Earlier this week my local newspaper had two articles related to "Gay Pride Month". June is "Gay Pride Month". (July is "Obsessive/Compulsive Pride Month", August is "Bi-Polar Pride Month" and I believe September is "Psychopath Pride Month"...in this country we take great pride and celebrate mental dysfunction.) Of the two articles, one focused on the lack of celebratory events in the suburbs to where, like so many normal people, many homosexuals have moved for better schools, less crime, etc. The article referred to Chicago's annual "Gay Pride" parade, where children of all ages can witness various and extreme manifestations of this particular dysfunction, such as simulated sex acts by freakishly attired parade participants. (I would imagine the July parade being very neat and tidy, with far straighter lines and better synchronized marching.)
So there apparently was some kind of conference, seminar or coffee klatch, I don't remember which as I don't have that issue of the paper anymore. There were all sorts of anecdotes and testimonies about life in the burbs as a homosexual. But the part that I found most fascinating, as well as most annoying, was about one straight guy who spoke of starting or being part of a campaign whereby Christians wear these tee-shirts emblazoned with the words, "I'm Sorry", meant to apologize to the dear homosexual souls who have been treated so harshly by the Church. He didn't say which church, so I assume he meant the Body of Christ in general. He said he wanted the sad and suffering homosexuals to know that "God loves them just the way they are."
I'd much prefer this guy not speak for me or the Church of God by saying this blatant falsehood. And herein lies the point of this post. That statement told to those unfortunates who want it to be true, that "God loves them just the way they are" is not something that can be supported by Scripture.
I pass a UCC church several times during my workday. It has had a message on the sign in front of it which says, "God loves you no matter what." I'm going to stick my neck out and suggest that it means pretty much the same thing the dude with the tee-shirt is saying (considering it IS a UCC church). But both of these statements send the wrong message. An absolutely wrong message.
There is this sad notion that unless God is just the sweetest God around then some people just won't worship Him. Somehow, we are just fine no matter what we do (as long as we don't hurt no one and are really, really nice to people). Whence comes this notion? Well. We all know the answer to that. It comes from selfishness and self-centeredness and the notion that "doing things God's way is HARD!!!"
But there's no justification for the "just the way your are" business". It brings to mind a question Bill Cosby asked of a guy who was defending his cocaine use. The dude said, "It makes you more of what you are." Cosby asked, "What if you're an asshole?" The question fits the premise posited by the dude above. God loves you just the way you are? But what if you're an asshole? Or worse? Does He love child molesters just the way they are?
The reality is far different. God loves us despite how we are and the distinction is in how each of us is to deal with how each of us is. If who we are is sinful and rebellious by the standards of God's clearly revealed Will for human behavior, His love for us will not result in our being spared our just rewards. Our love for Him, our belief in Him is manifested in our intention to become something pleasing to Him based on the standards for human behavior described so clearly and plainly in Scripture.
They clearly and unmistakably run deeper than merely being really, really nice to people. They are far more comprehensive than that. The dude is lying to the homosexual community, but the lie is believed by far more people than him and those homosexuals who wish it to be true.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
44 comments:
Oh, no. You're not obsessed.
How perfectly typical that you don't even understand the point.
I totally understand the point. I'm just wondering if there is any other subject that is as important to you.
"Gay Pride" is such a farce, and an excuse for being in your face. As I have noted before, it would be like going around saying I am proud of my sexual behavior with my wife. And who would care? Why do we care what they do in their bedrooms (or whereever)?? But they sure want to make us know and even sanction it and give it respectability!
The lie that God loves us just the way we are has been told about many sorts of sins. But there is a wee bit of truth to the statement, which makes it so very dangerous. Does God love us as we ARE? Yes, which is why He sent his son to die for us. But does He love the SIN we are practicing? NO. And he requires we repent of that sin for forgiveness of it.
Asking that question proves you don't understand the point. I drew the point from another article praising sinful and dysfunctional behavior, but the point, the subject of the post, was not about that behavior at all. Try paying attention and seek help for your obsession with defending the indefensible.
The left so often, indeed routinely, misses the point of the conservative thought, opinion and ideology. Here, Jim again sees me as being obsessed with homosexual behavior or, as he might put it, with the sex lives of others. Those not desirous of eliminating standards of morality, so as to no longer be forced to consider them, to be bothered by them when carnal desire is strong, can clearly see where such attitudes have brought the nation thus far and have no wish to see things deteriorate further. Thus, the obsession that does exist within me, is to see our culture, not simply return to a time when standards of virtue and morality were not considered a matter of personal preference, but to go beyond and truly transcend our base instincts, letting reason, logic and truth guide our behavior.
We're a nation that believes in self-determination. But the founders rightly believed that this system of self-government is meant for a moral people, because the immoral are not responsible with such liberty. This is true because it is clearly true for the individual. Thus, as a people, the problems are compounded just as benefits are compounded when the people as a whole act properly.
As to the point of this post, it is that God does NOT love us "no matter what" or worse, "just the way we are". These sentiments are un-Biblical, believed by many people guilty of any number of sinful behaviors. It suggests that one needn't try to change any behavior in which they engage that also are prohibited by God. This is untrue, and it leads to behaviors that harm us as a culture and a nation.
Personally, I'm not all that concerned with whether or not another believes in the same God I believe in. What concerns me is the clear proof that not living in accordance with the example of Judeo-Christian tradition results in negative consequences for our nation. Indeed, one needn't believe for this tradition to be beneficial to the non-believer, except where adherence conflicts with selfish desire. But one would think even the atheist understands that the self isn't always the center of the universe, and denying the self is often the better move. At least they, like lefty believers, proclaim such belief.
Naturally, I was responding to Jim.
But I would disagree with Glenn insofar as that such statements regarding who God loves gives a distinctly false impression. Does He love everyone to the extent that He desires none should perish? Of course. But as I said, He loves us in spite of how we are, not "just as we are". To say "just as we are" implies no need to change, no need to repent. This is not the case. God's love, just as the love of any good father's, does not denote tolerance of bad behavior, much less accepting bad behavior as normal or morally benign.
This, of course, since I need to spell things out for the benefit of some who visit here, does not mean that those who occasionally succumb to their sinful urges, but to those who refuse to ignore their urges and instead rationalize their indulging them.
Actually Marshall did what I often do in my posts. He uses a current event or news story to bring up a subject.
In this case it was Homosexual activism claiming more or less that God loves everyone just the way they are. It could as easily have been drug dealers, adulterers, thieves, or any other group.
The point of the post, which I thought was pretty clear, is that God does not love everyone just as they are. It implies no need for moral improvement (sanctification) on the part of anyone. As if God doesnt care what our behaviors are.
I dunno, I thought it was pretty clear.
Marshall,
You're right - I think you've got the better way of saying it. That God loves us in spite of who we are.
Another post on homosexuality?
LOL...
I'm not deleting Ben the troll's comment because it shows clearly that he is indeed a clinical idiot. The post is NOT about homosexuality, as John B so easily was able to ascertain.
Glenn,
I am proud of my relationship with my wife, including its sexual component. I don't feel any need to announce it on a regular basis, but perhaps that is because I rarely hear anyone question the value of sexual intimacy between a man and his wife. If I regularly encountered people who sought to denigrate that aspect of the marital relationship, I might feel the need to publicly express my pride in it in order to encourage others who were in a similar situation.
Vinny,
If you are saying that you are proud of your relationship because it signifies that a woman found you worthy of her fidelity for life, then I agree and feel so blessed myself in my marriage. But that is a bit different to say one feels blessed as opposed to proud. Pride doesn't seem to be an appropriate reaction regardless of the fact that yours fits the description of a normal and traditional marital union. As such, there would be no reason to denigrate your union as it IS normal and traditional (at least as far as the outward appearance).
But you're suggesting that the homosexual union is above denigration simply for superficial reasons, all of which ignore both the sinful nature of such unions religiously speaking, as well as the abnormal nature of such attractions psychologically speaking. What's more, it isn't so much denigration as it is the defense of traditional standards of virtue and acceptable behavior. If those who act in opposition to those standards wish to do so, they can't also say that those who defend those standards are denigrating their behavior as if that is the purpose. It is the consequence, and at the same time, true. Unfortunate for them, but it doesn't make defenders of traditional standards the bad guys until they can come up with something other than superficial and emotional pleas upon which their arguments are based.
BTW. Always a pleasure to have you visit. We never agree, but you at least put thought into your arguments.
MA,
I do feel blessed, but I also think that I am proud that I have been able to make her feel happy and loved and needed in the same way that she made me feel happy and loved and needed.
My main point is that pride is the natural counterpoint to shame. If someone were to try to make me feel undeserved shame about something, the natural response is to assert pride.
I have conservative Catholics relatives who would probably insist that it is shameful to have sex using contraception. If some were to ask me whether that is something to feel ashamed about, I would say that a couple can be proud that they are meeting each others needs and building a closer and more intimate relationship.
I'm not trying to make an argument about whether homosexual sex does in fact accomplish the same purposes as marital sex, I'm just saying that someone is being made to feel unwarranted shame, it is perfectly reasonable to assert pride as the counterpoint.
Hmm. I concede the point regarding pride in one's relationship, though I'm still not sure the word is the best choice to describe how I feel about the same things in mine. "Blessed" still seems better. "Damned lucky" is another.
As to your point, let me first cite Thesaurus.com for its antonyms for "ashamed" (bold, defiant, immodest, not sorry, shameless, unregretful, unremorseful, unself-conscious), and "shame" (as a verb: cherish, dignify, exalt, extol, honor, respect---as a noun: honor, pride, respect). This allows us to be on the same page as far as definitions.
Next, you speak of "undeserved" or "unwarranted" shame. From religious point of view, it is neither. This is clear and unassailable. The behavior is an abomination to God as it says in Scripture.
But should someone feel (or be made to feel) shame for an abnormal compulsion? Only if one acts to indulge that compulsion (depending upon the compulsion as, I would imagine but can't say with certainty, not all could be reasonably considered harmful or unproductive). Now that I think of it, it is a normal compulsion for the average guy to want to bag most every woman he finds attractive. But we consider it improper as a culture, and even some with no religious leanings at all feel the same.
It would be more accurate that they want to believe the shame directed their way is unwarranted, but that is only because they don't want the behavior to be regarded as either sinful or abnormal, and as such, they strike postures of pride.
But it is the same for anyone who is compelled by their less than appropriate urges. The thief takes pride in his ability to steal without being discovered. Even if eventually caught, he will take pride in having gone so long without being caught. The drug dealer takes pride in the spoils of his trade, the cars, clothes, cheap women, etc. The lazy guy takes pride in going long periods without lifting a finger and in avoiding work, especially if it is on the job where he gets paid. All of these people should feel ashamed and even knowing their behaviors are wrong, as they all surely do, they will assume prideful postures so as not to be burdened by the shame they so rightly deserve.
More to the point, however, is that what is put forth is the mere fact that they are homosexuals and THAT is what their parades mean to suggest; that being a homosexual is something for which they should take pride. Do you take pride in being a heterosexual?
If I am to take pride in my relationship, it is more for the fact that I have resisted my own urges that might interfere with the vow I took and commitment I made, be those urges of a sexual nature or some other form of self-indulgence that conflicts with the harmony I'm supposed to maintain. In other words, pride is far more appropriate for what I don't do than for what I do, as most every positive, beneficial or productive act I take is something I view as my duty as a man/adult. That is, take pride in making the wife happy and secure? I'm supposed to do that. Take pride in being faithful to her and forsaking all others? I'm supposed to do that. Shame is appropriate for failure to do these things, but pride for doing them is useless and worthless.
And what pride should one take for doing what shouldn't be done? One must pretend a wrong move is not wrong in order to have any chance of taking pride in being of a sort to make the wrong move. This is the lie homosexuals tell themselves, that they do NOT engage in sinful or abnormal behaviors. That it is OK if they say "love" at some point to any of their partners. That it is OK if they actually mean it when they say it.
MA,
I agree that if the shame that homosexuals are made to feel is warranted, then the assertion of pride is empty and meaningless.
If on the other hand, the attempt to make homosexuals feel shame is driven by ignorance and bigotry, then expressing pride in their relationships is an entirely appropriate response.
Vinny,
To say one is proud of their sexual behavior is like saying you are proud of eating. Neither is something to boast about.
Being proud of a relationship is different than pride in a sexual behavior. And "gay pride" is all about pride in a sexual behavior.
Vinny,
The shame homosexuals may feel is certainly not unwarranted. They know by nature that what they do is deviant and perverse. It is an abuse of human sexuality. And that is indeed shameful.
Vinny,
It is not ignorance nor bigotry which forces them to feel shame. It is the knowledge that what they are doing is unnatural, perverse, deviant and an abomination to God.
It is not bigotry to state such.
"If on the other hand, the attempt to make homosexuals feel shame is driven by ignorance and bigotry..."
For the very few who oppose homosexuals, their behavior and/or agenda for such reasons, they could take pride in responding in a better way, such as not pretending their attractions are normal and their behavior morally benign.
But for most of us who oppose only those homosexuals that push the Agenda That Doesn't Exist, we are not examples of either ignorance or bigotry, so their prideful posturing is really defiance of the truth
Glenn,
If sexual behavior were in fact the source of Gay Pride, I might agree with you. However, the fact that you say it is doesn't make it so.
MA,
Your notion of truth depends entirely too much on ancient desert tribal mythologies for my taste.
Vinny,
since that is what "GAY" is about, the behavior, then that HAS TO BE what they are proud of.
Glenn,
The fact that you say it in capital letters doesn't make it so either.
Vinny,
It's called emphasis. And it is also a fact. Being "gay" is about sexual behavior. If one doesn't practice homosexual behavior, then they are not "gay." Ergo, if you have 'gay pride" you have pride in your behavior.
So simple a child can understand it.
Glenn,
You may not consider them gay if they don't practice homosexual behavior, but the gay people I know believe that it is their sexual orientation that makes them gay. They believe that they are gay even when they are not engaging in sexual activity.
Vinny,
"Your notion of truth depends entirely too much on ancient desert tribal mythologies for my taste."
This is rather disappointing given how I had just spoken of how you put thought into your comments. But for you to immediately jump on my faith, pretending its based on "myth" in a weak attempt to dismiss my perspective, suggests I gave you way too much credit.
As I have visitors who believe as well as not believe among those who support the Agenda That Does Not Exist, it has not served me well to speak of the dysfunction of homosexual attraction without also speaking of the sinfulness of the behavior. Regarding the dysfunction, I have no need of bringing up religion at all except that inevitably, the notion that my side of the debate will provoke talk of our "immoral", "unethical" or "unfair and hateful" position on the subject.
And that's the long and short of the supportive position. Totally emotion based without any fact, reason, logic or science upon which to base their support. That's because all of those things support the traditional marriage side of the issue. It is no wonder, then, that my "ancient desert tribal mythologies" also align with those things. They generally do. All of the behavioral standards of behavior in my "mythology" does indeed.
As to your last comment, I pretty much agree. But unlike all people who deal with negative, dark or selfish urges, homosexuals define themselves by theirs and make their demands based upon them. Imagine heterosexual men with strong desires to bed every woman they come across being proud that they are sluts. You can pick any urge and play the same game. Proud to be a thief, a liar, a bully...most people generally referred to as something akin to "bad" is driven by their urges as well. Such urges exist in most people to one degree or another but acting on them confirms each is what their "orientation" compels them to be. Sexually, each person has their own tastes, their own "thing", not each being equal and some being especially nasty by current cultural standards. Fortunately, none of them are "sinful" without God existing and hence none, especially such as thwarting the homosexual lobby's agenda, are wrong. As such, no reason at all is needed to oppose their agenda except an opposing emotion, such as disgust.
Fortunately, those of us devoted to our "ancient desert tribal mythologies" look at life as it is and refuse to pretend when truth, fact, reason and logic do not support the pretense. To us, that is wrong regardless of our "mythology".
Of course, this post isn't about all that stuff. It is about whether or not God loves us as we are or in spite of how we are. Any thoughts on that?
It is about whether or not God loves us as we are or in spite of how we are. Any thoughts on that?
My thought would be that those are two different aspects of love rather than two different ways of loving. I love my wife and my children despite their flaws and shortcomings, as they love me. On the other hand, I don’t think that I could claim to love them if I didn’t accept those flaws and shortcomings as part of who they are or if I thought that those flaws and shortcomings made them any less worthy of my love. So I have to say that I love them as they are, too.
I don’t claim to know whether there is a God or not, but if there is, I suspect that His attitude towards us cannot be adequately described in terms of the love that we have for one another. Even if “loving as” and “loving in spite” were two different ways of loving rather than two different aspects of love, I’m not sure that human logic and reason could ever tell us whether one more accurately describes the love of God than the other. It almost seems silly to me to even speculate.
The only way we could possibly know something like that about God’s love is if He chose to make it known to us directly by divine revelation. This of course brings us back to the question of whether He has so revealed Himself. Personally, I think it likely that He expects to figure out things for ourselves as best we can using the minds with which He equipped us. Even if He has revealed Himself, we still have to figure out whether He did so through Joseph Smith, Mohammed, the writers of the New Testament, or any one of a multitude of other people who have claimed to know His thoughts.
I hope that is thoughtful enough for you.
Vinny,
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
The fact that they practice homosexual behavior is what makes them "gay" whether they are practicing it all the time or not. DUH. It is their lifestyle built around homosexual relations which makes them "gay." If they didn't practice homosexual sex, they would be "gay." No one says they do it all the time. Sheesh.
Glenn.
I consider myself straight because of my sexual orientation. I was straight prior to the time that I engaged in sexual intercourse and I would still have been straight even if I lived a life of celibacy.
By the same token, gay people consider themselves gay because of their sexual orientation. Sometimes gay men try to live a straight lifestyle and only come to terms with their sexual orientation later in life. If you ask such men whether they became gay, they will invariably tell you that they were always gay regardless of the lifestyle they were leading.
The only one being obtuse is you.
Vinny,
Whether you call it just orientation which has never been acted on or not, the fact is that the sexual desire and/or behavior is not something to brag about and be proud about. The whole idea is just plain stupid.
Glenn,
Perhaps it is your misunderstanding of the issue that makes it seem stupid to you.
Vinny,
It is YOUR misunderstanding or intentional denial.
There is nothing about being a homosexual person to be proud of. Not the sex, not the orientation, not the relationships - NOTHING!
It is perverted, it is deviant, it is unnatural and it is an abomination to God.
End of discussion.
There is nothing about being a homosexual person to be proud of. Not the sex, not the orientation, not the relationships - NOTHING!
Of course that's your opinion. What gay "pride" is about, as I have said before, is a refusal to be shamed by the likes of you. A refusal to hide who they love.
And it is also a fact. Being "gay" is about sexual behavior. If one doesn't practice homosexual behavior, then they are not "gay."
This is false and ignorant.
"What gay "pride" is about, as I have said before, is a refusal to be shamed by the likes of you.
The shame they bear is on them regardless of what anyone like Glenn or myself might say. It is the same for anyone who engages in bad behavior or hopes to do so or fantasizes about doing so. The compulsion perhaps can't easily be helped, but the compulsion is no reason to proclaim pride. "I feel like stealing and I'm damned proud of it! I don't care what anyone says!" Yeah. Right.
he shame they bear is on them regardless of what anyone like Glenn or myself might say.
They bear no shame if they refuse to bear it. And they refuse.
How typical of the leftist thought process to reject notions of shame.
"Why, there's nothing to be ashamed of if I refuse to bear the shame my behavior deserves."
This is the out lefties provide themselves to legitimize all sorts of shameful behaviors. Jim champions this childishness.
I refuse to bear the shame my behavior deserves.
If it deserved shame. But it only deserves shame if YOU engage in that behavior.
Jim,
If you believe taking my words out of context helps make your self-serving point, you're more sadly mistaken than I thought, and winning the race for the crown Parkie now wears.
Regardless, even the partial quote you posted is true for all. It doesn't matter what a given individual wants to believe about the behavior they in which they freely engage, what matters is whether or not that behavior is shameful, wrong, prohibited, an abomination to God. You remember Him, don't you? You claim to be a member of a church that professes to worship Him.
Right and wrong exist outside of us. They are things we discover, not labels we attach based on our own personal desires, urges, compulsions or "orientations".
"I refuse to bear the shame my behavior deserves."
Cant make this stuff up!
Though Ben has no clue, he is right. You can't make this stuff up! Many people have the attitude of "Why, there's nothing to be ashamed of if I refuse to bear the shame my behavior deserves.", which was my original statement that Jim and Ben refuse to address in whole. But even in the reduced and out of context version they prefer, it still is a reflection of how people justify their bad behavior. They simply refuse to acknowledge the sinfulness (religiously speaking OR the secular equivalent) and then pretend they don't feel the shame, which of course they do when the truth is brought up, in which case they replace shame with unrighteous anger at being so reminded.
LOL!
"LOL" is always a satisfactory retort for someone who has lost an argument. Bravo, good sir. It is obvious you are either done with the conversation or require a bit more time to come up with what you consider to be an acceptable reply.
Anon,
I don't think there is enough time between now and Judgement for Parkie to come up with what any normal and rational person would regard an "acceptable" reply. Indeed, he views "LOL" as just that. Sad, isn't it?
Bravo.. anon.. bravo.. You busted me. I really dont care what marsha has to say. Ive been "done" with his homophobia and racisim for some time now.
"Done" with it? In order to be done with something, one must first begin in some way to address it. Parkie's done nothing but cast aspersions without ANY substantive justification. This is because he has no thoughts of his own and only parrots the standard lib stereotypes of conservative/Christians, none of which have been substantiated by ANY lib. For some, doing so is intellectual laziness. But "Parkie" and "intellect" do not go together. Parkie is worse than lazy since he isn't capable of putting in the effort to cobble together ANY kind of thoughtful argument. He hasn't even tried anywhere I've had the misfortune to see a comment of his. He's basically a very low intelligence liar, which is sad, and it shows in his last comment wherein he claims he doesn't care what I have to say. That's obviously disproved by his way too many visits here.
But hey, I've come to believe that such merely indicates a mental dysfunction of his own, a form of masochism, whereby he does whatever he can to be viewed as a hopeless little troll begging for abuse. The question is, do we indulge his desires or ignore them while we pray for his healing? I say both. Mock him with reckless abandon, for he wants it so much, but pray that he comes to realize he does himself no service by refusing to make any effort to transcend his base nature.
Post a Comment