Finally, Christians are beginning to see the problems ...

And I never claimed he was calling me petty. Go back and read it. He was referencing the pastor, claiming the pastor was implying homosexuality or abortion are "petty sexual issues," when that's clearly not what the pastor was saying.

 

Now did alley misunderstand what I was saying? This thread is becoming a major clusterfuck.

I was agreeing with you, alley. That's why I addressed it to JackS, as in ...

"JackS - alley never called you petty ..."

JackS was the one who seemed to think you called him petty, alley. I didn't understand where he got that, nor where he got much of anything he was saying in this thread.

Mildly ironic. In lamenting all the misconceptions in this thread, I actually created a post that was misunderstood just as badly as everything else, probably by my own fault. My apologies, alley, if it was unclear who I was addressing it to.

 

Nope squidly ... my bad. I went back and read it again. READ IT CLEARLY STUPID <hitting self in head>

 

Well, no you can't argue that because you're talking about a ridiculous hypothetical. But nice try.

No one is "pro abortion" but some people are "pro-choice".

And if the position that "abortion is murder" makes you sleep more soundly, go with it. Just don't foist it on the rest of us.

 

Six minute video clip of this on the NYTimes site:

http://video.on.nytimes.com/ifr_mai...4521388x10b0a66d435xw831&rdm=816880.433544216

Interesting guy.

 

No, but Christians who focus on sexual issues -- about which JC said, you know, nothing -- and not on social justice, on which he said a lot, can be called "petty" according to the Gosepls, I'd say.

 

In my book, abortion is a social justice issue, not a sexual issue.

And regarding the "chronic miscomprehension" above, I never thought Alley called me petty.  But if Boyd specified the sexual issues the writer listed, then he (Boyd) did.  Even according to Alley's hair splitting translation.

I don't know how the heck it's so clear to people here that Boyd didn't specify all those issues as petty.  There's no way you can tell that from the story.

 

Yet you are assuming from the story that he did. And there's the rub.

 

Hmm ... this is a journalism board, and most of us have at one time or another conducted an interview over the phone. I'm satisfied this guy wasn't calling the problems petty. You're not. So give the guy a call and do a story. Otherwise, what's the point of arguing it.

And I agreed with your central point ... people can leave the church for any reason they want. I'm just not so hip on them doing so for social reasons as opposed to religious reasons. And the two are very different, I'm afraid to say.

 

Yeah, I guess I'm giving the writer the benefit of the doubt when maybe I shouldn't be.

 

If I were the editor, I definitely would have asked the writer about lumping all those things together.

 

Just today Chuck Colson attacked the exact same passage I did. I'm wondering if this will prompt a clarification from Boyd or he will be satisfied with how the writer expressed his position.

http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=2745