Showing posts with label fraud. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fraud. Show all posts

Monday, November 16, 2009

Hate houses Churches in Maine threatened by evil homosexual activists FOR NO REASON AT ALL!

11-12-09 by Nima Reza, reporter

Maine Churches Threatened Over Marriage Support

Opponents of Question 1 call on activists to turn churches in to the IRS in an attempt to revoke tax-exempt status.

Ken Graves, senior pastor at Calvary Chapel in Bangor, said..."We've directly consulted the ethics commission here in the state of Maine with regard to our political involvement."

Graves said they must stand up for biblical values.
First of all, notice that this Focus on the Family "reporter," spelled Bible---THE Bible---with a small b. Apparently, Focus on the Family's Nima Reza doesn't think God's Word is worth capitalizing.

As far as "Biblical values" go, we know that by sheer logic, Adam and Eve's children (and possibly them) "committed" incest in order to "be fruitful and multiply."

Also, polygamy is God approved:

2 Samuel 12:8: I gave your master's house to you, and your master's wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more.
And, remarriage is defined as adultery by none other than Jesus Christ Himself:

Luke 16:18: Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
So much for "Biblical values," or should I say "biblical values"

Pastor Ken Graves states that they've reported their political involvement to the "ethics commission here in the state of Maine...". Implying, of course, that his motives were "ethical."

Here's what they had to work with, as per Stand for Marriage Maine dot com:

From the "Myths and Facts about the People’s Veto of homosexual marriage Legislation (LD 1020)" page:

does not discriminate against gays
restores the meaning of marriage
marriage is between a man and a woman.
marriage is between a man and a woman
does not take away any rights from gay and lesbian
Gays and lesbians…enjoy…the legal rights and benefits of marriage
same-sex marriage…redefines marriage for all of society.
Mainers will have to accept a radical new understanding of marriage
healthy marriages will be eliminated
instruct…kindergartners about marriage
teaching our kids that gay marriage is the equivalent of traditional marriage.
marriage is between a man and a woman
gay marriage advocates want to change the definition of marriage
gays living the lifestyle they choose
redefine marriage for the rest of society.
the legal meaning of marriage
definition of marriage
definition of marriage
marriage is only between a man and a woman.
According to that page, they needed to pass this pro-hatred legislation in order to protect their thoughts on the matter.

Meanwhile, over on the "Questions & Answers About Question 1" page, we find mountains more of that same insidious crap, and...

What does a Yes Vote Mean?

It maintains the rights and benefits of Maine same-sex couples who are covered by our domestic partners law. A YES vote does not take anything away from homosexual couples, but protects traditional marriage.

What does a NO Vote Mean?

Maine law will no longer promote monogamous marriages and the interests of children. Marriage’s powerful influence on the betterment of society will be lost.

No longer will the interests of children and families even be a consideration.

would destroy marriage as we know it and cause profound harm to society

Question 1 doesn’t take away any rights or benefits from gay or lesbian partners who are covered by Maine’s domestic partners law.

parents will lose control over what their kids learn in school about marriage and sexual orientation

parents who do not want their children exposed to this homosexual marriage instruction have been denied an opportunity to opt their children out.
As is usual for these morally bankrupt "family" groups, it's a literal feast of distortion, deception and lies.

From their "Fact Sheet" page:
Voting Yes on Question 1, A People’s Veto does three simple things.

•It restores the definition of marriage to what Maine law has always been and what human history has always understood marriage to be. [protect fragile thoughts about marriage]

•It strengthens democracy and places the power to alter or overturn laws where it always should be- with the people. [tyranny of the majority]

•It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage. [protects children from thinking that gays are equal to straights]
Fraud: deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.

Pastor Graves, where in the Bible does it say that God approves of fraud?

Monday, May 18, 2009

X-Rated Exodus...

Michael Airhart of Truth Wins Out has an article up from the 12th: Politicized Churches Supplant Exodus’ Shrinking Ex-Gay Network:

"Exodus International today announced the reformation of its church network as the Exodus Church Association."
----
By the time I read the article and clicked on the “Exodus Church Association” link, the site had been shut down. So I Googled it and found the cached home page, where I found an article called:

"Caught in the Middle: How to Talk about Homosexuality
Written by Jonathan Inman"

----
The site is back up now, but without a link to that article, at least not on the home page, fortunately though, it’s on the Exodus website. I have no idea how old this is, or who Jonathan Inman is, but this article is just one contradiction after another. It’s essentially a litany of suggestions on how to condemn we gays and our pro-gay advocates, without appearing insulting.

As usual, the attempt to not be insulting is more insulting than the insults themselves:
When talking with people who believe homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle option, suggesting that homosexuality is sinful can appear stupid and rude -- if not homophobic, unloving and abusive…

…We must bring the gospel of God's grace where it is most needed: to the vocally anti-Christian pro-gay activist, or to the mild-mannered clergy who says the love of Jesus means affirming homosexuality as God's gift…
He begins each segment with a title and a Biblical quote. For example:
Patiently Listen

"My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, for man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires." (
James 1:19-20)

...Don't just listen for opportunities to find fault or critique...When a factual claim is made, politely ask to have it substantiated with reference to a verifiable source.
I started dissecting the whole thing for a post (which may or may not come to fruition), when I ran across this little gem...
Mercifully Pursue

"Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy, mixed with fear -- hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh." (
Jude 22-23)
Now that, takes the cake. Out of all the verses dealing with mercy in the Bible (24 according to my “Holman Concise Topical Concordance”), he chooses the one that could not be more ironic for the “ministry” of Exodus.

(Caution: racy satire below)

In other words:


_________
Edited to add caveat, Wed May 20, 2009 @ 3:58AM

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Dr. Phil invites expert shyster, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, on to berate parents of transgender children.

Re: The Dr. Phil Show, January 13, 2009:

Transcript:

Dr. Phil: Well, the world is changing, science is changing, there’s just no question about that. We’re learning more, but is it all helpful? What we’re going to do is put up links about this transgender issue, so you can go and hear both sides. And don’t just go to the side that you agree with, go to the side that you don’t agree with. Read, hear, see what they have to say, so you can consider everything and make an informed decision. You know I clearly have stayed on neutral ground here, because what I want to do is advance the dialogue, advance the debate. So I know I’ll hear from you on the message boards.

Do me a fave, Dr. Phil and try this one on for "size.":


Transcript:

Wayne Besen: Truth Wins Out went to Salt Lake City to interview Lisa Diamond, an associate professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah. Diamond says the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, known as NARTH, distorted her research on human sexuality. NARTH manipulated Dr. Diamond’s work to say that people can choose to change their sexual orientation. Her work said no such thing.

Dr. Lisa Diamond: The women who I’ve studied, have experienced changes in the way that they characterize and experience their sexuality over time, are quite clear about the fact that they don’t experience those changes as willful. And if anything, sometimes they actively resist them. So the notion that they’re chosen simply because there’s variability, is simply isn’t consistent with what I find. If NARTH had actually read the study more carefully, they would find that that isn’t supported by my data at all.

I started my study, I knew that it was potentially controversial and I knew that it was potentially open to distortion. I have bent over backwards to make it difficult for my work to be misused, and to no avail. When people are motivated to twist something for political purposes, they’re going to find a way to do it.

Wayne Besen: Dr. Diamond has a message for NARTH’s co-founder, Dr. Nicolosi, for distorting her work.

Dr. Lisa Diamond: Dr. Nicolosi, you know exactly what you’re doing. I have been more than explicit in my work about what constitutes a misuse of my findings, what conclusions can and cannot be drawn from my research. So there’s no chance that this is a misunderstanding, or simply a different scientific interpretation of the data, that’s simply not possible. This is a willful misuse and distortion of my research. Not an academic disagreement, not a slight shading of the truth, it’s willful distortion. And it’s illegitimate, and it’s irresponsible, and you know that, and you should stop.

Wayne Besen: Dr. Diamond has a few words to say about so-called reparative therapy.

Dr. Lisa Diamond: The APA has found that the majority of these therapies are being misrepresented, that therapists are saying, we can change your orientation, when in fact all of the data, all of the data, suggests that that’s not the case. Sometimes they’re successful at helping people to change their behavior, just like any of us can alter our behavior at will, but they say that the attractions, the same-sex attractions will disappear, they don’t.

These therapies are marketed inaccurately. They don’t actually have the effect that the therapists claim that they will have, and they do additional damage, by using these sort of aversive techniques that leave people feeling greater shame, greater guilt, feeling worse about themselves as a result. So they do, do harm.

Wayne Besen: Dr. Diamond said she would like if NARTH stopped using her research.

Dr. Lisa Diamond: My choice would be that they don’t use it at all. If there’s any upside to this at all, it may be that it actually introduces some people to real science, on these topics, which can give them a lot better information, than the non-science that is being perpetrated on a lot of these websites.

Wayne Besen: Dr. Diamond urges scientists to speak out when the research is distorted.

Dr. Lisa Diamond: There are a lot of scientists who would say, you know what, I just produce the data and then how it’s used is not my problem, but I think knowing that we have a culture that actually treats scientific findings very seriously in terms of support for public policy, that would be inappropriate. We have to be very vocal about what constitutes an unscientific use of the data, and that’s why I think it’s important to speak out.

I’m pretty accustomed at this point to the fact that these sorts of distortions will occur. My hope is that by doing something like this, we can hopefully have a more scientifically literate society, and sort of consumer culture, that will get better at recognizing distortions when they occur, and will not simply take the citation of a scientific paper as evidence that that paper has been appropriately used. My hope is that readers and thinkers in general will take a look at the sorts of work that’s presented on NARTH, and say well, maybe I better look at that work myself before I take at face value, what they are telling me that it says.

Wayne Besen: If you are a scientist, and your work has been distorted, misrepresented, cherry-picked, or misquoted by the right wing, contact TruthWinsOut.org
--
And just in case you didn't quite catch the impact of it the first time, Dr. Phil, Let’s listen to the most pertinent part of that interview again:

Dr. Lisa Diamond: “Dr. Nicolosi, you know exactly what you’re doing. I have been more than explicit in my work about what constitutes a misuse of my findings, what conclusions can and cannot be drawn from my research. So there’s no chance that this is a misunderstanding, or simply a different scientific interpretation of the data, that’s simply not possible. This is a willful misuse and distortion of my research. Not an academic disagreement, not a slight shading of the truth, it’s willful distortion. And it’s illegitimate, and it’s irresponsible, and you know that, and you should stop.”

Still wanna play the “neutral ground” card, Dr. Phil?

Remember, the Google is your friend.

Oh, and PS, all that just scratches the surface of Nicolosi's ethical meanderings. And I haven’t even gotten to the slitherings of Glenn Stanton yet.

And for posterity's sake, one for the road. This is my favorite anti-gay moment of all time. I've watched this dozens of times and it still cracks me up. He's standing there, calmly nodding his head to what the interviewer was saying, and then suddenly, without warning, he just walks off camera in a huff of a hissy-fit.

Let's watch:


God that's funny!

Thursday, January 1, 2009

Rick Warren on Charlie Rose, 2006

Charlie Rose
Thursday, August 17, 2006



I’ve transcribed the Rick Warren intro and the relevant part (emboldened) at the end of his segment.
Charlie Rose: Rick Warren is here, he’s the author of “The Purpose Driven Life.” It has sold 21 million copies, had become the best selling hardback non-fiction book, in US publishing history. He is also the family pastor of Saddleback Church, in Lake Forest, California. It is one of the country’s largest and best known churches. Today it has 80,000 people on its roster, and 20,000 people attend service each week. He has also trained pastors from all over the world in his “Purpose Driven Church Strategy.” I am pleased to have him at this table for the first time.

Rick Warren: Thank you Charlie, it’s good to be with you, I’m a big fan.

[Skip to 23:15]

Rick Warren: There are three things that changed my life, Charlie, four years ago. All I wanted to do was pastor one church for life and train other pastors and I had determined that I was never going to go on television or the radio, put our services on, because I didn’t want to be a televangelist. I think always being in the spotlight blinds you. And then three things happened.

First, my wife got a real heart for people dying of HIV/AIDS. And she began to realize--and right after that she got cancer. The more she began to talk to me about it, the more it grabbed my heart, and I thought, ‘how did I miss this?’ The number one killer of people under the age of sixty, in the world, is AIDS. People don’t know that. In America, the face of AIDS is a white gay guy. But really the face of AIDS around the world is a black or brown woman. More women have AIDS than men. And actually more children have AIDS than homosexuals do.

And so as she began to talk about it, it began to grab my heart too, and so I went with her to south Africa. She was going to Mozambique [?], in South Africa, because we were trying to learn from the Africans, how to do ministry to people with AIDS. I taught--I did what I did, I train leaders. We did a three day seminar, and we broadcast to 400 sites across Africa, trained about 80,000 lay leaders and pastors, and I thought, ‘that’s why I’m here, good work,’ -for a week.

But then I said, take me out to a village. And so they took me out to a village, I said, ‘I want to just see a typical church.’ We go out to this village and the jeep and it’s 75 people meeting in a tent, literally, that’s all they’ve got. They don’t have a building, they’ve got a tent. And it’s 50 adults, and 25 kids orphaned by AIDS. And this little church is caring for these children, they’re growing a garden to feed them, doing a little school there, [the] kids are sleeping in a tent. And I thought, ‘this church is doing more to help the poor, than my mega-church.’ And it just rocked my world.

Charlie Rose: Okay, so you come to this realization, how did you move from, ‘this is going to change my life,’ to action?

Rick Warren: Well I went back and I began -- I’m a pastor, so obviously I start reading the Bible, and I start the Gospels over and over, ‘what did Jesus do? What did Jesus do?’ And I realize two things. First, five things Jesus did, were the antidotes to the five biggest problems in the world.

He Planted a church, he said “I will build my church.” He Equipped servant leaders, spend three years discipling the disciples. He Cared for the sick--he Assisted the poor, he Cared for the sick, and he Educated the next generation. And I could go into that in detail, but they’re the antidotes to these five problems. Then I said, ‘How did you do it? You wouldn’t have left us without a strategy. And I found the answer in a passage in Matthew 10 and Luke 10, where Jesus sends his first followers out, and he says this--there’s a whole list of things to do which I don’t have time to go into, but one of them, he says, “When you go into a village, you find the man of peace.” Find the man of peace. There’s a man of peace in every village, in every government, in every business, in every church. I’ve found them all around the world.

And so I said, ‘What is the man of peace?’ He said, ‘When you find the man of peace, if he’s open and he’s willing to work with you, you bless him and you start your work there. If the guy’s not open to working with you, you dust the dust off your shoes and go to the next village, because you can always someone to work with.’ The man of peace is open and influential. By the way, it doesn’t have to be a man.

Charlie Rose: I was going to say…

Rick Warren: Could be a woman. Might be the woman of peace, might be the elderly grandmother of the village that everybody knows.

Charlie Rose: Right, right, so you find them and if they’re open..

Rick Warren: And here’s the other thing, the man of peace does not have to be a Christian believer. Could be Muslim, could be Jewish. Because, Jesus said--when Jesus said “find the man of peace,” there were no Christians yet. Jesus hadn’t died on the cross, there was no resurrection. He just saying go out and find somebody to work with.

Here’s an interesting thing, when I go out and I start telling people, ‘do you want to work with us on poverty, disease, AIDS, illiteracy, injustice?’ I often find people are more unwilling to work with us, than we are willing to work with them.

In other words, we’re saying, ‘You don’t have to change your beliefs for us to work with you.’ If you can only work with people that you agree with, then most of the world you’re ruling out, okay? I don’t insist that a Muslim change his belief for me to work on poverty. I don’t even insist that a gay person has to change their beliefs, they’re not going to accept my belief, or I’m not going to accept theirs.

But I just met with the president--the co-founder of ACT-UP. Eric Sawyer. And I said, Eric, how can I help you get your message--I know you care about people who are dying, how can I help you get your message out? He said, ‘Use your moral authority.’ I’m working with these guys. And so, I’m looking for a coalition of civility, which means let’s get back to the original meaning of tolerance.

Tolerance used to mean, I respect you even though I may totally disagree with you, I’m going to treat you with dignity and respect, and we can dialogue and let’s see what do on the split. You don’t have to compromise, I don’t have to compromise, let’s work on the 80% we agree on, okay?

Today tolerance means all ideas are equally valid. Well that’s nonsense. It’s just illogical. And so if we could get a coalition of civility going, I would love--you know Wilberforce, there’s a movie coming out on this next year, because it’s an anniversary of the man who lead the abolition of slavery. And one of his goals was what he called the reformation of manners. We need a Wilberforce in the twenty first century.

Charlie Rose: Well said. Thank you for coming, I hope we can do this again.

Rick Warren: I would love to do it sometime.

Charlie Rose: Rick Warren is all the things that he has said, and he is also the leader of a very strong church and has written a book, and other books that have had a tremendous, not only sales, but also influence.
So does that mean he's willing to work with incest lovers, polygamists, and child molesters too?

Monday, August 25, 2008

Not that I feel that my vote necessarily counts, but I still like to go through the motions.

(This is older (you'll see what I mean) , but still some funny things to take mention of.)

Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early



Well, with Biden as a VP, we certainly wouldn't want an Obama assasination, Biden knows much too much about fixing world problems. Which leaves us with only one other political option -- an even worse staged terrorist attack than 9/11 --forever immobilizing the Constitution, and guaranteeing a Bush/Cheney Third Term.

Clearly, it's the only solution.

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Mike Ensley: Q & A Friday:

Q: How do I respond to my son who says that I don't accept him because I don't condone his homosexual behavior?
A. Believe it or not, there are parents who have restored relationship with their still-gay-identified adult children that goes beyond civility; they genuinely love and enjoy each other again. Granted, it wasn't an easy road getting there, but they got there.

And, there are kids who eventually walk out of it (yours truly, for instance).

"Yours truly," I don't think that's fair.

You state yourself that you continue to experience same-sex attraction: From the hideously anti-gay site Truth and Tolerance, you say:

As a single guy who continues to experience h same-sex attractions
And from your own Exodus Youth Truth and Tolerance DVD, you say:

"Do I still feel, homosexual attractions? Um, yeah.

Advancing a life of permanent loveless celibacy is one thing, but don't you really think it would be fair to ask your readers to go back and reread the article knowing what they know now? (about YOU)

Thursday, May 8, 2008

I say Let’s talk about your characterization of this as "not wanting to talk about it."

http://mikeensley.vox.com/library/post/pretending-the-debate-is-over.html

Mike Ensley: If there are some folks who need to censor, stigmatize, call names--that only leads me to ask, who are they really trying to convince? My guess: themselves.

Mike Ensley: None of that changes the fact that people who struggle with homosexuality don't have to embrace it. They can live differently, love differently, and find happiness and wholeness on another path. People can and people do. That's all I need to know.

How? How Mike? How can they love differently?

How can they LOVE differently?
Mike Ensley: But you've got to suspect why some can't abide even the possibility of discussing ex-gay lives and views.

Yet you state yourself that you continue to experience same-sex attraction.

From the hideously--virulently-anti-gay Day of Truth website you say: "As a single guy who continues to experience h same-sex attractions"

And from your own Exodus Youth Truth and Tolerance DVD you say: "Do I still feel, homosexual attractions? Um, yeah."
Mike Ensley: People can and people do. That's all I need to know.
So be it. But I would ask, how is it possible that you can feel responsible for offering and defending something that you do not even have for yourself?