Obama Listens, Religious Leaders Don't

[Jefferson]

Obama Listens, Religious Leaders Don't

This is the show from Thursday March 19th, 2009.

SUMMARY:

* Does Obama Listen to Bob Enyart Live: Bob, McBurney and Barack bash Bush bailing banks. Obama unexpectedly phoned back reporters from the New York Times who had asked him about being a socialist. Doug McBurney plays that audio recording and asks Bob if Obama is listening to the show. Is Barack a socialist? Barack used Bob's argument. It was not Obama, but Republican George W. Bush who started the bailout. It was not Obama but Bush who began nationalizing the banks. It was not Obama but Bush who bought votes from senior citizens by giving them a new bazillion-dollar prescription drug entitlement program to transfer wealth from struggling young families to their far-better off elders. Then apparently with a straight face, Obama concluded that he cannot be a socialist because he is only doing what the Republicans do. Bob & McBurney bash Bush bailing banks, but Barack?

* Milton Bradley Churning in his Urn: The Game of Life urges children to identify themselves as homosexuals or heterosexuals. Bob and Doug discuss the BEL effort, 18-years though fruitless (no pun intended), to re-stigmatize homosexuality, as opposed to America's religious leaders who worked to legitimize (declare legally valid) homosexuality. Bob reminded the audience that in the Massachusetts' Goodridge opinion, which never even mentioned the governor but which Mitt Romney used as his excuse to legalize homosexual marriage, the state court with hubris made the claim that, "Civil marriage is created and regulated through exercise of the police power." Oh really? And while Noah and Daniel also are turning in their graves, Merriam-Webster has re-defined the word marriage to include homosexual unions.

Today's Resource: Watch Terry's Call on DVD as Bob quickly unravels Terry's red herring claim, that homosexuals are living godly lives. In a series of heart touching phone calls, Terry is led to the Lord and repentance, shortly before his death from AIDS. (And notice the meaning of all the graphic elements in the artwork on the label of the DVD!)

 

[PlastikBuddha]

[
* Milton Bradley Churning in his Urn: The Game of Life urges children to identify themselves as homosexuals or heterosexuals. Bob and Doug discuss the BEL effort, 18-years though fruitless (no pun intended), to re-stigmatize homosexuality, as opposed to America's religious leaders who worked to legitimize (declare legally valid) homosexuality. Bob reminded the audience that in the Massachusetts' [url=http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=1&q=http://www.boston.com/news/daily/18/sjc_gaymarriage_decision.pdf&ei=EcbCSbfpNZKasAOcg-XzBg&sig2=LqITSzzQQpF_S_OW6l9TAA&usg=AFQjCNGi2Nnkf2S2OdZGXa37BBx1ZW4Kww]Goodridge opinion, which never even mentioned the governor but which Mitt Romney used as his excuse to legalize homosexual marriage, the state court with hubris made the claim that, "Civil marriage is created and regulated through exercise of the police power." Oh really? And while Noah and Daniel also are turning in their graves, Merriam-Webster has re-defined the word marriage to include homosexual unions.

You aren't loosing this battle, you've lost it.
:deadhorse:
It's time to stop hiding the Light in bushels and move on.
For people who have been told all along that they would be in the minority, and that they would be scorned at times for their faith, to nevertheless act shocked and affronted when the cultures in which they exist like fish in water ignore the morality they try to project upon society through volume what they can't accomplish with reasoning.
It's already happened. Gays are pretty much accepted as regular human beings. It's kind of a waste of time to try and convince someone that something is sinful just so you can further convince them that they can be delivered from that sin. Fortunately, it isn't necessary.
Don't get too down, though. The whole gay thing might not have worked out but I think that we will win the war against abortion.

 

[MaryContrary]

You aren't loosing this battle, you've lost it.
:deadhorse:
It's time to stop hiding the Light in bushels and move on.

Really? Seriously? Also, huh?
It just doesn't matter. As a sexual sin, listed among death penalty crimes by our Lord and creator, we should never stop denouncing it and "just move on". Not ever.
When did defending what's right become a game where you score points and keep track? If I were the only person on the entire planet willing to denounce homosexuality or any other serious sin, I'd still do so and it really wouldn't matter in the end if I had absolutely no hope of convincing anyone else. In the end, I'd know I did the right thing and stood up for the truth and that alone would be reason enough to have done so. Moreover, God would know. And it's His approval I seek before anyone else's.
Make the claim all you want that we aren't ever going to change anyone's mind. Knock yourself out. Because even if it were true it just wouldn't matter.

It's kind of a waste of time to try and convince someone that something is sinful just so you can further convince them that they can be delivered from that sin.

Is that the motivation behind denouncing homosexuality? You really believe that? Just to convince people that they're sinful and make proselytizing easier?
Come on, PB.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Really? Seriously? Also, huh?

Yes. Indeed. It's over.

It just doesn't matter. As a sexual sin, listed among death penalty crimes by our Lord and creator, we should never stop denouncing it and "just move on". Not ever.

It's a shame and a pity to limit the message of God's grace to those who basically already believe it. The culture war is over, all but the aftermath. Homosexuality is not only no longer a death penalty crime, it is accepted socially. Continuing on this path of insisting that those who aren't even in the faith follow its traditions is only going to make Christianity more and more of a backwater where idealogues go to die.

When did defending what's right become a game where you score points and keep track?

When did salvation become a game of enforcing OT values on unbelievers?

If I were the only person on the entire planet willing to denounce homosexuality or any other serious sin, I'd still do so and it really wouldn't matter in the end if I had absolutely no hope of convincing anyone else.

Because it would make you feel righteous, eh? It wouldn't save anyone, wouldn't do anything but provide a laugh to everyone else and they'd never get the important part of the message- but hey, you'd feel great, right? Isn't that what Christianity's all about?

In the end, I'd know I did the right thing and stood up for the truth and that alone would be reason enough to have done so. Moreover, God would know.

Yes. He would. He would know exactly how concerned you were with your brothers and sisters' welfare that you focused on one sin instead of on the salvation message. I'm sure He would be SO proud of this king of legalistic wrangling that is more concerned with propierty and rules than grace.

And it's His approval I seek before anyone else's.

I find it hard to believe that He approves of bigotry.

Make the claim all you want that we aren't ever going to change anyone's mind. Knock yourself out. Because even if it were true it just wouldn't matter.

It doesn't matter if you believe me. In 20 years your kind of mindset will be regarded with the same kind of retrospective embarassment as any other kind of ugly prejudice. Enjoy it while you can.

Is that the motivation behind denouncing homosexuality? You really believe that? Just to convince people that they're sinful and make proselytizing easier?
Come on, PB.

What other reason could you have to enforce your morality on someone else? Homosexuality is NOT a crime. That isn't going to change. If it isn't its sinfulness that concerns you than I guess you are jsut nosy.

 

[MaryContrary]

It's a shame and a pity to limit the message of God's grace to those who basically already believe it.

Unless I'm mistaken, that's exactly what you're suggesting we do. At least on the topic of homosexuality.

The culture war is over, all but the aftermath. Homosexuality is not only no longer a death penalty crime, it is accepted socially.

Sounds like a lot of :baby: "I give up!" Or maybe you'd just rather everyone else give up. Either way, considering there is a "culture war" going on in the first place, it's rather established that an unpopular opinion can indeed become popular. Else we would never have had a "culture war" in the first place. So I can't decide if you're just the kind of person who gives up way too easily or if you really expect we all are.

Continuing on this path of insisting that those who aren't even in the faith follow its traditions is only going to make Christianity more and more of a backwater where idealogues go to die.

As I said, who cares? So what? If my goal isn't to have a popular or commonly accepted opinion then this means little to me. If Christianity has to change in order to be acceptable to men, then it's worthless. I'm a little surprised you're willing to render it worthless in the attempt to make it more popular, PB.

When did salvation become a game of enforcing OT values on unbelievers?

Well, if we're going to ignore the point and just start tossing random questions back and forth, what is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow? Okay, your turn.

Because it would make you feel righteous, eh? It wouldn't save anyone, wouldn't do anything but provide a laugh to everyone else and they'd never get the important part of the message- but hey, you'd feel great, right? Isn't that what Christianity's all about?

How did you get that out of what I just said? I don't think you're trying here. I think you're just trying to make yourself feel better. But, as I hoped I'd gotten across already, if Christianity has to change what it is in order be acceptable and even to bring men to Christ, then better that it utterly fail to do instead.
Lies won't save anyone, PB. Not ever. Only truth can and we don't get to decide what is and isn't true. We only get to decide whether we tell the truth or speak lies.

Yes. He would. He would know exactly how concerned you were with your brothers and sisters' welfare that you focused on one sin instead of on the salvation message. I'm sure He would be SO proud of this king of legalistic wrangling that is more concerned with propierty and rules than grace.

Since when am I "focused on one sin"? I give it the gravity it deserves, right alongside other sins of equal magnitude. If that comes across as "focused on one sin" to you, then I think it's because you're not being at all objective here. In point of fact, this statement of yours make it seem more like it's you who've given homosexuality far too much focus, since it seems to have clouded your perceptions.

I find it hard to believe that He approves of bigotry.

Kindly provide your definition of bigotry so I can respond to whether or not it applies here, as well as ask you if you're being honest with its use here.
You'll forgive me for asking but I've noticed just about everyone who uses the word around here uses it near-exclusively as an ad hominem. Often using the most fluid understanding of the word in order to make it "fit" even. And seeing it's use here, I suspect you're being at least dishonest with it.

It doesn't matter if you believe me. In 20 years your kind of mindset will be regarded with the same kind of retrospective embarassment as any other kind of ugly prejudice. Enjoy it while you can.

...and it continues to simply not matter to me. Unlike you, apparently, I'm more concerned with being right than with being popular.

What other reason could you have to enforce your morality on someone else? Homosexuality is NOT a crime. That isn't going to change. If it isn't its sinfulness that concerns you than I guess you are jsut nosy.

Bunk. It seems you are indeed being dishonest here. And if that's so, then you really need to reexamine your position on this topic if it's lead you to the brink of lying in order to defend it.
You know full well the reasons we offer for why we take such a firm stance against homosexuality, PB. But I'll give it brief once over anyway: It's destructive and unhealthy. Physically, emotionally and socially. And we care enough to hate it for what it is and denounce it. We hate those that champion it, to the destruction of all those foolish enough to fall into it, and we're moved to compassion for those harmed by it.
And even if you have somehow missed that over the years, you really expect me to believe you can't come up with any other reason for denouncing homosexuality than proselytizing dishonestly? And let's not gloss over that this is exactly what you were inferring.

Seriously, I'm a little shocked at you here. I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me, us or anyone, PB. But dishonesty and such blatant closed mindedness wasn't your thing, I thought. Maybe I just haven't been paying attention.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Unless I'm mistaken, that's exactly what you're suggesting we do. At least on the topic of homosexuality.

I'm not sure how you'd get that from statement. Christ's message of salvation does not hinge upon the recognition of any sin in particular, but on man's sinful nature in general. Dropping the combative attitude towards homosexuality, without dropping the disapproval, doesn't weaken the Good News in any way.

Sounds like a lot of :baby: "I give up!" Or maybe you'd just rather everyone else give up. Either way, considering there is a "culture war" going on in the first place, it's rather established that an unpopular opinion can indeed become popular.

It was inevitable. Without any justification but religion, it is natural that a culture that is basically egalitarian and secular will not tolerate discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation.

Else we would never have had a "culture war" in the first place.
So I can't decide if you're just the kind of person who gives up way too easily or if you really expect we all are.

Neither. It's not an issue with me. I think that it is a comple waste of time and energy on top of being an affront to human dignity. A certain part of the population has always been gay and will continue to be so. There is nothing you can do about it.
As for stopping people from expressing what they feel by making it criminal or even just taboo, all it accomplishes is making people miserable, crazy, filled with repressed rage and guilt, and sometimes dead. I've known too many people who've had too many scars to ignore this.

As I said, who cares? So what? If my goal isn't to have a popular or commonly accepted opinion then this means little to me.

I believe that Word that is not spread is effectively dead and it is a foolish farmer who sows with no thought to a harvest.

If Christianity has to change in order to be acceptable to men, then it's worthless.

Christianity doesn't change. Christianity isn't about the eradication of sin it's about the forgiveness of sin.
:mrt::duh:
I admit, however, that the puzzling efforts of certain Christians to make white-washed sepulchres out of their fellows would have to change.

I'm a little surprised you're willing to render it worthless in the attempt to make it more popular, PB.

Exactly how does not insisting that the World start following OT Law render Christ worthless?

Well, if we're going to ignore the point and just start tossing random questions back and forth, what is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow? Okay, your turn.

Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?

How did you get that out of what I just said? I don't think you're trying here. I think you're just trying to make yourself feel better.

Just a shot in the dark.

But, as I hoped I'd gotten across already, if Christianity has to change what it is in order be acceptable and even to bring men to Christ, then better that it utterly fail to do instead.

Fortunately, it doesn't have to.

Lies won't save anyone, PB. Not ever. Only truth can and we don't get to decide what is and isn't true. We only get to decide whether we tell the truth or speak lies.

Not being gay won't save anyone either. Not ever.
That is Truth.

Since when am I "focused on one sin"?

Perhaps it doesn't seem obvious from the inside, but to the rest of the world wanting to have people arrested for having gay sex is an obsessive focus on a particular sin. It seems, to be blunt, a little crazy.

I give it the gravity it deserves, right alongside other sins of equal magnitude.

Why do you pay attention to it all? The sexual and romantic lives of consenting adults are none of your business.

If that comes across as "focused on one sin" to you, then I think it's because you're not being at all objective here. In point of fact, this statement of yours make it seem more like it's you who've given homosexuality far too much focus, since it seems to have clouded your perceptions.

Right...

Kindly provide your definition of bigotry so I can respond to whether or not it applies here, as well as ask you if you're being honest with its use here.

big⋅ot⋅ry   /ˈbɪgətri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [big-uh-tree] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ries. 1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry

Most of the resident bashers proudly where the designation "bigot".

You'll forgive me for asking but I've noticed just about everyone who uses the word around here uses it near-exclusively as an ad hominem. Often using the most fluid understanding of the word in order to make it "fit" even. And seeing it's use here, I suspect you're being at least dishonest with it.

I am not. I think that the attempt to perpetuate intolerance is absolutely the result of moral bigotry on sexuality.

...and it continues to simply not matter to me. Unlike you, apparently, I'm more concerned with being right than with being popular.

A concern with being right carries with it the willingness to accept being wrong. So far I haven't met many on the Christians on the Right who admit that possibility with the issue of homosexuality. It seems to be too visceral an issue.

Bunk. It seems you are indeed being dishonest here. And if that's so, then you really need to reexamine your position on this topic if it's lead you to the brink of lying in order to defend it.
You know full well the reasons we offer for why we take such a firm stance against homosexuality, PB. But I'll give it brief once over anyway: It's destructive and unhealthy. Physically, emotionally and socially. And we care enough to hate it for what it is and denounce it. We hate those that champion it, to the destruction of all those foolish enough to fall into it, and we're moved to compassion for those harmed by it.

That argument is an epic fail. We are not the health police. There is no valid secular reason to forbid homosexuality on the grounds of health risks any more than there is to ban skydiving or eating at McDonald's.

And even if you have somehow missed that over the years,

Oh, I've read the little speeches and the links to completely bogus "research" by the likes of Paul Cameron. I just don't buy it.

you really expect me to believe you can't come up with any other reason for denouncing homosexuality than proselytizing dishonestly? And let's not gloss over that this is exactly what you were inferring.

I can't think of a single legitimate reason why someone else's sex life is any of your business.

Seriously, I'm a little shocked at you here. I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me, us or anyone, PB. But dishonesty and such blatant closed mindedness wasn't your thing, I thought. Maybe I just haven't been paying attention.

I'm sorry you feel that I'm being dishonest, Mary. I like your posts, and you often make me laugh, but I think this is important. People's lives are still being destroyed because of intolerance and the pressures that go along with it just because they have the misfortune to be gay.

 

[MaryContrary]

Yeah, sorry. This is dragging out too long and getting lost in it's own details.

Is homosexual sex okay or not, PB?
Fornication in general for that matter?

Because I suddenly find I can't have any confidence in your answer to either question. You seem far too eager to insist Christians shouldn't so much as voice an opinion on this particular area of behavior while characterizing any that do in as negative a light as possible.
Over and over you say other people's sex lives are no one's business. And anyone expressing a strong opinion on what is and isn't acceptable in that area is a bigot (yeah, that holds true for all sexuality if it holds true for homosexuality).



And for the record:

big⋅ot⋅ry   /ˈbɪgətri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [big-uh-tree] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ries. 1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

Ah, no. I don't believe for a second you really think this is true of me. You merely don't mind slapping on the "bigot" label because it's a free shot at the opponent's credibility. So apparently you don't mind being dishonest when it comes to this issue.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Yeah, sorry. This is dragging out too long and getting lost in it's own details.

Details are important.

Is homosexual sex okay or not, PB?

"Okay"?
:squint:
What does "okay" mean in that context. Okay to who? To God? Of course not. God's standard of righteousness is unattainable by human beings, however. We sin by nature.
To human beings? To the extent that it has always been with us as a species obviously it is OK.
To the people of the United States of America? It's already happened.

Fornication in general for that matter?

The particulars of another's sin, unless they involve me or people I know, are none of my business. Sin does not equal crime.

Because I suddenly find I can't have any confidence in your answer to either question.

...

You seem far too eager to insist Christians shouldn't so much as voice an opinion

Whoa there. I have never said anyone shouldn't voice their opinion. I just think you are wrong and I am trying to explain why I think so.

on this particular area of behavior while characterizing any that do in as negative a light as possible.

lain:
I guess I just can't think of a "good" reason to be intolerant of gays.

Over and over you say other people's sex lives are no one's business.

Sometimes repetition helps. Sometimes it apparently doesn't.

And anyone expressing a strong opinion on what is and isn't acceptable in that area is a bigot (yeah, that holds true for all sexuality if it holds true for homosexuality).

So long as it's legal and between consenting adults. And that by "have a strong opinion" you mean "believe that it is an abomination that could be punishible by death and will destroy families."

And for the record:

big⋅ot⋅ry   /ˈbɪgətri/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [big-uh-tree] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ries. 1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

Ah, no. I don't believe for a second you really think this is true of me.

lain:
Really? Your incredulity is beyond my control but I would love to hear why you are having such trouble with the idea.
I see this as prejudice and that in this area you are a bigot. I'm not saying that like you go to Klan meetings or anything, but I really believe that this kind of thinking is going to be pretty much gone within a few decades.

 

[Nick M]

. Gays are pretty much accepted as regular human beings.

You are looking at it wrong. "Gay" isnt' any sort of group. And evil people categorize them that way so evil doers like you will support fags.

Homosexual is activity, not a minority status. You are right about those that engage in that deviant behavior. People that should judge them, won't.

 

[MaryContrary]

I see this as prejudice and that in this area you are a bigot. I'm not saying that like you go to Klan meetings or anything, but I really believe that this kind of thinking is going to be pretty much gone within a few decades.

Then there's nothing more to talk about. You haven't heard anything I've said yet and there's apparently no reason to believe that will change. :idunno:

It is kinda funny in a sad way how outrageously bigotted you're being here, though.

 

[PlastikBuddha]

You are looking at it wrong. "Gay" isnt' any sort of group. And evil people categorize them that way so evil doers like you will support fags.

I don't "support" them. I recognize them as broken human beings in need of a savior. Breaking them further doesn't help.

Homosexual is activity, not a minority status.

It is both. The activity is what you are judging. Those who feel drawn to it exclusively are in the minority.

You are right about those that engage in that deviant behavior. People that should judge them, won't.

Why?

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Then there's nothing more to talk about. You haven't heard anything I've said yet and there's apparently no reason to believe that will change. :idunno:

It is kinda funny in a sad way how outrageously bigotted you're being here, though.

I didn't expect much, but you've managed to disappoint even those meager expectations. I suppose I am bigoted against bigotry. If that's what you want to to walk away from this with then so be it.
:nono:

 

[pozzolane]

But I'll give it brief once over anyway: It's destructive and unhealthy. Physically, emotionally and socially.

Care to provide evidence for these claims? I know a few homosexuals who are very healthy physically and emotionally. In fact, they are healthier now that they embrace their homosexuality then before when they denied it and kept it hidden. In both cases, the reason for them to keep it hidden is because of their parents bigotry and intolerance. After coming out, they were disowned. But this was easier for them to deal with, then to keep their love, thoughts, and feelings repressed.

And why else would they seek to keep it hidden if it weren't for people like you who encourage them to keep it that way, and keep them in denial? You encourage repression and are outright hostile to their interjections that they just may be gay and that there's nothing you can do about it.

It seems that if any social destruction arises out of homosexuality, it is entirely because of you and your idea's (because you were/are the majority).

Aside, PB is entirely right. Even if god exists and finds humans by nature and homosexuality sinful, by what measure does that give you the right to stick your nose into the bedroom lives of others? If this god exists, you are just as disgusting and worthless and therefore, just as worthy of his love, as any homosexual is. Maybe you shouldn't forget that considering you believe in this god.