• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

More garbage from Dobson

BTW Kathy, I’ll try to leave the open insults about your preaching to others who are better at it than I am. But if you think that I’ve opened some door here for you to “show me the glory of Jesus”, please save yourself the time.

As I’ve mentioned, I grew up attending a hardcore, Jesus-lovin’ Southern Baptist Church, so there aren’t too many arguments I haven’t heard before. They all failed to impress.
 
Ya know this whole issue of the USA being a Christian Nation today really bothers me because it doesn't appear to be the nation it once was. When our government was first set up it was set up on Godly principles.
The Treaty of Tripoli, 1797. Signed by President John Adams and ratified by Congress.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; … no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
 
If I turn my life around, I’m going to give myself the credit for that turnaround, quite deservedly.

I agree, but I would add others to the list. However, your point remains valid. Real people have far more impact on our lives than any imaginary gods and monsters. Those things KK credits to Jesus ultimately came from within herself.

Steven
 
Ya know this whole issue of the USA being a Christian Nation today really bothers me because it doesn't appear to be the nation it once was. When our government was first set up it was set up on Godly principles. Now since the 1960's they have butchered everything. They changed the original text in American history books and they have let everything get pretty messed up.

Most of the founding fathers were actually deists. You should look it up because many traditional Cristians regarded their views as heretical. And as for your lamentation about "changing the original text" you should really look into the history of the Bible. You may be interested to know that the earliest available Greek texts make little or no mention of the divinity of Jesus, and that the story of The Woman Taken In Adultery was added later, as were the last twelve verses of Mark. The Bible was changed literally hundreds of thousands of times before the advent of movable type and it didn't end there either.

Steven
 
As for the OP: James Dobson is bats**t insane. Any search engine will link his name to innumerable ridiculous statements. He's the guy who said the Tellytubbies were designed to push the homosexual "agenda" on pre-schoolers. (FYI, I thought it was to give twenty-somethings something to watch while stoned) He's going to cause so much psychological damage to impressionable young gay people that it boggles my mind. These people could be happy if they were accepted as they are but twisted kinks like Dobson and co. will convince many of them to feel a lifetime (or at least until their heads snap up and the word "Bulls**t!" leaves their lips) of self loathing. Dobson may not utter the vile words of Fred Phelps but his message is the same and even more damaging because of his air of "concern". Does Dobson decry genuinely hurtful human behavior this much? He seems bent that the real danger is boys who want to kiss boys and girls who want to kiss girls.

Steven
 
As for the OP: James Dobson is bats**t insane. Any search engine will link his name to innumerable ridiculous statements. He's the guy who said the Tellytubbies were designed to push the homosexual "agenda" on pre-schoolers. (FYI, I thought it was to give twenty-somethings something to watch while stoned)

Are you sure you are not confusing him with Jerry Falwell? Dobson is "Focus on the Family"


[pedantic]Actually, it was an editor in Falwell's newsletter that spotted what he though was a homosexual agenda in the Teletubbies' program.[/pedantic]
 
Are you sure you are not confusing him with Jerry Falwell? Dobson is "Focus on the Family"


[pedantic]Actually, it was an editor in Falwell's newsletter that spotted what he though was a homosexual agenda in the Teletubbies' program.[/pedantic]

Ah,yes. You're right. But even with that charge redirected away from Dobson I still stand by everything else in the above post.

Steven
 
A major reason that Republicans won the election decisively (retaining not only the presidency but also increasing their numbers in both the House and the Senate) was that their stands on Biblical and moral issues more closely coincided with those of the voters. In fact, polls before the election indicated that the best predictor of how an individual would vote was frequency of church attendance. As Washington Post writer Thomas Edsall noted: “Pollsters are finding that one of the best ways to discover whether a voter holds liberal or conservative value stands is to ask: How often do you go to church? Those who go often tend to be Republican, those who go rarely or not at all tend to be Democratic.” Election 2004 reinforced these findings.

In this election, 61% of Bush’s vote came from people from all faiths who attend services weekly (a group comprising 41% of the electorate); conversely, 62% of Kerry’s vote came from people who never attend worship (accounting for 14% of the electorate). In fact, many groups that voted more Republican in this election than in previous ones did so largely because of Republican stands on Biblical and moral issues.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=114
This explains a lot.
 
From the OP, I sent this to Focus on the Family:

Dog, Moo

Hello,

How do you explain the fact that I had a homosexual gerbil? One of our male gerbils would only go after the other males. They didn't like it very much. But I don't think gerbils have enough intelligence to make that kind of decision. I strongly suspect that there are genetic factors involved.

Look up how "lethal recessive" genes work. Even though a gene codes for something that prevents reproduction, that doesn't mean it will be removed from the genepool.

If your organization has trouble with homosexuality, that fine, as you're entitled to your opinions. But the dog, moo, and choice argument doesn't hold water.

Got the following response. Haven't felt like actually reading it yet, cause I figure it will just make me angry. Anyway, here it is:

Thank you for writing to Focus on the Family. We value your interest in our ministry, and I consider it a privilege to reply on behalf of our staff.

We appreciate your taking the time to share about your “gay” gerbil. In response to your comments about the roots of homosexuality in humans, it might be helpful to clarify that we have never claimed that homosexuality -- or same-sex attraction -- is “chosen.” However, many gays do choose to *willingly participate in* homosexual activity.

This being said, the fact remains that there is no valid scientific evidence to indicate that homosexuality is inherited, despite repeated efforts to find a so-called “gay gene” or other indicators of genetic transmission (see http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp). Dr. James Dobson -- founder and Chairman of Focus -- believes there is a much more verifiable explanation than genetics for the causation of same-sex attraction. It is his view that homosexuality is a disorder that results most commonly from early developmental problems. He feels this is the case despite the denials of professional organizations such as the American Psychiatric Association. A variety of environmental factors play a role in *some* individuals, including one or more of the following: 1) serious family dysfunction that wounds and damages the child (it should be noted that we realize many homosexuals were raised in loving families); 2) early sexual abuse; 3) the influence of and/or sexual exploitation by an older homosexual during a critical period of adolescence; 4) homosexual experimentation, such as mutual masturbatory activity in boys in early adolescence; and 5) peer rejection or labeling. There is, of course, a great deal of variance in how these and other forces interplay in individual circumstances.

Perhaps it’s worth adding a theological note at this juncture. From the Christian perspective, it is a mistake to assume that because an action, condition, or mode of behavior has a physical or biological basis, it cannot therefore be considered a sin or the consequence of sin. Those who jump to such conclusions fail to understand that we live in a fallen, sin-sick world -- that creation has been off kilter ever since Adam and Eve made the fatal decision to eat the forbidden fruit. Because of their choice, the world now exists in an *abnormal* state. Therefore, even if science *could* demonstrate that there is a genetic basis for homosexual behavior, this would not necessarily prove that homosexuality is a good thing.

This last thought leads us to conclude that one must be extremely careful about drawing moral and ethical conclusions from the study of nature -- e.g., from the behavioral patterns of animals. Indeed, common sense itself suggests that it is potentially disastrous for human beings to base their actions and moral standards on the habits of animals. After all, we know that some creatures kill their consorts after mating and eat their own young.

Again, thanks for taking a moment to contact us. We trust this response is helpful in clearing up any confusion you may have had regarding our viewpoint on this matter. May all the richness of God’s grace rest upon you in the days ahead.

Joseph McCrae
Focus on the Family

P.S. You may be interested in reading about the ex-gay penguins in Manhattan ’s Central Park Zoo at the following Web site: http://www.family.org/cforum/sherman/shermansays/A0041265.cfm.
 

Back
Top Bottom