Aloha: Purpose driven Fitzmas and an Un-gay New Year
Originally published by Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report for submission at Examiner.com.
As Barack Obama dreams of a white-washed “Fitzmas” in Hawaii to replace White Christmas nightmares in Chicago, a mainstream Washington liberal echoes gay hate against traditional marriage Christians.
It seems Hope and Change is still best sought in the resurrected Christ that was born in a manger this date nearly two millennia ago. Merry Christmas!
Purpose Driven Unhappy New Year for Gay activists
With only 29 shopping days left until Christmas, this column documented the vicious hatred of many gay activists towards those against same-sex marriage in the wake of the passage of Proposition 8 in California restoring the exclusivity of traditional marriage in the Golden State. Christians, and especially Mormons, were physically harassed and their property destroyed in numerous incidents in the Golden State and around the country.
We found the story ironic given the drive-by media meme that it is Christians that are the haters for merely wanting to preserve the 5000-year old marriage definition as between one man and one woman; that black and Latino Obama voters were the ones that put Prop 8 over the top; and that the gay activists tactics made a mockery of their self-comparison with Martin Luther King, Jr. and his dignified, Holy Scripture driven, non-violent Civil Rights Movement.
We also went out of our way to recognize the fact that the over-whelming majority of gays do not support the extreme acts we reported, and we still acknowledge that fact.
So, it was with some discomfort that we read a gay-rights driven denunciation of the President-Elect’s choice of main-stream evangelical, Southern Baptist pastor Rick Warren, author of The Purpose Driven Life (second in all-time book sales to The Holy Bible) to deliver the invocation prayer at his Inauguration, by a mainstream Washington liberal. Richard Cohen describes his gay sister’s cancellation of an Inaugural party due to the selection of Warren and then states:
I can understand Obama’s desire to embrace constituencies that have rejected him. Evangelicals are in that category and Warren is an important evangelical leader with whom, Obama said, “we’re not going to agree on every single issue.” He went on to say, “We can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans.” Sounds nice.
But what we do not “hold in common” is the dehumanization of homosexuals. What we do not hold in common is the belief that gays are perverts who have chosen their sexual orientation on some sort of whim. What we do not hold in common is the exaltation of ignorance that has led and will lead to discrimination and violence.
Finally, what we do not hold in common is the categorization of a civil rights issue — the rights of gays to be treated equally — as some sort of cranky cultural difference. For that we need moral leadership, which, on this occasion, Obama has failed to provide. For some people, that’s nothing to celebrate.
There you have it. Americans, simply by opposing same-sex marriage: “de-humanize” homosexuals; believe they are all perverts; “exalt” ignorance and thus, aid and abet violence against them; and deny gays and lesbian their “civil rights.”
Nothing can make the New Year be happy for those with such notions. The irony is that, clearly, despite Obama’s protestations, our next President favors same-sex marriage. He is for all sorts of hate crimes, domestic partnerships and other legislation based on sexual preference. And, he opposed Proposition 8 which was designed to overturn an activist court ruling that made same-sex marriage legal.
But, the Cohen’s of the world that foment hatred of Christians with the lie that it is we that are intolerant, can’t even abide a prayer from someone that merely wants to tolerate a 5000 year old institutional definition that made civilization possible.
Pastor Warren has made clear that he and his church loves gays and has acted upon that love. Cohen does make some good points about Obama’s religious history in the column, so I do recommend reading the whole thing.
Merry white-washed Fitzmas
Prior to Christmas, our only comment on U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitgerald’s charges of vacant Obama senate seat selling by the President-Elect’s fellow democrat and Governor, Rod Blagojevich, was to suggest that the silence of Obama’s designate for Chief of Staff (COS) was deafening and that he would likely not serve one day as COS.
The din of Rahm Emanuel’s muteness continues in public, but given impending subpoenas, it appears same will end in private, if only to plead the Fifth. Given that he was the main public face of the pretentious “Office of the President-Elect” complete with the Tar Heel blue transmogrification of the Presidential seal and given that public faces include lips that need to move, we look forward to the naming a new COS-designate before MLK Day.
But the larger issues of this matter, and especially Obama’s attempt to white-wash the whole thing with a Christmas Eve’s eve dump of “internal investigation” findings, convince us that this viscerally more understandable scandal will make Clinton’s Whitewater seem pale and shallow by comparison.
We note the lack of outrage from Mr. Cool in a circumstance that cries out for righteous indignation. His Governor, Blagojevich (who is constitutionally empowered to choose the next junior senator from the Land of Lincoln) is trying to sell the seat he held. He withdrew the name of his preferred pick for his appointed successor, right before Lawyer Fitz announced the charges, arguably before Blago had actually committed a crime. Coincidence? Did Fitzgerald fear that Obama would soon incriminate himself speaking on behalf of his long-time assisstant, Valerie Jarrett?
We find that Obama didn’t tell us he had spoken to Blago about this matter, only to correct it after investigating himself? He changed pronouns from “I” to “we’ in an early vague news conference, famous for how few questions he would take, followed by one in which he instructed reporters not to “waste” questions.
Before Election Day, we suggested dangers citing the “Chicago Way” and how one would get “A Piece of the Action,” should that way come to The District.
Honolulu is as far as you can get from Chicago and still be in the USA, but when he says Aloha on his way back to the Lower Forty-Eight, Fitzmas may not yet be over.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
December 25th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Rick Warren has told Jews they’re going to Hell and Mormons that they’re fake Christians.
No one seems to be in an uproar about that.
Where are the Mitt fans on here?
When do we stand up and say no to this nonsense? If there’s anything I could have expected from a Democrat that I’d have liked, it’s that he’d stand up to the flat-Earthers like Warren, but no…
December 25th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Most Christians and Mormons tell everyone, incl quite regularly Christians sitting in pews, they are going to hell unless they follow Jesus (who also warns people of Hell more than anyone else in the Bible).
December 25th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
[...] : 1) What is the first present you opened today? A bottle of vodders in a sparkly sequin cover Merry purpose-driven, white-washed Fitzmas – race42008.com 12/25/2008 Aloha: Purpose driven Fitzmas and an Un-gay New Year Originally [...]
December 25th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
“There you have it. Americans, simply by opposing same-sex marriage: “de-humanize” homosexuals; believe they are all perverts; “exalt” ignorance and thus, aid and abet violence against them; and deny gays and lesbian their “civil rights.””
You completely misread Cohen. He wasn’t talking about any and all people who oppose same-sex marriage; he was talking about RICK WARREN. Warren can protest that he loves gay people all he wants, but that rings pretty hollow when you’re comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality. This love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin crap is equivocating condescension at its worst.
Implicit in your post is the notion that homosexuality and Christianity are mutually exclusive. I know many, many gay folks, and at least half of them are regular, church-going Christians. Also, you take for granted that because one is Christian, one opposes gay rights and same-sex marriage, which couldn’t be further from the truth. Vilifying someone for fomenting hatred of gays – as people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and to a much lesser extent, Rich Warren, have done – is NOT persecuting the faith, it’s persecuting their bigotry. This contention that Christians are being attacked en masse for favoring hetero marriage is just a tertiary installment in the ongoing lament from the religious right that there’s some sort of cultural war against Christianity, which is the most intellectually dishonest straw-man argument in political discourse today.
What you clearly don’t understand is that to many/most gays and lesbians and their allies and advocates, this is a CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE. You clearly don’t understand that because you sneer at the very concept in your post. So many folks who oppose gay right and same-sex marriage are agog that any gay folks might, you know, be angry at their position. When you tell people that you oppose granting them equal rights, they are apt not to respond with, “Well, agree to disagree.”
December 25th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
I should add as that I disagree with Cohen’s opposition to Warren delivering the inaugural invocation. Among major evangelical leaders, I find Warren one of the least hypocritical, most sincere, and most genuinely Christian. The fact that he reverse-tithes is overwhelmingly impressive and is a model that I, as a Christian, should do more to live up to. I don’t agree with his stance on gay rights and find some of his statements to that effect downright offensive, but his dedication to the poor and disadvantaged earns him my respect and admiration. I think Obama’s instincts here are sound.
December 25th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Oh man…it is christmas…
December 25th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Actually, Mormons do NOT believe that homosexuals or nonMormons are going to Hell. They might, but most will go to one of the 2 lower levels of Heaven. In Joseph Smith’s vision of the 3 levels of Heaven, it is very clear that all 3 are massively better than our earthly probation. In modern revelation God said: “I, the Lord thy God, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you, it is required to forgive all men.” Hence, we forgive those homosexuals who have persecuted us and/or destroyed our property, but would remind them that their behavior is morally in violation of the Lord’s stated will, and that marriage was ordained by God as a divine covenant established for the benefit of each of us….and one that will last for time and all eternity if entered into as God has intended.
December 25th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
#`1 – “Rick Warren has told Jews they’re going to Hell and Mormons that they’re fake Christians.
No one seems to be in an uproar about that.
Where are the Mitt fans on here?”
Unfortunately, we’re used to it Alex.
December 25th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
#7 Mormons have frequently viseted my homes over the past three decades and explained the danger that I would go to hell unless I became a Mormon whether I was engaging in gay sex or not,$ much like my fellow Baptists and Catholics evangelize.
#4, Warren is but the tip of the evagelical, Christian, incl Catholic iceberg. That is what you and Cohen don’t get.
December 25th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
#9 What??? I’m sorry, but they would never have told you that.
December 25th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Dave said it accurately, and ALL the missionaries would have been teaching it accordingly.
December 25th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Gamecock,
No offense, but I doubt that. Going to the highest, the Celestial sphere of heaven requires ordinances that can only be performed in our temples, but the other two heavens are fair game for anybody who lives a good life. To enter the lowest of the 3 levels it’s generally believed that most people will be eligible for admission. There are unforgivable sins that could condemn someone to the lake of fire, but they’re pretty heavy-duty sins.
December 25th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
IllinoisGuy is right. A Mormon missionary would have never said that. Mormons don’t even believe in Hell.
December 25th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
#13 Yes, I was told that I was lost unless I became a Mormon. I didn’t resent that they were firm in their beliefs and that their love for otehrs is why they evangelize.
You make vague allegations aginst Warren. You might as well attack God and Christ. Our sins sentence us to death. He offers aeternal life.
All who beileve on Christ may inherit eternal life, whether it be a Baptist, Mormon or a pagan in the Congo.
That is the message of the Bible and all of Christianity. No one can no the heart of another.
Now, what was you objection to Warren praying for Obama again?
and Merry Christmas!
December 25th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
#12 No offense taken Dave. So far in this thread we have established that I am not a Mormon theologian and that some here deem about 85% of Americans disqualified from giving Obama’s Inaugural invocation prayer.
December 25th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
No offense gamecock, but I’ve been with dozens and dozens of missionaries when they are teaching people the Gospel, and none of them would say what you are indicating. They may indicate that our church is the only true church, and that you are only able to attain the highest degree of glory by being a member, but to assert that you would go to hell if you were not a member, I just don’t buy that. They know better than that by the time they are 6 year olds, and they certainly have no reason to be indicating that when they don’t believe that to be the case. Give them a nother shot, and this time listen more closely!
Merry Christmas!
December 25th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
You have “been with”…
I have been an active Christian my whole life. I have read the Bible. Its not about being a “member” of a church and Warren has never said that. Warren is a mainstream Christian in the tradition from Christ thru Paul thru the whole Catholic Church thru Luther thru Calvin thru Billy Graham, all of which teach the Bible that teaches that only Christ can save us from Hell.
This is fundamental.
December 25th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
I wasn’t trying to argue with any point other than your assertion that Mormon missionaries had told you that you would go to hell if you did not join their church. I’m saying either your memory is faulty, or it was another denomination sitting there talking to you. They simply would not have said that. I’m not trying to be argumentative other than to help everyone reading this know that that is not what you would have heard from them as you assert.
December 25th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
#18 Memory faulty I suspect. Point taken.
December 25th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
#18 You may recall that I supported Romney for over a year until Fred. I defended him against far right claims that he could not be a Christian in the ultimate sense, i.e. believes on Christ as Savior. He said that and I believe him. I separate the confession of a church vs a personal confession.
God bless
December 25th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Ok, cool, and I appreciate you’ve always been more than fair to and supportive of Mitt. God bless you.
December 25th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
The opposition to Warren shows the arrogance of the homosexual agenda. Gays want special privileges under the law – thats fine (I disagree, but still…), they want every other American to have to adjust the way they think and feel, also fine (again, I disagree, but whatever).
The arrogance comes when they start demanding not a change in the way people feel, or how man-made laws treat people, but in the word and law of God itself.
December 25th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
#22 – This, again, is a straw-man construction. The only “arrogance” of the mainstream gay rights movement is to demand that they be treated EQUALLY (not preferentially). No one’s demanding that all Americans love gay people or that the word of God (which is subject to vigorous debate anyway) be changed. It’s not arrogant to demand that you not be treated like crap.
December 26th, 2008 at 12:45 am
22.
So marriage is a “special privilege” that only heterosexual men and women can enjoy? I guess people who wanted to marry their interracial partners in the 1960s were arrogant too.
December 26th, 2008 at 3:17 am
marriage has not been one man one woman for 5,000 years. the norm for most of human history has been polygamy. just saying.
December 26th, 2008 at 4:07 am
Joe makes an absolutely freaking fantastic point. One man-one woman is a purely Christian tradition. Most religions either support polygamy or make no statement on marriage.
Either way, you have to separate marriage the religious tradition from marriage the legal institution.
December 26th, 2008 at 4:09 am
The arrogance comes when they start demanding not a change in the way people feel, or how man-made laws treat people, but in the word and law of God itself.
What does “the word and law of God” have to do with marriage, the legal institution?
December 26th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Mormons and Evangelicals have been getting closer in recent years and building many bridges to the point that now a days most Evangelicals consider Mormons to be inside the Christian fold and the LDS simply another Christian denomination, like Presbyterianism. Many contemporary ecumenical theologians including, Geoffery wainwright, Hans Kung, Gregory Baum, and Kosuke Koyama are working on a creed that would encompass both traditional Christian and LDS faith traditions bringing them and other world religions together in doctrinal and pulpit fellowship. As this is the “Christmas Season” I think that we should all strive to bring the many and various religions of the world together under one ecumenical tent, where common prayer and worship can flow from one unified global doctrine of shared growth and faith.
December 26th, 2008 at 9:39 am
I don’t see how anyone can consider Mormons traditional Christians. Mormonism deviates from traditional Christianity in profound ways; in ways that have no Biblical foundation whatsoever. As an outsider, I see that Mormons’ only true appeals to be considered Christian is that they think that the Bible has some good stuff in it, that Jesus is divine, and that they really, really would like to be considered Christians, anyway. Mormons believe that they can become gods, that there is no such thing as the lake of fire, that faith in Jesus alone won’t determine your standing after death — I mean, this is a total rejection of Christian doctrine, no matter which way you slice it.
December 26th, 2008 at 9:47 am
If they weren’t demanding that the word and law of God be ignored or changed, then they wouldn’t be fighting against having a Minister who is anti-gay marriage at the inauguration.
December 26th, 2008 at 9:57 am
The more of his supporters he can turn against him the better for the country for 2012.
December 26th, 2008 at 10:04 am
30 – Don’t shift the issue. We were talking about marriage. You’re conflating legal marriage with religious marriage by opposing gay marriage. You admitted that your beef is that it “overturns the word of God.” But we are not a theocracy, and the legal institution of marriage is not a religious institution.
December 26th, 2008 at 10:22 am
#30 – The key word here is “ignored.” It was necessary for Alex to point out the obvious – we’re not a theocracy. The only “word” with supreme authority in our government is the word of our founding fathers as expressed in the Constitution. (As just to pre-empt more nonsense, the majority of our founding fathers were Deists, not Christians.)
December 26th, 2008 at 11:12 am
The theocratic know-nothings that say that we’re a “Christian nation” ignore the fact that most religious leaders of the time were outraged that the Constitution contained no reference to God, Jesus, or religion (except to take it out of the state). We’re a “Christian nation” insofar as we’re a majority-Christian nation, but we’re expressly secular in our government, which the theocrats don’t seem to realize.
They’ve been taught well to wrap up their religious convictions in secular language, but if you probe far enough into someone who opposes gay marriage, it always stems from (a) religious conviction — which they try not to let slip, but sometimes it does; witness MatthewK above — or (b) blind bigotry. I have never, ever, ever encountered a third reason.
December 26th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Gamecock is quickly becoming my favorite poster on this site. It is nice to get something besides cartoons or Alex’s dissertation paper or a run down of every chapter of that god awful man’s book. Also, i just realized that I don’t know any gay (men)people and no one i know my age (24) goes to church.
December 26th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
My dissertation paper?
December 26th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Nice post, Gamecock. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.
I’m glad you made the distinction between those I’ll call “militant gays” and other gays who are less violent/hateful/activist.
December 26th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
#37 Absolutely ‘pete, I know that the militant gays are a tiny minority. It is quite distressing that Cohen, who very often pays homage to conservative ideas, esp on nat security, has bought into the far left on this, but I guess he can be excused due to his sister.
But I have represented gays in discrimination cases and helped an openly gay legislator write legislation based on individual rights as opposed to group or orientation rights.
December 26th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Glad I got your goat! #35
December 26th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
“I know that the militant gays are a tiny minority.”
Yet its the most extreme members of the community – who openly flaunt their sexuality and demand that Americans not only tolerate, but condone, their lifestyle – who are the public face of the group.
If the homosexual movement as a whole was – and were perceived as – a repressed group respectful of other views who only wanted legal protections that would give them basic rights that aren’t deeply entwined with other matters (i.e. religion, morals), then they might get some sympathy and large numbers of people willing to work out a compromise.
But that simply isn’t the reality.
December 26th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
oh – and back to the main issue…
If the homosexual movement was attacking Obama’s choice of a cabinet sec., policy advisor, etc. for his/her views on marriage, there wouldn’t be a problem.
The issue is that they are attacking a Christian Minister for following the Bible.
December 26th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
MatthewK-
Why do homosexuals need to earn your condolence? They don’t care if closed-minded individuals such as yourself possess an opinion about how they should live their loves, they just want the equal legal right to be married. They’re not forcing priests to marry gay couples, just that the state recognizes gay marriage. Separation of church and state still exists, doesn’t it?
December 26th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Listening to Alex classify who is mainstream Christian and who isn’t is pretty ironic.
December 26th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Jason,
Actually, Alex got a lot right. Mormons don’t consider themselves “traditional Christians”. They do consider themselves Christians, however.
He was wrong when he implied that much of what they believe has no Biblical support. In actuality, you would be very hard pressed to find any fundamental LDS doctrine that is not supported in one way or the other in the Bible.
December 26th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
#40 Amen and I think the radicals want more than condone. They want us all to stand up and appluad what they do in the bedroom. The compromise most wanted was worked out long ago, i.e. to be left alone. To be treated as individuals like all else. But the extremists wanted more. Too much more.
December 26th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Yet its the most extreme members of the community – who openly flaunt their sexuality and demand that Americans not only tolerate, but condone, their lifestyle – who are the public face of the group.
Gosh, God forbid same-sex love, which harms no one and adds joy to lives, be condoned.
December 26th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Nice ad hominem attack, Jason.
Most gynecologists are men; I suppose by your silly chain of logic, they have no right to work in the field that they do.
December 26th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
You call it that, many – if not most – people call it unnatural behavior that goes against laws of all kind – natural, religious, etc.
You honestly believe people should be forced to condone and support a lifestyle they view as unnatural and sinful?
—
#42 – I don’t know why they need my condolence, but the most radical members of the community certainly demand it, and those members (remember, we aren’t talking about the community as a whole, but its leaders and most high-profile members)certainly DO care that I have an opinion, because they want to stop me from spreading that opinion by attacking those who hold the same opinion using hate-laws, and by using schools to brainwash children to override any concept of morality that parents or churches might be able to instill in children.
You don’t seem to have a clear idea of how far the radicals want to go. Many do indeed want to go after churches that won’t perform gay marriages. Just look at MA, the Catholic adoption agency was forced to shut down because it insisted on placing children in homes with both a mother and a father.
===
I also want to make the point that when you talk about the “state recognizing it”, you are really talking about the tax-paying American public supporting it, because the government is nothing but an extension of, and the representatives for, that public.
===
Are there some places where changes could be made? Sure. Why not allow everyone to designate a non-spouse as someone who can have power of attorney and hospital visitation – family or not?
But beyond that, most of what the Gays demand has no business being put into action. Why do they need marriage? So they can feel better? So they can get special benefits designed to promote families (which gays are not capable of having on their own)? I can’t imagine they would have some religious conviction about it…
Why do they need extra protections for the workplace? I’m against discrimination, but what they have to come to realize is that a boss shouldn’t ever know what gender pref. you are/choose/whatever.
December 26th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
“Gosh, God forbid same-sex love”
Funnily enough, I think he did – which is why such a large portion of the population is so hostile to the Homosexual agenda.
December 26th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
You’re such a closet case, MatthewK.
You call it that, many – if not most – people call it unnatural behavior that goes against laws of all kind – natural, religious, etc.
You honestly believe people should be forced to condone and support a lifestyle they view as unnatural and sinful?
Support? No. Allow and condone under the secular law? Well, yes. Because they’re objectively incorrect when they say that it’s unnatural, and imposing theocracy when they say that it’s “sinful.”
Why did you capitalize “the Gays”?
But beyond that, most of what the Gays demand has no business being put into action. Why do they need marriage? So they can feel better? So they can get special benefits designed to promote families (which gays are not capable of having on their own)? I can’t imagine they would have some religious conviction about it…
You stupid prick. First of all, saying that gays can’t believe in God (“they must not have a religious conviction”), second, for implying that your brand of Christianity is the correct one, third, for saying that marriage is only about “feeling better,” fourth, for falsely asserting that marriage’s benefits are strictly limited to those to promote families.
Why do I even bother replying to you?
Goodness, it’s no wonder that gays vote for Democrats 3:1, with schmucks like you corrupting the party, making sure it’s known as the Stupid Party.
December 26th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Alex,
Heh. I actually mostly agree with you point on LDS theology not inline with Mainstream Christianity. What I am laughing about is entirely different:
1. You seem to have changing classifications of what is or isn’t a homosexual, and what is or isn’t a personal choice. It actually varies on the argument you are trying to make. So it’s funny to now see you extend that god given talent for classification to an arena you know little about.
2. You actually have very little knowledge of LDS theology, and it’s really funny to see you act like an authority. As a matter of fact I have had 2 conversations with you here (as best as I can remember) where you have stated a complete factual error about LDS theology only to retract with “I knew that!”- which you obviously didn’t.
And what’s even more funny is… Mormons do believe in Hell. So time for you to retract no. 13.
To use your Gynecologist example, you are more like the college kid who knows nothing about Gynecology, but pretends to be one because he likes the cheap thrill of playing with something he knows nothing about.
Your smart, but you always sound like a pretender when you enter into LDS theological discussions.
December 26th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
44. Read no 51.
December 26th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
1. A homosexual is a person who has an unchosen and exclusive emotional and sexual attraction to the same sex. I don’t see what’s so difficult about this. You’re probably thinking of what I said about the “lesbian” that you knew. A heterosexual dating a woman does not become a lesbian, though. It all is dependent upon one’s sexual orientation, not who one chooses to date.
2. What was I wrong about?
No, Mormons do not believe in Hell as described in the Bible, the lake of fire. They believe in the three layers of Heaven and the Outer Darkness, which is not the same thing as Hell. Additionally, the three layers are determined in part by good works, rather than by faith alone, which is in direct contradiction to the Bible.
December 26th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
1. That’s your definition today. Alex of 2007 wouldn’t agree nor would alex of early summer 2008.
2. Your wrong and incomplete Sorry.
December 26th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
1. What have I ever said that has contradicted that? I have changed my mind on several things throughout the past year, but that is certainly not one of them!
2. What am I wrong about?
December 26th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
I think you just aren’t sure what to do here, because I both understand Mormonism and oppose it. Once you lose your “you don’t understand Mormonism, but if you did, you wouldn’t think it was so wacky” card, you’re basically just down to verbal flailing.
December 26th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Actually Alex, to save you some grief, look up how Mormons define the words “endless” and “eternal”, and look up “hell” in the LDS bible dictionary. Also read the LDS articles of faith and spend sometime reading the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. You might actually understand the official doctrine of Hell in the Mormon church and the role of faith and grace. Mormons do believe in a certain heaven and hell, and it doesn’t include outer darkness and the three kingdoms.
December 26th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
56.
No you honestly don’t know much about. I really don’t care that you oppose it. I just think you inferring that your knowledge of Mormonism has the same auhority as that of a gynocologist’s knowledge of a vagina is pretty humurous and representive of your youthfulness.
December 26th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
How about you tell me?
You’re using a rhetorical technique to make me look bad. How about you stop being condescending and participate in the dialogue?
And no, I am not implying (not ‘inferring’) that I know as much about Mormonism as a gynecologist does about a vagina. I honestly cannot see how you got that. The analogy was: a gynecologist can understand vaginae without having one, just as a non-Mormon can understand Mormonism.
December 26th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
You also seem to take the stand that a certain brand of chrisitianity is what is “in” the bible. In other words you are just interpreting it according to whatever your standards are and then making some standard up.
I guess that is really where the irony lies. An aetheist inrerpreting the conflicting doctrines of the bible to his current tastes and then making classifications based upon a teaspoon of knowledge. All the while calling himself an authority.
December 26th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
I never called myself an “authority”!
Not once!
Stop putting words in my mouth!
And yes, I think that Christianity is indeed what is in the Bible. (Just as I think that we need to use evidence before saying that a Jewish civilization existed in North America, but, well, so it goes. How many more years of non-evidence before we finally admit that it just never freaking existed?)
December 26th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Alex,
I don’t need to tell you. I didn’t come here making claims about someone elses religion trying to drive a wedge between Mormons and evangelicals. Instead if you are going to make these claims make sure you can support it with rhetoric beyond that of the average anti-Mormon tract handed out on campus.
In the mean time go read up or just admit your knowledge on this topic is limited and you don’t have the room to make the claims you are making about the LDS faith.
I will repeat that Mormons are not mainstrem Christians. Historical? I think we are more historically accurate than the mainstream, who are more bent on creeds than revelation.
December 26th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
MatthewK – I find you so ridiculous and so offensive that I’m going to bite my tongue/typing digits and just ask you to repeat this to yourself: we do not live in a theocracy. Furthermore, you’re on the wrong side of morality and the wrong side of history. By the time I have kids and they’re in school, views like yours will have been consigned to the shameful corner of the dustbin of history inhabited by the memories of Bull Connor and George Wallace. The fact that you are unable to understand the issue of gay marriage within the context of civil rights – even while disagreeing with it – demonstrates that your perspective is uselessly narrow. You are a pollutant in the rich intellectual currents of conservatism, coasting on the thin vapors of bigotry and straw-man goblins.
Hmm, guess I didn’t really bite anything after all. Oh well.
December 26th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
I guess of you are a biblical literalist that’s your choice. An amazingly conveniant choce.
December 27th, 2008 at 1:29 am
48-
Why does any secular individual get married? You say that only religious couples who wish to start a family should have the right to marriage, but what about infertile couples or atheist heterosexual couples? I guess they don’t deserve the right to marriage either? You are a joke.
December 27th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Mormons and Christians need to come together and each group needs to compromise a little. Christians need to acknowledge that indeed Mormons are Christians and welcome them into the fold of the traditional mainstream faith tradition. Mormons need to be open about their belief system and acknowledge the areas where it diverges from Biblical Christianity and rejoice in it. Mormons, conservative Evangelicals, and traditional Catholics can achieve pulpit fellowship and shared unity if they come together and iron over their differences.
December 27th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
66. JA,
I mostly agree. But I am no more likely to claim I divert from Biblical Christianity anymore than an Evangelical would. Why would I? Mormons believe their faith is Biblical Christianity in it’s truest form. We believe mainstream Christianity has corrupted it, just as they believe we have.
But all of that is semantics and means nothing when we have so much more in common that we can share resources are find common ground with.