Saturday, March 08, 2008

Rambling Update

Warning: Unless you've been reading regularly for the past 3 years, some of this stuff may either not make sense or be downright offensive to you. But, I feel the need to ramble. p.s. If you've read this but your blog reader says this is a new post, it's not. I discovered a ton of typos and I'm attempting to fix them.

First of all, I have this new dog. Actually, I don't have a new dog, but I think I do have a new "dog project". This is Marilyn.

While Emma is completely jealous, she loves the extra playtime. Marylin was recently acquired by the 12-year old couple who lives next door to me. Ok, maybe they look at least 16, and I'm sure they're in their 20's, but still. Is it just me or are young people looking younger than they used to? Anyway, I'm not sure what the little couple does with all their time, and they do have a toddler of about a year and a half, but they are rarely ever home. Marilyn is outside needing attention (in my opinion) almost all the time. I gave her a little attention one day last week, and she's been hanging out at my house ever since. I don't understand why people adopt a dog and pay no attention to it.

I've made some art this week and I'm thinking of trying to turn this into a little business. I will call it something like "artifact art" or something like that. The stimulus for it is this; I have all sorts of odds and ends I've collected in boxes and scrapbooks. Sometimes it's a leftover earring from a pair I really loved, or something I clipped out of the newspaper, pictures or words from cards the boys gave me or made for me, or even bits of a quail egg that I saved because I loved the mottled pattern and the delicacy of the shell. Weird stuff, sentimental stuff, or just stuff that somehow appeals to me. And I made art out of that. Here's a picture of one of them. I have a few more in the works.
This one has a picture of the boys in it. It's from an awesome vacation we took to Colorado and New Mexico (pre-blogging days) and it's one of my favorites. I tore the picture to represent the tear in our families, and then found a silver heart to place next to it.

If you're still reading and you're wondering when I'm going to get to the offensive part, well, here it is. I've been having a long email conversation with a close friend and spiritual adviser (he would chuckle at that, probably) about sin and life in general. He's a person I listen to and trust and he challenges me to keep things in perspective when it comes to the meaning of life. For me, the meaning of life is that we are, ultimately, designed to be eternal creatures and eternity begins at birth. My friend and I talk alot about the Bible and what it really means.

I've recognize that I've spent an incredible amount of time (my thinking time) since the divorce working through the issue of homosexuality and whether or not it's a redeemed and sanctifiable human attribute in God's eyes. I'm not sure if anyone but me has noticed, but I've backed away from calling homosexual behavior, in and of itself, sin. I used to say that I believed that homosex was sin. Then, the more I came to understand gay people by getting to know them and then by experiencing the tragedy of the loss of my marriage, the less able I was to declare with such certainty that it is sin. I've never come right out and said, "Homosexual behavior is not sin", but I have certainly come to the conclusion that I don't know for sure, and that I'm not even sure I'm supposed to decide if it is or not. The more I questioned about this in my mind, the more I questioned all sin and the very nature of what sin is. The place where I seem to get most bogged down on the whole sin thing is this; I'm sinful. And I mean....really...really sinful. And yet, I'm redeemed. Furthermore, I have entire political parties who support and promote my sinfulness.

I'm of the opinion that the Republican party is full of, and run by, a bunch of greedy people. They pass legislation that helps me and others like me continue to live in a greedy state of being. They encourage me to horde wealth, which is a laughable concept to me at this point, but I know that I have a TON of stuff that I don't need. I'm choosing to pick on the Republican party because they appear to think they have a lock on what's moral and even Christian for our country. I disagree strongly. I believe they promote sinful lifestyles, most importantly to me, my own. I also believe they set up standards for others that they themselves don't follow. I think voting Democrat or Republican on the basis of sin and morality is just stupid. It makes no sense to me because I'm not willing to pick my sin over someone else's sin as "the better sin" and vote for someone based on that opinion. That sort of thinking is not scriptural, even IF you could actually somehow prove that voting Democrat or Republican has anything to do with being a Christian. It blows me away that so many people think that way.

I support Hillary Clinton for president because I think she's extremely smart (the smartest person running), I think she would do a good job, I admire her for sticking it out in her marriage, and I want to vote for the first woman president. Of all the people running, I believe she has the most at stake for doing an outstanding job, and I believe she will rise to the occasion and make sure the history books glow with her legacy.

Ok...I really AM rambling now.

I'll get back to this ramble later because I have alot more to say regarding my conversations with my friend. I'm still mulling over most of it. Thanks for hanging in there with me on this!

love and grace,
pam







View Current Blog

36 comments:

seithman said...

I'm totally with you on the fact that younger people keep looking younger. Last year, when I was working for an extended period at a customer's site, I had a similar experience. You see, this company has a long-standing history of hiring co-op students from the local colleges (particularly the one that has an excellent computer and engineering program), so there were a lot of younger folks always running around.

Well, one day, I walked by one of the conference rooms and just about froze in my tracks. There was a young man in there, who clearly had to be another co-op student. My first thought was, "Wait? Have they started hiring co-op students from high school now?"

And I'm pleased to report that I don't find the "offensive" part of your post offensive at all. Of course, that fact may give some of your other readers reason for concern in its own right. ;)

-- Jarred.

Mark and Patrick said...

I've never read anything offensive in your posts yet, and doubt that I ever will!

I have a great deal of respect for your writing and how you have handled all you've been through.

And Marliyn....how cute! She looks like she will be rather large? The artifact art is an awesome idea!

David said...

So your "offensiveness" boils down to you saying you support Hillary Clinton? Why did you find anything there offensive? What did you expect? Should I say:

"I tell you the truth, you shall see Barack Obama coming on the clouds, seated at the right-hand of the Democratic National Convention."

I'm not nearly political enough to do that. Maybe some of your other readers.

The thing about poverty is tough, isn't it? My faith right now is tough and I am trying to sort through what actually is, and what is not (that's the existentialist talking; it's after midnight so just ignore him), and where to go. But one question I've been asking is when the talk, the daydreams about actually living a life of simplicity in service of the poor stops being fantasy and actually becomes reality? When do I stop acknowledging I'm living in sin - that is, largely in indifference to the horror of poverty - and live righteously - that is, in a life of serving? That's a gospel that cares about humanity and not my checklist of rights and wrongs, and that's a gospel that's far harder to follow than most anything I've heard in a church. And the crucible question is: is that the gospel I am actually going to live by?

Good to hear from you, as always, Pam.

Christine Bakke said...

I think it's time to find my Sojourner's bumper sticker "God is not a Republican - Or a democrate"....

:)

Christine Bakke said...

ooooooohhhhh...can't believe I didn't comment on the art - LOVE it, post more! make more!

Brandon said...

"Is it just me or are young people looking younger than they used to?"

I think you're right. I come across my grandmas high school yearbook awhile back and all of them looked so much older than all the people in my class when I was in high school. We all looked liked ten year olds compared to them. And even now, current high schoolers just seem to look so much younger than when I was in school.

I'm a Republican too, and to be honest with you, I've started to feel the same way. Neither party is really any more moral or ethical than the other and the Republican party certainly doesn't have a claim on Christianity. I think I may vote for Hillary too. She seems to be the only one who genuinely sounds like she cares and would do the most for everyone.

Oh, and I liked the art work. Very pretty. :)

grace said...

Thanks guys! (you're included in that Christine! ;) I think I thought it was going to be more offensive than it was when I started it...and it will probably get that way as I continue writing about my discussions with my friend. At the heart of the matter, is my heart...and so I know that my regular readers (who have all become friends of mine...very cool) are going to see that, no matter what I write.

Anonymous said...

I find it sad that in a possible attempt to soothe your own pain you have justified your husbands actions. Homosexual sex is sin. Very nice people can still be engaged in sin. I know lots of nice people who do a smattering of moral things who still have sinful areas of their lives. Humans are great at compartmentalizing and rationalizing. As for the politics. I agree with the Republican party. But I am very frightened of the democrats too. usually voting boils down to picking the lesser of two (or three)evils. But do not justify one kind of sin because of the blindness of some to other kinds of sin.

grace said...

Anonymous: That's an interesting speculation...that I'm attempting to soothe my pain by rationalizing Tdub's behavior. I sort of wish it were that simple...but the truth of the matter is that my pain would probably be better soothed if I could figure out a way to make him more evil. I imagine there's a need for you to rationalize and compartmentalize me and my pain or soothing of such, but since I don't know you, I can't imagine how you'd know all that much about what actually pains me at this point. Unless you have something at stake here...that's all I can come up with. Are you married to a struggler...or the parent of one?

In any case, I do appreciate your thoughts and I'm glad you feel comfortable sharing them. I hope you will continue to share your particular insights because I really will listen and evaluate what you have to say.

That said, I'm sad that you fear the democrats. My point in that little rant was that they are all the same, not that I was justifying one over the other...I thought I made that clear...that no sin can be bigger than another and so I don't vote based on that criteria. I understand that either way, it's sin being promoted. I do get that.

Thanks again for commenting and I hope you will continue to do so!
:)

love and grace,
pam

Anonymous said...

actually yes, my husband is a struggler. He refused most of the traditional 'treatments" Why? most of them are quick fixes. Most of the christian world looks for the quick fix for everything. And then when the quick fix, as opposed to ongoing sanctification (much less glamorous) doesn't work, then they relabel sin as "no big deal" or chuck the whole Christian thing. This is what I see you have done with your husbands struggle. I imagine it is much less painful to say he "couldn't help it, was born that way" than to acknowledge that he chose not to walk the hard path and sanctify his sin. Or that he was pressured into changing over night and therefore it was just on the face of it instead of real deep lasting change. The reality is that no sin goes away over night. Why should this one sin be any different? I have read some things from Exodus recently and am gladdened to see that they are coming more into a biblical view of how to deal with sin rather than the "magic wand" approach that was there in the past. what I meant to say re politics is that I see what you are saying about the republicans, they are wrong on some stuff, but the democrats really are satan coming in as an angel of light. Just goes to show you, no human system will ever fix the world. Only God in his kingdom can and will.

grace said...

wow...you read alot of your own prejudices into my words! we also have some very deep fundamental differences in the way we view politics and it's role in God's kingdom (or lack of).

i can't recall any place on this blog or in public where i've said "he coudln't help it, he was born that way"

where are you getting this? I have said it's not a choice...but I have no idea at what point people become gay...I've also been very forthright in stating that I don't believe Tdub was correct in breaking our covenant of marriage. It does not soothe me in the least that he "couldn't help it" to be gay...as you say...and I have never ever said that we were looking for a quick fix....wow. i'm afraid that you are putting many pre-conceived notions on me just because you don't agree with the way I'm able to extend love and grace to Tdub. I'm sorry(really) if my dealings with him offend you...but I know that loving like Jesus did is offensive to alot of folks and I'm not going to let that stop me.

I'm saying alot of things here...but none of the particular things that you are hearing. I'm sorry for not being more clear...I'm just telling my story.

I have to be out with the boys for the afternoon...but I'm happy to continue the dialouge later this evening if you'd like.

love and grace,
pam

Anonymous said...

um...where did I say "loving people like Jesus did" is wrong? Jesus told the truth in love. Part of his love was speaking the truth. Pretending like sin is okey dokey and gay marriage is just a good thing isn't love. Love is affirming people's worth while not being afraid to speak God's truth when called to do so. Perhaps in your confusion about "what really makes people gay" and your lack of all the answers (which none of us have btw) has made you quick to jump ship and assume that most Christians who believe homosexuality to be sin just have it all wrong. Perhaps their approach to DEALING with that sin may have been wrong, but you don't right that wrong by suddenly making that which is sin holy in God's eyes. If you believe homosexuality to be sin, they you will keep searching for an explanation for the apparent failures that maintains that truth, you will not twist truth to fit what you think you are seeing. Many people bail out of AA because they cannot stand the daily struggle to not drink: does that suddenly make alcoholism OK because so many choose to give into sin rather than continue to struggle? The Christian life, in general, is a struggle. We American Christians have been sold a bill of goods that all you have to do is "say the prayer" and life will become easy. Perhaps this is why so many of the ex gay ministries in earlier days went with a "do this workbook and in six weeks you are well on your way to being straight". Please show me any other sin where a few moments of temptation is seen as proof that the person may as well just give up combating that sin and "give into their nature". Anger? Heterosexual lust? Drugs? Alcohol? I don't think so. If you suggested the line of thinking with any other sin that these "ex ex gays" take with homosexuality, it would be painfully obvious how ludicrous such thinking is. I am sorry that I put words in your mouth about "born gay"....but that is the usual excuse for giving in unabashedly to SSA is being "born that way". Of course there is much research on sociopaths and violent criminals that indicate that there is a genetic component to THEIR sins, but I really don't see anyone jumping up and down to normalize the Scott Peterson's of the world because a facet of their dysfunctional behavior may have a genetic basis. We are not owned by our genes. There is a well known genetic component to chemical dependency, the so called addictive personality. This is seen as a hurdle to overcome, not something to normalize and give into simply because there is a piece that is beyond one's control. Drunkenness is not reclassified as "normal" and not sinful because part of the tendency can be inherited. I know too many people who struggle with too many other sins whose struggles exactly parallel the ex gay struggler who does not get instant change to fall for this line of BS. One does not have to not call sin sin to treat the struggler with compassion. Sin is sin. A lot of Christians are pretty fake and pretend that they do not struggle with anything. Perhaps that gives the SSA struggler the idea that the Christian life is easy, because non SSA strugglers put on a mask and are not honest about what THEY struggle with on an ongoing basis. So when the instant cure doesn't work with SSA (why should it, when it doesn't work with anything else, SSA is maybe more difficult to fake healing than some other things) they assume that the problem is the expectation of change rather than the way it is assumed one goes about it. I would add too, that so many of the people I see who no longer drink or drug or whatever just transfer their problem to something else, like eating. Or control (very big in a lot of religious circles) People really need to get at the root of the matter. That so many Christians don't and fake it shouldn't be a reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

grace said...

So...exactly what is it that I said in the original post that caused you to chime in here? Was it all these assumptions that you've made based on what I said or how I'm dealing with my personal situation? I didn't say that you didn't believe we should love as Jesus did...I was just using that to try and get at what it is that initially set you off here. What is it that you are really taking issue with that I am doing? Not all these assumptions and claims you've made above about a bunch of stuff that we aren't even talking about and that I wasn't talking about in the original post.

If you are just needing a place to vent out all these frustrations you have about homosexuality and the ex-gay movement, and American Christianity...well...fine...I don't mind you doing it here. But...just what did I say or do that brought all this on?

p.s. my outing with the boys just got put off until tomorrow because..so...i'm here ;)

grace said...

oopsy...i didn't mean to have that because in there...but it actually got put off because i didn't have as much money in my acct. as i thought so i'm waiting until tomorrow which should be a better day...hopefully...
;)

Anonymous said...

it isn't so much your personal situation as the stuff I have seen you post elsewhere. You state you are in favor of gay marriage. You pretty much document your slide downward on your viewpoints about homosexual sin. I am quite sure your personal situation was very painful. It would be to anyone. I would think, if it were me, it would go down easier if I believed that "that was just the way it had to be so he could be happy" than if I had to face the fact that my husband had bagged on his own recovery and taken the easy way out. It is much easier to forgive someone something you believe that for whatever reason, they couldn't help than something that they willfully chose to do wrong because it they just didn't want to walk the hard road. It saddens me though, when I see people wooed away from biblical belief because of the the failings of someone around them (or their OWN failings) Instead of biblical truth as a litmus test, it becomes their own personal experience and rationalizations for the failings of themselves and others. Because someone goes back to the lifestyle may be because they chose to continue to sin rather than submit their broken painful places to God and others. Or it may because they have been misled about what the Christian life really entails and they believe they are rejecting biblical Christianity when all they have seen is a cookbook approach. This saddens me. It saddens me to see someone such as yourself go from affirming that homosexual sex in sin in God's eyes to the exact opposite. Like I said, they must LOVE you over at ex gay watch because you are their poster girl. You affirm what they desperately want to believe. You are, in your desire to genuinely show love and compassion, allowing yourself to be used to further their goals. Or maybe its NOT about love and compassion. Maybe being befriended by all these gay men and being approved of by them is meeting some need in you. I firmly maintain that one can affirm people's worth as human beings while still asserting that certain aspects of their behavior are abhorrent to God. Obviously there is a time and place for that. Once you have said your piece, resaying it over and over does nothing. But if you are engaging with people opposed to God's ways for the purpose of "showing God's love" yet you fail to ever ever express God's mind and are afraid to call sin sin even when the subject jumps up and bites you in the nose, then, well, what really are your motives? I have friends who are not Christians, friends who are are engaged in unGodly lives, yet they know where I stand. They know I love them and value them as human beings but they also know that I won't just agree with them in the name of "love". Real LOVE is not afraid to speak the truth. These gay "Christians" use the "love" bit to silence anyone who does not agree with them. They deliberately manipulate their audience into confusing real love with approval of all actions. Even they themselves no doubt disapprove of some of the actions of those they claim to love. But of course they can't and won't see the hypocrisy of that.

grace said...

I approved of gay marriage before tdub left ours. I'd link you to that post and my "justification" but I don't honestly know how to do that in a comment.

I do believe there is such a thing as a gay Christian, and again, I've held that belief for some time. I've never set out to do anything here or at XGW except tell my story and demonstrate love. I've made it clear that I'm not trying to convert anyone to anything. I don't honestly believe that it's my calling to do that. I have been called to tell my story and so I do it.

You are quick to talk about what might seem to you as believing things for my own comfort, but I can just as easily point those motivations back to you. It's much easier for you to maintain a very narrow interpretation of what makes one a Christian so that you can hold on very tightly to something that is completely out of your control, namely, your marriage. I typically don't debate or argue here....or anywhere much, for that matter. But, I guess you dragged me into this one and I don't mind telling you what I think regarding your own motivations since you've been so free to imply mine.

The thing is...it's not my place to judge your heart or your motivations. Nor you to judge mine. You obviously have a great deal of anger toward alot of people, institutions, and even ideas. There are websites and places you can go to vent those frustrations freely but I've heard just about all I care to hear on mine.

I don't agree with your approach or your estimation of my motivations, my friends, or my actions. We disagree.

So be it.

grace said...

I only have this to add...

real love...

gave His life for all the world before and in spite of whether or not they ever accepted Him. He offered himself up...in love. Unconditionally....while we were yet sinners.

That's the love I want to emulate.

Anonymous said...

whatever Pam. It is not 'hanging onto my marriage"...my husband is a big boy and what made the thing so hard is that I know how many walk away and refuse to stay the course. That has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is sin or not. It can still be sin and my husband still has free will to rationalize it away and choose to sin.So the fact that I am "holding onto it to control my marriage" is BS. Showing love eh? You will love them right to the pit of hell condoning their actions. I don't really know how people can call themselves Christians while they so clearly spit on scripture. I love how people who want to get away with sin are quick to pull the "love" card. Addicts of all stripes claim to be "unloved" when someone draws a line in the sand. You are not showing these men "love"...you are giving them a rationalization and an excuse to not confront their sin. Your story in fact only serves to rationalize their behavior further. They must be wetting themselves with glee that you have come over to the dark side. It is not up to me to decide what God will do with someone who so willfully chooses to ignore an area of sin in their lives. I am not God. Scripture does say that spitting in Gods face about sin isn't going to bode well on judgment day. What I can say is that homosexual sex is sin. Right along with greed, gluttony, addiction and gossip. You can't rationalize that away any more than you can rationalize any of the others. Maybe I am wrong about your motives. If you thought gay marriage was within God's will prior to your husband leaving, that is almost worse. I do realize that not everything morally wrong can be made illegal. I came very close to being a lawyer so I am well aware of the pitfalls of legislating some types of morality. Lying is wrong but its not illegal. Stuffing your face is wrong but its not illegal. I am really not sure where gay marriage falls on that spectrum. One might even say that Christians should stay out of the fray because that is perhaps not the best way of addressing homosexuality is through the courts. However, for a Christian to say that they are in FAVOR of the legalization of gay marriage...that just astounds me. Perhaps a legal loophole can be found to make gay marriage legal and perhaps Christians may decide that repealing that is not the most fruitful use of their energy, but singing the praises of it? Being in FAVOR of it? I just am floored.

Anonymous said...

Christ did give himself up for all but he made that salvation conditional on people responding to it to the best of their ability

Anonymous said...

I love when people who disagree ultimately get told they are "angry" The boys over at ex gay watch sure have you trained on the appropriate party line.
and if you believed in gay marriage before your husband left...well..I guess you gave a struggling man all the rationalization he needed to take the easy way out.

grace said...

I have no idea why I described you as angry. There was really no need.

Godspeed to you in your continued journey and in your marriage....anonymous.

Anonymous said...

When all else fails: sarcasm. Whatever.

grace said...

I'm actually pretty fond of sarcasm even if I were trying to make something work here, which I'm not.

David said...

Anonymous,

I do not know who you are or what your name is, but my heart grieves over your situation and that of so many others, which is why I so fundamentally believe that men who, as you put it, struggle with SSA really need to avoid a marriage with someone of the opposite sex. I am sure there is much beauty and love that you have experienced with your husband, but the difficulty it has brought on you, and on Pam, really does break my heart, and I sincerely desire to see that pain eschewed from the future lives of all married women.

Pam is one of the very few people who I met first online and have grown to have much respect for. (And I can say that I have indeed sat with her in a Barnes & Noble bookstore as well, before her move northward.) And like her I am somewhat confused about your purpose here. You do seem upset by the lack of clear condemnation of homosexuality from Pam's writings. In fact, I do not know that I have ever seen Pam give her unequivocal personal viewpoint on the morality of homosexual relations, and am not entirely sure what it is. And I am perfectly fine with that: Pam has demonstrated by her words and actions that her desire is more about caring for a person as a whole and, seeing gay people as persons who have not been cared for by the church, extends that to them as well. I am absolutely stunned by her ability to continue dispensing grace despite the situation she has gone through with T-dub, and consider it a powerful personal testimony of the goodness of the character of God.

I say this all as a gay man myself. I find it strange when people speak of accepting the understanding of one's orientation as homosexual as "giving in" and "taking the easy way out". I honestly don't know what taking the easy way out is, but I have a fair idea that my pursuit of fidelity in future marriage and chastity in singleness is neither easy nor a means of gratifying every urge, as you say, of the flesh: my every urge would have me a lot more active than my fairly dull Friday evenings and would not have me working, with the ability I have and to the extent with which I am helped by God, to pursue my convictions in an upright manner. You obviously have a lot of concern for those men and women who are gay. However, condemning them and saying they have taken an easy route and are only gratifying themselves (especially when these things are patently untrue) is no way to either convince them otherwise or to show them the face and person of Christ.

It is clear that you and Pam differ on what the fundamental message of the Gospel is, the nature of moral behavior, and with what hermeneutic one should read Christ's life. That is all fine, but you have done a lot to talk past each other. You believe that the most loving thing to do is confront someone point-blank with all you believe is wrong in their life. Pam disagrees. (As would I.) But I consider patience and the humility to commune with, so much as I am able, those who think differently than I to be a truer measure of love. That is something I think we will just have to disagree about; and that is okay. I only hope that you can come and treat Pam and others you disagree with in a respectful manner, especially if they are your sister or brother in Christ, putting unity in him before all other manner of doctrine and dispute. It is too easy to get caught up in quibbles and fail to reflect Christ in the personal acts of our own lives.

Once again, my heart goes out to both you and your husband, and I hope that God meets you two and moves through you two to peaceful and graceful handling of all your needs, frustrations, and difficulties in the navigation of life on this earth.

Happy Holy Week,

--David

Emily K said...

Love your dogs! very very cute. I used to work for a guy who had 3 dachshunds, 2 were long-hair. All were cute.

LOL am I one of the XGW "boys?" I guess being a dyke i consider myself one of the "boys" now and then...

Pam, thanks for having the courage to continue your blog, and your work at XGW, and to stand with your convictions. No one has the right to make you feel inferior without your consent.

Anonymous said...

Please save your prayers of hoping my husband comes to peace with his sin. (for that is what you say between the lines)You are assuming a lot. It has taken years, not the quick easy a lot of these ministries promise. I am sorry if that doesn't fit with your choice to accept your homosexuality as unchangeable. I stumbled on this blog and was actually saddened by what I read. I wonder why Pam is so quick to be chumming up with people who have the very acceptance of sin that destroyed her life and from what is posted here, has harmed her kids greatly. I sincerely do not think that Christ's love entailed sparing the truth about sin. Obviously my opinion isn't welcome here. You and Pam have made HUGE assumptions about me and my husbands story, where he is at today etc that happen to be wrong. Gay activists leap on any bit of struggle as proof "gays can't change'. Now you tell me any other sin where no one expects at least periodic struggle. I can't think of any. I am sorry if this is blunt. It is plainly apparent that this type of opinion is not welcome here. All that is welcome is people who are "tolerant". That is the thing with liberal "tolerance" is that it is actually intolerant of anyone who doesn't toe their party line. If anyone even speaks of change it is only acceptable if they label themselves as an isolated case and don't try and defend it biblically. now what was that scripture about casting ones pearls before swine?

David Roberts said...

"I love when people who disagree ultimately get told they are "angry" The boys over at ex gay watch sure have you trained on the appropriate party line."

Oh my, if you knew half as much about Pam as you think you know, you would realize that no one could "train her" even if they wanted to. And yes, I would have to agree, what ever else you may be, you are angry. The least you could do is be civil as a guest on someone else's website.

Just for the record, there are as many girls as boys at XGW, though one girl used to be a boy, so she may not count to you but she does to us. Pam is also important, not as some sort of "poster girl" as you so rudely put it, but as a sweet and caring person. I'm sure God is pleased with her.

Now I can only sit and wait for the "pearls before swine comment" to come.

David Roberts said...

Ah, and she did not disappoint!

David Roberts said...

Nicely put David (Resolving Realities), do you ever comment at XGW? Of all the people in the world, I can't imagine anyone having a cross word for Pam.

Hi Emily :)

Anonymous said...

oh excuse me for not stating "women" as well. My bad. Let's focus on that. You can say what you want...Pam is quite a prize to you all...her story helps bolster your own denial. And sorry if I feel disgust for this flat out rationalization. There is absolutely zero that one can say to a closed mind. I only posted in here to address the juvenile fixation on my generalizing about the gender of the people on the board. People who want to deflect tend to fixate on some minute detail. Whatever.

Dave Rattigan said...

What a bizarre thread. Anonymous's description of Pam bears no relation to the Pam I've met. And to think Anonymous accuses you of making assumptions about her, Pam!

grace said...

I think it's time to close this thread. And since this is my house, I'll make the last comment.

First of all, I think "anonymous" has a great deal of insight and should start her own blog. She has a good many posts she could cut and paste from right here in my comments.

Next, I must respond to the "anonymous" comment about tolerance. Yes, we are all tolerant here. In fact, in the years I've been writing this blog, you are the very first intolerant person that's stumbled by here. I've had comments from all sorts of folks during times when I've made all sorts of claims about the nature of sin and homosexuality, etc...and not one of them, gay or straight, Christian or other, has ever demonstrated the sort of intolerant behavior that you have. It makes me sad for you that it's such a dangerous thing for others to work out their salvation and contemplate their thoughts and ideas. I stopped reading the bible as a rule book several years ago and began looking at it as a story that demonstrates rules. While I don't need a degree in theology to figure it out, I am challenged by what it is that Jesus was really saying at the heart of his message and I'm working that out continuously in my daily life. It seems that you are most intolerant of such a thing because according to the standard you have set up, I'm supposed to tick off the rules and steps as if it were the very cookbook you say you detest.

I've never minded anyone sharing their views and I've been more than tolerant of yours. In fact, you are still welcome to comment here. But, making sweeping generalizations and being outright rude....well...that's another thing altogehter and much more of that sort of behavior really won't be tolerated. It's your behavior that's so icky...not necessarily your thoughts or ideas. I hope that makes at least a bit of sense to you.

You know, I am not only personal friends with the "boys" at XGW, I also communicate with Alan Chambers, Warren Throckmorton, and on occasion Randy Thomas. We agree on many things and disagree on others....and...that's okay because we are tolerant. We are nice to each other. We actually like one another. Crazy idea, I know.

Ok...I do apologize for the sarcasm. Really, I do. I know it's not the most civil way to discuss but it certainly is more fun.

I do wish you the best. Since you seem to have read so much of my writing across the net, surely you've seen the multiple times I've spoken nothing but the greatest admiration for strugglers, their wives, and their families. I do admire you for submitting yourself continuously, as I know you do, as you make your journey in Christ.

love and MUCH grace,
pam

grace said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
grace said...

one more thing...

I'd like to thank Lord Vader and the stormtroopers for their kind words.

Does this mean I get to be Princess Leia?

kurt_t said...

You're all way off base! I'll tell you what motivates Pam! This blog is her first step in launching a career as a Bette-Midler-like cabaret performer. If all goes well, you can catch her in her fabulous one-woman show "Give me back my tiara, Peterson Toscano!"

You don't think she can continue affirming the gay lifestyle on a teacher's salary indefinitely, do you? The brunches alone are costing her an arm and a leg. Do you have any idea how much quiche lorraine the gay men of Oklahoma can eat in one sitting?!

grace said...

thanks blog buddy...you've outed me...

i suddenly feel so free...

off to rehearsals for me...