Beware the False Prophets

As reported in today’s Connecticut Post, some 30 clergy members rallied yesterday at the Capitol “in an attempt to increase pressure on lawmakers to approve a bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry.”

“We are here today to say to Governor Rell, if and when this bill comes before you, we expect you will reconsider your intention to veto it.” — The Rev. Joshua M. Pawelek, a Unitarian minister who is chairman of the 200-member Connecticut Clergy for Marriage Equality

While it grabs the front page headline in the Connecticut Post, a careful reading of the article reveals the fact that the event “was attended by only two lawmakers.” I suppose that’s all the support Love Makes a Family could muster to take a stand with them, despite their activist role in supporting this effort. You see, it’s via the LMF web site where clergy sign up to register their support, and where they publicize their activities to the media.

Who are these radical heretics? They represent a diverse set of liberal religious sects including Unitarian, United Church of Christ, Episcopal, Reconstructionist Judaism, and Wicca.

Jesus and the Apostles warned us repeatedly to be on guard against such “false prophets”. The following verses tell a story that is quite clear to those who have ears to hear it:

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. (Matthew 7:15)

Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?” Then I will tell them plainly, “I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!” (Matthew 7: 21-23)

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. (2 Timothy 4: 3)

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. (1 John 4: 1-2)

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5: 17-18)

Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. (Luke 17: 1-2)

How do you “test the spirits”? Through careful observation and prayerful discernment, applying the guidance given by Christ and the Apostles. The Spirit of Truth can be recognized in that it:

  • confesses Jesus Christ as the One True Savior and Lord
  • acknowledges the timeless principles of right and wrong as defined by God
  • embraces and acts in accordance with the Word of God

The spirit of falsehood will tend to violate one or more of these tests. For example, by merely acknowledging Christ as a wise teacher, but failing to accept His exclusively and divinely preordained role as Savior. Or by embracing the humanistic philosophy of relativistic morality, wherein we become arbiters of right and wrong, and morality sways with the winds of public opinion. Or by a selective reading of the Bible that amounts to “cherry picking” the portions that support a particular secular viewpoint, while ignoring other passages that clearly contradict the recently claimed “innovation” in the doctrine of the faith.

Fact: Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, national leader of the Episcopal Church of the USA, denies Jesus Christ as the One True Savior and Lord. She denies that belief in Jesus Christ is essential to salvation.

Fact: Jesus Christ said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14: 6)

Fact: Unitarians profess to believe in the moral authority, but not the deity, of Jesus. From their perspective, he is a wise teacher, but not a part of the divine Trinity.

Fact: Jesus Christ said, “I and the Father are one.” (John 10:30)

Indeed, as Michael Horner points out (and C.S. Lewis before him), you can potentially view Jesus as liar, lunatic, or Lord. When religious leaders deny the truth of the divinity of Christ, they are clearly placing themselves in the category of believing that Jesus was a liar or lunatic. To say that He was merely a wise teacher, or that He is not the only way to the Father, flies in the face of what Jesus said Himself during His walk upon the Earth.

Fact: The UCC airs TV commercials claiming “God doesn’t reject people. Neither do we.”

Fact: Jesus Christ, in speaking of the final judgment of mankind through His parable of the goats and the sheep, concluded by saying: “They [the unrighteous] will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (Matthew 25: 46)

For those who profess to be Christian, the problem is that the homosexual lifestyle is one of continuing and unrepentant sin. The blood of Jesus can wash away all your sins, but repentance is required to accept the gift of salvation.

I have a feeling that I could go on endlessly in describing the many ways that the apostate churches err. But if you are among those who remain resolutely determined to depart from the traditions and teachings of the Christian faith, I fear my words will mean little to you. If you have already rejected the words of Jesus Christ, how much more easily will you reject my words?

However, if you are a Bible-believing Christian who happens to be mixed up with one of these misguided churches, you would be wise to break fellowship with them and disassociate yourselves. Take your time, talents, and treasure elsewhere. Find another church that is properly grounded in Biblical truth, for the sake of your soul and the souls of your family. At the very least, you will be taking away some of the resources that fuel this apostasy. More importantly, from an eternal perspective, it may be one of the best decisions you’ll ever make.

49 Responses to “Beware the False Prophets”

  1. on 20 Apr 2007 at 2:10 pmmatt

    The UCC airs TV commercials claiming “God doesn’t reject people. Neither do we.”

    Wow, whatta bunch of radicals?

    Calling Episcopals “false prophets” is pretty extreme, don’t you think?

  2. on 20 Apr 2007 at 2:12 pmmatt

    Take your […] treasure elsewhere. Find another church that is properly grounded in Biblical truth, for the sake of your soul and the souls of your family. At the very least, you will be taking away some of the resources that fuel this apostasy.

    We’re not little old grannies you’re trying to con out of our houses, this kind of hard sell in public embarrasses everyone reading it.

  3. on 20 Apr 2007 at 2:37 pmchele

    You are aware, of course, that your “false prophet” accusation can quite easily be applied to your side. And has been.

  4. on 20 Apr 2007 at 5:21 pmTricia

    Great post, Dave! I agree wholeheartedly.

    These SSM advocates are demanding that men (and women) try to overrule the laws of God, both through legislation and through activist judges (as in Massachusetts).

    God is both loving and just, but His Laws are eternal. Feeble mankind cannot decide that some of them should be revised, and that “continuing and unrepentant sin” is okay according to Jesus Christ. Of course He loves all of His children, even the sinners; but if He did not hold them accountable to His Laws, He would cease to be God.

    In addition to your pertinent Bible scriptures cited, I would add Alma 45:16 (which says in part): “for the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.” (The rest of the verse gives the context of consequences to the land and people when they “which do wickedly, when they are fully ripe.”)

  5. on 20 Apr 2007 at 5:40 pmDave

    The Episcopal Church is in very deep trouble. When the Presiding Bishop denies salvation through Christ alone, she is in effect calling Jesus Christ a liar. Moreover, if you read through her investiture sermon, you will find that its message is overwhelmingly humanistic. Where is the faith? The following words do not appear even once in her sermon: cross, Holy Spirit, Son, Father, sin, forgiveness, conversion, redemption, eternal life, resurrection, hell.

    Sadly the problems with the leadership of the Episcopal Church run deeper than just the Presiding Bishop. At the 75th General Convention, a resolution “D058 – Salvation Through Christ Alone” was put forth:

    Resolved, That the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church declares its unchanging commitment to Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the only name by which any person may be saved; and be it further

    Resolved, That we acknowledge the solemn responsibility placed upon us to share Christ with all persons when we hear His words, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No-one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6)

    The resolution was discharged (technically a way to kill a resolution without literally voting no upon it) by a vote of 675 to 242. That’s over 70% who couldn’t find it in themselves to affirm the words of our Lord and Savior, as they are written in the Gospel.

    I merely point out the hypocrisy of these churches as compared with Jesus Christ’s own words. If you find judgment in that, then it is Christ who judges.

    Thankfully, people are waking up to the fact that their church has been hijacked by liberalism, and that its leaders no longer adhere to the Christian faith. Nationally, membership in the Episcopal Church has dropped a staggering 64% since 1965, and continues to drop steadily every week. And yet the leadership, instead of realizing their error in straying from historic traditions and teachings of the Christian faith, continues to move even further away from its original doctrine.

  6. on 20 Apr 2007 at 6:13 pmchele

    Dave, I’m honestly curious.

    What qualifications do you have to sit in judgement not only of an Episcopal Bishop, but of the Episcopal Church as a whole? Are you a priest? A bishop? A minister? A theologian? Are you Roman Catholic, or Fundamentalist Christian of some sort?

    Do you judge Pope John XXIII, a liberal, as harshly? Would you say that he didn’t meet your standards as a Christian?

  7. on 20 Apr 2007 at 6:27 pmDave

    Just to clarify, my point is focused on the hypocrisy among religious sects that claim to be based upon the New Testament and Christian traditions. For those who believe otherwise, whether in the traditions of the Jewish faith or the Islamic faith, or any other non-Christian faith, similar principles may apply in testing whether the values of your faith are becoming corrupted by humanism and liberalism.

    Regardless of the specific religion to which you adhere, we would all be wise to keep on guard that the spiritual truths of our faiths do not become undermined by those seeking to hijack them for worldly purposes.

    Think of this as “Trust but Verify” applied in a religious context. Many people are blissfully ignorant of what transpires in the upper echelons of the church leadership. And that creates an invitation for trouble. We need to more vigilant.

    Finally, in response to chele’s question – what qualifies you – I believe informed commentary is suitable for any within the “priesthood of all believers”. And as to Blessed Pope John XXIII, sometimes called “the most loved Pope in history”, we certainly have much to be thankful for in his past leadership towards ecumenism. I’m not sure where you were going with that particular line of inquiry … did you want to have us all start posting comments in Latin?

  8. on 21 Apr 2007 at 6:59 amDave

    For those of our friends on the Left who see this thread as an excuse to post anti-Semitic comments, please stop. Such posts will be deleted (as they have been), and you are on a certain path towards being permanently banned from this blog if you continue in this fashion.

    The main thrust of the original article was clearly aimed towards “those who profess to be Christian”, the seeming hypocrisy of faiths in departing from their own original doctrines, and the political phenomena of churches being hijacked by humanism and liberalism.

    Implying that we condemn non-Christian faiths – merely because of Bible quotations – is simply “over the top”. People within the Jewish faith have known of the existence of the gospels for over 2000 years, and it is not my intention here to question their devotion to God. We share the same Old Testament teachings, and many of the same fundamental values. We respect their faith. And in the sense that all religions should be on guard against corruption of their spiritual truths, I am confident that my Jewish friends would likewise agree with the need to be vigilant against interlopers who seek to pollute their faith.

  9. on 21 Apr 2007 at 11:20 ammatt

    Anti-semetism? Who? Let’s see it.

    And so we’re clear, you don’t see it as your job to question Jews devotion to god, but you do see it as your job to question the faith of Episcopals and Unitarians?

  10. on 21 Apr 2007 at 12:02 pmJohn D

    Dave, I found the original post to be antisemetic. There’s a real Christian supremicist tone to it. It is impossible to read the post without assuming you feel Judaism is wrong.

    As a Reconstructionist Jew, I must take issue with this. Certainly the Reconstructionist movement cannot be described as “interlopers” who “pollute” Judaism (yet such was the implication of your later comment).

    Further, everyone cherry-picks. I do. You do. We all do. We all have our verses that we ignore or distort or whatever.

    Within a consistent spiritual view everyone prioritizes the verses that support that view.

  11. on 21 Apr 2007 at 12:08 pmchele

    Anti-semitism? Where??

    Are you making stuff up again??

  12. on 21 Apr 2007 at 12:33 pmchele

    The only anti-Semitism I see here is yours.

    “Fact: Jesus Christ said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14: 6)”

    To say that He was merely a wise teacher, or that He is not the only way to the Father, flies in the face of what Jesus said Himself during His walk upon the Earth.”

    “The spirit of falsehood will tend to violate one or more of these tests. For example, by merely acknowledging Christ as a wise teacher, but failing to accept His exclusively and divinely preordained role as Savior. ”

    You’re saying ANYONE who does not accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah is false and condemned.

    And you can wiggle and spin — AND say “merely because of Bible quotations”(?!) — all you like, but in those absolute statements, you have shown that in your opinion Jews (and Moslems and any other non-Christians) are condemned and false unless they accept that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.

    My Jewish friends are greatly offended by your sort of modern anti-Semitism, which professes to love them at the same time it wishes for the end of Judaism via conversion and/or some catacylsmic “final days” scenario. As one of them says, “Hitler, Falwell… they all want the same end: No more Jews.”

    According to your rigid worldview, we can’t have it both ways, unless you’re holding out on us and there’s some New Testament “except for the following people” clause.

  13. on 21 Apr 2007 at 1:10 pmDave

    It is hard to avoid debating religion when liberal clergy decide to leverage their implied moral authority by endorsing SSM and holding a political rally in Hartford. I would much prefer to debate SSM from a social policy perspective, but activism like this invites comment from a religious perspective. It is the hypocrisy, as measured against their own traditions, to which I object.

    Quoting from John 14:6 was aimed squarely at the “beyond the pale” comments by Episcopal Presiding Bishop Schori. Many life-long Episcopalians are truly shocked by her position, which amounts to a repudiation of Jesus Christ. If you are reading more into my usage of that particular quote, that is not what I intended.

    Another irony is that the UCC and UUA trace their roots in New England back to the Puritans, who were extremely conservative in their social and religious views. Going back to pre-colonial days, one of the reasons they originally separated from other faiths was the increasing infiltration of liberal and secular philosophy into Christianity. They wanted to remain “pure” and true to the teachings of the Bible. Seeing now how far they have drifted from those original values, it’s truly amazing.

    Of course everyone is free to choose their own faith (or even none at all). But commentary as to how the leaders of religious sects appear to measure up to their own historical traditions ought to be fair game.

    Once again, as it relates to John 14:6, at least one alternative argument has interpreted it as follows: “No one comes to the Father – but it is different when somebody does not have to come to the Father because he is already with him.” In other words, the Jewish nation already has its relationship with Yahweh predating the coming of Christ. Maybe that’s the exception clause you were looking for, chele. 

    As to Reconstructionst Judaism, a faith that emerged only in the middle of the 20th century, and which tends to consider secular morality as having precedence over Jewish law and theology … the differences with Conservative / Orthodox Judaism bear a striking resemblance to the differences between Liberal and Conservative Christianity. The point being, do we find our definition of morality in humanistic values, or do we find our definition of morality in our relationship with almighty God? Fundamentally, are right and wrong subjective, or are they absolute? For if all moral values are changeable according to human whim, what stops our culture from sliding down the slippery slope to complete depravity? If we asked the Nazis or Stalinists whether their actions were moral from their own perspective, they would no doubt have answered yes. This is the danger of subjective, humanistic morality.

  14. on 21 Apr 2007 at 1:38 pmmatt

    380 words.

    No examples of anti-semetism, though. Are you going to back that claim up or not?

    [Editor’s note: The offending posts were deleted while in moderation, so you didn’t – and won’t – see them here.]

  15. on 21 Apr 2007 at 1:46 pmmatt

    And the only thing Nazism and Stalinism have in common is authoritarianism. And that’s what we’re really debating here: the merits of the top-down, strict authoritarian moral system that the FIC and its allies would like to see in place in America.

    Dave, do you really want to try to pin Nazism and the holocaust on liberalism, secularism, and pluralism? If you really want to persist in that assertion, let us know.

  16. on 21 Apr 2007 at 2:27 pmDave


    In response to your question about the Holocaust, my claim would be that relativistic morality laid the groundwork for the works of pure evil carried out by Hitler and his minions.

    Take a look at the book, “The Nazi Conscience” (Claudia Koonz), and you will find this, according to Publisher’s Weekly:

    To speak of a Nazi conscience “is not an oxymoron,” she states. The party had a philosophy and an ethic-an idea of right and wrong-however repugnant today’s readers may find it. It was a relativist morality, valuing the well-being of the Volk over that of outsiders. Hitler, Koonz says, understood the German people’s need for a sense of coherence in the wake of what many saw as the degeneracy of the Weimar Republic-and “he promised to rescue old-fashioned values of honor and dignity” by offering a secular faith to replace lost religious certainties.

    Let’s also keep in mind, even while implementing the horrors of the Holocaust, the Nazis also viewed the Catholic Church as a threat that needed to be purged from German life. You can read more about this in “Nazi Policy and the Catholic Church” (Karol Jozef Gajewski).

    While you see the commonality between the Nazis and Stalinists as their authoritarian governments, I’m suggesting that their deeper commonality was actually their secular and relativistic morality. And that we should be watchful for a recurrence of such. For when we as a nation reject God, we should not be surprised that He removes His cloak of protection from us.

  17. on 21 Apr 2007 at 2:40 pmchele

    Hitler, Koonz says, understood the German people’s need for a sense of coherence in the wake of what many saw as the degeneracy of the Weimar Republic-and “he promised to rescue old-fashioned values of honor and dignity” by offering a secular faith to replace lost religious certainties.

    Don’t hear that sort of thing from the left, only the right.

  18. on 21 Apr 2007 at 3:26 pmmatt

    Presumably Cardinal Pacelli would know a thing or two about this “relativist morality” of which you speak…

    Just because you disagree with them in hindsight doesn’t mean that their belief system isn’t the same as yours. The Christian right of today is unfortunately just as easily led as the Christian right of the 1930s.

  19. on 21 Apr 2007 at 3:27 pmmatt

    [Editor’s note: The offending posts were deleted while in moderation, so you didn’t – and won’t – see them here.]

    How convenient.

  20. on 22 Apr 2007 at 4:28 amKathy

    Why is FIC bashing people’s religious views?

    Wasn’t it just a couple of weeks ago that FIC was going crazy because a couple of legislators ASKED Brian Brown what his beliefs were?

    Now they put an ENTIRE POST on their blog bashing other people’s religious views?

    Totally hypcritical!

    This is America, FIC, people have the right to hold to be of whatever religion and hold whatever religious beliefs they choose. I find it very scary that you are trying to tell people what religion they should be.

  21. on 22 Apr 2007 at 5:30 amPhil

    My Jewish friends are greatly offended by your sort of modern anti-Semitism, which professes to love them at the same time it wishes for the end of Judaism via conversion and/or some catacylsmic “final days” scenario.

    There’s a similarity between this kind of thinking and the most commonly held view of homosexuality among the religious right: “We don’t hate people, but their actions are an offense to God.” The phrase “I don’t have a problem with gays, it’s gay behaviors I abhor” sounds a lot like “I don’t have a problem with Jews as long as they don’t go to temple.”

    Our society has moved beyond a point where it’s socially acceptable to publicly try to curtail non-Christian worship. We still seem to be at a point in time where it’s socially acceptable to try to curtail gay relationships.

  22. on 22 Apr 2007 at 7:58 amDave


    There is a huge difference between “bashing” people’s religious views, and questioning the integrity of certain politically-minded religious leaders (e.g. the Connecticut Clergy for Marriage Equality) as measured against the historical teachings and traditions of their churches. As I explained before:

    The main thrust of the original article was clearly aimed towards “those who profess to be Christian”, the seeming hypocrisy of faiths in departing from their own original doctrines, and the political phenomena of churches being hijacked by humanism and liberalism.


    Of course everyone is free to choose their own faith (or even none at all). But commentary as to how the leaders of religious sects appear to measure up to their own historical traditions ought to be fair game.

    When Brian appeared before the Judiciary Committee, he wasn’t testifying on behalf of the Catholic Church. He was testifying on behalf of FIC (a public policy organization, not a church), and on behalf of himself as a citizen of the State of Connecticut. But according to those on the Left, inquiring into his religious beliefs and motivations was perfectly acceptable. And inquiring into how his beliefs compared with the historical teachings and traditions of Catholicism was just fine, in their view.

    Now when these clergy organize and lobby for SSM, using the implied moral authority of their roles as religious leaders, it seems to me that they have justifiably opened the door to their opponents inquiring about their religious beliefs and motivations.

    Based on the reactions we are seeing in the comments, it appears that according to the Left it’s OK to question the religious principles of a conservative, but not a liberal. And that seems like quite a double standard.

  23. on 22 Apr 2007 at 1:00 pmopal

    I would like to thank FIC for the work that they do on behalf of so many of us in CT. It must be so unpleasant to have your words deliberately misinterpretted every day.


  24. on 24 Apr 2007 at 7:56 pmDavid

    Opal, try for one second to imagine what it’s like having your whole life condemned by fanatics who believe that the rest of us have to live by their INTERPRETATIONS of their religious texts. Imagine listening as they spew heinous lies about your life – which of course they don’t know the tiniest thing about. Imagine having the “liberal” media continue to give the fanatics hatred of you a voice. Imagine watching the leaders of your country attempt to appease these people to the point that they are willing to allow the founding documents of our nation to be used as a weapon against innocent fellow citizens. The words that you are so thankful for are destructive, hateful, un-Christian and un-American, there is NO misinterpretation going on here – except perhaps by those who who claim to speak for God. False prophets indeed.

  25. on 25 Apr 2007 at 7:43 ammatt

    Nooo-booodddddyyy knowwwwwsssss….. the trouuuuuubbbleeee I’ve seeeeeeennnn….

    I think I misplaced my right-wing authoritarian style guide…. do we put “liberal” in scare quotes around here? I thought the quotes denoted something that the right understands but the left screws up (like liberal “masculinity” or liberal “farming”) — and that the word liberal denoted the subject as being a sort of banal profanity of modern existence.

    Also, David, I believe that is the correct use of a concluding indeed, though it appears that you’ve gone on the offensive against a genuine supporter. Judges, how does that effect the scoring?

  26. on 25 Apr 2007 at 7:46 ammatt

    The words that you are so thankful for are destructive, hateful, un-Christian and un-American

    Also, David, can you share some things that you think are simultaneously un-Christian and pro-American? Or anti-American and pro-Christian?

  27. on 25 Apr 2007 at 7:53 amopal


    My entire life has been spent around gay men … neighbours, friends, relatives and ballet partners. I don’t see any hatred being spewed. But I do see my rights to stand up and speak out as a Catholic being infringed upon. As I said in a different post, I know where some in the gay rights would like to take things because I read the stuff hanging on the bulletin boards in IU’s GBLT student union over 10 years ago-and I refuse to passively sit by and let that happen. You all lost your biggest ally in by allowing your own extremists to hijack your plans.


  28. on 25 Apr 2007 at 8:30 amDave

    Thank you Tricia and Opal for your supportive comments. It demonstrates courage for you to brave the onslaught of venom being poured out by the Left. I have often wondered how Brian and Peter maintained their optimism in the face of this torrent, as they have fought the good fight these past years. May you find assurance in the following verses:

    Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matthew 5: 11-12)

    Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is — his good, pleasing and perfect will. (Romans 12: 2)

    For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. (Ephesians 6: 12-13)

    Be of good courage, and he shall strengthen your heart, all ye that hope in the LORD. (Psalm 31: 24)

  29. on 25 Apr 2007 at 8:58 amDave


    It appears you’ve confused my posts (“Dave”) with those of someone else (“David”) who is most definitely not an FIC supporter.

    It’s interesting how the words of Jesus Christ can be categorized by some as “un-Christian”. I suppose that reveals the secularization of the term “Christian”, and how it has been diluted to mean “meek, docile, and compliant; accepting of everything, and always avoiding conflict”. The life of the real Jesus that we read about in the Bible was the antithesis of this meaning. He was never afraid to challenge supposed authorities, and He was quite clear about the need to repent and turn from sin. Rather than being meek, He was confident, defiant, and overwhelmingly resolute in seeking the fulfillment of His purpose.

  30. on 25 Apr 2007 at 9:04 amPeter

    I think I misplaced my right-wing authoritarian style guide…. do we put “liberal” in scare quotes around here?

    Well, we probably should put it in quotes if we’re applying it to you. It’s because of the cultural left that a good word like liberal now has such a negative connotation that even liberals don’t want to use it. You’ll probably have the same effect on “progressive.”

    That said, I think you’re responding to a different David who is actually on your side and was making a point that I would expect you to agree with. Go back and read it again.

  31. on 25 Apr 2007 at 10:22 ammatt

    Oh, my mistake.

  32. on 25 Apr 2007 at 10:23 amRay

    A note to David: Opal is a messenger; GOD speaks for Himself and to us (everyone in the world) through His Holy Word.

  33. on 25 Apr 2007 at 5:47 pmDavid

    To Dave:

    You (mis)quote:
    “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me” but Jesus Christ isn’t the issue here – you and those who would force YOUR version of religion on us are. YOUR religion is far removed from that which Jesus Christ taught. The words of Jesus Christ have NOT been called un-Christian (at least by me), yours have. Do not mistake the things you say about LGBT people and our supporters as the Word of God. That arrogance is exactly why YOUR religion is doomed to fail, while what Jesus Christ taught will always be powerful and life changing. The sad part is before that happens more of us will be assaulted, abused and killed in the name of your idol. I agree with your description of Jesus Christ, what you fail to see is that what you say about us represents EXACTLY what he was against.

    Ray, I agree God speaks for Himself through the Word. Perhaps someday the fanatics and power hunger cult leaders will shut up long enough for the world to hear.

    Matt, I put liberal in quotes because to me the “liberal media is another myth of the toxic right – in the same list as “ex-gays”, “compassionate conservatives”, “traditional values” etc.

    Opal, I haven’t seen your other post so I don’t know what things you are referring to. Do you agree with everything that is written by those claiming to be Christian? I doubt it. Who are these radicals you refer to and how do you know how many of us actually agree with them. Your religion is YOURS, not mine. Speak up all you want but if your words are attacking the rights of an innocent group of people to live their lives unmolested then be willing to accept the reaction to what you say. It seems in reading this site and others that the only good queer is one that completely hides his/her life, pretends to be someone they are not and were never meant to be, one that accepts his/her status as a second, no actually third maybe even fourth class citizen in this country, no right to exist in anyway except that which is dictated by one “spiritual leader” or another. And that’s if we’re very lucky, some would even have us put to death, do you support that? There was a time when we accepted that, it’s over.

  34. on 29 Apr 2007 at 3:24 pmPhil

    As I said in a different post, I know where some in the gay rights would like to take things because I read the stuff hanging on the bulletin boards in IU’s GBLT student union over 10 years ago-and I refuse to passively sit by and let that happen.

    That’s what I have to answer for? That’s how we allowed extremists to hijack our plans? Because we let someone put a note on the bulletin board at Indiana University in the mid-90’s?

  35. on 30 Apr 2007 at 3:03 pmDave

    Judging from the response of the Left, as evidenced by their reaction at MyLeftNutmeg, my original posting certainly struck a nerve. It’s really quite amazing when the words of Jesus and the Apostles reach out and grab people, accusing and convicting their consciences in ways that I wouldn’t have imagined.

    Much of their misplaced anger, however, is due to a warped reading of my article, and a twisted desire to portray it as a condemnation of non-Christian faiths. My original argument was simply outlined as follows:

    – Liberal clergy, including those who profess to be Christian, embrace and actively support LMF and the SSM agenda.
    – The writings of the New Testament warn us about “false teachers” who profess to be Christian, but who in fact speak and act in ways that are contrary to the teachings and traditions of the faith.
    – These same writings of the New Testament provide specific guidance on how to recognize such false teachers who profess to be Christian, but who in fact are operating on behalf of a spirit of falsehood.
    – For many of the liberal clergy who advocate on behalf of SSM, specific examples can be cited that demonstrate how the New Testament doctrine of “testing the spirits” reveals them as false teachers.
    – A concluding exhortation for Bible-believing Christians to “break fellowship” with such false teachers, consistent with the instructions given in the New Testament.

    For those outside the sphere of the Christian faith (to whom the main thrust of this article was not directed), as the Bible advises in 1 Corinthians 5:13, God will judge them. We who hold true to Christian faith are simply called to expel the wicked from taking root amongst us, in the community of Christian believers, because as it is said “a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough”.

    One of our sparring partners in debate actually took the time to call into question the credibility of the C.S. Lewis argument (“Lord, liar, or lunatic”) based upon the 1948 debate with Elizabeth Anscombe. Although along with forgetting her name (he simply referenced a “female theologian”) he must have forgotten she was herself a devout Roman Catholic. Consequently, neither Lewis nor Anscombe denied the divinity of Christ. That debating incident is really misrepresented, because it had nothing to do with the “Lord, liar, or lunatic” argument. Lewis and Anscombe differed as a matter of purely academic debate over the validity of his reasoning on a completely separate argument – that naturalism was self-refuting. Lewis had written on this subject in his 1947 book “Miracles”, within Chapter 3 “The Self-Contradiction of the Naturalist”. Anscombe demonstrated several holes in Lewis’ reasoning, which ultimately prompted him to revise the argument in a subsequent 1960 edition of “Miracles”, which now titled Chapter 3 as “The Cardinal Difficulty in Naturalism”. And afterwards Anscombe wrote favorably of the revisions in her introduction to “Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Mind”, by saying “The fact that Lewis rewrote that chapter, and rewrote it so that it now has those qualities [to meet Anscombe’s objections], shows his honesty and seriousness.” Finally when J.R. Lucas (arguing in place of the now deceased Lewis) reprised the debate in 1967 with Anscombe herself, the now-revised arguments stood on their own merits and withheld attacks. As Lucas remarked “the floor remained — to the expressed disappointment of some — unwiped with me”. It seems to me that Lewis and Anscombe upheld a noble tradition of academia, to help sharpen each other’s reasoning and refine arguments in seeking the truth. The bottom line here is that while this story makes for an interesting sidebar of literary and philosophical debates, it is wholly irrelevant to the “Lord, liar, lunatic” argument; and moreover, it is a sidebar of a sidebar, since my reference to Michael Horner and C.S. Lewis was merely a point of information offered in passing alongside the point-counterpoint citations meant to compare the positions of the “false teachers” with the words of Jesus Christ.

    Another amusing comment came from an opponent who pointed out that, as he reads it, Jesus is silent on the question of homosexuality. While it is true that He had relatively little to say about it, He did say:

    For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man “unclean”. (Mark 7: 21-23)

    This broad-reaching concept of “sexual immorality” is certainly capable of encompassing homosexuality along with other sinful behaviors. And when you combine this observation with:

    Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5: 17-18)

    … the implication is clear. Jesus didn’t spend a lot of time talking about the evils of bestiality, incest, or human sacrifice either (and yet all of these are mentioned in Leviticus 18, along with homosexuality), but do we seriously doubt that He viewed these behaviors as sin? If He had meant to abrogate this chapter of the Mosaic law, it is reasonable to assume He would have said something! Far from being an affirmation of homosexuality, the silence of Jesus on this subject speaks loudly in opposition to it, and categorizes it alongside so many other sinful behaviors. And it is for this reason that He came to Earth:

    It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (Luke 5: 31-32)

    The mission of Jesus is to offer the gift of redemption and salvation. It is a gift potentially available to all sinners, if they are willing to repent and accept their Savior as Lord.

    I have to tell you, when looking around during a church service, one thing that everyone has in common – regardless of any other qualities that may set them apart – is that we are all sinners. But we also acknowledge our human failings; and we admit that when we sin we are doing wrong; and we express sorrow and a desire to change.

    How big is God’s love? Imagine a child with arms fully outstretched, answering “This big!” Yes, God is Love. But He is also Just, and Holy. Therefore our sins offend. Yet thankfully, through His grace and mercy, He has provided the way for our salvation. And the way to salvation requires repentance in order to accept the gift. Without the crucial ingredient of repentance, the gift sadly remains unopened.

  36. on 09 May 2007 at 12:12 pmopal

    David and Phil,

    This was not a Note, this was a manifesto by those in charge of the GBLT union at IU which interestingly enough in the early 90’s had the second highest percentage of gay males per population only to San Fran and the highest concentration of open Lesbians in the world….that probably is do to the Kinsey institute and the fact that IU’s Education Department openly experimented with changing core belief systems via the Resident Assistance program only to transfer that protocol to the public school system. I can provide references for that but it will take me awhile as I have more pressing issues at the moment. I personally do not believe that 99% of the gay men and women want this country to be stripped of its’ religious beliefs, nor do I believe that most gay men and women want to see Catholic or Protestant priest/ministers go to jail for preaching but I do think that some do.

    Tammy Bruce has a very interesting article about gay cry babies that want to force acceptance on all people….she is an open Lesbian and works quite well with all of us “hateful rightwingers”. I do have close friends and family who are gay and know my beliefs. They are free to come into my home as long as they understand that my kids know nothing about sex and will not be informed by anyone outside of the family. We have a pat answer that goes for the why aren’t they married question?-“You don’t question adults personally, and not everyone is called to the state of marriage.” I don’t agree with them, they don’t agree with me and my children have no business knowing what it is that we don’t agree on…If the individual feels the need to force my kids to know, then they may not come into my home. I know some of these people at FIC and I would not let them spew stereotypes or hateful comments about those whom I love but guess what….they never have. Never once have I heard them make a brazen -all gays are this way or hateful or bad or anything else kind of statement….

    Now unfortunately for you, I could make an all the gay guys I ever Knew (adds up to about 356-everyone in the ballet world was gay) minus 2 are very promiscuous….extremely out of control promiscuous. Came in to work and told me about multiple partners over the week promiscuous. And the 2 who are not encounter tremedous pressure from their friends to be just like them. These 2 gay men are exceptional men in every sense of the word. They don’t hide their sexuality but they don’t shove it in the face of everyone that they know either. And they don’t need to have acceptance from everyone that they meet. Being gay at work is different from imbibing my kids at school with the gay lifestyle. And having a civil union with all the legal blessings is different than trying to make everyone agree with you. Speaking out against something that you disagree as FIC does is very different than saying everyone who opposes gay marriage is “hateful” as I was labeled at CGG’s site.

    I sincerely wish you well and do not hate you. I do know hateful Christians and recognize that some do but disagreeing and hate are 2 different things. I can remember standing in front of gay bars while some were protesting with very hateful signs but this is not the same thing. And I think that you need to grow up and act like an adult and recognize that fact.


  37. on 09 May 2007 at 12:53 pmDave


    Bravo, well said!

    I read the Tammy Bruce article, and it resonates very well with what we observe here regularly in the response of the radical Left:

    In classic Thought Police fashion and like children throwing a tantrum, the name-calling flies—those who oppose gay marriage are “homophobes,” “haters” and the label du jour “bigots.” Once again, the left, unable to answer critics with respect, resort to name-calling only to further the divide they need to validate their inevitable victimhood.

  38. on 09 May 2007 at 5:54 pmDavid

    As I have said before (at least I think I said it here), I don’t care one bit about those who disagree with me about my sexual orientation or gay marriage. As long as it is clearly on religious grounds and that alone. As soon as one starts using pseudo-science, manufactured “facts” and judging the many by the few the situation has changed completely and like it or not all the names mentioned above are totally appropriate and completely true. The words used by many Christians, mostly those who call themselves conservative are violent, period. They are meant to inflame passions against LGBT people. They have nothing to do with faith or respect. The “christian” right offers no respect to those who they oppose yet are the first to whine about the mythical anti-religious left wing. Perhaps if Christians attempted to act like the one they claim to worship there would be a different reaction. Perhaps if they acted like disciples not Pharisees people might actually be interested in hearing about Christ. There are billions of Christians around the world who see their religion as a personal thing and allow God to change the way they view the world and those around them. And others notice that and respond to it. Others feel that their religion entitles them to treat the rest of us as nasty as they feel like without any thought of the harm they are doing. That is NOT religion that is terrorism. That is how the radical Muslims feel and their twins in other religions including the right wing “christian” world. Practicing your faith in YOUR life is one thing, expecting the rest to bow to your idols is another. Right wing “christians” have made idols of their stance on abortion and LGBT people and other issues. Those who refuse to worship them also are “the enemy” to be conquered.

    Opal, there are many issues that need addressing in the LGBT communities. Promiscuity is certainly one of them. But as long as we have to fight for our very existence (which is exactly what is happening, whether Tammy or Dave agree) there is little time for that. People who grow up accepting of themselves, who lives are affirmed from the beginning, are far less likely to end up in the vicious circle of promiscuity, drug abuse and self hate. This is true of all people not just homosexuals. But when from the minute you are able to understand how people feel about you, when faggot and dyke and all the other fun names that people call us are a constant part of your existence, when you read in the news or hear on the radio or hear in your church how you are a “sinner”, disgusting, abomination, disordered etc., what chance do you have to form any kind of positive self image? Self-destructive behavior does happen without a reason.

    You also mentioned civil unions – FIC and like organizations are just as viciously against those as they are about us using the word marriage, and in what states do civil unions actually carry all the “legal blessings” of heterosexual marriage. Why should we accept “separate but equal” when 1) it’s not equal and 2) there are those who would take it away from us in a second if they could.

    When will FIC and other “family” groups be willing to disagree, not wage war? Not very soon I suspect – and they will continue to attack, slander and belittle – all the while complaining that there is bigotry against them. I for one wish they would all screech even louder so the whole country can see the beyond the smoke screen of “family values”.

  39. on 09 May 2007 at 7:56 pmDave

    You know, I just ran a search of all previous posts on the FIC blog, and not a single one ever used the words “f-ggot” or “d-ke” … except yours!

    In fact, the closest that I could find was 2 posts (1 by me, and 1 by Opal) strongly denouncing the vile language “God hates f-gs” (used by Fred Phelps and his ilk) as being hateful and absolutely inexcusable. I’ve even denounced Ann Coulter for her use of the F-word. We may disagree about politics, social policy, morality and religion; but as far as I’m concerned, there is no justification for demeaning someone with such vulgarity.

    Opal said it very well back in March ’07 when she wrote:

    Speaking out against gay marriage is not the equivalent of standing up screaming hate filled invectives at the gay community.

    I’m going to go even further out on a limb here. From a religious perspective, I don’t believe that homosexual behavior is any more or less of a sin than greed, envy, deceit, malice, gossip, slander, and arrogance. It is no more or less of a sin than lust and adultery among heterosexuals. All sin is offensive to God, because it embodies a deliberate refusal of His good and perfect will. And all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. We are all equally in need of the salvation made possible through Jesus’ sacrifice upon the cross.

    What truly brings us into conflict within the sphere of public debate is the activism of the radical left in seeking to legitimize such behavior, and to “sanctify” it with the blessings of public acceptance. If this seems like a war, it is because groups like LMF have been unrelenting and uncompromising in their revisionist agenda.

    I think if you were completely honest, you’d admit that you “don’t care one bit about those who disagree” for any reason (whether religious, pseudo-scientific, or otherwise) as long as they keep their mouths shut and refrain from attempting to influence public policy. In other words, while hateful and vulgar language is certainly one of the elements that may irritate you (and rightfully so), you would likewise be angered by political action that seeks to obstruct LGBT activism – no matter how delicately expressed.

  40. on 10 May 2007 at 2:11 pmopal


    No one is my enemy to be conquered. But I have a right to prevent my children from being exposed to concepts that I deem inappropriate. I deem sex, abortion, contraception, euthanasia, murder, violence, materialism, self centered behaviour, and pure self fulfillment at the expense of everyone, inappropriate behaviours that my innocent children need not to hear about. And I will fight anyone who attempts to make my children hear about those messages. That is not forcing my opinion on you, I am working as is FIC to prevent you from forcing your opinions on me and my family.

    Secondly, Ann Coulter may claim to be a Christian but do not dare ever lump her in with the likes of me and my friends. Never once have I ever heard my friends -most of whom support FIC use those nasty, mean words. NEVER. I would not stand for that but I have been name called on quite a few liberal sites for saying exactly what I wrote hear. I know darn well, the lingo that is used amongst the gay folk because I used it too-when I was a “f-g h-g” many years back. And unfortunately, it is really hard for most in your community to lambast others when so many of you call each other by the same names. I agree words hurt and they should not be used -the way, a very tiny subgroup of so called Christians uses them. But I challenge you to find proof that anyone in FiC or the Catholic Bishops group have used that kind of terminology. Sean Hannity and Michael Savage, and Ann Coulter are political figures and not religious ones and you need to separate their language from religious leaders. And one or 2 unpleasant Evangelicals who go around protesting do not speak for the majority of Catholics or Evangelicals in this country. By you lumping us in with those people, you are in effect doing exactly what you are complaining about-STEREOTYPING.

    I think you would be suprised by how many of those that you are stereotyping have a very solid mass of gay friends in their lives. And it is unfortunate that someone who claimed to be Christian has obviously hurt you so deeply. I am sorry for that. I wish that all Christians and Catholics could remember to use less hurtful words in expressing their rhetoric, however we are not all that way. And only by seeing through the stereotypes and recognizing that the other side contains a human being can the walls of hate be dismantled. While I don’t think that it is ever possible for both sides to really make a compromise, I do think it is possible for the level of anxiety to decrease.

    I highly doubt that FIC is here to send you to jail or force you to lose your job. But what the Christian community is here for is to make sure that we can raise our children freely, in the means that we choose without the gov telling us when and how to introduce sex education….or without the gov telling us (as in Calif) that the words mommy and daddy and husband and wife are discriminatory or without the gov removing the words mother or father from birth certificates….(as they did in Mass? can’t remember if that one is correct)


  41. on 10 May 2007 at 6:46 pmDavid

    I actually never claimed that FIC uses specific words that are considered hateful. It doesn’t matter if the words are curses or the words are sweet as honey – if what they are saying is that MY life, which is between me and God and those who I choose to include in it, is somehow flawed, dangerous, threatening or whatever ridiculous terms that are used by “family” groups, and should be legally controlled. What you consider sin is YOUR business, it’s YOUR religion and it has NO PLACE in my life. Period. Who gets married in your church is certainly yours to control. Who gets married anywhere else is not, it’s that simple. Marriage has meant many different things over the centuries and in different cultures. There’s no such thing as “traditional marriage” so “revising” it is a non-issue. What is wrong, what is unfair, what is unjust NEEDS to be revised. Or should we have stayed with all the other ignorant behaviours and attitudes that the Bible has been used to justify? Well, there are some that would say yes to that, but I don’t think anyone here would. Society HAS TO change and HAS TO grow, or it dies.

    Opal, I in no way lump all Christians together and I know that there are many who fit in the label of Evangelical or belong to the Roman church who are rational and loving. When I use the lower case, in quotes “christian” I am specifically referring to those who have totally lost any of spiritual content of their religion, for whom it is nothing more than a political crusade. If you can read the garbage written on the sites of AFTAH, FOTF, TVC, Repent America, Renew America, AFA and many others and not see that there is little pro-family about them and certainly nothing Christian and much that is pure bigotry and hate, then you can’t see rationally. If it is “activism” when we ask to be treated equally, when we ask for the same rights as other citizens of this country have, when we ask to be able to legally protect our partners and families and when we object to the organized violence (emotional, spiritual and physical) against us then so be it. We need MORE activism and less compromise, call it forcing if you must, I call it justice. This country is not a theocracy period, keep your religion off of our laws. There is not a Christian denomination, sect or gathering on the face of this earth that does not believe in things that are extra-biblical, things that are considered “sin” by another group practicing supposedly the same religion and changed their rules so that what was once a grave action against God is now ok (oops, we were wrong). And many have at at one time or another in their existence taught that it was the ONLY TRUE CHRISTIAN CHURCH and all others were bound to be french fries. Christian groups can’t even agree on what should be in the Bible and what is the “true” translation, and yet you folks want the laws of our country to reflect “christian values”? Which ones, the ones that were “from God” 1000 years ago, or 100 years ago, or last week. And what if in the future, another religion becomes dominant? Do we then have to have our laws controlled by “muslim values” or “hindu values”. Spare us please, it’s a one way ticket to destruction and hell. Government and religion have never successfully merged and there’s no reason to think that will change because it’s your particular brand.

  42. on 11 May 2007 at 1:07 pmopal


    Exactly how is FIC trying to legally control your life. Please give an example…

    FIC is trying to prevent you from controlling our lives by ultimately several years down the line have gay marriage forced on all churches irregardless of creed… FIC is ultimately fighting to prevent gay sex from being forced down the throats of every small school child…

    Now, if I did not believe that those were the ultimate goals of the “gay Gestapo” as the Lesbian, Tammy Bruce, calls it, I might not care so much. But I do believe that the end goal of powerful but tiny fraction of homosexuals is the destruction of marriage (as you pointed out quite a few in the gay community see it as a heterosexist institution that needs to disappear-particulary the militant gender feminists). If I believed that gay marriage would come into this state with zero impact on my life, I might not care so much. But the day birth certificates and marriage licenses are altered in this state to remove the words male and female or husband and wife is the day that my life is affected. I am not a person or a parent, I am a mother and a wife actually wife first and then a mother. Again, I see FIC protecting my rights as a parent to introduce my children to topics that are not appropriate when I deem necessary…It is not your business or some gay school teacher’s place to tell my children about sex, porn, abortion or any other values related issue before they are ready to process the info. Unfortunately, so many in your community do not feel that way. There are documented cases of teachers telling young kids -8 year olds all about sex change operations and GBLT groups passing out the black little gay book of porn out to 9 years at health fairs. That is indoctrination. PERIOD. Please explain, how that fits into your perspective on life. Is it OK, to brainwash a child about sex at the age of 7 or 8, in your opinion?

    As for the other websites, I have only ever seen AFA…which does a fabulous job of keeping trash off TV. I have never seen their website call you all names either. But I don’t really hit them very often.

    But please show me how FIC is trying to control your life…how. FIC doesn’t try to say where you can live, work …it doesn’t post lists of small businesses run by gays (as I have seen lists on the liberal blogosphere of small businesses run by conservative Christians).

    As for your long and drawn out attempted bashing of Christianity-you were wrong on a few things. First of the Catholic church has consistently for 2000 years taught the same doctrine. If you want to finger point at Churches that change doctrine and believe one thing here and another thing some other time-look at the Protestant churches. The Catholic Church has not changed.

    As far as the violence, please where is it. What organized violence….And how do you answer for the death threats made against prolifers and Catholics (the bishop in Italy at the moment) by gay activists. Where is that outcry? Who is preventing you from working, living or doing your normal every day life experiences….

    You say, “keep your religion off my laws”, and I say keep your hatred of religion off of my laws and away from my children.

    May you be granted peace to heal all of tremendous anger and pain that is so obviously welling inside of you.


  43. on 11 May 2007 at 6:20 pmGabe

    FIC is ultimately fighting to prevent gay sex from being forced down the throats of every small school child…

    Does anyone else consider this a poor (and thoroughly ironic) choice of words?

  44. on 11 May 2007 at 6:51 pmDavid

    I don’t hate religion at all. Is is what is being done in the name of religion that I hate. As for your completely false claim about the Roman church – it proves that you not only don’t know your churches history, but you don’t care for the truth. And I wasn’t bashing Christianity or the Roman church – it is simply fact, if you can’t deal with it that’s your problem not mine.

    FIC has and will continue to fight gay marriage. That is an attack on my life. Your paranoid hallucination of churches being forced by the gov’t is just one more example of the lies you have swallowed and vomit back out on us. It is the church (or rabid parts of it) that are trying to use the gov’t as a weapon in their crusade. And “christians” have fought against the progress we have made from the time when we certainly could be denied employment, housing and when the gov’t was aloud to look into our very bedrooms and arrest us for what was done there. In many states in this counrty there are STILL no protections against such things for LGBT people. And guess who is at the forefront of the fight to keep it that way. Your head is buried way deep in the sand if you hold the false notion otherwise.

    This is a big country with many people – of different religions, traditions, beliefs and cultural attitudes. There are countries where that is not true – perhaps you would be more comfortable there? If you truly cared about your children’s future you would work together with the secular forces to provide a middle ground in education. But that is not what you want – you want control. So we will continue to reap the results of the crusade of ignorance and oppression. Realize the blood on your hands will never wash off. You want to deny we exist, to marginalize us and to demonize us. All in the name of your “god”. Really quite pitiful actually. You are completely aligned with the forces of darkness that fight against intelligence, knowledge, logic, justice and freedom. Fine, your choice but don’t atttempt to call it good or right. You and those like you have been a thorn in the society of civilization forever. Before Christ there were others whose teachings people warped and attempted to use to subdue the rest. Jesus Christ offered a change from all that, sadly few choose to follow His path but follow the same old nonsense – oppression, domination and destruction. Talk about using God’s name in vein – everytime one of you attempts to justify your inhuman attitudes and actions by invoking the name Jesus or God, you blaspheme.

    So be it, you chose it, accept the consequences. May God protect your children from the same infection and the rest of us from your crusade.

  45. on 11 May 2007 at 7:13 pmDavid

    Forgot to say, no I don’t believe that young children should introduced to sexual topics and certainly not pornography. But that’s not really the issue is it? It’s the introduction of the idea that there is love outside of a male/female pairing that you don’t want. Homosexuality is no more all about sex than heterosexuality is. Families outside of the form that you approve, do exist and will continue to do so. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous and harmful to your children. They have eyes, they can see, hear and understand much more than many of you would like to think. When you try to make it some kind of dirty secret, you do them and everyone else a great disservice. There have been serious mistakes made by groups like GLSEN and I certainly question their judgement but that does not mean that the topic must be swept undercover. I know, this was a wasted paragraph but I wrote it anyway.

  46. on 11 May 2007 at 9:33 pmmatt

    Does anyone else consider this a poor (and thoroughly ironic) choice of words?

    It’s certainly an evocative phrase… let’s just say it depends on the bishop.

  47. on 14 May 2007 at 2:45 pmopal


    And once again I ask where is the oppression. Last time I checked the criminals who murdered the Matthew Shepherd got life without parole. Are there companies that you can not work for, can you live where you choose? Can you purchase anything that you like and get a lawyer to defend you in court if need be? I see gay people on TV and Anderson Cooper on CNN, I see gay people in Congress and running their own businesses. I see gay people run churches and write the news. I know there is an LA sportswriter who is changing his gender and openly gay teachers. So exactly where is the oppression? But what I don’t hear you discussing are the feminazi’s at Harvard who told -Jada Pinkett Smith that by talking about her marriage and children she was being heterosexist and derogatory. I don’t hear you talking about how some want to remove all references to the words father, mother, husband and wife as offensive language. I don’t see how we can be oppressive when God is not allowed in schools but graphic discussions of sex are….How can we be the oppressors when school districts acrost the country have decided that wearing TV shirst with prolife or church related messages is proselytizing but wearing tshirts in support of gay rights is not proselytizing. I don’t see how we are the oppressors when the ACLU sues churches or Christian organizations and gets money from the government to do so, while we have to fund ourselves. I don’t see how we are the oppressors, when we teach our children the same beliefs that have been handed down for 2000 years by the Catholic church, and the school system turns around and tells our kids not to listen to us because we are ignorant and hateful. The very fact that you are on this blog disproves your point!


  48. on 14 May 2007 at 6:29 pmDavid

    Every single thing that you said in the first part of your note came about because we FOUGHT long and hard for it. And it was against people who “think” like you that we fought. Hate crimes laws should be completely redundant. But as long as children are raised with the FALSE belief that those different from them are wrong there will be those who take it too far and there will be courts who refuse to punish them as befits the crime. Don’t like it? Change your lies.

    Your influences are so apparent and explain so much, and I’m not talking about your religion. Stop feeding your head with the nonsense from the right wing talking heads and you might see some reality. Yes, there are extremes but they hardly represent the majority. There are many rights you enjoy today that were won by the exact “feminazis” you so despise today. The ACLU which is guilty of only about 10% of the things that you folks whine about also defends “christians” and churches. And your right to free speech is vigoursly defended by that organization. Perhaps you want to give that up?

    The “religious” t-shirts that have been banned by schools have mostly been ATTACKS on other students. That is NOT freedom of speech or a religous right. If students wore specifically anti-Christian clothing I would expect them to be treated the same. If you’re referring to the Day of Silence and controversy around that you should take a rational look – nowhere are Christians condemened by the Day of Silence, but you think it’s ok to turn around and turn it into a blantant and vicious rampage against gay students. That is NOT truth, that is violence. That said, there certainly are cases of school authorities going too far in the name of caution. But, if the fanatics hadn’t changed religious belief into a crusade to purge the country of the rest of us this wouldn’t be happening. Maybe someday they will learn again that belief is not the same as condemn. I won’t hold my breath.
    I don’t care if your church has taught for a million years unchanged (which is about as true as your claim of 2000), if you are teaching your children to condemn others as you do then you are simple WRONG and civilized society certainly has every right, in fact a duty, to counter that.

    Those in power never give it up freely. Those in power who are inflamed by religious fervor will stop at nothing to enforce their will. That has been clear for centuries and though humans are far more advanced in many ways than in the past, we still suffer with that illness. The Roman church manages to gather hundreds of thousands of people to protest against the rights of others in Italy. What will happen when protest isn’t enough, when we still choose to stand up for ourselves? The Jews said “never again”, yet Darfur is happening, how far is the leap from protest to murder? Sadly, not very. Will we ever learn that God is not about force, domination and control? Not as long as there are those like yourself who willingly cooperate in the battle against the human race.

  49. on 23 Aug 2007 at 9:56 amMicky

    And now, the Church has Bishop Katharine Jefferts-Schori – the newly-installed, first female presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church USA who believes that Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus Christ) is NOT the only way to get to heaven, and that God makes some people “gay”. In her first sermon after her election at the church’s general convention in June 2006, Jefferts-Schori angered the church’s conservative wing by referring to “Mother Jesus.” (Miami Herald, Nov. 2, 2006) Although we discover in Colossians 2:9 that in Yeshua HaMashiach (Jesus Christ) all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form; and in John 14:6 Yeshua said: “I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me” – Jefferts-Schori says she doesn’t consider Him to be the only way to God….Instead, she views salvation as the healing of all Creation through holy living. “I understand salvation as being about the healing of the whole creation. Your part and my part in that is about holy living,” she offered. “As Christians we understand [salvation] as relationship with God in Jesus, but that does not mean that we’re expected to judge other people’s own commitments.” (Agape Press, Nov.2, 2006) The Episcopal Church has been embroiled for years in a debate over the ordination of homosexual clergy and “blessing” ceremonies for same-sex couples. Where does Bishop-Schori stand on the issue of homosexuality? She supports both – and in fact, she voted in 2003 to confirm her denomination’s first openly homosexual bishop, V. Gene Robinson. She told AP that she does not believe the Bible condemns “committed” homosexual relationships. God, she says, made some people “gay.”….”Sexual orientation is pretty clearly defined at a very early age, before the age of reason. It’s not a choice,” she said…Scriptures in the Bible about homosexual acts being sinful, she says, are misunderstood. “They’re not about what today we see as mature human beings entering into committed relationships with each other on a full and equal basis,”…. (Agape Press, Nov. 2, 2006)

Leave a Reply