Men only...

A brother just forwarded this link. Note that it's in the entertainment section.

Tim Bayly

Tim serves Clearnote Church, Bloomington, Indiana. He and Mary Lee have five children and fifteen grandchildren.

Comments

I read this article earlier today and thought the same thing. Straight to the point. Maybe all that time spent hunting in the woods is one of many other reasons things stay in perspective.

Having just listened to Phil's testimony, I imagine it has to do less with hunting in the woods and more with

just. reading. the. Word.

And he just lost his job for it, too.  A praiseworthy example for us, because it's going to happen more and more.

The article I read said he had been placed on indefinite hiatus after "comparing homosexuality to bestiality." Apparently they missed that he also compared it to "sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman..." In other words, he essentially said "all have sinned." This man preached more in these 4 or 5 sentences then most pastors do in a lifetime.

...so they remove a guy they semi-present as a crackpot and consider, merely by recording, sufficient entertainment to gawk at, simply for stating his belief that homosexuality is sinful:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/entertainment2/57282271-223/robertson-sin-p...

Totalists can tolerate no criticism or deviation, wusses.

x*D

And they think we're hateful: there is the occasional "liberal" exception who is, perhaps, truly liberal (e.g. Allan Bloom...who liked to prick at the taboo on disapproval of homosexuality all the while, if his friend's to-Bloom-promised post mortem book released is to be believed, he i.e. Bloom was homosexual himsef), but fewer and fewer now...it seems like those who scream bigots very often tend to be the narrow and careless of mind.

I attended a conference once with one speaker discussing how hard the LGBT people he dealt with really have it with regards being attacked and harassed, and that approving or not we (the Christians his lecture was directed towards) must understand this when dealing with such people if we are really going to be "loving", yet I didn't hear any of us go around stating "this guy being disapproving or opposed to me in some way can't be tolerated!" (Even as, I think, many must have approved of the it's-all-medical + often-but-not-always some-kind-of-child-trauma sort-of approach he took though, the reason for taking that is he was a academic who studied the roots and backgrounds of homosexual people generally.)

Then again he was a research-based psychiatrist who also said that when parents and families who brought someone homosexual (especially youth), plopped them down before him and commanded "fix him!/her!" he BOTH rejected such a strange display as unethical AND would ask the potential-"patient" (is that what psychiatrists call those they talk to?) and ask "is this what YOU want, because I can't--and don't--change people against their will, nor ever promise to change them, people have to want to change and I am here to support"...after kicking-out the parents, even, to ensure they weren't threatening, intimidating, strongly suggesting...and he talked freely both of people who seemed to be able to get out of that lifestyle (and get harrassed then-on not only by non-LGBT but ESPECIALLY and AGGRESSIVELY attacked by the LGBQT[future initials inevitable so better reserve this space] and either become "heterosexual" (i.e. sexual) or celibate and...oh yeah, the hegemony was out for his blood too: one time giving a speech precisely on this a University VP stood-up, invaded the stage in the presentation hall, and started screaming at him for "homophobia" such that another faculty member rises, confronts the VP onstage before everyone and starts screaming back "YOU'RE PROVING HIS POINT!!!!!!!" with rage in his voice at, I think, not so much his message but that he had gotten slapped-awake and offended by the psychiatrist and then doubly humiliated by the VP showing how correct his enemy was.

x*D

The world is nuts...by which I mean sinful. It thinks it is wise, it can't even uphold its own maxim of "tolerance" though, because to tolerate the good is to be condemned in conscience by their shining upon darkness...even when that "good" is essentially watered-down to an extreme, non-confrontational, and merely supportive of the people they supposed defend in whatever their decisions are because they are attacked by one group constantly and then if they decide they don't want their current lifestyle and its major attractions anymore, are not only attacked by their own [former] group like some kind of traitor, but even attacked by other heterosexuals who support 'LGBT' as well as those who don't, such that people who make-up their mind in some way against the dominant forces have no support as individuals with a degree of autonomy and respectability to choose their how they want to live.

A pity I have to go to Roman Catholicism to get something like this:

Evil talks about tolerance only when it’s weak. When it gains the upper hand, its vanity always requires the destruction of the good and the innocent, because the example of good and innocent lives is an ongoing witness against it. So it always has been. So it always will be. And America has no special immunity to becoming an enemy of its own founding beliefs about human freedom, human dignity, the limited power of the state, and the sovereignty of God.

Not that there isn't anyone in the Reformed world who might at least say something in this vein but given the Reformed weltanschaung most Reformed ministers should be capable of something like this.  Chaput is spot on.

Add new comment