Good As You

Funny about this furthering ones agenda. And Lakewood does not have an agenda? Of course they do and until we as the LGBTQ community can get out of people that our agenda if that is what they want to call it is to be seen as equal to them in all ways we will continue to be in the same place. We need laws but laws never change the hearts and minds of people. And for much of the church we will be seen as "other" or "sinner" for their bible says that homosexuality is against God's created nature.

I really admire Soulforce for what they are doing and know that an honest discussion is much needed in the church. But I also know that in many of the churches we will always be as mentioned "other", "sinner" and that will not change. Trust me I came out from that way of life for 25 years.

One of the issues is that most people do not care that we live, sleep with another it is the thing they feel of advertising our "lifestyle" that they have a hard time with. I tried to explain this to my mom but the good church woman that she is just has a hard time getting it. But if we show the world that we are like them in every way (families, taxes, work, etc.)except in our sexuality then we will turn the tide and many of the rights we desire will be granted. So what am I, what are we willing to do to be to show the world who we are?

I agree, Jay has come a long way (baby); joel osteen not so much.

This post is hardly fair.

"[I]f you completely write off a rich and vibrant population sect as outside of God's plan, it's merely an attempt to further faith." What evidence do you have that Osteen has done anything of the kind?

From what I know of him, Osteen avoids anything even remotely political. That explains his avoidance of Soulforce.

Oh please, David. Your scoldings are getting a bit tiresome.

Osteen's surrogate (who is paid to rep. Osteen) suggested that Soulforce wants to further an "agenda." What Soulforce actually wants is to stop the anti-gay attitudes within the megachurch community.

Nowhere in the post do we say that Osteen launches political attacks at gay people. However, he doesn't at all acknowledge gay families, which is Soulforce's beef with his ministry. That's what we mean by "writing off" the millions of gays and gay families that make up this world -- it's widely considered in the evangelical community to be the righteous route to take. We don't see it that way, and in fact consider it downright offensive to suggest that inclusivity is an "agenda."

I'm glad you find my scoldings tiresome, Jeremy. They may yet work on you.

It is somewhat ironic, however, that you take offense at being "scolded" for scolding Osteen for little reason.

I never said you accused Osteen of attacking homosexuals politically. I asked for evidence that the man writes them off as people.

If by "completely [writing] off a rich and vibrant population sect" you meant not acknowledging gay families, you should have come out and said so. But there is a problem here. You said that Osteen's writing off of gays was because they are "outside of God's plan." Your post didn't justify imputing such an attitude to Osteen; your reply to me attempts a justification by pointing out what is "widely considered in the evangelical community to be the righteous route to take." But this is no justification at all. Osteen isn't the rest of evangelical America.

So Osteen and his spokesman are bad people for using the term "agenda," eh? My god, talking of tiresome -- you lefties take the cake! What with how certain words just cannot be used in your presence without somehow conjuring up the devil.

Of course Soulforce has an agenda. Anytime you want anything from anyone you have an agenda. Getting people to change their ways is an agenda, as is getting people to stay the same.

Soulforce deals with an issue that is politically controversial. Osteen avoids such issues. This is way he avoids talking about gay families and why he avoids Soulforce. Your beef with him is simply that you dislike his pastoral choices. So disagree with him -- but don't accuse him of viewing people as beyond God's concern.

David: Your reply highlights every reason why I find your constant, long-winded "scoldings" tiresome.

- You draw unfair inferences. For instance, in no way did your comment or anything you have ever said on here "offend" me. I was simply explaining what I meant, as clarity was ostensibly what you were seeking. Not "justify,' as you falsely assert. But shed more light on my intent since I did, in fact, write the damn thing!

- Also, even though you are an anti-abortion activist with a socially conservative bent, you act as if we SHOULD agree. David, we don't see eye to eye on just about anything. And that's fine. But don't act as if you hold the truth and that I've missed the mark just because we do see the world differently.

- You often reduce arguments down to one or two simplistic points or particular words. You blow up particular words that I say and make the something they are not, and then you accuse us of doing the same with particular words that the opposition has used.

etc, etc.

Jeremy,

Your reply highlights every reason why I continue to offer my constructive criticisms -- whether you like them or not.

You are taking my use of the term "offense" a little too literally. I simply meant you didn't appreciate what I wrote. As for justifying your statement, I did not ask for clarity. I asked, "What evidence do you have that Osteen" has written off homosexuals "as outside of God's plan." Neither of your replies provided any.

This is important because my original comment was asking why you felt you had the right to say what you did about Osteen. You pretty much painted Osteen as a man who believes all gays are going to Hell, and who thinks people like Jay Baker are bad Christians. I am not parsing words here, nor reducing your arguments "down to one or two simplistic points." Just go back and read what you wrote.

Finally, I do not argue with you because I think the laws of reality are violated if we disagree. My comments here are an attempt to influence your thinking on certain matters. Do you blog because you think the whole world MUST see things exactly as you do?

Really, Jeremy, when you accuse me of acting "as if [I] hold the truth and that [you]'ve missed the mark just because we do see the world differently," you are a pot calling a kettle black. Your entire post was you acting as the holder of truth while Osteen was wrong because he doesn't act as a pastor the way you want.

David: With all due respect, I think I'm going to adopt a "no reply to David's comments" rule, at least for awhile. I find our back-and-forths thoroughly non-productive, and I'm tired of wasting time on them.

Take care.