Filed under Sexuality & Gender on September 28th, 2011 by Michael L. Brown

Wayne Besen is a passionate gay activist and non-religious, liberal Jew who has dedicated himself to opposing the idea that homosexuals can become heterosexual. To that end, he founded the Truth Wins Out organization, and he writes extensively on the subject of “ex-gays,” with a monograph, hundreds of posts, and articles for the Huffington Post to his credit. (As to the question of “ex-gays,” see Chapter Twelve of my book A Queer Thing Happened to America.) Wayne has also appeared on O’Reilly and other TV shows, and he is never at a loss for words, especially when it comes to the “religious right.” In that spirit, he has graced me with several articles, including the not so subtly-titled, “Michael Brown Is an Anti-Gay Monster” (August 31, 2011).

In that article, Wayne claims that my “game is to try inciting followers to possible violence against LGBT people, while innocently maintaining that he loves homosexuals and simply wants them to meet his militant and perverted version of God.” He calls me “a slick dude,” a “sick and cynical” person, someone with “a messiah complex [who] is a diabolical individual who aims to manipulate impressionable followers to launch some sort of holy war,” noting however, that, I’m “too much of a coward to start the war” myself.

He even confesses, “I do strongly believe to my core that Brown’s ultimate goal is to create the conditions for a nasty physical clash.” Indeed, “The madman fully understands that he only has to create a hostile climate to inflame the most unstable of his thugs and they will eventually provoke the type of confrontation that this pathological monster deeply desires.”

God bless dear Wayne! He certainly has a way with words. After all, it’s not every day that you get called a pathological monster, a slick, sick, cynical, diabolical madman with a messiah complex, as well as get accused of trying to incite a bunch of unstable thugs “to engage in a violent physical clash with LGBT people.” (For what I actually advocate, namely, a totally non-violent, moral, cultural, and spiritual revolution, click here.)

Wayne even weighs in again in his own comments section, calling me an “ego-maniac,” while other commenters follow in his footsteps with sophisticated posts like these: “I would not be surprised if ‘Mein Kampf’ were to be found on his nightstand.” (This was followed by other comments too vulgar to print.) What a delightful, thoughtful bunch!


But I am only one of Wayne’s targets. In his most recent attack, “Mainstream Christians Must Stand Up to the Religious Right” (September 19, 2011), he reviles the hundreds of Christians with whom I attended the recent gay pride event in Charlotte, claiming that we “confronted and harassed festival attendees with [our] arrogant slogan ‘God Has A Better Way.’” He refers to us as “despicable bullies” and speaks of our “fanatical behavior,” although, for the record, our group of roughly 400 consisted of grandparents, moms, dads, kids, and college-age singles who handed out about 2,500 free bottles of water (labeled “Jesus Loves You”) and engaged in civil and respectful conversation with any who cared to talk with us. Oh, the horror!

All this, however, is the backdrop for Wayne’s heartfelt appeal. He is desperately concerned that religious “extremists” like me, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, and Michelle Bachman will “defile America – and permanently define Christianity.” Instead, Wayne wants the “Religious Left” to rise up and show America what Christianity really is. He writes, “It is time to stand up, speak out, and give voice to our values. If not now, when? Are we going to wait until it is too late and we have lost our country?”

The problem, of course, is that the “Religious Left” has rejected most of the fundamental tenets of the historic Christian faith, denying the authority of Scripture, espousing religious pluralism, defending abortion, and championing homosexuality. Could this be why these so-called “mainstream” churches are in such numerical decline while conservative churches are growing exponentially in many parts of the world? And could it be that the conspicuous lack of moral and spiritual absolutes in many of these “mainstream” churches is part of what fails to inspire their constituents?

Wayne himself is not optimistic about the prospects, writing, “This reluctance to stand up and speak out has created a hazardous vacuum where only the shrill and unreasonable voices of fundamentalism are heard. Instead of the dialogue that many progressives of faith claim to desire, this perceived weakness creates a lopsided right wing monologue, which is having a deleterious effect on our nation and the world.”

The reality, of course, is that the “Christianity” Wayne calls for bears little resemblance to the faith of the Scriptures or the faith of history, but that should not surprise us. After all, what else should we expect when a non-religious, gay Jewish liberal tries to redefine Christianity?

Spread the Word:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Mixx
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Possibly Related Posts:

Leave a comment »

  1. I don’t see that Wayne is “redefining Christianity”, I see that he is reacting to a repressive brand of it. There is quite a different reaction when people are clearly loved and not subtly tolerated. And, for the record, there were about 175 people in red shirts and about 28 street evangelists; I counted from across the street and in my pictures. I think it is interesting that a decision was made to bring so many children (maybe 1/10 were under 12 ish.) when the words used to describe Pride Charlotte in your own pre-event media warned “expect this to be a challenging day as sexual immorality, wickedness, and rejection will abound.” I would have used a bit more judgment as a parent. Of course, that was NOT the case, none of that was bounding or a bounding. BUT, had I been on the GHABW team, I would have found a sitter for my kids.
    It’s interesting to both use a photo with many children and hold a anti-goodness view of the event. These are contradictory. I hope you get your numbers straight on this. One of the FIRE students actually wrote that half the people there were from GHABW. Dang, it may all sound great, but it is still a lie. As for Wayne, he does not identify as Christian–you do. Treat him as Jesus would treat him. I think Jesus may have just let this go and turned the other cheek and moved on doing good. I also don’t think Jesus would have donned a red shirt.

  2. [...] order to “dialogue” with all the gays about how they’re going to burn in hell, is very upset with Wayne right now. You see, Wayne and I both understand that Brown’s calling card is to pretend to love gay [...]

  3. Once again, I only see hate speech coming from those that hate Yeshua , hate the disciples of Y’shua. If this continues, I will choose to leave this country that enfuels for this hate speech against Dr Brown. I want to be in a place where I have the freedom to be a disciple of Yeshua without the entire media and government promoting hate speech agaisnt me. Check the numbers, this last century world wide about 100 million believers in Yeshua have been murdered for their faith as martyrs. Please people that do not believe in my religion, stop killing us, and stop speaking with some hate towards us. The true of us would lay down our lives for you while you hate us in return with your derogotory hate speech. I am saddened to feel that this hate of us may escalade in the States to martyrdom as is done overseas. I am saddened to feel that we are a minority with no where to live on this earth, our religion continues to be the most killed and hated people on the earth with our only allies – the Jewish nation and people. I am afraid that if I stay in the States, that I will lose my freedom to live according to my religion. I soon as rather move back to Brazil or Israel.

  4. Kathy,

    Thanks for your post. To respond: The “Christianity” Wayne advocates denies the full authority of the Scriptures, believes there are many ways to God outside of Jesus, and embraces homosexual practice (just to name a few deviations from the truth). All of this is completely foreign to God’s Word and to historic forms of the faith. It is definitely a “redefining” of Christianity. The Jesus kind of faith says to those in sin, “I have died to set you free. Now, come, be forgiven, and leave your life of sin behind.” We bring that message of true love, and by God’s grace, countless thousands of gays and lesbians have responded to it and continue to respond to it, to the transforming of their souls. Of course, since Wayne is a gay, liberal Jew, I would expect him to resonate with a gay-affirming, liberal Christianity. No surprise there. It simply has departed from the beautiful truth of God’s Word.

    As for our numbers at the event, I had the benefit of asking the organizers for exact counts, since they gave out the tee-shirts and had people sign for them (agreeing with our code of conduct), and we also had counts of the different evangelistic teams that were involved (one of which, for the record, had 28 people at the Pride Charlotte event but didn’t start in the same location we did). I was told twice that our total numbers were over 400 (I asked again after you disputed it), which is what I reported. If it was less or more, I’d report that as well, gladly. As for the report by the FIRE student, I have no idea where she got her information, but I’m sure she wasn’t intentionally lying (anymore than I think you’re intentionally lying about numbers). The moment I saw the article I posted an apology and then our FIRE school folks pulled it immediately. We have no tolerance for exaggeration. As for your claim that my own “pre-event media warned” people to “expect this to be a challenging day as sexual immorality, wickedness, and rejection will abound,” those weren’t my words, nor were they part of anything I personally released.

    As for interacting with Wayne, I absolutely agree with you that the best thing to do is turn the other cheek, which is why I only read his articles when someone sends me a link to look at, and I haven’t weighed in in his comments section for a long time. (I took issue with him in my book, but not with his attacks on me, as you wrongly reported. I differed with his writings about ex-gay issues.) I pray for Wayne (and his colleague Evan Hurst), remembering how patient God was (and is) with me, and, if I’m correct, they’ve written a few articles attacking me this year alone. (You can check for an exact count.) But I don’t attack him in my article here. I merely quote his own words, with few comments, and I introduce him at the beginning of the article as fairly as I can. (Contrast that with his descriptions of me.) Because of his call for a certain type of “Christianity” to arise, though, I felt it would be fitting to respond to him, sharing some of his previous article for background. Let the reader judge accordingly.

    As for parents bringing their kids to the event, they were able to steer them clear of things like the leather booth and the drag queens performing, and they have the wisdom to teach their kids that there are lost people who do some strange things (rather than saying, “Hey kids, this is great!). That being said, I told our folks repeatedly before the event that Pride Charlotte is much more “family friendly” than it used to be, and this is becoming more common in other cities too.

    As for what Jesus would and wouldn’t do, ultimately He will speak for Himself and you and I will both stand before Him and give account. With all my heart and soul, I seek to please and honor Him, regardless of cost or consequence, and I’m convinced that in sharing God’s better way with the LGBT community, I am sharing His heart. I pray for God’s grace to flood your life in ways beyond anything you have ever known.

  5. Wow… what is that guy talking about? it is garbage, and he needs help. What he is saying — isn’t that libel or slander??… At what point does it become slander?

  6. Dan1el, by all means, pray for Wayne and his cohort Evan. As a public figure, people can write or say all kinds of things about me, so the bar is raised higher. My only concern is that Wayne and Evan could incite fear in the hearts of people by misrepresenting who we are, but I hold nothing against them — they don’t know the Lord — and, unless they actually break a law (which I don’t believe they would do), they’re not guilty of libel in the technical, public sense. Perhaps an attorney will have a different opinion on this, but that’s not my concern right now.

  7. I think it really starts to get almost silly how people will go to the utmost extreme lengths to justify sin. How one individual can not only go out of their way to justify his/her own sin so he/she doesn’t feel guilty about it and at the same time try so hard to demonize anyone who attempts to get the truth out and help. I’m quite sure that if I wanted to, I could go out of my way to justify sins commited in my lifetime by me and demonize anyone else who disagrees with me by telling the truth but where would that ultimately get me?
    You said it correctly Dr. Brown, ultimately we will all stand before Him and give an account. If people are going to use the Bible and Jesus for an argument for being gay (love and turning the other cheek) then they also must use the WHOLE entire Bible. You can’t just pick and choose scripture, tossing out what you dislike/disagree with.

  8. If you really love someone, you will tell them the truth. Who in America could honestly ask for tolerance of drug adicts? Or let’s have drug adict tolerance training in schools. Let’s all promote drug addiction and agree that drugs are great and should be tolerated, even in classrooms. It is really almost like living in the twilight zone. Two huge social issues in America really make me think sometimes that I do live in the twilight zone- “A woman’s right to choose” and “Gay civil rights” – these are outrageous. Abortion and gay rights are I believe, two major issues. I think once a society has self destructed on these big moral issues, all else will follow. Really strange times we’re living in here in America.

  9. Kathy,

    You state

    “It’s interesting to both use a photo with many children and hold a anti-goodness view of the event. These are contradictory. I hope you get your numbers straight on this. One of the FIRE students actually wrote that half the people there were from GHABW. Dang, it may all sound great, but it is still a lie. As for Wayne, he does not identify as Christian–you do. Treat him as Jesus would treat him. I think Jesus may have just let this go and turned the other cheek and moved on doing good. I also don’t think Jesus would have donned a red shirt.”

    Your statement lacks an objective correlation between what you state as contradictory in its first sentence. Of course, as you have stated regarding Wayne’s lack of a scripturally related belief of any kind, goodness, or godliness is founded in the New Testament, not by a comparison of the numbers of who was present at a street gathering. It seems not only that Wayne is attempting to redefine Christianity’s orientation by hate speech, but that you too have move totally away from its correlation with what is written in the New Testament on the subject of this article.

    Christians champion the teaching of Jesus Christ, not some other altogether different agenda. You acknowledge that Wayne has no such orientation, mention his allegiances, and contradictions as to any assoication with goodness, then, whaaat: find his hatefilled advocacies more compelling than children and parents relating to the teachings of Jesus Christ? Come on Kathy, claiming a cloak of decency for your person, and defending this guy all in the same expression? Examine yourself, whether you be in the faith. Reading your response, clearly sin knocks at the door, and “you must master it”, or it will have its way. Is sexpression with hate speech the bottom line for you–to the point of banishing receiving children into the Kingdom?

  10. God decrees that ALL sexual impurity – adultery & lust as well as homosexuality. I accept that sexual immorality is a SIN, similarly anything that violates The 10 Commandments – is a SIN.

    Christians that steal, lie & covet know (or they should do) they are committing a SIN & repent asking God for forgiveness.

    Why then do homosexual ‘Christians’ not consider their acts as one of SIN when clearly the Bible, as God’s definitive word states that it is abhorent to him? God does not change regardless of 21st century liberalism.

  11. Michael, You’re really wrong here. Wayne is a great guy & he tells the truth. Sure, you disagree with him & perhaps he has hurt your feelings by his describing you as an ‘anti-gay monster’ but then you are the one who wrote that Lawrence King & all gay activists were ‘responsible’ for King’s murder. That was pretty monstrous. You are the one that said that same sex marriage was comparable to ‘man-goat marriage’. That was very insulting. You are the one who said that gays are ‘of Satan’s kingdom’ on one of your Wens. radio programs. Maybe, Michael, you just don’t realize how offensive you are to us. Wayne’s reactions are totally justified.

  12. Devin, thanks for your post, but you have actually have all the facts wrong. Are you open to the truth? I do hope so.

    1) What did I say about Wayne here that isn’t true? I quote his own words and I don’t attack him personally, do I? I actually enjoyed talking with him in Charlotte a couple of years ago, but I don’t think he was happy with me confronting his statements at a talk he gave in Michigan a few months after that. Again, I have nothing against him personally, but what he and Evan write about me often have as much truth as the latest “Elvis is alive” sighting. That’s why read their posts with a smile and then pray for them.

    2) I said quite plainly that Lawrence King was a victim, that he was murdered in cold-blood, that there was only one murderer (Brandon), and that gay activism (not every gay activist!) was complicit in his death. I never blamed Larry (please re-read what I actually wrote, especially the full response here on this site).

    3) I said in my article that there is “no comparison” between a man “marrying” a goat and two men or two women wanting to be married. I simply said that if marriage is the union of a man and a woman, then neither of these two other scenarios is a marriage. Again, my article is quite clear on this, but you have to read it for what it says, not for what you think it says. Fair enough?

    4) As for what I said on the radio, once again you have it quite wrong, and this is a little troubling because someone on my staff actually took the time to write to you about this and set the record straight, which I know because I was sent copies of the e-exchange you two had. What I said is that ALL PEOPLE (not mentioning gays specifically in this context at all) who reject Jesus, ACCORDING TO THE NT, are outside of God’s kingdom and called children of darkness or children of Satan in the NT. See 2 Cor 4:4; 1 John 5:19, and other verses. You actually do a disservice to people and fuel the fires of people like Wayne when you misrepresent what I say on the air. Have you considered this? We interacted with you about this accusation, you wrote back saying that you had a hard time with the concept that people outside of Jesus were lost in this way, and yet you misrepresent my comments again here. Perhaps what we’re saying is passing through a certain grid in your own head and heart and you’re not really hearing my words but rather your interpretation of my words?

    5) As for Wayne’s reactions being “totally justified,” look at what I’ve actually written and said, and look at what he and Evan have written and said (I looked at the link to Evan’s latest article, which has been wishing for Crusades and Inquistions against gays, which is even more ridiculous than me making up the idea that they are planting explosives in churches across America — both are equally absurd), and you’ll see name calling and even fantasy on their side (again, I’m not upset with them in the least and I pray for them) and taking issue with their actual words on this side. Really, Devin, when people have to stoop as low as to attack someone’s mustache (probably the funniest thing of all their posts), you know they don’t have a lot to say with substance.

  13. Michael,
    I do not see how I have “all the facts wrong”. Of course I am “open to the truth”.
    1.) I think that by focusing on Wayne specifically, it was in a sense, an attack. You say you don’t have anything against Wayne personally & yet I think your column about him is very personal.
    2.)In one sentence you said that King wasn’t responsible for his own death but in the article as a whole you were indeed blaming him and gay activist & gay activism for the death.
    3.) By saying that “neither of those 2 other scenarios is a marriage” you ARE comparing them. You just said so right here.
    4.)You can call me stupid if you feel like it, but I quoted you totally accurately (I was home from work that day & took notes). I wrote to your staff this morning telling him that I was quoting you directly. You are calling everyone who is not saved “children of darkness”. But the direct quote was when you were asking listeners weren’t they (like you) afraid of the future (where gays have achieved equality) & that there was great “evil” & “darkness” which followed your comments on gays specifically & that this future with gays in it was “of Satan’s kingdom”! That’s a direct quote. I am not lying or doing a disservice to anybody. If anyone is “fueling fires” it is you with your column about Wayne. My quotations were taken right from the radio show so no, I have not “misrepresented” you. I have never said the words “I have a hard time with the concept that people outside of Jesus are lost in this way”. I said that gay xtians are not lost, but are indwelt by the Holy Spirit & genuinely born-again. I think the problem is that you are not hearing your own words & your heart & head are blinded & deceived as to what you are really saying to gays.
    5.) Yeah, I sorta cringe at the mustache jokes, they don’t seem to help the dialogue but I do think that what Wayne & Evan have to say is of great substance.
    Other than that, how are you? Hope you are well.

  14. Devin,

    Thanks for responding in detail, and I’m doing well, thank God. Hope you are too! Too bad it didn’t work out to meet face to face in Boston next week.

    1) I take respectful difference with Wayne; he writes what he writes. You really can’t compare the two. Re-read his articles and then mine, as if you were neutral. Enough said.

    2) God forbid anyone would think for a second that I would blame Larry for being murdered! Again, please take the time to read this: http://www.voiceofrevolution.com/2011/09/15/why-have-some-people-called-me-a-%E2%80%9Cheartless-monster%E2%80%9D/.

    3) If I say, “A car is not a vegetable and an orange is not a vegetable” am I comparing the two? In point of fact, I say explicitly in the article that there is no comparison between the two. Words do have meaning, do they not?

    4) Devin, when I did call you stupid? Perhaps, again, you’re not hearing or reading what I’m saying and writing but rather what you think I’m saying or writing? Please be kind enough to get the time frame of my comments in question (since I don’t even know which day you’re talking about), and we’ll take the time to transcribe them. Then, we’ll post what I said and compare in with your actual quote, above. Fair enough?

    5) So, what in Evan’s last post (for example) or Wayne’s “Anti-Gay Monster” post (as another example) is “of great substance”? As for the mustache jokes, you cringe and I laugh. This much I can tell you: I look a lot better with it than without it. :)

    All the best!

  15. Michael,
    You did not say I was ‘stupid’; I wondered if I was stupid. I frequently say that to myself. I was an emotionally disturbed kid & only made it thru 10th grade before I quit. I ended up with 2 years of fairly pointless tutoring to get me to a high school diploma but after that I was done. I couldn’t stomach the thought of college & instead I taught myself (to a degree) at the public library on my own. So I am aware that there are some things, maybe a lot of things, which I don’t understand. As to the day’s radio show that I quoted your comments, I think it may have been Wens Sept. 21st . That’s my best guess. I don’t have my notebook with my notes in it to be able to check the date, so I have to guess Sept. 21st or maybe even the 14th. I’ll get back to you when I am able to get ahold of my notebook (I’m at work now & it’s the only access I have to a computer).
    I’m doing very well, thanks. Feeling happy.

  16. Devin, thanks for the clarification. On my end, in our e-interaction, I’ve never once thought to myself, “This guy is stupid.” I’ve just taken issue with some of your perspectives and beliefs, as you have with mine. We’ll check our files ASAP, but if you could get us a definite date, that would be great. I’m honored that you took notes on my show!

    Glad to hear you’re doing well.

  17. Dr. Brown,
    Thank you so much for your ministry and for being willing to stand on the front lines of the (spiritual) war against evil and deceit. I feel so much sadness for those trapped in their sin and blindness. Now that I am on the other side, so to speak, it amazes me that I ever bought into the lie that sexual sin was an expression of personal freedom. Sin and disobedience are such vicious and cruel masters! I believed their lies that my life was mine to do with as I pleased, but it turned out that what I was pleased to do at the time just gave me a moment’s pleasure followed by years of pain, misery, and despair. It is only in obedience to my beloved Yeshua that I have found never-ending love, joy, and peace. I pray that our loving Father will open the eyes of His creation – they accept a stone from their master when the Lord would give them the Bread of Life!

    Please know, Dr. Brown, that even as you stand on the front lines, there are those of us standing in the gap for you. May God bless you and keep you always,

  18. It’s great to see that EVERYONE, including his fellow Jews, are fair game for attack when it comes to Michael Brown and the fact that he KNOWS in his heart that he is wrong to the core. The HUGE difference between Michael and Wayne is that Wayne researches his information and he not only knows what he is talking about, he is widely respected … among religious and non religious people as well. Also, to my knowledge, Wayne and those who are his friends have NEVER barged into an event uninvited in order to cram their views; political or otherwise, down anyone’s throats. Of course integrity and credibility are not values that are shared by everyone …

  19. to the individuals like Wayne Besen, who has dirty mouth and cocky attitude, I can say no more than this: “nasty physical clash” already happens in his nasty immoral lifestyle with his “partner(s)”. Nasty and repulsive.
    Unless he learns proper etiquette of civil communication, I don’t think he deserves any “pearls ( as in Matthew 7:6 that is).

    I received an email today from Family Research Council with this interesting statistic:
    I think general perception of number of homosexuals in US is directly proportional, or at least, a result of TV and media propaganda.
    What do you think?

  20. @Eliyahu Moshiach,

    If this continues, I will choose to leave this country that enfuels for this hate speech

    unfortunately moving to other country is not an option for many.
    What’s worse, west most always influences decisions in other countries. So, my advice is to be active here.
    It is tough nonetheless. Especially, beyond my comprehension is this queerness adoration. It is amazing how 2-4% of population tricked so many to make them their supporters. And not any 2 to 4% of population, but the pretty perverse one… that’s amazing to me!

  21. Will, I’m not sure if your post was meant seriously or if you were engaging in sarcasm. If the latter, well done! If you were, however, serious, let’s start with Wayne’s unfortunate appearance at an ex-gay event at a church in Boston, standing outside the church building with a bullhorn (I mean write next to the windows) in order to disrupt the gathering, where people had come together to talk about coming out of homosexuality, by God’s grace — just to mention one ugly incident. It could not contrast more with our approach to sharing God’s love in a gracious way at a public event.

    As for the rest of your email, if you genuinely think the things Wayne has written about me and my colleagues and friends is well researched as opposed to a flight of rhetorical fantasy, please be kind enough to support your statement with facts.

    Lastly, I take it you are a Zionist, based on your concern that I’m addressing a fellow Jew? Just curious. In reality, however, I’m simply saying that a non-religious Jew who certainly doesn’t believe that Jesus is the Savior has no right to redefine Christianity.

  22. Thank you, Elisabeth, for your kind words and, even more, for your prayers.

  23. Will, in case you haven’t seen this story about Wayne: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09b/ParkStreetChurch_0428/index2.html. Again, you couldn’t ask for a greater contrast between his approach and ours.

  24. @Will,
    Wayne researches his information and he not only knows what he is talking about, he is widely respected
    :D sure. you’re being hilarious

    …to my knowledge, Wayne and those who are his friends have NEVER barged into an event uninvited in order to cram their views; political or otherwise, down anyone’s throats. Of course integrity and credibility are not values that are shared by everyone..

    well, if your definition of “invitations” means any event where homosexuality is rightly treated as anomaly and repulsive sin, then sure he invites himself.

    On the serious note, people have tendency to suppress truth when it is not convenient, and go as far as to suppress it when others say it (even though is obvious). To suppress natural unfavorable reaction to perversions, activists go lengths to create terms like “homophobia” etc to simply label opponents as “wicked”. It is obvious what they do if you be diligent and patient to study the situation.

  25. Mr. Brown:
    1. He was write next to the windows? Maybe he was righting his next book? In any event, I don’t see anywhere in your post that says Wayne barged into the event and intruded where he wasn’t wanted … or did I miss something?
    2. YOU and the RedShirt Nazis were NOT welcome at that “public event” .. and you knew you weren’t.
    It’s over and done now, and I can only hope that those in charge of Pride Charlotte will have learned from your intrusion this year and see to it that you either pay at the gate to support gay causes, or that other legal measures will be taken to send you all packing.
    3. I totally agree with what Wayne has written about you and your um … colleagues. Knowing of some of them and their antics and the opinion that most mainstream people have. I stand with Wayne on this one.
    4. ME a Zionist? Cough!!

  26. Will,

    First, if you don’t want your posts deleted, you’ll have to drop the “RedShirt Nazis” nonsense. Not only does it make you look foolish, but it violates our policies.

    Second, I apologize for the typo. As for my point, look at post #23 and investigate the link in detail.

    Third, if folks hold a public event with thousands of people in attendance, they have to accept the fact that people of different persuasions might be there. This again is in complete contrast with Wayne’s actions at the event referenced above.

    Fourth, re: my colleagues, I meant those who participated in the God Has a Better Way event. What he writes is utterly false.

    Fifth, so, if you’re anything but a Zionist, why your protest over my differing with a fellow Jew?

  27. @Will,
    you’re one funny guy.

    He was write next to the windows?

    You’re defending pervert as if he has to be literally IN THE window to be invasive. :D

    Maybe he was righting his next book?

    Maybe he was riding [instead of "righting"] his new book? :D Perhaps instead of fisting he could invent “booking” as in use of books where some of his like-minded use fists (and teach kids to do it as well) … who knows… who knows..
    In any event, Will, you sure can stand with anyone you wish, but you have to realize what you stand for, and who you stand with.
    It is cute to observe how Besen’s (ironically mislead) testosterone manifests its causality on poor body, which shouts in megaphone (…speak of inferiority complex, and sense of effeminate male powerlessness). But what is this behavior? It is nothing less than what I described before. It is simply attempt to shut off those who speak truth similarly to his own conscience, with one exception that Besen could shut up and suppress his own conscience and cannot shut up others. This is why perverts always aim at shutting off those who speak common sense truth about perversions, and even attempt to scare normal people with “physical clash”. :D How pitiful is that?
    Traditionally from the very inception of Christianity to this very day the only fear of Christian is a sin. Life in sin and perversion is in now way, shape, or form better than honorable death for truth. But because the worst which activists can do (or attempt to do) is to “physically clash”, they threaten with the most dangerous thing they have in their arsenal. The irony is of course such that Besen already lost and there is nothing he can do to win. The desperateness of the situation drives him to mad actions, and bitter lies and fabrications, calling normal people Nazis, etc. I say he lost, because immorality is a state of loss. How a person who lost can contend and fight for winning if he’s lost already? It’s an oxymoron.
    Furthermore, “physical clash” gives away cowardice and pitifulness of Besen. He projects his worst fears onto others, and thinks that if he himself is afraid of so-called “physical clash”, then everyone is like him.
    He’s one funny (or sad and pitiful, depending on perspective) guy, who evaluates himself far more then he really is.
    Anyone with the grain of common sense sees what’s going on, and who are unreasonable and immoral here.
    Will you cannot argue against the facts!

  28. Michael … You NEVER need to apologize to me .. ever. Whatever you do is well beyond ever having to seek my forgiveness. To paraphrase a great term I heard from an AA friend “What you think of Gay people is NONE of our business”. We are actually doing just fine with or without your approval.

    As for ME looking foolish … that opinion is shared by a VERY small circle of people, certainly not those with whom I share my life and among whom I have utmost respect. I suppose that we are all the same in that it really only matters what someone thinks of us if we value their opinions. I do have plenty of friends who continually tell me not to stoop to the level of those with whom I am in profound disagreement …. however we all know how it is when the ego gets involved and we forget that people/bigots would do better if they had the skills and knowledge of how to do so.
    As for people holding a public event, which Pride Charlotte apparently was .. there is no way to keep you people out. In San Francisco there is an admission fee charged with the funds going to various gay charities. That has been suggested to the leaders and planners of Pride Charlotte and I truly hope that they are able to do that for next year. You and your group wouldn’t mind supporting gay charities in order to pass out your water bottles, would you? I do find it interesting that here in San Francisco there are no groups like yours that show up at the Festival .. I’m sure they are trolling around the parade somewhere, but I have never seen any but a lone ranger here and there. The only religious groups at Pride in San Francisco are there to share the goodness of God and his love for all people. Those groups come from Christian, Jewish, Buddhist and other faith backgrounds, and throughout the year they have earned the credibility to be present .. at the festival and at the parade. As for anyone who thinks it a disgrace that Religious groups show up to share the inclusive message of the gospel .. I would have to say that JESUS himself would be there and be FAR more welcome than he would be in most churches where dogma and hatred of “the other” is the foundation on which fundamentalism is based.

    As for my “protest” over your differing with a fellow Jew .. perhaps many reading this haven’t seen you in action on YouTube “differing” with every Jew I have ever seen you “debating” .. other than your fellow fundamentalist Sid Roth and his .. “It’s Amazing” or whatever he calls it. Although the Hassidic Jews would have nothing good to say about me, I realize .. they and I are in profound agreement over the Zionists who have treated the Palestinians whose land they stole .. like absolute garbage. I completely agree with the Hassidic rabbis in this .. even knowing how they feel about gay people. I am as FAR from being a Zionist or a Zionist supporter as those Rabbis are.

  29. @ Will,

    The only religious groups at Pride in San Francisco are there to share the goodness of God and his love for all people. Those groups come from Christian, Jewish, Buddhist and other faith backgrounds, and throughout the year they have earned the credibility to be present .. at the festival and at the parade. As for anyone who thinks it a disgrace that Religious groups show up to share the inclusive message of the gospel .. I would have to say that JESUS himself would be there and be FAR more welcome than he would be in most churches where dogma and hatred of “the other” is the foundation on which fundamentalism is based.

    a) “goodness of God” excludes conception of goodness of queerness.
    b) “His love for all people” means absolutely no endorsement of such people’s sinful, much less perverted practices.
    c) ” they have earned the credibility to be present” as if there’s something worthwhile to be earned…
    d) whether Jesus Himself would be there is disputed, but presence of anyone anywhere does not guarantee endorsement of the event by the person/people present. ‘God has a better way’ was present in Charlote’s perversion feast too… so what?
    e) “dogma and hatred of “the other” I presume to mean reaction to pedophilia, homosexuality, incest, bestiality and necrophilia… as all of these are “other”. As far as hate, it is a peculiar question, since having repulsion toward perversion is pretty normal… and repulsion is not the same as hate.
    f) “[Jesus would be] FAR more welcome than he would be in most churches”. Fortunately, …or unfortunately, but we’ve seen San Franciscan attitude to Jesus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKUQI9RAD60

  30. Will, I really hope you will come to know the Jesus of the Scriptures in a wonderful, life transforming way and find out what it means to become a new creation in Him. He does have a better way for you than homosexual practice!

    As for my apologizing for a typo, I’m happy to do that anytime. :)

  31. WOW–I understand the no personal attacks policy, but I think you may need to monitor Kon. “Maybe he was riding [instead of "righting"] his new book? :D Perhaps instead of fisting he could invent “booking” as in use of books where some of his like-minded use fists (and teach kids to do it as well) … who knows… who knows..” And THAT made it thru the screening process? You sure do like that Hunky Jesus contest on speed dial. Whoa. Should that be posted here? This is my video contribution with my view on The GHABW event. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKacWyMDy4c just put it up and will start now to push it out. We each have opinions. Kon–consider cleaning up your opinion posted. You self identify as a believer, right? The street preachers in Charlotte were doing as similar thing. Speaking very trashy in the name of lauding righteousness. Gandhi said : I will not allow others to walk through my mind with their dirty feet! and “If I sought to answer all the criticisms that cross my desk, my secretaries would have little time for anything other than such correspondence in the course of the day, and I would have no time for constructive work.” – Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail. This post never should have been written. Let Wayne be and go do good. Did this inspire anyone to action? Where is the call to action if so? Or is it to elicit pity, complain and defend? There are lots of good topics out there–the actions on Wall Street is a very current one on which some God-insight might be interesting. And no baiting Kon, you are a black hole to me. This is all sport to you and I think you may have crossed the nasty line.

  32. Yes, Kathy, I mentioned to the monitors that some of these posts need to be moderated. My apologies to others for this and we’ll get it corrected. Your comment as well, however crossed the line with a reference I won’t repeat, so don’t be surprised if a few of them get pulled or have some of the junk edited out.

    As for your claim that my article never should have been written, you still don’t seem to realize that you’re not my judge, jury, or guide, and I’ll do what I feel is right in God’s sight, not yours. And I can tell you as a result of this article a lot of people are praying for Wayne’s salvation who never knew his name before.

    So, to answer your questions: “Did this inspire anyone to action? Where is the call to action if so? Or is it to elicit pity, complain and defend?” Yes, it inspired people to action, as people received a deeper burden for Wayne; it reminded people of how lost some people are and how much they need the Lord; and no, it made no attempt to elicit pity, complain or defend. As I told you before, there are hundreds if not thousands of posts attacking me, most of which I never read or view (I only try to interact on my own websites), and I’m quite pleased to live or die before the Lord, not people. It’s also my joy to be surrounded by friends locally, nationally, and internationally who are often asked to speak into my life. As for eliciting pity, for what? For being blasted on the internet? That is suffering? Let’s get real. I have friends and co-workers who have been arrested or stoned or imprisoned or even martyred for their faith. Getting blasted by a hostile critic is hardly “suffering” or worthy of “pity.” Who thinks like that?

  33. Kathy,

    You have written, “Let Wayne be and go do good”. The Call to conscience and to salt and light for believers is not to let evil triumph in their own arena of influence, within their own communities and families. After all, a wise man wrote, “the only thing for just men must do for evil to triumph is nothing.” Clearly Michael Brown is not in the camp of “let it be”: he has read Romans 1 & 2 and is acting on the charges given the faithful there.

    You seem to be preoccupied with what swells from within regarding causes, rather than understanding where someone like Dr. Brown is coming from.

  34. @Kathy,
    I only mention public events. None of this is what happens on private property.
    If I happen to visit San Fran., on that unfortunate (or fortunate, depending on your perspective) day, I will be a witness to whatever I mention.
    This is not an excerpt from adult movie. This is what american culture easily tolerates and perhaps celebrates.
    As far as “fisting” is concerned, let me mention Mass Resistance site, as it is considered and OK source. Read it yourself:

    “Fisting [forcing one's entire hand into another person's rectum or vagina] often gets a bad rap….[It's] an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with…[and] to put you into an exploratory mode.”

    The above quotation comes from Massachusetts Department of Education employees describing the pleasures of homosexual sex to a group of high school students at a state-sponsored workshop on during GLSEN’s “Teach-Out” Conference on March 25, 2000 held at Tufts University. Approximately 200 young teens and 300 adults attended the day-long event. Kids were bussed in from high schools across Massachusetts.

    My apologies if I offended people, but what I mentioned is public domain… it;s not like discussing private live of Jennings or Besen, which leaked from some private video in their bad.
    Both things you objected to are from government approved and perhaps endorsed events.

    The street preachers in Charlotte were doing as similar thing. Speaking very trashy in the name of lauding righteousness

    well well. I can’t even make a joke of obvious things? How is what I said very trashy? I just gave a person from acclaimed and praised San Fransisco a link to get him/her a bit disillusioned.
    As far as Gandhi, I honestly have little care of what he said or thought.

    I do not enjoy putting people down deliberately and regularly, but sometimes they need to realize that I can’t treat them like 3 year old girls, living in the world of pink unicorns.

    And no baiting Kon, you are a black hole to me
    My apologies, once again. Look, I am not representing Dr. Brown’s views. I speak MY OWN mind. So, all guilt is mine.
    I just have this impression that queer activists can say anything they want and it is fine, but should I make a joke about fisting, or mention public even in SF…. you come at me as if I were participated or endorsed this “event”. To be fair, clever homosexual activist group should know that such behavior will not be perceived as good, and themselves should discourage. It only shows how little in reality they care for Christianity or conscience.
    As a note, to give you perspective, this [event in SF] would never happen in USSR, run by communist party. It’s simply too offensive for something like this. These people have no shame or conscience whatsoever….

  35. Michael … Two things and I pray that by God’s grace I am done with this. I spent a wonderful day today at the annual Contemplative Outreach conference and although I couldn’t be in greater disagreement than I am with everything I know about you and your associates (not just the anti gay stuff), it is a waste of my energy and time to address what only the Holy Spirit can bring to pass in your life. He sees the things you do and say in His Name … and while I am certain that He is not pleased, He has also said that vengeance is His. I will leave it at that.

    I have never even once mentioned homosexual practice or non practice to you, Michael, when it comes to my own life. ANYTHING you assume regarding my sexual life is purely out of your own imagination, certainly not the mind of God OR my own reality. I actually don’t feel the least bit upset by your assumptions because I know who looks bad in this .. and believe me .. it’s not me.

  36. Will, you are obviously the same “Will” who posted extensively on the God Has a Better Way site, to the point that we had to remove your posts because of vulgarity, and the same “Will” whose posts had to be blocked from this site because of their extremely profane content, and in those posts you have repeatedly brought up homosexual practice and clearly identified yourself as a practicing homosexual. I’m sure our editors can readily retrieve such posts if you deny their existence, although their content precludes us from posting them here.

  37. Michael .. this is my final post. YOU, sir, are a SLEAZY liar. You have never even ONCE seen my post vulgarity or “extreme profanity”. While those who don’t know me on this thread may believe you, I will say without hesitation that you are sleazy and you are a liar. I don’t have any idea what you are talking about regarding “homosexual practice”, however for you to accuse me of ANYTHING that identifies whether or not I engage in any kind of sex; hetero or homo is an outright lie. I couldn’t care less if you disallow or delete this post .. you will read it and you and I both know that you are not an honest man. Shame on you!!

  38. Will, although we don’t allow personal attacks on these threads (such as “SLEAZY liar”), we’ll let your post stand, since it illustrates the point I was making. Given enough time, your posts degenerate into name calling and worse. (Note also that I said “extremely profane” not “extreme profanity.”) As for me never seeing such posts from you, we actually have a quite a few such posts on file and you are one of the very few people whose posts got the attention of at three of members of our ministry, since they came into different sites at different times (or, were sent to other sites like Townhall, but to my attention). So, you have distinguished yourself but in a way that is truly shameful, and I say this with sadness. Perhaps, sir, if you are in any way serious about wanting to please God, you should take up these issues with Him, who sees and knows all, and not with me. May His grace and mercy and truth triumph in your life.

  39. When someone has nothing of substance to say, and degenerates into empty name-calling, that is the signal that they have seen their own defeat (their points have been proven invalid) — but, that they refuse to a) accept their defeat, and/or b) to CHANGE in accordance with the Truth which has laid out for them: there is no Truth to stand on for them; just evil/sinful flesh propping them up.

    I wish I could offer more help to the hurting; however, I, myself, am confused at how this thing works — that is, I don’t know whether to say, “REPENT! WAKE UP AND STOP SINNING! YOU ARE GOING TO WRONG WAY — TO DESTRUCTION!” or “GOD, PLEASE HELP THESE PEOPLE”.

    I mean, even if I told people to stop sinning, it wouldn’t do anything, since no one can do anything unless God does it… I don’t know…

  40. Dan1el,
    my personal and limited observation is that there are many people with variety of characters. Some homosexuals paint a picture of someone who was abused and has emotional problems… to such I can feel pity…
    There are also extremes like Besen, which is so out of touch with reality… such extreme cases as Besen far worse, since they are chasing and targeting those who came to sense about perverted nature of homosexuality and actually pursues holiness and virtue. That’s what makes me most angry. Perhaps, many of not most of those who left homosexual lifestyle struggle to retain their abstinence from perverted sin, and then homosexuals high on testosterone come and yell in megaphone to show that they’re so important …
    I am not a specialist in these situations, but even I see that there are more than one approach for different people.
    Some people have conscience, and if you shame them, that in itself is enough to make them think. HOWEVER, in contemporary times, when rampant individualism is a king, and it is a virtue to NOT listen to those who are parents, pastors, teachers, or even Christian tradition, or worse the Scripture itself… it is hard to shame anyone.
    Ironically, queers even dare pronouncing phrases such as “shame on you”. How ironic is that?
    I’m saying that in some other time, if you would shame a wrongdoer he/she would, if not change, at least think about the action in question. Now, however times are absolutely contrary to that. Individuals are taught from childhood NOT to respect parents, not to listen to anyone,… but to pursue what ‘fits them’ or what is ‘good for them’ etc etc. There are many problems that when combined result in horrendous results, and it is difficult to point them out.
    As me personally, I would recommend “Hidden Worldviews” ( http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Worldviews-Eight-Cultural-Stories/dp/0830838546 ). It gives you feel for several views of reality that drastically affect one’s perception of things, including oneself, surrounding world, and of course God.
    I am pressing on this, because due to the scope such ideas have influenced people lives, and mentality, it is very hard to get point across to them. Individualism, Consumerism, Moral Relativism, and Naturalism (and if we are to add Nationalism) when combined are probably the most deadly soup to imagine. This mixture created such a fragmented infinite plethora of “equally true” views of reality and morality, that no one is permitted to object to anyone or call something wrong. You see, only in such convergence of ideologies would something as obviously repulsive as perversion should be viewed as “being black”.
    I am just saying why I think influencing someone’s opinion is hard.
    People simply pick and choose, what they like and then project God’s approval on that behavior and close off conscience, and perceive others’ views as relative, subjective and insignificant. Take Kathy Baldock on this thread. She apparently thinks it is perfectly fine to talk about so-called “Welcoming Churches” as if this is something really Christian brand. I don’t even dream of convincing her that Christianity and queerness are pretty much irreconcilable (if you want first, you have to give away the other). I lived in US for dozen of years, and I’ve read books, watched TV and observed culture. It is not distinctively American of course, but I see that people do not like authority of any kind. Who am I to say what the Bible say, who are 2000 year old Christian traditions, views, books, and Scripture itself? If Dr. Brown is nobody, I have even less chance of getting point across. The times we live in are amazingly messy.
    If you do not like, ‘queer unfriendly’ church, simply switch churches. You see, similarly to what mentioned in Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience ( http://www.amazon.com/Scandal-Evangelical-Conscience-Christians-Living/dp/0801065410 ) churches became like convenience stores selling services. If you do not like it – find a better one, worse sue the owner!!!

    Of course God can change person brainwashed by any ideology. It is also true that God desires salvation of homosexuals, and molesters, and adulterers, and thieves, and prostitutes, and basically all people… But changing status of homosexuality from abominable sin to something worth of celebration is not permissible not only for a Christian, but even for a conscious moral secular person.
    As I read some time ago in Beyond Bumper Sticker Ethics ( http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Bumper-Sticker-Ethics-Introduction/dp/0830815279 ) Wilkens quoted someone, I can’t remember whom saying “One can be a good man without being a Christian, but one cannot be a Christian without being a good man”. Point here, of course may be interpreted from various perspectives, but it is not meant soteriologically – as if goodness mentioned is about salvation or anything like that. Point is simply correspondent to my own observation that non-believers may be moral and good people too. Hence, I said that even secular moral person should not endorse sexual perversions, much less a Christian.
    Homosexuals want Christians to capitulate and pronounce queerness as good and normal behavior, which we cannot do. So, whichever approach one takes sooner or later he must confront the issue. What Kathy Baldock and “Welcoming Churches” do is not only un-Christian, but immoral and irresponsible, while attempting to present themselves as “nice”. This is playing with matches. Dangerous game.

    Perhaps the best thing to do is to learn from Dr. Brown to reach without compromise.

    Regarding your question about God’s sovereignty in influencing a person, I am not lined much toward Calvinism, and think we should do what we can.

    My brothers, if any among you strays from the truth, and someone turns him back, he should know that whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his life from death and cover a multitude of sins.
    James 5:19-20

    Of course, this is talking about brother in Christ who strayed from truth, and there’s a question as to extent of this toward unbelievers, but whatever the case, it seem to indicate that we are not to passively ignore things and by default leave them to God.

    Also, remember that this issue affects many other aspects of our lives. From children, to laws, to perceptions about marriage, etc etc.

  41. Michael, I have had a chance to look up my notes & found that the radio broadcast where you called gay equality in the future ‘evil’, ‘darkness’ & of ‘Satan’s kingdom’ aired on Sept. 14th a Wednesday. I hope you can look at the transcript & see what you said. After all, that is a kind of ‘name-calling’ which you disallow here. And again, no one has commented really on gay Xtians. I know that you, Michael, do not believe that it is possible to be both gay & xtian, but I know differently & first-hand.

  42. Devin, thanks for sending the date. We actually figured it was the same program a few days back and someone on our team is listening to the show. I can assure you I did not say what you think I said (we all mishear things at time, me included), and I do hope that when we provide you with the actual words you will have the integrity to set the record straight anywhere you posted the erroneous information. Fair enough?

    As for being gay and Christian, if you mean having unwanted same-sex attractions, not giving place to them, and following Jesus, yes, of course, that’s possible. If you mean practicing homosexuality and following Jesus at the same time, God has made it clear in His Word that that it is not possible. This is not my personal judgment; I’m only doing my best to be faithful to the Lord and His written witness.

  43. Michael,

    You might be right if the Bible were inerrant. I do not believe that it is. Instead I feel that there are many interpretations & because I am not an authoritarian I do not believe in the absolute authority of the Bible. Just as people hear what the want to hear, in the Bible people see what they want to see, interpret it the way it pleasses them to interpret. That includes me as well as you.

  44. well, Devin

    You might be right if the Bible were inerrant. I do not believe that it is. Instead I feel that there are many interpretations & because I am not an authoritarian I do not believe in the absolute authority of the Bible. Just as people hear what the want to hear, in the Bible people see what they want to see, interpret it the way it pleasses them to interpret. That includes me as well as you.

    that raises lots of questions. As to why for example God could not communicate clearly enough. Also, what is the value of reading it or studying it if there is no objective enough information there?
    If you see there only what you desire, pick and choose, then what is the point of saying it has any significance on one’s life if its content is completely contingent on your own desires to project whatever you want onto text?

    I mean, one usually studies something to learn what it says, not to make it say whatever on wants.
    Your approach clearly correlates with Postmodern approach, where text says as many things as there are people with conflicting views, while somehow they all correct… In “Hidden Worldviews” they call it “Postmodern Tribalism”. And it makes perfect sense, since postmodern society is paradoxically both individualistic and somehow manages to be attracted in like-minded groups, whose truth is relative not strictly to individual but to a group….

    The pivotal question then, you said you know many so-called Homosexual Christians (by which is understood those living with another man or woman and not finding it sinful), at what point someone seizes to be a Christian if Scripture is inerrant and we all see anything we want there? It seems Hindus who say Jesus went to India and learned Hindu ways there are as correct as those who correlate Jesus to black race, or KKK, or queerness, anything in between. Perhaps, then atheists too are about as correct as non-atheists, since they as you said “Just as people hear what the want to hear, in the Bible people see what they want to see” perhaps atheists, theists, Hindus, KKK, queer activists, Muslims, all should be called Christians – since most of these mentioned would agree that Jesus was a ‘good character’?
    I hope you see my point, and I hope it should make you think.

  45. oops. important typo:
    “at what point someone seizes to be a Christian if Scripture is ERRANT
    not inerrant.

  46. Konstantin,

    1.) I have no way of knowing just why God does something or does not do something. Neither do you. His brilliance is blinding, his ways are beyond understanding.

    2.) There is no such thing as objectivity when it comes to biblical interpretation. Everything you interpret is subjective.

    3.) Fundamentalists & evangelicals ‘pick and choose’ what to believe as much as if not more so than others. You are in fact ‘projecting’ your negative feelings towards gays, f’r instance.

    4.) Postmodernism is OK by me. I’m not afraid of it.

    5.) “…ceases to be a xtian” not ‘seizes’.

  47. Devin,
    it is not about you knowing. It is about nature of God by definition. A God who incapable of conveying His will is an interesting to say the least. If God deliberately confuses people on fundamental issues is even more strange for any theology.

    If there is not objectivity when it comes to Biblical interpretation, perhaps Devil should be worshiped since he promised people they will be like gods, and they become like gods…

    Projection of negative feelings toward homosexuals is proportionate to projection of negative feelings toward any sexual perversion. Tell me of any sexual perversion that induces positive feelings. Bestiality?

    Postmodernism perhaps can be OK by you. This is your decision to make. But you have to understand the implications, confusion, and perhaps the fact that truth becomes unattainable for such a view, when in reality it may very well be. Irony, then is your decision to lock yourself in the cell, when there is a way out…

    Furthermore, WHY in the world would you adopt a belief that “Everything you interpret is subjective.”? Perhaps because it is comfortable to be a king in the process… when you can make text say anything you want? Is that because you want to make God your consultant whose opinions (or perhaps “interpretations of opinions”) may be rejected toward more selfish and self-serving views? “Oh, this is a good advice God, but I think it did not spoke “to me”, and I will disregard your opinion’. It is very weird treatment of Scriptures.

    This brings us, again, to the question what then makes a Christian? If there is no Scriptural authority and “Everything you interpret is subjective.” Christ cannot be Lord since His views are not conveyed correctly.
    What’s more, under your view, so-called Gospel of Marry, or other Gnostic writings are as “authoritative” (if I were to use this word) as canonical books of NT?
    In addition, why then stop with Christianity? Islam came 6 centuries later, perhaps they have as much to say as Christian books? What about Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses? Christian Science?
    Where and how you make demarcations if “Everything you interpret is subjective”?
    Care to explain?

  48. during early history of Christianity answering to Roman soldier Jesus is Lord or Caesar is Lord would be a question of life or death.
    If we were to adopt “There is no such thing as objectivity when it comes to biblical interpretation. Everything you interpret is subjective.”, it seems to me it would be not just a big mistake and a dangerous route for our lives, but also disrespectful to all the martyrs and persecuted Christians who could have compromise inerrancy and Lordship of Christ, and choose “more confortable” approach to Scriptures.

  49. Konstantin,

    I couldn’t make much sense out of what you wrote. Is English your first language? Just wondering.

    1.) I did not say God is ‘confused’. I think he is too big to be limited by a single interpretation.

    2.) ‘Satan & false gods’? What’s that all about?

    3.) Gay is not a perversion in any way. You’re way off course there.

    4.) If you cannot understand the concept of ‘subjectivity’ then I cannot explain anything to you.

  50. 1) no, English is not my first language.

    2) Satan and false gods directly related to whether there are many interpretations. Gnostics interpret Scriptures in peculiar way, with demiurges and aeons, and plethora of other weird things…

    3) homosexuality is about as much as not a perversion as orgies with goats is not a perversion. Basically, anything that is not between committed married couple of opposite gender is by definition a perversion of what is normal. ..

    4) please explain the “concept of subjectivity” to me if you understand it any different.

  51. Devin, regarding your criticisms of Dr. Brown:

    gay equality in the future ‘evil’, ‘darkness’ & of ‘Satan’s kingdom’

    What is so wrong with this picture if it’s true?
    1) using your very own interpretive method (aka. “I think he is too big to be limited by a single interpretation.”) why then do you suppress Dr. Brown’s interpretation? You should be consistent and not critical since his interpretation could be as valid as the one that would use other words to describe so-called ‘gay equality’.
    2) Let’s look at those words from different perspective:

    A thief comes only to steal and to kill and to destroy. I have come that they may have life and have it in abundance.
    John 10:10

    So, if devil is about stealing killing and destroying, why then a sexual perversion should be viewed as anything less than destruction, stealth, and murder?
    (a) homosexual conduct brings shame
    (b) homosexual conduct, if promiscuous brings STDs or HIV, and eventually death
    (c) homosexual activism redefines what is normal and acceptable for society
    (d) homosexual conduct basically mocks God’s intention for human sexual relationships
    (e) homosexual conduct is specifically mentioned as one which if practiced will prohibit a person entrance into Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11), thus encouraging it is directly proportional to keeping a person from Kingdom of God.
    (f) Since God wants best for a person, promotion of homosexuality is proportional to not allowing God to work on sin in ones life and sanctify a person in that area

    many more could be said, but you get a point. If you put things in proper perspective, it is exactly what queer activists are doing – expanding and promoting darkness and evil.

  52. Sorry, Konstantin, I can’t email you right now. I only have access to my work computer (can’t afford a home computer or laptop even)& right now I am at work, working. My work day is almost done so I will try to catch up with you (and Michael) tomorrow.

  53. wow, Devin. You don’t have a computer.
    take your time, if you need. no worries. as long as the conversation is productive, and we’re going in some positive direction..

  54. I just went to read some of the Besen’s delirium. He attempted a “rebuttal” back on 28th to this very article. Listen to this:

    …for one thing, religious belief is on the decline in the US, in general. Yes, many conservative churches are growing in other parts of the world, because fundamentalists go where they can be effective predators. Since the educated, developed first world has less and less patience for the medieval bigotry of people like Michael Brown, they see hungry people in the Third World and exchange food for people’s souls.

    Few things are of interest.
    (1) Besen recognizes, as I do, that perversions in general and homosexuality in particular, are luxuries and most often start to parasite on culture when culture rots enough from having too much leisure. You can think, this is trivial, but I heard it more than once from others (non-American though) who recognize nastiness of queerness and all.
    In contrast to me, however, he’s being pretty racist and bragging about having too much money on his hands. When I agree that perversions are most dominant in richer cultures, I do not see how in the world it is a property of something “more educated”.
    What I mean is this, Besen classifies himself as a representative from “the educated, developed first world” who is presumably and miraculously (since I don’t see no arguments or clear evidence for) recognizes perversion as similar to black race. Well, if education is a cause of that argument, how come I being educated cannot see a single thread of hope in it? Comparing sexually anomalous and nasty attractions to skin color is being very derogatory to the people of various colors.
    Another funny irony about Besen is that he brags about presumably “the educated, developed first world” when it is not that educated and not that developed after all.
    First, it is hard to call someone intelligent who really thinks anomalous sexual conduct is comparable to skin color.
    Second, as I mentioned GALLUP poll ( http://www.gallup.com/poll/147824/adults-estimate-americans-gay-lesbian.aspx#1 ) does not demonstrate affect of any such education:

    ” U.S. Adults Estimate That 25% of Americans Are Gay or Lesbian
    Those with lower incomes, the less educated, women, and young people give the highest estimates”
    …This suggests Americans have had even more exposure to gays and lesbians, be it in their personal lives or through entertainment or other means.

    Where is praised “the educated, developed first world” now? To make fundamental mistake of almost 1000% off is not that educated after all. I am not saying that people in US are not smart, but when it comes to the issue of homosexuality ironically people seem to be most confused . Therefore, it seems to me, the result of homosexual endorsement comes not from education, but from carefully controlled media (just as the article said – ” through entertainment or other means”). Besen is once clever fox, but not clever enough… He thinks by simply flattering his readers as being “the educated, developed first world” he somehow wins an argument. It may fly with some folk, but won’t fly with me of course!
    Since “education” part did not go that well, let’s see at “developed first world”.

    (2) It is also interesting to observe another flattering part – so-called “developed” world.
    Look, I live in US, and it is not my goal to put people down. It is true, that economically we live in more developed world (as in having more things, services, options, leisures, luxuries, etc)… but, why would having more of something be an indication of a world being ahead? As far back as 4th century at least it’s being said (and perhaps by some more honest greek philosophers even before that) that when someone praises another person’s jewelry, horse, house or any other possession, he is indeed not praising the person at all, as these things are not part of a person. Person is evaluated based on character, not possessions.
    Now, saying that, let’s evaluate character traits currently pushed down on us from TV, and other media sources.
    - selfishness, irresponsibility, and inability to keep one’s promises – as described in endorsing freedom to choose (abortions)
    - selfishness, and materialism as in kids’ answers when asked why they want to go to college or why they won’t smoke. Most likely answers will have to do with earning more money, and preserving own health, and own goals in life…
    - selfishness, irresponsibility, and inability to keep one’s promises – as in close to 50% divorces, when people promise and break promises very easily
    - selfishness as in unmarried cohabitation – when partners are changed when one feels like it…

    the list goes on.
    Point being, some of these characters are worse then the culture used to have before, and some of these also demonstrate worse character attributes as compared to some other “less developed” cultures.
    Credit is due when credit is due, and I am not saying that there are only negative aspects of the contemporary western society. But for Besen’s flattering speech to stick, it must contain more truth than that…

    Lastly, regarding “exchange food for people’s souls”. Ironically, (a) said by a person who most likely care absolutely less about starving people or homeless or alike, and (b) the one who willing to give away his soul in exchange for momentary perverted sexual pleasures, and (c) mocking a God’s actions when less advantageous actually receive both food and salvation. To make three fundamentally important errors in five words is deserving some sort of “Besen Award”.

  55. Konstantin,

    First off, I thought Evan wrote the ‘rebuttal’. And no, Wayne is in no way ‘delirious’. You totally misunderstand what was said. And frankly, I do not understand what you are trying to say about ‘rot’ & ‘perversion’. And I most assuredly do not see anything in the least bit ‘racist’ on TWO. It is the truth, fundamentalists are going to Africa to spread the gospel and to spread lies about gays, they are spreading the ‘Kill the Gays’ message.

    There you go again, calling gayness ‘nasty’. What’s wrong with you? Should I call straight sex ‘nasty’ just because it doesn’t appeal to me? No one is asking you to engage in gay sex, so what is your problem?

    If anyone is confused here, it is you.

  56. There was a time when I agreed with Besen and thought he had something to offer in defence of the LGBT communities. But he as well as some other gay rights groups have sunk to a gutter level spreading lies and trying to shut down their perceived enemies. They don’t believe in allowing any differing opinions and specialize in slander and personal attacks. The direction they have take will ultimately bring harm to the people they claim to represent. I have on occasion responded to emails received from Besen, the last one being his ridiculous letter about Charlotte pride. His response was “yeah, whatever”. Impressive comeback. There are indeed people whose attacks on the LGBT communities border on violent but Dr. Brown is not one of them. Anyone claiming so has not taken the time to carefully read what he says. I don’t always agree but have found his writing is always respectful and free of attacks. I can’t speak about radio as I don’t listen.

  57. I could go on with a long reply. But long winded verbosity is for Mr. Brown (see his Bible-long failed book which no one read)

    All I can say is Brown and his ilk are sad. With the lies, sex obsession, distortions, smears…it is clear that we are dealing with fake Christians. They have no faith whatsoever. Ostensibly it seems they are attacking me. But in reality they are constantly and desperatly trying to convince themselves that their backward and barbaric form of toxic fundamentalism is true. But in their empty hearts they really dont have genuine faith. To make up for this faith deficit the pose as uber Christians. But it’s really just a mask to conceal their own desperation and doubt.

    When people are secure in their beliefs, they don’t feel the need to surround and harass people at Pride, as Brown’s red shirts did. Mr. Brown and his mindless sheep followers lack decency and class. They have absolutely no manners and invade people’s space.

    That’s the kind of behavior one expects from fake Christians.

  58. Wayne makes some very good points here. Like, why are fundamentalist/evangelicals obsessed with sex? They cannot see gay people as anything but sexual beings. Gay people have full and rounded lives, they have lives (not lifestyles) and love & family. We are just like you except that you are obsessed with our sexual lives. Now where’s the sense in that?

  59. One more thing:

    I’m very proud of what happened outside the Boston Church (it was not during a church service) on public property. Exodus board member Don Schmierer had just come back from Uganda where he spoke with Scott Lively at a “wipe out the gays” conference.

    Here is what I’m saying through the megaphone: “Uganda, Uganda, Uganda.”

    This was one of the first direct actions to hold Exodus accountable for this hate conference with murderous intentions. I’m thrilled we were able to successfully tie Exodus to the evil they were doing overseas when they thought no one was looking.

    Of course, Mr. Brown would oppose this action. After all, he cavorts with Lou Engle, one of the primary purveyors of hate in Uganda.

    Mr. Brown should be aware he is partially judged by the seedy company he keeps. If you cozy up to bigots and nut cases…what message does that send about your “ministry”?

  60. Wayne,

    Thanks for posting here. Normally we don’t permit these kinds of attacks (including the “mindless sheep”) stuff, but because this came from you, our moderator allowed these two to stand. In any case, it’s good to hear from you.

    Please know that my invitation to you to join me on my national radio show remains open, any time you’re available. If you have concerns to air, I guarantee you equal time on the show with me. Also, I remain open to doing the debate we had talked about a couple of years ago. Why not put all the issues on the table for the world to see and hear?

    May the God of our fathers reveal Himself to you, and may the love of Jesus transform your life as it did mine 40 years ago, when He had mercy on me as a heroin-shooting, LSD-using, rebellious, 16 year-old rock drummer. There is a life in Him that is more wonderful than words can describe, sufficient to withstand the greatest trials this world can muster.

  61. Michael,

    Have you checked your transcript yet for Sept. 14th to verify that you used the words ‘evil’, ‘darkness’ and of ‘Satan’s kingdom’ concerning a future with gay equality?

    I saw you on ‘God Knows’ on a clip at Right Wing Watch but I wasn’t able to hear it because I only have my work computer & it has no audio. I think you are wrong about gays wanting to put fundamentalists in jail. Although, come to think of it, your attorney friend is right, you hets once put us in jail & mental institutions, so it might be fair payback. (Just kidding)

  62. Devin,

    I’ll check with Randy, on our staff, who was going to get me that transcript.

    As for the video clip, please be sure to watch the whole show as opposed to the edited clip that is circulating. And good joke. :) My point, though, without a doubt, is that some gay activists want to silence our opposition through whatever legal or popular means they have. I don’t doubt that for a second, and I document a lot of it in my book.

  63. Brown said: “He had mercy on me as a heroin-shooting, LSD-using, rebellious, 16 year-old rock drummer. There is a life in Him that is more wonderful than words can describe, sufficient to withstand the greatest trials this world can muster.”

    Well, that may explain the bizarre nonsense you spew. Seems God arrived a few moments too late and you may have taken one too many sugar cubes of Acid…

  64. @Devin,
    my apologies, if that particular article was written by somebody else and I misunderstood the authorship…. but get this, it is on his site meaning full endorsement of what being said, and the fact that Besen talks about “fake Christians” when the feel of what I quoted in previous post seem to clearly imply that entire Christian missionary movement is about “exchange food for people’s souls”, not just some fraction of it.
    Other thing worth mentioning is this: I don’t think missionaries go to other countries to spread “hate” about homosexuals (or for that matter incestuous, or whatever ). On the contrary, unless these issues are directly brought up by homosexual activists, I doubt this topic will be addressed at all, as most if not all people understand the nature of it… as pathological sexual attraction, and in context of Christian faith also a sin.
    Similarly, as most if not all people understand that say prostitution is sinful, (I mention this as homosexual activists love to say that Jesus spent time with tax collectors and prostitutes), and usually you don’t need to address and say – ‘look prostitution is a sin’. All people know this already. It is common sense.
    The difference with homosexual activism, is specifically such that it has to do with redefining status of homosexual activity. Activists desire to change status of homosexuality from perverted sex, to alternative normal conduct. This is when average person goes “what?”.

    As far as obsession with sex, it is false as well. If some sort of ‘national society of prostitution’ would work for legalization and normalization of prostitution in US, and accuse Christians of being obsessed with sex because they would criticize prostitutes’ behavior, it would not indicate Christian obsession. It is simply proportionate to the effort done by opponents. The more often the question of normalization of perverted or immoral behavior is brought up, the more often will conscious and moral fraction of society (be it Christian or not) will raise its voice.
    That’s my take on it.

    Devin, if you have time and desire to go back to discussion of exegesis, interpretation, objectivity, and subjectivity in Scriptures, I would be interested to discuss that.. since we were in the middle of discussion, which I found interesting.

  65. Dave,

    I totally disagree with your characterization of Wayne. TWO does allow differing opinions but if they are really stupid they feel free to say so. I read TWO daily & have not seen any ‘slander’. I think you are overreacting. Wayne stands up for gay people & I appreciate his truthfulness & refreshingly honest comments. Besides which, his sting of Marcus Bachmann’s clinic was sheer genius!

  66. Wayne,

    If you’re not seeing some of your additional posts appearing here, I would love to interact with with you, but we can’t allow posts that violate our policy just because they’re from you. So, if you can abide by our posting rules (every website has its own standards), have at it. If not, I do wish you well and I do pray for you.

  67. Konstantin,

    You have to wonder though, if missionaries were not allowed to preach the gospel to the poverty-stricken of the world would they stick around & feed them anyway? Or would they leave them there to starve to death? That really troubles me.

    Obviously you have missed the news about the xtians who have gone to Uganda to forment hatred & violence towards gays! Scott Lively, a well-known anti-gay activist & 2 other men made it their business to incite gay-hatred in Ugandan preachers & politicians. The government is still debating the ‘Kill the Gays’ bill. And several other African nations are considering doing the same thing.

    Gays have not (why would we?) instigated this sweeping hatred & violence that demands death or imprisonment for all gays & jail sentences for people who simply know someone who is gay who did not turn them over to the authorities. I’m sure you can google ‘Uganda kill the gays’ & find a lot of material.

    All men are sinners. Gays are no more sinful than anyone else.

    I don’t know as there is anything left to say about subjectivity. You probably believe that it is possible to read and interpret the Bible objectively. I don’t think so. Everyone interprets everything around them in their world subjectively & God knows that. He made us this way.

  68. Devin, they would stay and feed them. This happens constantly and has for centuries. We minister God’s love in tangible ways, in word or deed or both.

  69. Too much acid fries the brain…ever consider the possibility?

  70. @Wayne,
    RE: “ever consider the possibility?”.

    If ones views (that is regarding homosexuality) correlate with reason, common sense, majority of humans in known recorded history… in majority of cultures – then such possibility is minuscule.
    On the other hand, a man sexually attracted to other man is clearly raises dozens of questions.

  71. Wayne, absolutely! It happened to some of my friends decades ago, and they were never the same after some bad LSD trips.

    That’s why I thank God for His mercy, intervening in my life before I destroyed it. Thankfully, my mind has been sharp enough to earn a Ph.D. in Semitic languages from NYU and to keep quite mentally and spiritually active the last 40 years. I’m sure you have friends who were drug users too but who are sharp and clear-headed today.

    We obviously have deep and passionate differences, but I don’t think it’s because either of our brains is not functioning properly. :)

  72. Michael,

    I don’t think your brain is fried, but I think you have an authoritarian bent that leads you to have black and white thinking. A lot of addicts turn & become ‘addicted’ to the Bible. Just as they once overdid drugs, they later overdo their passion for the Bible. I am starting to read ‘The Bible Made Impossible’ by Christian Smith. Have you read this book by any chance?

  73. Black and white, like, You shall not kill, not commit adultery, not steal, not covet…

    Black and white like, go, and sin no more…

    Black and white like, if your brother offends you, go to him…

  74. No, black and white as in no shades of gray. People who are black & white thinkers are authoritarian-minded & their worldviews are set in concrete. They believe they are objective and everyone else is wrong. They deny, without realizing it, the intelligence of God to be able to create subtle differences & great diversity. Like how some people are heterosexual & some aren’t. God has made an amazing array of life.

  75. Devin,

    I haven’t read that book yet, but I have some other writings by Christian Smith.

    As for being black and white, Jesus was quite black and white, wasn’t He? There’s not much wiggle room in His positions.

    As for me overdoing things, look at it like this. I gave myself wholeheartedly to drugs and rock music. When I discovered God’s love and the fact that Jesus died for me, I gave myself wholeheartedly to Him. How could I do anything less? And what a joy and privilege it has been.

  76. Michael,

    No, I do not consider Jesus to have been a black and white thinker. He was too intelligent for that. He saw the gray & subjectivity in everyone.

    I think your worship of the Bible is not just a wholehearted surrender to Christ, but a certain fragility which makes you fear the future & fear progress & change. We do not live in the days of the Bible & we have to depend on the Holy Spirit to guide us to the many interpretations of how to live life.

  77. @ Devin,

    People who are black & white thinkers are authoritarian-minded & their worldviews are set in concrete. They believe they are objective and everyone else is wrong. They deny, without realizing it, the intelligence of God to be able to create subtle differences & great diversity. Like how some people are heterosexual & some aren’t. God has made an amazing array of life.

    Devin, there are many things I have to say, but it is pretty much needless as you yourself should see it already, if you stop and think for a second.
    (1) True, there are some gray areas. But because there are some, it does not mean that all of them like that.
    (2) if we are to assume your “subtle differences & great diversity” as an argument, where does it lead us? Let’s see…
    (a) Like how some people are heterosexual & some aren’t. God has made an amazing array of life
    (b) Like how some people are attracted to goats & some aren’t. God has made an amazing array of life
    (c) Like how some people are abortionists & some aren’t. God has made an amazing array of life
    (d) Like how some people are promiscuous (wasting their dignity) & some aren’t. God has made an amazing array of life
    (e) Like how some people are adulterers & some aren’t. God has made an amazing array of life

    If I were to take your statement, serious, it seems to imply that all these are gray areas…

    To me personally , gray area would be issues of welfare, gun control, censorship, dress codes for school kids, so-called “socialized medicine”, etc. When it comes to ones I mentioned above under letters “a” to “e” these are pretty much black and white. You can’t say, “man, I wish I was like you being loyal to your life-time wife… but you see my promiscuous genes make me sleep around with dozen women a year”. I don’t think this excuse will fly! :D Of course you are free to adhere to whatever view of reality you wish, but don’t let your desires dictate you what is gray, when in reality they are black and white. It is tempting to wrongly classify an issue. And all people are susceptible to it…

    When it comes to interpreting Scriptural texts, there is a somewhat well developed rules to approach it.
    For one, we need to study author and his intentions, recipients, cultural and social context, textual context of surrounding passages, etc, etc.
    If you really interested you can look up: “How to read a Bible for all its worth” ( http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Bible-All-Worth/dp/0310246040/ ) Or “Grasping God’s Word: A Hands-On Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible” ( http://www.amazon.com/Grasping-Gods-Word-Hands-Interpreting/dp/0310259665/ )
    These will not make you an expert, but far better off than reading into a text what is not there, or wishing text says this or that. This is serious question, and if you serious about it, I would recommend being familiarized to some extent as to what the exegesis entails.

  78. I inquired of Jesus, “are you really real?” His answer overwhelmed all that came before. “Come and follow me”, “Anyone who leaves father, mother, sister, brother will find…” What are the claims of Jesus Christ? When did he speak of subjectivity of anyone to anything besides the Kingdom of God in Him?

    Truth tempers grace, grace truth; love is not insistent on its own way, but as for faith, hope, and love, these things will prevail. What are the righteous requirements Jesus upheld which overarch subjectivity and relativity? Where is Einstein wrong, and Jesus right? Why does this matter?

  79. Devin,

    Please give me some examples of Jesus being “gray” about key issues pertaining to God or morality, OK? I can give you plenty that are black and white.

    Also, worshiping the Bible is your phrase, not mine. I worship and love and adore and enjoy and serve the God of the Bible. Perhaps if you knew Him more deeply you would see things differently? I say as an invitation, not an insult.

  80. Also, Devin,
    I understand one’s desire to be “nice” in terms of trying to be respectful of diversity of views.
    But, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong in thinking that “.. they are objective and everyone else is wrong.” It is not a matter of arrogance.
    For example, ironically, your view holds that you are “objective and everyone else is wrong.” in terms that you objectively hold to view that God “… is too big to be limited by a single interpretation”. But this very sentence you take to be objectively true. If it weren’t why would you share this statement with us? If it is your subjective opinion as to which interpretation is valid, why share it with us? since we all would have different subjective opinions, and thus no one would be right. .. including your.
    So, the dilemma then, to say that there is no objective interpretation is to make a statement about objective nature of facts. Furthermore, how would you ever arrive to such a view, and be certain that it is true, if you would have nothing concrete to hold to? On the other hand, if all opinions are subjective, then why bother sharing them with others, if their opinions are as good as yours, and there is no need to change their opinions to that of yours???

    I hope that made sense. ;)

  81. Michael,

    What kind of a person do you think Jesus was? Do you, like so many fundamentalists today, think of Him as a Rambo warrior Jesus or do you think of Him as a shepherd? Jesus never mentioned gay people. I think that by his very nature, His intelligence, His knowledge of what people were thinking & feeling, He was a very ‘shades of gray’ sort of person. Black and white thinking is not the thinking of truly intelligent nuanced people. (Just my opinion there). What sorts of things did Jesus say that were not recorded in the Bible? By his nature I believe He was ultimately kind & if he did not approve of sex outside of marriage then all the more reason to get same-sex marriage everywhere so that gays are not forced to live their lives outside of His will.

    I have to admit I do not exactly know what ‘worship’ is. And I’ve already told you that I have no idea what ‘love’ is. But I think it’s awesome that you can ‘enjoy’ God. I don’t know if it is possible for me to know God more ‘deeply’ when I am already terrified of authority. I didn’t take your comment as an insult.

  82. Konstantin,

    You are really offensive. Your man-goat comment was crude & insulting.

  83. The compassionate One, Jesus, had his words and deeds recorded in the New Testament gospels. What I think Jesus was then is not important, but discovering His person, words, thoughts, and deeds. What were his expectations placed on those to whom he said, “come, follow me.” His eyes were so noble that those called instantly changed life course and followed him. Tweve men chosen to carry his Message, then changed the known world.

    Michael Brown requested that you cite examples where Jesus modeled or stated a relative Gospel and actions, not a God-centered Gospel and actitons. You have come up with no such citing, only a lead to “what you think”, which is not what Jesus stated or acted upon at all. He came in the fullness of time, the Lamb slain before the foundations of this world. What then can we learn of Him, not of what we think??? Our personal lack to offer and spark what he has is notable. His lack of looking to others for approval is also notable. Jesus did mention marriage, and held it, as it was framed to be, in highest esteem. He mentioned that out of the heart comes forth that which defiles people. His words are about love and conviction, standards of righteousness, and a New and Living Way, not about shades of gray.

    I does not matter what Jesus said that was not recorded in the New Testament, but what He did say matters most. What we think and believe is essentially ignorance, unless informed by actually reading and deciphering what Jesus in fact was recorded to say. There is no workaround for the Message and person of Jesus, He said :come to me all you who are burdened and heavy laden.” This offer deals with any inherent fear of authority, any misgivings about one’s own lack of a purposeful development, or inability to make themselves as they can only wish to be. Jesus offers adoption to become a child of God, then completion and fulfillment in relationship to Him and His Father, then meaning and purpose in fellowship with others in His Kingdom.

    He is not sexually confused, He created sexuality, male and female. He created the family. He created procreation. He permitted the capacity to choose regarding our relationships–within boundaries He established. It is the heart, not incomplete desire, which can come to Him, Hear Him, and be changed for a lifetime of challenge and meaning. Hear you Him.

  84. Jabez,


  85. Whatever seems to say that you wish Jesus to be in your own image or feeling state, not who he was and is. The Rogerian psychologist says that constantly stirring up and reporting one’s state of feelings is meaning, Jesus said that rebirth, adoption, and loving as He loves is meaning.

  86. Another approach to you reporting not understanding or being understood by a ‘whatever’ remark is that of centricity. What is your personal locus of control? Is it everchanging feelings, likes and dislikes, preferences, unclarified expectations, sexual appetites, uncertain affirmation of being, and doubts and self doubt? What does Jesus then offer for change, from the inside out? What is Jesus then really about since He reported of Himself, ‘it is better that I go away, in order that I may send the Holy Spirit to you?”

  87. Michael,
    I have had the weekend (without computer access)to think over the ‘black & white’ question. I’d have to say that God seems to be black & white. He sees something he doesn’t like and ZAP! everyone’s dead. Whereas Jesus is a shades of gray kind of person/god. It’s not necessarily his words in the Bible, it’s more his whole attitude such as his graciousness towards the little children. He has compassion & that is one thing that is lacking in black & white authoritarian thinkers.

    What in the world is a ‘locus of control’ & ‘centricity’?

  88. Devin,

    People can often operate from their own perspective alone in seeing their/the world, in seeing themselves in it, and in one’s notion of God. It has a lot to do with how we develop such a view throughout our childhood and adolescence–mostly formed of our inner monologue and ongoing feelings as known over time. When it comes up short of either us meeting the world on its terms with certainty, or feeling good about our interface in it, we are, in a sense in a crisis of inadequancy over centricity. You certainly have heard the term eccentricity, or egocentric. Such defines the way some folks operate in dealing with their perceived world. Folks can become dependent, interdependent, or independent, as all are in a sense thrust into their adult world, with the sense of being uncomfortable, unclear, and uncertain of their place and placement in it. What occurs inside, ongoing in one’s heart and mind, forms our center of self control, or locus of control. For most, without a greater plumbline of being than self alone, it comes up grossly short of what is needed to have a life of meaning, affirmation, and ever-increasing purposeful connection based on what the New Testament refers to as Holy Living.

    Holy Living shifts the locus of control to an orientation in faith, in Jesus Christ and His promised provision coming to dwell in one’s center of being, or locus of control. Jesus has a solid offer, based on the New Covenant Message, and the Holy Spirit’s indwelling as sent directly from heaven to one–as well as connection with His community of faith. Millions of people who confess Him–since the first century recorded in the confessing Church history–accept his substitutionary Atonement for their own inadequacy and sin, and inability to make understanding God as He is so, coincidentally profess that they are changed in orientation, or locus of control, by faith in Him: to connect with His eternal being and His Spirit coming along side to help bear them up throughout this life (into eternity, this life being a blink of the eye in time by comparison to it). There is a transaction of prayer directly made to Him, requesting His adoption, which then begins a process of the Fathering of one’s being, or soul essence, by God into the Kingdom of God in Christ. Then there is also a shift in one’s locus of control, or self orientation in the process of a beginning faith, hope, and trust in Him being discovered totally trustworthy, and adequate to continue one’s own emergent development, over time, in space, in the secret person of the heart, when placed by prayer in His trustworthy hands. Starting with Peter in the Gospel accounts, faith is perceived as needed in the greater One, Jesus, for the lesser one, self. We were never intended to adequately manage our sojourn on this planet without His provision, gifts, and guidance. We are incomplete without this essential God centric relationship. It is not comprehended, frankly, by understanding God on our terms of comprehension, but by His own. Hence, “a man must be born from above to see/enter the Kingdom of God”–Jesus spoken to Nicodemus (a Jewish ruling coucil leader who came to inquire of Him in the night). Have you been born from above?

    When everything is only relative, or self centric, we then become, as scripture states, “a law unto ourselves.” I rejoice that you seem attracted to Jesus, though, frankly, understanding Him as He is is less prone to future disappointment than understanding Him only as we wish Him to be. One is, in a sense, when dealing with the world with developmental outlooks primarily found found from self thought inadequate and ill equipped for the ongoing challenges of life.

    I am glad you asked two questions with an apparent openness. In our “age of relativism,” a consumer and human rights assumptive age–where each and every can pick and choose this or that experience, program, product, pleasure, etc.–one can assess what is naturally so by their limited experience and outlook formed up to the time and point of inquiry of whether there is more to life than that understanding alone. To understand Jesus, one must receive his free offer of faith, hope, and love, founded in His reported life; I would suggest reading John then getting back here. Underline all that is stated by Jesus about what He promises one reading: about the Holy Spirit. See what He states as a gate into His eternal offer of becoming a disciple of Himself and His Kingdom. We miss your presence as already in it with us, but even more so as a brother in Him.

    You have already identified not finding Him as He is, read John, then get back here to have inquiries clarified in terms of language, words, understanding. Only He, however, offers the gift of rebirth. Another way of translating what Jesus said to Nicodemus–and this is hardly gray–is, “a man must be born again to see and enter the Kingdom of God”. Right now you are on the outside looking at others who are on the inside trying to understand only from a limited and limiting locus of control. Go to His word, read His promises, then ask Him for a transaction of understanding and adoption. This is by the Holy Spirit, where later His words meaning come into clearer focus as to what He is freely offering all, including you and I.

  89. Jabez,

    I’ve already written to Michael about my childhood so I’m not going to get into that here. What do you mean by “a crisis of inadequacy over centricity”? I’m not interested in ‘God as Father’ or of being ‘fathered’ in any way for reasons I won’t go into here. (I do know the Bible, I know who Nicodemus was.) Yes, I am born again. I am indwelt by the Holy Spirit, thanks for asking. I don’t know if you or Michael believe that because of the disbelief that Michael has that you cannot be gay and Christian at the same time. That was a lot to read but I went over it slowly, thanks for taking the time to write back.

  90. Devin,

    So it is a closed shop on discussion of the very concerns and matters I raised as to your own lifespan past, your own locus of control, and your own world view? Note you have erected walls on dialogue about your childhood, yet have tightly formed reactions to it, ie. as to what you would “get into”. MB may have other thoughts, but my own indicate that your not wishing to discuss particulars, nor the absolute claims of Jesus as being seen as anything but gray, indicate something about that formation experience.

    To reject any approach to fathering is to reject God’s very indicative nature in relationship with Him. Jesus had much to say about God becoming our father, in direct relationship. Where that essential linkage is marred, coming to understand Jesus as He is is also marred. Let me ask you a personal question then, in the interests of spiritual formation, adoption, and discipleship: if you had to choose between homosexuality as a relationship, and a relationship with Jesus Christ, which would be your choice? It comes to this, with areas of possible intimate dialogue about centricity and God and self, do you want to be all you can be?

    Thanks for taking your time to respond. –Jabez PS I will write later on the crisis spoken of.

  91. As a father of four sons–ages 42 to 10–I have a different understanding of this experience than you have indicated as such. I have a picture of you as a vessel of water, an earthen jar, hit by a stone, with a broken lid and side, needing the potter’s reworking and repair. I am compelled by Him to “go there”. Will you breach the subject that you may be a jar which lacks current integrity to be a jar?

  92. This discussion promises to be ongoing.
    Since, I’m in the process of moving to new residency, I don’t have internet yet, and have to type from phone…
    I’ll try to get back asap, but one thing I wanted to say right away- if Jesus were “gray” as opposed to black and white on issues, why then there are so many warnings about hell?

  93. Jabez,

    So, what you wanna know is about my childhood? It’s pretty grisly so I ten not to talk about it.
    Rape? Yes.
    Tortured mentally? Yes.
    Told that my parents would be murdered, I’d be blamed, I’d go to jail to be repeatedly raped & finally I’d be executed to wake up in Hell where my abusers would be waiting for me? Yes.
    God & Satan were the same? Yes.
    My evangelical christian parents were stuck with a somewhat psychotic child? Yes.
    Do I still suffer severe chronic PTSD? Yes.
    Was my christian father mentally ill? Yes.
    Do I have no toleration for ‘fathers’ or ‘fathering’? Yes.
    Michael knows about this.
    Does that make me a ‘broken jar’? Probably.

  94. Devin,

    Not only is your childhood complicated, it seems to wind tightly over you like the binding string of a hardball’s core. Ever take apart a golfball or a baseball, as a kid, just to see what it was made of? The small core in the middle does not appear as being what is found on the outside, yet has everything to do with the nature of what appears and is used for sport in this world, as such.

    Have you had opportunity to discuss these particulars with a trusted Christian counselor, mentor, or elder confidant? Can I make a guess from what you now report that you were preyed upon by a predator? Shall that darkness and confusion of past formation now define your understanding of God, and limit the potential to be all you can be? Will you now risk again such disclosure to such council, in order to begin to heal and become all you can be, in Christ? There is hope for your heart, at the core of the hardball.

  95. PS The physics of golfballs and baseballs are such that they require precision design and manufacturing. If something goes awry during the process, they will not function as they may; in fact, they may behave in unpredictable and erratic fashion, not becoming all they might be.

  96. For the sake of a communication analogy, take a look, click on the title to see the video. It is interesting that the pill core of the baseball remains sticky, or ready to receive what follows in its development of the manufacturing process. Take a look, and get back with me. http://www.hrsinformer.com/2011/01/how-baseballs-are-made-video/ Click on the page subject title to see the process.

  97. Jabez,

    I started seeing doctors as a kid & I had a mentor who was a Baptist minister/psychologist. He ‘fathered’ me to a degree then one day he decided to take a job somewhere else & he deserted me. I tried to kill myself – which was no big deal, I’ve attempted that more than a few times. The Christian clinic kicked me out because I was too troublesome a patient. I ended up with a superb gay therapist who became one of my best friends. I currently see a Jewish woman therapist. My past tends to be too much for most therapists & clinics.

  98. Devin,

    So, seeking solutions continued to complicate and confuse. I’ll take a guess that once the formation process was skewed, it continued off course, as far as producing a product (baseball analogy) which would work for the game. Since you seem to have presented to supposed therapy sources as a young person, do you think your formation was continuing through those connections as well?

  99. Looking at the video, with all those layers built on the core, of various sensitivities and potentials, what may have happened, over time?

  100. Sorry, Jabez, I only have access to my work computer & I cannot watch your video link. And it wasn’t ‘supposed therapy’, I’ve been in some very prestigious psych wards. I don’t get what you mean by “formation continuing thru connections”. I am not confused, if that’s what you are implying but I certainly come from a different POV than you.

  101. And, I forgot to add, it is a ‘big deal’, i.e. suicide. It seeks to negate the life God has given. And it is a signal, when aborted, that assistance is needed to reform what has been broken. The pain and confusion you outline then becomes God’s responsibility, if approached as such. Though this world is broken, sinful, and confusing, it is also His world. He is simply not the God of this present Age. Are you His child, or a child of the Age? Why?

  102. Jabez, I am definitely Jesus’ lost lamb not a child of the age (as far as I’m concerned). He carries me in his arms & pulls me out of the thorn bushes. I’m doing a lot better this last year since I had ECT in the last hospital I was in.

  103. Devin,

    Scripture of the NT underscores God as Father, believers in JC as brethren, and an ongoing spiritual formation for adopted children of God in this life. I am unclear if we can discuss this in its fullest potential as long as your walls are up on the importance of approaching God as Father. This is an essential reality Jesus ushered in to His nation which was stuck on a ritual approach to relationship. Hence, the Atonement of Christ becomes an extension of the need of the state of being of His nation of origin and family of origin to discover God as Father on a personal level.

    Aside from your painful childhood experience, if one could truly detach from that, or grow through that, one has choices. There is always opportunity for choice, where suicide is really a nonchoice. One is not bound forever by whatever skewed negative framework may have assaulted their childhood. Michael Jackson was convinced he did not have a real childhood, yet knew what one was, perhaps vicariously through his interest in being around growing children. How have you come to understand what may be a s0-called normal childhood, and what may be indeed Fatherhood as not skewed by mental and spiritual illness? How did God intend and create fatherhood as part of the plan of childhood development? Do you feel it is possible to know God without discovering and aprehending His very nature and fatherhood?

  104. And let me acknowledge your communication and report, as my last one and your were apparently composed and posted about the same timeframe. I wrote mine without first seeing your last posting.

    The level of anxiety produced by your childhood trauma then accounts for the ECT treatment(s) undertaken. Now, with some of the anxiety abated as such, where to go from here? I seems curious to ID oneself as a lost sheep, needing the intervention of the shepherd in order to return to the sheepfold in good hands, without acknowledging a need of a different understanding of their life among the sheep than you have yet permitted.

    Lets dialogue more after you see the video. Please approach it with a kind of free associative thought approach, approaching it with some level of serenity, and write what thoughts are stimulated in their sequece as it is watched. Not looking for a purely mechanical process notation on the evolution of the baseball being made, but opening up to Christ on a sequence of thoughts and feelings during its process. Even later reflecting on what you see happening, think back about your own life, and note comparisons and any possible lack of the possiblity of comparisons.

    The core ‘pill’ always is sticky, always ready to adhere to whatever presents. In the video thereafter come layers of string, i.e. yarn that maintains both interwoven strength and resiliency. More than one kind of yarn is used in the ball’s design and development where its outcome for secured use is ensured. With this in mind, and seeing the final skincoat on the functional ball for the game, how are you functional now for the game, and how are you not found so ready? What shall be done with these notations of states of being, functionality or lack, and any need to go back to the core pill to build once again a ball for prescribed use for the game?

    I used to think as a child that I was most often unsure of who I was and why I was, for my own childhood was confusing and revealing of many unsecured necessary formations. When later accepting Christ as my Messiah-atoning savior, out of acknowledged need, my first fellowship experience and its priorities added layers of confusion on top of what had been a real born from above core ‘pill’ experience. Thge harder I tried to understand an approach to Christian faith, the more inauthentic it was. Later, in my prayer closet, I discovered it was religion, layer upon layer, composed by humans which confused, perplexed, and did not permit my identity formation becoming so in Christ. How could I become all I could be with the hope He proclaimed? What was this new belief, another burden to be taken on like a heavy string binding my core person? What was it religious mankind, and, ultimately, Jesus, wanted of me and mine. Was it I, me me, mine, or something else altogether? What did Paul mean in Galations when he stated, ‘it is for freedom Christ has set us free….and, the only thing that counts is faith expressing itself in love”? How did this formation of my spiritual person coming on top of my conversion of belief in His sent One add to or subtract from what he described as His light and easy yoke, learned of Him?

    So, to answer your last question, I will with a question. How and where have you been formed in outlook over time, and where is that going for you?

  105. Jabez, you’ve left me two pretty long posts & I don’t think I’m gonna be able to answer them today. I am at work & I’m not in the position to be able to answer any long detailed questions. I’m out of work at 4:30 & then have no access to a computer til I get back at 8:30 tomorrow morning. So hang in there & I’ll attempt to answer your questions as soon as it is possible.

  106. OK.

  107. Devin,

    I want to thank you for being so open with so many potential readers here, and I’m glad that others can now pray for God’s grace to flood your life in a deeper way than you’ve ever known (and I’m not speaking at homosexual issues at well; I’m simply talking about God’s love).

    It appears that you and Jabez are having a constructive conversation, and I won’t be jumping in for a bit, but let me just say that if I had many hours to sit and talk with you face to face, the issue of homosexuality would not be what I would want to talk about. Rather, I’d want to focus on seeing healing and restoration come into your life in the many areas where you have been hurt and damaged, so that you would know the love of God and be able to respond as a whole person.

    Thanks again for taking the time to post here, and you are always welcome, whether you agree or disagree with what I/we have to say.

  108. Michael,

    Thank you for your comments. I’ve tried very hard to quell my fear of God but it started when I was 4 or 5, so it is deeply etched into me. I don’t think I will ever qualify as a ‘whole’ person but that doesn’t mean I won’t try to be closer to Jesus and the Holy Spirit. When I was seeing my mentor & I told him I was frightened of Hell, he responded by saying (remember he was a Baptist minister as well as a psychologist) that if I wound up in Hell he would insist on taking my place there because it would mean that God wasn’t the God he had been worshiping since his youth. I thought that was pretty cool of him. Of course, I know it is not really feasible, but he said that considering what had been done to me, God would welcome me to Heaven. As I have already said, I do not feel the emotion ‘love’. I never have. So it’s unlikely that I will suddenly start feeling something which has been denied me because of my circumstances. But I also do not mind you praying that I will someday experience ‘love’ in some way. Thanks again.

  109. Jabez,

    I have no problem seeing God as a ‘father’. I don’t specifically know what’s wrong with having a few ‘walls’; after all, boundaries are good things.God is a wrath-filled father & I am terrified of him. (Side note: we seem to talk very different languages, you and I. We must be from different parts of the country or something. I’m from Boston, Mass.)
    I’ve come to see my childhood as very dysfunctional but I am pleased with how it has worked out. I have a lot of pride (the good kind of pride, not the bad kind) in how well I’ve turned out, all things considered. I don’t think about ‘fathers’. I dunno how God intended me to see ‘fatherhood’. I don’t really want to know God who is in my eyes a destructive force of the O.T., sending out soldiers to murder helpless women & children. I do just fine with Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
    I do not see the need for acknowledgment of a ‘different understanding’ of my life. As I said before, I cannot view the video on my work computer but I have seen what an unraveled baseball looks like. ‘Serenity’ is a funny word. I don’t see how it applies here.
    I have a certain resistance to some religious things due to the conservative evangelical political take over of a lot of christianity. It can be very hard to separate the current politics of the right-wing that has been mixed into religion.

  110. OK, so you claim to now have leaped ahead from what you outlined about not even going there, as to discussing God as father. At the same time you find Him as primarily wrathful in posture. Walls and boundaries are equated in your assumptions of Him. You find the boundaries and actions solicited of the children of Israel of the OT coming from a “destructive force”. What did Jesus advocate about knowing and being with His “father” in John 13-16?

    You are right in saying our communication needs effort for understanding and being understood, whatever the reason. How did you get from comments 88 and 92 to apparently a different take in #108 than given in these reports to accepting God as father? It seems contradictory, or, perhaps academic, to speak of fear and abuse by a “psychotic” parent, father, stating not wanting to go there, and then suddenly shift to a blanket acceptance statement of seeing God as Father, yet only qualified by a distancing OT frightening and powerful wrath filled “force”. Were there any other indicators in the OT of God providing, protecting, and parenting the children of Israel, in the Exodus and beyond in the Land of Promise?

  111. Sorry Jabez, I really do not know what you are talking about. We definitely do not seem to be on the same wave length since I can barely make out what you are talking about. Perhaps you could simplify your questions? I leave work today at 1 o’clock so please don’t expect any emails after that time.

  112. Devin,

    I should also say that as humans, we have the natural perception of not separating dancers from the dance we or others are performing in life. This holds in most areas of life, except arenas like theoretical science, engineering, sectioned manufacturing, and some academic pursuits. Politics and leadership, even hopes for redemption in this or that unresolved area of life functioning and approach, seem to be normal dancing bedfellows of religion, faith, and an organized approach to standards, problem solving, goal setting, and follow through. Virtually all organized churches have a political climate as well as offer a teaching/preaching ongoing pursuit of defining faith in life approachable terms. Many also serve and address social political underlying realities we can be affected by.

    I understand what you are saying about politics and religion using the rhetoric of Biblical references when discussing working on standards, yet too that has most often historically been so througout the Age since Jesus visited. Church history seems to parallel so-called western civilization history.

    Even Lincoln and the founding Fathers used ongoing terminology of religious language when advancing this or that pursuit. It saturates the history as well of most now democratic nations. There then seems to be an interrealtionship between motivation to rally and lead support for this or that method of standard bearing, problem solving, and goal setting. Just look at the words Obama used in his inaugral address.

    As for what we like or dislike about this political aspect of our nation, there will be a struggle for leadership determination until Jesus comes and sets up His Kingdom (Acts 3:21). So, where rightest or leftest idealogy aligns with NT standards as stated, it is inevitable that politics will make similar announcements of alike standards associations with proclamations. What is the job of believers to sort out during those seasons when political rhetoric seems to be of greatest press attention? How will believers come to assume choices as being NT informed choices in these arenas of our connected lives? Does the NT, or Jesus Christ, contradict one value in taking stands on other values? Where do we go to understand and apply what one can directly glean from and infer from NT scripture, in the various political arenas affecting believers’ lives? These seem to be some questions where both sides of political persuasion may or may not align with standards clearly stated in scripture. Even so, God is a god primarily of the heart first, and the arenas of human dances secondly. Do you feel it is realistic to expect believers, who read scripture to look for what Jesus wants and upholds, to look inward to themselves as primary source of values? So considered, then why might believers support this or that party or candidate in a given election, even if they are prelabeled as left or right?

  113. Devin,

    If you reread what you stated about God and father in the cited two past posts of your name, what did you say there on that subject, which differs from what you said in the last posting about God as father? How then might I understand what you are saying indeed on that subject of interchange?

    What I was talking about was an attempt to reflect what you stated on that subject over three posts, and also approaching that subject as Jesus approached it in his thinking on that subject. There was then too the request for you to read John 13-16 and reflect on what Jesus said about approaching God as father. What I am talking about is the subject of the emails, and attempting to comprehend your own statements.

    God as father “I’m not interested in ‘God as Father’ or of being ‘fathered’ in any way for reasons I won’t go into here.” Posting 88. “Was my christian father mentally ill? Yes. Do I have no toleration for ‘fathers’ or ‘fathering’? Yes.” Posting 92. “I have no problem seeing God as a ‘father’. I don’t specifically know what’s wrong with having a few ‘walls’; after all, boundaries are good things.God is a wrath-filled father & I am terrified of him”. Posting 108. My questions were around comprehending these statements of #88, and #92, in light of statement “108. There indeed appears something to be discussed together, provided we are attempting dialogue here. And so, on a topic Jesus Himself spent considerable focus, and discipleship information about. Help me understand the thought development of these topical statements you made, about you, and so in light of what Jesus stated.

    Granted, you may not be able to do so until you leave work, pick up a New Testament, and read and reflect on what the Lord said on the topic. But I can wait until tomorrow.

  114. When I say “the subject of the emails”, this means also the subject of the cited posts. I receive each post here as an email as well, having checked the response box that this VOR comments blog offers.

  115. Jabez,

    I don’t think anything I said was contradictory. I do not respond to God as a ‘father’, not a ‘good father’ anyways. I can relate to him superficially as a ‘father’ , seeing him as scary & cruel. But what you mean by father and what I mean, are entirely different. I can ‘see’ God as a wrathful father but I don’t wish to know him that way i.e. as the monstrous father he is. I pray to Jesus that he will protect me from his father. Is that any clearer or have I merely muddied the waters?

  116. Devin,

    If you need further clarifications prior to leaving work, post them, though my answers may not appear until the day following. I acknowledge that you wish to not look at the baseball manufacturing video and use that as a reference for communicating.

  117. Jabez, I would really like to look at that baseball video, but I can’t because my computer is not able to show it to me. It isn’t that I don’t want to see it. It sounds very interesting. I understand the concept you were getting at even without even seeing the actual video though. (You make it sound as if I am turning up my nose at the video, which I am not.)

  118. OK. Let’s pick this up again after you read what Jesus stated about God as father, and approaching Him as Father in John 13-early 16. Thanks.

  119. Devin, I must go for the day, back this evening. Public libraries do offer computer internet access. I mention this possibility for further access without demand or expectation.

  120. Devin, my last post this AM in Colorado, then I must go.

    “what you mean by father and what I mean, are entirely different”. Please list what I mean and you mean in your understanding for our mutual future reference when we get back here.

  121. Jabez,

    I assume by ‘father’ you are talking about a nurturing mentor, someone to be respected, someone to be loved & from whom love is returned. (I do not experience ‘love’ so that is pointless right from the start.)
    By ‘father’ I mean an authority figure who dislikes me. By ‘God as father’ I mean a cruel monster who says he is full of love (and indeed, does love his son, Jesus)& then sends millions of people to hell. And please don’t quote that tired ol’ cliche about ‘God doesn’t send people to hell, the people send themselves there’.

    I read the chapters in John. What was I s’posed to glean from it? I already know that Jesus has an intimate, perfect relationship with his father. But I don’t. I am wary of anyone who has absolute power & has murdered people thru out the O.T.

  122. OK, Devin,

    Thanks for your response, for getting back on the particulars requested of you, and for continuing to be open and declarative of your understanding of what may most likely be my and then your definitions of “father”. Thanks too for asking further about the requested read of a section of John. Thanks too for mentioning being leery of absolute power, and your understanding of God’s supposed actions “throughout the OT”.

    Let us make an agreement upfront in these interchanges not to assume, but to discover more about our own understanding, and Jesus’ understanding of His advocacies for a child of God adopted into His family to relate positively and beneficially to God as described in the section read as being His own Father.

    I hope our discussions here both open horizons on what Jesus was talking about, and as to how a child of God, in Christ, might be informed, responsive, and be liberated to respond not only to Him as a needed soul comforter, but, too to Jesus as intimate with God the Father offering a similar relationship as He described in John for His adopted brethren. This would mean finding a Biblical Father as discovered to be so declared on a nonbelligerent nonthreatening basis of relationship, and too, a God as a standard bearer and reconciler of souls (as was and is Jesus). In the passage requested to be read, Jesus does not mention being interested at all in bringing His relationship with the Father to His brethren on the basis of “murder” and “destruction”. Though describing an interdependent relationship there with the Father, He does not declare primarily absolute authority in that unveiling, but absolute interrelated love, available for an abiding being for He Himself in the Father, and his disciples who were with Him. He alludes to various self demonstrated revelations of the Father as were shown through His person as being safe and approachable, trustworthy and steadfast in a disciple following Him being in God in Christ. Are we then, as to what I have just stated, in agreement on that summary of the passage extended in writing here?

  123. So Devin,

    Reading John 13-16 or 17 how approachable is Jesus Father presented in the passages?

  124. I wrote Jesus Father, instead of Jesus’ Father because of some curiosities of His own expression on the subject. “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father.” “I and the Father are one.”

  125. Jabez,

    I’m back to work this morning & can use my work computer again. I am afraid that I still retain my initial concept of God & nothing I have read has shaken that. I do not think that anything will change how I feel. Certainly not reading some bible verses. That may work for you but it does not work for me. As I previously said, Jesus knows his father in a way that is special just to him alone. So he can talk about his father in glowing & loving tones but that does nothing to change his father’s ‘bad behavior’ in the O.T. I make my decisions based on past actions, not on words. Anyone can say anything they please, but I go by what they do. F’r instance, Michael hates gays. He does not believe that about himself but his actions speak louder than his words. Although his words speak it fairly clearly too. Calling gays ‘evil’, ‘darkness’ & ‘of Satan’s kingdom’ says it all. I know that we are not talking about gay stuff, Jabez, I’m just telling you that I am very aware of people who say one thing & do another. Jesus loves his father enuf that he is able to look past the savagery & cruelty of the O.T. . I cannot.

  126. Devin,

    I write now on the East Coast from the Richmond airport.

    You have remarked more than once being unable to experience or feel love. Love is defined at least four ways in the New Testament. Of course there the focus is mostly on Jesus kind of love where His story and Way define his unique ushered in New and Living Way love, Agape’ love (as self sacrificing, serving, even atoning, aseported as laying down a personal life for others for their sake in His promised Kingdom). I cannot be but struck with the contrast of what is reported of His love with what you have reported of childhood experience and betrayal of trust in the most sacrosanct of relationships. Of course what was reported would numb one’s soul to reported trauma’s result, accentuate existential pain, and damage a normal child’s inherent gift given to trust.

    Yet one must recognize that Jesus took a very diverse group of everyday Jews from around His walking travels and they experienced something instantly from His person to which they responded in total trust. They became world shakers, having been quite ordinary prior to that living encounter. “Follow Me” was the shepherd’s Call, and they did.

    If we close our eyes and imagine being in an arid land of mostly small villages, and some larger towns, with Jerusalem, imagine Jesus walking up to us there and requesting dropping what our lives were about and following Him all at once. The compelling nature of the person of Jesus then overcame all restrictions as to societal boundaries, trust, and reported histories.

    Three other kinds of love which come with the human package mentioned in the NT are eros, phiilo, and storge. Romantic and sexual love, friendship, and natural affection–as the love of most parents and married couples–are facets of entwined relational love in the NT. Jesus used the analogy of the Bride for his people, and their sense of connection and betrothal to His nature calling them to His heart of hearts. I would mention to you that ECT is used when anxiety levels are unsumountable, and that as you developed over time in the scenario you outlined, you capacity to feel was severly damaged. Especially to come to know, respond to, and understand all of these loves as God made and blessed and gifted them to be for His people. You were orphaned from such expereince and normalcy. You are in a real measure an orphan oriented to a world without the compassion of Jesus.

    Although Michael has taken a stand on Biblically defined moral issues, I would not then trust feelings as you have described these to be about Michael. Your capacity to feel is skewed, as you have confessed. He has his own history and story to tell, and has been a pilgrim sojourner and adopted orphan himself since encountering the Kingdom of God, in the Messiah (in Christ). Although any person is limited in understanding Jesus as He was and is, including Michael, and Jabez, the primarly way of approach for those in ministry is prayer coupled with careful word study, passage contextual examination, and historical critical approaches. Then comes the life application challenges, and Michael does not lack compassion in his history at all.
    In the challenge of life application, where everyman in the Messiah will be tested and purified, he has maintained a flexibility for balance in the merged life applications of all the loves created by Father God. You do yourself no favor as to discovery of the four loves working in balance with one another in the New Testament and for you personally when an assummed ascribing lens on Michael is preassummed. You may too be doing God the Father an alike injustice in finding his nature as primarily “destructive” and “murderous”. The God of the OT is primarily Jesus himself in a religious construct formed with a percular people group, with certain requirements in the mix.

    Still, he was even there a god of relationship, which Jesus describes intimately in the passage in John in the NT. The accountability for sin and its soul isolating detestable practices is outlined in the OT, where the corruption among the populations to be warred with in gaining the Land of Promise, is emphasized, I agree. But to see God as murderous is to mistake His image for another altogether.

    If Michael has one passion it is to love as Jesus loved, and has worked to discover what that is over his lifetime of faith. If I have one it is to see those orphaned adopted.

    I am sure coming from where you now are that it seems to be as you have described it to be, i.e. that Michael is so down on certain people that you cannot accept His communication and personal efforts for the Kingdom of God as defined in Jesus Christ. But, too, there are hundreds of testimonies about his past directly involved ministry which say something qyite differenc about his heart than what you have permitted

    So, in sum here, because of being numbed as to normal affection of parent child interchanges, and over whatever abuse you knew, it seems strange to now apparently primarilybe connective of expereince of relationships which may continue to limit the potential of God in Christ guiding and coming along side to bear you up, and in a sense protect you from discovery of the four loves presented in balance in teh New Testament (prior mentioned). Jesus also spoke of his heart listeners in John 13-16, 17.and of His will for them regarding the Father He knew. Please now read John 17 alone and notice what Jesus says there about intentions then lets compare notes on what Jesus wishes for his closest listeners/disciples.

  127. As for the word mistakes, above, it is difficult to see at waiting gate lounges. I hesitate to repaste, because, usually, noone removes the old copy for the new.

  128. Jabez,

    I can’t ‘imagine’ myself as being anybody but who I am, so if Jesus strolled by I wouldn’t drop everything & run after him. And, yes, I know about the different kinds of ‘love’ already. And, actually, my ECT was for severe depression after 2 failed suicide attempts.

    I hate to hear you call the God of the OT as being Jesus in disguise. (Sorry, but I haven’t had the time to re-read John 17 yet.) I think one of my problems with God is that I cannot forgive him for abusing, murdering, suffocating, destroying, terrifying children in the OT. Now if you say that Jesus was really God in the OT, that makes me start to distrust Jesus.

  129. This thread contained so much explicit content i had nightmares. There seems to be a foothold here. How bout a hedge of protection for all of us instead. Blessings to all, Shalom.

  130. “I think one of my problems with God is that I cannot forgive him for abusing, murdering, suffocating, destroying, terrifying children in the OT”. No such record exists in the OT. What comes into focus in sections of judgment are the reasons why a joined kindred people group can become so saturated with corruption, evil, and darkness from the heart outward that God acts to judge the very existence of such a culture or society after the fall of Adam. There is also no record of God “terrifying”, or “murdering”, “suffocating” as implied by the collection of words you have presented as, for example, a Hamas bomber may intend from his own prejudice and hatred to act to bomb a bus full of children. God’s actions of judgment in the histories and the prophets of the children of Israel and Judah–i.e. the covenant tribes of the Exodus–are always linked to unrighteousness and a significant disconnection from what is described to be pursued as not corrupted and as to what is everlasting as to magnifying life itself in the OT. Judgment then is connected to sin in OT scripture, and consistently too throughout the New Testament as well.

    Revelation reads like a book written of an OT prophet–but contains redemption in the sent Lamb of God ultimately. It is a warning to all of us. The depiction of washing one’s garments clean in the blood of Christ and the sacrifice of maintaining a testimony of Jesus when surrounded by corruption and evil and life negation in this world overcomes the darkness and evil of cunning intention of the Satan, or opposer of all that is good, excellent, and everlasting. The opposer works by idolatry and deceit throughout both revelations of God to mankind.

    If one assumes that the descriptors you have put together indeed describe the essence of the God of scripture God would not be in a position to grant other horizons to those coming into relationship with Him which he adopts than a twisted negation of being. So what He offers, or promises, requires faith in the goodness of the gift of life, and the gift of rebirth. Horizons of freely offered personal discovery of the Kingdom of God are gifts given to people under the New Covenant, framed by the same god, but of a New and Living Way. Life itself is affirmed as a gift linked to goodness, kindness, and covenant relationship to receive continued protection, provision, blessing and rest in scripture.

    “Come unto me all you who are heavy laden and I will give you rest” promised Jesus. He also holds out hope for approaching the God He calls Father God, through meeting in daily prayer with Him, where the impartial perfection of heart attitude that only He alone unveiled blesses the “just and the unjust” alike on earth (the example given was of the rain falling on all). But much more is written as to how to come to know, be adopted, and comprehend the love of God in Christ. Vistas and views of more than heart or mind has past known comes into focus for faith, hope, and love. Faith, hope, and love are not about negation of living, but a more abundant way of living. Where God is for one, not against one.

    Your summary is not of the rainmaker, but of an outlook which is stuck on negation of self by believing a lie. The lie is that you must be despised, hated, and destroyed. Since, if accurate, it was tied to a lie about the essence of love and fatherhood in early childhood experience, it violated and invaded the essential being of your person. When that lie became consuming of a view of who you are or can be, it robbed the essential person of life, of hope, and of feeling with a Father God’s essential nature of care. Just like Eva and Adam believing what the serpent of old told them, you have internalized a false assumption about life and self, and the nature of God. That you are unworthy of the love of God founded in the Lamb that takes away the condemnation of this world and its unrighteousness, and disbelief is a lie. Faith in Jesus replaces the lie with hope, love, and the peacemaking reconciliation of the Cross and blood of Jesus Christ. All new beginning start somewhere, and this is the door to eternal relationship with the Father. Before the world existed the Father, the Son, and His spirit existed. This existence is eternal, not founded of a lie about the nature of God himself, sown in violent and of a predatory violation. God is not so disposed. All you must do to overcome is trust the complete work of the Lamb of God, Jesus, sent for you.

    What kind of cultures did those who were bound together as the children of Israel come into the Land promised begin to confront, and why? Is such discovery found in the historical accounts, in addition to elements of judgment in the accounts? It is simplistic to assume that the creator’s issues were not consistent with His nature, or the nature of Jesus as revealed in the NT. The opposer of God, the Satan, is attributed with alike actions as your list of negation.

    And here is the difference. When, in Leviticus, standards are given which carry into the present day for forming a community of faith beyond the religious cultic laws of the Childen of Israel’s Tabernacle system, which are stated to be moral standards for all time of human dwelling. Choose life, in Christ, not death. Choose opportunity for faith, not the lie. Choose to receive His greatest love, in place of the false assumption about your existence past internalized and never comfortable.

  131. Jabez,

    I beg to differ with you. God did indeed do all of the things I said when he opened the ground beneath the feet of Korah and his household! His Household. That means woman, children & infants. They were murdered, suffocated (with dirt & sand) & it must have been terrifying to be killed in such a way. So let us agree that God has murdered people. Call it judgment, call it whatever you like, but it was still the murderous wrath of an unforgiving God. Just how he ‘changed’ & became Jesus is incomprehensible.

  132. So, it is interesting to find your qualifications of your statements, where all those descriptors appeared together as one. It is clear that in scripture the great flood also wiped out all age levels of people, other than the family of Noah, on earth, yet we have many tribes and kindreds on earth this day. God has assurred that he would not judge the entire earth by great flood thereafter. And beginning with that history and your cited allusion we seem to understand God differently. Jesus was sent “to fulfill all righteousness….in the fullness of time….as the Lamb of God to take away the sins of this world”. He defeated the Satan. He went to the grave, and declared who he was to spirits bound in Hades. He rose from the dead. He then went to the Father, who received Him as the complete offering and substitute for what we all deserve regarding our sin. He was exhalted as Lord and Savior, King of the Kingdom, King of the Universe, and heaven. His spirit fills all creation. He is the promised One, to rule in the future Kingdom from Jerusalem, who will so rule “with a rod of iron”. A read of Daniel declares that on His return the whole world, nature, and His placement in Jerusalem will change reality as we know it to be.

    This world is a fallen one, with earth bound and atmosphere bound fallen angels, and nontruth in being and
    bearing working the works of deceit. “In the last days men will be lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God.”
    You might search out this statement of Paul and see what is written as to God’s response to this fact in the New Testament, under the New Covenant rule of Jesus, the Messiah. The time is short for such pursuits, and
    their fruit is declared. Mt. 13 too declares the God you have stated as unacceptable and per your desire to be avoided as unavoidable. The warnings are clear. The judgment seat of Christ is ahead. There will be those included and excluded in His future Kingdom. The losses for most will be great. Sin will not be rewarded; pattern sin will lead to a lifetime of separation from the King and Kingdom of God the Father, in Christ, the Son and rightful heir.

    The problems of sin and the problems of inherent darkness are really these days about the Satan and his legions, spritiual warfare, the heavenlies, and powers and pricipalities, and dark imagination–well beyond most people’s understanding, experience, and ongoing ministry, as such. Personally, I have experience in spiritual warfare; however this is experience gained from applied scripture, per the suggestions of Paul, and understanding gained from my relationship directly with God the Father, and Jesus and His Spirit. Jesus as comforter of the wounded, and sorrowful is but one side of Jesus the King of heaven and earth’s future. Read the Revelation, see the King, note the coming judgments, and accountability. Jesus is not conformed to our desire, based on our history or preferences; He is the only reality just ahead. We have the opportunity to be onboard the coming Kingdom, and we have the choice to be eternally separated from Him. Standards are clear enough throughout the OT and NT. It is consistently so.

    Even more presently apparent is the offer of grace and truth to those responding to the opportunity to change, not embrace the lie, live the lie, or be deceived by such. God is pure love, and that has the element of a purifying fire. What shall we choose, His Way, or our own?

    To assume all children are innocent victims of a terror God is to miss the offer of grace and peace from God the Father sent by His only begotten son. He offers adoption up until the Return, or one’s death. By repentance from works that lead to death. You are correct, God has a line He has drawn, to be blessed as accepted among the beloved, or cast into outter darkness. Which shall we choose, boy or girl, man
    or woman. Shall we be children of the returning King, or of the lie?

  133. Devin,

    I would now guess that you can’t relate to the outline of information just made. It is far removed from everyday understanding and experience. This is understandable in light of past impact on your soul. A focus on the seeming injustice of the ground swallowing up the household mentioned seems to be something you may identify with of concern more than all I just wrote. This too is understandable.

    We do not have much information on that brief description, other than the whole household was affected. We do not know their outlook, routine, behavior, attitudes, etc. so as to comprehend what seem to be harsh actions so reported as a consequence of nonrespect for a relationship with the God of scripture. My own challenge is to understand God more fully and circumspectly than my own early conversion religious experience. My challenge too is to not let that cloud all my comprehension of what is called true religion in the NT by any religious opinion coming my way.

    What is reported above are the long term goals and claims of the establishment of a righteous and promised government by God himself through Jesus return in time. The so-called Day of the Lord then advances these kind of results based on the groundwork visitation of Jesus and His Atonement.

    What you have shared is that if Jesus is such and such a way you cannot accept Him or relate, and what you can accept as about Him as well. One difficulty in holding to your position as a fixed position is that it seems to make Jesus as a very flat character, rather than a more rounded presentation of the attributes and qualities claimed of Him. Do we want a Messiah only based on what we feel safe with, or as He is?

  134. Jabez,

    “Qualifications” of which “statements”?
    Of course we “see God differently”. How could we not? We come at it from two very different vantage points. (Why do you write “the Satan” instead of just Satan?) I know all about “powers & principalities” already, thanks.

    God is “pure love”? His way is one of terror & murder, y’know?
    I see you weren’t able to answer the question about what kind of god suffocates to death Korah’s household’s little children.
    I understand your “information” just fine.

  135. Devin,

    Qualifications of your list of the way you find some of God’s judgment actions to be in the O.T. Such a list reminds me of once being in Ocean City, MD. My towel was over the sandy beach, and I was laying on it with my face down near the edge of one end of the towel. Right before my eyes was a broken black piece of a shell. Since my vision was situated only an inch or two above the black broken object mixed with the white sand, it filled my perspective and point of view.

    Then I rose to my knees, and the object became less obtrusive as to what I saw. Then I stood up and picked up the towel and began to move away from the object, for awhile it was still in my gaze. Then it was absorbed by the great white beach of sand, the blue sky and water appeared, the slight breeze became soothing, and others too were noticed on the beach.


    Yes, God is pure love. His fire is a consuming fire, and it purifies the heart.
    ‘His way is one of terror and murder, y’know?’ No, being now acquainted with the white and sandy beach, the black object which once filled my perspective is absorbed into its vastness. When once depressed for a season of my days, some years, I saw only the black object as the only reality filling my point of view. Then I beheld His Great Love. First it was totally by faith, hearing the Word, accepting by faith His story as it was recorded in the Gospels of John and Matthew to be. Then it was by aquaintance, for I requested on Him to show me if He was really real.

    Once, I held the attitude of your second paragraph, as cynical quite frankly. Now the golden light of the warmth of dawn has come and there is no return to that dark night. That dark self absorption. That illusion of death and darkness.

    The light has come, it fills the beach, it is not placed under a basket, but high on a hill for all to see. If they will shift their gaze heavenward. It is by grace through faith that one sees and enters into the Kingdom of God, in Christ.

  136. Jabez,

    I’m sorry but the beach metaphor doesn’t make its point with me. Concerning your previous posts I have to say that I am not a biblical scholar (far from it) nor a biblical student. I don’t want to be some kind of minister so I do not memorize long passages of the bible or study it for long hours of contemplation. Some people like Michael & maybe like you make it your life’s work. But I don’t. See, I’m not a fanatic about religion. I know the Bible pretty well but not to quote it. Religion is part of my life but it is not my whole life as it seems to be for you & Michael.

  137. I havn’t wrote in a while. I was moving for one, and didn’t have internet for two.
    So, I just want to say one thing.

    you wrote that “Religion is part of my life but it is not my whole life as it seems to be for you & Michael.”

    ..well… this gives away some peculiar view of reality. If (a) God exists, and (b) if what He has to say is therefore of importance, why then would not be logical to conclude that such aspects of reality would be a central part of ones life?
    There are views floating around that religious knowledge is not really a knowledge of reality, but some sort of a subjective wishy-washy make belief. This is de facto secular position, where Christian faith is not perceived as aspect of knowledge about reality.
    Unless you view is something of this kind, there is no good reason in the world to separate “religion” from rest of your life, as it is part of knowledge about reality. Thus deserving serious place on one’s life.

    just saying

  138. Devin,

    Let’s review a bit. Basically you have presented yourself to be a person absorbed with a traumatized history–seeing that as indelibly defining who you are–who also mentioned accepting one dimension of Jesus as appealing to you as to going there, discussing, and liking that dimension. You have claimed to understand any particulars cited for you for personal exploration of what He offers additionally on your and others’ behalf, as to relationship and healing, His own scripturally mentioned discipleship passages requests, and their offers for positive change. In each instance of bringing up these to potentially shift your view away from your presented cemented self concept, you have dismissed the possiblity of any such acceptance and approach with a kind of wave of one’s hand so to speak by responding with short sentences 9on each mention of cited potential interchange with Jesus offers of grace, truth, and faith as from the living God. This has been so as to looking at any other dimension of Jesus by citations of His words or words about what His disciples assert about His claims than that of essential kindness. So looking beyond a superficial understanding of His relationship requiring what you have dismissed as too much of you is not even a possibility here or elsewhere with your person.).

    Discussing what he offers a believer, being an intimate relationship with His Father, has raised red flags for you from the getgo in our interchange because of your prejudicial attitudinal formation on exploring more the Biblically consistent definition of fatherhood, its foundations, and its potentials for interchange with God’s adopted children (or you, as becoming so disposed). It remains clear that your identity as a victim who wishes to always remain so is well established.

    Yet your own reporting to date has been about the anomally of childhood trauma in a sense defining who you are, what you have done with that history, and have so adhered to be. There seems to be no question in your self reporting that you suggest being a victim, and traumatized, and incomplete. There seems to be no possibility of probling deeper, going further, or exploring alternatives which might be empowered by God the Holy Spirit regarding your incomplete and difficult personal identity and state of being status.

    This takes us to the circle of your original engagement. And, detaching, I then request of you what you want with the interchange here? You have not extended yourself to see the baseball making video, and so cannot spin off a discussion on that, can’t deal with the beach analogy as to how your view of your person and your world could change for a more positive potential, don’t wish to look beyond your flat character acceptance of one dimension of Jesus, apparently like being in a superficial religious regard of church meeting, want to stay with your sexual preferences and oppositional view of what Jesus requires to see Him as He is, and are both unsatisfied and lulled with your past childhood intensity of abusive feelings received. To date, what you have disclosed as to history, and dissatisfaction, simply does not line up with your potential to find New Life, and New Meaning.

    “Terror” and “murder” as to understanding the impact of God and your own person are actually being embraced by you, for, discovery of a more animated and caring core essence of God as father is simply unacceptable, for, it seems, you wish to continue to define God by the negative impact of your own history, rather than what He states over and over He is about as to redemptive intentions, qualities, and well established interactions in these regards.

    I mentioned in posting “a crisis of inadequacy over centricity”, which you mentioned needed further clarificaion (see #88), and that I would pick up that once more here. Such a crises arises when the fruit of sin as a disempowering reality as to discovery of New Life rests at the core of one’s outlook on one’s being, due to one’s inherent hardening of heart. It keeps motivation to walk in New Life stuck at the centric self core of disbelief, doubt, and disenablement. This presents to others as keeping a person stuck in their own stuff (as was Cain after murdering Abel, when addressed by God about the matter. God then said to Cain, “Sin lies at the door [of one's heart, the passageway to their soul], and you must master it”. In other words, seeing one’s being, motivation, and actions as being about only about one reality of negative consequence in one’s life is self absorption alone as to achieving any other motivation of concern [in this example, in Cain's reported life action and result of being isolated from the community of faith in his time disposed all of his remaining history by the sin recorded in scripture of him. It became the only permitted theme of his existence over the duration of his time]).

    One’s centeredness, or core location of what control’s their existence, outlook, purpose, and meaning then becomes consumed of their own egocentricity, permitting no other potential or posssiblity. Faith says, I do not like my existence alone, and need more to life, to then reach up out of one’s own limits of history, by reading what Jesus offers such a soul and asking Him to do what He says He can. Faith says, I accept Jesus’ sin offering by His blood shed on His Cross for me, ask Him to regenerate my soul and life meaning, and receive Him into my life. On my own life is limited and limiting to what??? My past victimization, no, I won’t stand for that, I’ll ask Jesus into my heart: to change my centricity of being to faith’s core, forgiveness core, and redemption’s core offer of New Life in Christ.

  139. Jabez,

    Let’s start right off the bat with NO, I am not “absorbed” with a “traumatized history”. I only mentioned it to explain my reason for distance from God as father. I do not have a “cemented self concept” as far as I know. Call my beliefs & opinions “prejudicial attitudinal foundation” all the want but you sure have a pretty prejudicial attitude yourself, y’know? I do not even like the word ‘father’ in any context. No, I am NOT a victim. I am a survivor. I still have severe PTSD. Despite meds & therapy I always probably will. And how many times do I have to tell you that I CANNOT view your video because I only have access to my work computer & I cannot see a video no matter how much I might like to.
    “Centric self core of disbelief”?
    “Core location”?
    I find it practically impossible to follow your convoluted verbiage i.e. I dunno what you are talking about! One thing I do know is that I have Jesus & the Holy Spirit in my heart & in my life. Nuff said.

  140. Kon,

    It’s “I haven’t written” not “havn’t wrote”.

    As to your question about religion being the “central part of one’s life”: I am a very strongly compartmentalized sorta guy (most men are) so religion is in one compartment of my life, separate apart from other parts of my life. That does not mean I do not take religion seriously. I do.

  141. Devin,
    good that you take it seriously.
    I just wanted to point out that there exists such a view that ‘religion’ is basically anything you sort of pick and choose in some weird existential sense, or something, which would give one a chance to transcend oneself for something greater…
    In other words, a sort of elaborated idolatry.
    As long as this is not your view – that’s great!

  142. Devin,

    You wrote, “you sure have a pretty prejudicial attitude yourself, y’know? I do not even like the word ‘father’ in any context. No, I am NOT a victim. I am a survivor. I still have severe PTSD. Despite meds & therapy I always probably will”.

    The question was raised and responded about centricity; indication of what that may mean was made as to one soul’s continuing self report. There is no condemnation about such reality, or self report, part of self knowledge is recognition of what one consistently reports about themselves, as such. What anyone focuses on says as much about themselves as the subject of report. Certainly citing such a report as a consistent preoccupation is indicative of such a fact. Part of looking away from one’s looking is to first recognize where their gaze is fixed.

    Exploring ‘father’ beyond the triggers elicited of this reported history then grants room for other looking not usually permitted by anyone with forbidden territory for new discovery. It could be that discovery of Fatherhood in God can open avenues of healing and freedom unknown by someone who has up a barrier to going there and doing that. Certainly such exploration could include looking beyond one’s fixed view or forbidden territory on the consistent objection raised. In counseling a “defense” is a report or mechanism for protection of self from such exploration or discovery.

    I know it is verbal in approach, but I suggest to you that the avenue to therapeutic discovery and New Life is about this very subject over which protection of the essential person is your current posture. I say this not to condemn, but to offer shifting one’s gaze and motion for such possibility to the vast beach surrounding the black shell of God’s perceived fatherhood. Here is the arena for discovery, healing, and growth.

  143. Jabez,

    OK, what is “centricity”?

    What does “one soul’s continuing self report” mean?

    What is “consistent preoccupation”?

    My life is NOT a “reported history”; that sounds kind of offensive to me. What “forbidden territory’?

    Your language choices seem very weird to me. Your descriptions are barely understandable. I think what you are saying is that I am not open to new things, that’s true, I’m not. Not right now, anyways. Not in the way that you are approaching it. And, again, why do you speak so strangely? It’s like leafing thru a book written in Greek.

  144. Devin,

    Thank you for your considered and civil response. James, the Lord Jesus’ immediate family member shared: “For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body.” It is indicated in the passage of John I requested you read, 13-17 that you might look beyond your reporting to date on what Jesus stated on a believer’s relationship with God as being Father. This lingers of our interchange and mutual regard.

    You might look up in a dictonary the word egocentric to begin to discuss centricity, and, go to a library and watch the baseball video as presenting a model for life formation. If what is shown is skewed from essential formation the baseball is not used for its purpose, or game.

    As for “continuing self report” this means discovering what one reports about themselves over and over as something they wish heard and acknowledged by others with whom they are attempting understanding and being understood, or essential acceptance through dialogue. If someone consistently reported that they were bitten by a rabid dog each time they communicated, a listener may conclude that this was a significant life impacting event for them, and that they needed to process how it impacted them in an exchange of safety and positive regard to begin to move beyond having formed a phobia of all dogs, where all dogs are not in fact or normally rabid.

    I responded here to the history you have consistently reported here as to themes or issues of consistent preoccupation through repeating such, as such.

    I agree all your life is not a reported history, but with some repetitive themes coming up in your shared self reporting in our conversation here, you have consistently put up walls about discovery of a larger picture and functional discovery of fatherhood than your reported difficult past historical experience (as coming up over an over throughout your posts, as such).

    I believe you that my language and expression seems foreign and difficult for you to deal with as well. I appreciate your post #141 for its honest reporting of how you understand my expression and words to be.

  145. Devin,

    I apologize for the delay in posting the transcript of the relevant portion of the radio show you mentioned. Here’s the full context, which speaks for itself:

    6:34 into the broadcast, September 14, 2011, first hour

    First reason I gave you as to why we cannot be silent is very simple. We have to speak, what I mean is that the Holy Spirit burns in our heart, the word burns in our heart, we’ve been commissioned, we’re ambassadors, we’re witnesses, we’re spokesmen for the Lord. Therefore we have to speak.

    But there’s a second reason, also very simple, also very basic, and it’s a question. If we don’t speak up, if we don’t stand up for what’s right, then what happens? What happens if we don’t speak? Let me give you a list of things that will happen if we don’t speak. Number one, evil will advance unimpeded. Wickedness will just flourish. Wicked people will do wicked things, there won’t be restraint. There won’t be a witness calling them into the right direction. There won’t be a call to conscience. Evil will advance unimpeded and secondly intimidation will be rewarded.

    People think they can make enough noise. People think they can just speak loudly enough. They can puff their chests and say, “Well you’re not coming our way.”

    I’m talking in natural terms of course, they can blast us, they can slander us, they can speak against us, they can boycott us, they can do these various things to intimidate us and we say, “Okay you win.”

    Now look, this is not a game to win or lose. I’m taking about we’re going to let intimidation win then. We’re going to say, “Okay, you get rewarded.” When you put up a strong enough stand, when you threaten us, when you tell us like the apostles were told in Acts 5, “Don’t you dare speak anymore in Jesus name, if you do, you’ll be punished for it.” Well, I guess we better not do it anymore.

    So if we don’t take a stand, number one, evil will advance unimpeded, number two, intimidation will be rewarded, and number three, we’ll be back further and further into a corner and further and further into a closest. We’ll have less and less voice. All of this notion, this idea that says, “Well, you know we just have to capitulate a little bit here and give in a little bit here and kind of make a deal a little bit here to appease those who oppose us.” No friends, that’s a deception.

    You know what it’s like? It’s like someone saying to us, “Well I’ll let you be free, as long as you tie up your arms and your legs. I’ll let you be free as long as you just give us the territory, give us your rights, then you can have your freedom.” It doesn’t work like that friends.

    Here, let me just share an example with you. Islam, in its best and purest form, wants to dominate the world with its religious faith. Islam wants the whole world to be in submission to Islam, so each time you give Islam an inch so to say, each time you say okay, if this is the stance you take, we’ll back down, we’ll capitulate. Each time we do that, Islam will take not the inch but the mile. It makes sense based on their views. A

    s we’ve seen gay activists coming out of the closet, fighting for what they say is equality and tolerance, each agreement that’s made, “Okay, alright so you’ll be happy with civil unions.”

    “Yes, civil unions.”

    “Okay, you can have civil unions. Is that okay?”

    “No. That’s not okay. If you gave us civil unions then why don’t you give us marriage?”

    It never stops and as I said that those who came out of the closet forty plus years ago fighting for what they felt was right, are now trying to put us in the closet as we stand against what we consider to be not right.

    So if we don’t take a stand, evil will advance unimpeded, intimidation will be rewarded, we’ll be back further and further into a corner and closet. And, you know what we’ll also be confessing? God forbid, but this is what we’ll be confessing. We’ll be confessing that darkness is more powerful than light. We’ll be confessing that lies are more powerful than truth. We’ll be confessing that Satan’s kingdom is more powerful than the Lord’s kingdom.

  146. Michael,

    So you are saying that I was correct. You reference gays (civil marriages & gay equal marriages) then say “EVIL will advance” (evil gays) & “DARKNESS is more powerful than light…”(gay equality) & SATAN’S KINGDOM is more powerful…” (gay equality). So I was correct when I reported that you were calling gays “evil”, “darkness” & “of Satan’s kingdom”. Thanks for admitting I was right.

  147. Jabez,

    What you call ‘walls’ I call boundries & boundries are GOOD. I’m not gonna spill my guts on a web site, it’d be unhealthy to do so. I have had to protect myself from the concept of ‘father’ & I do not see that changing any time soon. I am certain that God understands that & Jesus will protect me from his father.

  148. Devin,

    No, I’m not saying you’re correct, and just as you misheard me on the radio, you have misread me here. I put the goals of gay activism in the same class as the goals of Islam, and yes, I said those were evil — namely, redefining marriage and taking away freedoms of religion and conscience (that I also spoke about on the show). So, I never called gays evil; I called the goals of gay activism evil. Nothing new here at all. And whatever I said about gay activism, I also said about Islam. As for all your talk of “equality,” it is no such thing. Here’s some of the latest: http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2011/10/27/the-tolerance-police-are-at-it-again/.

  149. Devin,

    I will attempt to keep my verbiage simple here.

    I do not recall asking you to ‘spill my [your] guts’ on a website. FYI, the author of the bestselling Boundaries books most recently released a book entitled “Beyond Boundaries: Learning to Trust Again in Relationships” . In it he illumines that where boundaries become walls toward the Spirit of God working relationally in and among the people of God, they are counterproductive toward fulfillment of the promises of God given toward fulfillment of the people of God. When boundaries become walls, they become relational barriers to interpersonal fulfillments. When they are employed with trust growth and fulfillment is possible.

    Healthy boundaries both risk trust, and declare limits. So, they yield to the good, and do not become a doormat for the bad. People in healthy relationships live longer and have fewer health issues. We are also made for deep godly relationships. To this end trust is essential. It is freeing. Yet too we may be vulnerable to deception. When it happens, we lose trust. Hurt, guilt and withdrawal result. Even so, to identify and grow from whatever went wrong in the past relationship the Spirit of Christ comes along side to help a believer in Jesus determine if someone new in such a stead as a past godly defined role relationship betrayed up is worthy of one’s trust again, to come into the fulfillments God has promised in Christ Jesus’ family of faith.

    In John 13-17 Jesus says much about He Himself, the [His] Father, and the deep intimate relationship He maintained with Him in order to do and say what He did and said. This indicates your definition of God the Father is mistaken or skewed as you listed Him to be in past comments here, for you claim too to accept Jesus. ITo accept Jesus is to accept His Word. It is not fair to Jesus or God to displace and transfer early childhood father figure failure and/or abuse as being indicative of the essence of the spiritual Father of all creation, and a believer’s spiritual adoption.

    It seems from what you wrote above about misunderstanding the transcript post Michael Brown just provided as well–in offering a very limitied and negative reductive reaction to its content–you have removed your person from an academic objectivity on the posted transcript altogether. Part of understanding any writing is to outline and summarize what is actually stated, rather than simply react out of emotion as assumming such. If one summarizes what is stated in a few sentences, what is actually being stated?

    We disagree that ‘walls’ are the same as [equate as] healthy boundaries, as does the boundaries relational literature as well. In fact, practicing healthy boundaries opens the heart to change in a mature and communicative context, rather than achieves the opposite result. This holds in the case studies of relevance to the benefit of boundaries.

    Your response on discussing what Jesus stated on God as Father being a matter of self protection confirms not a boundariy, but a wall of protection from all that is promised relationally regarding what Jesus Himself stated about a believer and the Father being one, as He and the Father are one [and what that offers those of faith in Jesus]. It is the central promise of access to a personally edifying, challenging, and enlarging spiritual Father relationship which empowered Jesus to do all He did. In the passage He claims He walked by faith in the Father at all times. His palms sweated blood in waiting on the Father for the strength to endure the Cross. The Father both sent Him for this purpose, and gave Him the strength to so endure. And, Jesus did not stay stuck on that difficult experience, but looked beyond that appointed service, and was raised to the throne of heaven (the heaven of the Father).

    Frankly, your definition of God the Father as you reduce Him too to be by a list missing His essence altogether, is in error, and as a matter of jurisprudence as to advancing the Kingdom of God in Christ keeps your walls as to the possiblity of advancement beyond those high.

    As for changing ‘any time soon’, choice is indeed a matter of personal will. For the believer in Jesus, God will parent those claiming Jesus directly according to His nature and purposes, in time–whether a wall is tall as the face entry of the local mall, or is stepping stone height small. One wonders that if erecting and maintaining such a wall does not keep anyone so disposed spiritually small. The trade off of having such a wall in order to personally remain small, likely impedes growth as to becoming spiritually tall. Am I am holding my verbiage to terms which most understand here?

  150. Interesting here how the second to last paragraph I shared as to “keep your walls [up]“, finds the up written not not placed there, but posted in the second to last line third paragraph middle: “beyond up”. How did the “up” leap up there away from its word processed placement? Could it be that if I then attempted to define its earlier placement as normal, that I would be mistaken. I am not making this up, this really happened in the history of this posting, and I am responding two ways, one with curiosity, and another with a wounded regret as to what may have been had the up not been so uppetty, and disjointed in my own personal experience of its employment. But, in typing here, I have to risk trusting the whole uploading process to post as indeed scribed, but, it was not so. So, perhaps I should react and label all comment blogs as goofy, undependable, and errant? Or just this time?

  151. Michael,

    I beg to differ. I read over your words several times. You may not have meant it to come across the way it did but I did NOT mishear you or misread you.

    When you say that the aims of Islam are evil, you are calling Muslims ‘evil’. When you call gay activism ‘evil’ you are calling gays evil. Yes, you are. Just because you also slammed Islam in the same breath that you denigrated gays & gay activism does not mean you did not call gays & our activism ‘evil’.

    Your link to ‘intolerance’ does not negate the striving for gay equality.

  152. Devin,

    My last note on this topic.

    My approach from day one has been to “reach out and resist,” as you have surely heard me say on the radio, meaning to reach out LGBT people with compassion and to resist gay activism with courage. It would be the same with Islam: I reach out to the people with compassion and I resist the goals of radical Islam with courage. So, you can misquote me if you choose, or you can communicate my words and thoughts accurately. That’s your choice, but my words say they way, not what you want to make them say.

    As always, thanks for listening to the program and communicating here!

  153. M.B.,

    FYI, on another interchange we had on LOF re: ‘How to walk with the Spirit’, and my related response, now removed (along with yours to me, both civil. How removed was a mystery to the young woman who monitors the contact us and postings put there. ). I requested an examination copy of that from the correspondent of the ‘contact us’ portal, and did not hear back on that possiblity, or not. I would like in good conscience to agree with you on the way to the Return on that matter, and was honest about my own cautions and where I would seek such guidance due to past allegiances in both of our cases. My goal was not in any way to be oppositional to teaching that reflects what is written in the Word, but was open about other cautions. As a teacher I would employ such a teaching, as a class material, if examined and found mirroring the Word on the subject. Sorry to write off topic here, but I have no other means of direct communication and response. I am open to an e-mail response, and you may remove this as desired here.

  154. Jabez,

    I never said I was particularly mature. That’s just who I am. Considering who I was as a child, it is amazing that I turned out so well. I think Jesus had a lot to do with that. Your verbiage was a little easier to sort thru, thanks. I do not believe that I am misreading Michael. He has a blind spot when it comes to his belief that he is being ‘loving’ when what he says engenders hatred. I’m not gonna challenge him about it any longer. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

  155. Jabez, just a quick note, but I believe a copy was sent to you as a gift. Not sure what happened.

  156. Devin,

    I requested that you read John 13-17. When doing so, no matter how distasteful or seemingly engendering of this or that to you, would you write out all Jesus says there on the topic of Father, My Father, and going to the Father? Please separate these from all other statements there, though that is in a real sense doing an injustice to the passage. I reuest that we then discuss these. You could list the chapter and verses, and I could then pick up on that ground. I wish you blessing.

  157. Jabez,

    So I read John 17 but I don’t know exactly what I was s’posed to get out of it. Or what you think I should be getting out of it. Jesus talks a lot about his father. I think of God & I do not think of him as being a ‘father’ because father is such a small & incomplete concept to describe someone who is actually GOD. I have to presume that Jesus chooses to use the word ‘father’ because he needs some sort of word to express his relationship with God that his disciples will understand. But basically I do not see it as a father/son relationship. God is SO beyond being a father that the word is just inadequate. People, even Jesus, attempt to make God smaller & easier to relate to by using the concept of a ‘father’ but he is more than just that. I do not see God as approachable except for Jesus.

  158. Devin,

    Good morning. In the beginning, when creation was in motion toward its establishment, God was Father, which is mentioned in retrospect in the New Testament. In the OT God is mentioned thereafter as ‘Father’ twice, once of Israel, once of Judah. They were the whole people named and chosen for unique relationship of the set apart for His purposes covenant people of God for thousands of years–set apart from the world, the Pagan Nations, and for Godly devotion and His service. There is the give and take, the notion of origin, and the protection and provision of the established relationship conveyed of being Father in the OT. In the OT this relationship is not only sacrosanct, and trustworthy, it involves protection, purpose, and provision other people groups did not know, though some called ‘God fearers’, were adopted by choice under the umbrella of relationship with the named People of God.

    Expanding one’s understanding of God as Father often involves finding and studying all of His names given in the texts of the OT. He is named as to many descriptors given in words describing Him being of His many faceted and absolute self perpetuating Nature, which differ from our own inherent nature and life limtations (since the Fall of Adam and Eva), These limits stand for people without coming into an adopted and discipled relationship, where the greater ‘Father of existence’ increases the understanding and opportunities for the lesser creation of existence. The NT puts it this way, the Potter fashions the clay for acceptable use. Without a relationship with the fashioner no ongoing changes toward godly use occur, no matter what we accept and pick and choose as to what we may like and dislike about God.

    The covenant community of Israel and Judah were blessed with rights within boundaries, and in this relationship were given community boundaried responsibilities. In the NT His People are called the ‘Light of the World”, for, His People increasingly show His attributes, and obedience in a relationship resulting in blessing, which shines as a contrast to the darkness of self pursuit around and about in this world. In the NT, in the passage you read Jesus advances the notion of relationship with the/His ‘Father’ as a 1:1 personal relationship. It becomes a difficult one to comprehend and apprehend without at least some natural background of functionality, care, and approachability from the natural family setting. For many people that natural background is marred, as it was in my own experience, and you have stated was in your own experience.

    What was requested of you as to reading, along with a challenge of comprehension and apprehension of that read, you would greatly benefit from in the arena of gaining ‘maturity’ (something you mentioned knowing little of, as did I in early relationship with Jesus the Messiah). I recall in my twenties not knowing what maturity might mean, even though entering into a beginning relationship by adoption through belief in Jesus’ Gospel, for my models in childhood of maturity were quite lacking. Parents themselves lacked ability for self organization, focused purpose, and the integrity of great interactions of love which can accompany the warmth and excellent bearing and being of maintaining parental commitments. Joy in scripture comes to anyone as a result of a focus on God given commitments.

    It is a matter of heart priority, that quality of parental commitment. I did not know that in growing up, as, apparently neither did you. Certainly the literature of Family counseling reveals that many of us come without such parenting into the adult world, and struggle thereafter for some basic ground of certainty, purpose and clear and precise continuity about our own existence. This sense of disconnection was carried into my early adult life, relationships, and lack of existential certainty and with clear purpose. It carried as well into my early conversion years, and was stuck in quite an infantile state because of the kind of discipleship I came to accept because of the manner of my conversion experience and those associated with it.

    I recall years later the phrase about the blind leading the blind factoring into those years under that kind of self focused and power focused leadership. No matter how hard I tried to become ‘mature’ the harder and more illusive it became. I share this prior to moving forward into the scriptures requested of your consideration. There is only one Lord, one timeless church, and one timeless Message of central importance to acceptance in the beloved, or into the whole family of God. God’s very nature is relational and family oriented from the beginning which He created. Though there are many gifted with gifts among His own, all are called into the fullness of Christ as the goal of life in their lives. Being discipled by any lesser goal results in lesser loyalities, and lesser commitments. You, Devin, are called into the family of God to complete that which was not completed in past experience. You are called to know, comprehend, apprehend and walk with New Life in Christ–according to His own terms as the Master of His followers discipleship. To only accept Jesus by picking and choosing what one can be comfortable with is to ignore Jesus as teacher, and redeemer, and discloser of His Kingdom.

    Being called to be an instrument of the King of the Kingdom is no lonely recluse, or confusing existentially unclear call, it is to be called into redemption and spiritual rebirth clarified through His unselfish love and the ‘Father’s’ open relationship. First, lay aside preformed ideas of what that means, and next, let’s go through the text and see what it says and offers a believer and disciple of Jesus the Christ, OK?

  159. Jabez,

    I do not comprehend what you are talking about. Could you simplify it a little bit? I am getting a headache trying to read your dense prose. If you talk like you write then I still would not understand what you are talking about.

  160. Devin,

    Jesus loves you, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.

    Childhood trauma can be overcome by a relationship with Jesus’ Father.

    Jesus offers such a relationship to those who will pursue it by pressing in to His promises.

    ABCs for thee.

  161. Jabez,

    Thank you.

  162. Now the discipleship element to the ABCs.

    To understand anything “academically” is to find through paraphrase what it is literally, exactly, and circumspectly stating–whether it be science, social studies, or the words of God (Jesus). This means not reading anything more into what is being stated than what is.

    Here are three scriptures, as past requested of your engagement. Now we are working on understanding what they say.

    Most believers in Jesus’ claims spend at least 15 minutes a day discovering His Mind, through His Words.

    John 13-17.

    What is the setting? It is Jesus washing His disciples feet.
    What is the attitude of Jesus in the passage? He is instructing by example of humility. He is speaking the
    truth in love. [Jesus knew that the Father had put all things
    under his power, and that he had come from God and was
    returning to God]
    What was different about Jesus than other Lords?

    “No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.”

    Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.”

    9 “Then, Lord,” Simon Peter replied, “not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!”

    How did Jesus respond to the disciple taking charge of the Master? By truth with grace, He reasoned with the take charge personality to discover HIS WAY.

    10 Jesus answered, “Those who have had a bath need only to wash their feet; their whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.” 11 For he knew who was going to betray him, and that was why he said not every one was clean.

    12 When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. 13 “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14 Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. 15 I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16 Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17 Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.

    What was His instruction of relationship? “No servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them”

    Doing what the Master asks and models is always appropriate, and always humbling.

    So, as requested at the end of dense prose, let us continue at the Master’s table.

    Read 13:20 and 21.

    What does the Lord begin to say about accepting him pointing to accepting who else in vs 20? [Your turn]

    What does the Lord indicate is possible for one around his table to do as well in vs 21? [ditto]

  163. Devin,

    Oct 31-Nov 4 HOPE FOR THE HEART is featuring a special focus on its radio program, available on-line, on Childhood Sexual Abuse. June Hunt and others will offer special insight in relationship to Jesus’ Hope on the issues. http://www.hopefortheheart.org/site/PageServer?pagename=brd_listen_online Her approach is sound, and compassionate. Provided FYI.

  164. Jabez,

    Thanks. Actually I have heard that program a number of times. I’ve never found June Hunt to be particularly knowledgeable about some of the things she covers. I imagine her heart is in the right place but she can be very mistaken in some of her subjects. But thanks for thinking of me.

  165. Devin,

    Thanks for the honest reply. My experience of June in my own struggles of consequence differs from your own. And, actually, she may have updated past content. Her framework for compassion too is directly linked to Jesus Christ as a living reality, not as an occasional religiously approached reality. Her standards, her heart, and her effort do extend the Kingdom of God in Christ, so I admire what she works to achieve and offer. Frankly, I experience Michael Brown too with such an allied heart and come along side of his efforts as well. Few can duplicate his scholarship connected with a considered compassion. It is a compassion which offers dialogue for any soul seeking the Kingdom of God in Christ.

    I picked up our interchange on Jesus and His/our heavenly Father with two responses asked of you, as finishing post #60. This can open up our dialogue and sharing on what Jesus claims for any believer in Him as to a relationship with His/our Father. I would like to go through the passage through chapter 17 by interchange here with your person, if you will permit this discipleship to the mind of Christ on the subject opportunity here.

  166. Devin,

    Also the Heart Hope site indicates a week of related programs on childhood abuse, rather than one program. I appreciate that you engage these opportunities, regardless of how you may accept or qualify such. For those allied with the Kingdom of God in Christ as a personal commitment, rather than a religious one day a week experience, the power of God’s own words, rather than the outward form of reference, is involved in their own interface regarding hope. Here, when I read your view and Michael Brown’s understanding, it seems apparent that the centricity of these are coming from different places.

    A simple examination of the words of Jesus on access to His Father, and what that offers should offer a brief academic exploration and ooportunity regarding Jesus advocacies and comprehension on what He upholds as a life-effective topic. As has been declared in the past by analysis of the emphases of Jesus, this is a central idea of His introduction to those of faith. You past mentioned compartmenalization and being a man, it seems so in our society, and too it seems that Jesus is counterintegrative in his outlook, advocacies, and proclamations.

  167. Correction. On some of my PCs the listed comments here of late do not include a number 1 in front of such comments, so my posting to Devin, #166, in referring to posting #60 actually refers to posting #160. So, Devin, in spite of our different allegiances mentioned in posting 166, and our different understandings of the material and commuication of Michael L. Brown and June Hunt, my second paragraph of #166 offers looking together at what Jesus states on His/our Father in the passage past brought up for further exploration here, i.e., John 12-17. The goal here is on the topic of Fatherhood as Jesus presents it to be, not other topics of relevance here.

    Healing, understanding, peacemaking may all depend on how we find the mind of Christ’s lead in looking up the passage given for mutual exploration. You have stated your assumptions and assertions, and I mine, now, let us look at what Jesus says on the Father by further dialogue here.

  168. Jabez,

    Sorry I haven’t gotten back to you more quickly. But the fact is, I find it very difficult to understand your prose. It is dense & convoluted, so much so that I have a hard time figuring out what you are talking about. (As well as having PTSD, I have SAD-seasonal affective disorder-& have been involved in getting my meds increased as well as just settling in with a brand new therapist this week, He’s the director of the clinic – they needed to assign me to someone who was very experienced & able to handle me.) So it’s been a kinda hectic couple of weeks.

    I’ve read John 17 a number of times & do not see what you want me to get out of it. It seems to me that God & Satan have a lot in common: destroying lives, butchering innocents, a taste for blood. Now, if you wanna insist that Jesus is ‘like God’, then that looks pretty bad for Jesus. Also, it makes the idea of a shepherd looking after his sheep seem naive & downright impossible. I have to say that so far you’ve pushed me to see Jesus not in a kindly way, but as the blazing psycho of Revelation. Now, I know that wasn’t your intention but I cannot fathom how you think God/Jesus can murder people left & right yet somehow you’re gonna be ‘favored’ & escape the slaughter. I find that position to be kind of arrogant & egotistical. Depending on the whims of God seems like a very dangerous way to live one’s life. Don’t you read the Bible? All of it? The murder & mayhem at God’s pleasure? Do you blind yourself to his true nature? God is a disaster waiting to happen.

  169. D.

    The ball for a specific response was last left in your court. A verse by verse approach to God as Father was offered to go through John 13-17; in this section of Jesus teaching, God is not dense nor described to be as you just did and earlier asserted at all. And, the first questions built of the study indeed involve an interchange around reading a portion of the Bible. So here was your opportunity to establish that you were reading the Bible, as I have already established about me.

    Here is what was offered as a beginning study for continuing interchange, where, as you have asserted elsewhere, a conclusion can be drawn from a Biblical text:

    “Read 13:20 and 21.

    What does the Lord begin to say about accepting him pointing to accepting who else in vs 20? [Your turn. Hint God the Father is mentioned]

    What does the Lord indicate is possible for one around his table to do as well in vs 21? [ditto. Hint, what did Judas do?]”

    This requested something of you to do. You have not done this, or begun to look into the passage with me to discover what it says at all.

    Because of your claim to see God only one way, and equate His nature with the Satan’s nature, a step by step Bible study was offered here. This activity would have addressed your fixation as to understanding God the Father only negatively and incorrectly.

    The study is posted as to offering a plan for going through John 13-17 to see what Jesus himself taught on His Father. This approach offered you simple participation right here, not elsewhere, unlike the baseball video. This is where our interchanged was left when you stopped interchanging.

  170. last sentence interchanged is meant to be interdchange

  171. interchange

  172. Jabez,

    I read the verses you mentioned, John 13:20. So what is your point?

    I’ll repeat what I tried to convey to you yesterday. You are destroying my good feelings about Jesus by saying that he is just like his father. Since his father is a murderer (breaking one of the Ten Commandments) that means Jesus was totally OK with the death & destruction that dominates the O.T.. So how exactly is this ‘helping me’? You are only turning me against Jesus & I don’t like that. Why can’t you take what I say seriously?

  173. Devin,

    What you bring up is interesting, for, it validates earlier discovery here through our discussions. “Destroying your good feelings about Jesus”, is declared as being centered in its locus of control on your feelings. What kind of God would we all have if in each and every case of faith it was based on each and every person’s feelings? This would not be faith at all, but subjectivity. And that is the point. Here the goal is to work through the difficult feelings to the other side of personal possiblity and purpose.

    As past stated, one must realize that virtually 95% of all supposed ‘therapeutic counseling’ centers a person to their feelings as to the dialogue or monologue processing happening in supposed therapy sessions. You have a considered long history in such pursuit and its form of validation. I want to challenge you to look beyond your looking, beyond the preoccupation with the black shell piece just before one’s eyesight on the beach while laying face down on a towel so to speak.

    Of course, as you stated, this metaphor did not work for you. And this too is a situation of self fixation, past described. This is one of the not such as it appears to be realities we are walking into here. As initially mentioned in our first few interchanges, your own spiritual formation was both complicated, and addressed by your history in the making of supposed therapeutic pursuits. You mentioned being abandoned and an emotive and self destructive reaction to that therapist/Pastor. You mentioned how you viewed your person and attempted to negate your person as a result of that bonding and that person going away. It seems apparent then that the issue of credible and caring fatherhood is the point we have to get to to get to the other side of that centricity of what is keeping you stuck, simply put.

    I write here because that is where our conversation started. I share with you that working through the lack of integrity of my own father to the other side of it has been part of my own development. My prose, when it becomes dense, as you put it, is due to my own lower spinal injury from being a carpenter many years, and how the energy it robs then isolates my person in my head, in my attempts of objective expression, etc. I am permanently partially disabled and struggle within when overwhelmed by the energy sapping pain. I can walk, backcountry ski, etc.–but when this stimulus response is active it partly cripples my expressive capacity (on and off in a given day) and then I can feel the kind of radical isolation I myself felt in childhood, due to the signals about myself my father gave me which kept me stuck in some formative years.

    True Fatherhood, childhood trust and bonding, and an authentic understanding of God’s fatherhood are quite liberating in result in the inner man of the heart. I simply cannot ignore what you have disclosed, and honor stuck feelings. Why? Because they are inaccurate, as past described here as a ‘ cemented self concept’, and you have the capacity to make informed choices about your feeling states, i.e. in this instance your very large paranoia and personal protective wall formed around going there and examining that issue (trust and true father provision of care and protection, and, yes, even ongoing spiritual relationship as one begins to understand God the Father as He truly is, and as Jesus unveils that relationship to be).

    Devin, I won’t pamper feeling states as stuck states of being here, simply put. I have four years of graduate counseling psychology training, and years of interactions with brethren who are stuck at this or that juncture along the way to freedom. Your freedom is the very reality the Satan would defeat as to potential and possiblity; and it is what Jesus died for.

  174. Jabez,

    So what if I have ‘feelings’ about Jesus? Faith without feelings is a lost cause. Everything is ‘subjective’. It’s a good thing. I don’t think that just because I’ve had a lot of counselling I am thus ‘looking the wrong way’. Self-fixation? Huh? That’s an insult, isn’t it?

    I’m sorry to hear about your spinal injury. Doesn’t everyone have a ‘protective wall’; wouldn’t it be unhealthy not to? I wasn’t aware I was paranoid.

    What do you mean by ‘feeling states’? Is that another way of saying ‘feelings’?

    I start with my new (male) therapist in Dec. so I’ll be going thru another father transference stage. I’m not looking forward to it really but it should be interesting.

  175. Devin,

    This seems a hasty reply, at best. Detaching from self cited feelings about your take on Jesus having been in a sense sacrosanct for you, to date what have you shared about your understanding of Jesus? It is just that, not as built of the teachings of Jesus presented in total in the NT, and, as to discovery from the passage requested for a mutual examination of its content. There are many sides to Jesus, many names, and intentions to Jesus, as the NT declares these to be, and as the passage opens up.

    Dr. B. has separated from an understanding you assert as so about a past segment of his radio program and as to your understanding of Christianity. He stated this as not being upheld in the basis of Christian faith, in the teachings Jesus and the Apostles extended from the New Testament. You upheld that he is unloving based on your feelings, preferences, preoccupations and affiliations, given in your summary response of value to what he posted in that radio program segment . He stated in response that your last stated position was not accurate about what he last posted, and also so in terms of NT disclosure on the matter as to such constituting apostacy. His reply was as based on the centricity of scripture (central authority on the matter stated in scripture), not on individual feelings, as represented the centricity of your own response. In other words he consulted the written word of scripture, and you consulted your own feelings on the matter. And the sources and center for these are different as to the validity of argumentation.

    Instead of academically summarizing his position by paraphrase in response to the article he takes to task, posted here as a basis for the response thread, your response to his posting and last engagement is indeed primarily about your feelings on the matter. So, as to listening, hearing, and responding as to the actual information given by him, it is primarily and perhaps only your own feelings which are the sole valued meaning of milieu and communication with those upholding what the NT itself states which you permit as valid on the matter of discussion. This would be labeled as a most difficult approach to achieving any academic understanding of any subject matter whatsoever.

    You have shared some concerns of your childhood and related counseling with my person in the past, as impacting your personal history and assumptions over time. I have moved to look into the trust and reliability issues you raised by this reporting on God’s related fatherhood as being primarily linked as to personal meaning to your feelings and early childhood father disappointment. In past posts you mentioned not wanting to discuss fatherhood, nor God as father, and limiting such to nonparticipation. A ‘feeling state’ then so related would be a feeling of safety achieved by not permitting examination of other information in regard to this matter. A secondary ‘feeling state’ would be feeling threatened and protective when attempting to do so. Yet reality remains that the larger body of evidence on fatherhood is that many testify of its benefits and attributes, not ever testifying of any abuse in interacting with their own experience with fathers. This then says, in terms of a reality check with them, that you are not willing to go there for information examination, and identify at all with a large body of information which validates the integrity of fatherhood. Further, you have not permitted such an examination of what is written as such in scrupture. This position then leads to the conclusion of you being in a ‘stuck’ position as far as achieving a growth and personal development opportunity from finding other values than a negative value of your characterization of God from limited material permitted to be examined of the OT, and, coincidentally your early childhood as well.

    You reflected in the past a rather myopic and childhood displaced look into some behavior believed as completely characterizing God as a person in the OT (as stated by you as indicative of the total character of God, in spite of your list on him being very limited and limiting), in spite of the overwhelming evidence in that text to the contrary. I requested then looking into what Jesus said about HIs Father in the NT. In this sense of dealing with fatherhood as a becoming factor of ongoing personal formation, Jesus advocates something in the passage you have not yet reflected as being comprehended. Thus to date, you have embraced a lie, by not willing to research and respond to or see other overwhelming as different descriptors and descriptions of God as Father in the OT and in the NT. You have taken some reported actions, characterized these as murderous (where they in context are stated being something else, and reflect God’s capability to judge). Your words attempt a related conclusory sum and substance statement about God, Jesus’ father, based on a very small look into the body of scriptural literature.

    You have declared him to be a murderer, when what he permitted to be was no longer so permitted to be in one circumstance–i.e. through the instances of interactions of judgement of the then Promised Land occupants by those chosen to take the promised Land by working in concert with Moses’ OT God. As to Jesus and the NT record on Father God, being his reported Father, you do not wish to look at the relationship He maintained and advocated for those of faith with His Father. If all of the above is not then a limiting fixation by its very gatekeeping permissions and lacks of permission, what is it?

    It isn’t just that you have feelings about Jesus which only permit a limiting picture of Him as well, it is that you apparently will not examine what Jesus and the scriptures He employed in his teaching on the subject of His Father, the God of the Bible accounts to be the essence of a God of love. Yes, this keeps your person stuck from further exploration, and discovery, as is reiterated in your most recent response to my posting. You still have not responded to two simple Bible study questions, apparently won’t go there and do that (giving another question of me on the verses), nor will move from your self centric locus of control about doing so. This would be achieved by giving permission for permitting your own discovery by reading the passage and paraphrasing a different and fresh interaction on the verses by doing so. In short, I hold that the statements made on the Fatherhood of God being unpermissible ‘territory’, as has been cemented in posturing by mentioning only your feelings as meaningful indeed keeps you stuck in these as being your own and only permitted reality on the subject. Scripture offers other reality than you are permitting for you, and others. It presents that your self concept as to the phenomena of going to discuss new material from scripture on Jesus for you must remain intact at all other costs of discovery.

    What is observable, as reported as to your own disclosure, confirms a fixed outlook on the matter of God the Father, fatherhood, and Jesus, as mentioned. Your position certainly is not about the accounts of Jesus, which He and others make, or as to His stated relationship with His Father, and His Father as declared as available for His disciples. You have indicated that if Jesus walked by and asked you to follow him it would not happen. You have indicated that your life is compartmentalized into a go to meeting kind of religion, not an everyday life challenged faith. You have indicated that you can accept Jesus as to how you wish Him to be, but not His Father God, as He has indicated Him to be.

    In short, yes, perception in this case is indeed about self centric feelings being accepted as meaning as are personally valued over and above all other indicators of what constitutes a faith in Jesus Christ as being who He declared He was and is. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever advocates a direct relationship with his Father, not a wall being erected in place of truth, grace, and discovery of the Father of scripture. His is a NT declaration, in the passage from John 13-17, and you have not yet responded to the first questions from the passage. These are answered as based on what He himself declares and advocates for a believer on a relationship with His Father, question by question.

    No, it is not an insult at all to state what I stated, it is a summary of your position as discovered from your own self disclosure in this blog. Paranoia is about not wishing to look beyond the black shell negative meaning preoccupation given on the blog as being a personal vision of the father God of scripture. You see that detail of consideration and focus as is self absorbed in understanding. This could change as you move from your predetermined position to walk and stand and behold the entire beach in which the dark view is found emmersed in the sand at one small geographic coordinate.

    Frankly it is the stuck position of seeing God as a murderer, instead of a righteous, caring, and bigger picture accountability reality, which has cemented something for you. This does not hold fortunately for a larger cloud of witnesses of the faith.

    You have not responded to the simplicity put before you of you yourself making one by one the two verses summary question responses. These were offered and are so as steps to be made away from the black vision of father God fixed in your gaze, as mixed into your life story regarding fathers, as has deferred to self meaning, not Jesus’ purposes, as representing the King of the Kingdom of God.

  176. Jabez,


    I have NO IDEA what you just said.

  177. Devin,

    I belive you. Now, the challenge then is to contemplate it, break it down into five pages, and read and reflect on one at a time. The challenge then is to learn to reiterate, paraphrase, summarize, list, glean from, and learn some other monologue than that which you maintain inside. I believe you can understand it, if broken down into smaller components, chewed on, digested, and worked at. For change to occur for you feelings self talk is likely not the approach you need at this juncture.

  178. Jabez,

    OK, we’re thru, you & I.
    I can’t understand most of your sentences. They are so convoluted that give me a headache trying to read them. Really. You might as well be speaking greek. ‘Locus of centricity’? etc etc. That’s just word salad. I am also tired of you insulting me with your ridiculous supposition that feelings don’t matter. I really did try to wade thru your verbiage, I read the stuff you asked me to read, but you weren’t satisfied. So I give up. I give up trying to make sense of your peculiar writing.
    Have a nice life, Devin

  179. Devin,

    Interesting reaction. Interesting too that you reflected information indeed appearing toward the bottom of the long response about my own injury and energy struggle. What was written is an attempt to address your earlier questions. Whether it be on this, or the tiny section of Jesus’ thoughts given for study in scripture, or M.B.’s careful reposting of what he stated on the radio: to understand what is actually being stated (even in a subject area one has limited understanding of) specific questions can be requested paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sentence, or verse by verse to break down any doubt or questions involved. It is not all or nothing.

    Earlier I broke down a beginning proposed interchange on the passage in John to the lowest possible denominator of approach. Then simplified that once more. Even so, the ball was launched back again
    and again and the simplest of questions about two verses remained unanswered. Locus of control and centricity were past discussed, and past defined for you. So, where these seemed unclear, all that was required was a statement by statement or question by question inquiry to dialogue further. I agree that the subject matter of personality lifespan development and defenses is complex, Insight is possible, and seems to be what will assist your recovery.

    Nowhere have I stated that feelings do not matter, but that they do not become a replacement of intended meaning for what any author has attempted to say in any writing whatsoever. I have also related in trust my own personal struggle with pain affecting my own expressions much of the time. Pain saps energy. I do
    not quit even so.

    I have commented at the end of your statements made that you can’t get through the piece, and about the scriptures advanced (two of them by the way) that someone who only has accepted the meaning of their own feelings on approaching any subject, and does not break down what is stated otherwise in others’ words by any other approach does not need a Rogerian feeling based therapeutic process in sessions, but another approach to issues and solutions discovery and insight.

  180. I engaged a correspondent commenter on what was up with his own concerns, self reports, reported personal past, and ongoing interchange: based on a strong reaction and an apparent lack of permisison for approaching the article substance other than through his personal lens. An unveiling through interchange, as information evolved on criteria for assessment of what was stated, proved to be mostly an assumed subjectivity of emotional regard of the assessment of this article’s posting, as such. It was presented as to establishing a resulting stance Devin has made here on the article as Dr. B presented it to be.

    Probed, it presented that this stance was deriving from a source of assumption which was internal in origin as such, stemming from his person, and feelings, as stated as so valued, and as proved insurmountable and unapproachable as to establishing a broader academic look at the facts which Dr. B had stated in summary for achieving a reasonable dialogue on his reponse to the article above. Yet a difficult childhood history and enmeshed personal unresolved issues were overshadowing a practical interchange by the stated strong statements of assessment ascribing the intentions of Dr. B. This did not play out as the content of his statements. It presented as self protection or the stuff of defenses over actually discussing Devin’s reaction and related presenting issues in the developing interpersonal dialogue. A take on Fatherhood, and God as characterized as evil and negative was asserted by Devin by a limited sample of Biblical evidence, as accompanied with a presentation of strong fear and an assumption of negative value at to looking into the Biblical idea of fatherhood. That the subject of fatherhood was a quagmire of personal trauma and trepidation for Devin was stated as erected in the way of going to examine this topic in Jesus’ statements on the topic.

    I mentioned early on that anyone has choices they may make over such past occurrances and their personal impact. Devin mentioned trauma, displayed strong feelings of protection, and reported his history as so related. Dr. B. mentioned the need for healing, not confrontation on sexual choices.

    It seemed to be a good time to breach other possibilities of what was keeping the mentioned areas of protection as forbidden topics from open discussion as to origins and responses going on in interchange with Devin.

    In the rather complicated process of discovery and interchange, of the disclosed issues and strong reactions beginning to be disclosed and examined–which was not completed–the notion of centricity was conceptually introduced as to how that factors into the psychological concept of revealed sources of dialogue and self disclosure determining ones ‘locus of control’ in their self reporting. Was Devin as Dr. B’s, and later my responder, responding or reacting here from truth given in the bases of the article here as was presented for comments, or so from other realities coming into the mix: realities like feelings, the presented facts, deep seated beliefs of reaction to his past, or one’s personal history, one’s strenght of likes and dislikes, pst formed self protections, and preferences–or, perhaps, some kind of mix of these? Such required dialogue to disclose such discovery. Academically listing what Dr. B. said was not permitted as possible. Feelings were the only meanings accepted, not the indicators of words themselves.

    The notion of centricity as a location (locus) of control of choices, sometimes inarticulated and seated in a person as attitudes–as motivating actions for self protection and forbidden topic exploration/fixation–or the opposite presentation of self than self engaged on a topic–holds that where one centers one’s choices for responses to challenges around any topic, one’s frame of reference to being in interacting may be thus determined. If this reference for a self report is mostly in feelings or states of being involving a flood of overwhelming feelings, one can be stuck with an inner monologue of an inner life process which does not advance to full functioning, interactive trust, for healthy socialization, along with a complete recovery after past trauma.

    If one erects a wall on seeing their own inward connections and self report threatened in some way, as involving a past history major disconnect: distrust asserts an understandable self protection, where one is ‘stuck’ from becoming fully functional, fully alive. One can be afraid of telling another who they are. One can be afraid and unaquainted with love. Life is depressing, numbing, and difficult accordingly. Jesus offers his own New and abundant Life, and this possiblity is interfered with by such a state of being. Faith too can seem to be a distant tower. Based on the truth of Jesus being who He stated He was, as alive, well, and unique in interactive potential and possiblity for personal development, how can such a soul become whole and fully alive?

    Evidence built up from revealed self talk of an inner place for choices involving a centricity (center for making choices) of a lack of academic objectivity for looking at other information when such topics were involved, and so by what was taken to task, and how it was stated. This presented in approaching and responding to the article here, and Dr. B’s generous time and compassionate efforts to see what Devin’s disagreement meant when it was presented as an absolute. Dialogue revealed a lack of accepting and surveying information he was given by a detached or academic approach to information, where, Dr. Brown went to the great effort of finding and printing a transcript of a detailed radio narrative for him, posting it, and offered continued dialogue. Frustration of a respectful interchange resulted.

    A reasonable interchange was sabatouged by the respondent’s lack of reflective dialoguing.

    It has been stated that early Romans is particularly sobering on this matter. And, part of the problem is hidden in plain sight. Idolatry which erects barriers to comprehending the ways of Christ can factor into deep seated choices for a disassociation with relationships which God foreordained as healthy relationships. This reference is difficult to hear or accept if one is enmeshed by a culture affirming such choices.

  181. Jabez,


  182. Devin,

    I appreciate your existence, and pray for your comprehension, and further spiritual development, in God, under Christ. Why? Because it is to wish you the best life offers. To heal from past encumbrances, depression, wounds, and fear I pray for the Spirit of God to flood your soul rather than overwhelming negaive emotions which you have described as woring in you.

    If you were reading, for example, some of the long and complicated sentences and developed conceits (arguments) of Paul in the New Testament, you might have to break these down into smaller pieces, and paraphrase them, outline them, or list their subject matter, then consult other sources: to achieve comprehension of their meaning and interpretation. Interpretation of scripture and its meaning is a challenge with each generation, tribe, kindred, special interest group, language centered culture, etc.

    Context in an ever increasing and expanding circle of meaning offers some fun with scripture for those who embrace it as the very word of God. Such a reader might approach its complicated writing beginning with a small topical or theme based chosen for exploration passage’s probable summary as is developed by a process permitting inductive meaning. Such an approach would need to be employed to understand the argumentation of Paul, and benefit from his written expression on a given topic for one’s life application.

    To understand the writing of Jabez too requires such a breaking down his longer expression by subject reiteration to achieve beginning comprehension, and, perhaps consulting other sources on each involved expression topic or theme (in this instance, unlike Paul, I did not pass on into eternity hundreds of years back. I remain open to questions and dialogue). You might go to a dictionary, look up dialogue, and go to the on-line wiki and look up human communication, communication, and interpersonal communication for your appreciation of investing your person in achieving its possiblities. Then, if interested in understanding and being fruther understood, get back here with me.

    Your interchange and my own were based on your reported story, how it presented, and the permission you gave to pursue certain issues–or not–which developed around it. Permission was given as to going to the subjects raised in scriptures and stimulated for you by the article, as I stated these to be in approaching them here, and exploring these, broken down into a smaller task of meaning to be of interchange here around a passage in John (on Jesus’ Father). What lacked as to achieving understanding and being understood was signaled by your own confusing, protective, and prejudicial statements on fatherhood in postings, and your attitudes and assumptions stated. You revealed a lack of specific reflective understanding statements on what Jesus’ mind was stating there (in John 13-17, beginning with two scriptures), not as to what you were feeling. Talk about X, and your responses were consistently on Y, i.e. what you were feeling. We never got to the first primary step on that explorarion, or on other matters of subject matter by subject matter comprehension in this blog, as was exposed for you throughout our interchange.

    New areas of communication challenge were for your person to break down my complexities into simpler lists or an outline, or a paraphrase. This would be especially the case around counseling processing concepts which were openly declared as present in our interchange. If you wished understanding and being understood, your person would have to begin to break down a longer expression sent your way into smaller parts and parcels of words and topics, and begin to either outline these, paraphrase these, or ask questions about the meaning of these, paragraph by paragraph, or topic by topic, or sentence by sentence.

    I do not feel superior to you in any way; I do feel challenged as to approaching common ground for achieving understanding and being understood.

    My later statements mentioned the onoging process involved, and Dr. B.’s moral frame of reference from early Romans, and the Bible’s passages, as well as some of the issues he raises in the article, above, and how you reacted to his responses to you. It is extremely challenging to develop dialogue–where each listens, reflects, and understands not only their own perspective, but also the other’s as well, as meaningful. Dialogue permits you to summarize the other responder’s position as well as your own without reacting or taking anything stated personally until feedback clarification of what the other person is saying happens. Your communication process with anyone here you have reacted to does not achieve or permit dialogue.

    I am willing to work with you to approach smaller segments of my writing and its meaning, or of the passage past suggested from Jesus, John 13-17.

  183. Here, Devin, is a lead for your assistance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

  184. The notion of locus of control has a classical definition, from the 1950s, as was developed from the body of counseling literature. It has another definition, as has evolved over time: as determined in counseling process client reporting identifications.

    In simplest terms, it refers to where one is centered in their decision-making. In later nuances of change to its original definition, looking in depth at observing the actual self reporting descriptors, permissions, and interchanges achieved of the self talk of a client in a counseling session thus determines a likely orientation for one’s decision making in a client’s history or ongoing self reporting, in and out of a session (classically it simplified such origins on whether decisions come as interior, or exterior in a person’s permissions [choices] orientation).

    So a location for decision making is identified as is further broken down in counseling by ongoing presenting origins (e.g., by a client’s history, self reporting, critical thinking, emotional states of being, or the dynamics of in session client/therapist interactions and processing). An internal reference may present to be cognitive and intellectual, as critical thinking based, with various degrees of control of self, or assumption of control of others, be nebulously unclear, of mixed emotions, or by degrees of emotional intonations and starts and stops at self reporting: it may prove to be centered in one’s ongoing inner emotional triggers, states of affect, etc. How we communicate then says something about ourselves as well as the subject matter we are presenting.

  185. […] Second, the so-called “red-shirted mob” consisted of fine Christian men, women and children, including grandmas and grandpas, who, at our last outing at a Charlotte gay pride event (in 2011), distributed 2,500 bottles of water marked, “Jesus loves you” – all with smiles and all without a single incident of harassment of any kind. (See pictures of some of the “mob.”) […]

Leave Comment