Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Minn. pastor to keep job despite gay report - AP

A Lutheran pastor ardently critical of allowing gays into the clergy is on leave from his Minneapolis church after a gay magazine reported his attendance at a support group for men struggling with same-sex attraction.

http://www.pressherald.com/news/ap?articleID=4801267" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Ho-hum.......just another day in the life of another American religious hypocrite.

mainejeff wrote:Minn. pastor to keep job despite gay report - AP

A Lutheran pastor ardently critical of allowing gays into the clergy is on leave from his Minneapolis church after a gay magazine reported his attendance at a support group for men struggling with same-sex attraction.

http://www.pressherald.com/news/ap?articleID=4801267" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Ho-hum.......just another day in the life of another American religious hypocrite.

I bet hes a republican to boot..............................

He's obviously not following his religion's views, the ELCA recently voted to accept gay Pastors.

mrklean wrote:

mainejeff wrote:Minn. pastor to keep job despite gay report - AP

A Lutheran pastor ardently critical of allowing gays into the clergy is on leave from his Minneapolis church after a gay magazine reported his attendance at a support group for men struggling with same-sex attraction.

http://www.pressherald.com/news/ap?articleID=4801267" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Ho-hum.......just another day in the life of another American religious hypocrite.

I bet hes a republican to boot..............................

At least you're consistent.

"struggling with same sex attraction" is not neccessarily the same as being gay. At least he's joined a support group to keep the gay demons deep down inside.

The real story there is how unethical this "Lavender" publication and the reporter involved were. What they did is pretty disgusting. And there's no hypocrisy at all on the part of the clergyman involved. It's like if someone believes people shouldn't drink and they say so. They personally have a strong temptation to drink so they join AA. That does not make them a hypocrite. In fact, it shows that they have a commitment to their belief in that regard.

mrklean wrote:

mainejeff wrote:Minn. pastor to keep job despite gay report - AP

A Lutheran pastor ardently critical of allowing gays into the clergy is on leave from his Minneapolis church after a gay magazine reported his attendance at a support group for men struggling with same-sex attraction.

http://www.pressherald.com/news/ap?articleID=4801267" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Ho-hum.......just another day in the life of another American religious hypocrite.

I bet hes a republican to boot..............................

...and probably White too, that motherfucker.

JohnStOnge wrote:The real story there is how unethical this "Lavender" publication and the reporter involved were. What they did is pretty disgusting. And there's no hypocrisy at all on the part of the clergyman involved. It's like if someone believes people shouldn't drink and they say so. They personally have a strong temptation to drink so they join AA. That does not make them a hypocrite. In fact, it shows that they have a commitment to their belief in that regard.

There may be no hypocrisy (as I already brilliantly pointed out), but the belief that one needs to cure the gay out of themselves is just plain irrational and silly.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:The real story there is how unethical this "Lavender" publication and the reporter involved were. What they did is pretty disgusting. And there's no hypocrisy at all on the part of the clergyman involved. It's like if someone believes people shouldn't drink and they say so. They personally have a strong temptation to drink so they join AA. That does not make them a hypocrite. In fact, it shows that they have a commitment to their belief in that regard.

There may be no hypocrisy (as I already brilliantly pointed out), but the belief that one needs to cure the gay out of themselves is just plain irrational and silly.

I doubt any of these groups are promoting a "cure" for anything.

I used to be involved in something like that, but when I found out that the most they could do was hold me accountable to not sleeping with other men, I just asked "What's the point then? Why would God make people attracted to the same sex?" and just started asking more questions and seeking more answers from outside the evangelical political movement, which believe it or not is run by humans that are as error-prone as every other human that ever lived but Jesus Christ.

ATrain wrote:I used to be involved in something like that, but when I found out that the most they could do was hold me accountable to not sleeping with other men, I just asked "What's the point then? Why would God make people attracted to the same sex?" and just started asking more questions and seeking more answers from outside the evangelical political movement, which believe it or not is run by humans that are as error-prone as every other human that ever lived but Jesus Christ.

Rep points!

ATrain wrote:I used to be involved in something like that, but when I found out that the most they could do was hold me accountable to not sleeping with other men, I just asked "What's the point then? Why would God make people attracted to the same sex?" and just started asking more questions and seeking more answers from outside the evangelical political movement, which believe it or not is run by humans that are as error-prone as every other human that ever lived but Jesus Christ.

my buddy Jamie believes God made certain people gay as a means of population control.

There may be no hypocrisy (as I already brilliantly pointed out), but the belief that one needs to cure the gay out of themselves is just plain irrational and silly.

I disagree. If you are actually truely homosexual to the point that you actually prefer sexual contact with members of your own sex over sexual contact with members of the opposite sex, you have a sexual orientation that is inconsistent with the underlying "basis" of the drive. There is something wrong with you. And there is nothing irrational about attempting to cure it.

What's irrational is believing that homosexuality, as defined by an actual preference for copulation with members of your own sex over copulation with members of the opposite sex, is not disfunctional. It's disfunctional. It is an "off the mark" sexual orientation and the fact that so many people buy the idea that it's not is a testament to the power of egalitarian propaganda.

JohnStOnge wrote:

There may be no hypocrisy (as I already brilliantly pointed out), but the belief that one needs to cure the gay out of themselves is just plain irrational and silly.

I disagree. If you are actually truely homosexual to the point that you actually prefer sexual contact with members of your own sex over sexual contact with members of the opposite sex, you have a sexual orientation that is inconsistent with the underlying "basis" of the drive. There is something wrong with you. And there is nothing irrational about attempting to cure it.

What's irrational is believing that homosexuality, as defined by an actual preference for copulation with members of your own sex over copulation with members of the opposite sex, is not disfunctional. It's disfunctional. It is an "off the mark" sexual orientation and the fact that so many people buy the idea that it's not is a testament to the power of egalitarian propaganda.

How's the oil clean-up going?

The biggest challenge, IMO, for Christianity in the 21st century is how to effectively minister to those whom are gay and sincerely want to follow Jesus Christ. Sadly, it is gonna drive a deeper wedge into Christianity and I do not blame the gay person for that. Opponents of gays love to bring up the 1st chapter of Romans as the driving point and while I have read it, and it doesn't speak of "unnatural affection", I have heard scholars explain that this is not necessarily as it seems. I wish Dungeon Joe posted on here more as I would like for him to chime in being that he is a minister and all. Peace.

How's the oil clean-up going?

Well, here we go off topic but since you asked I'll go ahead and say that I keep trying to tell you guys that it's not as bad as depicted by the media (shocker). Like last week I got a report that analysis of oil entering coastal waters is characterized by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon levels that are "90 percent depleted relative to hopane." The short translation of that is that the oil reaching coastal Louisiana marshes may be ugly but most of the more toxic material is gone. I think it's very unlikely that it's going to "kill" the estuaries, etc. Also I've been out in the marshes, once specifically targeting the most heavily impacted system (Barataria estuary). It's not that bad. I mean, yes, it's bad and it'd be better if it wasn't happening. But it's not the end of the Gulf environment world.

I also think people need to bear the magnitude of the system the oil is going into in mind. Louisiana has about 40% of the estuarine area in the United States. The Gulf has a lot of water in it. It's warm water with lots of biological activity and biodegrading potential. As far as inputs go, consider that the average discharge of the Mississippi River is something on the order of 470,000 cubic feet per second (http://www.lacoast.gov/landchange/basins/mr/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). That converts to about 3,515,844 gallons per SECOND. I've seen various estimates of the leak discharge rate but I think 1,000,000 gallons per DAY almost certainly overstates it. So let's use that.

If we do that means the input of water from the Mississippi River alone is somewhere in the general order of magnitude of around 300,000 times the discharge rate of the leak. And that's just one input that's not nearly as large as the inputs of ocean currents.

Anyway, the bottom line is that this experience for me is typical. I've been involved in a number of incidents over my lifetime that were covered by the media. And the impression I've developed is that the media almost ALWAYS make things look a lot worse than they actually are. And the only reason I qualified that with "almost" is that Katrina and Rita really WERE pretty bad. But, even then, the media had things going on like the stuff about the "toxic soup" being discharged out of the New Orleans area when in reality all of the data said there wasn't much of a pollution problem, seafood was completely safe to eat, etc. Even EPA water samplling IN the flooded streets of New Orleans didn't produce results indicating heavier than normal contamination. There was never a "toxic soup" but I'd bet to this day there are people who think there was because the media harped on that so much when the people involved had absolutely no idea as to what they were talking about.

BTW, I won't diminish the human tragedies going on. But the sad thing to me is that, in my opinion, most of the human tragedy is caused by perceptions. There is a hugely exaggerated impression of the public health risk associated with oil spills and government has to respond as though the perception is reality. If they don't people refuse to believe them and think they're being lied to.

Like the issue of Seafood safety. If you want I can refer you to NOAA documents discussing historical oil spills and noting that finding contamination of seafood reaching levels of concern...and they were conservative levels of concern to begin with...is rare even in the most heavily oiled areas. There is absolutely no real public health reason for fisheries closures. But if fisheries aren't closed consumers think they're going to get poisoned. In reality the only real threat is that the seafood will smell or taste like oil but even that isn't likely because it's also going to be obvious to the fishermen and/or processors.

But the perception means that thousands of commercial fishermen, guides, and recreational charterboat captains are in serious trouble and will probably lose their livelihoods. That's where the real disaster is. That and having the Adminisration make the impact even worse by shutting down deepwater drilling.

Buy Maine seafood!.....it tastes better anyway.

mainejeff wrote:Buy Maine seafood!.....it tastes better anyway.

Well, Maine certainly produces better lobsters than Louisiana does. I'll give it that.

JohnStOnge wrote:

There may be no hypocrisy (as I already brilliantly pointed out), but the belief that one needs to cure the gay out of themselves is just plain irrational and silly.

I disagree. If you are actually truely homosexual to the point that you actually prefer sexual contact with members of your own sex over sexual contact with members of the opposite sex, you have a sexual orientation that is inconsistent with the underlying "basis" of the drive. There is something wrong with you. And there is nothing irrational about attempting to cure it.

What's irrational is believing that homosexuality, as defined by an actual preference for copulation with members of your own sex over copulation with members of the opposite sex, is not disfunctional. It's disfunctional. It is an "off the mark" sexual orientation and the fact that so many people buy the idea that it's not is a testament to the power of egalitarian propaganda.

And sodomy.

JohnStOnge wrote:BTW, I won't diminish the human tragedies going on. But the sad thing to me is that, in my opinion, most of the human tragedy is caused by perceptions. There is a hugely exaggerated impression of the public health risk associated with oil spills and government has to respond as though the perception is reality. If they don't people refuse to believe them and think they're being lied to.

Like the issue of Seafood safety. If you want I can refer you to NOAA documents discussing historical oil spills and noting that finding contamination of seafood reaching levels of concern...and they were conservative levels of concern to begin with...is rare even in the most heavily oiled areas. There is absolutely no real public health reason for fisheries closures. But if fisheries aren't closed consumers think they're going to get poisoned. In reality the only real threat is that the seafood will smell or taste like oil but even that isn't likely because it's also going to be obvious to the fishermen and/or processors.

But the perception means that thousands of commercial fishermen, guides, and recreational charterboat captains are in serious trouble and will probably lose their livelihoods. That's where the real disaster is. That and having the Adminisration make the impact even worse by shutting down deepwater drilling.

Take, for instance, turtle soup...

And make it snappy.




http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/06/25-9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ATrain wrote:I used to be involved in something like that, but when I found out that the most they could do was hold me accountable to not sleeping with other men, I just asked "What's the point then? Why would God make people attracted to the same sex?" and just started asking more questions and seeking more answers from outside the evangelical political movement, which believe it or not is run by humans that are as error-prone as every other human that ever lived but Jesus Christ.

It feels good to eat too much.
It feels good to drink too much.
It might feel good to snort cocaine.
It might feel good to hit houndawg.
Maybe it feels good for pedophiles to do their evil.

Just because it feels good, does that make it right? Why does God give us temptations? Does that make it natural? Even if violence is natural for humans, does that make it good? Should it therefore be accepted as mainstream? If we are to be fair and accepting of others, should we not make violent people clergy in our churches or encourage tolerance of their behavior in society starting in public schools?

No.