn't "self-righteous" or being "Pharisee" like, or "hateful" to tell God's Truth.
The Word of God is the Judge, and Christians are appointed to speak His Truth.
"In Him, according to the purpose of Him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of His will, we who first hoped in Christ have been destined and appointed to live for the praise of His glory.
In Him you also, who have heard the Word of Truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in Him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, which is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of His glory." Eph. 1:11-14.
You cannot be a Christian and not agree with God in His hatred of Sin.
Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 8.10.11 @ 12:58PM
I don't bother with silly being so stupid, and such a liar, I am incapable of comprehending scripture, even after 64 years on the planet, when Leviticus 18:22 could not be more clear as it point blank states
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable",
and when Matthew 5:17 could not be more clear as Jesus Christ point blank states
"Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets: I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them",
as it does not take a santimonious devout churchgoing Christian, espousing real Christian love, to understand the Law that Jesus Christ refers to is Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy; on being too stupid and such a liar that is incapable of comprehending Jesus Christ did in fact leave us words on homosexuality, while ignoring the fact Acts 9:4-5 could not be more clear as it point blank states that Paul, traveling on the road, heard a voice state
"why do you persecute me?"
and replied
"Who are you, Lord?",
and was told
"I am Jesus, who you are persecuting",
on being too stupid and such a liar that is incapable of comprehending a man such as Paul, who has gone through that traumatic experience, might seek to state only words that are consistent with the will of Jesus Christ, who appeared before Paul, blinded Paul, and stated about Paul, as Acts 9:15 could not be more clear as it point blank states
"This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel",
on being so stupid and such a liar as to think Paul would ignore a command personally given by a post-crucified Jesus Christ, and state words that are just his own words, that do not reflect the will of Jesus Christ;
even worse, being so stupid and such a liar, as to sanctimoniously espouse on the indifference to particular segments of society, while simultaneously supporting the brutal murders of over 54 million innocent, defenseless, unborn Americans, on a time coming when every individual will be front and center in front of Jesus Christ, to be judged, including sanctimonious idiots that are so sanctimoniously stupid it boggles the mind, and are such a sanctimonious liar it is stupefying to ponder, the verdict of such a willfully pathetic and despicable individual matters.
RCV| 8.10.11 @ 5:36PM
So, I guess Skippy, you are a practicing Orthodox who keeps Kosher and follows all of the proscriptions in Leviticus, right?
reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 8.10.11 @ 7:08PM
I don't bother with silly being so stupid, and being such a liar, that I not only sanctimoniously posted that Paul's words are not associated with Jesus's words, that I not only sanctimoniously posted that Jesus's words never concerned homosexuality, that I not only sanctimoniously posted by redefining sin as different from sin as defined by God in the Bible, that I not only sanctimoniously posted about the indifference to certain segments of society, that I not only ignored that each comment was shoved so far up the portion of the alimentary canal homosexuals are obsessed with without so much as an intellectually honest rebuttal, but that I went so far as to reply with a response further revealing my utter stupidity, and what an utter liar I am, by responding with a non sequitur, one that even goes so far as to ignore the fact that Gentiles are not subject to some the laws that Jews are subject to, particularly Kosher laws, on yet again revealing to every reader what a pathetic and despicable idiot I am matters.
RCV| 8.10.11 @ 5:49PM
Also, Skippy, go and reread (or read for the first time) St. Paul's letter to the Christians in Rome on justification by faith through Christ's sacrifice, as opposed to justification by adherence to the deeds prescribed by Mosaic Law.
RCV| 8.10.11 @ 6:14PM
Read also Galatians, Skippy: if justification comes through the Law, then Christ died for nothing; the Law was our disciplinarian until Christ came. Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us.
Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 8.10.11 @ 7:10PM
I don't bother with silly being so stupid, and such an idiot, that I ignored responses from P, Nick, and Margie, in additon to the hypocrisy of supporting abortion by ignoring 'thou shall not kill', supporting homosexuality by ignoring 'honor your father and mother', and supporting redistribution of wealth by ignoring not only 'thou shall not steal' but also 'thou shall not covet', as just the tip of the iceberg, on yet again revealing what a pathetic and despicable idiot I am matters.
Margie| 8.10.11 @ 10:13PM
"What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!
Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to any one as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?
But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness." Rom. 6:15-18.
We're either slaves to sin, or slaves to God.
And Grace doesn't mean a free pass to sin.
Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 8.10.11 @ 7:10PM
I don't bother with silly being so stupid, and such a liar, that I ignore that by faith alone shall an individual be saved, that the determination whether an individual has faith or not is determined by the individual's actions, that the actions that determine whether an individual's faith is real, and not delusional, is described in detail in the Bible, through what actions are sinful, through Jesus's actual words, through Paul's actual words by direction of Jesus, through treatment of all segments of society and not just AFTER they're born, among other details as laid out in the Bible, that actions failing to live up to the standards as revealed in the Bible determines that faith is not real but delusional, on yet again revealing to every reader what a pathetic and despicable idiot I am matters.
RCV| 8.10.11 @ 7:36PM
Skippy, you noxious little worm, man up and write under your own name. You're being deceitful yourself, in addition to epiomizing just about every quality our Lord preached against: self-righteous, judgmental, and just an all-around obnoxious person.
Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 8.11.11 @ 1:10PM
I don't bother with silly self-righteous, judgmental, all-around obnoxious matters, as, after all, I am the poster who manned up, and who wrote under my own name, "at least, Skippy, I belong to the party that cares about human beings AFTER they're born", as has been, openly, mentioned here a time or three, as obviously as possible, possibly even more times than that, even as I am the 'epiome' of deceit, as I am the one who manned up, deceptively, and posted here under the name 'Liberal Reader', possibly even under more names than that, on being the 'epiome' of a noxious little worm, for among a vast host of reasons, supporting this very day, as I have each of the preceding 14,081 consecutive days, since January 22, 1973, the brutal murder of an average, each and every one of those days, of 3,836 innocent, defenseless, unborn Americans, as a self proclaimed devout, churchgoing expert of real Christian love, and compassi0n, and the Constitution, and self-righteousness, and judgmentalism, and all-around obnoxiousness, like the noxious little worm I am matters.
RCV| 8.11.11 @ 3:54PM
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.........
Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 8.11.11 @ 7:16PM
I don't bother with silly calling out a poster - who has always made it as obvious as possible, to any reader, as to who it is that is posting - just as obvious as it is to those readers every time they read the posts from these exalted initials of what a sanctimonious hypocritical idiot I am, sanctimoniously calling out the poster to man up, while hypocritically ignoring being busted on being 'Liberal Reader', even worse not manning up and coming clean on who else I've sanctimoniously hypocritically posted under, on providing even more proof what a pathetic and and despicable worm I am matters.
skip| 8.11.11 @ 1:30PM
What sort of surprises me, is that the reprehensible contemptible vile one thinks the poster 'Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus' is Skippy.
While Skippy is often pointing out to the reprehensible contemptible vile one what a pathetic, despicable, stupid, lying, idiot he is, I would think the reprehensible contemptible vile one would think it is I who is the poster 'Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus'.
That is, until I come to my senses and remind myself what a pathetic, despicable, stupid, lying, idiot the reprensible contemptible vile one is.
What an idiot.
RCV| 8.11.11 @ 6:12PM
You're the one I was referring to as Skippy, Skip.
RCV| 8.11.11 @ 6:13PM
When I saw the word "vomitus", you were the first thing that sprung to mind.
Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 8.11.11 @ 7:52PM
I don't bother with silly comprehension of word meanings, as American Spectator's very own laughingstock (subject of ridicule), the one and only Reprobate (morally unprincipled) Charlatan (fraudulent deceiver) Vomitus (ejecting excrement), on the comprehension of "do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable", much less the word detestable (abhorrent, abominable, accursed, appalling, atrocious, awful, bad, base, contemptible, crass, degenerate, despicable, despisable, detestable, dirty, disgusting, excrable, foul, gross, hateable, hateful, heinous, horrible, horrid, horrifying, icky, ignoble, ignominious, inferior, loathsome, lousy, low, lowest, mean, monstrous, noisome, obnoxious, obscene, odious, offensive, outrageous, paltry, pathetic, pitiful, reprehensible, repugnant, repulsive, revolting, rotten, scummy, scurvy, shabby, shocking, sickening, sordid, sorry, swinish, terrible, unpleasant, unworthy, vile, worthless, wretched), on the irony of words describing homosexual behavior including reprehensible and contemptible and vile, not to mention pathetic and despicable matters.
Reprobate Charlatan Vomitus| 8.11.11 @ 7:19PM
I don't bother with silly history of posting so stupidly and idiotically no one could possibly take for granted I have the sufficient intellectual honesty to discern the difference between Skippy and skip, must less on the intellectual honesty to discern the difference between the Apostle Paul and satan matters.
POST America| 8.10.11 @ 9:00AM
---Great piece!
And now onto whatever happened to
John Wheeler's murder? the Fukishima
world DEPOP OP? the banker 'bailout'?
that 1.5 quadrillion in FAKE USURY
derivatives debt? the 20th, 30th, 40th, 50th
and 60th Anniversaries of the KOREAN WAR?
the RED China sellout and TREASON issue?
the TAX FREE subsidization of 'benny violent',
culture and economy subverting, EUGENICS
pushing foundations? ----the issue of an ILLEGAL,
private, foreign owned UN--Constitutional
'Federal' Reserve?
David| 8.10.11 @ 9:05AM
To me, it seems that she has flipped to liberal in order to to cover herself with people who will accept her as a lesbian rather than being who she was.
And I don't even know who she is...lol
C Smith| 8.10.11 @ 9:47AM
"And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them." (Genesis 6:5-7).
cowgirl| 8.10.11 @ 10:25AM
God loves the sinner, but hates the sin.
Nick| 8.10.11 @ 11:01AM
Amen, Cowgirl, amen!
Joe D.| 8.10.11 @ 11:00AM
I feel bad for these sick perverted people who like to twist the Bible to mean anything that what it to mean, or just ignore it and say it is not relevent.
There is nothing new under the sun as Soloman said. God has seen it all and knows all. Knapp is dead wrong along with others. It is just a terrible thing to see her turn away others with her lies. Unfortunitly she will pay for it. Woo to those who will turn others from God. It would better for them to tie a milstone around there neck and toss it into the sea.
RCV| 8.10.11 @ 11:45AM
And, Joe, let you who is without sin cast the first stone at her.
P| 8.10.11 @ 12:33PM
RCV, reading your posts, you seem strange.
Joe D. is not revelling in the dark turn that this singer's life has taken, Knapp.
Ask him. He'd assuredly be one to immediately respond, "RCV, I hope she repents and turns it around. I hope she seeks forgiveness and experiences full restoration."
Pointing out wanton, reckless, deadly sin is not hate.
Good neighbors warn you before a calamity. They try to help you prevent it.
Nobody is being stoned.
The issues are: 1) Authentic Christianity and homosexuality are incompatible, 2) Ms. Knapp, the subject of the article, is wayward and has strange commentary when on stage or making public pronouncements; she ignores Biblical truth, 3) Readers here are troubled by such life stories. They want to wish her well, but they are not going to distort God's obvious Biblical truths to conform to a wicked lifestyle, 4) She's young enough and Jesus has not yet returned; she can still repent -- let's hope she does!
P| 8.10.11 @ 12:34PM
RCV, reading your posts, you seem strange.
Joe D. is not revelling in the dark turn that this singer's life has taken, Knapp.
Ask him. He'd assuredly be one to immediately respond, "RCV, I hope she repents and turns it around. I hope she seeks forgiveness and experiences full restoration."
Pointing out wanton, reckless, deadly sin is not hate.
Good neighbors warn you before a calamity. They try to help you prevent it.
Nobody is being stoned.
The issues are: 1) Authentic Christianity and homosexuality are incompatible, 2) Ms. Knapp, the subject of the article, is wayward and has strange commentary when on stage or making public pronouncements; she ignores Biblical truth, 3) Readers here are troubled by such life stories. They want to wish her well, but they are not going to distort God's obvious Biblical truths to conform to a wicked lifestyle, 4) She's young enough and Jesus has not yet returned; she can still repent -- let's hope she does!
Tina B| 8.10.11 @ 5:12PM
Christ said this to one woman at one point in time, when Pharisees were stoning her to death after she was caught in adultery. (breaking a Commandment) Those throwing stones were the same Pharisees who were always ready to stone someone to death while sinners themselves.
No one at TAS is throwing stones or trying to kill Ms. Knapp. We are writing about what we think about her claims to be a Christian, or Christ follower, while bragging about committing adultery, to thousands at concerts, and millions on TV. She is promoting a lie.
We, some of us writing at AS, have an intimate relationship with the Creator of the Universe. We are allowed to have opinions and to express them in the marketplace of ideas. Christ's stand on fulfilling the Law is clear. We stand with Him. We'll let you liberals cast stones, we just share our beliefs.
RCV| 8.10.11 @ 6:19PM
...and she's just sharing her beliefs as well. She, who also has an intimate relationship with the Creator of the Universe. She, whom Christ freed from slavery to the Law as Paul said in Galatians. Christ came to tell us that all of the Law, and all of the Prophets, can be reduced now to two commandments: Love God with all your heart and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. I see nothing in this person's behavior or speech to indicate that she does not fulfill those two commandments faithfully, or that she does not have faith in Jesus Christ, our Lord.
Bill S| 8.10.11 @ 9:00PM
(1 Cor 6:9-10 NIV) Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders {10} nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
TheRightIsAnythingBut| 8.10.11 @ 1:06PM
Until I opened this page, I didn't know that computers could communicate smells as well as pixels. But the stench of hypocrisy wafts strongly from this page.
As I understand Christianity, and I take this primarily from a New Testament perspective, our God is one of love and forgiveness. Seems that divine love and forgiveness is distinctly missing here among those who profess to know God.
Also - I'm troubled by this obsession with the current Bible - which was first programmed and sanitized with the Nicean Council. And then re-programmed and sanitized (made "politically correct" - ooooh, there I went and used the P phrase) throughout history. There were/are lots of gospels and scriptures deemed unfit for the faithful. Personally, any writing from as close to the time of Jesus of Nazareth that helps to inform me of God's love and forgiveness (including those written by women - can you imagine?) needs to be considered as well. Just because some group of men centuries ago decided some gospel doesn't suit their political/social/economic agenda doesn't invalidate it.
Margie| 8.10.11 @ 1:21PM
"Seems that divine love and forgiveness is distinctly missing here among those who profess to know God."
It depends on your definition of love.
Do you take the admonition of God to "Repent and believe the Gospel" as unloving?
What do you think repent means, and repent of what?
If God didn't truly love us, He wouldn't have died for that Sin that takes us to Hell.
Sin is just a fact of life and we all have it~ but God gives us the power, if we call upon Him, to be able to turn from it (repent), and be saved from Hell.
If Christians are actually called by God to preach His Gospel~ it has to include the Sin issue. Telling His Truth about Sin is the only loving thing we can do.
big bob| 8.10.11 @ 1:55PM
Wow. You must have one of those Bibles used by the Sojuorners?? maybe? I'm guessing you have not actually READ the New Testament. Because if you had READ it, you could no more write that comment than think it. Before I actual cite some passages that make you look rather foolish, have you ever actually READ the New Testament??? Huh?
The RightIsAnythingBut| 8.10.11 @ 2:36PM
bigbob, I'm not sure what a "Sojuorner" is.
You would have guessed wrong on my reading. So cite away, bigbob. This is going to be hilarious.
big bob| 8.10.11 @ 2:45PM
Actually, I was reponding to Margie's bleeding heart plea. While you plead agnostic, there is just an air of arrogance that I choose not to engage. So count me out...you were not the focus. And you can look up the Sojourners in google..the scent should be VERY strong however!! (LOL)
JimP| 8.10.11 @ 3:42PM
Please site the passages, Bob. I don't read anything unorthodox in what Margie said and I was raised in a mainstream church starting in the 1950's. So, I'm confused and would appreciate clarification from you. Thanks.
Margie| 8.10.11 @ 10:29PM
It's likely big bob's just got a personal bone to pick. Either that or he simply cannot read, but I suspect the former.
Anyhow, thanks for the comment.
Pelligrino| 8.11.11 @ 12:40AM
Hi Margie. I also find nothing to dislike about what you wrote above. In fact, it is the contrary; you stated it very well. To love somebody and talk to them about salvation in Jesus, we're going to have to talk about sin, disobedience, selfishness. Just as I must be frank and honest with myself when coming to the Lord. Is my heart clean? Where have I sinned? What might I be trying to hide or "get away with" that is clearly unrighteous in God's eyes?
"For the wages of sin is death (eternal damnation), but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:23
And, yes, you said it, Margie: That is God's mercy and grace to us. He saves us; this is love.
And, so, as his disciples we will talk about sin, confronting sin, repentance, changed behaviors, and restoration -- all because we love.
It might not work, but I'd try to have that very conversation with Ms. Knapp (or others like her). And it wouldn't be, "Ha, ha, I know the Bible better than you do..." No, it would be simply using verses right from scripture to help open Ms. Knapp's eyes.
God makes it plain how we are to live and have LIFE. It is our ego/haughtiness that causes our own stumblings, failures, and downfalls.
Margie, thanks for your posts here today. The same for those from Tina B., Nick, Bill S., OT, DR, and others.
I cannot help but think that -- despite the thread format (rather b/w dull, no color possibilities or different fonts, etc.), a person can read the things that all of you write and 1) be pushed/encouraged to go check out Bible verses for themselves, 2) be challenged in his or her thinking, 3) be perhaps encouraged to change, turn to walk closer to God.
I appreciate what you all write. It is encouraging. Gracias.
Margie| 8.11.11 @ 9:37PM
Hi Pelligrino,
Thanks for what you said.
You and I both know just from living in this fallen world for many decades (well for me anyway), that the elemental spirits of the universe and God's enemy, the Devil, seek to destroy young girls (and boys), so much so that by the time they're 18 they're ready to utterly reject God.
I have a much younger cousin who's wife thought she wanted to "become a lesbian". She actually left her husband for a woman. After a short time she began losing her sanity. She ended up in a mental hospital because she tried to commit suicide.
This is a prime example of how the spirit that is now at work as the Bible says, "in the sons of disobedience"~ through others influencing her, and the weakness and sinfulness of the flesh, she began actually believing this lie, and actually left her husband to persue these wrong desires.
Thankfully she wasn't successful in her attempt at suicide, and God rescued her from that situation. He saved her life, and rescued her. Sadly, her Marriage was destroyed but she escaped with her life and never went back to that sin.
Homosexuality is purely a case of mistaken identity.
It is all in the mind. The mind that works through and is set on the flesh~ of which the Bible says is death. The Devil's goal is to send as many human beings as possible to Hell along with himself and works through our sinful flesh and its desires to get us there.
From what I've learned about why people choose homosexuality, it's mostly because, if a boy~ the Father was either missing, or not emotionally involved~ and/or~ they had a very overbearing Mother. This causes them to look for the love that they missed from their Fathers, from a male figure. OR they were sexually abused by a male, which has a whole other psychology, sadly.
For girls, usually their Moms were emotionally missing or abusive, and they seek that missing love from another female figure.
(Occam~ you must be aware of this).
It is all based on a lie, though. The lie that the fulfillment they are seeking can be had in that way.
The Devil then traps them into this lifestyle, and their consciences become seared as with a hot iron, and at first they are ashamed but the shame keeps getting covered over and over again until they feel no more pain from the sin, and then they belong to Satan hook, line and sinker. In this process, anywhere within it~ some are so overcome with guilt and shame~ especially if they're really young, that they'll try taking their own lives because they can't bear the pain. That's what happened with my cousin's wife.
That is~ unless God sees fit to rescue them, and He does. He rescues those that always belonged to Him. and He knows just who they are.
It's a sad fact that the adults today actually take part in the destruction of these beloved youngsters, and indeed children~ now, in the public schools they are being taught that this sin is OK, and so with the perverted influence of the adults, more and more children are taking part in this "lifestyle" that kills the body and the SOUL and takes them to Hell.
When they ought to be teaching them that it is not only unnecessary but sinful, and that God doesn't approve~ that it simply isn't His way~ they are instead contributing to their demise by encouraging it or "looking the other way".
I pray for Miss Jennifer Knapp, that she comes to her right mind, as Jesus wants her to~ and chooses to sin no more.
She's young, and by her example many could also turn.
So Jennifer, if you happen to be reading this dear one:
.." and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." Lk. 22:32.
Pelligrino| 8.12.11 @ 2:11AM
Hello again, Margie. Thank you once more for what you write. You are correct. Satan is alive and well. He does indeed "prowl about as a lion seeking who he may destroy."
Destroy.
Not just lure away for a few months or so.
Destroy.
I heard a good sermon about three months ago where the pastor stated this (I paraphrase): "You can I know what the Bible says and how it will end. In the end, God triumphs! But does Satan believe this? No, I don't believe he does. Satan still thinks that he might win. He's working for his victory."
I think that this is true. It is why Satan seeks and devours every life that he can.
And sexual practices are a PRIME zone to ensnare. I believe it is the number one tool in Satan's kitbag.
Ms. Knapp, you know this. Please don't willfully choose to be a victim. Satan doesn't play. He's gunnin' for your soul, your very being.
big bob| 8.11.11 @ 8:54PM
Actually, I have to apologize as I read Margie's post way too fast!! I see that her first sentence was in quotes, and that it was not her comment. I got sick of the bleeding heart mentality of the liberal church on the left. I jumped too quickly. I stand humbled and corrected.
Margie| 8.11.11 @ 9:45PM
Thanks, big bob, I happily accept your apology.
I've done that myself at times. It's too easy (at least for me) a lot of the time to get caught up in the emotion of the threads, and respond to what I have read.. well anyway let's just say I'm the royal example of what you just did.
Thanks again, kiddo! :^).
Bill S| 8.10.11 @ 9:00PM
(1 Cor 6:9-10 NIV) Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders {10} nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
big bob| 8.10.11 @ 1:43PM
I give up....what was your point again?
booboo| 8.10.11 @ 2:15PM
The point is, "We hate homos!" This is always the point on AmSpec.
Nick| 8.10.11 @ 3:28PM
booboo,
What an apt pseudonym.
And, that is not the point.
We don't hate anyone. We pity the homos. We feel sorry for them. I wish them nothing but the best.
The best is for them to know the love of their Savior, Jesus Christ, and follow His commands.
Purple Lips| 8.10.11 @ 4:45PM
For the life of me, I never heard of this "artiste". And every has-been female folk artist is a lesbian these days. A few years ago I tuned in PBS by mistake. The stage was filled with every kind of lesbian out there, and they all had guitars. I turned the TV off when they started singing Puff the Magic Dragon.
Louis Jenkins| 8.10.11 @ 6:59PM
Yes, and the other sleepless night I made the mistake of turning on PBS and they were showing a "gay camp." I spent all of about 3 seconds and turned the thing off and went to sleep. Soundly I might add.
9thID| 8.10.11 @ 4:56PM
I think Romans 1:18-32 sums up Knapp and the Left quite well...
Chris Ford | 8.10.11 @ 7:09PM
Poorly written and omitting both context and relative facts to Jennifer's career---present, past and even upcoming announcements regarding her fall schedule.
Mr. Walton could have easily reached out for an interview request with Ms. Knapp or at least a clarification of facts from our office.
He did not.
-Chris Ford,
Mangement, Faith & Public Life with Jennifer Knapp
Occam's Tool| 8.10.11 @ 9:32PM
OK, Chris, riddle me this---why did she sing at an Israel bashing Liberal "religious" forum. Where does anti-semitism get its support in modern Liberal Christianity?
Chris Ford | 8.11.11 @ 12:05AM
I am not familiar with any event Ms. Knapp has attended or performed that was "anti-Israel" nor have I heard any conversation regarding Israel in any of her conversations, public or private.
Jennifer has been very fortunate to receive the kindness and support of many people, including those of the Jewish and Christian faith from all places along the spectrum of orthodoxy.
-CF
Pelligrino| 8.11.11 @ 1:10AM
Chris Ford,
While I don't know the author of this piece, Mr. Jeff Walton, and I am certainly in no way associated with American Spectator, please let me encourage you to contact Mr. Walton and/or the editors -- if there was poor journalism done in the article.
While we're all human and subject to a) err -- even when we don't want to, or b) natural biases, I cannot think that Mr. Walton has purposely tried to omit important facts, career information, or context.
Write to them. I am confident that, if there was/were journalistic error(s), you will see a retraction or a follow-up story to set the record straight. You mention an interview; maybe Mr. Walton or someone else at American Spectator would be interested in an interview directly with Ms. Knapp?
Your comment (above) leaves it rather unclear and open-ended. You wrote: "Poorly written and omitting both context and relative facts to Jennifer's career---present, past and even upcoming announcements ...."
That tells readers nothing.
So, okay, the ball is in your court.
I am just a reader here. But readers here are after the truth and factual commentary. If something needs fixing, then please act.
Occam's Tool| 8.11.11 @ 12:58AM
The Association of Welcoming and Affirming Baptists (AWAB) is strongly opposed to Israel's right to self defense, Mr. Ford.
So, one must conclude that Jennifer is ignorant or stupid.
DeDe Catalina| 8.11.11 @ 4:06AM
and i'm sure Jesus surely talked to people the way you do!
David| 8.10.11 @ 7:48PM
Well, after 200+ comments, here are mine.
There are two types of people, and both claim to be Christian, but I believe only group is actually Christian. There are 5 fundamentals of the Christian faith, such as belief in the Virgin Birth and also belief that the Bible is The Word of God.
Remember, Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light. I believe Knapp, the homo Episcopal Bishop, and many others who claim to like the same sex have disguised themselves just like light to gain favor and join Christian groups. Once they have gained a certain stature in Christian circles, they come out of the closet. They have deceived many, especially young folks, and that is the sad part. The sadder part is that they turn around and try to justify their behavior using the Bible (The Word of God to a true Christian), and claiming that Jesus would love them (any Christian knows that he does). They attempt to change what Christianity teaches to suit their particular behavior. That is evil. Moreover, I believe they do this because they were NEVER true Christians who believed in the 5 fundamentals of the Christian faith.
Contrast that group of people with the other group I mentioned: in this other group we can put people like Jim Baker, Jimmy Swaggert, and others. How did they react when outed? No matter how destestable you believe they are and no matter how much they hurt the Church by their actions, they did not insist that what they did was okay, and then try to selectively choose Scriptures (The Word of God) to convince people that Christians and Jews did not get it right these thousands of years. Jimmy, Jim, and others publicly repented and pleaded for foregiveness from their congregations, family, friends, and co-workers, and let's pray that they truly repented before God. I believe this second group are true Christians and do believe in the fundmentals of the Christian faith.
The point again is that the Knapp group and other liberal Christian groups disguise themselves as angels of light - disguise themselves as true Christians - yet they are not true believers. If they were, they could not turn around and attempt to MAKE US ALL CHANGE TO SUIT THEM. To fight to make us accept them as leaders in our churches. To be one of us. To tell us that The Word of God does not really mean what true believers knows it means.
It happens all of the time in secular circles, too. Look at the once looked-up to conservatives known as Andrew Sullivan, David Brock, Arianna Huffington, etc. They pretended to be conservatives, and when the realized that they could not change what conservatives believe about homosexual behavior (not in Huff's case - at least I don't think so), they have turned against conservatives on almost every issue. They too disguised themselves as angels of light to infiltrate and gain the respect of the group to which they wanted to INFLUENCE - TO CHANGE INTO WHAT THEY THOUGHT THE GROUP SHOULD BE LIKE.
Tina B| 8.11.11 @ 9:58AM
In my opinion, David, you have stated the essense of the argument very succinctly. That is exactly what is going on here. Just as in Eden, Satan said, "Did God really say that?" No, Eve had not quoted God's words correctly. But the lie stood and our life on Earth changed. These liars are no different, and Satan definitely hasn't changed. Lies are lies and God's Truth will stand.
Blake R.L. Coryn| 8.10.11 @ 7:55PM
As I expected, the comments from the left-wingers on this article quickly degenerated into hate-filled anti-Christian talking points from sodomy supporters, with all facts, logic, and canon given in response either derided or ignored in favor of hypocritical ad-hominems. Concerning Jennifer Knapp, the article could just as well have been called "Does Anybody Remember Jennifer Knapp?" I sure never heard of her before now; probably never will again either. Like all religious left-wingers, she's also openly hateful of everything even remotely Christian even while demanding our approval! Not all Hell-bound fools are left-wingers, but all left-wingers are Hell-bound fools.
Of course, the hate-filled lefty perverts on here who are always attacking us for not agreeing that muff-diving, pole-smoking, butt-banging, and brown-nosing are all beautiful expressions of love that we ought to be teaching captive audiences of kindergartners at taxpayer expense have no logical arguments whatsoever in their favor. Their hypocritical rants about "tolerance" and "open minds" reveal them to be wholly intolerant to Christianity specifically and religious liberty in general and to have closed their minds completely to God, the Bible, reason, and faith. We owe these heretics nothing but contempt.
That said, let us be careful not to follow in the footsteps of these modern-day Sadducees , or to become modern-day Pharisees in response. In holding to the Scriptures, let us read them plainly and in context. Here, in some context, is the pertinent part of Paul's letter to the Romans where it addresses homosexuality:
One thing that has always stood out for me in this passage is that, contrary to the sodomites' deceitful complaints, no particular kind of sexual immorality is singled out or held up as any more depraved than another. The sins mentioned are not merely "shameful acts with other men" (i.e. homosexuality, and every kind of sexual act associated with it), but exchanging "natural sexual relations for unnatural ones" and abandoning "natural relations with women" for these unnatural acts. This passage covers not only homosexuality, but also bestiality and certain perverted practices between heterosexual partners. This is consistent with much else in the Bible, such as the scope of the Decalogue which is fleshed out in the rest of the Mosaic Law. The word commonly translated as "adultery" in "You shall not commit adultery" for instance actually refers to pretty much any kind of sex outside of marriage, e.g. fornication; it might better have been translated "You shall not commit sexual immorality."
In further support of my contention that the modern fuss over homosexuality is entirely the sodomites' own doing, I should point out that historically adultery was punished with death, as in the case of Daniel S. Sickles, acquitted in the slaying of Phillip Barton Key for trifling with his wife Teresa. The "unwritten law" that a man could kill anyone he caught in adultery with his wife (and the adulterous wife too, for that matter) still held some sway in courts back in the 1860s, though it was rather inconsistently applied. (Sickles was a notorious womanizer, and even before the suffragettes got their movement started, the same courts that acquitted him might have acquitted his wife on the same grounds if she had killed him and/or his mistress; yet the couple chose to patch up their marriage instead.) Divorce laws also used to be a lot stricter, in accord with our Lord & Savior's warnings against marriage-hopping in Matthew 5:31-32.
The reason why we don't enforce many of these Biblical laws now is not because there was ever anything wrong with them, but rather because we don't trust our enforcers. Because our country's entire system of government is founded on a healthy skepticism of the goodness in any politician's heart and a moral desire to limit the power of our representatives over our daily lives, our Constitution blocked the government from unreasonable search and seizure, and also from infringing on our freedom of expression. The price of these liberties—not too high to pay, arguably—is having to put up with the noise pollution emitted from the orifices of fools like these sodomy supporters and Christian-haters here. Notably, the ones who scream loudest against all sexual restrictions on the grounds of these Constitutional liberties are the very same hypocrites seeking to invite our crooked government's bloated bureaucracies to take control of every aspect of our lives and dictate acceptance of any and every perverted sexual practice to us and our children. We should therefore not be afraid to call these totalitarians the traitors and tyrants they are, and treat them as such. Public schools should be abolished, and their advocates imprisoned for child abuse, moral turpitude, and contributing to the delinquency of minors.
Left-wingers are always pretending to be protecting some kind of cultural "advances" from regressive attempts to "turn back the clock" but this old chestnut has now been exposed for the absurdity it always was; all the left-wing fools are seeking to preserve is cultural decay, and we would be much healthier, happier, and more liberated if we could turn back the clock and undo the damage these opportunists and parasites have done to our culture and country. Just as the moral bankruptcy of the un-Christian churches (such as the ones who welcomed Knapp's perversions) eventually made itself empirically evident through the severe decline of their membership, so too does our country's impending moral bankruptcy make itself known now through its fiscal bankruptcy and impending default. Just as Sodom's horrific perversions were merely a symptom of its being decadent and uncharitable (Ezekiel 16:49), so too are the perversions of the sodomy supporters a mere symptom of our own country's decadence and lack of charity.
Jennifer Knapp's description in this article matches that of every kind of sinner condemned in Romans 1:26-32. Another fitting example would be Barney Frank, whose well-known sexual perversions are mere symptoms of his underlying decadence and well-nigh criminal irresponsibility and recklessness. The evils of sodomy invariably arise from a whole host of more fundamental evils which we must attack at the root. Knapp and Frank are the willing products of the corrupt and evil cultures that are supporting them.
Bill S| 8.10.11 @ 8:59PM
Just the fact that she's a practicing homosexual shows she's a lost soul. It's so sad that she pretended to be saved and then was a terrible example of what a Christian really is.
Merlin| 8.10.11 @ 10:33PM
Alan,
I wonder what it is about you. Do you perceive yourself to be a Socratic gadfly (a little more logic and knowledge would help with that) or are you just trying to be the liberal *ur* in the conservative's punch bowl?
And I suspect there are some deep seated insecurites involved. Something about you, a handicap, an inability to make friends or ? that makes you think you did not get a fair shake in life. If so, I am sorry and hope that you will be reconciled to whatever it is.
As far as being the *u*d in the punch bowl, you have only achieved the status of plastic t*r*, (harmless) in a vertual punch bowl. Kind of sad.
Paddy O' Ryan| 8.10.11 @ 10:33PM
"Christian lesbian" is an oxymoron, as is "gay marriage." Ms. Knapp has traded the Truth in for a lie. 1st chapter of Romans speaks very clearly of this.
jesse| 8.10.11 @ 10:59PM
Fat ugly old men and women shouldn't talk about pretty lesbians.
http://www.summer-products.com
http://www.ainibag.com
jesse| 8.10.11 @ 11:00PM
Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
http://www.ainibag.com
http://www.honey-gifts.com
POST American| 8.11.11 @ 1:04AM
-----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE-------------------
And as the latest round of captstone provocateured,
multi-cultural 'UN-ease'
rolls on in Britain, as our borders continue
to hemmorage, as Mexico collapses, as
the recent Freemason/Templar styled,
and, no doubt, set up 'Break Their Hearts'
OP in Norway is memory holed
------we, along with Yahoo News
ask the pressing question:
---'Were Lesbian Heroes IGNORED by Norway?'--
Talk about it this Sunday in your Rocker-Feller
n' EUGENICS programming infiltrated church
this Sunday.
Tina B| 8.11.11 @ 10:16AM
I just can't let Postal American have the last word.
Just FYI, as an 8th grade PS teacher for 20 yrs, I got used to hearing epithets like the word faggot thrown around in the classroom and having to put a stop to that instantly. I knew the Truth, but I was legally bound not to preach it in response. Not always easy.
However when the subject of bi and homo sexuality came up in the sixth grade classroom last year, I used my standard response. As a sixth grader you should not be discussing your sexuality. You are too young to know anything about sexuality yet, no matter what your TV/movie viewing has consisted of. The culture has lied to you. . . yadda yadda yadda. I can preach on that. So I did. Regularly. I never let that subject just slide by, I always dealt with it. I know the Truth and it will set you free. Even in the public schools.
When
Occam's Tool| 8.11.11 @ 9:53PM
These posts are always interesting, and I learn a lot. D.R., Margie, thanks for existing.
Pelligrino| 8.12.11 @ 2:22AM
Yes, Tina. It is better that you get the final word. Much better.
Yes, God's truth sets us free.
JimP| 8.12.11 @ 1:36PM
No criticism implied, but I didn't think anyone bothered reading 'Post american's. He/She is obviously mentally ill.
Richard Baker| 8.11.11 @ 5:22PM
A lesbian Christian? This poor child is as addled as her declaration. Wonder what her snivel will be when she has to face the Book of Life.
POST American| 8.14.11 @ 12:13AM
--------------------BOTTOM LINE----------------------
TOTAL DEPRAVITY is the Ground Zero TRUTH
of fallen mankind.
That's you, that's me, that's everyone, everywhere
and at ALL times.
The 'Eeeel--eets' well know this, indeed, know themselves as such
---and USE it on you whenever
and wherever they want to bring things down
---ie when it's time to MOVE ON.
AGAIN, keep you eyes on the roving
ABOMINATION that is GOD mocking USURY.
Somehow this NEVER getrs talked about as such.
---------------------------------------NEVER
STOP letting David Rockefeller and 'the Boys'
set your agendas and mind pattern, predictive
program your conscience and very consciousness. ---They're DEADLY.
SEE: ALAN WATT 'Outside the BOX' on google vids.
Nobody Special| 8.15.11 @ 11:32PM
Here is to hoping and praying Jennifer comes to her senses and sings:
♪Time to get down on my knees and pray,
"Lord, undo me!"
Put away my flesh and bone
'Til You own this spirit through me Lord
I am wanting, needing, guilty, and greedy,
Unrighteous, unholy; undo me. Undo me!♫
supra | 10.18.11 @ 1:46AM
Thanks for sharing. I like this your post very much, would you write more and more about this.This website is to I too have to help. Very good.