Stop Bullying the Anti-Bullying Czar

In the mid-nineties, when Kevin Jennings was the executive director of a fledging non-profit supporting LGBT youth and teachers called GLSEN (for the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Educators Network), he gave a lecture to my all-girls high school in Baltimore. I remember almost nothing about the content of his presentation; what I remember is that the school brought an openly gay man to address us directly on the matter of being gay. (Still, prior to the speech, our guidance counselor warned us that while homosexuality was okay, "experts advise" against coming out in high school.) Jennings, meanwhile, was appealing, accessible, and seemed to be working a circuit - going to any school that would let him be a warm, unashamed gay person in front of young people.

More than ten years later, my sister, now a junior at the same school, tells me that there's a Gay-Straight Alliance, several out teachers, and a popular annual Day of Silence. Kevin Jennings, meanwhile, is no longer heading a small advocacy group - he's part of the Obama administration.

Jennings has been appointed head of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, a post focused primarily on violence and drug prevention. He should know a thing or two about the kind of violence that can face LGBT youth: GLSEN has documented the prevalence of anti-LGBT violence and harassment in schools, finding in a 2007 survey that 39 percent of students experienced physical assault because of their sexual orientation; 81 percent of students were harassed on a regular basis. In last weekend's New York Times magazine cover story on gay and questioning middle school students, author Benoit Denizet-Lewis notes that a University of Nebraska-Harvard Medical School study found anti-gay harassment to be the most "psychologically harmful type of bullying." In Denizet-Lewis's article, teachers and students interviewed describe anti-gay slurs as ubiquitous. One teacher told him, "If I have to stop what I'm doing every time a student says ["That's so gay"], I won't have any time to teach!"

Predictably, conservative groups are going after Jennings. They kicked up a storm shortly after his confirmation, and now they're issuing e-blasts again. And they couldn't be making their intentions more blatant: they want Kevin Jennings to be the next Van Jones. In a recent e-newsletter, FRC referenced a Washington Times headline "Looking for the next Van Jones" (the headline is in fact "Conservatives hunt for the next Van Jones"). Jennings isn't mentioned in the article, so FRC responds:

But FRC already identified him in June-radical homosexual activist Kevin Jennings, appointed by Education Secretary Arne Duncan to head the Officer of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. Jones, President Obama's "green jobs" czar, was caught using profanity in reference to Republicans; Jennings has directed his profanity at God Himself! Jones merely signed his name to a conspiracy myth about the September 11 attacks; but Jennings has spent decades actively and successfully promoting myths about homosexuality to schoolchildren as founder of the radical Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GSLEN). Van Jones was done in by two key charges and one taped quote; FRC documented at least seven outrageous facts about Jennings and five inflammatory quotes in documents we released in June (see www.stopjennings.org).

The smoking gun this time around, according to the Family Research Council, is that when a 15-year-old boy told Jennings he was having sex with older men in a bus station restroom, Jennings (claims FRC) advised him to use condoms, but did not report the behavior to the boy's parents, school, or the police.

This latest tactic should be familiar to anyone who watches the right on abortion issues: right-wing groups repeatedly call for defunding of Planned Parenthood because, they claim, when teenage girls seek abortions at Planned Parenthood clinics, the organization fails to report every possible instance of abuse. In neither case do these groups consider whether reporting a teen girl's unplanned pregnancy or a teen boy's same-sex sexual behavior to her or his parents or school would constitute a physical or emotional threat to the teenager--if the allegations are true in the first place.

Given the tragic suicides of two young boys perceived to be gay this past spring, one in Georgia and one in Massachusetts, Jennings is just the right person to head in the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. But Family Research Council is now pushing its members to contact their state Boards of Education and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan in protest. It's time to get ready to fight back against another round of bash-the-progressive-who-makes-government-do-what-it-should.

Comments (109)

1. Blood in the water, Ms Douglas...they "got" Van Jones...keeps the Base fired up

   AND they figure they can do the "death by a 1000 cuts" to Obama if they pick off his appointees one by one.

   Strategically, Obama should have appointed a lesbian rather than a gay man. The GOP/Glenn Beck base has a harder time getting fired up over a gay woman....partially due to the straight ones who get "hot over girl-on-girl fantasies" and partially due to the repression and guilt of the closeted gay ones who turn their self-hatred outward to rabid anger at openly gay men.

   Posted by Mask at 10/01/2009 @ 12:39pm

2. This will open a can of worms. However anyone who is for the dismissal of Jennings is in the end for the abuse and bullying of gay people because that is all he has tried to stop his entire life. If you hold that against him then you are saying that we SHOULD abuse and bully gay people.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/01/2009 @ 12:50pm

3. Thanks for alerting me to this extremist.

   I am now sending out the information on Jennings throughout the nation. Hopefully, we can see an extremist like this removed from govt.

   <Jennings favors indoctrinating even elementary-age children in pro-homosexual ideology.

   Kevin Jennings wrote the foreword for a book titled Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue About Sexualities and Schooling.10 Among its essays is one by a lesbian mother who boasts of teaching her seven-year-old daughter to masturbate and declares that "‘queerly raised' children are agents" using "strategies of adaptation, negotiation, resistance and subversion.">

   <Students Given Graphic Instruction In Homosexual Sex By Brian Camenker and Scott Whiteman Massachusetts News - May, 2000 edition

   "Fisting [forcing one's entire hand into another person's rectum or vagina] often gets a bad rap....[It's] an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with...[and] to put you into an exploratory mode."

   The above quotation comes from Massachusetts Department of Education employees describing the pleasures of homosexual sex to a group of high school students at a state-sponsored workshop on March 25, 2000.

   On March 25, a statewide conference, called "Teach-Out," was sponsored by the Massachusetts Department of Education, the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).

   Among the goals were to build more Gay/Straight Alliances in Massachusetts and expand homosexual teaching into the lower grades. Scores of gay-friendly teachers and administrators attended. They received state "profespsional development credits.">

   http://tinyurl.com/oe5m4n

   Posted by antisocialist at 10/01/2009 @ 12:53pm

4. This will open a can of worms. However anyone who is for the dismissal of Jennings is in the end for the abuse and bullying of gay people because that is all he has tried to stop his entire life. If you hold that against him then you are saying that we SHOULD abuse and bully gay people.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/01/2009 @ 12:50pm

   You can't be serious. He has been engaged in the promotion and encouragement of homosexuality all the way down to elementary school levels.

   No one should be abused in this country. You are making another strawman argument instead of acknowledging that others have a different set of values than your own.

   <In a 1995 speech, Jennings admitted that his rhetoric about "safety" was a political device:

   We immediately seized upon the opponent's calling card--safety . . . . [W]e automatically threw our opponents onto the defensive and stole their best line of attack. This framing short-circuited their arguments and left them back-pedaling from day one.4>

   Kevin Jennings, "Winning the Culture War," speech presented at the Human Rights Campaign Fund Leadership Conference, March 5, 1995;

   Posted by antisocialist at 10/01/2009 @ 12:58pm

5. 'I just don't get this ... in 1977 the age of consent in California was 16. Today it's 18, with exceptions for sex when one person is underage and the other is no more than three years older. Shore's view-that Polanski was the victim of a nymphet and her scheming mother-is all over the internet.' -- Katha Pollitt -- The Nation -- 1 October, 2009

   Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/01/2009 @ 1:02pm

6. You can't be serious. He has been engaged in the promotion and encouragement of homosexuality all the way down to elementary school levels.

   Posted by antisocialist at 10/01/2009 @ 12:58pm

   What you call the promotion of homosexual behavior I call the teaching of respect for homosexual people. Telling a child not to beat up someone because they are gay doesn't mean you are trying to promote homosexuality. At the same time what Jennings admitted was that they had to reframe the issue in order to get gay's a fair treatment.

   http://tinyurl.com/6fpdvy

   There is the entirety of the speech. He wasn't promoting the gay lifestyle as you seem to assume. He was promoting fair treatment for gay's

   So no my argument is not a strawmen nor is it innaccurate. He has been spending his life trying to get fair treatment for homosexuals especially in schools where abuse is a huge problem and is much of the reason for depression and suicides amongst young gay and lesbian highschoolers.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/01/2009 @ 1:42pm

7. You are doing what accuse mask of doing, which is taking pieces of comments out of context to change their meaning.

   "In Massachusetts the effective reframing of this issue was the key to the success of the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. We immediately seized upon the opponent's calling card-- safety--and explained how homophobia represents a threat to students' safety by creating a climate where violence, name- calling, health problems, and suicide are common. Titling our report 'Making Schools Safe for Gay and Lesbian Youth,' we automatically threw our opponents onto the defensive and stole their best line of attack. This framing short-circuited their arguments and left them back-pedaling from day one."

   That's the entirety of what he said. He was explaining how kids thinking other gay children are perverts is a threat the safety of all children.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/01/2009 @ 1:44pm

8. There is the entirety of the speech. He wasn't promoting the gay lifestyle as you seem to assume. He was promoting fair treatment for gay's

   So no my argument is not a strawmen nor is it innaccurate. He has been spending his life trying to get fair treatment for homosexuals especially in schools where abuse is a huge problem and is much of the reason for depression and suicides amongst young gay and lesbian highschoolers.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/01/2009 @ 1:42pm

   After re-reading it, I stand by my statement. perhaps even more so with his ad hominem attack on Christians who oppose homsexuality as normal as being "homophobes". this is a consistent strawman attack by the pro homosexual crowd rather than admit to the right of others to hold to their religious values and teachings.

   Posted by antisocialist at 10/01/2009 @ 1:51pm

9. After re-reading it, I stand by my statement. perhaps even more so with his ad hominem attack on Christians who oppose homsexuality as normal as being "homophobes". this is a consistent strawman attack by the pro homosexual crowd rather than admit to the right of others to hold to their religious values and teachings.

   Posted by antisocialist at 10/01/2009 @ 1:51pm |

   You can stand by it if you want but it's wrong. By the way Christians who walk around insulting gay people ARE homophobes. You are blind to what your perceptions do. The reason gay teenagers are harrassed and put down it because of people like you because you marginalize their lifestyle and call them perverts you make it ok for kids to do the same. Whether you will ever cop to it or not doesn't matter. Those of us growing up around gay people have seen it plenty. Generally I can guess what the parent of a child thinks of gay people simply by observing how a kid interacts with gay people.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/01/2009 @ 1:57pm

10. The behavior you promote towards gay's is what leads to their depression and potential suicides as well as the hate crimes perpetuated against them. The smallest action has the largest repercussions.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/01/2009 @ 1:58pm

11. Posted by antisocialist at 10/01/2009 @ 12:53pm

    Larry, as a pastor and "prophet of God", just to establish general principles, can you tell us....

    what causes a person to become a homosexual, in your view?

    Posted by Mask at 10/01/2009 @ 2:03pm

12. strawman attack by the pro homosexual crowd rather than admit to the right of others to hold to their religious values and teachings.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/01/2009 @ 1:51pm

    The smallest action has the largest repercussions.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/01/2009 @ 1:58pm

    I think the argument here is that nobody can force you to do something against your beliefs (pharmacists refusing to sell abortion "Plan B" pills, for example) but you can't abuse somebody else because of your beliefs (Muslims aren't allowed to kill apostates).

    Posted by Mistral at 10/01/2009 @ 2:51pm

13. I think the argument here is that nobody can force you to do something against your beliefs (pharmacists refusing to sell abortion "Plan B" pills, for example) but you can't abuse somebody else because of your beliefs (Muslims aren't allowed to kill apostates).

    Posted by Mistral at 10/01/2009 @ 2:51pm

    Precisely.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/01/2009 @ 3:22pm

14. 'I think the argument here is that nobody can force you to do something against your beliefs' -- Mistral

    It's not that simple. Can Catholic Charities be banned from hand1ing adoptions because they refuse to work with homosexual couples that wish to adopt? Is the charity discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or is the state discriminating on the basis of religion?

    And what about an adoption agency that refuses to let individuals, as opposed to couples, adopt?

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/01/2009 @ 3:42pm

15. "I think the argument here is that nobody can force you to do something against your beliefs (pharmacists refusing to sell abortion "Plan B" pills, for example) but you can't abuse somebody else because of your beliefs (Muslims aren't allowed to kill apostates)."----Posted by Mistral at 10/01/2009 @ 2:51pm

    What if your beliefs tell you that "white people are superior to black people" and you refuse to rent them an apartment or loan them money from your bank? Not "killing them", simply "refusing to do something"?

    Posted by Mask at 10/01/2009 @ 3:45pm

16. It's not that simple. Can Catholic Charities be banned from hand1ing adoptions because they refuse to work with homosexual couples that wish to adopt? Is the charity discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or is the state discriminating on the basis of religion?

    And what about an adoption agency that refuses to let individuals, as opposed to couples, adopt?

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/01/2009 @ 3:42pm

    Then it's those couples responsibility to go to another adoption agency. These are privately owned facilities they are not owned by the government. Therefore they apply the rules they want. Just like a liquor store can refuse for any reason to serve someone.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/01/2009 @ 3:46pm

17. 'These are privately owned facilities they are not owned by the government. Therefore they apply the rules they want. Just like a liquor store can refuse for any reason to serve someone.' -- Cccomfo1

    Boston Globe -- 11 March, 2006 -- Patricia Wren

    'In a stunning turn of events, Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley and leaders of Catholic Charities of Boston announced yesterday that the agency will end its adoption work, deciding to abandon its founding mission, rather than comply with state law requiring that gays be allowed to adopt children.'

    http://www. boston.com/news/ local/articles/2006/0 3/11/catholic_charities_stuns _state_ends_adoptions/

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/01/2009 @ 4:02pm

18. 'In a stunning turn of events, Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley and leaders of Catholic Charities of Boston announced yesterday that the agency will end its adoption work, deciding to abandon its founding mission, rather than comply with state law requiring that gays be allowed to adopt children.'

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/01/2009 @ 4:02pm

    They chose to abandon instead of conform. This doesn't change my point. These are privately owned facilities. They choose to serve who they wish. The state can order them to do whatever they want but they don't have to do it. They chose to disband.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/01/2009 @ 4:51pm

19. Who's next in the Czar pen? We should know who these people are...Congress should get involved here.

    The blog is losing sight of why this guy is under fire....its his lack of character, judgement, and quite frankly, criminal advise he gave to a minor regarding sex with an older man...PERIOD...

    This is an example of where deviant crimnal behavior results in promotions and acts as a resume enhancer in the Democratic Party, when in fact he should have been arrested, charged at the least and fired for sure...and never considered for WH anything...but we are talking Democrat party here, Chicago style.

    Where would he be if he be if the advise he gave was to a 15 year old girl?

    Perhaps in the waiting room sitting next to Polanski as his case is called?

    Republican in this case? Fired...and his face on TV every night...See Foley,and Senator Craig..absolute never ending storys.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/01/2009 @ 4:59pm

20. "The blog is losing sight of why this guy is under fire....its his lack of character, judgement, and quite frankly, criminal advise he gave to a minor regarding sex with an older man...PERIOD... "

    Actually all of that is untrue. They are attacking him because he is a homosexual. Look at what they are holding as proof. He has done nothing to bring his character or judgement into question. The advice he gave the young man was not at all criminal. He simply told him to use a condom. Which is not criminal.

    "Where would he be if he be if the advise he gave was to a 15 year old girl? "

    It wouldn't have mattered because his advise is not illegal. Please show me what law he violated. Face it you don't like him because he is a democrat and because is gay. There is nothing beyond that. He has done nothing illegal. Nor has his judggment been called into question, the Republican argument against him has been essentially he shouldn't serve in this office because he is gay.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/01/2009 @ 5:07pm

21. I wish people would have the balls to fess up to why they want someone out of office instead of making some veiled attempt to equate what they did to criminal activity.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/01/2009 @ 5:11pm

22. If the kid was 15, then a crime had been committed. This guy should step down.

    Posted by tomonthebay at 10/01/2009 @ 5:23pm

23. If the kid was 15, then a crime had been committed. This guy should step down.

    Posted by tomonthebay at 10/01/2009 @ 5:23pm

    He didn't have sex with the kid, he told him to use a condom. There was no crime.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/01/2009 @ 5:48pm

24. "The smoking gun this time around, according to the Family Research Council, is that when a 15-year-old boy told Jennings he was having sex with older men in a bus station restroom, Jennings (claims FRC) advised him to use condoms, but did not report the behavior to the boy's parents, school, or the police. "

    There is nothing criminal about that.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/01/2009 @ 5:50pm

25. "But FRC already identified him in June-radical homosexual activist Kevin Jennings, appointed by Education Secretary Arne Duncan to head the Officer of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. Jones, President Obama's "green jobs" czar, was caught using profanity in reference to Republicans; Jennings has directed his profanity at God Himself! Jones merely signed his name to a conspiracy myth about the September 11 attacks; but Jennings has spent decades actively and successfully promoting myths about homosexuality to schoolchildren as founder of the radical Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GSLEN). Van Jones was done in by two key charges and one taped quote; FRC documented at least seven outrageous facts about Jennings and five inflammatory quotes in documents we released in June"

    Look at the outline of their arguments against him and you will basically see they don't like him because he is gay and nothing more.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/01/2009 @ 5:50pm

26. Even on the Stop Jennings website they make a veiled attempt to conflate all homosexuals with sexual predators. This is nothing more than a bunch of homophobes taking issue with the fact that a gay man is in office.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/01/2009 @ 5:53pm

27. You can stand by it if you want but it's wrong. By the way Christians who walk around insulting gay people ARE homophobes. You are blind to what your perceptions do. The reason gay teenagers are harrassed and put down it because of people like you because you marginalize their lifestyle and call them perverts you make it ok for kids to do the same. Whether you will ever cop to it or not doesn't matter. Those of us growing up around gay people have seen it plenty. Generally I can guess what the parent of a child thinks of gay people simply by observing how a kid interacts with gay people.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/01/2009 @ 1:57pm

    Again you maintain the ad hominem attack on Christians because we call homosexuality exactly what our faith calls it-perversion

    IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FEAR. Why don't you pro homosexuality people grow up and stop calling people of faith fear mongers because we believe in obeying G-d.

    Once more you demonstrate with your line of attack, the animosity and bigotry you have towards Christians, Jews, Hindus and Muslims, all who hold homosexuality to be immoral.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/01/2009 @ 7:45pm

28. After re-reading it, I stand by my statement. perhaps even more so with his ad hominem attack on Christians who oppose homsexuality as normal as being "homophobes". this is a consistent strawman attack by the pro homosexual crowd rather than admit to the right of others to hold to their religious values and teachings. Posted by antisocialist at 10/01/2009 @ 1:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --no larry...and I'll tell you why. One of your go-to methods of debate (for a variety of topics) is to rhetorically ask "why do you hate ______?"

    you stop framing your arguments that way, then you might deserve to not be accused of being a homophobe.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 7:58pm

29. Larry, as a pastor and "prophet of God", just to establish general principles, can you tell us....

    what causes a person to become a homosexual, in your view?

    Posted by Mask at 10/01/2009 @ 2:03pm

    I've responded to this several times (at least)

    Like all immoral behavior, homosexuality is a result of living out temptations and/or influences.

    Every person is born with certain moral weaknesses being a stronger pull on them then it is for someone else, even within the same family.

    All of feel "desires" or attractions to actions we know to be wrong. Some give into these "pulls" occasionally, some completely, and some are able to resist some but not all of their desires.

    In other cases it is a demonic influence upon the persons mind.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/01/2009 @ 8:04pm

30. antisocialist: "Again you maintain the ad hominem attack on Christians because we call homosexuality exactly what our faith calls it-perversion"

    --it's equally fair to say that you are engaging in an ad hominem attack on homosexuality.

    antisocialist: "IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FEAR. Why don't you pro homosexuality people grow up and stop calling people of faith fear mongers because we believe in obeying G-d."

    --actually, it has everything to do with fear. you consider yourself a god-fearing man. you think gay people don't fear god's wrath, and are doomed to hell. IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH FEAR. why don you religious people grow up and stop calling gay people "perverts" because they are gay.

    antisocialist: "Once more you demonstrate with your line of attack, the animosity and bigotry you have towards Christians, Jews, Hindus and Muslims, all who hold homosexuality to be immoral."

    --same can be said of your animosity and bigotry toward gays.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 8:07pm

31. Cc,

    I didn't know he was gay nor do I care. His advice to the 15 year old should have been to stay away ftom pedifile perverts and report the statutory rape that appeared to be going on in , what.... A bus depot bath room?

    Yeah , let's all celebrate the event.

    He should be fired.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/01/2009 @ 8:12pm

32. Again you maintain the ad hominem attack on Christians because we call homosexuality exactly what our faith calls it-perversion

    IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FEAR. Why don't you pro homosexuality people grow up and stop calling people of faith fear mongers because we believe in obeying G-d.

    Once more you demonstrate with your line of attack, the animosity and bigotry you have towards Christians, Jews, Hindus and Muslims, all who hold homosexuality to be immoral.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/01/2009 @ 7:45pm

    Once again you take up the club of falso bigotry so you can play the victim. Do I have to reiterate that I have very faithful family members? Do I have to remind you that you calling me hateful towards the religious is like me calling you racist?

    How is what I am doing any different than what you are doing? I am calling you a homophobe because according to my beliefs you fear homosexuals. You are calling gay's perverted because according to your beliefs you think what they do is wrong. It has nothing to do with bigotry Larry and the more you maintain that the more you look like a weak complainer.

    I am not bigotted against the religious I love many a religious person and I love religion as a whole. I am bigotted against those who think it is fine to repress others. Again, people like you are the reason there is bigotted action against homosexuals. You put them down and think it's fine because you are just telling the truth according to your beliefs. The problem is many beliefs even ones based on religion have been proven to be misguided. I know how to seperate fear from religion. There are many Christians who don't think homosexuality is a sin. Which is the reason that to me this has nothing to do with religion. But only a few peoples homophobia.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/01/2009 @ 8:27pm

33. Jennings wouldn't be a mandated reporter

    however, there is an extreme ick factor to merely telling a kid to make sure condoms are being used rather than to say something like "are you alright?"

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 8:28pm

34. There are many Christians who don't think homosexuality is a sin.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/01/2009 @ 8:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --cue Larry saying they aren't "true" Christians

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 8:29pm

35. Cc,

    I didn't know he was gay nor do I care. His advice to the 15 year old should have been to stay away ftom pedifile perverts and report the statutory rape that appeared to be going on in , what.... A bus depot bath room?

    Yeah , let's all celebrate the event.

    He should be fired.

    Posted by YourJomamma at 10/01/2009 @ 8:12pm

    If you didn't know he was gay then you must not have bothered to actually read the throws into even more stark relief the fact that what you have against this man has nothing to do with acitons or even facts.

    "Jennings, meanwhile, was appealing, accessible, and seemed to be working a circuit - going to any school that would let him be a warm, unashamed gay person in front of young people."

    In the first paragraph it talks about it.

    Again I ask you to show where his advice was illegal? Maybe it was ill advised not to tell the child's parents or the police. But at the same time when you are dealing with gay children you have to be careful what moves you take because if the child is not openly gay telling the police or his parents exposes him to other harmful repercussions. For instance I have heard of many kids parents who have thrown them out of the house when they admitted they were gay.

    But of course you only consider that he is a Democrat who didn't tell the police. Not the possible repercussions to the child. But of course this has nothing to do with his advice. This has everything to do with partisan politics and homophobia.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/01/2009 @ 8:34pm

36. --cue Larry saying they aren't "true" Christians

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 8:29pm

    He never takes into account that it's possible that he is wrong. To him he is absolutely and always right on faith and politics. I have never once seen him admit being wrong about anything.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/01/2009 @ 8:35pm

37. --cue Larry saying they aren't "true" Christians Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 8:29pm He never takes into account that it's possible that he is wrong. To him he is absolutely and always right on faith and politics. I have never once seen him admit being wrong about anything. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/01/2009 @ 8:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --same with his take on the constitution. the way he sees it is "correct"

    any way that differs from his is an erroneous "interpretation"

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 8:40pm

38. --same with his take on the constitution. the way he sees it is "correct"

    any way that differs from his is an erroneous "interpretation"

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 8:40pm

    It must be nice to know everything and to know that now matter what you say you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/01/2009 @ 9:05pm

39. ccc--the mental trick is to say you don't know everything, but the authorities you believe in do.

    of course, the "subtle" message is one is smart enough to pick the right authorities.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 9:27pm

40. There are many Christians who don't think homosexuality is a sin. Which is the reason that to me this has nothing to do with religion. But only a few peoples homophobia.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/01/2009 @ 8:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    There are many christians who don't read their bible for themselves even though it is the word of God or Gods revelation of himself to men and are mislead by false teachers and lieing tounges. They are consistently reproved by disciples and true followers of christ for perverting the word of God and the message of the gospel.

    Those believing homosexuality is NOT perversion of Gods gift for procreation and sexual enjoyment between a married husband and his one wife are among those the bible chastises for false belief and in all cases homosexuality is condemned as unnatural.

    You cannot provide one instance where the bible allows, condones, or does not condemn it!

    Homphobia is a perversion of man's science of psychology terminalogy and does not exist except in the creative (and perhaps evil) minds of those attempting to stigmatize natural aversions to this form of sexual perversion! You could just as easily call many Christophobes for fear of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/01/2009 @ 10:44pm

41. bigpasture: "There are many christians who don't read their bible for themselves even though it is the word of God or Gods revelation of himself to men"

    --the Bible is the word of God? How do you know? Oh, right, the Bible says it is! A perfect circle!

    bigpasture: "and are mislead by false teachers and lieing tounges. They are consistently reproved by disciples and true followers of christ for perverting the word of God and the message of the gospel."

    --the 'true' followers who have the only 'true' take on the only 'true' religion...and so it goes...

    bigpasture: "Those believing homosexuality is NOT perversion of Gods gift for procreation and sexual enjoyment between a married husband and his one wife are among those the bible chastises for false belief and in all cases homosexuality is condemned as unnatural."

    --even if one believes homosexuality is a sin...Jesus was forgiving. the beatitudes and the sermon on the mount are part of the bible too. but this doesn't square with your hate of gay people.

    bigpasture: "You cannot provide one instance where the bible allows, condones, or does not condemn it!"

    --you cannot prove that Jesus wouldn't love gay people.

    bigpasture: "Homphobia is a perversion of man's science of psychology terminalogy and does not exist except in the creative (and perhaps evil) minds of those attempting to stigmatize natural aversions to this form of sexual perversion! You could just as easily call many Christophobes for fear of the gospel of Jesus Christ."

    --you cannot prove that Jesus wouldn't love gay people.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 11:00pm

42. --even if one believes homosexuality is a sin...Jesus was forgiving. the beatitudes and the sermon on the mount are part of the bible too. but this doesn't square with your hate of gay people.

    --you cannot prove that Jesus wouldn't love gay people.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/01/2009 @ 11:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    1. You lie, I did I say I hate homosexuals.

    2. I never said Jesus did not love homosexuals.

    3. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. God is no respecter of persons and loves us all equally. God wishes that none should perish in their sins but, repent of those sins and turn to him for forgiveness.

    1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

    Only by confessing our sins and repenting or turning away from our sins do we recieve Christs forgivenes even for homosexuality.

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/01/2009 @ 11:39pm

43. 1. You lie, I did not say I hate homosexuals. (corrected)

    Posted by BigPasture at 10/02/2009 @ 12:21am

44. "Every person is born with certain moral weaknesses being a stronger pull on them then it is for someone else, even within the same family. "----Posted by antisocialist at 10/01/2009 @ 8:04pm

    So, to cite a specific example...

    why do you think Mary Cheney become a lesbian?

    Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 07:21am

45. bigpasture: "1. You lie, I did I say I hate homosexuals."

    --what's that now? that sentence doesn't make grammatical sense.

    bigpasture: "2. I never said Jesus did not love homosexuals."

    --right...and my clear implication is you won't be able to.

    bigpasture: "3. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. God is no respecter of persons and loves us all equally. God wishes that none should perish in their sins but, repent of those sins and turn to him for forgiveness."

    --so why not try to be more like God? you're clearly a homophobe. God isn't. You should ask God to forgive you for hating gay people.

    bigpasture: "1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

    --Matthew 7: 1-2 "Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged."

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 07:38am

46. So, to cite a specific example...

    why do you think Mary Cheney become a lesbian?

    Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 07:21am |

    how would I know? I know nothing of her personal background and experiences.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 07:57am

47. So, to cite a specific example... why do you think Mary Cheney become a lesbian? Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 07:21am | how would I know? I know nothing of her personal background and experiences. Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 07:57am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --for once I'm actually interested in the general idea of what Mask is asking. Since, Larry, you "can't" answer because you don't know her background and experiences: what, from your background and experiences with gay people, is the reason people choose to have sex with someone of the same sex?

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 08:16am

48. what, from your background and experiences with gay people, is the reason people choose to have sex with someone of the same sex?

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 08:16am

    Because it proves that evolution is a fraud!

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    .

    (The above was not intended seriously, but to make you wonder how a practice that would ensure an organism would not have progeny could persist in a species. A bird species would not survive if its eggshells were so hard the chick couldn't crack them, so how did homosexuality ever arise?)

    Posted by Mistral at 10/02/2009 @ 08:26am

49. bigpasture: "3. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. God is no respecter of persons and loves us all equally. God wishes that none should perish in their sins but, repent of those sins and turn to him for forgiveness."

    --so why not try to be more like God? you're clearly a homophobe. God isn't. You should ask God to forgive you for hating gay people.

    bigpasture: "1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

    --Matthew 7: 1-2 "Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged."

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 07:38am

    Quite a misuse of scripture.

    G-d forgives those who ASK for forgiveness and have genuine remorse for their behavior, and determine to not repeat the behavior that offended G-d

    Are you now saying that homosexuals regret their behavior and wish to act in a manner acceptable to G-d? That would be news indeed.

    Matthew 7 doesn't prohibit judging. It is not to engage in hypocritical judgment.

    As to the issue of love, G-d loves all mankind, even murderers and rapists. But G-d doesn't forgive unless as I said, we ask for forgiveness with genuine remorse/regret and determine to not repeat the behavior.

    Today's homosexuality takes the approach that their behavior has become acceptable to G-d and that is a lie.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 08:32am

50. Because it proves that evolution is a fraud! . . . . . . . . . . (The above was not intended seriously, but to make you wonder how a practice that would ensure an organism would not have progeny could persist in a species. A bird species would not survive if its eggshells were so hard the chick couldn't crack them, so how did homosexuality ever arise?) Posted by Mistral at 10/02/2009 @ 08:26am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --you sarcasm aside: humans have evolved into having social programs which help people who can't afford to take care of themselves: mentally retardation, autism, down's syndrome, etc--all sorts of physical maladies and mental incapacities that, from a pure "what can they help society produce?--both in offspring and in work/wealth--yet our society has deemed that it's appropriate to support them. i'd argue that this proves evolution is in action (not the this is evolution "perverted" or "evolution in reverse" or any similar argument)

    if there were 3 people on the planet, 2 men and 1 women, and both men were gay and refused to procreate with the woman, then homosexuality would be a threat to human existence. but, since conservatives love dragging her into many political conversations, I'll do it now: Ayn Rand was the champion of the idea that monopolies never exist in a society that allows free competition (one of her arguments in favor of capitalism), because there are too many people and too many resources for any one person to control all of any one valuable resource. an analogous argument applies to gay people: there are far too many heterosexual people for procreation to ever be in jeopardy. but conservatives often want to paint the slippery slope argument and attempt to convince us that gay people are a threat to human reproduction

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 08:39am

51. what, from your background and experiences with gay people, is the reason people choose to have sex with someone of the same sex?

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 08:16am

    I've responded to this several times (at least)

    Like all immoral behavior, homosexuality is a result of living out temptations and/or influences.

    Every person is born with certain moral weaknesses being a stronger pull on them then it is for someone else, even within the same family.

    All of feel "desires" or attractions to actions we know to be wrong. Some give into these "pulls" occasionally, some completely, and some are able to resist some but not all of their desires.

    In other cases it is a demonic influence upon the persons mind.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/01/2009 @ 8:04pm

    Let me add that I've also had men who confessed to me that they turned to homosexuality after developing a fear and sometimes loathing of women after suffering multiple rejections.

    BTW, this behavior is no different than that of a person who feels the "need" to be an adulterer. petty thievery is mostly impulsive reaction to desires that are not dealt with through character discipline.

    I want to post a passage in my next post that describes this battle of the human condition

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 08:43am

52. This deals specifically with those who already are following Christ, but the condition of our base nature is the same for all people.

    Galatians 5:13-21

    <For you have been called to live in freedom, my brothers and sisters. But don't use your freedom to satisfy your sinful nature. Instead, use your freedom to serve one another in love. 14 For the whole law can be summed up in this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 15 But if you are always biting and devouring one another, watch out! Beware of destroying one another.

    Living by the Spirit's Power

    16 So I say, let the Holy Spirit guide your lives. Then you won't be doing what your sinful nature craves. 17 The sinful nature wants to do evil, which is just the opposite of what the Spirit wants. And the Spirit gives us desires that are the opposite of what the sinful nature desires. These two forces are constantly fighting each other, so you are not free to carry out your good intentions. 18 But when you are directed by the Spirit, you are not under obligation to the law of Moses.

    19 When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, the results are very clear: sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division, 21 envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other sins like these. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God.>

    And I repeat what I've said many times, I deal with the spiritual condition of people and their relationship to G-d. We live in a secular land of liberty and many behaviors that offend G-d, hold a different standard in society itself and I don't try to join them.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 08:48am

53. antisocialist: "Quite a misuse of scripture."

    --in your eyes. but believe me, I've said the same to myself about your arguments relying on scripture many times. you are not the only interpreter, and your interpretation is not necessarily correct.

    antisocialist: "G-d forgives those who ASK for forgiveness and have genuine remorse for their behavior, and determine to not repeat the behavior that offended G-d"

    --how do you know that your judgment of other humans isn't offending God? you don't, but you surely believe it's not. the sermon on the mount is part of the bible. jesus said don't judge others or risk being judged; and you will be judged the same. you think your judgment of gay people will be ignored by God.

    antisocialist: "Are you now saying that homosexuals regret their behavior and wish to act in a manner acceptable to G-d? That would be news indeed. Matthew 7 doesn't prohibit judging. It is not to engage in hypocritical judgment."

    --I'd argue you are engaging in hypocritical judging; because you are not free from sin. Ceding, for the moment (though I don't personally agree with it; but ceding for argument's sake) that God will punish gay people, how do you know God won't punish you for judging gay people? How do you know that's not equally a sin, or more of a sin, to God?

    antisocialist: "As to the issue of love, G-d loves all mankind, even murderers and rapists. But G-d doesn't forgive unless as I said, we ask for forgiveness with genuine remorse/regret and determine to not repeat the behavior. Today's homosexuality takes the approach that their behavior has become acceptable to G-d and that is a lie."

    --Today's homophobes take the approach that their judgment of gays has become acceptable to God and that is a lie.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 08:49am

54. Let me add that I've also had men who confessed to me that they turned to homosexuality after developing a fear and sometimes loathing of women after suffering multiple rejections.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 08:43am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --but you've never met a man who says he's always been sexually attracted to men, right? they don't exist on the planet?

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 08:52am

55. And I repeat what I've said many times, I deal with the spiritual condition of people and their relationship to G-d. We live in a secular land of liberty and many behaviors that offend G-d, hold a different standard in society itself and I don't try to join them. Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 08:48am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --yet you use religious/spiritual arguments in political and government debates a lot--so you're not really trying to keep God and religion out of it.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 09:08am

56. --yet you use religious/spiritual arguments in political and government debates a lot--so you're not really trying to keep God and religion out of it.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 09:08am

    No, I've stated that I am not imposing my beliefs into politics or law.

    I am against any imposition of Christianity into our govt.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 09:52am

57. larry, you bring christianity into secular arguments all the time...but if you're pledging now to not do so in the future, i think that's great.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 10:07am

58. Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 08:49am

    Judging is required of Christians but we are reminded by Jesus that we will be judged by the same standards we apply to others.

    In 1 Corinthians 2:15-16 Paul speaks about the spiritual man, pneumatikos, meaning one in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, a Holy Spirit-controlled person: "The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment: ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him?' But we have the mind of Christ." Thus, a Christian is competent to judge all things because he is one in whom the Holy Spirit dwells and he has the mind of Christ.

    Either the Bible is authored by the devil or by man or by God. If it is authored by man, we can forget about it. If it is authored by the devil, we can also forget about it. But if it is authored by God himself, which it is, we must judge all things, including people, according to the Bible. We are to judge, not based on our subjectivity and good feelings, but according to the Book.

    How do I know I am judging correctly? Because I'm not going by my personal judgment, but by G-d's word. I have the example of the apostles who not only judged others but taught us through their writings HOW to judge.

    And you are simply repeating the ad hominem attack on my religious beliefs rather than simply disagreeing with it by your use of the slur of "homophobia".

    Romans 1:32 says that those who condone behavior like homosexuality are equally as guilty before the Lord as those who practice it.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 10:14am

59. larry, you bring christianity into secular arguments all the time...but if you're pledging now to not do so in the future, i think that's great.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 10:07am

    Show me an example where I have tried to impose Christianity into govt.

    Where I brought my faith is nearly always in a response of defense of my faith or misstatements about my faith.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 10:17am

60. And you are simply repeating the ad hominem attack on my religious beliefs rather than simply disagreeing with it by your use of the slur of "homophobia".

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 10:14am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --larry, one of your go-to ad hominem attacks on people with different beliefs than you is to rhetorically say "why do you hate ____?"

    you do the very thing you're feeling "victimized" by right now (and you are a homophobe, this is not ad hominem by the way, it's based on your writings, this is an observation of fact).

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 10:25am

61. larry, you bring christianity into secular arguments all the time...but if you're pledging now to not do so in the future, i think that's great.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 10:07am

    Show me an example where I have tried to impose Christianity into govt.

    Where I brought my faith is nearly always in a response of defense of my faith or misstatements about my faith.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 10:17am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --show me where I said you tried to impose Christianity into government? I said you bring Christianity into secular arguments about politics and government a lot. I'm not Mask, I'm not going through the history of every thread to dig up all the times you do this. I'm quite sure you'll be providing examples soon enough, and I will ask you then why you're bringing up christianity when it's not germane to the secular topic at hand...to which, surely, you will argue it is germane, and I will point out what I already pointed out, that you bring christianity into secular discussions of government and politics.

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 10:27am

62. Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 07:57am

    But given your answer at Posted by antisocialist at 10/01/2009 @ 8:04pm....

    would you say it is possible Mary Cheney is demonically influenced or that she just "didn't resisted the pull as strongly" as other members of her family?

    Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 10:43am

63. 'In a stunning turn of events, Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley and leaders of Catholic Charities of Boston announced yesterday that the agency will end its adoption work, deciding to abandon its founding mission, rather than comply with state law requiring that gays be allowed to adopt children.'

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/01/2009 @ 4:02pm

    That is one of the reasons I used to be a Catholic....now, I'm an atheist. If there is a God, he/she/it wouldn't allow such effed up religions to operate in his/her/it's name. To steal a line from the movie The Ten Commandments....."If there is a God, he did not mean this to be so." I say, to hell with all organized religions. I don't know much about Buddism or Hinduism, but the rest of the religions out there are responsible for one hell of a lot of pain, suffering and death.....all in the name of God.

    The Catholic Church's view (along with it's Protestant cousins) is that if we can't place the children in homes of people we view as "good Christians" then to hell with those children. Let them starve in the streets or worse yet, be raped by our priests and pastors because they have nowhere else to turn. What lovely institutions indeed.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/02/2009 @ 11:28am

64. It is quite apparent that Larry is never going to change his mind, so why bother to get into it with him?

    Funny though that there were soo many posts on the Polanski thread and here people don't seem to exhibit the same interest, I even took a while to getting to read the whole of this thread as I was busy with the other one.

    Homosexuality is not a disease or a perversion except for those who see it is and I guess if you have that point of view there isn't much to do about it.

    Which doesn't mean not supporting Jennings, and perhaps counter posting people like Larry. He does have a right to his opinion. I wish he knew it was just his opinion though, not "the word"!

    I can't, like Urmy, or was it Ccc? embrace moderate religious belief in the way I used to.

    I think modrelbel does seem to be what allows the extremists a place, unfortunately. As in itself monotheism seems pretty harmless, just there always seems to be too much room for dogma if one just squeaks the door open.

    Posted by marilynm at 10/02/2009 @ 11:45am

65. By the way I might believe in God (don't want to discuss this actually with you all, but bring it up to make way for the second part), but I certainly would never claim to be "God Fearing"...

    ...as someone here said it is the fear that always seems to cause the problems.

    Posted by marilynm at 10/02/2009 @ 11:53am

66. I can't, like Urmy, or was it Ccc? embrace moderate religious belief in the way I used to.

    Posted by marilynm at 10/02/2009 @ 11:45am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --I was raised Catholic, but as an adult I don't embrace any religion (i.e., have faith in any particular religion). I am all for free practice of religion, and think that even if the basis of any religion (i.e. God) isn't provable, they can still be useful for society (especially if people find that it fulfills them or make them happy).

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 12:02pm

67. By the way I might believe in God (don't want to discuss this actually with you all, but bring it up to make way for the second part), but I certainly would never claim to be "God Fearing"... ...as someone here said it is the fear that always seems to cause the problems. Posted by marilynm at 10/02/2009 @ 11:53am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --this is as good a place as any to discuss God, if you wanted. People can get mad at divergent views, but we're safely anonymous.

    I struggle with the idea of a God. I certainly don't have a strong faith that God exists. But I also don't have a strong faith that God doesn't exist. People who believe in God through the prism of religion will always tell you they have the only "in" to God; and will often tell you if you don't believe in their established religion then you don't know and can't understand God. Of course, they will also say other established religions are wrong--so it really comes down to everyone's wrong but "us"

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 12:06pm

68. you sarcasm aside: humans have evolved into having social programs which help people who can't afford to take care of themselves:

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 08:39am

    I wasn't being sarcastic. It's a very interesting question of science why homosexual behaviour persists. Your remark about human social programs might explain persistence of traits that appear on the surface to impair survival (such as sickle-cell) or reproduction (homosexuality) in the MODERN world, but how would such traits persist in pre-historic times? How would such traits persist in other animals?

    There ARE evolutionary explanations, but they have nothing to do with Ayn Rand.

    Posted by Mistral at 10/02/2009 @ 12:24pm

69. As I see it, the question is not whether or not Jennings is a gay man. Hell, Jennings is not even the issue. The issue is Obama's judgement in presenting the rebulicans with yet another whipping boy.

    One of two things is happening here. Either Obama is unaware of the past lives of his Czars and he comes off as incompetent or he knows of their backgrounds and he then leaves himself open to be judged by those he surrounds himself with in his administration.

    All this does is gives the talking heads on the right, more red meat. Jennings will also have to resign. Hannity and Limbaugh will pound him everyday until he does.

    Next week it will be another Czar whose past will be front and center.

    Democrats need to understand, America watchs FOX, not CNN or MSNBC. By and large, the info they are getting is anti-Obama. The president knows exactly what he wants in these Czars. He was activists who will be movers and shakers for his agenda. If one of them turned a blind eye to statutory rape, oh well.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/02/2009 @ 1:05pm

70. 'First-rate people hire first-rate people, second-rate people hire third-rate people.' -- Robert Townsend

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/02/2009 @ 1:13pm

71. "Matthew 7 doesn't prohibit judging. It is not to engage in hypocritical judgment."

    All judgement is hypocritical. I think Jesus showed that when he said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Or in the passage that basically says "Remove the log from your eye before attempting to remove the splinter from your neighbors."

    You judge freely because you believe yourself to be correct. You believe that you are simply acting on God's word. But this must assume that you are infallible and therefore never get it wrong. Maybe you should learn that since you are not infallible Larry your interpretations of things can be wrong. Your judgement can be wrong and those you choose to believe can also be wrong. This is apart of approaching the Bible with a grain of salt. Because the book was written so long ago in a different language and translated many many times you have to uphold that it is possible that either it was translated wrong or that the words they used have different meanings to us and therefore may skew our interpretation.

    You also have to take into account that not everything in the Bible is spoken plainly. There is a lot to be found through symbolism which leaves it even more up to interpretation. Even the the book was written directly by the hand of God it doesn't matter because you can still interpret it wrong.

    "How do I know I am judging correctly? Because I'm not going by my personal judgment, but by G-d's word."

    This to me speaks of perfect arrogance. You believe that you have interpreted the word of God perfectly. But how do you know? Many people interpret it wrong. How do you know you haven't done the same?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 1:34pm

72. This to me speaks of perfect arrogance. You believe that you have interpreted the word of God perfectly. But how do you know? Many people interpret it wrong. How do you know you haven't done the same?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 1:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --this is where he conflates "objective truth" with "faith"

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 2:16pm

73. larry, one of your go-to ad hominem attacks on people with different beliefs than you is to rhetorically say "why do you hate ____?"

    you do the very thing you're feeling "victimized" by right now (and you are a homophobe, this is not ad hominem by the way, it's based on your writings, this is an observation of fact).

    Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 10:25am

    When someone labels you a "homophobe" it is intended as a slur against any Christian who holds to the teachings of their faith.

    you may try and twist it to something else, but that argument is nothing but personal attack and not based upon reason.

    IT IS ALWAYS BIGOTRY AGAINST CHRISTIANS, JEWS, HINDUS, AND MUSLIMS WHOSE FAITH TEACHES THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS IMMORAL.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 2:17pm

74. would you say it is possible Mary Cheney is demonically influenced or that she just "didn't resisted the pull as strongly" as other members of her family?

    Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 10:43am

    It's impossible to know for me since I've never met her.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 2:19pm

75. <i>Posted by urmygyro at 10/02/2009 @ 12:06pm </i>

    I second your thought here on discussing God, and would add that I'm not sure why ideas anchored in God should be left out of public debates (and by "public" here I don't mean "between politicians") like this.

    <i>Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 10:14am </i>

    Who is the "spiritual man" Paul describes, I wonder? Is it anyone who affirms Christianity in both head and heart? The ironic thing about this statement is that it seems to ignore, well, just about the entire Old Testament. A theme that runs through the entire Old Testament is that God doesn't work through perfect people doing great things. He works to do good and even great things through messy people.

    And let me ask you about the story of the Prodigal Son, Larry. Remember that the prodigal son decides to come back to his dad with an apology ready on his lips. The dad seems him coming, runs towards him, CUTS OFF his apology, puts his arms around him, and throws a party. This story means at least this: that God never gives up on anyone, and never turns away a sincere seeker (what else can "he who seeks, finds" mean?). To say otherwise would be to say, for instance, that if someone was sincerely seeking God but then got hit by a train before they affirmed the Apostles' Creed in heart and mind, God would just have to shrug his shoulders and say "sorry, nothing I can do."

    If Jesus told a bunch of people about to stone an accused adulteress (whose innocence, as I recall, is never even suggested) that only one without sin should throw the first stone, and HIMSELF refused to condemn her, what does THAT say?

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/02/2009 @ 2:21pm

76. Democrats need to understand, America watchs FOX, not CNN or MSNBC. By and large, the info they are getting is anti-Obama.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/02/2009 @ 1:05pm

    Actually, only a very small number of Americans watch Fox. Six or seven times more watch the evening news broadcasts of the three networks than Fox. The problem is that the rest of the news media watch Fox, read Drudge or listen to Limbaugh, so they serve as a willing conduit for this swill.

    Jennings should not resign, and the queer movement, teachers' unions and children's advocates should be pressing the administration to not fire him since this would just encourage further harrassment of GLBT youth and staff in the schools.

    Posted by cka2nd at 10/02/2009 @ 2:22pm

77. 'First-rate people hire first-rate people, second-rate people hire third-rate people.' -- Robert Townsend-----Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/02/2009 @ 1:13pm

    "Heckuva job, Brownie!"---G.W. Bush????

    Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 2:26pm

78. It's impossible to know for me since I've never met her.----Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 2:19pm

    Noooooo, Larry. It's impossible for you to SAY..out loud. Cuz we both know if she was the daughter of some "liberal" or "Hollywood type"...you'd have a definitive answer for why she became gay.

    Her dad happens to be "one of the greatest Vice-Presidents in history" (your words)....suddenly you develop a fog.

    IT IS ALWAYS BIGOTRY AGAINST CHRISTIANS, JEWS, HINDUS, AND MUSLIMS WHOSE FAITH TEACHES THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS IMMORAL.----Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 2:17pm

    Bigotry against Muslims?....Outrageous!

    "Of course I hate Islam. It is the work of the devil designed to steer people away from the true G-d. It is a religion based upon hate. It is a religion who's doctrines require the murder or subjugation of others."----Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/06/2008 @ 1:16pm

    Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 2:29pm

79. f Jesus told a bunch of people about to stone an accused adulteress (whose innocence, as I recall, is never even suggested) that only one without sin should throw the first stone, and HIMSELF refused to condemn her, what does THAT say?

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/02/2009 @ 2:21pm

    The joke goes as follows:

    After Jesus was done speaking, a rock flew out of the crowd and struck the woman. Jesus turned in surprise, then, recognizing the one who threw the rock, shouted in frustration, "Mom!"

    Posted by Mistral at 10/02/2009 @ 2:45pm

80. "Of course I hate Islam. It is the work of the devil designed to steer people away from the true G-d. It is a religion based upon hate. It is a religion who's doctrines require the murder or subjugation of others."----Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/06/2008 @ 1:16pm

    Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 2:29pm

    Wait I thought Larry said he doesn't hate.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 2:48pm

81. I don't really care what folks like Larry (anti) feel or think about queers. The question is, What is the impact of the policies that the Religous Right, including the Catholic Church, advocate vs. the policies advocated by the GLBT Movement?

    The impact of religous right policy is continued violence, harrassment and discrimination against queer folk, from the schools to public accomodations, from adoption to marriage to inheritance. It is parents feeling empowered to throw 13-year olds onto the street. It is the spread of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases through opposition to comprehensive sex education and condom usage and distribution (with an assist from Big Pharma and some in the gay community who've spent the last 15 years minimizing the continuing danger of AIDS).

    The religous right and Catholic hierarchy will claim that the "gay lifestyle" leads to all sorts of negative results, but, setting aside the fact that there are many different lifestyles within the gay community, so far, they haven't been able to make any of their more sensational charges stick, sometimes thanks to shoddy or biased research.

    I don't like religion but I can treat religious people with respect and oppose discrimination against them. But respecting their right to practice their religion does not mean I will stand by and let them impose legal discrimination or enable extra-legal violence or harrassment on others.

    Posted by cka2nd at 10/02/2009 @ 2:52pm

82. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 2:48pm

    Naturally, he'll go into his "I don't hate Muslims...just their religion" mode...

    and suddenly bigotry against Islam and its tenets is "okay"...bigotry against Muslims who follow the tenets of Islam that say homosexuality is a perversion is "bad".

    It's a line so fine you need a laser micrometer to see.

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 2:57pm

83. Actually, only a very small number of Americans watch Fox. Six or seven times more watch the evening news broadcasts of the three networks than Fox. The problem is that the rest of the news media watch Fox, read Drudge or listen to Limbaugh, so they serve as a willing conduit for this swill.

    Jennings should not resign, and the queer movement, teachers' unions and children's advocates should be pressing the administration to not fire him since this would just encourage further harrassment of GLBT youth and staff in the schools.

    Posted by cka2nd at 10/02/2009 @ 2:22pm

    Don't know where you're getting your polls from but they're way off. Fox beats MSNBC, CNN and CBS combined and has for a long time. The reason is because people trust Fox to reveal things you'd never see on liberal media outlets.

    Also, isn't the term queer politically incorrect?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/02/2009 @ 3:00pm

84. "Heckuva job, Brownie!"---G.W. Bush????

    Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 2:26pm

    Yeah, there are idiots everywhere. Right now it's Jennings turn. A couple of weeks ago it was Jones. Who will it be next week?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/02/2009 @ 3:03pm

85. "Of course I hate Islam. It is the work of the devil designed to steer people away from the true G-d. It is a religion based upon hate. It is a religion who's doctrines require the murder or subjugation of others."----Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/06/2008 @ 1:16pm

    Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 2:29pm

    Where did you get that from?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/02/2009 @ 3:05pm

86. would you say it is possible Mary Cheney is demonically influenced or that she just "didn't resisted the pull as strongly" as other members of her family?

    Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 10:43am

    It's impossible to know for me since I've never met her.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 2:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    All right now, fellas.

    Just in the interests of future reference: we can't stamp someone "evil" until we meet them personally?

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/02/2009 @ 3:38pm

87. Wait I thought Larry said he doesn't hate.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 2:48pm

    Do you understand that which Mask doesn't comprehend? That there is a difference between hating ideologies and even behaviors and hating the person?

    The bible declares that G-d hates a number of behaviors, but never the person

    Christians and Jews are called to reflect that same attitude.

    I hate any ideology that calls for violence against innocent people. I hate ideologies that take away freedom.

    But I never hate a person.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 4:23pm

88. If Jesus told a bunch of people about to stone an accused adulteress (whose innocence, as I recall, is never even suggested) that only one without sin should throw the first stone, and HIMSELF refused to condemn her, what does THAT say?

    Posted by Thrawn at 10/02/2009 @ 2:21pm

    That he was pointing out their hypocrisy.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 4:25pm

89. Posted by Thrawn at 10/02/2009 @ 2:21pm

    You wonder who the spiritual man is? It is any believer who is filled with the Holy Spirit and who follows the Holy Spirit instead of their flesh (mind). Thus your argument about contradiction simply again displays you lack of understanding of scripture.

    Your next example again displays a lack of understanding and misstates the passage. The father did not cut off his son's apology. The father ordered the party AFTER his son's repentance.

    Also, anyone that G-d knows will receive Him, will be preserved from death until they find the Lord.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 4:34pm

90. It's impossible to know for me since I've never met her.----Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 2:19pm

    Noooooo, Larry. It's impossible for you to SAY..out loud. Cuz we both know if she was the daughter of some "liberal" or "Hollywood type"...you'd have a definitive answer for why she became gay.

    Her dad happens to be "one of the greatest Vice-Presidents in history" (your words)....suddenly you develop a fog.

    Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 2:29pm

    Mask, you are so ignorant of how I conduct my ministry.

    I cannot say how a person becomes a homosexual or an adulterer, or a thief, without meeting them or at least hearing their explanation and having sufficient information. And even then, I sometimes have to seek the Lord for wisdom in the matter.

    It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. dealing with sin applies to all human beings regardless of political philosophy or party.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 4:39pm

91. Posted by Mask at 10/02/2009 @ 2:29pm

    Mask, you are so ignorant of how I conduct my ministry.

    It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. dealing with sin applies to all human beings regardless of political philosophy or party.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 4:39pm

    Just to add on to that thought. I confront far more conservatives who claim to be or even are Christian than I do others outside of Christianity, when their behavior is sinful.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 4:40pm

92. That he was pointing out their hypocrisy.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 4:25pm

    What, because all of them were adulterers or because all of them sinned?

    I think it's because all of them sinned. Which puts you in the same place. He is saying that those who sin can not judge others. You are a sinner. Therefore you are not one to judge.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 4:48pm

93. What, because all of them were adulterers or because all of them sinned?

    I think it's because all of them sinned. Which puts you in the same place. He is saying that those who sin can not judge others. You are a sinner. Therefore you are not one to judge.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 4:48pm

    None of them had repented and received Christ.

    I am a sinner by my original birth. but by my rebirth in Christ, I am seen by G-d, not as a sinner, but as a reflection of Christ. G-d sees in me (and all believers who live in Christ) as wearing or endowed with the righteousness of Christ.

    Your view is simply the opposite of what the Bible says.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 5:19pm

94. Your view is simply the opposite of what the Bible says.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 5:19pm

    No it's the opposite of how YOU'VE interpreted the Bible. Not what the Bible says.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 5:26pm

95. "Let the person among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."

    I can pull up every translation but they all say the same thing. They do not say those of you who have accepted me in your life cast the first stone. They say you who are sinless, or you who are without sin. You have said you are not without sin. You sin every day. According to the Bible you are inherently sinful. Therefore you are not without sin and therefore you should not cast any stones.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 5:29pm

96. I think you a misinterpreting what acceptance of Christ in your life gives you. It does not make you a being without sin. It means that when you die your sins will be forgiven and you will be admitted into heaven. No being is without sin. He made it very specific that he was talking about sinners not just sinners who don't believe in him.

    Again I am taking his word exactly as I said. Your version relies on massive interpretation. I would think if he meant something else he would have said something else.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 5:32pm

97. as he said

    not I said.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 5:34pm

98. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 5:29pm

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 5:32pm

    Again, you do not seem to understand the foundations of Christian belief. Do you think it is important to know that He was speaking to people who rejected Him versus the promises to those who follow Him? The accusers of the woman were not looking for the blessings of the Christ.

    Romans 6:1-7

    Well then, should we keep on sinning so that God can show us more and more of his wonderful grace? 2 Of course not! Since we have died to sin, how can we continue to live in it? 3 Or have you forgotten that when we were joined with Christ Jesus in baptism, we joined him in his death? 4 For we died and were buried with Christ by baptism. And just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glorious power of the Father, now we also may live new lives.

    5 Since we have been united with him in his death, we will also be raised to life as he was. 6 We know that our old sinful selves were crucified with Christ so that sin might lose its power in our lives. We are no longer slaves to sin. 7 For when we died with Christ we were set free from the power of sin.

    1 John 1:9

    If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

    2 Corinthians 5:17,21

    Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.

    For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

    1 Corinthians 6:11

    Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

    Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 6:29pm

99. Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 6:29pm

    I think what you are missing completely in all of these quotes is that they are not saying that you are now sinless because you have accepted Jesus. They are saying that Jesus has shown the way to sinlessnes. I think it mostly just falls to arrogance to believe that you are without sin and can therefore judge others sins. According to the Bible your sins may be forgiven but you are not without sin.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 6:59pm

100. Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 6:29pm

     I think what you are missing completely in all of these quotes is that they are not saying that you are now sinless because you have accepted Jesus. They are saying that Jesus has shown the way to sinlessnes. I think it mostly just falls to arrogance to believe that you are without sin and can therefore judge others sins. According to the Bible your sins may be forgiven but you are not without sin.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 6:59pm

101. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 4:25pm </i>

     "Just pointing out their hypocrisy" MIGHT be enough to account for the first part of the statement ("let he who is without sin cast the first stone"), but it does NOT account for the second ("neither do I condemn you"), which I think is just as crucial.

     Now let's go to the prodigal son story:

     <<But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him.

     "The son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.'

     "But the father said to his servants, 'Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fattened calf and kill it. Let's have a feast and celebrate. For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.' So they began to celebrate. >>

     Two things. First, note that the father starts running toward the son before he ever says anything. He doesn't wait for an apology. Second, note the word "but" in the passage, which to me seems to indicate a statement being cut off. Third, and perhaps even more significantly...note why the father throws a party. It's not because the son says his ways were wrong...it's because he's back. Nothing in this story even remotely allows the reader to draw a causal inference between the apology and the party. I think that's pretty important.

     And remember that this story sits in the context of two other parables, all of which indicate the same thing...God never quits. The empirical claim that no one who would have recited a creed dies before they get the chance to do so in this life...is just plainly false.

     Posted by Thrawn at 10/02/2009 @ 7:16pm

102. If I hadn't been through a lot of this with my relig ed teacher in highschool this would be kinda cool...she was a bit more rigorous though on not being too literal about interpretation, and instead seemed to be a more inclusive type of christian that seems to have gone out fashion.

     Come off it you guys, isn't it clear the antisocial type, Larry that was, likes the safe and airy climes of his pulpit.

     What I would love to see is him in face to face verbal combat with Richard Dawkins, who is sparing with words and yet so razor sharp.

     Posted by marilynm at 10/02/2009 @ 7:30pm

103. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/02/2009 @ 5:32pm

     If I'm wrong then the apostle peter is wrong, Paul is wrong, and all of protestantism is wrong.

     From 1 Peter 1:21,22

     That's why you have put your faith and hope in God. 22 You obeyed the truth, and your souls were made pure

     Romans 5:6-8

     When we were unable to help ourselves, at the right time, Christ died for us, although we were living against God. 7 Very few people will die to save the life of someone else. Although perhaps for a good person someone might possibly die.8 But God shows his great love for us in this way: Christ died for us while we were still sinners.

     In other words - past tense

     And in James 5:19,20 he states states that someone who was a Christian is now living in sin is no longer saved, but can be brought back to the Lord by the efforts of believers.

     Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, 20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.

     Now get ready:

     1 John 5:18

     We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him.

     All living Christians who walk by the power of the Holy Spirit in obedience to Christ are Saints. Not the Catholic teaching of special believers. the NT says that all who live in Christ are Saints.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 7:51pm

104. Interesting Bible Study going on here.....

     Must drive the Nation Mag, KVH, and staff nuts!!!

     Posted by YourJomamma at 10/02/2009 @ 8:37pm

105. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 10/02/2009 @ 7:51pm </i>

     With respect, sir, you do not speak for all of Protestantism. And ironically, you've provided a perfect case against inerrancy with this passage:

     <<We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him. >>

     You can conclude one of two things:

     1) No human being is born of God at any time during this life, OR

     2) Some people are born of God, and some people do not sin.

     I know you won't defend (1) because it would make the passage from 1 John basically not mean anything (as well as erode your entire framework. So you're stuck with (2). The problem is...(2) is so obviously false that I'm surprised I even have to explain it. Do true Christians not sin? Clearly they do. Case closed. In fact, this statement from 1 John is plainly inconsistent with other passages (such as those from Paul). First, it's flatly inconsistent with "ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." I may be missing something here, but I'm pretty sure "all" means "all" (as it usually does). Second, it's flatly inconsistent with PAUL saying "The things I want to do, I do not do, and the things I do not want to do, I do." You either believe that these statements mean nothing, or you believe that PAUL is not in any meaningful sense "born of God." Take your pick. Either one destroys inerrancy.

     And by the way, inerrancy and Christianity are not one and the same. Many Christians don't believe in inerrancy, and I think there's compelling reasons to take that perspective (such as...genocide is unqualifiedly bad, ergo God doesn't command it and hasn't commanded it).

     Posted by Thrawn at 10/02/2009 @ 9:20pm

106. Now as Maasch has alluded to...this is interesting, but I think some people may be wondering what all this has to do with the thread topic. Here's why I think it matters:

     Whether you're driven by grace or by judgment makes a big difference, in bullying specifically, as well as politics and other domains of life generally. One of the biggest tendencies of Jesus' day was to create certain categories of people who were treated as "other"; they were cast out of the village, told they were in some way inferior, or simply told that God's plan didn't really have a role for them. What Jesus does again and again is tear those notions down, and perhaps in no way more powerfully than the destruction of the Temple itself, an ultimate symbol of how access to God was allegedly limited to those "pure" enough to enter the Holy of Holies.

     Here, I think, is one of the most powerful statements in the entire Bible: "In Christ, God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them." Note that by basic grammar, the "them" referred to in "not counting their trespasses against them" is the world, not select Christians, not even Christians as a category...but "the world."

     If you see the purpose of life as working to reconcile humanity to one another and to the Creator that gave them birth, reconciliation is by definition not driven by violence or by condemnation. And if you believe that the forces of grace and reconciliation will triumph in the end, I'm beginning to wonder how any form of everlasting condemnation and separation even fits in that picture. I certainly don't believe that the moments before death are the final opportunity an individual will have to reconcile with God; seems like that would give death the upper hand.

     Posted by Thrawn at 10/02/2009 @ 10:00pm

107. <i>Posted by Thrawn at 10/02/2009 @ 9:20pm </i>

     Let me add a sidenote to preempt a possible defense. You might say that "well, 1 John didn't mean that a true Christian won't sin, he just means that no sin is IMPUTED to a true Christian." However, there are two problems with this:

     1) That's not what it says. When authors like Paul mean to refer to imputation, they say so. 1 John, plain as day, says "whoever is born of God DOES NOT SIN." That wording is unambiguous.

     2) That doesn't fit with the tenor of your own argument.

     I won't even go into how imputation brings up the question of an imperfect Atonement (i.e. Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world...and by the world, we mean the specific chunk of the world that specifically affirms Jesus). I don't even need to go into it.

     It's a really simple binary: 1 John and Romans cannot simultaneously be correct. No one, and I mean no one, lives a sinless life. And that's why I'm thankful for a God who loves messy people.

     If you want any more vindication of that, take a good look at the people Jesus had table fellowship with (which was a big deal in his day). And take a good look at the accounts of those dinners. How many of his guests were asked to make explicit confessions of him? I suppose you could say those parts were omitted, but that's an awfully strange trend of omission, wouldn't you say?

     Posted by Thrawn at 10/03/2009 @ 12:59am

108. Posted by Thrawn at 10/02/2009 @ 9:20pm

     I apologize Thrawn. I forgot that when providing a scripture response, I have to add in the greek verb tenses to help you understand the context.

     First; all who repent and confess from a position of faith that Jesus died for their sins and rose again, and now sits at the right hand of the Father as Lord of creation, have been born again.

     1 Peter 1:3,23 both state in English, "having been born again". This is in the aorist tense which signifies a past action with continuous results

     http://www.preceptaustin.org/1_peter_13-5.htm

     Now to 1 John

     John wrote this letter in response to the threat to the body of Christ from Gnosticism. The Gnostics claimed that the flesh and the spirit were so separate as to make of no consequence, the actions of the flesh upon one's spirit.

     So in verse 7 coupled with verse 9, which is in present tense says that if we are walking in His light, we are a)not likely to commit new sins, but if we do, we have forgiveness for the individual acts of sin

     Whereas verse 8 deals specifically with the denial of having the guilt of sin requiring the atonement of Christ. This in fact does deal with the fact that we as Christians HAVE acknowledged our sin guilt when we repented, confessed, and received Christ.

     The following link provides an excellent exegesis and word study on 1 John

     http://tinyurl.com/yeq3rav

     Paul and John are consistent and in agreement that all have sinned; that all Christians can and do sin (although we now have the power to resist sin and should not sin; that the mark of being a Christian is that we no longer make our old sins a continuing part of our life; and that we have continued access to forgiveness and cleansing from the blood of Jesus.

     Posted by antisocialist at 10/03/2009 @ 1:24pm

109. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 10/03/2009 @ 1:24pm </i>

     No need to apologize for omitting the Greek context, though I think it does illuminate the text somewhat. I further confess that I have virtually no firsthand familiarity with Greek, so I admittedly am at a loss.

     I don't think the analysis of 1 John is fully responsive, though, unless the 1 John quotation you provided is an erroneous translation. So let's break down the statement again; here's the statement:

     <<We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him. >>

     I'm concerned primarily with the first part, so let's isolate it:

     <<We know that whoever is born of God does not sin>>

     There's two parts to this:

     1) Whoever is born of God 2) Does not sin

     What you provide illuminates (1) by defining its scope; you say that those born of God are those who "repent and confess from a position of faith that Jesus died for their sins and rose again, and now sits at the right hand of the Father as Lord of creation." For the purpose of this immediate issue, I won't quibble with that definition. All that matters for this issue is that all of the people covered in that category are human beings.

     The problem is part (2), and it looks like you even concede this yourself. You say verse 7 says that if we're walking in the light, we're unlikely to commit new sins...clearly false. But that's not even important. The only way the other verses matter is if they make this one mean something different from what it says. I'm not sure how they can; the statement seems pretty clear: if X is born of God, X does not sin. The ONLY way I see you getting out of this is by imputation, and I already addressed that in a previous post.

     Posted by Thrawn at 10/05/2009 @ 11:14pm