Christian Missionaries Arrested in Libya, Face Potential Death Penalty
Chris Stephen, The Guardian
Four foreign nationals accused of distributing Christian literature, a charge that could carry the death penalty
Aggressive Incrementalism: A Winning Strategy for Pro-Lifers
Pete Spiliakos, First Things
In the last few presidential elections, the strategy of the Republican presidential candidate has been to talk about abortion only when asked.
AP Stylebook Declares Husband, Wife Gender Neutral
Associated Press
Regardless of sexual orientation, husband or wife is acceptable in all references to individuals in any legally recognized marriage. Spouse or partner may be used if requested.
Russian Christians, Jews, Muslims Form Ten Commandments Party
Ruth Moon, OCP Media Network
A group of 134 Muslims, Jews, and Christians from several denominations convened Feb. 17 to create the Ten Commandments Party based on the tenets found in Exodus.
I cant get the first link to connect, though I would like to look at it…
NEW YORK (AP) — Shortly after changing its famous Stylebook to label “husband” and “wife” as gender-neutral terms, The Associated Press announced that the next edition of the media reference manual will be issued on an Etch-A-Sketch. This will enable future changes to be made more easily, including eliminating “man” and “woman” (myn and wymen will be subsitituted) and restricting the use of the word “Christian” to the preferred synonym for “vile bigot.” Other rules will say, “The term “God” must be capitalized when referring to the 44th president” and “The word “conservative” when used as either an adjective or noun must be preceeded with any of the following adjectives: hidebound, ignorant, out-of-date, foolish, criminal or white male.
Your title is misleading.
The AP is not dispensing with genders and suggesting that a man may be considered someone’s “wife”. Rather, they are simply acknowledging that these terms can be designated to apply to someone in a legal, same-sex civil partnership. (e.g., Mr X and his “husband” Mr Y).
Deacon H, there’s really no reason to get hysterical and sarcastic. Besides, you’d be surprised how many people who disagree with you on SSM declare themselves to be “conservatives” on a number of other issues: abortion, gun rights, immigration, government spending, etc. (at least this is the case for those who don’t form beliefs and opinions merely as reactions against people they don’t like).
The use of the word gender in anything other than a grammatical context is largely a 20th century feminist construct. It crept into English around the same period as terms like global village, same sex marriage, and jumbo shrimp.
Mr. Bradshaw: Hysterical? Oh, c’mon, you can do better than that. Why, I gave you a whole list of insults, and you go and make up your own. Proving my point, BTW, but at least you get credit for originality. In point of fact, if Mr. Y is Mr. X’s husband, that is not a new meaning of the word. It is rendering it meaningless. But meaninlessness is a hallmark of those who are rootless. One has to be planted to grow.
Global village, same sex marriage, jumbo shrimp, the use of ‘gender’ to mean ‘sex’ and ‘sex’ to mean pornography. All linguistic constructs of the postmodern age. Go ahead James, call us haters. Same difference, no?
Peter writes: “Go ahead James, call us haters.”
I don’t know enough of you all to make that claim.
To be honest, if words bother you so much, I’m fine with granting gay couples civil contracts by names other than “marriage”, such as “domestic partnerships”, “civil unions”, whatever.
The problem is that religious fundamentalists have fought tooth and nail from granting any legal recognition to us whatsoever. Some unsupportive families have gone so far as to contest legal wills and powers-of-attorney for gay couples (with varying success).
***************
I have been with my partner for about two years. He has been a blessing to my life as I have been to him. I have found in myself a capacity for generosity I didn’t think I had (I can be quite selfish when it comes to my worldly goods). My concerns are no longer purely just for myself but for someone else as well. This isn’t a friendship but rather something unique and exclusive. We have a number of shared contractual responsibilities (cars, insurance, etc) as well. The problem is that none of the benefits of marriage are granted to us. So far, that honestly hasn’t been a huge issue … but only because life’s misfortunes have yet to hit us in a major way (we are both relatively young, healthy and employed). If (when?) it hits, we are going to be at a distinct disadvantage from couples who are legally recognized. In the eyes of the law (at least currently), I’m not “immediate family” … I’m not anyone at all.
***************
So here I am having to explain why I think our relationship merits some legal consideration while men divorce their wives to marry their mistresses every year and have those marriages sanctioned in houses of worship led by men who claim to be “pro-family”.
***************
What do you want, exactly? What word would satisfy you to get you to concede that it is just for the law to recognize committed gay couples? Does one exist? I have my suspicions but I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and ask.
James, you ask what it would take to concede that it is “just” to allow for legalized marriage of same sex unions. To answer your question from my perspective, you would have to prove to me in Scripture that such unions are what God calls good and blessed.
Yes, I’m bringing Scripture into this. Without Scriptural warrant I could never and will never concede that it is ” just” to grant marriage to same sex couples. Why? When God says no, but the government says yes, that brings a curse upon those involved. As a Christian I must obey God rather than man.
Now granted you may make the claim that secular law is what rules the land, not Scripture. This is something new that has been brought into the secular arena so as to nullify God’s Word. As one who studied history and was preparing to be a history teacher before the Lord Jesus called me into ministry, I have to tell you frankly that this idea is not based on historical truth. In fact there were some at the founding of the Constitution who made it clear that unless the country remained grounded in Scripture, the country was headed for anarchy, since the Constitution itself could be used by the ungodly to create moral chaos and destruction.
However, the point I want to leave you with is this: For those of us who believe Scripture as the norm and rule of faith, that it is the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God, there will never be a way to concede the rightness of that which God calls wrong and an abomination.
Also, no matter if the whole country agrees that these unions are ” right”, the call to repent will not end. It cannot. It is our calling to bear witness to the truth of God and by the work of the Holy Spirit bring people to salvation and out of the darkness and out of the dominion of Satan.
To expand a bit on Mr. Beuchler’s post (with which I agree wholeheartedly), this is a board for Christians. Asking Christians to abandon their faith for popular approval is to mock the sacrifices of the martyrs, who would not do that and paid the ultimate price for it (and gained the ultimate victory as well), and it is to ask us to stop being who we are, and whose Name we are signed with. It does no good to cite other types of sins and tar us with “approving” them — as convicted sinners ourselves we deny the allegation completely, as we know the cost of sin better than our accusers, which is why we seek to turn them and all others away from it. We remember the pain and loss of rejecting God, and would spare others from it. Those who wish may live the life they want for as long as they can, but someday it will end. The Way to unending life is open to them at all times, but that Way not the broad and easy way that leads to death.
Deacon Harmon and Robert:
Simple question: Do you believe Jews and Mormons are going to burn in Hell due to their incorrect or invalid beliefs?
If so (and I’m assuming you do), do you believe the government is wrong for endorsing these “false” religions via tax exemptions and granting their practitioners legal protections in housing and employment? If so, would you go so far as to suggest that the practice of these heretical/false/idolatrous faiths should be met with criminal sanctions such as jail or fines?
If you say “yes”, you’d at least be consistent in the application of your principles. If you say “no” to both, well, that makes you both liars.
Deacon Harmon, Robert Buechler and Peter,
Imagine your father has set a curfew for you in your youth. You have gone to a party with friends and you notice that you have just enough time to travel home before you are out past the curfew. So you run to your friends and start running down your father because of his ‘out-of-touch’ curfew. You bemoan the boundary only to find that your friends don’t agree with you…so you look to anyone who will agree with you about the ‘unfair’ curfew your “old-fashioned” father has put in place. Next, you lower the status of your friends to ‘enemy’ and let those who agree with you become your friends.
This is like what James Bradshaw and the homosexual community is seeking to do. They know that the Father has made the pronouncement that homosexuality is sin. They know that it is wrong. They know it is a temptation, not an “orientation.” They even have been granted freedom in this country to practice homosexual behaviors as long as they are consenting adults. But that is not good enough because they still can comprehend how unnatural it is to engage in sexual behavior that can and will never result in child bearing.
Hence, they come to Bible-believing evangelical blogs like this one, where they might have a chance to gain approval for their sinful behavior. When they can’t find it, they call us their enemy. The irony is that they have not yet put the enemy in the crosshairs. It is the boundary they hate. The enemy is the sin, but they love the sin; they love crossing the boundary. So, they have made us or our Father the enemy for calling their sin what it really is: sin.
Be encouraged my brothers. When you stand for the truth of scripture, even if you use no spiteful language or malcontented tone, you will be hated by those who hate scripture.
***************
James, please know I am not writing this with any ill feeling toward you. We are praying for you, that you would sincerely wrestle with the truth of scripture and rather than justify your sin, repent and believe in the truth of Jesus Christ.
BCody, while I appreciate your kind and respectful tone, understand several things:
1) I am not really seeking the moral approval of strangers (although truth be told, it’s nicer to have approval than hostility). Rather, I am seeking legal protections for a relationship that I value deeply and pointing out that you can concede to this without approving of it in whole or in part, just as you allow legal protections for the freely chosen religious beliefs of other Americans (even if you disagree with those choices). This is about freedom.
2) I have no idea what God really thinks about homosexuality because I don’t believe the Bible is His word. It sanctions slavery and misogyny and cruelty and all other sorts of monstrosities that I could not embrace without losing my entire sense of self and the values that I have.
I can tell you that if I really, truly believed homosexuality was a moral evil, I would avoid it. Those things I believe are evil/wrong I strive to avoid, no matter how difficult or inconvenient it may be to me. My conscience would bother me if a cashier didn’t ring up a trivial purchase and I didn’t say anything.
Finally, I respect the rights of religious believers to voice their objections on these issues. I also would never seek to force believers into actions that would compromise their values. I find it deplorable that anyone would sue a small business simply because the conscience of the owners did not permit them to provide a particular service to them.
I’ll leave this thread now, lest I strain the patience of our TS moderators.