-
Website
http://randythomas.org/ -
Original page
http://randythomas.org/2008/10/27/letter-from-a-christian-in-2012-focus-action-letter/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
However, I've found (both online and in actual professional life now that I am old and in that world) that over email/online, a "professional" tone can often come off condescending or rude to the reader. He or she doesn't exactly know what your intentions are, so if you are arguing against someone and using a tone you think to be professional, the reader may see the argumentation and assume an attacking or confrontational tone since there is no inflection or tone of voice involved.
I know I'm not immune to coming off mean or rude from time to time, but I think generally I don't (and I try hard not to). Maybe using a tone that leans more towards "friendly" than professional would work better when arguing/debating over the internet. That way your reader knows you are arguing/debating actual points of the conversation rather than taking shots at him or her personal.
It's hard for me to be friendly online. I usually stick to trying to be professional and plainspoken. I suppose this can sound a little cold and condescending, so I see Brady's point. It's simply not my intention, and I don't really know how to take a more conversational approach to this, though I'm sure it would be beneficial.
And yeah, Ellie, I think Randy and I do agree on most things (at least the essentials of the Christian faith, and even about what is and isn't godly sexuality). My disagreements with him are more about public policy or ideas about the current state of culture. Whatever personality or intellectual conflicts we might have are secondary to the fact that we're both brothers in Christ and are unified by our belief in Him.
Agreed.
In that case, though, God will use the hardships of the Body of Christ (as He always has) to show who the true Believers are. It's sad to see how many are falling away from truth simply because they will not stand to be held in contempt by the court of Public Opinion. That's not even real persecution.
Should some sort of universal health system come about or even an increase in gov funded health care, soon the fear of limited resources will pop up. Who will be the first denied care- or even life?
This is what will happen by 2012.
I remember a conversation I had with a Christian friend, a man who sincerely loves God, who really didn't understand what was wrong with letting 'Mrs. Schaivo die'- a woman alive and breathing (on her own, I might add) who may or may not have been in a persistant vegetative state, who had the misfortune of complete dependence on other human beings and their subjective ideas of right and wrong. I REALLY have to have conversations how murder is wrong with other Christians. Incidentally, do you know how many Terri Schaivos there have been and how many more there are?
But homosexuality is far more sensational, and seems to be all but the theme of this letter. So, instead of noticing how euthanasia is sneaking into the state of California and PA suicide is boldly marching into another, let's just pay attention to the squeaky wheel of gay marriage.
I'm sorry, Randy. Gay marriage is serious and should be dealt with. I'm just really frustrated with Christians' seemingly obsession wih sex, while we ignore those with no voice who can't throw themselves a parade every year, ignoring Luke 14:21's mandate to "'Hurry into the streets and narrow roads of the city and bring poor people here. Bring those whose bodies are diseased. Bring those who cannot walk and those who are blind.'"
Why do you think we're meant to hurry? Time's short.
Okay, I'm stepping off the self-righteous box now.
Also, I'd just like to clarify that the reason prop 8 is on the ballot this year is that Christian groups (lead by state churches) realized that the court was probably going to strike down the DOMA (which it did) and so began working on the amendment. If that hadn't happened our attention probably would be on other things.
AB 2747 mandates that people with a terminal illness be given end of life options. This includes allowing for the recommendation by a nurse or physician assistant of unnatural death via 'palliative sedation. One may opt for this and thus dehydrate to death. The bill was sponsered by Compassion & Choices, the new name for the pro-euthanasia Hemlock Society.
1. "If this happens will I fight it or adjust to it?"
2. "How can I best continue to fulfill my responsibility to family and ministry if this happens?"
3. "If I fight this, what price am I willing to pay?"
4. "If I don't fight this, can I live with myself?"
You might try taking each of the points raised in Doc's letter, then asking yourself those four questions. It's sure helped me put this all in perspective.
Joe Dallas
I read the letter and although it is theoretical, it is very possible that many of these events will wea ve their way through our lives, regardless of who becomes President. What came to my mind was Ephesians 5:15-16 "Be careful how you live - not as unwise, but wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lords' will is".
Regardless, the Lord knows those who are His, and He will preserve and take care of His own, that's a promise. I just read Psalm 33, and it is of great comfort to me, especially as I watch our leaders scrambling to find answers to things that are too high for them! Our job: " Keep yourself in the love of God, as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ". (Jude 21).
That's what I plan to do! Maranatha!
The idea that Christians are on the brink of being "stigmatized, run out of the public square and thrown into bankruptcy or jail because of their religious beliefs" is hyperbole. Surely things are becoming more challenging, but mostly because of cultural shift, not political ones. And even if everything in that letter came true (which I highly doubt even a fraction of it would), we still would be better off than the early Christians. Where do we get the idea that we aren't supposed to be stigmatized by the surrounding culture? We're Christians, for crying out loud.
If the culture supports us, then we really need to examine ourselves and make sure we're doing what's right, because it's not supposed to support us.
At the same time, it doesn't mean we don't need to be loud about the threat to religious liberty where threatened. Hyperbole? ... eh ... not really sold on it. Again, regardless, there are important underlying issues to keep an eye on.
... ok ...
Anyone who reads my blog, and doesn't impose their worst assumptions about me (like you apparently do), knows that I would never equate homosexuality with pedophilia.
Unfortunately pedophiles exist in both heterosexual and homosexual realms.
Jay, you always seem to know better than me so perhaps you should just make your points into new blog posts at your own site.
That said, I do often feel like your judgments of me are condescending but it is my choice on whether I allow them through or respond to them.
Of course simply posting a letter doesn't mean you agree with everything that letter says. I'm not saying you should make a line-by-line analysis of what you agree and disagree with. That wasn't your post's intention and I appreciate that. However, considering your line of ministry (which admirably involves dispelling some of the more unhelpful attitudes about gays and lesbians amongst Christians) I think at least saying that you disagreed with the letter's insinuations about homosexuals in the Boy Scouts being pedophiles would have been helpful.
Silence doesn't always equal consent, but in some cases, it can really look like it.
Next time try saying something like "Randy it looks like Focus is implying that homosexuality = pedophilia? ... do you agree with that?"
My answer would have been, "I am not sure that is what they are implying but if they were ... no. I don't agree with that."
Simple questions for clarification are just that ... simple. Assuming the negative and then trying to force someone to defend themselves (or be guilty through silence) against your negative assumptions is called manipulation. And that is as offensive as being implicated in stigmatizing a community I care deeply for.
If you didn't want someone to assume the negative, you could have put a disclaimer in the post stating your disagreement with Focus' stigmatizing implications. Or, if you didn't believe they were trying to be stigmatizing, you could have simply said so after my initial comment, instead of taking me to task for making an assumption and dragging this conversation out much longer than it needed to be.
I hope this doesn't sound condescending to you. That isn't my intention. I don't go out of my way to make judgments about you nor do I think I'm better than you, and I try to keep my tone as professional as possible. I would appreciate that same courtesy in return.
And when you accuse me of impliciitly, passively or tacitly promoting a stigmatizing message ... do you really think I am supposed to allow that to go unchallenged?
As for courtesy and professionalism, those are not two elements I get from you when you throw verbal bombs my way in reaction to someone else.
This obviously is not going to go anywhere. I don't quite know how to disagree with you without offending you, since you seem to read everything I write as condescending even when I'm trying my best to be polite. If you have any tips on how you would like to be addressed, I'd appreciate it, because honestly you're the only blogger who responds to me this way, and my attitude is pretty much the same with everyone I come across online.
That said, unless you have any tips, we've reached the end of our productivity here. Have a pleasant evening.
I honestly think you assume the worst of me and then expect that I have to answer to you about those assumptions.
What other bloggers have to do with that ... not sure. That's what I get from you with almost every comment.
If I am reading condescension into this, please forgive me ... I am trying to read it objectively and still come away with that observation.
Good evening to you too.
Obviously you didn't read the letter, carefully. Fof did not compare homosexuality with pedophilia, at all. All they said in that regards, was that the Boy Scouts closed their business, because The Boy Scouts didn't want gay scoutmasters to sleep in tents with other scouts. By rules, all scoutmasters share tents with their respective scouts, and in order to promote unit cohesion, scoutmasters of the opposite sex, are not allowed to share the same tents, assuming that majority of people are heterosexual. This is the reason why gay scoutmasters are not allowed to work for the Boy Scouts, likewise lesbians are disallowed for Girl Scouts.
No implication of sex, or pedophilia.
I think you are having biases against Focus on the Family.
There are no scoutmasters 'of the opposite sex' in the Boy Scouts, because it is boys (and men) only. There is no prohibition against lesbian involvement in the Girl Scouts. You are right, though, Jay is a little biased against Focus ;)
Anyway, my point was that they don't allow gays to be scoutmasters for the Boy Scouts because scoutmasters do many things together with other boys, including sharing the same tents, and it is expected for scoutmasters to be always psychologicall prepared, so they are not allowed in order to prevent any possible temptations.
Your second explanation is better.
I also remember another one, Lillian Morris, was a contestant on my favorite TV show, Survivor. I'm sure there have been many, many others.
So... pwnd? ;-)
The idea that Christians are on the brink of being "stigmatized, run out of the public square and thrown into bankruptcy or jail because of their religious beliefs" is hyperbole. Surely things are becoming more challenging, but mostly because of cultural shift, not political ones. And even if everything in that letter came true (which I highly doubt even a fraction of it would), we still would be better off than the early Christians. Where do we get the idea that we aren't supposed to be stigmatized by the surrounding culture? We're Christians, for crying out loud.
If the culture supports us, then we really need to examine ourselves and make sure we're doing what's right, because it's not supposed to support us.
I read the letter and although it is theoretical, it is very possible that many of these events will wea ve their way through our lives, regardless of who becomes President. What came to my mind was Ephesians 5:15-16 "Be careful how you live - not as unwise, but wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lords' will is".
Regardless, the Lord knows those who are His, and He will preserve and take care of His own, that's a promise. I just read Psalm 33, and it is of great comfort to me, especially as I watch our leaders scrambling to find answers to things that are too high for them! Our job: " Keep yourself in the love of God, as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ". (Jude 21).
That's what I plan to do! Maranatha!
1. "If this happens will I fight it or adjust to it?"
2. "How can I best continue to fulfill my responsibility to family and ministry if this happens?"
3. "If I fight this, what price am I willing to pay?"
4. "If I don't fight this, can I live with myself?"
You might try taking each of the points raised in Doc's letter, then asking yourself those four questions. It's sure helped me put this all in perspective.
Joe Dallas
For example, if Fred Phelps were to run for any elected office, I would join you in protesting his ascendancy to any level of government. And while he is an ass with no shot at being elected to anything but head ass of Westboro, there was a time in history when he would have been a popular leader who would probably kill people like us.
That's not a good example but ... people have done the forecasting of the worst to help prevent it on both sides. I have no idea that this is why Focus did this but do you get what I am saying?
With Obama, the stretch is a lot bigger imo. You might not agree on that point (well I'm sure you think it is a bigger stretch than Felps, just you still think it is less of a stretch to get from an Obama Presidency to the letter than I do).
Anyway, I see the point, I just think the jump from a presidency to those conclusions is too big of a jump to make.
At the same time, it doesn't mean we don't need to be loud about the threat to religious liberty where threatened. Hyperbole? ... eh ... not really sold on it. Again, regardless, there are important underlying issues to keep an eye on.
Anyone who reads my blog, and doesn't impose their worst assumptions about me like you do, knows that I would never equate homosexuality with pedophilia.
Unfortunately pedophiles exist in both heterosexual and homosexual realms.
Jay, you always seem to know better than me so perhaps you should just make your points into new blog posts at your own site.
Should some sort of universal health system come about or even an increase in gov funded health care, soon the fear of limited resources will pop up. Who will be the first denied care- or even life?
This is what will happen by 2012.
I remember a conversation I had with a Christian friend, a man who sincerely loves God, who really didn't understand what was wrong with letting 'Mrs. Schaivo die'- a woman alive and breathing (on her own, I might add) who may or may not have been in a persistant vegetative state, who had the misfortune of complete dependence on other human beings and their subjective ideas of right and wrong. I REALLY have to have conversations how murder is wrong with other Christians. Incidentally, do you know how many Terri Schaivos there have been and how many more there are?
But homosexuality is far more sensational, and seems to be all but the theme of this letter. So, instead of noticing how euthanasia is sneaking into the state of California and PA suicide is boldly marching into another, let's just pay attention to the squeaky wheel of gay marriage.
I'm sorry, Randy. Gay marriage is serious and should be dealt with. I'm just really frustrated with Christians' seemingly obsession wih sex, while we ignore those with no voice who can't throw themselves a parade every year, ignoring Luke 14:21's mandate to "'Hurry into the streets and narrow roads of the city and bring poor people here. Bring those whose bodies are diseased. Bring those who cannot walk and those who are blind.'"
Why do you think we're meant to hurry? Time's short.
Okay, I'm stepping off the self-righteous box now.
That said, I do often feel like your judgments of me are condescending but it is my choice on whether I allow them through or respond to them.
Of course simply posting a letter doesn't mean you agree with everything that letter says. I'm not saying you should make a line-by-line analysis of what you agree and disagree with. That wasn't your post's intention and I appreciate that. However, considering your line of ministry (which admirably involves dispelling some of the more unhelpful attitudes about gays and lesbians amongst Christians) I think at least saying that you disagreed with the letter's insinuations about homosexuals in the Boy Scouts being pedophiles would have been helpful.
Silence doesn't always equal consent, but in some cases, it can really look like it.
Also, I'd just like to clarify that the reason prop 8 is on the ballot this year is that Christian groups (lead by state churches) realized that the court was probably going to strike down the DOMA (which it did) and so began working on the amendment. If that hadn't happened our attention probably would be on other things.
In that case, though, God will use the hardships of the Body of Christ (as He always has) to show who the true Believers are. It's sad to see how many are falling away from truth simply because they will not stand to be held in contempt by the court of Public Opinion. That's not even real persecution.
AB 2747 mandates that people with a terminal illness be given end of life options. This includes allowing for the recommendation by a nurse or physician assistant of unnatural death via 'palliative sedation. One may opt for this and thus dehydrate to death. The bill was sponsered by Compassion & Choices, the new name for the pro-euthanasia Hemlock Society.
Next time try saying something like "Randy it looks like Focus is implying that homosexuality = pedophilia? ... do you agree with that?"
My answer would have been, "I am not sure that is what they are implying but if they were ... no. I don't agree with that."
Simple questions for clarification are just that ... simple. Assuming the negative and then trying to force someone to defend themselves (or be guilty through silence) against your negative assumptions is called manipulation. And that is as offensive as being implicated in stigmatizing a community I care deeply for.
For example, if Fred Phelps were to run for any elected office, I would join you in protesting his ascendancy to any level of government. And while he is an ass with no shot at being elected to anything but head ass of Westboro, there was a time in history when he would have been a popular leader who would probably kill people like us.
That's not a good example but ... people have done the forecasting of the worst to help prevent it on both sides. I have no idea that this is why Focus did this but do you get what I am saying?
If you didn't want someone to assume the negative, you could have put a disclaimer in the post stating your disagreement with Focus' stigmatizing implications. Or, if you didn't believe they were trying to be stigmatizing, you could have simply said so after my initial comment, instead of taking me to task for making an assumption and dragging this conversation out much longer than it needed to be.
I hope this doesn't sound condescending to you. That isn't my intention. I don't go out of my way to make judgments about you nor do I think I'm better than you, and I try to keep my tone as professional as possible. I would appreciate that same courtesy in return.
And when you accuse me of impliciitly, passively or tacitly promoting a stigmatizing message ... do you really think I am supposed to allow that to go unchallenged?
As for courtesy and professionalism, those are not two elements I get from you when you throw verbal bombs my way in reaction to someone else.
This obviously is not going to go anywhere. I don't quite know how to disagree with you without offending you, since you seem to read everything I write as condescending even when I'm trying my best to be polite. If you have any tips on how you would like to be addressed, I'd appreciate it, because honestly you're the only blogger who responds to me this way, and my attitude is pretty much the same with everyone I come across online.
That said, unless you have any tips, we've reached the end of our productivity here. Have a pleasant evening.
I honestly think you assume the worst of me and then expect that I have to answer to you about those assumptions.
What other bloggers have to do with that ... not sure. That's what I get from you with almost every comment.
If I am reading condescension into this, please forgive me ... I am trying to read it objectively and still come away with that observation.
Good evening to you too.
However, I've found (both online and in actual professional life now that I am old and in that world) that over email/online, a "professional" tone can often come off condescending or rude to the reader. He or she doesn't exactly know what your intentions are, so if you are arguing against someone and using a tone you think to be professional, the reader may see the argumentation and assume an attacking or confrontational tone since there is no inflection or tone of voice involved.
I know I'm not immune to coming off mean or rude from time to time, but I think generally I don't (and I try hard not to). Maybe using a tone that leans more towards "friendly" than professional would work better when arguing/debating over the internet. That way your reader knows you are arguing/debating actual points of the conversation rather than taking shots at him or her personal.
With Obama, the stretch is a lot bigger imo. You might not agree on that point (well I'm sure you think it is a bigger stretch than Felps, just you still think it is less of a stretch to get from an Obama Presidency to the letter than I do).
Anyway, I see the point, I just think the jump from a presidency to those conclusions is too big of a jump to make.
It's hard for me to be friendly online. I usually stick to trying to be professional and plainspoken. I suppose this can sound a little cold and condescending, so I see Brady's point. It's simply not my intention, and I don't really know how to take a more conversational approach to this, though I'm sure it would be beneficial.
And yeah, Ellie, I think Randy and I do agree on most things (at least the essentials of the Christian faith, and even about what is and isn't godly sexuality). My disagreements with him are more about public policy or ideas about the current state of culture. Whatever personality or intellectual conflicts we might have are secondary to the fact that we're both brothers in Christ and are unified by our belief in Him.
Agreed.
Obviously you didn't read the letter, carefully. Fof did not compare homosexuality with pedophilia, at all. All they said in that regards, was that the Boy Scouts closed their business, because The Boy Scouts didn't want gay scoutmasters to sleep in tents with other scouts. By rules, all scoutmasters share tents with their respective scouts, and in order to promote unit cohesion, scoutmasters of the opposite sex, are not allowed to share the same tents, assuming that majority of people are heterosexual. This is the reason why gay scoutmasters are not allowed to work for the Boy Scouts, likewise lesbians are disallowed for Girl Scouts.
No implication of sex, or pedophilia.
I think you are having biases against Focus on the Family.
There are no scoutmasters 'of the opposite sex' in the Boy Scouts, because it is boys (and men) only. There is no prohibition against lesbian involvement in the Girl Scouts. You are right, though, Jay is a little biased against Focus ;)
Anyway, my point was that they don't allow gays to be scoutmasters for the Boy Scouts because scoutmasters do many things together with other boys, including sharing the same tents, and it is expected for scoutmasters to be always psychologicall prepared, so they are not allowed in order to prevent any possible temptations.
Your second explanation is better.
I also remember another one, Lillian Morris, was a contestant on my favorite TV show, Survivor. I'm sure there have been many, many others.
So... pwnd? ;-)