Bishop Eddie Long - Scandal In the Church

In lawsuits filed this past week, four men who were members of the New Birth Missionary Baptist Church claimed Long coerced them into sexual relations with gifts including cars, cash and travel when they were 17 or 18 years old. The sprawling church in Lithonia, Ga., about 18 miles outside of Atlanta, counts politicians, celebrities and the county sheriff among its members and hosted four U.S. presidents during the 2006 funeral of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s widow, Coretta Scott King.

One of the claims in the lawsuits is that Long had sexual contact with the young men, who were enrolled in New Birth's ministry for teen boys, during trips he took them on in the U.S. and abroad. Attorney for Bishop Long, Greg Gillen, has said the travel was part of a mentoring program that other young men also participated in.

Bishop Long has often preached against homosexuality and has supported many rallys banning agains "same sex marriages!"

Like anyone accused of a crime, the law states you are "Innocent until proven guilty!" However, being such a powerful and notable figure in the African-American Christian community and country for that matter; has the church and the character of the men and women of the gospel been damaged?

Share your comments!

If you would like to view the video of Bishop Long's address to his church, please click on the link below:

Same Sex Marriage - Should They Have Rights?

Last Monday a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit announced that the California's ban on same sex marriages would remain in place at least until December. Earlier in the month Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

Americans have changed their minds on many issues relating to homosexuality. They have moved some distance in terms of accepting gay marriage, but majorities in most polls still oppose it. Gallup asks its question this way: "Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should or should not be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages?" In May 44% (up from 27% when Gallup first asked the question in 1996) said they should be recognized as valid. But 53% in the new poll, (down from 68% in 1996) said they should not be.

This has been a heated topic for a number of years. Everyone wants to be treated equally. However, for many Christians, this is a subject that often is ignored because no one wants to verbally speak out what they know is right from wrong! How do you feel about all of this?

Is Obama Really Doing a Good Job?

I have to honestly say, I wasn't really impressed with Obama's campaign during the presidential election. I voted for Hillary Clinton.

Now, that it has been over a year since President Obama's victory, I wonder what do many of you think and feel about his performance as President.

Obama has done what he promised when he ran for office in 2008: He has used government as an instrument to try to narrow the gaps between the haves and the have-nots. He has injected $787 billion in tax dollars into the economy, provided health coverage to 32 million uninsured and now, reordered the relationship among Washington, Wall Street, investors and consumers residential election.

However, I still feel like the average american is still struggling from paycheck to paycheck and for some, unemployment check to unemployment check!

So please, tell me how do you feel. Do you think Obama is doing a good job?

Are you in love, or is it lust? Love and lust are inextricably intertwined. Lust is ground zero for hormones -- it's nature's way of bringing the opposite sexes together to mate. In fact, without lust, it's doubtful that love between a man and a woman would have a chance to prosper at all.

The driving force of the sexual imperative bridges the gap between the almost incompatible brain styles of the two sexes. So lust can be seen as one end of a broad continuum, which may or may not culminate in romantic love.

And love is the most ennobling of human emotions -- transcendental, exalted and capable of engendering emotional states that can make the male of the species want "to be a better man."

Men fight wars over lust, but they make homes and families for love.

So what do you think? Is your relationship based on Love or Lust?

The Tiger is Now a Cheetah!

Despite her husband's growing list of alleged mistresses, Tiger Woods' wife may have decided to stay put.

People magazine, out Friday, reports that Elin Nordegren will probably stay married to Woods for the sake of their children.

The couple wed in 2004 and have two kids -- Sam, 2, and Charlie, 10 months.

According to People, the Swedish model herself is a "child of divorce" whose parents split when she was 6 years old.

“That's not something she’s likely going to want to do to [her children with Woods] Sam and Charlie,” a close friend of Nordegren tells People. “She really believes in the importance of parents staying together.

To listen to the 911 Call previously made for Tiger Woods, click the link below.

http://www.nydailynews.com/video/index.html

So what do you think? Should his wife stay or should she just pack her bags and go, never to return or look back?

All Men Are Dogs!

This is the statement that a female friend of mine made recently and so devoutly defended, which sparked a debate between the two of us.
My friend, who had a fairly recent breakup, insisted that all guys are “liars and only out for one thing” (sex, of course.) And she specifically called me out and a few of our other friends for being dogs.

However, when I interrogated her about her own past relationships, she admitted that she views guys as simple “cuddy buddies” and just objects to flirt with.
Now, I have been in a relationship with the same girl for seven months and I’m not going to lie and say I’m the perfect gentleman all the time, but in defense of the true gentlemen out there I say to women, “Not ALL men are dogs.”

Even though some social scientists may say that sex is as essential as food, water, and shelter, and biology says the man’s primary function is to spread his seed to reproduce as much as possible, not every man desires a woman for what she has to offer physically.
In writing this, the phrase “nice guys finish last” comes to mind and I feel that this statement holds some truth in many situations, especially in regards to the dating game.
It seems to me that far too often the opportunity to be with one of the nice guys is the one opportunity that many women have the easiest time passing up on.
Now, I know that a lot of guys may get mad at me for admitting this, but women actually have more power than they know.

The reason that so many men do not get their act together and so many relationships fail so easily is because women allow them to carry on with the most ignorant and disrespectful behavior.

As long as there is a woman who finds a man at his worst attractive and acceptable then why should he do any better alone or in a relationship?

I believe you should love someone for who they are and not for whom you want them to be, but I also believe that people should know what they desire in a romantic partner and not settle for less.

I have quite a few female friends who have constantly been through relationships that failed because their man was unfaithful, immature, disrespectful or abusive, but I also have male friends who have had the same problems with women in the past.
Going back to my example with my friend who prompted me to speak on this issue, apparently women also view men as “cuddy buddies.”

So if women have the same tendency to view men as objects used just for physical intimacy, then why should the man be the only one labeled as a dog?

I don’t know if people put themselves in bad relationships due to self-esteem issues or boredom with everyday life or whatever their case may be, but I believe there is a true man out there for every heartbroken, lovesick woman who can cure her of the false idea that all men are the same.
My point here to both the ladies and the gentlemen is that chivalry is not dead and people just happen to make the mistake of looking for love in the wrong places.

But for the women who do decide to spend their time and efforts chasing a dog instead of a man, I just hope that you train him well.

Right to Privacy in a Relationship - Oh Really?

The other day, I was asking my girlfriend about her New Year's resolutions. She jokingly said that they were private and she would not share them. I didn't realize it was a joke and said, "Okay, that's fine. I understand." She let me know that it was a joke and I was silly for thinking that she was serious. However,I readily accepted that sometimes people have reasons for keeping things to themselves, even if they're in a relationship.That brings me to you, peanut gallery.

Okay, sidetrack for a moment, let's all agree that Howdy Doody is dead and gone and anyone under 50 didn't grow up with him so we can officially stop using the term "peanut gallery." Back to our story.I have come into conflict on several occasions with more than one girlfriend on the limits of privacy. There seem to be roughly two lines of argument, with possible variations on each line. First, there is the argument that more than one girlfriend has made that basically says, "Two people come together, they give up virtually all realistic rights to privacy." Sure, they can have privacy when they need to read or sleep or whatever, but any secrets including bank account numbers, current conversations you're having with friends, computer passwords, email passwords, plans you might be making for the coming week, closed and opened snailmail etc. are all expected to be shared. The sentiment here seems to be that there should be nothing worth hiding from one's partner, and if there is, then something is wrong. This idea is on a continuum.

While my current girlfriend sort of holds this view, she is on a much softer end of the spectrum about it, being a little annoyed at parts of the argument I don't buy into, but not going psycho and trying to hack into my stuff constantly. The other line of argument is more in line with what I think which can be roughly stated: People have a right to moderate levels of privacy, regardless of the relationships they're in for a variety of reasons. While a certain level of privacy is acknowledged to be given up at the beginning of a relationship, with more privacy given up as the relationship continues, there are still, and should always be, if so desired, personal privacies that one can maintain, with the understanding that trust negates any need for worry. In addition, while a deep level of secrecy certainly could point to a problem between the couple, having certain privacies need not be construed as a statement about the richness/trustworthiness of the relationship.

For me, for instance, I don't go over all the conversations I might have in a given day, with my girlfriend because I a) don't see them all as that important and b) I can't remember them all and c) even if I can remember them, I'm not sure they're worth the effort of explaining things in a way that makes sense, which is often much harder than one might realize.There are a myriad of other reasons about a myriad of other things, that I'm not hiding, I just don't want to talk about for whatever reasons. Past that, I do believe there are things that one has a right to deal with in one's own time and, regardless of love and affection, are not necessarllly the purview of the partner. So, I believe that one has a right to keeping one's passwords private, of asking before opening mail, of being squeamish when somebody asks me for my bank card; one has the right to keep one's inner sphere a certain level of private for all eternity. I feel that's a good thing. I do try to understand the other side and it does make sense in some ways, but so does the other side (and obviously moreso for me). Of course, laying out these things early in the relationship and compromising would usually be a lot more helpful, but sometimes that's not as foreseeable or as possible as one would like.

Oh well.With that in mind, I ask you, good public, for your views. What do you think of privacy rights in relationships? What are the limits? Who sets those limits? Is there a public standard we can share on this matter, a rule of thumb if you will? Any help would be greatly appreciated.