I honestly, genuinely love critics of Applied Faith. If you are a critic of my blog, I consider the opportunity to have you here a Divine appointment. If we don’t meet together in some forum and have an honest conversation about issues, we will likely miss the opportunity to understand a point that God would have us to understand. It takes courage for a critic to step up and engage in thoughtful, respectful, substantive debate on a blog-site that differs from their position. Thanks for having the guts to step up and allow your position to be challenged. You really should know, however, that you are on a blog-site designed for discipleship of Christians.
A prior article on Applied Faith addressed the danger of using the names behind the commonly used term “LGBTQ”. The impetus of the article was a statement by the American College of Pediatricians regarding surgical mutilation and application of so-called hormone therapies to address gender dysphoria. The article expresses an integrative stance, as well as political analysis of the LGBTQ advocacy industry. I want to make a few points clearer:
- The American College of Pediatricians is a group that is well known to be conservative in political viewpoint. Because of great professional peril for any academic or medical professional who fails to toe the political line, the ACP is a smaller group of about 200 members who have the courage of their convictions.
- The American Academy of Pediatrics is a health professionals, as well as left-wing, advocacy group of about 62,000 members. They advocate for many general health issues. They also advocate for liberal causes such as gun-banning and the LGBTQ advocacy industry.
- The point of my article was not to provide an in-depth analysis of associations of medical professionals. The point of the article was that the LGBTQ advocacy industry has been wrong in their positions on same sex sttraction (SSA) for the past 43-years, and they are doing tremendous damage to a population they purport to help.
Before attacking AppliedFaith.org, it would be worthwhile for critics to understand what they are actually reading. I HIGHLY encourage folks, particularly critics, to read the postings on the menu line. About – Purpose – Critics Corner… all of these are posted to make absolutely clear what these articles and positions are about.
This is a blog site dedicated to advancing the cause of Christ with perspective and analysis of 21st century life in context with God’s Word. As a convicted Christian who was blessed with the opportunity to study my faith in depth, I desire to fulfill the Great Commission of Matthew 28:19 – to…
Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
This site is a labor of love. I love God, even though loving Him is a guarantee that there will be hardships and unbelievers will not understand. I expect to be as offensive as some find the gospel offensive. Love has to be tough sometimes… I wish it weren’t so, but it is. You may lose perspective in the passion of a comment, and while I can take anything a critic dishes out, I won’t subject every reader of an article to the abuse that is aimed at me.
When I write, I write as an expression of love to God and His people, helping to put a biblical perspective in context with the 21st century. Everything Jesus did on this earth was centered in love. His Greatest Commandment spells out specifically what that means to His followers in Matthew 22:
34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees with his reply, they met together to question him again. 35 One of them, an expert in religious law, tried to trap him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the most important commandment in the law of Moses?”
37 Jesus replied, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments.”
What this site is about is clear. Now, let’s cover 3 things it is NOT about:
- Advancing causes against God or His stated will in the Bible
- Giving the world a forum for peddling the positions of special interest groups who are not aligned with the cause of Christ
- Giving a forum for personal attacks
If you feel the need to attack this blog, you very well may be feeling the Holy Spirit convict you of thinking or living outside the desire of God spelled out in His Word:
Romans 2:14 “Even Gentiles, who do not have God’s written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it.”
To critics, I want to say that I am glad you are here. As an agnostic for 25 years, raised by life-long agnostics, I didn’t realize that my frustration toward Christians was actually because of God working in my heart to change me. I also want to say that you are invited to stay, read and comment in the correct space, designed with you in mind. If you can stay substantive and discuss an article without personal attacks or veering way off-topic, please feel free to comment. If you feel the need to make personal attacks, use foul language or are just too off-the-wall, I will probably moderate your comment and hope that you will try again in Critic’s Corner.
Thanks for being a reader, even if you are critical of what I have to say.
I personally do not give that group the ‘Q’. Q is not for queer, it is for questioning. They want to include those questioning their gender identity and I don’t believe those (mostly children) who fall into that category belong with the LGBT.
As you might have seen in the original article, every name behind all five letters is a misnomer. These are people with a dysphoria manifest in their reproductive thought life. When 3% of the population suffers from a condition that short-circuits the natural reproductive cycle, that’s a disorder.
I agree with you regarding Q… Children are being sold SSA as a “normal” condition.
[…] Critics Loved the LGBTQ Article […]
So everything to the left of the far-right is considered left?
Gun banning? Seriously? I highly doubt the AAP are the far-left group you are painting them as. So, what group represents the middle ground of these extreme views you are working from?
Good to hear from you. I have to object to how you phrased the question, though. 200-million gun owners would likely disagree with the middle ground we are now on. The left is wasting our time trying to sell the bull-story of contrived “common-sense gun-control” that supposedly shows gun-owners willing to negotiate our rights away. I’ve never met one in 50-years. We should have constitutional carry in all 50 states, and good guys with guns need to be guarding our children.
We shouldn’t be negotiating how to go left, but rather must start returning our disproportionately left-heavy country back to the sane right where 1/2 our citizens live.
Thanks for commenting!
Why would a Christian ever carry a for-protection gun? That seems rather in contrary to Christianity from what I recall. One would have to be quite weak in their belief to do such a thing. A Christian should be prepared to be called to witness with the risk of being a martyr. (Ephesians 6:12–20 is worthy of a look)
“When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next” Matthew 10:23
Matthew 5:39 about turning the other cheek to evil seems to be quite clear about not taking up arms against others.
Not once in the New Testament do I recall any sort of fighting in the name of Jesus, but there are definitely suggestions to not do so.
Also, gun regulations in the US are ridiculously lax in some states from what I’m aware. Not everyone should be able to have a gun, kind of like how not everyone should be able to drive. People should have to at least prove some level of responsibility if they are going to be operating something that potentially dangerous.
That, and if I recall correctly, more children die due to irresponsible gun ownership compared to people targeting children. It shouldn’t be this nonsense about left and right – it should be about finding a balance that makes things safer for everyone.
It seems so hypocritical for Christians to be leaning as far right as they seem to tend to do in the US. From what I’ve been hearing, that Bernie Sanders fellow seems to by far have his views the most in-line with the sort of views Jesus had.
If you scroll down on my site you will find an article that covers Christians carrying guns. No sense rewriting it here.
As for Jesus and politicians, He wasn’t interested in rubbing elbows with them. His Kingdom is not of earth.
Exactly, and Bernie Sanders doesn’t seem too interested in rubbing elbows with politicians either. You’d think Christians would take notice and support someone who is significantly closer to walking Jesus’ walk.
Ok, so your gun position ignores Jesus and hinges on defending the oppressed. You do know that goes both ways in regards to preventing deaths by gun too I would hope. It’s not a cut-and-dry issue if you look at the whole scope of protecting the oppressed.
I’m trying to find the Bible passages that say “Steal money from those who have it and buy votes.” Missed that, somehow. Couldn’t find the Gospel of St. Bernie. 🙂
The Biblical narrative holds for defending against evil-doers (individually), and capital punishment (by authorities) for those who wrongfully take another’s life. In light of the genocide that so frequently has followed governments disarming their people, 2A harmonizes with the Bible.
Good to hear from you again, Jason.
Where have you heard anything about him stealing money? He seems to be the only candidate focusing on putting the people first and calling out the establishment, you know, like Jesus did.
Oh, so if arming everyone leads to more “evil-doers” being able to carry out more harm to others, that’s ok Biblically even if it is bringing more harm to the defenceless indirectly? Only direct harm matters?
Oh yeah, we have lots of genocides here in Canada. Heaven forbid violent crimes in the US started moving in the direction of the rates that they occur here!
Criminals use stolen guns, or ghost guns… They acquire them illegally on the street. There’s a good Crime, Inc. episode on this. You should look it up. Mass-shooters either pass a background check or steal the gun(s). They’re all liberals, by the way. Strange but true. Gun control always backfires. Look at the top 10 highest violent crime cities, and you’ll find the overwhelming majority of them have strict gun control and liberals in power. Who has low crime? Places where gun regulations are minimal. Criminals don’t like to prey on victims who shoot back.
As for Bernie, he thinks economic policy should be dreamed up at liberal faculty parties. He would choke the life out of small businesses and never scratch the corporations he professes to want to “bring to justice”. Socialism has failed every time it has been tried. The rich just pick up and leave, and the workers bankrupt the failed state. Oh, if we could just make all of America just like Detroit.
No sale, but fun chatting.
Again, you always seem to jump to extreme scenarios. The US could stand to benefit from a lean in the direction of socialism as capitalism has been running away from its promise to give everyone a chance to succeed. It needs to be reigned in or it will go the same way of the extreme socialism you refer to. Again, it is balance that should be sought.
And then there are the countries that year after year are considered the happiest in the world which have leanings toward socialism. No one is advocating for a purely socialist society that I know of. They are more looking toward protecting the helpless, which I thought you supported.
Mass-shooters are all liberal? Last I heard many tended to be conservative – you know, religious extremists, anti-abortion, white supremacists.
South Korea has amazingly low crime and they have “one of the most restrictive gun policies in the developed world”. Again, it’s not as cut-and-dry as you seem to think it is.
Came up with a list someone made over in a snopes message forum of shooters getting their guns from easily-accessed legal sources:
Holmes purchased all his firearms legally
Klebold and Harris got someone to straw buy their guns for them.
Cho legally purchased his handguns
Loughner legally purchased his handgun
Hasan legally purchased his handgun
Lanza used a rifle legally purchased by his mother(who also took him to learn how to shoot) so guess it might of been stolen(or it might of been bought for him)
Of other shootings I’d looked up previously, the few times the weapons had been stolen was by minors from family members.
Westroads Mall shooting Omaha 2007- the rifle was stolen from the shooter’s stepfather
Millard South Omaha 2011- The shooter took his father’s handgun to kill my former English teacher.
Kip Kinkel- Weapons were legally purchased for him by his father
Sikh temple shooting- rifle legally purchased
Chadron High shooting- weapon stolen from his uncle
The DC Sniper’s rifle was part of a group of firearms that went “missing” from a dealer in Seattle.
You might want to consider coming out of your conservative Christian bubble once in a while and looking at these issues from other angles to make sure you aren’t buying into inaccurate and heavily biased information.
Jason, you’ve read my background. You know I live well outside the “bubble”… I’m a city-dwelling, former Fortune 500 working guy well tuned in to HR regulations, fair housing, fair credit, equal opportunity… Most of which I agree with. If you have an image of me as a militia member prepping for the holocaust on a farm somewhere, you’d be very much off-base.
As for mass shooters, which are the tiniest number of gun deaths, the all either a) passed a background check, or b) stole their weapon(s). The overwhelming majority had mental health problems. Here is an article in the New York Times that backs up my statement: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0
I’m glad you shared your heart about how you view socialism. We need to, as a country, have a conversation across ideological lines to air out our differing visions of what our nation should be. I served in the US Air Force under Reagan and Bush, so the failed and heinous results of communism and socialism are still alive in my memory. It’s like again smelling a burnt pile of destruction… Once you’ve been there, if you get a whiff of it again it brings you right back.
Nope, I don’t have that image of you, but I am not so certain you are outside of the bubble. I get more of an impression that you may have moved from a bubble on the left to a bubble on the right, which isn’t all that out of the ordinary, especially with how things seem to tend to be portrayed so strongly as left and right in the US.
Yes, mental health problems or easy access to the firearms of others. In doing a quick search, it seems only a quick background check is typically required to purchase guns, and not even that is necessary at gun shows. That seems to me to mean there is no required educational element on gun safety, is that correct?
Here’s some interesting info for you in regard to how successful having personal protection firearms are:
“The issue of “home defense” or protection against intruders or assailants may well be misrepresented. A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of intimate partners such as a spouse are more likely to use a gun to threaten their intimate partner. (Rothman et al, 2005). Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009). It would appear that, rather than being used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.”
That statistic seems quite concerning. It fits though with the Christian idea that we are prone to sin. With guns at the ready,it only takes a quick lapse in judgement for severe undoable damage to occur. That is what gun control advocates are looking at. I agree though that strong knee-jerk gun control has the potential to make things worse considering how engrained gun culture is in the US. It’s a tough situation, but the statistics seem quite clear that something needs to be done to prevent more of the helpless from being harmed.
I can understand your aversion to socialism, but socialism in moderation can be quite beneficial. I can’t imagine you smell the destruction each time a garbage truck comes by to pick up your trash! I think capitalism is important and that good ideas should be rewarded, but I also believe that everyone should have at least decent access to being able to participate in capitalist society – which is where elements of socialism are needed to make the playing field at least somewhat fair. Too much capitalism and too much socialism both can lead to too much power being in the hands of too few people.
Wow… The convoluted exercise used here in an attempt to “document dump” an answer is breathtaking. They are all emanating from statistical sources famous for gun-ban advocacy and corrupt methodology.
We’ve gotten way off topic, so I’m going to end my participation in this thread. Factcheck.org has a good, balanced article on the topic that cuts through a lot of the spin from left and right:
Don’t I need to have an answer in order to “document dump” one?
As I said, the solution of up and getting rid of guns in a knee-jerk reaction is not one that is likely to succeed given the gun culture of the US … not to mention how many people are at the fringes of society in the US. That is likely where the focus needs to be – reducing the fringes and building better connection to society for those who are there now.
That would very likely require the incorporation of some socialist style policies. Rampant capitalism without any equalization mechanisms will more likely increase the size of the fringes and just make things worse.
Considering your strong pro-gun stance, things must be pretty bad already. Hopefully the US can get its act together and work on tackling some of its underlying problems.
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
Very well said!
Comments are closed.