Wednesday, October 18, 2006

i have been a lazy blogger

i have been a lazy blogger and been busy with soccer that i need to download pics so you guys can enjoy the soccer experience with me. lol i also am busy trying to hit some deadlines for UYWI as we are in the middle of RELOAD and developing the brochure for the national conference, but i wanted to point you to some interesting places that j-lou has seen lately.

- Jeremy and Ben have both got comments in regards to James Dobson and some others on the right wing christian evangelicals thirst for political power over real change. interesting posts... make sure you read.

- the new UYWI blog that i know have a link to on my page. it will be getting posts soon from some great urban leaders (jeremy del rio, rudy carrasco, jaime puente and curt gibson if he is not chicken) and of course me and ben. so please comment on that page as well.

i though i would have more but i need to read a book or something so i have something to think about and comment on. until than j-lou will c u later.

15 comments:

The Yepiz Zone said...

If real change means having a homosexual moratorium like McLaren suggested, then I guess we all must be confused.

There is consistent criticism on your part of traditional or "Right Wing" Christians.

But what have left leaning Chrstians done?

1. Allowed homosexual Clergy
2. Endorsed political candidates that are anti-religion or pro-abortion.
3.Enslave poor citizens into feeling dependent on government to take care of them, when it should be us Christians who should.

Where is the lefty outrage when this happens? Why are these not posted here?

Why was McLaren, their "poster pastor," not encouraged to respond to Mark Driscoll's simple question of "Do you believe homosexuality is a sin?" at Christianitytoday.com?

It seems as if lefty Chrisitians are not outraged at stances against Biblical attacks.

They, not righties, have politicized God more than anyone.

Where, oh where, is the outrage?

J-Lou said...

oh alex. did this post even mention mclaren anywhere. you just like to go back to him... i guess. i would defend something to u, but it is pointless. peace.

Klassic Katz said...

Isn't the statement, "right wing christian evangelicals thirst for political power over real change." sound a lot like the nazi statenment that Jews control the world. Name me any number of right wing christians in political office of the senate and/or congress? They are not so making a blanket statement like that leans to the side of ignorance Next you will probably state that conservative christians are like Al Queda. Let's see standing up for the life of the unborn, protecting the family unit, and setting up workfare instead of welfare sounds like pretty strong old and new testament ideas. Would that change do the nis country good? Yes but whhen you have christians who believe in dessruction of the american family and killing of the unborn I would suggest that this is a danger to our soceity. Also when you have christians like Sojurner that Jesus would not be driving an SUV you have hit the weird level. My suggestion to you and everyone who believes in the ways of the left - you know anti-cinservative christianity, anti- israel, and just plain anti semitic sell all you possessions and give it away. This way instead of being a hypocrite and bashing conservative christians you all can live on the streets. You know practice what you preach and all that. I also hold what Billy Graham states that being conservative thologicaly does not translate into conservative or liberal politics. You want to bash conservatives go right ahead. Just be prepared after you have made your bed to sleep in it. Good day!

pableezy said...

I also hold what Billy Graham states that being conservative thologicaly does not translate into conservative or liberal politics.

billy said this? wow, that's kinda cool. i would consider myself one of these dudes. i'm pretty conservative theologically, but pretty liberal politically. it's good to know that other people i respect (billy and you) think that the 2 can coexist.

pableezy said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
J-Lou said...

wow. i did not know i would become so hated and loved with my lazy blogger post. i am just trying to get people to read my boy jeremys blog. but i am know the anti-christ that is destroying the christian faith along with all of my crazed liberal christian partners. i am pretty busy so i will have to wait to comment on any of these things. or maybe i will wait for jeremy to come and comment over here, but he has probably seen your others comments and would not waste his time. luv u jeremy. ttyl blogging world. j-lou gotta try and work.

The Yepiz Zone said...

John said...i would defend something to u, but it is pointless. peace

Nice cop-out.

J-Lou said...

yes... alex people can read.

The Yepiz Zone said...

John said...oh alex. did this post even mention mclaren anywhere. you just like to go back to him...

Is he not on your link list? Are you not endorsing him? Your duplicity in this matter is obvious. You will link a post that criticizes traditional Christianity or James Dobson, but won't criticize or respond to arguments made here by others.

Instaed you are quick to play the victim by insinuating that we all called you the "anti-Christ."

All we are doing is asking questions. Isn't that what McLaren is all bout anyways?

But just like McLaren, you dodge us by giving us short snippets such as "I won't bother" or "people can read."

But then again, like McLaren, you never give answers. Your post or link of Jeremy's post aligns you with that philosophy.

Also, who demonized who? You said, "James Dobson and some others on the right wing christian evangelicals thirst for political power over real change."

here are some more questions I don't expect an answer to:

1. Are you suggesting that Chrisitian conservatives value political power over change?
2. Do you see conservative Christians as Biblically unsound and if so, how do you justify abortion and gay rights proponents in the liberal parties?

John, you may think I don't respect you or value your opinion. I do. i may not agree fully and I understand that my directness and pugnacious method of arguing can offend you at times. But I think that you always fail to answer or give explanations for your stances on every political stance you take here.

I, and I'm sure others here who have read would like for you to answer the many questions posed here about this issue.

Good day.

The Yepiz Zone said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
J-Lou said...

1. Are you suggesting that Chrisitian conservatives value political power over change?

no ... i am saying that MAYBE james dobson does.

2. Do you see conservative Christians as Biblically unsound and if so, how do you justify abortion and gay rights proponents in the liberal parties?

i think Christian conservative are narrow minded and put TOO MUCH focus on gay rights and abortion. and they lack focus on the environemnt, the poor, immigration, peacemaking, and i could go on but i have a job.

and here are a couple of thoughts in regards to people who read my blog and want answers. i do not care. i am in a stage of my life that i will ask questions could care less if i get answers. i do not give answers and like people to ask me quesitons but please do not expect any answers becuase you will be let down.

when i am well read enough and have a difinitive position on somehting you would like me to respond upon. i will let you know. unitl than you expect me never to respond to your comments.... because you annoy the crap out of me and the people who read my blog ands name is not YEPIZ. so feel free to read and comment anywhere else. peace.

urBenLA said...

I'd love to join the circus, but I will only throw this question out and that's it.
which is the worse sin to vote for? --- pro-choice or conservative with a scandal?

The Yepiz Zone said...

Ben, there have been in the last 2 years a number of liberal scandals as well.

1. Congressman Jefferson who accepted an undercover bribe by an FBI agent and also was caught with cash in his fridge.

2. I know you are referring to the Mark Foley case and in respoce I say...STUBBS. this democrat didn't send e-mails. He actually SLEPT with the Page. And he didn't resign. Congress had to censure him. Again, where was the outrage of liberal Christians then?

Both parties will always have scandals. But the issues we stand for should not change because individuals of either party make stupid choices.

The Yepiz Zone said...

John,

Again, you are accusing connservatives of "they lack focus on the environemnt, the poor, immigration, peacemaking,

This is blatantly not so. I can accept that you disagree with our methodology, but we care about those things as well:

1. What party passed the conservation act?
2. What party fought for and succeeded in the abolition of slavery?
3. What dominant party passed the civil rights act that protected African-American's right to vote even when their constituents strongly disagreed?
4. What party did the president who gave thousands of illegal aliens amnesty in the late eighties belong to?
5. President Bush belongs to the paty that has had two African Americans in high cabinet positions (Powel & Rice) and a Latino (Al Gonzalez)?

I can go on and on in defending my values with evidence, actions, and history.

As far as this goes...
because you annoy the crap out of me and the people who read my blog

I can't do anything about how you feel. But I will say this, I have attempted to be more than cordial and restrained in my comments. You know that this is usually not my method of responce. However, I have tried. You seem to be bitter about something with me and thta's fine too. But you have failed to explain yourself not only to me here, but anyone reading this post and that makes anything you say less credible to your readers. Go on shoot me down by implying I have nothing better to do because I'm unemployed, etc.

What did you expect from me and Katz? You made comments and we are challenging you on them. But you duck and duck and duck.

urBenLA said...

I was basically saying that voting either pro-choice or voting for someone who is scandalous (and I'm not naming names, it could be anyone) is a difficult moral choice and ultimately, you live with whichever is the "lesser of the 2 evils." There's several difficult moral choices we think of in the booth and they all balance into how someone will develop policy (or change policy) and we want to vote in the person who is going to do the most for the people we care about. That's what it comes down to.