It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Christian publisher drops writer's book because he came out to Time Magazine as gay

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I wasn't aware that priests in the Catholic church made a different group name.

The things you learn on here.

Also, someone can make a group called "Those Who Want to Murder Grandmothers in their Sleep" but that doesn't really have anything to do with a lot of things. Why people always bring up pedophiles when talking about homosexuals doesn't make much sense to me, especially considering the majority of them identify as heterosexual(regardless of which gender kids they are chasing).

Either way, children can't consent to sex. So please don't use that in paragraphs again. Just acknowledge you wrote it and it was a mistake and we'll move on...yeah?

Also, the legal speak is very important because the moment a business turns into a for-profit entity and not a church they generally have to abide by the same rules as every other business.

To be honest though, this story isn't that interesting and I've never heard of the author or the publisher and will never buy either of their books.

These sort of issues and things happen everyday in the publishing world. I'm not even certain why this is news really.




posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Cuervo

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Cuervo

How was he promoting anybody to do anything at all in regards to his relationship with the publisher? He wrote a book. That book had nothing to do with his sexuality. It is a Christian book.

Are being purposefully obtuse?

Man makes a children's book that is perfect. Man starts promoting love between adult men and little boys in consentual sexual relationships. Publisher says we can't publish you if you are advocating that. Man says well I am. Book is pulled. Same thing.


Don't you see? The bible clearly states that if you commit ANY sin, you are as good as gay. A gay sinner.

The publisher says nothing to dispute that. They did not pull his book for him having sinned. They pulled for him PROMOTING sin and telling others to live a Sinful lifestyle. I already explained this. The publisher gave him the opportunity to say he does not advocate others to sin, he refused. The book was not pulled because he sinned, it was pulled when he began advocating OTHERS to sin.


Oy vey. It is the same thing (not your strange fetish story but about the author being gay). That's my point. Do they send authors letters to sign that promise they won't promote writing on Sundays or shaving their beards?

His book had nothing to do with sexuality and his personal life promotes no more sin than a Christian barbershop owner.

You can say oy vey all day long, they can choose what they believe is a sinful lifestyle. They believe this is. Another publisher might not.


And all I said was they were playing the typical game of cherry picking church politics. They choose to obey one part of the bible because that's what current social events guide them to do. There is no money in telling people not to shave. But there are a whole lot of folks in the bible belt willing to shop at certain stores if they are ran by big enough cherry-picking hypocrites.

And apparently, you agree.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Anyafaj

Nowhere in that do I see them asking him to give up his values. It's quite possible he could life a homosexual lifestyle while thinking it's wrong. I think what they did was far better. Rather than drop him for having sinned, they accepted him as a sinner. They then wanted it clarified whether he thought it was sinful. He said he did not. At that point they could no longer work together.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 11:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Cuervo

Except the man in question was not dropped for his personal sin, but for promoting others to commit sin.




Did you read his book? How do you know his book promoted people to commit homosexual acts if the publisher didn't publish the books. Just because he talks about marriage equality at certain places, doesn't mean you, personally, have to go to these places and have to listen to these talks. BTW, his book only mentions the word gay once! That's it. Once. And it's in reference to a student in his class that he helps who was having trouble with their faith and whether Christ still loved them. It wasn't even in reference to himself.


As an aside, I got to thinking and decided to check Amazon. It seems he found a publisher after all. Mods if the link is not ok to share, just delete the link if you are able, not the whole post. I wasn't sure.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cuervo
And all I said was they were playing the typical game of cherry picking church politics.

Except you should read your Bible because you are absolutely 100% wrong. There was no need for me to correct you earlier because it really does not matter. Now I will do so. Not all Christians are bound by the Laws. So your comment about cutting hair is pointless. If you spent more time reading you would know this. One thing all Christians ARE commanded to do is avoid sexual immorality, which homosexuality is defined as sexual immorality.


Act 15:1
Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.”

Act 15:2
This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.

Act 15:3
The church sent them on their way, and as they traveled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad.

Act 15:4
When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

Act 15:5
Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

Act 15:6
The apostles and elders met to consider this question.

Act 15:7
After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.

Act 15:8
God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us.

Act 15:9
He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.

Act 15:10
Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?

Act 15:11
No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

Act 15:12
The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.

Act 15:13
When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me.

Act 15:14
Simonfn has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles.

Act 15:15
The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

Act 15:16
“ ‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it,

Act 15:17
that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’fn—

Act 15:18
things known from long ago.fn

Act 15:19
“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.

Act 15:20
Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.


So unless he is a Jews for Jesus he can cut his hair.
edit on 22-2-2015 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 11:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Anyafaj



Did you read his book? How do you know his book promoted people to commit homosexual acts if the publisher didn't publish the books.

It doesn't matter if it does. HE promotes it, and the publisher is promoting him as well as his book when they sign him as an author. That's why there was no problem until the man publicly promoted homosexuality.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 11:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: OrphanApology
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I wasn't aware that priests in the Catholic church made a different group name.

The things you learn on here.

Also, someone can make a group called "Those Who Want to Murder Grandmothers in their Sleep" but that doesn't really have anything to do with a lot of things. Why people always bring up pedophiles when talking about homosexuals doesn't make much sense to me, especially considering the majority of them identify as heterosexual(regardless of which gender kids they are chasing).




That one has always confused me as well. I still can't quite make heads or tails of that!




To be honest though, this story isn't that interesting and I've never heard of the author or the publisher and will never buy either of their books.

These sort of issues and things happen everyday in the publishing world. I'm not even certain why this is news really.



I think the only reason that this made the MSM news is because

1. It's a Christian company.
2. It's a gay author advocating marriage equality.

Therefore, Armageddon must be near. LOL





posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: OrphanApology

Also, someone can make a group called "Those Who Want to Murder Grandmothers in their Sleep" but that doesn't really have anything to do with a lot of things.

It's an actual group with thousands of members all over the country and has been around for decades. It's not a facebook page with 10 members.

Why people always bring up pedophiles when talking about homosexuals doesn't make much sense to me, especially considering the majority of them identify as heterosexual(regardless of which gender kids they are chasing).

I actually was not linking them. I was using a children's book publisher as an example of another publisher with strict standards, and then looked for a group that would violate those standards.


Either way, children can't consent to sex. So please don't use that in paragraphs again. Just acknowledge you wrote it and it was a mistake and we'll move on...yeah?

How about you don't tell me what to do, yeah?


Also, the legal speak is very important because the moment a business turns into a for-profit entity and not a church they generally have to abide by the same rules as every other business.

Which can include a code of conduct that includes more than what is illegal.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

But even your Jesus said he wasn't abolishing the law. Just because James says different but included a small bit of it to excuse intact penises, he overrides Jesus?

Your bible says it's all very much in effect. Jesus then said that it's still in effect but you are now forgiven.

James also didn't include murder or any of the other parts of the law in that letter he proposed. Does that mean murder is cool by Jesus? No. It's all still gay. If you are to use the letter James wanted to write to the gentiles as a moral compass, the ONLY sins would be vampirism, animal cruelty, and non-heteronormative marital sex. I'm pretty sure that's not the all-inclusive list of no-nos you will hear from most pastors.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 11:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Anyafaj

Nowhere in that do I see them asking him to give up his values. It's quite possible he could life a homosexual lifestyle while thinking it's wrong. I think what they did was far better. Rather than drop him for having sinned, they accepted him as a sinner. They then wanted it clarified whether he thought it was sinful. He said he did not. At that point they could no longer work together.




Whether they wanted it clarified or not, the fact that they sprung it on him in that manner suggests it's not "par for the course" with all their writers. If it was, I could say, "hey, they do this to everybody", and I would write this off. The fact that this was a 'late edition to the game', so to speak, leads me to believe that they've done this to him, and possibly a select few. My best guess, until someone sues, they will continue this practice. No one asks them to "deny a sin, and 'clarify it'". Let's face it, EVERYONE sins. It may be mild, such as swearing. Or it can be severe such as cheating on your spouse. Just because not everyone can see it, doesn't mean you don't do it. I doubt they'd like all their secrets in the open.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 11:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Anyafaj
Whether they wanted it clarified or not, the fact that they sprung it on him in that manner suggests it's not "par for the course" with all their writers. If it was, I could say, "hey, they do this to everybody", and I would write this off. The fact that this was a 'late edition to the game', so to speak, leads me to believe that they've done this to him, and possibly a select few. My best guess, until someone sues, they will continue this practice. No one asks them to "deny a sin, and 'clarify it'". Let's face it, EVERYONE sins. It may be mild, such as swearing. Or it can be severe such as cheating on your spouse. Just because not everyone can see it, doesn't mean you don't do it. I doubt they'd like all their secrets in the open.


You nailed it. That's exactly the issue here. It's not par for the course to ask their authors to clarify and denounce their sins.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest
I literally addressed all that in my post. The Old and New Testament. If you need further clarification from me you need but ask.

I will take this opportunity to backup my post though. You referenced 1 Cor. 6:9-10. That's a great one to demonstrate what I said. Here we have a New Testament verse from Paul. Originally written in Koine Greek, and now read by you in English. Containing the word homosexuality explicitly! zomg. Let's see shall we:

1 Corinthians 6:9

English Standard Version
Or do you not know that the unrighteous[a] will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality.

Uses the word homosexuality. Excludes gay women.

New International Version
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men

So not the orientation itself, only if you act on it!

King James Version
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind

Erm. Not vague. Definitely explicitly about homosexuality. Including gay women.

Latin Vulgate
an nescitis quia iniqui regnum Dei non possidebunt nolite errare neque fornicarii neque idolis servientes neque adulteri

Translated to:
Do ye not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators , nor idolaters, nor adulterers

Wait a second! Where did all that gay talk go!?

So we have a Latin translation much much closer to the source material [just a few hundred years after Christ] and some English translations two of which were published in 1970-71. You only see the inclusion of 'homosexuality' in the modern English translations.

Please refer to my earlier post about Paul and pederasty and wedlock, and also homosexuality having not been an existent idea in Biblical times to begin with.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Anyafaj

Stop confusing love with sex. Sometimes, the most loving thing you can say is NO.

I have no problem with him being gay. I have enormous problems with the idea that he thinks he can change God's mind. Guy is free to do whatever he wants in life within the bounds of law, but when it comes to faith, we answer to a higher power. Last I checked, when it comes to that, there is no power on earth who can rewrite God's words on the matter.



It can certainly be changed. That's why there are so many biblical cannons.
edit on 2015-2-22 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Anyafaj



Did you read his book? How do you know his book promoted people to commit homosexual acts if the publisher didn't publish the books.

It doesn't matter if it does. HE promotes it, and the publisher is promoting him as well as his book when they sign him as an author. That's why there was no problem until the man publicly promoted homosexuality.



He was always publicly promoting marriage equality and preaching in the small churches. Even while writing his book that publishers had already approved of. So they KNEW. It wasn't until he came out that they said no.



posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cuervo

originally posted by: Anyafaj
Whether they wanted it clarified or not, the fact that they sprung it on him in that manner suggests it's not "par for the course" with all their writers. If it was, I could say, "hey, they do this to everybody", and I would write this off. The fact that this was a 'late edition to the game', so to speak, leads me to believe that they've done this to him, and possibly a select few. My best guess, until someone sues, they will continue this practice. No one asks them to "deny a sin, and 'clarify it'". Let's face it, EVERYONE sins. It may be mild, such as swearing. Or it can be severe such as cheating on your spouse. Just because not everyone can see it, doesn't mean you don't do it. I doubt they'd like all their secrets in the open.


You nailed it. That's exactly the issue here. It's not par for the course to ask their authors to clarify and denounce their sins.




Thank you. Don't worry though, give it a few minutes and someone will come along and tear it apart. LOL




posted on Feb, 22 2015 @ 11:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cuervo
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

But even your Jesus said he wasn't abolishing the law.

The Jews were under the Law. Gentiles were not. What is your point other than to display your ignorance?


Just because James says different but included a small bit of it to excuse intact penises, he overrides Jesus?

Your bible says it's all very much in effect. Jesus then said that it's still in effect but you are now forgiven.

Gentiles were never under the Law. The question was whether or not Gentiles who followed Jesus should be under the Law given to the Jews. The answer is no. So I repeat, unless this man is a Jew for Jesus he can cut his hair. If he is a JfJ, you have a valid point.


James also didn't include murder or any of the other parts of the law in that letter he proposed. Does that mean murder is cool by Jesus? No. It's all still gay. If you are to use the letter James wanted to write to the gentiles as a moral compass, the ONLY sins would be vampirism, animal cruelty, and non-heteronormative marital sex. I'm pretty sure that's not the all-inclusive list of no-nos you will hear from most pastors.

Talking about murder is a great logical fallacy. If you can not figure out why I will clue you in. I would prefer to give you the opportunity to not make yourself look a fool again. Your call.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 12:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
If you can not figure out why I will clue you in. I would prefer to give you the opportunity to not make yourself look a fool again. Your call.


Man, you are three for three on the insults so far. I haven't insulted you even once.

Better watch it, though. All that wrath and judgement is skirting pretty close to some pretty big gay sins.

I'll drop it for now. Biblical gymnastics can make any point but this isn't going to end any time soon and I'd rather not have my wife come home at 1am with me furiously typing and my only excuse for not having the room clean is "There's a meany Christian full of gay sin who's wrong on the interwebz!"

So I'm out.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 12:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Anyafaj

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Anyafaj



Did you read his book? How do you know his book promoted people to commit homosexual acts if the publisher didn't publish the books.

It doesn't matter if it does. HE promotes it, and the publisher is promoting him as well as his book when they sign him as an author. That's why there was no problem until the man publicly promoted homosexuality.



He was always publicly promoting marriage equality and preaching in the small churches. Even while writing his book that publishers had already approved of. So they KNEW. It wasn't until he came out that they said no.

False.

We believe you can be a devout, Bible-believing evangelical and support the right of same-sex couples to be recognized by the government as married

That is NOT the same as "homosexuality itself is not a sin".
www.xojane.com...

He jumped from CIVIL recognition for marriage equality to homosexuality is not sinful. That is when he found trouble.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 12:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cuervo

Man, you are three for three on the insults so far. I haven't insulted you even once.

I ignored your logical fallacies and trying to use false teachings to support a stance that has literally nothing to do with the topic at hand. You continued to use such tactics. Then after being educated you continued to act in an ignorant matter. Fool sounds about right.


Better watch it, though. All that wrath and judgement is skirting pretty close to some pretty big gay sins.

I fully expect to be judged the same. When I prefer to use false teachings and logical fallacies to avoid the truth I hope someone tells me to stop acting foolish. I also hope, like I hope for you, that I will stop.


I'll drop it for now. Biblical gymnastics can make any point

I did not quote half a verse out of context. There are no gymnastics. I gave you the entire context and proved your position false. That is why you are out.



posted on Feb, 23 2015 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Anyafaj

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Anyafaj



Did you read his book? How do you know his book promoted people to commit homosexual acts if the publisher didn't publish the books.

It doesn't matter if it does. HE promotes it, and the publisher is promoting him as well as his book when they sign him as an author. That's why there was no problem until the man publicly promoted homosexuality.



He was always publicly promoting marriage equality and preaching in the small churches. Even while writing his book that publishers had already approved of. So they KNEW. It wasn't until he came out that they said no.

False.

We believe you can be a devout, Bible-believing evangelical and support the right of same-sex couples to be recognized by the government as married

That is NOT the same as "homosexuality itself is not a sin".
www.xojane.com...

He jumped from CIVIL recognition for marriage equality to homosexuality is not sinful. That is when he found trouble.






Please quote where he said homosexuality is not sinful. I'm half dead from being up all night last night and I can't see it. If you're arguing for the sake of argument, I honestly cannot continue. I have two brothers who do that, and they can be very emotionally exhausting after 15 minutes of a visit with them. If not and I'm reading the last few pages wrong. I happily apologize. As I said, I'm exhausted right now. I have to attempt to get some rest now. I think my couch/bed is calling me.






top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join