In Reply to: Re: Sexual ambiquity & Christian dogma posted by CB on March 19, 2007 at 21:02:06:
You're right, it is an interesting topic. I posted the article that started this thread, as I said, as a reaction to a discussion of sexuality on GenX, which I had just read prior to reading the article. The passages I cited really resonated with me particularly the point that "submission to church authority is a potent form of emasculation."
I wish I had more time to get into this right now, but the next couple weeks are kind of crazy for me. Most news articles I speed-read or skim for relevant points, but this article you linked to by a Family member I want to read more carefully before I comment too much on it. It seems a bit odd that although it is written by a Family member, it is on their official website, and it includes a discussion of the Law of Love, they add the disclaimer "... this article is not reflective of Family policy or doctrine." Despite their claim of being a loose fellowship of Christian missionaries with complete autonomy, Family leadership still keeps tight control over official policy and doctrine. And as Farmer points out in another post, the article's author seems to cherry-pick only those things that support TF's position.
As for whether or not the radical Christian right is "the most dangerous mass movement in American history" as the author claims, I suppose "radical Christian right" is open to interpretation. You certainly would know more about American history than I do, but what I understood the author to mean was a reference to the current state of affairs in the U.S. where the Christian right, generally speaking, has managed to influence the political process at the highest levels to such an extent that the separation of Church and State is fast crumbling by such things as faith-based initiatives and the attack on the sciences, and many other issues. But that is getting too political for this site.