These guys are headquartered in Grand Rapids, up in Lydia’s neck of the woods. Maybe she knows more about them. It was founded by members of the Christian Reformed Church, but the last of its founders died in 2013. It doesn’t look like it has very strong Christian underpinnings any longer.
They are accountable to the ECFA, but I haven’t found any other Evangelical affiliations. They admit they might lose some donors, but they don’t appear too worried about it.
They can do what they wish. It’s a free country. But they shouldn’t be allowed to call themselves Evangelical without pushback. We shouldn’t just moan and whimper about how Evangelicalism is “going to the dogs.” There should be a backlash of some sort. Behavior like this must not be allowed to stand. These are not Evangelicals and should not be labeling themselves as such without a fight.
Do we just stand by and let the Evangelical frog get slowly boiled? Shouldn’t be be goading its hindquarters with something sharp?
Well said, Eric! I completely agree with you. I think I also read that several of their board members (or leaders of some kind) left them precisely over this issue. If so, I assume it must've been the more conservative Christians among them. Anyway if someone reading this is in position to do something about any of this, please do so!
I wish I had a checklist of noble and winsome ways to fight back against counterfeits.
I was just watching the documentary on Michelle Obama’s book signing tour for “Becoming.” And they begin the film with her listening to some Gospel music (Kirk Franklin) to get in the right mood for meeting people. Then, when she arrives at a celebration for the book’s debut, she forms a prayer circle with the creative staff from the publisher!
Just having left the most anti-Christian administration in the history of the country, and she slams us in the face with her religious roots? I don’t know how to take that. You don’t get to sit in your room all day, downing pulled-pork sandwiches and filling a sketchbook full of portraits of Muhammad, and still call yourself a Muslim.
For what it's worth, I think sometimes it's justifiable to use less than "noble and winsome" ways to fight back. I think that's one thing that some people couldn't quite understand about Trump. Trump is like an ignoble instrument that many Americans used to fight back. But some people have no stomach for getting their hands dirty in a fight and want every fight to be a clean fight.
The left fawns over Michelle Obama, but I never saw anything worth fawning about in her. The left ridicules Trump for being a reality tv star, but Hollywood and the mainstream media (among others) made the Obamas. I think the mainstream media and Hollywood wanted the Obamas to be the next American Camelot (a la the Kennedys), so they did everything in their power to glamorize the Obamas. In this respect, the Obamas are reality tv stars - and they're worse than hollow and insubstantial.
Is it true that homosexual men (sodomites) are more likely than anyone else to harm children? What is usually the basis to support this argument... is it from Scripture or actual studies/research (or both)?
I don't know how likely or unlikely homosexuals as a group are to harm children. But I'd object to handing orphans to homosexual couples even if they didn't harm children in terms of say physical abuse. I'd object because I don't think it's good for a child to be raised by two homosexual men or two homosexual women, even if they are otherwise "loving" parents. The homosexual relationship itself is a fundamental problem.
That said, I do think there's relevant research out there but I just haven't properly reviewed it. In addition, much of the research itself has become highly politicized.
Well, by the title of the post: "handing orphans over to sodomites" i assumed the primary concern was male homosexuals sodomizing boys (or any gender of the child for that matter) they adopt. If there is more of a danger of sodomites sexually abusing children than lesbians sexually abusing children, that may be the case. I have no idea. The relevant research is likely being deleted from history because its a "hateful" research. And yes, its fundamentally not a good idea either way for two men or two women homosexuals to adopt children. I just though the use of "sodomite" in the title was intended to highlight two males adopting children being the worse of the two scenarios. And, on the topic of choosing between two evils: I've wondered if it would it be better for an unborn baby to be given up for adoption to homosexuals or be aborted. I realize either scenario is scary, but i think if i had to give counsel to a mother/couple who have already made up their minds they will not allow this baby to be born and considering abortion as the only solution, what if a pair of otherwise "loving" homosexuals was willing to adopt rather than resort to the abortion? These are scary times when these are realities we face...
1. I'd say it's immoral whether it's male homosexuals or female homosexuals.
2. Speaking in general, would it necessarily be better to die in the womb than to grow up an orphan? How would one even know in advance?
3. Why wouldn't the same logic justify abortion for other miserable conditions such as extreme poverty?
4. In general, I'm sure we'd agree abortion of an otherwise healthy baby is evil. That is, I'm not referring to abortion in special cases like saving the mother's life.
The state of being an orphan may be a privation, but is it an evil?
Note being an orphan isn't the same as making someone an orphan (e.g. murdering their parents).
As such, how would one make a case for committing what's clearly evil (abortion) in order to avoid a privation like not having parents?
1. yes it is either way. If there was no specific reason why you used the word sodomite then that's fine i was just wondering. 2. id say its better to be born in ANY circumstance, vs be aborted. 3. per point 2: i don't think any condition of existence justifies abortion. Not sure if my previous comments implied otherwise. 4. yes.
Being an orphan isn't the worst state of existence in itself i suppose. And again, i don't know if my previous comments were interpreted as i was in favour of abortion vs having homosexual parents. The opposite was my intention. If homosexual "parents" were willing to adopt a child that is on its way to certain abortion, id opt for the homosexual adoption (if orphanage wasn't a third option).
1. The title is an allusion to Sodom (and Gomorrah) in the Bible. Not that all homosexuals today are perfectly equivalent to the men of Sodom and Gomorrah, or vice versa, but enough of the homosexual culture is deserving of judgment.
2. Thanks, Eyezayah, it's good to get clarification about what you meant. I was just mainly trying to respond to your own questions. For example, when you mused: "I've wondered if it would it be better for an unborn baby to be given up for adoption to homosexuals or be aborted."
Horrible. But look for more of this, I'm afraid.
ReplyDelete:(
DeleteHawk—
ReplyDeleteThese guys are headquartered in Grand Rapids, up in Lydia’s neck of the woods. Maybe she knows more about them. It was founded by members of the Christian Reformed Church, but the last of its founders died in 2013. It doesn’t look like it has very strong Christian underpinnings any longer.
They are accountable to the ECFA, but I haven’t found any other Evangelical affiliations. They admit they might lose some donors, but they don’t appear too worried about it.
They can do what they wish. It’s a free country. But they shouldn’t be allowed to call themselves Evangelical without pushback. We shouldn’t just moan and whimper about how Evangelicalism is “going to the dogs.” There should be a backlash of some sort. Behavior like this must not be allowed to stand. These are not Evangelicals and should not be labeling themselves as such without a fight.
Do we just stand by and let the Evangelical frog get slowly boiled? Shouldn’t be be goading its hindquarters with something sharp?
Well said, Eric! I completely agree with you. I think I also read that several of their board members (or leaders of some kind) left them precisely over this issue. If so, I assume it must've been the more conservative Christians among them. Anyway if someone reading this is in position to do something about any of this, please do so!
DeleteI wish I had a checklist of noble and winsome ways to fight back against counterfeits.
ReplyDeleteI was just watching the documentary on Michelle Obama’s book signing tour for “Becoming.” And they begin the film with her listening to some Gospel music (Kirk Franklin) to get in the right mood for meeting people. Then, when she arrives at a celebration for the book’s debut, she forms a prayer circle with the creative staff from the publisher!
Just having left the most anti-Christian administration in the history of the country, and she slams us in the face with her religious roots? I don’t know how to take that. You don’t get to sit in your room all day, downing pulled-pork sandwiches and filling a sketchbook full of portraits of Muhammad, and still call yourself a Muslim.
For what it's worth, I think sometimes it's justifiable to use less than "noble and winsome" ways to fight back. I think that's one thing that some people couldn't quite understand about Trump. Trump is like an ignoble instrument that many Americans used to fight back. But some people have no stomach for getting their hands dirty in a fight and want every fight to be a clean fight.
DeleteThe left fawns over Michelle Obama, but I never saw anything worth fawning about in her. The left ridicules Trump for being a reality tv star, but Hollywood and the mainstream media (among others) made the Obamas. I think the mainstream media and Hollywood wanted the Obamas to be the next American Camelot (a la the Kennedys), so they did everything in their power to glamorize the Obamas. In this respect, the Obamas are reality tv stars - and they're worse than hollow and insubstantial.
Is it true that homosexual men (sodomites) are more likely than anyone else to harm children? What is usually the basis to support this argument... is it from Scripture or actual studies/research (or both)?
ReplyDeleteI don't know how likely or unlikely homosexuals as a group are to harm children. But I'd object to handing orphans to homosexual couples even if they didn't harm children in terms of say physical abuse. I'd object because I don't think it's good for a child to be raised by two homosexual men or two homosexual women, even if they are otherwise "loving" parents. The homosexual relationship itself is a fundamental problem.
DeleteThat said, I do think there's relevant research out there but I just haven't properly reviewed it. In addition, much of the research itself has become highly politicized.
Well, by the title of the post: "handing orphans over to sodomites" i assumed the primary concern was male homosexuals sodomizing boys (or any gender of the child for that matter) they adopt.
ReplyDeleteIf there is more of a danger of sodomites sexually abusing children than lesbians sexually abusing children, that may be the case. I have no idea. The relevant research is likely being deleted from history because its a "hateful" research.
And yes, its fundamentally not a good idea either way for two men or two women homosexuals to adopt children. I just though the use of "sodomite" in the title was intended to highlight two males adopting children being the worse of the two scenarios.
And, on the topic of choosing between two evils: I've wondered if it would it be better for an unborn baby to be given up for adoption to homosexuals or be aborted. I realize either scenario is scary, but i think if i had to give counsel to a mother/couple who have already made up their minds they will not allow this baby to be born and considering abortion as the only solution, what if a pair of otherwise "loving" homosexuals was willing to adopt rather than resort to the abortion? These are scary times when these are realities we face...
1. I'd say it's immoral whether it's male homosexuals or female homosexuals.
Delete2. Speaking in general, would it necessarily be better to die in the womb than to grow up an orphan? How would one even know in advance?
3. Why wouldn't the same logic justify abortion for other miserable conditions such as extreme poverty?
4. In general, I'm sure we'd agree abortion of an otherwise healthy baby is evil. That is, I'm not referring to abortion in special cases like saving the mother's life.
The state of being an orphan may be a privation, but is it an evil?
Note being an orphan isn't the same as making someone an orphan (e.g. murdering their parents).
As such, how would one make a case for committing what's clearly evil (abortion) in order to avoid a privation like not having parents?
1. yes it is either way. If there was no specific reason why you used the word sodomite then that's fine i was just wondering.
Delete2. id say its better to be born in ANY circumstance, vs be aborted.
3. per point 2: i don't think any condition of existence justifies abortion. Not sure if my previous comments implied otherwise.
4. yes.
Being an orphan isn't the worst state of existence in itself i suppose.
And again, i don't know if my previous comments were interpreted as i was in favour of abortion vs having homosexual parents. The opposite was my intention. If homosexual "parents" were willing to adopt a child that is on its way to certain abortion, id opt for the homosexual adoption (if orphanage wasn't a third option).
1. The title is an allusion to Sodom (and Gomorrah) in the Bible. Not that all homosexuals today are perfectly equivalent to the men of Sodom and Gomorrah, or vice versa, but enough of the homosexual culture is deserving of judgment.
Delete2. Thanks, Eyezayah, it's good to get clarification about what you meant. I was just mainly trying to respond to your own questions. For example, when you mused: "I've wondered if it would it be better for an unborn baby to be given up for adoption to homosexuals or be aborted."