Wednesday, June 10, 2015

CGI's Bill Watson: Does He Believe That Gays Soon Start Beheading Christian On The Streets?




The stupid things Church of God ministers continue to say continues on unabated: 






CGI Embraces Bill Watson’s Attack on Homosexuality
By
Lonnie C. Hendrix/Miller Jones

The lead article in the latest edition of The International News, makes clear that the CGI leadership has decided to fully embrace Pastor Bill Watson’s campaign against homosexuality. The article, “Required Immediately:  A Spiritual Conditioning Plan,” (by none other than the said Mr. Watson) is a diatribe against homosexuals. In the piece, Mr. Watson uses several fallacies to justify his homophobic rants and ensure that CGI Christians don’t succumb to this “secular malignancy.” He skillfully employs false analogy, guilt by association and an appeal to fear and pity to make his case against homosexuality.

The following quotes are representative of the tenor of the language and methodology used in the piece:

“Our nation is currently sick and in jeopardy, as was the nation of Israel before it was devastated, conquered, and exiled into captivity from its homeland by the ancient Assyrians. It’s obvious by the historical legacy of Israel, nations that have adopted the God of Israel as their guiding source of morality, judgment, and liberty have been held accountable for their abandonment of those statutes, judgments, and laws.”

So, because the United States is moving in the direction of greater protections for the rights of Gay people and tolerance for their existence within society, our current situation is analogous to that of an ancient agrarian kingdom that failed to meet the standards of the covenant which God had established with them?

“Undoubtedly, for some of us, it’s quite disturbing to see some of these changes and effects now beginning to affect our lifestyles. Even our language has been mandated, in some cases by legislation, to be more sensitive and accepting toward those circumstances and conditions that were at one time considered wrong, or illegal, but now are acceptable and something to embrace. Political correctness is growing exponentially, causing those not in agreement with these progressive changes to be viewed as narrow-minded, discriminatory, bigoted, or just simply mean-spirited and irrational.”

Those poor, mistreated and persecuted Christians – Folks are calling them bigots and accusing them of being narrow-minded and mean-spirited. They’ve even made it unacceptable to refer to those abominations as “fags” and “sissies.” What will these evil folks come up with next?

“Make no mistake:  This is taking its toll on many Christian people who find themselves faced with contesting these ‘progressive changes.’ And don’t think for a minute the Christian way of life and belief system isn’t under attack outside of the cultural wars in the West – because it is! Anything resembling Christianity is being assaulted in many areas of the world today. Whether you look to the Middle East, Southeast Asia, or Africa – so-called Christianity – the name of Jesus Christ – is viewed as a ‘danger, or threat’ to the homeland cultures of these areas, primarily due to the perceived peril (which is not a peril at all) it poses for Communist regimes and those radical Muslims aggressively executing jihad on many traditional Christians throughout the world. Literally thousands every day are being kidnapped, tortured, raped, or killed in extremely gruesome ways!”

So the “campaign” for greater tolerance, civil rights and the fairer treatment of Gay people is an attack on Christianity? Moreover, this movement is somehow analogous to “radical Muslims” and the “jihad” which they are perpetrating against Christians overseas? Is Mr. Watson suggesting that Gay militants are about to start beheading Christians on the streets of America?

Sorry, it all sounds like a bit of a stretch to me – a leap in logic. It also propels me to the conclusion that I was right about discarding the perception that the CGI is any more enlightened or moderate than the other manifestations of Armstrongism!



Contrast Bill Watson's absurdities with how this  minister came to change his mind and let grace enter.




22 comments:

Connie Schmidt said...

All that said, I still find it unconstitutional and unconscientable that someone MUST violate their religious faith in order to accomdate a customer who is homosexual, IE, baking a cake, or providing flowers/ video services.

Especially when said individual is wiling to find others willing to "fill in" on the purchase order to have that person properly serviced.

It also is ridiculous that bathrooms and shower rooms are now mandated "coed", whether it be a gym or school or other public location, simply because someone decides that they want to be the opposite sex that day.

Some common sense , and practical wisdom is being lost by society on many levels, and with many issues.

Miller Jones said...

Connie, I usually enjoy your comments and find them thoughtful and often insightful. I am, however, puzzled by this offering.
How does baking a cake or providing flowers or video services violate one's religious faith/convictions?
Would it be ok to cater a drug dealer's, tax evader's, blasphemer's or adulterer's wedding?
Should an Evangelical Christian be forced to provide the services of their public business for a Mormon, Catholic or Muslim customer?
What if it happens to be a small town and you're the only bakery, florist or videographer available?
Do you honestly believe that anyone casually decides to be a male one day and a female the next?
In my state, we still have separate restrooms and showers for public use - Where do you live? (rhetorical question, I'm not expecting an answer to that one).

Anonymous said...

Religious objections were used in the U.S. to justify slavery for hundreds of years before the Civil War and to justify strict segregation after that time and up through the civil rights campaigns of the 1950s and 1960s. "I don't believe in the mixing of the races so I don't want to serve Negroes in my cafe, dress shop, grocery store or movie theater." I was on the wrong side of those arguments as a young man back then but have come to see the wisdom of the idea that public businesses must be open to all members of the public.

There is still freedom of religion in the U.S. Churches do not have to accept anyone into membership that they don't want and people don't have to join churches if they don't want to. Church ministers are not required to marry anyone if they don't want to. Those who perform only civil marriages would probably be obligated to perform services for anyone who asks. How about a little application of the Golden Rule. Don't discriminate against other people if you don't want to be discriminated against.

Anonymous said...

Would it be okay to deny the service of baking a cake, or providing flowers/ video services if they were of a different race?

Claiming that some one wants to be the opposite sex "for that day" show a gross misunderstanding of the issue.

I don't see how bigotry can be viewed as "common sense" or "practical wisdom."

Anonymous said...

One of the fears which was vividly passed to us by the cult was the possibility that an alternative school of thought could somehow take over and actually become mainstream. If so, and if it were counter to our beliefs, it could become the basis upon which the steadfast would be persecuted. And, of course, the national insanity of Germany and the holocaust were at that time in everyone's very recent memories, and apples to apples or not, were used as support for possible similar paradigm shifts allegedly to occur within our own lifetimes. The Armenian holocaust which Hitler used as his primary example for ethnic cleansing was probably also remembered by our grandparents. These real, and tangible examples were used to stir up paranoid, and irrational speculation regarding any number of people and events. This type of thinking was not properly recognized for being the paranoia that it actually was; it was euphemized as "knowing the truth"

Glass-half-empty thinking (I call it the power of suppository thinking) does not lend itself to balanced and healthy lives. Once you have set people up with these erroneous mental patterns, expecting only the worst, the patterns take on lives of their own. A slight hint, or casual comment, and instantly there are knowing smiles and nodding heads of agreement from the "illuminated". Feed the pig, as the commercial says.

What's true is, visionaries, the people who become outstanding innovators and leaders, are generally positive thinkers, people with a sense of vision. They don't have time to worry about negative factors because they are too busy working on solutions. Yes, it is good to be able to push when appropriate, but really effective leaders pull people along with them, inspiring them on the way with their unique sense of vision. Had we experienced this type of leadership in Armstrongism, there simply would not be the years of angst and recovery that so many have faced in the aftermath, the striving for normalcy.

The voice of Armstrongism spoke to us as if select subsets of the human experience simply could not exist in our small, set-apart, elite, end times group. Based purely on known statistics over centuries of history, this immunity was purely imaginary, and could never have held true. Fear and anger were the reaction, and ultimately, they simply rolled it all into their very negative prophecy mold as their only method of explaining it away.

Miller Jones said...

Great points about the historical context of this issue relative to race. We never said that people who offer their goods and services to the public marketplace had to like Blacks - just that they couldn't exclude them as customers. I was under the impression that whether or not an individual had a sufficient amount of money to cover the cost of the goods or services being offered was the only legitimate criteria for deciding whether or not they were provided. I fail to see how anyone could characterize my decision to sell a cake, house or service to someone as an endorsement of that person's character or behavior. Moreover, I believe that everyone still has the right not to offer their goods or services for sale to the public. In other words, no one is being coerced into the marketplace.
Also, great points about the exclusivity indoctrination we were subjected to as past adherents of Armstrongism. Looking back, most of us can see that this engendered fear, paranoia, intolerance and bigotry.

Black Ops Mikey said...

Discrimination as a mental disorder?

I like it.

Where'd I put my DSM-5?

Sweetblood777 said...

Websters 11th Collegiate Dictionary - Bigot - a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance.

I guess that most of us are all bigots depending on the subject matter. We all are intolerant to certain activities, be it homosexuality, bestiality, and/or those that are now pushing sexual relations with children.

1% of the population have no right to force their beliefs/actions upon another. If that makes me a bigot, so be it.

Connie Schmidt said...

Miller and all above:

If you read what I wrote above, I did not say that people should not be accommodated. If I ran a cake store, I would make sure that the people buying the cake would be accommodated by a sub contractor if I PERSONALLY was not comfortable with the situation. Same for the flowers, or photography etc.

To COMPEL anyone to go against their personal rights to perform PROACTIVELY against a personally held position is an egregious violation of that persons being and their personal rights to freely or to not freely associate.

Should I be compelled to personally video pornographic movies, or to write obscene language on a T Shirt or Cake or Wall?

To require a person to use their artistic, personal talents, in a way that is repulsive for them, when accommodation is simply not an issue in the marketplace, is truly beyond belief.

To accommodate a male who thinks he has the right to be in the same shower room with me at the gym and allow him to see me in a state of undress is unconscionable and ridiculous. This has nothing to do with racial rights, or the Civil War. This has to do with my rights to privacy, and being safe and secure in my person. Truly, I think society has lost its marbles.

Connie Schmidt said...

http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2015/03/transgender_members_welcome_in.html

MIDLAND, MI -- A Midland County woman's gym membership was canceled after she refused to stop telling fellow gym members "a man" was using the woman's locker room.

Yvette Cormier said the incident occurred Saturday, Feb. 28, when she entered the women's locker room at the Planet Fitness location at 701 Joe Mann Boulevard in Midland.

"I was blocked, because a man was standing there," Cormier said. "It freaked me out because, why is a man in here?"

Cormier said an employee at the front desk told her that the individual identifies as a woman.

After taking her complaints to Planet Fitness' corporate office, Cormier said she was told that the gym was a "no judgement zone" and they would not tell the individual in question to stay out of the women's locker room. The person has not been identified.

Anonymous said...

"Would it be ok to cater a drug dealer's, tax evader's, blasphemer's or adulterer's wedding?"

Yes, as long as the marriage itself is within the boundaries set by God's law. But if a tax evader and his mother were getting "married" (even if it were declared legal by the supreme court), it would NOT be OK to cater their wedding, not because the guy is a tax evader but because of the nature of the "marriage."

What about you, Miller Jones? Would you cater a wedding between a man and his mom? What about a sibling "marriage"? Or a granddad-grandson "marriage"? If these "marriages" were legal, would you cater their weddings?

And do you, MJ, approve Planet Fitness's decision to allow men who prefer to be identified as women to freely use the ladies' room, even though most of the female members are very uncomfortable with that? Is that just fine and dandy with you? Why is that man's comfort more important than the comfort of the ladies?

Anonymous said...

" I fail to see how anyone could characterize my decision to sell a cake, house or service to someone as an endorsement of that person's character or behavior."

Well, at least you admit the failure is on your part. You really don't get it, do you? Apparently, you really don't understand the difference between catering a tax evader's wedding and catering a wedding you personally believe to be an abomination in the sight of God. You're not just providing a wedding cake for people who are sinners; you're providing a wedding cake for a WEDDING you believe to be an abomination. Can you not see the difference? And you're just fine with having a law that forces you to either abandon your business or violate you conscience?

Miller Jones said...

Please excuse if this posts more than once - having computer/internet problems.
Connie, in the USA, YOUR personal decision to enter the marketplace (an ECONOMIC one) means that YOU have consented to sell your goods and services to whomever agrees to pay the price which YOU have designated as fair compensation (although, if you're smart, this is usually based on supply and demand). Thus, you're rights as an entrepreneur are protected. Under our system, however, you do not have the right to say that you will only sell your services to White, heterosexual Christians. If the buyer has the cash to satisfy the price which YOU have set, then you are obligated under our laws to sell him/her the goods or services YOU'VE offered.
Anonymous 6/11 @ 10:37, So an adulterer is able to meet God's standard for marriage? So it's not the fact that the person who wants to purchase your goods or services is a sinner? If it is all about the institution of marriage, would you provide your goods and services to someone who has been married two, three, four or five times? Would you provide your goods and services to someone who had been living together for ten years prior to getting married? What if the marriage was a civil ceremony between two atheists? Would you provide them for a Hindu marriage ceremony? Are you saying that an incestuous marriage is the equivalent of a marriage between two consenting adults who are not biologically related to each other? And, NO, I do not approve of Planet Fitness's decision to allow this individual to "freely" use the women's locker room - sounds like a customer service issue to me. Wouldn't most business owners try to accommodate the needs of all of their customers - especially the majority?
Anonymous 6/11 @ 10:54, once again (I haven't had any takers yet), please explain to me how selling something (a good or service) violates your conscience? Businesses provide goods and services every day to people who do not share the owners beliefs, values or opinions.

Anonymous said...

Connie Schmidt said..."come common sense , and practical wisdom is being lost by society on many levels, and with many issues."

This is true.

anon said..."I don't see how bigotry can be viewed as "common sense" or "practical wisdom."

I remember hearing about the push for legal gay marriage during the 2008 presidential election. The rainbow coalition or whatever group it was, tried to equate the taboo of 'interracial-marriage' from the past to the taboo of 'gay-marriage' today. That doesn't work for me. Here is why. An 'interracial- marriage' can produce offspring while a 'gay-marriage' can't. Tough shit, I know. I can be as delusional as I want, but putting a lampshade on my head won't make me a T-Rex. Nature will eventually deal with me accordingly.

anon said..."How about a little application of the Golden Rule."

You can apply stupidity to the 'Golden Rule' all you want, but it still won't make it less stupid. Why is it that more and more people refuse to see that homosexuality discriminates against the only way to produce human offspring. The method and cause of their birth is repulsive?! I don't understand that. No one has ever been born through a homosexual relationship nor will they ever be. While being a liberterian, I realize that freedom can be a very dangerous thing and that we should never give up our freedom and we should always be looking for more options about living a life. Just keep the options that work and discard the ones that don't. Trial and error. We can vicariously learn from each other. This isn't called discrimination, it is called learning. We can and should let people be stupid all they want, just as long as the conseqences don't come at other people's expense. For example, just imagine if every human on this planet was re-programmed to only masterbate. LOL! a part of the Earth's life goes crazy stupid! This isn't evolution, it's de-evolution.

"Bigot - a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance."

I have worked with some homosexuals and have even been hit-on by a few, and whenever this topic comes up, I would just make a joke about how trying to fit the square peg in the round hole just doesn't work for me. And that nothing goes up my ass because the only thing that comes out of my ass is the shit that I don't need aymore. We would laugh about it and go on about our business. So, I'm not angry or butt-hurt over 'gay-marriage'. I just think it's stupid. All humans have the right to live, especially the stupid. How else can we learn? I just choose to look at it as a evoloutional thing.

Miller Jones said...

Anonymous 6/11 @ 10:43, you purport to look at the issue of Gay marriage "as a evolutional thing" - to leave religion out of your negative argument. Sorry, this one doesn't work either.
In the United States, marriage can be entirely secular or religious in nature (or it can be some combination of the two - the majority of cases). Under our Constitution and laws, an individual or church is not required to perform, attend or approve of any ceremony that does not comport with their religious views. Likewise, a person has the option of having a civil ceremony performed - one without any reference to God or religion. Both can be licensed by the state.
From a constitutional perspective, I think that it is reasonable to conclude that EVERYONE (consenting, non-incestuous, monogamous adults - according to current law) should have equal access to the civil ceremony and license. A church/preacher is free to participate or not in such a ceremony.
There are some churches that already provide Gay people with a religious option relative to marriage. Also, a majority of the individual states have provided access to the civil or secular institution. We are now merely waiting for the Supreme Court (an organ of the secular state) to decide whether or not this access (to the civil institution) is granted to all of the citizens of this country.
As for marriage being equated exclusively with procreation, what about the numerous childless heterosexual marriages currently extant in this country? Should people who aren't capable of reproducing children be excluded from participating in marriage? Should folks who are past the age of childbearing be excluded? Moreover, won't allowing Gay people to marry provide more opportunities for children who don't have biological parents to raise them?
The fact is that there are individual organisms within every species who don't reproduce. This is nature's way of limiting population growth and contributing to the overall survival of the species. We all know that overpopulation leads to more competition for limited resources and greater susceptibility to disease. Hence, from an evolutionary standpoint, the existence of Gay couples is a good thing.
Nice try, but the secular angle doesn't work either.

Anonymous said...

I take it, then, that if the law of the land permitted incestuous "marriages," you WOULD cater the wedding for your brother if he were "marrying" your (and his) mom---as long as they could pay for the service.

Look! Gay people can do what they want to do. So can everybody else. If my next-door neighbors are a gay couple, so be it. That's their business, not mine. If one of my neighbors is a man who lives with his wife and seven concubines, that's his (their) business, not mine. But if these people want their relationships recognized as "marriage," it becomes my business and the business of every other citizen, for it then becomes a SOCIETAL issue, not merely a personal one. So, I ask you, MJ, if all these non-traditional relationships are eventually recognized as "marriage" by US law, would it be OK with you if we (heterosexual traditionalists) selected our own word and made it exclusively ours to distinguish the man-woman covenant relationship from all the others now deemed "marriage"? Or do you think we should NOT have the right to our own word? We believe the male-female covenant (traditionally called "marriage") is special and is crucial to the health and well-being of a society; we therefore believe it is important (and much more than just a "religious" right) that we keep this relationship separate from all others. So would it be OK with you if the supreme court granted to us hetero-traditionalists exclusive rights to a particular word or phrase we selected for the purpose of keeping that relationship separate from all others? Or does that violate your constitutional rights in some way?

Retired Prof said...

Miller, there is an important limit on your statement that in the USA, a seller of goods and services has consented to sell them to anyone who agrees to pay the designated price. The owner of a printing press or other media outlet cannot be forced to publish everything submitted, nor be prohibited from expressing whatever idea the publisher chooses, short of libel.

So in cases where a baker is asked to produce a cake celebrating a particular event, another part of the First Amendment is involved: freedom of the press. The cake, like a pamphlet, a 30-second TV or radio ad, or a billboard, is a medium conveying a message. It is hard to say whether only the words and symbols on the cake are protected speech, or the whole object. Marshall McLuhan famously said "The medium is the message." Maybe in the case of a wedding cake someone could justify the view that the whole thing sends a message. Doesn't seem so to me. I think it's more reasonable that only the purely symbolic parts of the cake--the words written on it, and perhaps the tiny dolls on the top tier depicting the two brides or two grooms--are protected speech. So the baker could be enjoined to follow your principle and sell the cake, but not to decorate it with a message he/she found objectionable.

Same principle: a publisher who sells a blank volume is in no way responsible for what the purchaser writes in that volume. As for that well-reported case of the pizza shop in Indiana, I can't see that the shop had a case. A pizza is just a pizza.

Retired Prof said...

Anonymous 6:32 proposes hypothetically that heterosexual traditionalists could lay exclusive claim to their own word "to distinguish the man-woman covenant relationship from all the others now deemed 'marriage'."

Sorry, anon, language does not work that way. Maybe we men would like to lay claim to exclusive use of the word "cock" to designate our genitalia, but in many parts of the American midland and south, it refers to lady parts instead. Words inevitably take on new meanings every time speakers of a language use them in new contexts.

However, your idea of a word reserved for contractual obligations of a particular nature suggests a business opportunity. Words registered as trademarks can be legally protected from misuse. Why don't you start up a wedding company and call it RealMarriage(R) as a registered trademark? You could use the slogan, "This marriage is certified QueerFree" and copyright that. Any couple the least bit worried that others might doubt their commitment to heterosexual purity could pay your fee and get their marriage certified or re-certified as unambiguously pure. In addition to sincere believers, people like Dennis Hastert would be irresistibly drawn to your services. Can't you imagine how the money would roll in?

(Note: In regard to Anon 10:43's comment about "nothing going up my ass," It is interesting to note what auto-correct did as I was typing this comment. Every time I tried to write "re-certified" without the hyphen, it changed it to "rectified." Anon 6:32's company could increase its revenue even more by offering certificates to gay men announcing that their marriages are "rectified.")

Retired Prof said...

Anonymous 6:32 proposes hypothetically that heterosexual traditionalists could lay exclusive claim to their own word "to distinguish the man-woman covenant relationship from all the others now deemed 'marriage'."

Sorry, anon, language does not work that way. Maybe we men would like to lay claim to exclusive use of the word "cock" to designate our genitalia, but in many parts of the American midland and south, it refers to lady parts instead. Words inevitably take on new meanings every time speakers of a language use them in new contexts.

However, your idea of a word reserved for contractual obligations of a particular nature suggests a business opportunity. Words registered as trademarks can be legally protected from misuse. Why don't you start up a wedding company and call it RealMarriage(R) as a registered trademark? You could use the slogan, "This marriage is certified QueerFree" and copyright that. Any couple the least bit worried that others might doubt their commitment to heterosexual purity could pay your fee and get their marriage certified or re-certified as unambiguously pure. In addition to sincere believers, people like Dennis Hastert would be irresistibly drawn to your services. Can't you imagine how the money would roll in?

(Note: In regard to Anon 10:43's comment about "nothing going up my ass," It is interesting to note what auto-correct did as I was typing this comment. Every time I tried to write "re-certified" without the hyphen, it changed it to "rectified." Anon 6:32's company could increase its revenue even more by offering certificates to gay men announcing that their marriages are "rectified.")

Miller Jones said...

Retired Professor, you are absolutely right about speech and publishing. As for your second comment, that's just plain funny (and I don't care which side of this issue you're on)!

Anonymous said...

The point is, we already have a word. It's "marriage." Marriage is a societal issue. Traditional marriage is the ideal for not only bringing new people into society but preparing them for it. When we start labeling incestuous, polygamous, and homosexual relationships "marriage," we're reducing marriage to nothing more than personal fulfillment. Sorry Retired Prof, but words DO work that way. I don't care if gay and other, non-marital relationships are recognized as civil unions, but "marriage" is already taken. I hope the supreme court justices have enough sense to recognize the importance of preserving and protecting this vital institution.

Anonymous said...

If I were selling cakes, I would sell them to Jews, Muslims, gays, devil-worshipers, Catholics, Adventists, atheists, Baptists, CoG elders...just anybody. But if someone wanted to hire me to CATER a wedding at the First Church of Satan, I would turn down the job. Would my turning down the job be violating someone's constitutional rights?

On being homophobic, I must admit it---I am, and so are countless other heterosexual males. The word "phobia" is defined as "an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something." I'm not afraid of homosexuals, but when I see two men affectionately kissing on the mouth, I find that I have an extreme aversion to that. I usually want to spit, and sometimes I do---but not voluntarily. It just happens! So I guess that makes me a homophobe. But don't judge me. This terrible aversion I have to homosexual activity is not learned behavior. And I'm not alone; millions of others have the same feeling of disgust when they see two men kissing that way (or hear of what homosexuals do in private). You really need to understand that we heterosexual males can't help it. You see, we were BORN this way. It's in our internal WIRING, and it's not simply a matter flipping a switch and turning it off. Those who want to make it that simple just don't understand.