Eden Prairie News - Religion News - Comments

Peachnettie, what is your

stark — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 21:39:41 -0500

Peachnettie, what is your definition of legal divorce? Minnesota law, Iowa law, Nevada law, or the law of the Bible?

Practically speaking, most divorces are an act of sin in the eyes of God. Does this make homosexual "marriage" any less of a sin? How about abortion?

And for the record, It was Randi who invoked religion into the conversation. Although an argument against same-sex marriage can be made on a secular basis, religious grounds are often put forth by opponents. For Judeo-Christians (along with most other religions) this is justifiable, because it is entirely consistent with the doctrines that define their respective faiths.

Juxtapose that with Randi's approach, which promotes same-sex marriage, using Christianity as a guise.

Blasphemy: An irreverent or impious act, attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or sacrosanct.

Dear Randi and Family, I

Peachnettie — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:26:10 -0500

Dear Randi and Family,
I just watched the documentary, which I rented from Netflix. It was so beautiful that I cried. I want to tell you how proud I am of your family and especially your son.
I graduated from Eden Prairie High School in 2000. I know what a homophobic community it was. I remember walking through the hallways and hearing the constant "That's so gay!" and "You're such a f-g!" slurs being thrown around. I know your son didn't go to EPHS, but I'm sure he faced many of the same biggotted comments at Mankato. His decision to come out at that age in such an environment is unbelievably brave. I cannot imagine how heartbroken you must have been when you had to scrub hateful slurs off your driveway.
I have a four-month-old daughter. My husband and I agreed before she was born that we would love her unconditionally, no matter her sexuality. The most heartbreaking part of the entire movie was the story of the mother whose daughter committed suicide. I hope that this movie will prevent such tragedies in the future.
Thank you for showing such courageous support for your son and thank you for sharing your story.
-Annette

Just out of curiosity, Stark, do you also oppose legal divorce? The verse you quoted above would imply that no one should be allowed to get a divorce, since that would defeat the whole "one flesh" idea.

Yes Randi, God does love us

stark — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:49:28 -0500

Yes Randi, God does love us all. He forgives us our sins, but he does not condone our sins.

Genesis 2:24

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Without condemning anyone, I believe this verse leaves little room for partisan interpretation.

One film I would recommend to you is 'Sneetches.' It's about the story of tall yellow beach-dwelling birds who are struggling to come to terms with their diversity, as some have stars on their bellies and other do not.

Sylvester McMonkey McBean arrives upon Sneetch Beach with a message and a machine. He immediately immerses himself as a community organizer. First, he dupes the plain bellied Sneetches out of money by promising equality. Then he switches marketing strategies and makes even more money off of the star bellied sneetches by promising to restore them as the priveleged class.

He repeats the process until he has taken all their money and leaves Sneetch Beach as a very wealthy man. The Sneetches are left equally impoverished and live happily ever after.

This is a wonderful story that has inspired people such as Reverend Jesse Jackson and the founders of ACORN.

Thank you for this wonderful

Randi Reitan — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:36:59 -0500

Thank you for this wonderful commentary!

Dear Stark, It really is a

Randi Reitan — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:07:45 -0500

Dear Stark,
It really is a great documentary. I hope you take the time to watch it sometime. You can rent it at Blockbuster. It shares the stories of 5 Christian families who have a gay child. It discusses the Biblical passages so often used to condemn gay people. It has helped many families understand homosexuality. It is a "religious story" that shares the most important message of the Bible .... God loves us all.
Randi Reitan

Wow! Nice bait and switch

stark — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 06:41:12 -0500

Wow! Nice bait and switch with the headline. I was expecting a religious story, but what I found was a link to a partisan attack on the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by by President Clinton.

What I learned is that ‘For the Bible Tells Me So’ is not a song about Jesus, but instead a dramamentuary made two years ago as a hit piece on conventional marriage.

In light of Obama's new health care initiative, I'm planning to to show Soylent Green in my basement. Press release forthcomng ...

I'm pretty sure that modern

Leah Shaffer — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:45:13 -0500

I'm pretty sure that modern life would be a lot less stress-filled if we could all just let ourselves go nuts with a Jell-O war atleast once a month.

Thanks for the sweet coverage, Karla.

Gavin, it's obvious that you

stark — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 02:53:40 -0500

Gavin, it's obvious that you share the same disdain towards religion as Lenin and Marx. Was the hyper-link provided in the title of the post meant to foreshadow your atheistic/agnostic views?

"Who's Swenson, you ask? He's Menomonie, Wisconsin's leading creationist yarn-spinner, pumping out a superstition-promoting book every several years. His own bio doesn't include the word scientist; his academic stature hasn't yet earned him a Nobel (nor even a Wikipedia entry). "

Global warming alarmist Al Gore has both a "Nobel" and his very own Wikipedia entry, does this make him an expert?

Swenson, may not refer to himself as a scientist in his bio, but Dr. Johnson is not the first to use that description.

http://www.cwfa.org/radio.asp?broadcastID=1724&mode=detail

I think you missed Johnson's point about evolution and creationism as two theories which are not mutually exclusive. Proof of one does not necessarily disprove the other. Darwinism is a term that has evolved on it's own, becoming a pejorative to describe those who feel that evolution theory is sufficient proof to deny the existence creationism.

Millions who fully support the theory of evolution also believe that God is the true creator. Those "churchfolk" who believe in evolution do not, by default, fit the contemporary definition of Darwinism.

http://gavinsullivan.blogspot

Gavin — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 12:50:24 -0500

http://gavinsullivan.blogspot.com/2009/08/question-marx.html

Dr. Bernard E. Johnson alternates with a number of local churchfolk in writing the Spiritually Speaking column in The Eden Prairie News. Johnson demonstrates his elevated humility this week--urging us to embrace life's question marks. How wonderful it is that religious people maintain such modesty--freely admitting they just don't know much. Shucks!

Perhaps it will occur to the moralist that a below-the-belt, fact-free attack on an unpopular philosophical minority might buttress his thesis:

"Richard Swenson is a medical doctor and respected scientist who had written about the amazing reality of the human being and its equally amazing limitations. He is especially interested in those who confidently rule out the possibility of God based on the revelations of science. Such people have rejected question marks and, in Swenson’s opinion, been blinded by a thimbleful of knowledge. Here is a person with a three pound brain sitting in judgment on God! Whatever else atheism is, it is too small."

Who's Swenson, you ask? He's Menomonie, Wisconsin's leading creationist yarn-spinner, pumping out a superstition-promoting book every several years. His own bio doesn't include the word scientist; his academic stature hasn't yet earned him a Nobel (nor even a Wikipedia entry). In his More Than Meets The Eye: Fascinating Glimpses of God's Power and Design, the 'futurist' reveals the following about Jesus: 'Without a doubt, he shed at least one red blood cell for every human who ever lived' (as Publishers Weekly noted as it panned). No non-creationist could conceivably find Swenson's opinion of any interest whatever.

Thousands of cosmological maps have been proposed over the millennia--and immense change has occurred within individual religions over time. To commit oneself to a specific faith in its particular temporal guise is to reject nearly as many alternatives as does Richard Dawkins. To choose one religion to believe in--among the thousands that humans have described--requires one to reject a slew of subpar claimants. If we judge it a capital offense to employ one's three-pounder to reject gods, we should buy our crucifixion lumber in bulk.

The following correction is

Karla — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 16:34:48 -0500

The following correction is set to run in this week's issue with regard to this column. The correction has been made to this online version.

A column on page 20 of the April 2, 2009, Eden Prairie News mistakenly referred to a concentration camp as “Polish.” The commentary should have stated: “A biography about her life includes a story of a visit she made to a German concentration camp in occupied Poland at the end of WW II, when she was a young woman.”

The Eden Prairie News is committed to providing accurate information. If you find an error or have a comment about a story, call Editor Karla Wennerstrom at 952-345-6474 or e-mail editor@edenprairienews.com.

(Karla Wennerstrom is the editor of the Eden Prairie News. She can be reached at editor@edenprairienews.com.)

Jasonla, I agree. A lot of

sd42webmaster — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 18:16:35 -0600

Jasonla, I agree. A lot of people have screwed up traditional marriage. That isn't much of an argument for redefining it.

This is a serious topic but

William Wood — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:58:18 -0600

This is a serious topic but to bear it you have to see some humor, too.

I mean, if we are talking about defending the family, it would seem that the single most important action we could take would not be to deny civil liberties to gay couples but rather to become upscale, Asian Catholics (http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=295). Yes, this will be a sacrifice for some, but the family is worth it.

Also, it's rarely mentioned, but the abortion rates among gay couples are significantly lower than among their hetero couple counterparts. Choose life.

Considering how many people

jasonla — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:12:52 -0600

Considering how many people are in marriage counseling with problems of their own and how high the divorce rate is i don't think anyone should be talking about who can and can't get married especially since it doesn't affect you in any way shape or form put 5 couples in front of you gay and straight and people just friends and you can't tell the difference if someones married or not so why make a big deal about it?

I'm saying that liberals

sd42webmaster — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 00:52:13 -0500

I'm saying that liberals tend to want to change in the courts what they cannot change at the ballot box. The way to destroy the one adult man-one adult woman definition of marriage is at the ballot box. But liberals look to the courts to do the dirty work that they cannot achieve legislatively. That's judicial activism.

Your protests make my point:

William Wood — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 06:58:04 -0500

Your protests make my point: you care about judicial results, not about judicial methodology. So let's drop the charade about judicial activism and say what we mean. You are opposed to gay marriage and abortion. (For the record, I am probably a lot closer to you than you might think on the latter.)

If I were to run on a platform it would be to let the courts come to the obvious conclusion about marriage (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19271) and to let the IRS enforce its existing regulations, which so far have worked pretty well walking the "tight rope" Mr. Chief Justice Burger describes.

Whether or not such a platform "works out" is irrelevant. The tyranny of the majority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority) is no argument for justice. This isn't a high school popularity contest. Thankfully, that is why non-elected Justices still interpret the Constitution and make that the law of the land. Or have you forgotten that this is a republic, most especially when that goes against democratic urges?