Time--2017 A to Z Theme

My theme for the 2017 Blogging from A to Z April Challenge was "Time". The posts are of a more philosophical, contemplative, and even autobiographical bent. No time management tips in this theme, but stuff intended to make you think.

Always a work in progress--welcome to my blog...

**

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

An Agenda to Gaily Slander Those Who Disagree


      If you aren't willing to stand up for what you believe in, you might lose your right to believe it.  A vocal opposition will drown out the voice crying in the wilderness if you allow that to happen.


      And so continues my series of posts that I've called the President Trump Acclimation Series where I clarify and try to correct some of the issues that have arisen in the minds of some who have questioned why I voted for Trump.    My reason for doing this series is that I'm annoyed with the continuous reciting of the litany of labels that come from the anti-Trump crowd--racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, and so on. 

A variant of the rainbow flag, symbolizing the...
A variant of the rainbow flag, symbolizing the gay rights movement in the United States. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Is Donald Trump a Homophobe?

      At no time during the campaign did I hear any anti-gay comments from Donald Trump.  The continual outcries declaring that he displayed "homophobic" sentiments are false.   Some make the claim that Trump's selection of Mike Pence demonstrated an anti-LBGTQ attitude.   Throughout the campaign I heard Trump assure voters that he would stand against any persecution of the gay community and support the laws as they stand.  

       Say what you will, there was little discussion of LBGTQ issues in Trump's campaign in any one way or another.  It was not an issue so far as I am aware so the "homophobic" label is just another lie that was spewed by leftist media and the Trump opposition and the label continues to be falsely thrown at Donald Trump.

Now To Step Into Dangerous Territory...

       Let me begin by saying that I do not think that anyone should be bullied, persecuted, or ostracized for what they want to believe.  What I am about to say in this post actually puts me in this very position, but that's fine with me.  I've already set myself up for condemnation by declaring my support for Donald Trump so what else can happen?   Plenty I suppose, including having this blog deleted or at the very least losing more followers.   We live in a highly intolerant society and this intolerance seems to be more aimed at Christians and Conservatives more than any other group.  Say what you will about this, but I believe this to be true.

       The clear fact is that there are some, Christians as well as others, who believe that homosexuality and the other sexual inclinations are wrong.  This is true especially among those who strongly adhere to what they believe that the Bible clearly states.  In our time there are some more free thinking types who might consider themselves Christians who have reinterpreted what they read in the Bible or merely dismiss what the Bible says about homosexuality and other sexual sin.  In the context of our society we are all free (so far) to choose how we believe.  However in the end God will decide what to do about all of this.   As a Bible believing follower of Jesus Christ I accept the literal teaching of the Bible and do not accept interpretations that conform to what society desires or what individuals decide for themselves.

        I realize that this is not a popular perspective with many people and abhorrent to the left.  I will stand by my belief and defend anyone else who believes as I do.  But at the same time I will not discriminate toward those who believe otherwise.  Having spent many years in the entertainment industry, I was associated with many gays as co-workers and clientele.  Most of them were nice folks who were highly talented.  Since many of my cast members in the shows I managed were homosexual, I had lengthy associations and developed friendships with many of them.  We got along well together and accepted each other for who we were.  However, I never approved of their lifestyles and that aspect of their lives was something I avoided.

        Our society seems to insist that the gay or whatever lifestyle should not only be accepted by all of us, but it should also be promoted and celebrated.  Some of us feel that we have the right to disagree and often must suffer negative consequences for our beliefs.  Businesses that don't wish to participate in a gay agenda are often boycotted or worse.  Individuals who speak out against what they see as sinful behavior might be taunted for what they believe and in some cases ruined.

         The "phobia" label is often used to sully the reputations of good people who see things in a different way than what popular culture is trying to promote.  Is that right?   I don't believe it is anymore right than the persecution of anyone for how they see things.  And yet that seems to be the direction that much of our society is taking.   Hatred for anyone is wrong, but it is not the exclusive attitude of any one side.  Sure, we might abhor a behavior or despise a belief system, but if we start hating others then no lessons are learned and no true peace is gained.

          This is as far as I'll go with this topic for now as I've strayed from the issue of Trump and likely set myself up as a bad guy in some eyes.   I have no control over what some of you might think of me beyond my just keeping quiet about what I believe.   If you don't like what I've said here then you just dump me or you can feel free to state your case in the comments.  Remember though that I've been civil in this post and if you assault me with abuse then you are solidifying the case I've made here.

           Did you ever hear Donald Trump say anything that you would consider "homophobic"?    Should people be allowed to maintain unpopular beliefs without facing abusively negative reactions from others?    Do you feel the Bible is always right, is it a malleable document that can be interpreted to fit what we want, or is it of little relevance in our time?

         

       

55 comments:

  1. We live in a highly intolerant society and this intolerance seems to be more aimed at Christians and Conservatives more than any other group.
    As a Bible believing follower of Jesus Christ I accept the literal teaching of the Bible and do not accept interpretations that conform to what society desires or what individuals decide for themselves.
    Both very, very true. Don't think I need to add.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alex, an intolerance of the most tolerant of all people is awash with irony, don't you think? If the Bible can be shaped to fit anyone's beliefs then it loses much of its power. Thank you for honestly voicing your opinions.

      Lee

      Delete
    2. I KNEW I liked you guys. My respect for both of you has skyrocketed.

      Lee, I haven't commented in an embarrassingly long time, but when the title of this post popped up in my email I had to read it. I agree with you 100% and I am really impressed by how well you articulated everything in this post.

      Also, I love how you put this-- "an intolerance of the most tolerant of all people is awash with irony." AMEN. The liberal left preach tolerance of everyone and everything, yet they are intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them. This is the height of irony and foolishness, in my opinion.

      "If the Bible can be shaped to fit anyone's beliefs then it loses much if its power"-- if not all of it. If we cannot trust God's Word to be true and infallible, in its entirety, then it is useless for salvation.

      Keep speaking the truth, brother, and don't mind the naysayers!!

      Jaimie

      Delete
    3. Jamie, your support of me and added illumination on this topic mean a great deal to me so I thank you for speaking out on it. I've avoided this topic for the most part over the years in fear of the backlash that I might have received. Now seemed like a good time to open up about my thoughts on this as blogging has lost some of its luster for me. Now I'm becoming more interested in the messages I write about than amassing more followers and using my blog as a platform for marketing.

      Voices like yours in this comment provide me an added incentive to continue.

      Lee

      Delete
  2. One has to stand up for oneself, espcially when you live alone. I quite agree in the world as it is today, if you don't stand up what you believe in then you can't shout when things go wrong in the world.
    Yvonne.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yvonne, we all need to defend our beliefs while accepting with loving-kindness those with who we disagree. Not something we see coming from the left.

      Lee

      Delete
  3. Well said, Lee and Yvonne. It's the celebrated part that really gets my husband. Why are we celebrating sin? And that's all it is. It's not bigotry - it's a sin. next we'll be celebrating thieves. Oh wait, we already did that with Snowden.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. L.Diane, first an agendist side will push, prattle, and wheedle its way into our lives and then it will demand that we are wrong and must concede to their side. It's all very wrong. When the Bible becomes irrelevant to us then our freedoms become the domain of those who want to shape everyone's thought. That's no longer true freedom, but suppressive oppression.

      Lee

      Delete
  4. Lee,

    Did you ever hear Donald Trump say anything that you would consider "homophobic"? I never heard Trump ever speak against the same-sex community. In fact, I sorta had the impression that he supports them. Maybe I'm reading more into it than what's really there but we know generally speaking most people, especially those in political office or in Hollywood gravitate more to the left on this issue.

    Should people be allowed to maintain unpopular beliefs without facing abusively negative reactions from others? God gave mankind free will to do what ever. It is up to each person to decide to listen to spiritual convictions or self. I don't think heterosexuals should physically or emotional bash homosexuals, lesbians, and transgenders. You don't have to like it and you don't have to be around it but violence isn't the answer. I think if anyone hopes to change a person's belief then you have to have love in your heart to sway someone instead of hatred. Maybe you'll never change that person's viewpoint or heart but the way one represents him/herself as a Christian should be the way Christ would go about it.


    Do you feel the Bible is always right, is it a malleable document that can be interpreted to fit what we want, or is it of little relevance in our time? I do take the Bible as God's word and God never changes, so why should His word change to suit the times? It shouldn't. That's just a diversion tacit by Satan. You know the ole approach, if I say something long enough then it's gotta be true or ok. That's the way the devil works in society.

    There isn't a person among us who is purfect. We'll all stand before the judgement seat of God and the bottom line is this, if He doesn't find each of our names written in the Lambs' blood then we will not see the inside of heaven. God has given us the key to paradise by repenting and by His redemption Jesus is our key to having eternal life with God.

    Thank you for the dedications to continue this series and God bless!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cathy, I did hear a support for the LBGTQ agenda coming from Trump to some degree, but I understand why he had to do that as they are a very vocal and have a very left-wing fascistic way about attacking others who disagree. I never heard support of the lifestyle, but he did express his support for the right to live a lifestyle as long as it didn't interfere with what others believe.

      One thing that Jesus did was show love to the sinners and we are instructed to do likewise. Christians are far more loving and tolerant than those with leftist agendas.

      Those who think the Bible becomes less relevant with the changing of the times and the cultural mores of a society are selfishly rejecting God's way in order to promote their own ways of seeing things. The eternal message of God has been made evident in the Bible. What was wrong in past times is wrong now other than in those cases where Christ's redemption of humankind has overturned certain older laws. A sensible person doesn't have to look far in order to understand which laws they are.

      Lee

      Delete
  5. The thing that annoys me is people ramming it down our throat, no matter what it is. Every show on tv now has to have a gay character or it is ohhhhh soooo bad. I mean there are even shows where the lbgtq community claim the main characters are gay, clearly they aren't, do that stupid shipper thing, something else I roll my eyes at, and if you disagree with them, you're suddenly homophobic. And that is just over a made up world.

    You can't say anything these days without someone finding you a racist, homophobe, etc. I can't say I've heard Trump go on about them either.

    One should have their beliefs as long as they are civil and don't resort to violence, to an extent. I mean if one starts thinking that they are better than someone of different skin color, based solely on their skin color, and becomes a nazi or something, then they deserve to be thrown in a deep dark hole.

    The bible holds no sway over me, but I don't fight or write people off who disagree with me. It all comes back to the person. If I like you, I like you, if I don't, I don't. Comes back to who you are, not what you are. Unless what you are is a psycho murderer haha

    To each their own as far as I'm concerned, but I never saw the point in wanting what you already have lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pat, you've made excellent points in your comment. That act of ramming things down our throats and forcing us to belief according to directives of any state entity is wrong. I am not any part of an LBGTQ movement nor a supporter and I don't care to be. The state should not force me to participate in anything they do if I don't agree with it and the movement has no place being taught in schools. To some degree this teaching can lead to bullying of a reverse nature and shake family belief systems.

      We get plenty of gay activism on TV and in media and it doesn't have to be everywhere. Those who disagree according to moral values or whatever sensibility they might hold forth should not be forced to change their beliefs.

      Your last statement is a gem. I chose to have a wife who is of the opposite sex for what I think is a sensible reason.

      Lee

      Delete
    2. haha the last had to be said as it has always been in my head. I even got quoted here, guess not rhyming even gets a peer.

      Yeah, many a thing can lead to bullying, even trying to prevent bullying can lead to bullying. One cycle that can be hard to break as it always has to be my way or the highway.

      Delete
  6. A very good exposition of things. Have a smilin' day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pop Tart, a smile can open doors and warm hearts. We need to keep on smiling when facing that which is adverse to us.

      Lee

      Delete
  7. There's a lot of overkill and leaping to conclusions going on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pop Tart, no kidding about the "overkill and leaping to conclusions" in our society. We all see the world through our own personal filters and sometimes this can distort realities.

      Lee

      Delete
  8. I think where people get that Trump is anti-gay is due to him saying that he would sign the defense of first amendment act. That means that businesses can refuse to serve a person because of their religious beliefs. Lately that means don't sell the gays a wedding cake if you don't want to.
    To a lot of people that is discrimination.
    I believe a lot of things other people don't and I am fine with that.
    I am agnostic so I don't feel I can rightfully answer the bible question. I was raised Methodist and my mother is still an avid church goer. I do believe that one can have good morals without the bible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ruth, I think you're right to a great extent about the source of calling Trump homophobic. Some discrimination is acceptable when it is a matter of conflicting with one's own personal beliefs. The left has no problem with objecting to Christians displaying symbols of their faith or talking about God in public settings and yet want to make those who see certain behavior and lifestyle as sinful be participants in those actions. There is a double standard at play here.

      There are times when we must discriminate in order to stand up for what we believe. Our acts of discriminating should not be in response to race, gender, disability, or any state to which we are born and cannot help. I don't believe the LBGTQ state is one to which anyone is born that can be defined as genetic. I've seen no absolute evidence that this is so. We cannot discriminate against anyone when it comes to life-threatening issues or any state that falls within parameters of survival, but baking a cake or the like does not fall within those parameters.

      Lee

      Delete
  9. I didn't really want to comment on these posts because whoever you choose to vote for or support is entirely your decision and even if I disagree I'm just not a very argumentative person. But this post makes me angry. I don't like being angry, but I read this early this morning and it's still bugging me. So I feel I have to say something.

    I have always been and will continue to be an avid supporter of the LGBT community. I don't believe for a second that the "lifestyle" (I air quote that because it's a stupid term) is sinful. I cannot believe that God would create desires in people just to send them straight to hell (this applies to other things as well).

    As for the Bible, no I don't take it literally. Look at Leviticus alone. How many of those things it forbids are now everyday practices? I think being ok with one thing and not being ok with another is incredibly hypocritical. You can't just say one is worse. The Bible mentions slaves, too. Do we still think that's ok?

    Ok, I'm done. I'm not trying to attack anyone's beliefs here but this is what I believe. Thanks for reading.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sarah, thank you for your respectful comment. Sometimes I think it is important to become angry about views and issues as it forces us to think about them. Like many, I get angry about what is happening regarding LGBTQ issues from my perspective. If Christianity were forced upon you wouldn't you be bothered about that? Instead this is becoming the opposite as things like homosexuality pervade our lives in nearly every aspect.

      Not sure what the objection is using the term "lifestyle", but I can guess I suppose. There is a logic to the desires instilled within us and I do have a lengthy answer to your objection about this where it applies to homosexual behavior, but I don't want to get into that here.

      AS for the Bible, remember there is a period of Law (Old Testament) and the period of Grace (New Testament and our time). The Bible mentions many objectionable things such as slavery because the Bible deals with the world and the facts ingrained within humanity. The Bible mentioned slavery because it existed, but also because slavery becomes a metaphor that applies itself well to the human condition and submission to God as well as our love for others in the human race. The Bible mentions many things that we should not be okay with because these things exist in a fallen world.

      Again I appreciate your voicing your belief without attacking. I want my blog to be a place where ideas can be expressed and exchanged with others. We are living in a society where many are so busy shouting at each other instead of listening to each other and that is why we have such a divide in our nation.

      Lee

      Delete
    2. Lee and Sarah--

      This article very clearly explains the difference between Old Testament law (Leviticus etc.) and New Testament law. It is indeed possible to take the entire Bible at face value and still have an explanation for why we do and believe certain things as Christians and why we can eat pork (as an example) with a clear conscience. I highly recommend taking a few minutes to read this (although Sarah, you probably won't like it, fair warning). http://freethinkingministries.com/homosexuality-tattoos-the-sabbath/

      Delete
  10. I have trouble listening to Mr. Trump say ANYTHING, period. As far as the LBGTQXYZ goes, I agree with the thought that it should not be forced upon those of us who do not "go" that way. If you want to have a same-sex relationship, go right ahead, in your own home. Just as I would not like to see my daughter and her boyfriend "hanging all over each other" in public, seeing two men or two women doing it is also not something I care to watch. Thanks, Arlee for your continued insights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Janet, I would agree with what you say. There's too much intimacy in film, on TV, and in public period. Some things are meant to be shared in private.

      Lee

      Delete
  11. I was raised in a traditional household and live in a traditional country. I have never lived in a place where Christian beliefs are not help strongly and affirmed by both my fellow country men and state/country. Personally I have become more open with the LGBTQ community but that's my choice. I won't force it on anyone else. And the funny thing is it's usually heterosexual gay supporters responsible for these attacks. Even in Jamaica when years ago Canada tried to force our country to change it's anit-buggery (spelling?) laws and start the process of gay marriage, it was gay people who came out strongly against that. I read in the paper and saw in the news their refusal of increase in their rights risking our country getting embargos set upon it. They didn't want a Cuba situation and I'm proud of them for it. Gays are not all chased and shot in my country. But it has been made clear that the majority of the country doesn't want to see them display affection in public. It is an agenda to think that most people are willing to see their country fail just to get more rights. Most want to work with law makers and are willing to wait for change.

    Anyway thanks for sharing your thoughts Arlee.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sheena-kay, the increasing rejection of traditionally held family values is not making our countries better. We need to support family life more and not be so beholden to morally detrimental acceptance of all values.
      Change should come naturally and not be thrust upon everyone whether they like it or not.

      Lee

      Delete
  12. I believe in finding the middle ground and agree that some on the left have gone too far when it comes to the social issues. Some on the right have also. There are some things in our society that we're never going to agree on and that's where your point about respecting each other comes in. It's important that we be able to hold unpopular views and that we allow others to do so. I'm a Christian and I follow the message of Jesus. I believe the Bible was inspired by God and written by imperfect human beings. It gives us a road map for finding God in our lives. In the meantime, "Love One Another".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MLQ, the extreme is not a good place to be if one wants to be at peace with others. Accept others and be likewise accepted and love one another would be a good thing for us all if we could ever come to that.

      Lee

      Delete
  13. You know I don't support Trump but i have to say i have never heard him say anything negative about the gay community. I have dear, dear friends who are Gay as well as my niece but if they started wanting to make out downtown, I would have an issue with that. I have seen where this was discouraged only for the person to be called a homophobe or racist which i think is wrong because I don't like seeing 2 people make out anywhere public unless it is on TV or a movie and advances the plot. I don't mean a kiss either. My one dear friend, who is gay, and I once were talking about it and, take away the religious feelings, scientifically, one is supposed to procreate. If we get to the basic science, the strongest are to have sex to continue the lineage. If there is a deviation, then this goes against the basic animalistic ways. My gay friend agreed with me because they can't procreate. Now, we have minds and feelings so I also believe they can marry and raise children to be loving, responsible adults. The Bible was written by men and has been edited and changed to suit what was going on way, way, way back. God has created all beings from the snake to the human being and human beings evolve and he/she lets this happen...in other words, we are all God's creatures and should show kindness, compassion and be there for our fellow man. I like what you wrote Arlee because you are stating your own belief without showing a disdain for people who like the same sex. You have been (or are) friends with people who are gay and you can keep your belief separate from your feelings to who they are as people. Let's face i have met bitchy people whop are straight and I have met bitchy gay people. I don't like them because they are gay, I just don't like them because they are bitchy. Makes sense???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Birgit, what you've said makes a lot of sense. Your reference to procreation is a point that I would use as the naturalistic argument that homosexuality is deviant from the norm. This is but one point that I would use in making the case for heterosexual relationships, but there are more that would take far too much space in one post to explain adequately. But you have made your points very well.

      Thank you for adding to this discussion.

      Lee

      Delete
  14. I don't recall Trump speaking or acting any of the 'phobic' ways he's been accused of. It's just a lot of ridiculous schoolyard name-calling.

    I'm basically tolerant - until tyranny arises. Just because you can sit at my table, doesn't mean I want you eating off my plate. Far too many don't get that and thus the bad feelings all around. What a shame.

    I think of the Bible as a History/Instruction book. You can't change history or assemble correctly without reading the instructions, though some insist on trying. Judgement is what everyone seems to trip over; nobody should but everybody does.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Diedre, we should leave judgement to God while staying enlightened in order to be properly discerning in how we deal with life.

      Lee

      Delete
  15. I think the Bible is good for story telling, but I don't think it's the last word in anything, especially when people quote it out of context.

    In re: to having different beliefs, I can't tell you how many times I've gotten crucified over certain factual/personal viewpoints regard the LGBT community.

    I've stopped following George Takei's FB page for a few years, simply because a good chunk of the follows (along with the namesake) act like neo-Nazis when it comes to all things gay.

    I've gotten verbally abused by a former co-worker's relative because I had the audacity to say that Matthew Shepard was person who happened to be gay when he was murdered (the excellent book "The Book Of Matthew", written by a 20/20 producer who happens to be gay, lays waste to just everything you think you know about the case. If you're an open-minded person, you need to read this book).

    Voicing unpopular viewpoints is the exception instead of the rule, and that, my friend, is a crying shame.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GB, quoting things out of context can lead to gross misrepresentation of meaning. This is not only true of the Bible, but also of what Donald Trump and others have said and this is part of my mission in my series--correcting the words of Trump that have been taken out of context.

      The "Gay Agenda" is often highly militant in their attacks against those who disagree with them. Things often get crazy and we see absurdities like the Chick Fil-A boycott which dramatically backfired.

      As for the Matthew Shepard lie I think there has been a lot of evidence that exposes that the murder was related to a drug deal gone wrong and nothing to do with anti-gay violence. And still the myth goes on with plays, movies, etc. But this is the same repetitive recycling of lies like we see in the litanized attacks concerning Trump.

      Lee

      Delete
  16. Okay, I scrolled the comments just to see what I could add to this discussion that hasn't quite been said the way I say it. And the one thing that stands out to me is that, groups like LGBTQ tend to inject themselves in every topic pertinent to society, whether there is a need to or not. And thus we spend SO much time fending off their "opinions", that we have no time to express what we would if they'd just shut it for a sec and let us. And what I would say is, homosexuality and other attendant perversions ARE sinful. They are not "God-given" urges, they are Satan-inspired urges. AND, they are no worse a sin than those committed by the adulterer, or the porn addict, or the guy that whistles at the nicely dressed woman with drool on his chin.

    And the whole "battle for Trump" thing has been more of the same. I spend so much time correcting idiots who compare him to Hitler- anyone who does that should be beaten with a stick and transported to Dachau at liberation- that I have no time to CRITIQUE Trump myself. I was, after all, a Rubio -guy- until that nonsense today about branding Putin a war criminal.

    I want to thank you for putting these posts together in such a respectful, well-thought-out way. (Except for the Andrew Leon part, which deserved no respect.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CW, you are hugely correct about where homosexual urges come from. Even my mentally ill brother recently had a brief discussion with me where he delineated the difference between wants and needs and his assessment correctly described what we have in the realms of sexuality.

      Let's face it, those who strongly disagree with the Trump advocates will clamor on and on about their own positions no matter how absurd or untruthful they might be and in turn refuse to listen to the other side. Education only falls upon the open mind that is willing to hear all sides and come to rational conclusions--not happening on the left.

      I was dismayed to hear the nonsense coming from Rubio in the confirmation hearings. Sometimes I wonder if some of these politicians wouldn't just prefer to enter into a worldwide war with massive nuclear destruction. They might get their wish yet if the rhetoric continues to heat up.

      I appreciate your support. And I think even Andrew Leon deserves some certain amount of respect even though his ideas and sense of reasoning are absolutely bonkers.

      Lee

      Delete
  17. As Pat Hatt said, "The bible holds no sway over me, but I don't fight or write people off who disagree with me." That sums up my thoughts as well. Plus the Bible was written long long ago by MEN only (to my knowledge) living in a time when women were allowed few freedoms and little education. I've never had any biases about colour or gender preference, but I dislike persecution of people who aren't part of the Herd or status quo. And, I did like the comments by Clooney and others at the Globes awards. Just as Bush, Obama and Clinton were the butt of many jokes, so will Trump be. He sets the stage for it with his smug smile . . .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DG, if you don't prayerfully, reverently, and reasonably read the Holy Bible then it does become a book as you've described. There is something much deeper to the book's contents as well as the historical significance and influence that the book carries and you can't figure this out adequately without a deep reading with a sincere desire to actually understand. A purely intellectual Bible scholar might seem to know the Bible inside and out, but if he/she doesn't get to the heart and soul of the Bible then their knowledge is mere fact spouting and trivia. In regard to women in the Bible, keep in mind that some of the most important figures in the Bible were women. It is utterly absurd to judge the Bible according to current standards--it should be the other way around.

      We'll see where the future of the next administration goes. Will it be "I told you so's" from the left or will Trump redeem himself. Too much baseless prognostication going on now and not enough encouragement and support from the left who would love to see Trump and like the U.S. fail.

      Lee

      Delete
  18. You are a brave man, Lee. ☺ As you know, I'm no friend of Trump's but I don't recall him ever saying anything homophobic. Others around him? That's another story. A lot of stuff gets blown out of proportion on both sides of the aisle, I'd say. I'm not religious either and echo Pat Hatt: "The bible holds no sway over me, but I don't fight or write people off who disagree with me.It all comes back to the person. If I like you, I like you, if I don't, I don't. Comes back to who you are, not what you are." Exactly! One thing I do feel strongly about is discrimination. Everyone should be treated equally, regardless of race, religion, colour, creed, gender or sexual orientation. Granted, there are some who will milk that for all its worth and imagine slights where none exist. Every faction of society has its militants.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Debbie D, my father was an amazing man who accepted everyone he met with open arms. People loved him and I'd like to be more like him. If at all possible I do not enter into a conflict with those whom I do not know and make every attempt to smooth over conflicts if they exist. We should all try our best to do the same so we have a less divisive world.

      Lee

      Delete
  19. LEE ~
    Good blog bit, Brother. I pretty much agree with it all and I don't have a whole lot to add.

    I will say that I strongly believe that every person ought to be able to do what they want as long as they are not actively harming another. There are words for that, like "liberty", "freedom", et al.

    That means if a Christian bakery owner does not wish to bake a cake for a gay wedding, he/she should NEVER be compelled by ANYONE to do so. There are words for laws that would force that baker to transgress his/her religious beliefs, like "tyranny", "fascism", et al.

    And that cuts all ways: If a gay bakery owner doesn't want to bake a cake for a Christian wedding, he shouldn't be forced to.

    Ownership ought to mean that one has control over their business and can reserve the right to serve or not serve whomever they please. It's not the damned government's damned business!

    The only other things I would be inclined to comment on would mean me responding to a few of the comments left by your other visitors. But it's not my blog, so I won't.

    But I do want to say before signing off that one of the above commenters is being disingenuous. Despite their nonbeliever status, they are trying to present a live and let live attitude toward Christianity and Christians. But in fact I have seen this person openly mock Christians and Christianity in the past on their own blog. I am very tempted to call this person out on their hypocrisy, but out of respect for you and what you're attempting to do with your Trump series, I'm just going to let it go.

    On my own blog, though, it would be a different story.

    ~ D-FensDogG
    Check out my new blog @
    (Link:] Stephen T. McCarthy Reviews...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stephen-

      There is a part of me that wonders why a bakery would give a rat's patootie who the cake buyer is marrying, but, like you, I agree with their right not to bake it.

      Quite frankly, I think too much is made of that transaction on both sides. Go find another freakin' bakery.

      I thought I remembered a story where the bakery refused to bake a phallic-shaped cake, and that (in my opinion) is a different matter entirely.

      I seem to remember that bakery being compelled to pay "damages" for the "emotional duress" they put the gay couple threw.

      THAT makes me want to throw up.

      Refusing to bake any cake, to me, is bad business on the bakery's part.

      Compelling someone to do something that violates their own beliefs walks the path right down the alley you started with (now it's harming someone else), and THAT is what the GLBT lobby is trying to push on the rest of us and that kind scares me, because a lot of people who think they are being "tolerant" do not see the difference.

      Anyone know a bakery who sells cakes shaped like Kim Kardashian's butt?

      LC

      Delete
    2. Larry, a bundt cake sounds good to me, but not so much a "butt cake"--I don't care who's butt it is.

      Lee

      Delete
    3. Must have been a ttypo...I obviously meant "bundt"
      ;-)

      Delete
    4. LC ~

      >>... There is a part of me that wonders why a bakery would give a rat's patootie who the cake buyer is marrying...

      If the bakery owner is a devoted Christian, he/she would care about that because they would not want to contribute anything to a ceremony that celebrates something God has expressly called an "abomination" (God's own word there). Providing the cake is obviously, and quite literally contributing something to a sin that God has denounced.

      Jesus said: “I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. ... As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent."

      Jesus also said: "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it."

      And Saint Paul said: "For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?"

      In other words, if new or weak-minded Christians see the more mature and truly devoted Christians compromising on things of "this world", then they too will follow suit and eventually compromise their way right out of their ticket to Heaven.

      The baker's position on this would be easily understood by all of the Christian martyrs who were killed by the Romans because they refused to back down and compromise on the instructions from Jesus. People who are genuinely and totally committed to God and Christ (i.e., Christians who are NOT "lukewarm", which Jesus criticized) can understand the baker's stance. To them, it's the only position that makes Spiritual, Biblically-sound sense.

      >>... Quite frankly, I think too much is made of that transaction on both sides. Go find another freakin' bakery.

      I agree that too much is made of it by the Leftists (aka Fascists) who are trying to force everyone to accept their every deviant belief and act. Bingo! Just find another bakery. (Although it's not the cake they want as much as to force others to accept their sins as normal.)

      However, I do NOT think that too much is made of it by the Christians, for the very reasons cited above. One can't be lukewarm and expect Christ's approval. One must stay on the path that leads to the "narrow gate".

      >>... I thought I remembered a story where the bakery refused to bake a phallic-shaped cake, and that (in my opinion) is a different matter entirely. I seem to remember that bakery being compelled to pay "damages" for the "emotional duress" they put the gay couple threw.

      I don't recall that story, but I don't see any real difference, regardless. In both cases, someone is attempting to force another person to do something they find contrary to their religious or moral beliefs.

      >>... Refusing to bake any cake, to me, is bad business on the bakery's part.

      It may be bad business in terms of making money (if money is the baker's sole objective in life), but it's a great business decision if the baker is more interested in his afterlife and in pleasing God by following His instructions while temporarily here on Earth.

      God's people are not meant to "go along" with the world and its wicked ways. They are forced to take stands at times when this world and "the ruler of this world", who is satan, attempts to corrupt them or compromise them.

      Come out from among them
      And be separate, says the Lord.


      ~ D-FensDogG
      Check out my new blog @
      (Link:] Stephen T. McCarthy Reviews...

      Delete
    5. Hmm...I wonder if the same baker ever made a cake for a non-married heterosexual couple living together.

      Shouldn't they take a stand there as well?

      Delete
    6. How the baker would even know that about a customer (non-married heterosexuals living together) is beyond me.

      The reason the baker might know about the homosexual couple is because so many of them like to shove it in everybody's face. Plus, ordering a wedding cake under the names Bruce and Davey and requesting two groom figurines on the top of it might clue the baker in. Ya think?

      However, the bottom line is that homosexuals and the government have no right dictating to the conscience of the baker. And how the baker follows his/her Biblical principles is between the baker and God.

      Straw man recognized and dismantled!

      ~ D-FensDogG

      Delete
  20. It's great that Trump is inclusive when it comes to the LGBT community. But Pence appears to oppose gay rights, as you said, and will Trump's administration keep its word - his word - over not reversing Obama's federal laws?

    Why is suggesting a same-sex sex act or attraction as "sinful" always so high up on the Christian agenda? Pope Benedict used to bang on about it.
    Why isn't encouraging monogamy? Why don't we hear the Pope suggesting that the love between man and wife is among the highest forms of love as it's central to the biological family unit? Or saying murder is terrible?

    I can understand the pro-life stance from a secular perspective. I can understand that it is considered the taking of innocent life, that we really don't know when an individual begins in the womb, or what these embryos feel, and I understand how a Christian could maintain that attitude, and further that a foetus has a soul, and that it is sin to abort it.

    I can understand less any Muslim's or Christian's position on homosexuality as "sin".
    What I CAN understand, for instance, is that Christians might believe that gay people put their souls at risk.
    I understand too that sharia law could be far more punitive in its regard for homosexuality.

    Again, I think I've already said in comments on your blog that Muslims appear less "secular" - with prayer five times a day, and a month of fasting that puts Catholic Lent into the shade. By the way, I'd argue that if you're mindful enough to pray five times a day, you're pretty chilled out. Any Muslims I know are pretty cool, both online and off, and I would argue with them much as I'd argue on here.
    I'll stress too that it is hypocritical of progressives to argue that Muslims' views and practices ought to be defended, while a Christian's could be construed as bigoted.

    Liberals berate the Catholic Church here in Ireland for its conservativism over marriage equality, while welcoming Muslims, whose views might be more severe, with open arms.

    But in Russia, Uganda, and elsewhere, gay people are being beaten to death. And that's just the Christian countries! Bush's Aids treatment program has recently been ended by the new administration in Tanzania - a Christian president (taking over from a Muslim) has taken a homophobic stance and is drawing the Aids program to a close. To his credit, Bush did some immense work in Sub-Saharan But this new legislation from the Tanzanians is backwards stuff as a result of bigotry that will cause more social harm than good.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Beyond the fact that people face violence when it comes to homophobia in other countries, the interference with other people's lives is another aspect with which I disagree.

      Regarding homosexuality as a sin is not like a religious decision to avoid shellfish or pork, to remain wedded to the same woman through a difficult period of marriage (as long as the wife is equally keen), or to attend prayer meetings / Mass / temple etc every weekend - and I'll happily defend anyone's right to do these things, or to dress however they want or whatever else.
      Why aren't Christians arguing just as forcefully that practicing heterosexuality outside of marriage is not the abomination they consider it to be? Is homosexuality WORSE? Sin is sin, right?

      I understand too that asking a Christian to bake a gay wedding cake is a little like asking any cakemaker to create a cake with a swastika design or with an ISIS flag.

      But these are ideologies that actively promote harm (death) to minorities or non-believers. Gay people don't wish death on people - and hear me out if you feel otherwise.

      Lee, I hope you understand that many would see your view as akin to somebody saying:
      "I believe that black and white people should not marry each other (or Asians, or whoever else) because it's sinful. This is my view, which you can take or leave - I am not advocating bullying here or ostracising anyone. I just think the one true people shouldn't marry non-gentile (or whatever) races."
      Or how about:
      "Women should not drive. They need to be looked after by the men."
      Now, I'd find these views racist and sexist. In practice, a ban on women driving does not work coz not all men are decent and chivalrous chauffeurs.
      I believe gay people deserve to marry each other to enjoy the privileges of any heterosexual union, under inheritance laws, with adoption rights, or whatever else. Maybe "marry" is too strong a word from your perspective. But again, your views are being attacked because some feel when someone thinks "homosexuality is a sin" it's very similar (in their eyes) to "permitting women to drive is wrong" or whatever else. When they hear people talking about sin in this way, they see hate not love, and I hope you'd understand why. In the main I feel the same way.

      Delete
    2. There is a lot to address in your comment (which I do appreciate) and I will not attempt to address every point you've brought up here.

      Some of your examples have no correlation in my opinion, but I understand essentially the point you are trying to make.

      AS I have stated in my post, I don't think violence or repression of natural rights is appropriately exercised against any parties that conflict with the norm of society (as tradition holds the norm), but likewise I don't believe that behaviors that some groups might oppose (such as homosexuality vs certain religious groups) should be flaunted and celebrated in excess for the purpose of offense. For example I might ask what is the purpose of gay pride parades and other public displays which are intended to offend (I have a difficult time believing otherwise). Both sides of any contentious issue should have respect and show kindness toward each other.

      I believe there is a logic that can clearly define what sin is unless the sinner is so blinded by their own beliefs in accepting the sin that they don't understand the logic. I won't get into the extent of this logic here other than use the example raised in an earlier comment about the natural order where procreation and survival of species depends on heterosexuality. I see homosexuality as an unnecessary vanity that is ultimately based on lust and perverse thinking much as was accepted by most members of the psychological community prior to 1969 or so. To me there is a logic that comes to that conclusion.

      Likewise with abortion and other issues where sin and continuation of species might come into conflict. This all becomes a subject of broad scope more suited to a book than a blog post.

      I realize that many agree with the views you've expressed and many agree with my views. The question is to what extent do we start legislating these behaviors and opinions? I don't see this as a conflict that will be going away anytime soon especially as long as feelings and wants remain stronger than reason and needs. A more advanced technological civilization leads to more leisure time to indulge self rather than look for what is best for the whole of humanity and the spiritual well-being of the soul. No easy solutions to this clash of thinking, but both sides need to be considerate as we head toward an answer acceptable to all or until we have some ultimate intervention from a higher power that dictates the way of the future.

      Lee

      Delete
    3. I'd argue that there is a logic to advocacy for gay rights, both from a libertarian Christian perspective and from a broadly societal one. Straight people have the right to - say - bequeath an inheritance to a spouse.
      Can we assume that there's a strong possibility that homosexual people are as "gay" as heterosexuals are "straight"?
      I'm assuming that legislating to say they can't marry is as pernicious to their worldview as if men couldn't marry women - to at least a certain number of them. As you've pointed out, gay people can act and sing and dance, and be accountants and lawyers and doctors and bakers and candlestick makers. Right? But - again if we're to assume that homosexuality is as normal to them as "heteronormativity" is to many - there are gay kids going through absolute hell today because of jokes they hear on tv or what the pope said last week. That is to say they have others' prejudices - their bullying peers, for instance - confirmed by the broader media, by VP Pence, by what they see as society. I don't think you can pray the gay out of most people.

      I imagine too a similar misery of old gay men who have lived a lie for decades, married with kids, and devastated because they are in love with the local parish priest, who is also gay but abstinent.
      This sort of thing has certainly been the case in Ireland, where our society has been less open and diverse than the US in recent history.
      But are we tearing down the fabric of society by saying "We'll endorse your right to marry." Or are we doing away with the need for time-wasting activism - these same flaunting demonstrations that are disagreeable to some (and can I add that any local council can just make a ruling and say "You're not allowed wear the leather chaps on the float, boys!!!"), but also doing away with the anxieties of teenagers who are told their lustful thoughts are sinful, and freeing up advocacy time for thousands of people so they can focus on being the best doctors or factory workers or soldiers or dancers or whatever else they can be? :-) I really think we can advocate for stronger families - the nuclear families of yesteryear - we can encourage and support family units as loving environments. The pre-teens these days are attention-demanding little lunatics. We're struggling to raise them right. But I don't think a lack of social cohesion there, and allowing gay people the rights that straight people enjoy, are incommensurable. I realise that wasn't your point. But it's part of mine, if I could be so bold as to suggest a little conservative addendum!

      Delete
    4. Logically, I might believe that women shouldn't drive. It doesn't make it right.
      I remember back in college a girl telling me that she lived with a gay flatmate, and she came in one evening and "caught him kissing another guy". She was cool with it all until that moment, and she stayed living there - it certainly wasn't a dealbreaker. But as she told me about it, I could hear the loathing in her voice. The annoyance at best, hatred at worst. The distaste at the thought of seeing it, revisiting it to describe it to me. If it had been a straight couple going further than kissing, it wouldn't have been an issue. And this girl was raised atheist - only the second one I'd ever met in Ireland at the time. So I'd argue that her logic was culturally prejudicial - and was predicated on a homophobic climate encouraged by a society where gays - not just their preoccupations - are regarded as abominations. I'm sure she would feel differently today, but I don't know. But there's little time for "love the sinner, hate the sin" from people who are entirely intolerant. And given the chance, I fear they will be happy to bash and bully whenever the opportunity presents itself.

      Delete
    5. Richard, your argument holds no sway with me. The corruption of morality in our society has increased the acceptability of sin and that which I see as beyond the norm of natural law. To suggest that homosexuality is normal to the homosexual is similar to saying that thievery is the norm of the thief or anything that might be perceived as wrong by most of society is acceptable in the minds of those who practice the wrong. If greater numbers in society begin to accept a practice perceived as wrong in the past to the point where now it becomes acceptable then it still doesn't make it right. And I'm not talking about things like interracial marriage or something of parity to that--I'm talking sin. Now, of course, the concept of sin may not be relevant to everyone, but I'm addressing the will of the higher power, that is God, and the guide which in my case would be the Bible. A logic remains, but humans often fight against logic when it is opposition to desires or indulgence of self.

      Now we get into very complex issues of philosophies, morality, and so on and that can go on and on as it has for ages and ages. I've stated my case which I firmly believe, but with the recognition that there are many who will not see it this way and those on my side are called to maintain a stance of brotherly love and respect for the basic human rights of those individuals. However the same should be true for the Christians or any of those who disagree and we see that there is far less tolerance coming from the liberal left.

      We can argue this until God no longer allows these things to happen (or the non-existence of God is firmly established and believers are eradicated or broken of their beliefs). As a Christian I believe that Christ will return to establish His Law and until I have reason to believe otherwise then so shall it be for me.

      I do appreciate your intelligent and rational approach to the topic and respect your right to have the opinions you have. Thank you for this reasonable exchange.

      Lee

      Delete
  21. "Thievery is the norm of the thief" - a strong analogy that gives me some insight. Thank you, Lee.

    ReplyDelete

Go ahead and say something. Don't be afraid to speak your mind.
I normally try to respond to all comments in the comment section so please remember to check the "Email follow-up comments" box if you want to participate in the comment conversation.

For Battle of the Bands voting the "Anonymous" commenting option has been made available though this version is the least preferred. If voting using "anonymous" please include in your comment your name (first only is okay) and city you are voting from and the reason you chose the artist you did.

If you know me and want to comment but don't want to do it here, then you can send me an email @ jacksonlee51 at aol dot com.

Lee