1

I'm a pipe-smoking, Guiness-guzzling, pro-wrestling-watching, tattooed, profanity-using, Rated-R-Movie-Watching Christians and I'll be there, Jeff.

Come visit, we'll go have a drink!

2

Even if I could go, I don't believe I would fit in either.

I do agree the primary purpose is community and I applaud the efforts of everyone organizing it.

But please allow me to ask, what place would an 'international' or 'liberal' have at the table?

We may understand the sub-language and even speak it, and I'm sure we'd be treated kindly, but the divisions were made long before a Jarvis or Canuck said anything.

3

Bene,

But please allow me to ask, what place would an 'international' or 'liberal' have at the table?

I'm not sure I understand your question. How does being "international" or "liberal" affect the way you relate and communicate with fellow Christians?

4

But please allow me to ask, what place would an 'international' or 'liberal' have at the table?

Bene - Any liberal who professes the Christian faith has every right to be there just as a conservative. There are guys out there like Brian McLaren (www.anewkindofchristian.com) and Tony Compolo who challenge the dominant Dobson-following, Bush-loving, Left Behind-Reading bullcrap understanding of the Christian faith. I can't say I particularly agree with everything McLaren and Compollo bring to the table, but I am sure glad they are at the table presenting ideas and arguments. Evangelical Christianity is at the point where it has enough negative stereotypes that it can't afford to prevent non-traditional followers of Christ from presenting challenges to it.

5

Yeah, what Scott said!

Christianity benefits from diversity in the ranks (to a degree). Christians ultimately want to have influence in the world, to be people that other people want to listen to. If we just have a hive of fundies as our defining membership, we're not going to be taken serious (nor should we be).

What place would you have at the table? A place of honor from bringing perspective and challenge to what would otherwise be a boring Promise Keepers rally. (No offense to the PKers)

6

Bene,
How about sitting on a chair, in front of a plate with fork and knife? If you don't want to talk about politics, how about Paul, the Law, and the Epistle to the Romans? How about "Jesus the Logician"? Adrian Warnock and David Wayne have been debating paedobaptism, what's your take on that? I'll bet you have things you could talk about with other Christians besides political differences.

Failing that, how about the football season?

7

"After all, eternity is a long time to spend around James-Dobson-loving, gay-marriage-opposing, pro-life, Bush-voting, church-and-state-in-their-proper-sphere-advocating, merlot-sipping Christians."

Yup. Thats why I'm perfectly happy going to Hell.

Is it because I don't want to associate with said James-Dobson...etc. Christians?

Nope. I'd actually find the resulting arguments quite entertaining.

What I just can't stomach is just the supreme arrogance displayed in the above statement that you can somehow personally sort people into different categories of this or that and then tell God who belongs in heaven and who doesn't.

It just may be that they all will get to heaven and find out that God as moved and left no forwarding address. Meanwhile I'll be sticking with the sinners and roasting marshmallows.

8

Patrick,

What I just can't stomach is just the supreme arrogance displayed in the above statement that you can somehow personally sort people into different categories of this or that and then tell God who belongs in heaven and who doesn't.

Who is telling God who belongs in heaven and who doesn't?

9

I do appreciate the welcome, but I think a bit of realism is in order.

Fence mending is going to take hard work on all sides. Those that can show grace, do so lavishly.:^)

Joe your question is an honest and timely one, but like some of mine, a bit niave.:^)

*How does being "international" or "liberal" affect the way you relate and communicate with fellow Christians?*

You learn to keep your mouth shut, take the shots that aren't really about you at all, brace against the ignorance, walk away from the anger,
try to understand the fear, and when the shouting stops, try to reach back.
You learn to apologize quickly, bite your tongue, and develop a thick skin. You learn to stuff down your sadness and pray about your mental and emotional weariness over flame wars.
You learn how horribly real us/them is.
And when you find someone in the shouting that pauses to reach back, you quietly celebrate together.

This is very much a US evangelical convention.
Perhaps it will be a visible way to begin addressing the internal liberal/conservative divide, and other blogging bridges can be crossed in the future

10

Bene,

You learn to keep your mouth shut, take the shots that aren't really about you at all, brace against the ignorance, walk away from the anger, try to understand the fear, and when the shouting stops, try to reach back.

Yes, we do try to react that way when around liberals. ; )

You learn how horribly real us/them is.

I think one way we can get past the us/them dichotomy is to stop including it in every discussion. Perhaps I am being a bit naïve but I don’t think Christians who disagree politically can’t get together in fellowship.

When Tgirsch was in town we shared a congenial lunch even though we don’t agree on much of anything. If a conservative evangelical and a liberal atheist can enjoy BBQ without being disagreeable, I don’t see why Christians can’t do the same.

This very much a US evangelical convention.

Since it is (a) located in the US and (b) sponsored by evangelicals it might appear that way. But it is open to any orthodox Christians who want to come. If it does become a “US evangelical convention” it will be because other groups didn’t choose to participate.

Perhaps it will be a visible way to begin addressing the internal liberal/conservative divide, and other blogging bridges can be crossed in the future.

No offense, Bene, but I don’t think you get the point. The convention is not about politics. There are 27 proposed workshops and none of them have anything to do with politics. We are not getting together to try to mend some “liberal/conservative divide.” We are getting together to discuss Christian blogging.

11

I'm actually more of a fan of Merlots and Australian blends. But I enjoy an occasional tobacco product, most varieties of brewed grains, 70's cop movies and the Velvet Fog. And I think Howard Stern is Duchamp's urinal of radio.

Can I still come?

12

Perhaps the divide being addressed here is artificial? The result of a dislocated Christian conversation which places both sides clearly within the American political context, rather than a Christian conversation that uniformly challenges American assumptions -- whether they be left or right, liberal or conservative. When Christian duty is understood in the context of American duty our story becomes schizophrenic and our fellowship fractured and categorized with labels that were unnecessary in the kingdom Jesus established 2,000 years ago. ...P.S. My own assumptions in this statement should not indicate a "sectarian" view of Christian existence in American society, but rather a seriously reserved skepticism about how relevant we can (or should) be to the American process. I know, I know. What good evangelical would suppose that being "relevant" might be bad? Yet history would show that it is a subtle, potently deceptive seduction to SEEK relevance of either the cultural or political kind. Holla!

13

Brantleydean said, "What good evangelical would suppose that being 'relevant' might be bad? Yet history would show that it is a subtle, potently deceptive seduction to SEEK relevance of either the cultural or political kind."

"A subtle, potently deceptive seduction." Precisely. After all, the cross is "a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles." The cross is inherently counter-cultural. Attempts to make it "relevant" (a mysterious concept--when is Jesus Christ ever irrelevant?) only succeed in making it less than it is.

14

Mark. Sounds good. Could we sqeeze in a bit of time for hockey talk? Or curling?:^)

I can't go, it would cost what I live on in a year, but thanks - I will be watching with great interest, and will do what I can to help you promote.

15

"James-Dobson-loving, gay-marriage-opposing, pro-life, Bush-voting, church-and-state-in-their-proper-sphere-advocating, merlot-sipping Christians"--substitute "Riesling-sipping", and you've got a deal.

16

I'm a liberal, I'm going and I feel that I would fit in. Christian community is hard work, and sometimes resembles making sausage. It is possible that I'll run into someone that has a problem with me being there, but I expect that to be the exception. I was a McGovern supporter in a community that voted 85% for Nixon, so I can deal with people not approving of my views.

In many regards, I'm fairly orthodox, believing in miracles, the atonement and bodily resurrection of Christ. I don't regard Scripture as inerrant but I do see it as "containing all things necessary for salvation." I don't consider homosexuality as a sin. I think capital punishment is wrong. I think Christians haven't given enough support to the plight of Palestians. I opposed the invasion of Iraq. I supported Howard Dean and voted for John Kerry. I don't doubt that some who will go would regard me as an unbeliever. That would hurt, but I am primarily defined by my relationship with Christ and secondarily with other believers.

17

Is this what you are trying to say?

This isn't about politics.

It's about right/left/centric US evangelicals getting together to celebrate and learn blogging as long as they read Hewitt's book first? :^)

18

I have no intention of buying Hewitt's book. I'm not a Hewitt fan. I do however, respect people such as Joe, Adrian Warnock, Josh Claybourn, David Wayne, Mark Byron.

I do think many conservative evangelicals try to push aside people that disagree with them. I also think that within conservative evangelicalism there has been a move to try to marginalize free-will evangelicals. To that end, Calvinists may be disprortionately represented and Arminians such as myself underrepresented. However, I consider that their problem and not mine.

19

Joel: Last I checked reading Hewitt's book is a requirement of attendance, and last I saw so was a statement of faith.

That may have changed, as things get organized - the convention info isn't all in the same web space yet.
It will be really important for organizers to be very clear on attendance requirements.
Interesting you listed pundit presenters, (David Wayne I think aside):^)

20

To that end, Calvinists may be disprortionately represented and Arminians such as myself underrepresented.

I think if you were a Calvinist you'd see it differently. Under the umbrella of 'conservative evangelicalism' you have Calvary Chapel, Vinyard, and all of the non-denominational churches that tend to be Arminian. Furthermore, the majority of mainline denominations (save some Southern Baptists) tend to be Arminian if they are anything historically Christian. Hewitt himself, though a Presbyterian, has disavowed at least two of the 'five points'. I don't know if I'm misunderstanding you but I think you have the scales a bit off.

21

I don't mean to take us back to an earlier point in the conversation, but is Patrick coming? I know he's all gung-ho on going to Hell and all, but I'd like to grab a beer with him and talk about whatever. Maybe he's got the wrong impression about all of us, like we're going to have wings and play the harp or something.

And for the record, I drink cheap beer and think Reservior Dogs is one of the greatest films ever made.

22

Alex -

Cheap beer! Quentin flicks! You wouldn't happen to be a Dodger fan and go 3 for 3, would you?

23

It seems to me that Calvinists make up about 10% of all Christians, whereas from a quick glance of those involved in the blogging convention it seems their percentage might be 30-40%. Maybe I'm wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

I might borrow Hugh's book. I'm not going to buy it unless they somehow include it in the registration fee.

As to the faith statement, I see that as a guidance. Hopefully they won't make attendees sign it, as I belong to a non-creedal church and cannot sign statements of faith. It does, however, comport with my general beliefs.

24

How much of the Blogosphere is Open Theist like me?

Anybody?

Hello?

Hmph, God is going to be surprised when I tell him. ;)

25

Patrick wrote: Yup. Thats why I'm perfectly happy going to Hell. ... Meanwhile I'll be sticking with the sinners and roasting marshmallows.

That's a highly problematic (although popular) view of hell. It is far more likely that you'll end up utterly alone in hell. At the end of all things, you'll either turn outward toward God or collapse in on yourself. You'll either gaze upon God and, through Him, truly see all things; or gaze inward and see only yourself. There won't be any marshmallows. Man either feasts on God (hence Communion), or feasts on himself. There aren't any other choices.

26

I'm not sure how you can be both "Howard Stern loving" and Christian.

I'm no fan of Falwell et al, but how can you listen, and love, someone like Stern?

(Note; yes I've listened to Stern, but not since about 1996)

27

I dunno, it sounds quite redundant. Halloween shows up every year already, like it or not.

Some of you seem quite unaware that the Christian faith has confessional content. So do heresies and idoatrous faiths. What in principle would keep a Hindu from attending this (so long as he considers himself a "Christian" as well)???

No thanks. I will just stay home and blog, or drink a good pinot. Or both. My blogging seems to get better by the glass. Anyone else experience this phenomenon?

28

Tom,
I'm not sure how you can be both "Howard Stern loving" and Christian.
=======================================
Pro-porn, pro-homo, pro-vulgarity, pro-Stern Jarvises types have that particular form of religion where they are Christians just when it's convenient for them. The rest of the time, it gets thrown in the waste basket. They like to slap on the full label, apparently because it makes them feel better.

Similarly, homo Sullivan, who likes to call himself a Catholic, does the same. And so do most of the child abusive priests.

Jarvis fits in very well with the Kos people, actually he is one of them, in a large sphere of life and policy. But not completely.

29

"Homo Sullivan"? Nice.

30

I'm a spam-eating, gun-totin, club soda drinkin, ford truck drivin, neo-conservative, ultra-evangelical Christian who thought that Godblogcon was supposed to be about Christians in the blogosphere. I didn't realize it was about all of the political and doctrinal hot air being blown around in here.
I thought that the purpose of Godblogcon was to meet and discuss ways that blogging impacts our relationship with God and other believers?
Am I wrong?
Instead should we have workshops on such useful things as: Finger pointing, public shaming, character asassination, and my personal favorite- My God Is Better Than Your God So You're Going To Burn In Hell!
Good Grief, some of the posts tonight sound like Hillary Clinton due to the shrill, whiny tone being used.
If you believe in God and like to blog, GO!
Sheesh!!!

31

"While I personally don’t understand how a person resolves being “Howard-Stern-loving, gay-marriage-backing, [and] prochoice” with being a Christian...."

You can't be Christian, in a genuine "devoted to God Who is Truth"-sense, Joe, and be anti-gay marriage and anti-choice. I bet you.

"Disagreements on deeply held political matters are trivial compared to what we share – or at least what we should share -- in common."

They're not trivial to the people whose lives are harmed by the ideologically-driven, fact-averse policies of christian conservatives.

The "gay-marriage-opposing" won't be in heaven; they've set themselves as the standards of truth in opposition to God.

"I think one way we can get past the us/them dichotomy is to stop including it in every discussion."

Christian conservative political policies which vilify or criminalize particular segments of the citizenry on private ideological grounds are predicated on us/them dichotomies. Don't be surprised when the people marginalized and wronged by your policies don't want to crack open a beer with you. Like Churchill said, you shouldn't be surprised with the chickens come home to roost.

"If a conservative evangelical and a liberal atheist can enjoy BBQ without being disagreeable...."

Such congeniality is luxery reserved for those who aren't affected directly by your group's mean-spirited and divisive policies.

Do you think the extreme politics you advocate is inconsequential, that you can wage wars across peoples' bodies and still expect these people to be congenial with you? Don't be sociopathic.

"My blogging seems to get better by the glass. Anyone else experience this phenomenon?"

Alessandra does, I bet.

Amy

32

Hey Amy,
I remember my first beer too...
So tell me, do you make your own crack pipes or buy them on the corner?
Read the bible. God does not condemn his believers for pointing out what is written in his word. He clearly calls homosexual behavior a sin. Sin without repentance leads to death.
This is true for all sin.
No matter what sin it is.

33

Wow, Amy, you sound just like the peasant in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Sometime, when I'm not busy trying to establish a neo-Christian caliphate which seeks to oppress all non-Christians throughout the world, you and I should go get a beer too. We can talk about the violence inherent in the system.

"Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"

34

The very fact that he sees a major dichotomy between his passions and beliefs and the church should cause him pause. I listen to a lot of goth metal and yet I don't see a dichotomy between my music and faith. Sometimes we're not all meant to be doing and enjoying the same things, I guess.

35

what is wrong with you people. now were at apoint where we have christian moral relativists. i think the young need to teach the old. are you chrisitans or multiculturalist. jesus sure didnt mind offending people. and since when is upholding sexuaality the way god credated it ignorant or intolerant. the bible says by their fruit you will know them. anyone who supports homosexuality and abortion is not a christian. as far as politics im independent on bush. u cant be a partisan and a christian. go back and read your bibles. the bible is clear Godis not a God of confusion.

36

"Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"

ROFL! Bloody peasant!

hehe, aha!, oh my....

And in the immortal words of the poet:

Some things in life are bad,
They can really make you mad.
Other things just make you swear and curse.
When you're chewing on life's gristle,
Don't grumble, give a whistle!
And this'll help things turn out for the best...
And...

...always look on the bright side of life!

Everybody now, whistle!!

37

"Help! Help! I'm being repressed!"

ROFL! Bloody peasant!

hehe, aha!, oh my....

And in the immortal words of the poet:

Some things in life are bad,
They can really make you mad.
Other things just make you swear and curse.
When you're chewing on life's gristle,
Don't grumble, give a whistle!
And this'll help things turn out for the best...
And...

...always look on the bright side of life!

Everybody now, whistle!!

38

doh!
darn error message.
oh well, a double dose of MP never hurt anyone.

39

Amy -

I have friends who are gay and know that I would not vote to have same-sex marriage legalized. I have friends who have had abortions and who know that I think Roe vs. Wade is the worse thing to happen to this country since slavery. However, I am able to still be friendly with these people, share meals with them, and carry on conversation. How? ... Might you ask. Because we are both able to treat each other as human beings. To be honest with each other, to not belittle each other, to laugh with each other, and intelligently discuss our beliefs and ideas. I am sorry if you have been unable to find a social-conservative that you can't "have a drink with." But for the record, it is possible for two people of extremely political views to have enough maturity and actually be ... get this: friends.

40

I'm not sure I understand your question. How does being "international" or "liberal" affect the way you relate and communicate with fellow Christians?
Posted by: Joe Carter at March 2, 2005 01

Every now and then you say something admirable.

This is an instance of that.

41

"Homo Sullivan"? Nice.
==================================
It's called politics.

An entry on how clueless you are about agenda words is here:

Sexuality Wars - Homo vs. Queer - Check Your Political Language IQ

http://alessandrab.blogspot.com/2005/03/sexuality-wars-homo-vs-queer-check.html

42

Amy,
My blog is full of posts that discuss why your liberal politics and attitudes do harm in the world.

Porn-obsessed, vulgarity-obsessed, homo-obsessed, SM-obsessed, STD-spreading-obsessed, sexual violence-obsessed liberals whom you so defend with your politics not only will not go to heaven, they create a hell right here for society. That includes harm to children, adolescent and adults.

"Christian conservative political policies which vilify or criminalize particular segments of the citizenry on private ideological grounds are predicated on us/them dichotomies."

Liberal political policies and culture which destroy humans and human relationships are predicated on the exacerbated arrogance of liberals to think they are right about everything and can never be held accountable for the social disaster they bring us.

For some people, only debates are possible when there are such enormously antagonistic values/religious and political differences, for others, a friendly conversation is possible.

An entry on "the Intolerance of Tolerance:" can be found here:

http://alessandrab.blogspot.com/2005/01/intolerance-of-tolerance-by-gregory.html

43

This is what happens when people say, "I don't want to know what other people do in their private lives."

Thanks to the libertarian/liberal crowd.

44

Alessandra,

I encourage gays and lesbians to live in covenanted, monogamous relationships. I am also quite confident, having assurance through Christ, that I am "bound for the promised land, where I shall see my Father's face."

45

"Wow, Amy, you sound just like the peasant in Monty Python and the Holy Grail."

What a great scene! My favorite Python movie is Life of Brian. I wonder though if people here got the joke when the crowd of fanatics fantastically distorted Brian's teachings and fetishized a bunch of his crud that clearly didn't matter. What a hoot!

"Sometime, when I'm not busy trying to establish a neo-Christian caliphate which seeks to oppress all non-Christians throughout the world, you and I should go get a beer too. We can talk about the violence inherent in the system."

Since the reality is bad enough, there's no need for conspiracy theories. Your crowd led an effort to OUTLAW peoples' FAMILIES.

No thanks on the beer.

Amy

46

It amuses me that a post about a Christian Blog Conference actually has some of the most hostile comments I've ever seen on the site.

I think that when we call people "Homo Sullivan", that's might be a clue as to why some people might not show up.

I do like the hyphenated gerundives being tossed about. More tongue-in-cheek and less slash-and-burn would be in order.

47

Hey Amy,

"So tell me, do you make your own crack pipes or buy them on the corner?"

The street corner of course.

"Read the bible."

You mean that book where there's this guy who says something about love, and truthfulness and humility, how we're all sinners, glass houses and logs in eyes, or something or other?

"God does not condemn his believers for pointing out what is written in his word. He clearly calls homosexual behavior a sin. Sin without repentance leads to death.
This is true for all sin.
No matter what sin it is."

Yeah, about as clear as mud. Paul clearly condemned heteros having sex with people of their own sex, against their natures, in pagan temple rites, but homosexuality? Scientists have found in studies of identical twins that if one twin is queer, there'll be close to a 100% chance that the other will be as well. Clearly, being queer is not against our God-given natures.

The term 'sodomy' wasn't even coined until the end of the 13th century. And all it meant was "sin of Sodom." (Inhospitality? Rape? Complete disconcern and disregard for some of humanity?)

Amy

48

Joel,
"Porn-obsessed, vulgarity-obsessed, homo-obsessed, SM-obsessed, STD-spreading-obsessed, sexual violence-obsessed " add sexual harassment, domestic violence, prostitution, etc

The issue is that there are many problems with human sexuality and relationships. Most pro-homos don't deal with these and other problems. Not dealing with all of the above is not a "ticket to heaven."

GLBT's are people who, as a group, do enormous amounts of violence in the world, and that includes violence in the personal sphere as well. Many of them are totally against your proposal. Many can care less about what you are encouraging.

So I think you fall into a comfortable stance, but which is also irresponsible and out of touch with reality. What is the first thing that was proven in the countries (not including the US) that have legalized homo marriage? That the overwhelming majority of homos snubbed and shunned marriage completely. It is a propaganda device to legitimize homosexuality in every form, but that will never address just how full of mental problems homos are.

Since I also don't believe in the inexistent homo gene theory, I think there's tons of evidence why homosexuality is a dysfunction and it doesn't have to be this way, just like pedophilia.

49

Wait -- there won't be strippers at the bloggercon? What a rip! I wonder if I can still get a refund.

50

"I have friends who are gay and know that I would not vote to have same-sex marriage legalized."

The votes haven't been to legalize same-sex marriage, but to outlaw it. Evangelicals led the effort to outlaw same sex marriages by rewriting 11 constitutions, and you're looking to do the same at a national level.

You're trying to outlaw my family AND you expect me to pretend like we're friends? That's flat-out sociopathic.

How would you feel if someone outlawed your family? (Remember that Golden Rule thing?)

Amy

51

Phil said,
"I think that when we call people "Homo Sullivan", that's might be a clue as to why some people might not show up."
===================================
It seems you'd also feel more comfortable going to an ACLU party, and why not NAMBLA as well? As far as I know, they don't refer to homos as homos.

I don't listen to Stern, but I'd think that in his elegant vocab, he bows down to the PC-conforming "gay" label, in a way to teach you how to talk and think about sexuality. Maybe you'd like to suggest we have Stern as our main speaker, followed by Paul Shanley, and then the president of the ACLU. They all talk the way you like.

Your crowd of people, apparently...

But not mine.

52

"GLBT's are people who, as a group, do enormous amounts of violence in the world, and that includes violence in the personal sphere as well. Many of them are totally against your proposal. Many can care less about what you are encouraging."

Exhibit A: vilifying a large group of the citizenry private ideological grounds.

Let me get this straight -- you folks think it's in children's interest to let this chick marry and breed?

Amy

53

Amy -

There is a difference between thinking that the legal definition of marriage should be between one man and one woman and wanting to "outlaw your family." In order to "outlaw your family", that would entail me wanting to pass a law that doesn't allow homosexuals to be in any sort of sexual relationship and to never be able to adopt children. Are you able to see the difference? If not, I that might be the difference between you and the gay acquaintances and friends I have met.

And for the record, I equate abortion doctors on the same level as slave traders. I can't say that I know any abortion doctors, but if I did, I think I would have the maturity to be kind to them and talk to them. I hope you can have the same attitude towards people like myself.

54

Alessandra -

When you call homosexual people names, you are hurting the very cause that you are fighting so hard for. If I recall my understanding of the New Testament, Jesus saved his harshest criticisms for religious hyprocrites and ate with the tax collectors and prostitutes of His day showing them a better way to live. Hmmmmm ........

55

I'm reading A LOT of personal feeling here, but I don't believe I've seen any scriptural basis for these personal OPINIONS about Christian vs. secular ideals. Try this on for size:

Matthew 7:21-23 (New International Version)

21“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ 23Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

I think it apropos to point out that the Stern loving (meaning you love what he does - we are to love all men), pro-homosexual and pro-abortion (pro-choice is just the PC way of saying pro-death) quote-unquote Christian will be missed for eternity in Heaven.

56

Amy wrote:

You mean that book where there's this guy who says something about love, and truthfulness and humility, how we're all sinners, glass houses and logs in eyes, or something or other?

Yep, the same guy that said:

“The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

(Mark 12:31, NASB)

Also said:

And He answered and said, “Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh? Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

(Matt. 19:4-6, NASB)

So do you believe everything he said? If not, what is your basis for picking and choosing what to believe and what not to believe?

57

Alessandra,

Your heart seems as hardened as Pharoah's! It is one thing to consider homosexuality a sin. However, all of us must also examine our own hearts to see whether any tenderness remains. I know I often fall short in that area.

58

I would like to correct a previous statement.
I misunderstood the original intent of organizers regarding the reading of Hewitt's book and the original statement of faith.

The following clarification is in order:

*In the initial unfolding formulation of the GodBlogCon post on SmartChristian I encouraged people to read Hewitt's book "Blog" and Istill do. It was not a requirement or prerequisite or anything like that however. There are many, many new bloggers, and I think Blog provides an overview of blogging that is helpful, although I do notnecessarily hold to the tone or even all the ideas of the book.

In order to clarify what I call historic biblical faith I did initially provide a very general statement of faith - again for clarification only. It was not something that anyone would have to sign or necessarily agree fully with. It was a general guide statement widely agreeable to Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox. However, it would clearly distinguish GodBlogCon from the faith worldview of other religions and self-proclaimed others like Mormons, JWs and Christian Science for example.*

I requested this from Dr.Andrew Jackson who put up the original GodBlogCon page.(no longer available)
I apologize for my mis-interpretation.

59

Alessandra -

You're quite the embarrassment. I was going to say something like "Hey, don't lash out at me, I'm on your team" but then I realized I'm not on your team. I don't support gay marriage but I'm not going to act like some name-calling third grader. I don't need to label people "Homo Sullivan". I'm comfortable hanging out with people I disagree with .

What I'm not comfortable with is to have some bigoted demogogue attempting to represent Christianity by calling everyone names and lashing out at anyone attempted to bring a little class and open-mindedness to the proceedings. You're a sad little person. I have my differences (MANY of them) with guys like Larry Lord and Mumon, and we can get into some heated discussions, but at least they can do more than call names and stamp their feet. At least they don't act like children. I'd rather have Jeff Jarvis who disagrees with 75% of what I believe in show up than someone like you who may agree with 75% of what I believe in, but in the most obnoxious and offensive way possible.

Someone earlier asked what place a liberal christian had at the table? Here's your answer: to make sure we don't end up with more Alessandras.

60

Oh and I noticed Alessandra has a blog. I'm sure it's as sophisticated and as winsome as her performance on this one.

61

"There is a difference between thinking that the legal definition of marriage should be between one man and one woman and wanting to 'outlaw your family.'"

Scott, you're putting the chronological cart before the horse. BECAUSE evangelicals wanted to outlaw queer families, you lobbied and voted for constitutional amendments that restrict the legal definition of marriage to heterosexual couples. These actions placed our marriages and families outside of the law (you 'outlawed' them) and thereby ensured that we'll be deprived certain public rights and protections (e.g., social security partner benefits, health insurance coverage, etc.). The fact that you had to change constitutions to outlaw our families, and attacked the personalities of judges instead of critiquing their arguments, only shows that you had no legal basis for witholding these public rights and protections from our families. The only grounds you evangelicals had was unchristian moral pretentiousness and a prejudicial dislike of my minority group.

And if you think that being denied these public rights and protections is no big deal, that it's not really a type of outlawing, then please, evangelicals, give up these protections and benefits for yourselves. Divorce your spouses legally and renew your private vows simultaneously. Go on. I mean, if it's no big deal....

Voting to ban same-sex marriages was unchristian because 1) you discriminated against your neighbors in ways that you wouldn't tolerate being discriminated against yourself, and 2) you acted without good truth-preserving reasons; since God is Truth, you allowed your prejudices and biases to guide your actions, not God, and thereby set yourselves as the standards of what is Right.

In general, you seem like a reasonable and well-intentioned person, Scott, but to wrong someone and then suggest they're immature if they resent you for the wrong you've done them shows that you have no idea what you've done.

Amy

62

"(Matt. 19:4-6, NASB)"

Right -- He answered the Pharisees, who suggested that there are plenty of good reasons for a man to abandon his wife, by saying that there are only two good reasons for a man to abandon his wife.

C'mon, given the context, who could take this as an exclusive definition of marriage, except maybe someone who's trying to deliberately distort scripture so that it'll accord with private prejudices (an effort that has a long and ignoble history, from slavery debates, to suffrage to segregation, etc.).

You've also conveniently ignored his recognition in the same chapter that not everyone is traditionally male or female, as well as his clear statement that the Kingdom of Heaven is open to these non-traditional people.

Amy

63

"I think it apropos to point out that the Stern loving (meaning you love what he does - we are to love all men), pro-homosexual and pro-abortion (pro-choice is just the PC way of saying pro-death) quote-unquote Christian will be missed for eternity in Heaven."

This is an ironic way to read a passage cautioning against moral pretension.

Amy

64

Amy, you conveniently fail to note two very important facts that led to the discussion you and I are having right now:

First, let's be clear: it was only after a handful of unelected judges and a rogue mayor attempted a complete end run around the law (and yes, a prohibition against same-sex marriage was the law in both California and Massachusetts) that the process of amending the Constitution (which you so deride) was proposed. The purpose of this proposed amendment was not to strip families like yours of any rights at all (see below), but to RE-affirm and clarify the foundational belief, held by every civilization since the beginning of time, that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. If I may borrow a line from you, don't put the chronological cart before the horse.

Secondly, while you state that "we" (I'll assume you mean the government and not Christians, since we live in a republic and not a theocracy) had no legal basis for withholding certain "rights" and "protections" from your families, I seem to recall that there has NEVER been any legal basis for affording these benefits to same-sex couples in the first place. "Rights" and "protections" refer to those things which the government gives to all, and has no right to take away. Your description, therefore, clearly does not match the nature and character of the benefits in question. "We" cannot deprive you of that which your families never had in the first place. Listen, I personally feel that all families, regardless of their composition, deserve the benefits which you mention. However, because we live in that pesky republic thing, our government, since its inception and through the consent and authority granted to it by the governed, has deemed it proper to afford certain benefits to lawfully married couples that it does not bestow on those who are not lawfully married. This is because our government feels that there is a valid incentive in promotion of those institutions which form the very foundation of our society, with heterosexual marriage being the first and most basic.

Would I be willing to give up the benefits you mention? No, I would not. However, I'd be happy to have my marriage consecrated only by the church, and have the government distribute benefits to ALL committed unions, heterosexual (like mine) AND homosexual (like yours). That's just me. Will forgoing my own benefits help them become a reality for you? No, it won't. However, if you want, I'd be happy to write your congressman while you unload your misguided angst on all of us on account of our religious affiliation.

I understand your frustrations. Really, I do. However, tweaking Christian doctrine to fit your particular agenda is not the best way to garner sympathy from this group. We know better. Another free bit of advice: I would also refrain from erroneously labeling incentive benefits "rights" in an attempt to bump them into the zone of constitutional protection. If you want to try your hand at a constitutional amendment to make them rights, be my guest.

Finally, don't put this on me or anyone else on account of the fact that we happen to be Christians. Despite what you think about our personal or corporate responsibility for your grievances, we are not to blame any more than 229 years of American jurisprudence or the overwhelming consensus of modern American opinion. Your time, effort and ranting would be much more effective if directed at your elected representatives.

65

Amy wrote:

Right -- He answered the Pharisees, who suggested that there are plenty of good reasons for a man to abandon his wife, by saying that there are only two good reasons for a man to abandon his wife.

First, Jesus quoted Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 which defines marriage as one man and one woman for life. Then He stopped talking. And when pushed further, Jesus agreed that divorce in the case of adultery is acceptable, and that is only because of human failings. (Hardness of heart) Then He points out again that even that concession is not how it is meant to be.

Yet even in this discussion where Jesus makes a remarkable concession in allowing divorce at all, I don't see a single thing in that passage which changes the definition from man and woman to anything else. In fact, Jesus reaffirms the underlying sin: adultery.

C'mon, given the context, who could take this as an exclusive definition of marriage, except maybe someone who's trying to deliberately distort scripture so that it'll accord with private prejudices (an effort that has a long and ignoble history, from slavery debates, to suffrage to segregation, etc.).

To be honest, this charge simply floored me. When I read that passage, I see the words as simple and clear. Yet you go to great lengths to argue that their most simple meaning (marriage is one man and one woman even if divorce is permitted for adultery) does not mean what it says. I'm curious to see how you explain away these two passages:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

(1 Cor. 6:9, NASB)

Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

(Heb. 13:4, NASB)

For the record, adultery is a married person having sex with someone who is not their spouse. Fornication is all sex outside of marriage, including between those who are unmarried.

I'm also curious how you explain away Deuteronomy 22:20-29.

I've given a lot of thought to your charge that I'm allowing my private prejudices to twist the meaning of scripture. I've examined my thinking processes and assumptions, and it simply doesn't wash.

My number one goal in reading scripture is to understand it's plain meaning first (see occam's razor), and only then worry about related subtleties. As a matter of principle, I am required to apply this approach consistently. The result is that I must not attempt to explain away scriptures which skewer my own pet sins. (Believe me, I do struggle with sins the Bible condemns, and I hate those sins.) Because I do not attempt to justify my own sins, why should I flinch from the plain meaning of scripture which skewers sins I don't struggle with?

By accepting your approach, I would actually make two important gains. First, I wouldn't have to put up with spending too much time over this stupid argument. Second -- and even more important -- I would be free to interpret scripture however the heck I wanted to, allowing me the intellectual freedom to indulge in my own lusts rather than keeping myself on a tight leash.

On the other hand, statements you've made in this thread lead me to believe that you are living in a same-sex relationship, or at least in a household with one. To accept that the Bible teaches against such relationships means that you would be forced to make a change which would turn your entire life upside down. As a result, you have significantly more emotional baggage in winning this argument than I do.

Please, examine your "prejudice" charge again. Are you sure it's honestly true? Or are you projecting your own prejudices on me; prejudices which result from your fear of the emotional, financial and intellectual chaos that would result from accepting the Bible literally?

Amy, I don't hate you. I don't envy you either. You're in a tough spot. Either you have to face total personal chaos in this life, or -- as the Bible says in the quotes above -- you will face God's judgement in the next. (Note: You do not face my judgement. I do not have the authority or the desire. But I would be ignoring God's commands if I didn't attempt to warn you about what He says.) Neither option is very appealing.

You've also conveniently ignored his recognition in the same chapter that not everyone is traditionally male or female, as well as his clear statement that the Kingdom of Heaven is open to these non-traditional people.

For the record, the word "eunuch" is a transliteration from the greek word. (Transliteration means the greek letters were changed to their english equivalent.) It means someone who is unable to be married or have children. The plain meaning of this passage is that Jesus is pointing out that some people will remain single because of physical defects, injuries or choice. They need to accept their singleness and move on with their lives. He also recognizes just how hard it is to do so.

Jesus' statement that some people have an inability to marry for some reason and that they need to accept that fact is a far cry from saying its polar opposite: that it's okay for such people to pine for marriage and engage in behavior which God has condemned.

66

Phil,

RE: Alessandra. Wow. This is a woman of unwavering standards and consistency. From her blog:

"Personal ad hominem attacks are not allowed in comments."

"You have your views and you are welcome to write them out here as long as you leave out your shoddy personal attack behavior. Because you see things differently, it does not give you the right to call me names or other insults in this manner."

This was in response to the comment, wait for it, "you are a horrible person." GASP!

Yeah, I was just going to say, that is shoddy personal attack behavior in it most heinous form.

I wonder what Alessandra would say in response to oh, say:

"Similarly, homo Sullivan, who likes to call himself a Catholic, does the same. And so do most of the child abusive priests."

"Porn-obsessed, vulgarity-obsessed, homo-obsessed, SM-obsessed, STD-spreading-obsessed, sexual violence-obsessed liberals whom you so defend with your politics not only will not go to heaven, they create a hell right here for society."

"That the overwhelming majority of homos snubbed and shunned marriage completely. It is a propaganda device to legitimize homosexuality in every form, but that will never address just how full of mental problems homos are."

Nope, no name calling or "shoddy" personal attack behavior there. Just glorifying the Lord, Alessandra-style.

Awesome.

67

Sorry Amy, I guess I should have been more clear in my previous post. What the scripture reference I used, Matthew 7:21-23, was referring to was statements like Phil's (near the beginning of this blog):

"Christianity benefits from diversity in the ranks (to a degree). Christians ultimately want to have influence in the world, to be people that other people want to listen to. If we just have a hive of fundies as our defining membership, we're not going to be taken serious (nor should we be)."

What I meant was that a person may say with their mouth that they are a Christian but that doesn't make it so. Jehovah's Witnesses do that. Phil is DEAD wrong in saying that "Christianity benefits from diversity." I'm not talking about racial diversity, God is not concerned about race. What I mean is that we are to become Christlike - there is NO diversity in that.

Phil, the Christian message is one that offends people by definition. Christ said He came to heal the sick, and like an addict one must admit they have a problem before they can progress toward healing. Now, if you have a creedo and refuse to follow it...what good are you? Most organizations today have a Mission Statement, I think you will agree that for Christians The Bible contains our creedo, dogma or mission statement. Sticking to biblical principle is what we Chrisitians strive to do...not because that makes us Christians or saves us from damnation, but because that is what Christ did. 1 John 2:6 Whoever claims to live in Him must walk as Jesus did.

Following biblical teaching, without using a Marks-a-lot to redact those things we don't like is what "fundies" do. "Fundies" have gotten a bad name because of a few high-profile, tactless ministers who have made errors themselves. Billy Graham is a "fundie" everyone seems to like. But he does not go for the liberal muck Amy and others are trying to sell here... BECAUSE it is anti-thetical to biblical principle.

68

Jeff Jarvis sounds like he attends the "Church of the Grand Buffette". That is picking out of context those things he likes about Christianity and ignoring the rest. Actually this is humanism masking as Christianity. I don't know if he is saved, that is not my call. His world view is humanist and definately not Biblical.

69

I can see most of the "liberals" points. I would not want to go to a Nation Council of Churches convention either. It is a waste of time. Throwing your pearls and all that. I am wondering why so many of these people believe they are Christian? We must all agree that Christians should not promote sin. So how do these supporters of abortion and homsexuality decide what is sin and what is not? They are not using the Bible. So I must assume they have come to this conclusion through their own thought processies. But is that not humanism? A syncrotism between Christianity and humanism? Since it is God who defines what is sin and what is not, are people who willfully promote sin (not in their own eyes, but in God's eyes) going to be saved?
The Bible describes one of the most wicked times in human history as the days of Noah. These are characterized as "everyone doing what was right in their own eyes". Is this not what is happening to the liberal church today?

70

John Wright - I think you completely misunderstand Phil's point. When he said that Christianity benefits from diversity, he was not talking about essential issues (e.g. Jesus as the only savior, the death/resurrection of Jesus as the means for salvation, etc.). Rather, he was talking about non-essential issues such as differences in political opinion or differences in understanding a particular doctrine (e.g. literal six-day creation, old-earth creation, or theistic evolution). Have you read Lewis' _Mere Christianity_? Have you heard the phrase: "On the majors, unity, on the minors, liberty, and in all things, charity? Perhaps Phil was not clear enough on this point. But in this sense, I think our common, unified faith is strong enough to where it will benefit by viewpoints that will often conflict and diverge.

RA - Your wrote: The Bible describes one of the most wicked times in human history as the days of Noah. These are characterized as "everyone doing what was right in their own eyes".

Just for the correction, it says this in Judges (21:25 and two other places), not in Genesis. (Although it is likely there was a lot of moral relativism going on then as well).

71

Amy - So much to say, so little time.

"The fact that you had to change constitutions to outlaw our families, and attacked the personalities of judges instead of critiquing their arguments, only shows that you had no legal basis for witholding these public rights and protections from our families. The only grounds you evangelicals had was unchristian moral pretentiousness and a prejudicial dislike of my minority group."

Although there are many ignorant, unloving, and unintelligent Christians out there who fit the stereotype you are setting perfectly (e.g. Alessandra), that is not the case with everyone. I'll use Joe as an example since you are familiar with him. I am confident his views on same-sex marriage are not out of spite and prejudice towards homosexuals. Rather, they are for various philosophical, theological, historical, social, psychological, and cultural reasons. I understand that it may be difficult for you to see these reasons, but I want to encourage you try and understand simply for the purpose of clarification. If you want to discuss them with me through private email, I would be happy to do so.

As for being deprived of benefits such as security partner benefits, health insurance coverage, etc, I think my first questions is to ask, how much of same-sex marriage is about aquiring these benefits and how much of it is about social and cultural recognition? Despite the Christians who would disagree with me, I find it very sad and unfortunate that lifelong homosexual couples do not get the benefits you mentioned. If you want to let me know who your congressman is, I would be happy to write them a letter and express this concern over the issue of including homosexual couples in domestic partnershp. But I think the deeper issue of this (at least for me it is) is about the general acceptance of homosexuality in society and culture. At this point, there is a further distinction I must make. I am not talking about acceptance of homosexuality as it pertains to particular individuals. I think individuals must always be accepted for their intrinsic worth as human beings. I think shows like "Will and Grace" have helped individuals to be more accepted. But my concern is with the social and cultral recognition of homosexuality as an ideology-lifestyle. This then raises the issues as to whether or not my philosophical, theological, historical, social, and cultural reasons make my belief true that marriage ought to be defined as one man and one woman. I think that it does and you obviously think that it doesn't. The only way either of us would ever change our mind is through constant open-minded discussion to seek truth for what it is. And that often begins with seeking clarification prior to agreement.

I hope that gives you a better idea where people like myself come from. Please don't think that all (politically conservative) Christians are like Mandy Moore in _Saved!_.

"Voting to ban same-sex marriages was unchristian because 1) you discriminated against your neighbors in ways that you wouldn't tolerate being discriminated against yourself"

In order to substantiate this point, you must first convince me that it is wrong to perserve marriage between one man and one woman in the first place. A blanket assertion will not suffice.

"and 2) you acted without good truth-preserving reasons; since God is Truth, you allowed your prejudices and biases to guide your actions, not God, and thereby set yourselves as the standards of what is Right."

I am a seeker of truth. Perhaps I am wrong in my conclusions of truth, but that doesn't entail that I do not seek it.

"In general, you seem like a reasonable and well-intentioned person, Scott, but to wrong someone and then suggest they're immature if they resent you for the wrong you've done them shows that you have no idea what you've done."

I really appreciate you respecting my intentions. I respect yours as well. And I think we are in absolute agreement on this point. Assuming for a second that I did wrong you, then I would not be in a position to know that I have. In other words, I would have wronged you out of my ignorance and false beliefs, not out of contempt, spite, and prejudice.

I hope that clarifies my position better. As I said earlier, I would be happy to continue on with this conversation through private email.

Scott

72

All the "discussion" has confused me to the point that I think I've decided to stay at home. I really wanted to go, but I sense that this convention has a real potential to become a soap box rather than a vehicle for Christian bloggers to learn more about how to become effective communicators.

I'll tell you what really bothers me. The dislike on both sides of this divide I see in the commentary is very palpable. You guys really don't like each other and I'm not so sure that it can be bridged.

I really wanted to go to this event, but not under these circumstances. If I want to debate and argue I can do as well here at home with our local newspaper.

I naively felt that this would be all about Christians learning how to make a contribution to our various corners of the world.

Lord have mercy.

This is really, really unfortunate.

73

Scott,

Yes I have Read "Mere Christianity" and have heard the phrase you mention... and I agree with it. BUT, none of the points you mention are being discussed in this blog (Six literal days, pre-trib/post-trib, millenial reign/a-millenial... I enjoy a good debate over those "minor" or second tier issues). I don't think I misunderstand Phil's point, though. He has a mission. He and Amy are like the guy in the proverbial frog story with his hand on the temperature control. If we let him and Amy come in with their distorted view of scripture many will be deceived.

Lewis' said in "Mere Christianity" that there IS a definite line between right and wrong, we may not like that but not liking it doesn't change that fact. Discovering THAT truth is what helped Lewis become a Christian. As RA mentioned above, God defines sin... whether we like His definition is of no consequence, if He calls it sin, it is.

I heard a pastor once say he was confronted by a female pastor who said that Jesus never said homosexuality was a sin (as I recall He didn't say much about murder, stealing, etc. either). The pastor began to quote from Romans 1, and the female pastor cut him off saying, "I know very well what Paul had to say about it, but Jesus never said anything about homosexuality." To which the astute pastor pointed out that, "2 Tim 3:16 says God inspired the whole Bible" -she agreed.. AND, "John 1:1 says ...the Word (Jesus) was God, so Jesus inspired the whole Bible, so Romans 1 may have been penned by Paul, but they were Jesus' words...Moses may have penned Leviticus 18 & 22, but they were Jesus' words. In each of those passages, homosexuality is pointed to as a perversion and sin... not necessarily because of man's standards, but definitely because of God's standards." The same argument against abortion can be made... life is being taken unnaturally and un-lawfully (again NOT concerned with what man has made lawful or acceptable).

My fear is not that someone will come along with a more powerful argument than mine about a literal 6 day creation... no, my fear is that which is discussed in 2 Peter 2, especially verse 2 (shameful ways for this discussion equals homosexual activity and abortion)- false teaching leads to destruction. As for verse 3 of this passage, greed doesn't have to refer to monetary gain, but can also be greed for acceptance of a personal preference which otherwise causes a mental/spritual burden.

74

Reading these comments, if this is what Christians are like. I don't want to be one.

75

"I really wanted to go to this event, but not under these circumstances. If I want to debate and argue I can do as well here at home with our local newspaper.

I naively felt that this would be all about Christians learning how to make a contribution to our various corners of the world."

While I respect your right to feel the way you do, I can't help but wonder what exactly has driven you to your decision. This is a blog. We are in the comments section. Certain comments were made which compelled others to respond. Some comments warranted a thorough evaluation and deconstruction, others a mild rebuke, and some just called for Christian charity in the wake of differing opinions.

I honestly don't see why anyone here thinks that any of what goes on in this thread will be predictive of what the GodBlogCon will be. They are two distinctly different forums with two distinctly different purposes. I engaged in some hearty debate in this thread, and I have NO plans to do ANYTHING at the conference but listen to speakers talk about blogging and how Christians can effectively use the medium. No debating about doctrine or homosexuality or anything like that, because none of that is germane to the purpose of the conference.

However, I do reserve the right to stand up and call someone out on the carpet, as I did here, if someone gets on stage and calls someone else and STD-spreading homo, or conversely, says that God does not consider homosexuality a sin in any way. Somehow I'm confident that this won't be a problem, however, I hope that it won't cause the same controversy it did here if such a dialogue takes place. I think we're all big enough to debate the issues though, don't you agree?

76

Alex

I'm sure that the conference organizers planned the event to be something that all Christian bloggers could benefit from, and while I'd like to share your confidence that folks will lay down their debates, etc for a few days, I can't say that I do.

I'm also curious. What or why are you wondering about what "drove" my decision?

77

Phil,

I was simply confused as to why this comment thread changed your mind about going to the conference.

As I mentioned above, I don't think there will be a forum for doctrinal discussions or debates, or for publishing certain comments or viewpoints that might spur others to vehemently disagree (unless they have to do with blogging), since the conference is supposed to be about blogging. Unless Alessandra takes to the stage and starts calling people "homos", or Amy stands up and publicly condemns Christians for not supporting gay marriage, I don't think there will be an scintilla of public debate there on doctrinal issues, because it isn't the forum for that. The comments section of a blog (especially in response to an outrageous comment) is the forum for such discussion, so I don’t think what happens here will happen at the conference.

I guess what I'm trying to say (and I think it is the essence of Joe's original post) is that regardless of our doctrinal, philosophical, political or practical differences, this conference should be about one thing only: Christian blogging. My attendance will based on the assumption that we will be discussing the usefulness of blogging for advancing the Gospel, and not dissecting each other's personal religious beliefs. I am fairly certain that the same is true of everyone else who is planning on attending, so I personally don't see what causes you to believe that this won't be the case. You seem to express a fair deal of regret over what went on in this thread, as though it will happen on Friday night at the convention. Again, unless someone in attendance doesn't understand the purpose of the convention, and shoots their mouth off about some unrelated topic in a way that demands correction, I am confident that we can all put our differences aside and enjoy fellowship there, despite those differences.

For what it's worth, I apologize if I contributed in any way to a contentious atmosphere here. For the record, I love Amy and I love Alessandra, though I have nothing but unapologetic contempt for some of their comments. That doesn't mean that we can't all go out afterward and grab a beer. As long as we all can check our baggage at the door, I think the conference will be a great time, and I hope you will still consider attending.

78

I'm just going to add this link because I think that it would be helpful,

http://www.e-church.com/Downloads/We%20Know%20More%20Than%20Our%20Pastors.pdf

It is a white paper on spiritual blogging and spiritual bloggers that was reseached and written over a year ago. Whether you agree with it or not, I think that everyone could learn some stuff about being networked, being Christian.

Frankly, this thread is too painful to read.

79

Voting for anything that encourages sin or trys to make it respectful is sin. So voting to accept homosexuality or abortion is sin. Plane and simple. Yet so many people who call themselves "Christian" do it every election. I find it to be a scandal and evidence of what a sad state the American church is in.

80

Sounds like some readers here are a little too sensitive.

Aren't we supposed to rebuke wrong teaching? Wasn't that Christ's message to the Scribes and Pharisees? Didn't Paul warn us about false teachers and false teaching within the church? I apologize if feelings are hurt when I and others point out the errant teaching in previous messages here..BUT I do not apologize for pointing out that Christians should not be teaching acceptance of homosexual behavior and/or abortion is anti-thetical to biblical teaching and MUST be stopped by Christians. The next thing you know, some one will be saying that he/she is a Christian and that they FEEL that there are other ways to get to heaven besides faith in Christ alone - will we be expected to accept this too because we might otherwise hurt their feelings?