Don’t beleive it if homosexuals say they just want to be left alone.
April 12th, 2008 by Brian Withnell
If you think that the propaganda espoused by the homosexual community saying they don’t want to impose their views on others, read this.
The idea that a person cannot have a constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion in the face of this “right” to freedom of behavior is just plain outrageous. Telling someone they cannot determine they don’t want to do something which violates their religious convictions (by aiding someone to do what they consider immoral) is violating their 1st amendment rights. Forcing people to do what they consider wrong. I would protest someone telling a member of PETA to do a commercial for a butcher, even though they don’t have any religious beliefs on the line. If the Huguenins don’t want to do business with someone, they should have that right regardless of the reason. Someone doesn’t want to do business with anyone that should be their choice. Any business should be able to set their own moral standards and should not be forced to violate those standards. Not in this country. Next thing these people will want is to become the pastors of churches … oops, already been there.
This entry was posted on Saturday, April 12th, 2008 at 8:11 pm and is filed under Culture, religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 12th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Like my place of business, there is a code of conduct that says we can discriminate blah, blah, blah. When the code is in direct conflict with my constitutional rights, which one wins out? With the liberal PC mindset infecting ever facet of our lives, I will say that it is a coin toss as to whether it will be ruled correctly and how long that rule may take. In the meantime, someone’s life is put on hold and turned upside down and for what? So that personal agendas can be met. When you recognize evil and allow it to be a part of your life, don’t be surprised when it consumes all that you have and know. That is what evil/liberals/socialists do to innocents-take over! Goodbye rightousness/logic/democracy.
April 12th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
“says we can discriminate…”
Should be “says we CAN’T discriminate”. No, not a Fruedian slip. Just a type-o.
April 13th, 2008 at 7:29 am
So, what you advocate is a return to the pre-1960s era, where restaurants and other businesses could tell Negroes that they would not be served, or in the best cases, require any dark skinned patrons to come around back for take-out service only.
The law, as it now stands in most of the United States, has provisions calling for non-discrimination based on race, creed or color, etc. The lesbians and male homosexuals want the law to apply to them by claiming that their orientation is de facto their creed.
The courts and many legislatures agree that discrimination against homosexuals is a violation of the law, although specific protections are not spelled out in many states.
In New Mexico, refusing to serve a patron because of their orientation is a clear violation of their State law. That is why the firm was fined. Had they just decided not to do the job for myriad other rational reasons, the firm could have protected their business from the legal action.
The question that needs to be resolved is how we treat businesses in this country. If they are to be licensed as agents of the government, and then required to serve all of the citizens, then the business owners should receive specified legal protections from the government to mitigate harm that the business might suffer from not being able to select whom the business serves.
On the other hand, if we return to pre-1960s era position that Americans have the right to buy and sell to or from whomever they wish, we are back in the same problems associated with racial and other forms of discrimination.
I am old enough to recall the pre-integration days in Virginia. This may astonish some of you, but back then, “White” restaurants generally had clean restrooms and we could dine with other families and not hear any loud-mouthed punks spouting filth.
Now, you can never find clean restrooms and there are few clean, quiet and safe public restaurants.
While many pine for the good old days of open discrimination, where Whites could freely associate (in accord with the Constitution) we should carefully consider how applying those laws would affect our Nation. Do we really want a return to the days where signs in businesses read, “Whites Only”? Are you advocating that we enact laws that allow businesses to put up signs that say, “Straights only”?
For those who are xenophobic, I suggest that you join private clubs. For those who wish to do business in America, I encourage that the approach that we take is to serve all patrons equally. In spite of the loss of clean restrooms, I believe that a policy of non-discrimination is the best over all policy for our People.
April 13th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Homosexuals cause dirty restrooms?!
April 13th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
of boo freacking hoo, “Activist” can’t act like a homophobe at work.
let me ask you something: does your work have a dress code?
I am a member of the religion called “Activist needs to shut the hell up-ism” and I fully anticipate that my constitutional right to freedom of religion will be violated the next time you post a comment. I guess I’ll just have to deal with it.
April 13th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
I am still trying to figure out whether smore is a citizen of the U.S. What is more important for you, smore: enjoying the freedoms of the Constitution or trashing the document while taking one? You just can’t change a liberals viewpoint until he comes to know GOD.
Just think about how I feel everytime you try to justify your illogic. Makes my head hurt. And yes, we have a dress code at work-come clothed or get arrested.
April 13th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Tyler,
While I appreciate your view on the subject, there is a huge difference between being black and “being” homosexual. Being black is something that is “what you are”. You are born that way, and no amount of effort on your part can prevent you from being black. Homosexuality may have a genetic predisposition — just like over 90% of violent criminals have a genetic marker that predisposes them to violence. But it is not determined by what you are, it is determined by what you do. Anyone that has left homosexuality and either embraced celibacy or heterosexuality demonstrates it is behavior, not state of being. There is an obvious difference between the two.
The other issue though is the question you raised about how we treat businesses in this country. Does the government have the right to tell a person with whom they must deal? That is a legitimate question. Even the government has a proper limitation to what its rights are. The people of this country succeeded from England over the perceived violation of the English government of the limits of the English authority. There are limits to the authority of any government, and those limits sometimes are easy to see when they are violated. I believe this case is one of them.
The real problem with the racial issue is that, first, it is not a behavior issue. A person cannot suppress an “urge” to be black. Second, historically, there have been large groups of people that have been oppressed by a white majority and kept from full participation in society as a whole. Much as integration was eventually mandated — which occurred because while the theoretical potential for having “separate but equal” exists, in practice the corrupt nature of man’s heart prevents such from occurring. If racial oppression had not occurred, then the need to correct the system through punitive measures would not have occurred. Those people that most wanted segregation in order to differentiate between how people were treated are the very ones that made segregation odious. The “cure” is an evil, but it was required to prevent oppression.
SPMM
There may be some people that are afraid of homosexuals, but I doubt if ACT is one of them. That derogatory term stems from smear tactics of those that have nothing logical to say. The vast majority of those that feel homosexuality is immoral, just plain wrong, are not afraid of them. They are just disgusted by them — much as someone that is disgusted by a person that would rob old women, rape children, or any other immoral behavior.
Now, as to your lame example of your “religion” I’d say that you should have the right to not allow Activist to post to your blog — that would be your right.
April 13th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
“You just can’t change a liberals viewpoint until he comes to know GOD.”
Of course, we know how to make a conservative into a liberal — blow out half his brains.
April 13th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
I don’t think he’s afraid of what a homosexual might do to him, I think he’s afraid he might like it.
I love how you guys fancy yourselves the Kings of Logic.
“Look at me, I’m so logical all the time. Homosexuality is disgusting, therefore gays are the same as rapists. See how logical?”
dork
April 13th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
that’s really clever jack
April 13th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
“Homosexuality may have a genetic predisposition — just like over 90% of violent criminals have a genetic marker that predisposes them to violence.”
“The vast majority of those that feel homosexuality is immoral, just plain wrong, are not afraid of them. They are just disgusted by them — much as someone that is disgusted by a person that would rob old women, rape children, or any other immoral behavior.”
Why, when talking about homosexuality do certain people immediately liken it to things like violence?
Wouldn’t it suffice to say “Homosexuality may have a genetic predisposition — just like having blue eyes or green eyes.”?
By using a violence marker, you are focusing the reader’s mind in that direction. It’s categorically wrong. Homosexuals are not criminals. They are only “wrong” because you believe so in a religion. And this is not true the world over. A religion give no right to treat them hatefully.
One can’t have a “message of love” (which should be the message of religious individuals) and use connotations in that way.
It’s like saying Christians are in an organization to promote their beliefs…just like the Nazis.
See what I mean?
Try an experiment. Next time you want to say something about a gay person, replace the word “gay” with the words “blacks” or “Jews.” If the sentence isn’t hateful, the word change shouldn’t offend.
Also, if you are in the majority then what is there to be afraid of? If gays are only 2% of the population and there is the “moral majority” then lambasting them constantly is like the schoolyard bully picking on the smart kid or the popular girl making fun of the bookworm. It just seems a bit juvenile.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:20 am
SPMM
You put words in my mouth, and if you would read carefully, you wouldn’t have that problem.
I did not say that homosexuals are the same as rapists. Robbers are not the same as rapists, nor con artists the same as murderers. At least not exactly the same — though all of these are doing what is wrong.
Robin
There is a difference between having a “predisposition to” and “determined by”. Blue eyes are determined by genetics. Homosexual activity is not — there are those with the marker that are not homosexual, and those without the marker that are. If you have the genes for blue eyes, you are blue eyed. There is not anything you can do about it. How a person behaves is completely within their control. No matter what the temptation, a heterosexual person must not commit adultery — there are genetic markers for sex drive, but those do not determine behavior any more than markers for violence determine behavior.
The difference between blacks and Jews and homosexuals is that homosexuals are the only ones that choose to act as homosexuals.
And while you might want to say that “it is categorically wrong” to focus people on something that all agree is wrong, that is not categorically wrong. What is right and wrong does not depend on what we say, or what is legal, or what all of mankind thinks. I’m sorry if you don’t see this as an immoral activity — just as I’m sorry that some people don’t see fornication as immoral and wrong. While you seem to think that right and wrong are human defined, I would disagree. What is right and wrong is defined by the author of the universe. Just because that is a “religious” statement, does not make it any less universally true. You might as well complain that 2+2 is 4. Saying that I think that only because I am a mathematician makes no difference in reality. All the wishing that you could dismiss what is right and wrong to personal preference instead of immutable God given law does not change that it is immutable God given law.
As I’ve said before, there is no fear of homosexuals. Those that find that behavior wrong don’t fear — just like you said, it is only 2% of the population. There is no fear, but that still doesn’t mean that people should just look the other way. Fornication is wrong as well. It ought not be tolerated. A landlord should have the right not to rent a house to anyone who wants to have sexual relations in the house outside of marriage. It isn’t about fear, it is about what is right and wrong. It isn’t about a person picking on someone else for doing what is okay — it is about someone doing something that is not okay, and saying it is not okay. It would only be juvenile if the assumption you start with is true — that it is only wrong because of religious belief. I reject that completely, as it is wrong because, not what I believe, but because what is true.
Right and wrong are not ours to choose or make ourselves. It is given to us. To ignore what is right (by not commending it) or ignore what is wrong (by not condemning it) is just as wrong.
Isaiah 5:20 (NIV)
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
April 14th, 2008 at 2:04 am
I suspect SPMM is a citizen … an academic. At the University of Michigan?
He doesn’t speak well for the education there if he is a wolverine.
April 14th, 2008 at 6:54 am
<>
True, but as Christians we are to love the sinner and hate the sin. The wages of sin is death. It does not matter what the sin is. We cannot be loving and condone sin.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:15 am
Last fall, I went to the toy shop at the Leesburg outlet mall and as I passed the “Daily Grind”, noticed that John Grigsby was in there talking to the owner, John Vogt. I stopped in for a cup of coffee and pleasant conversation with Mr. Grigsby. On the other hand, Mr. Vogt berated me for, …well, …being me and asserting my right to protect my family from spiritual abuse. But he still served me. Maybe if the lesbian couple had allowed the Huguenin’s to berate them and preach the complex definition of marriage found in Genesis, they could have reached some sort of compromise. Perhaps the Huguenin’s would have been satisfied if the couple would have agreed to write “and God said, one man and one woman” 100 times. Then they could have avoided this whole mess.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:50 am
Brian:
If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re arguing that businesses should be free to develop their own internal business practices sans state interference. In this case, the owners should be free to refuse the business of the lesbian couple with out being punished by the state because private businesses should be free to conduct their business as they see fit. Am I correct in my understanding?
April 14th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Jonathan,
It is really odd that we never hear from you until a thread is made about homosexuals. I know you don’t read us regularly so it probably stands to reason that you ping all words used to describe homosexuals and gravitate to those sites. Is that a safe assumption? We wouldn’t mind hearing from you on other issues. Do you have no other understandings or authoritative knowledge of any issues other than homosexuals? I won’t even make a statement about your comment #15-too open to misinturpretation.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:55 am
NotNot,
I would like to hear Brian’s response to this but I also would like for you to field this. Can a cab driver refuse a fare because the fare has alcohol or has/is eating pork or touched same? Can a person be refused sale of an item because he/she is not of that faith to own the item? Can a mechanic refuse to replace my battery in my car because the business doesn’t service that brand of automobile? Do these things not exist and show predjudice both religious and not and are condoned? Why do we cater in some beliefs and not in others? Why should this business have been sued? Would it have been right/acceptable to post “exclusions” on that door that says “we will not photograph any immoral act or circumstance as we interpret it thru our religious beliefs”. Just curious.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Brian,
That would explain why athelets go to the school-not for education. The rest, if subjected to such mindless tripe as what the liberals do in other universities as well, are either ignorant of what is happening to them or just furthering their position to become future socialists. The degradation of education. I guess this country has hit its pinacle and is now on the downhill slope. I would have liked for my children to have been able to enjoy it better without the “nutsies”.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Robin,
You’re right when you “feel” that someone compares homosexuals to violent criminals-they are not. I’m sorry that you “feel” they need to be put into a light of being innocent victims-they are not. It is a choice and lifestyle and once an individual accepts that, he/she decides his/her own fate. If it can’t be accepted then that person just lives in ignorance and denile. It really is that plain and simple.
I have a reason for asking but I just can’t say why now. Robin, are you in or recently from Florida?
April 14th, 2008 at 11:29 am
I was paraphrasing, Brian. I know that’s something that automatons have difficulty with so I’ll avoid it in the future.
And yes, most public universities have retired their anti-gay curricula. That’s the reason this country is going to hell in a hand basket
April 14th, 2008 at 11:51 am
ACTivist:
I’m delighted to respond to the hypothetical situations you describe and your questions at the end.
1. The cab driver/booze scenario. Of course a cab driver should be able to refuse a passenger that’s been drinking. Especially if the passenger is a belligerant drunk, I would hope the cabbie would refuse that kind of passenger. But I think a cabbie that refused everybody who had a little sippy wouldn’t stay in business very long. Here’s a true story. Several years ago, my ex and I decided to a little bar hopping in DC. After meeting friends at one place we decided we wanted to hit another bar that was little too far for walking. So we hopped in a cab and told the cabbie where to take us. The bar was well known for being a…well…you know….*whispering* a gay bar…anyhoo…after we mentioned the name, the cabbie was clearly irritated and while driving began muttering a number of unsavory things about gay people. Since I’m a paying customer I didn’t feel obligated to endure his BS so I told him that if he can’t say something nice then to keep his mouth shut otherwise he’s not the only cabbie in DC. He immediately pulled to the curb and “encouraged” us to get out. Which we did with all deliberate haste. Now, I’m sure you’re expecting this tale to end with me explaining how I channeled my outrage by suing the cab company, writing the Human Rights Campaign, ACLU, etc. to bring awareness to this issue and fight for gay rights…blah blah blah…yada yada yada. But that’s not what I did. You know what I did? I just flagged down a new cab. And, faster than you could say “Family Research Council” we were on our way to our destination. On the way I explained to our cabbie what had happened and he expressed his astonishment and actually apologized for the other driver. Upon our arrival, in addition to his stated fare, I gave him a rather generous tip. And that’s market forces at work.
Ok…what’s next….
2. A cabbie refusing a passenger b/c the passenger has eaten pork scenario. I’d say sure he can but, as before, he probably wouldn’t be in business very long. Again, market forces at work here.
3. A person buying a religious item but not a practitioner scenario. Sure they can refuse the sale. But most religious retail stores I’ve seen don’t have the crowding problem that I see in Wal-Mart, Costco, etc. So they probably oughta be grateful that somebody’s actually patronizing their store. But if they want to run themselves out of business by requiring some kind of religious ID card then more power to ‘em. Again, market forces at work.
4. The mechanic scenario. Well, I’d hope this mechanic would have the honesty to tell you he doesn’t routinely service your automobile brand such that he’s not the most qualified person around. And if he lies about his qualifications and does a hack job then that’s probably something that’s legitimately actionable in a small claims venue….no major constitutional issues to decide in something like this…just a tiny small claims proceeding.
Of course we discriminate all the time. And there will always be discrimination. I discriminate all the time. You’ll notice that I hardly ever comment on this blog. That’s because I really don’t care for this blog. So when I’ve got some free time to browse the blogs, I actively discriminate against this blog because there are other blogs I’d rather read. Obviously this post is a very rare exception. So, in a round about way, to answer your question, I’d say “YES!” we do discriminate. I like to discriminate. When my company hired me for my education, background and experience in public policy and mathematics, they discriminated against people who may just have a background in policy but not math. Or vice versa. And I’m quite grateful for that discrimination.
So when it comes to gay issues, I say let market forces handle this. What that lesbian couple should have done is just walked out of the “offending” photography studio and found one that would take their portraits. New Mexico is a fairly libertarian/liberal kinda state so I’m sure there are studios that would take their pictures. By settling down and living a responsible life in the suburbs, gay folks do far more to address any concerns that true, moderate, every-day folks may have about same-sex relationships. See…I’m not worried about changing your mind. I know that’ll never happen. You’ll go to your grave with your beliefs and more power to ya. So, I’m concentrating on the folks who do have open minds. Everyday they see we’re not monsters, child molesters, divine plague-attractors, etc. that’s one day closer to same sex couples becoming just an everyday part of the landscape…just like multi-racial couples, multi-religious couples, etc. And that’ll happen by gay people letting go of the knee-jerk reaction to sue the crap outta somebody and investing that energy in leading a good, productive life and being a responsible member of their communities.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
“So when it comes to gay issues, I say let market forces handle this.”
well said..
April 14th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
NotNotJayHughes,
Spot on. Being a jerk should not require the ACLU or any litigation, the market is a far more severe task master. Bankruptcy and poverty will beat a path to the door of the kind of cab driver and photographer you described. Serves them right.
April 14th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Marshmallow,
“And yes, most public universities have retired their anti-gay curricula. That’s the reason this country is going to hell in a hand basket”
OK, could you please explain this, or expand on it. You are not making sense to me.
April 14th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
“So when it comes to gay issues, I say let market forces handle this.”
He’s not making sense to anyone Jacob, henceforth, he cannot possibly be a Wolverine, must be a Buckeye or a Badger.
April 14th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
it was sarcastic, see. My comment that activist ought to stop whining about having to work in an anti-homophobic environment led to Brian questioning the quality of my education.
I’ll fight you dan. …and don’t think that feigning confusion is going to save you!
April 14th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
What, SPaMM thinks he’s Jimmy Cagney now ?
Either that, or his real name is Sybil..
April 14th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
SPMM, you could totally take him, one arm tied behind your back. Using NotNot’s quote to trash you to Jacob over a NotNot quote that he himself called “Well said. . .”! WTF?
dan, I love it. There’s a certain subtle poetry to your work. Keep up the good work!
April 14th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Seriously, dan. I just tried to duplicate your technique using
“Either that, or his real name is Sybil..”
and I couldn’t even begin to figure out how. This one is going to tie me up for a while until I figure it out, but when I do I intend on employing it full force. That is SWEET!
April 14th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Marshmallow,
go it, thanks.
Kevin,
“Using NotNot’s quote to trash you to Jacob over a NotNot quote that he himself called “Well said. . .”! WTF?”
Once more in ENGLISH perhaps?
April 14th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
“Once more in ENGLISH perhaps?”
I know, it’s crazy! dan gots mad skills.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Apparently the intellectual left wing of this blog is suffering from a collective stutter.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
SPMM
My comment was at your lack of ability to get what someone says right. I don’t mind a paraphrase, as long as the essential meaning is kept. You did not do that. You seem to have a problem with understanding what are critical differences between arguments. My hope is that you are an inexperienced undergraduate that hasn’t learned how to reason through a logical argument yet. If you give an accurate paraphrase that captures what the original message contained nobody would complain.
By the way, my statement was initiated by the “paraphrase” as you put it, that claimed I was equating gays and rapists, and ended with the epithet “dork” — taken as a whole, the post raised questions, I just pointed out that resorting to name calling stems from lack of intellect. You will note I have not resorted to any name calling.
April 14th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
“He’s not making sense to anyone Jacob, henceforth, he cannot possibly be a Wolverine, must be a Buckeye or a Badger.” — dan
“Good heavens, Lovie, a YALE man!” — Thurston Howell III
April 14th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Double negative Jay Hughs
For the most part yes, I believe individuals ought to be free to either carry out business with whomever they wish. This case is an extreme example of that applying to a “business” in that the owner of the private business was an individual couple that have strong personal convictions that they would not want to violate. In one sense they acted totally honorably in saying they would not want to participate in such a ceremony, rather than contract for the event, and then not be able to do a professional job because of extreme disgust making them nauseated by an immoral ceremony.
Why should an individual be forced to do what they find morally repugnant? Especially when it is relates to supporting what is clearly taught as immoral by a major world religion? (Pick any one of the top three religions, Islam, Judaism or Christianity — all three condemn homosexual activity.)
I applaud your view of let market forces prevail. That is exactly what I’m saying as well. If a person does not want your business, for whatever reason they choose, that should be their choice.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Jack,
The “love the sinner, hate the sin” is in one sense totally wrong.
Psalm 139:19-22 (NASB95)
O that You would slay the wicked, O God; Depart from me, therefore, men of bloodshed. For they speak against You wickedly, And Your enemies take Your name in vain. Do I not hate those who hate You, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against You? I hate them with the utmost hatred; They have become my enemies.
Those that are in the midst of sin, unrepentant, and propagate sin and defend it are the ones envisioned in this passage in Psalms. Exchanging evil for good and good for evil — calling God a liar in order to justify themselves is not something to which we should give no admonishment. It is wrong to love those that hate God.
The rub is that we also have been there, and our own sin is always before us as well. Therefore we hate not only other sinners, but ourselves apart from grace. Self-loathing (and loathing all those that do evil) is not bad — as it continually drives us to Christ. For the Muslim, I feel pity as they have no doctrine of forgiveness. The god they worship is one that will not forgive any sin. So if they commit any sin, they not only have no assurance of heaven, but they have a promise of hell.
We have a message of good news — that Christ died to save people from sin. If those that are sinners are “loved” by the church, rather than told they are dangling by the most precarious of threads over the fires of hell, suspended by the hand that also can shower them with grace, then we do a disservice to Christ, and them. It is not love that withholds the message that a person has a fatal disease, and that there is but one cure for it. The cure is free, but will cost the diseased person everything. Everything they are, everything they own, their family, their friends … everything. Yet to those that have such a dread fatal disease, the price is meaningless and totally without worth if they purchase the cure. Trade this world and its values for a perfect cure — that is heaven.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Jonathan
The whole thing would have been avoided if the homosexuals in question had been willing to respect the rights of other individuals to disagree with them on the point that homosexual activity is wrong, and supporting such activity would be for them sin.
There are no shortages of photography studios that will either ignore the issue, or not even see it as an issue. That the homosexuals wished to force their views on someone else is despicable. There was not “just let us live our lives in peace.” The statement was “accept our lifestyle as valid or we will sue you.”
And while you might have been in the Daily Grind that is “owned” by Mr. Vogt, it is also probably true that he does not in fact own “The Daily Grind” as a whole. I could be wrong.
Oh, one more thing, you have not faced spiritual abuse, nor will you in this age, unless the demons of hell overtake you. Of course if you reject repentance from sin, trample underfoot the grace of God offered through Christ Jesus his son, then “spiritual abuse” (justice) will be what you face for all eternity. God is merciful, but his grace is only offered to those in this age — even though it will extend to eternity. My best hope and prayer for you is that you will in fact repent, pick up your cross, die to self, and cling to Christ. While you live and breath, the offer of God stands. Do not reject that offer at the peril of your immortal soul.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Kevin,
Don’t let my post get wrapped too badly around your axels..
Jacob,
“intellectual left wing”
Enough with the oxymorons..
April 14th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
“you have not faced spiritual abuse, nor will you in this age, unless the demons of hell overtake you”
HAHAHAHA, your going to follow up your song and dance about how illogical *I* am with this? A mathematician (”2+2=4″) AND an exorcist!
the only correct sentiment you’ve made in this thread is that buckeyes are dumb.
do gays have the right to actively work toward creating a climate of acceptance or not? If they do, (which they do) why are you so offended that they would try to do that? If you found yourself among a similarly marginalized segment of the population, would you act differently?
How do you get an ohio state grad off your porch?
…pay him for the pizza!
hahahahahahaha!!
April 14th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
“Enough with the oxymorons..”
oh you’re good
April 14th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Brian,
I think Jonathan went missing-in-action again; back to Equality London and bro David. Wonder why they didn’t come earlier and comment on behalf of the poor immigrants that were wrongfully busted at LandsDownUnder. I always thought that they were the champions of the underdogs of Loudoun. Must have something going on with bigger fish to fry.
I really don’t think J believes or cares to be saved. “Alas, poor Jonathan. I knew him not.”
April 14th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
“do gays have the right to actively work toward creating a climate of acceptance or not?”
Sure they do. Still doesn’t make it right.
“why are you so offended that they would try to do that?”
If they are looking for acceptance it means that they are pushing their agenda onto people that don’t accept it. That is offensive.
Replace “gay” with, say, pediphile. Still okay? How about “incest”?
Remember, I haven’t stooped to name calling like your a moron.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
That would be, “YOU’RE a moron.”
April 14th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Brian,
“The statement was “accept our lifestyle as valid or we will sue you.””
I think this is a valid assessment. Personally I feel that this is at the crux of the issue with some in the gay community. I believe that homosexuals, as others, have the right to exist without living with the fear of discrimination. Some though appear to want more than this, and are looking for a validation of normalcy that many, as I, are unprepared to give them. To be fair, I expect reciprocity and do not judge them if they do not accept my lifestyle either. I am what I am, as they are what they are.
I also think that some bring a level of discrimination upon themselves by openly flaunting their sexuality, as do many heterosexuals who openly flaunt theirs.
But are these, I’ll call them activists for lack of a better term, the exception or the rule ? I believe the former, and they are not representative of the gay community as a whole. Much like the recent thread on Islam, the actions of the minority tend to be seen as representative of the entire group, human nature I suppose.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
SPMM
I don’t say that it is likely that anyone be overtaken by the demons of hell, but it happened in the past. Go read the Bible.
As to your question, do homosexuals have a right to work toward a climate of acceptance, no, they do not. Those that actively behave badly do not have a right to attempt to redefine what bad behavior is so they can clear the lowered bar they wish to substitute for reality.
If my behavior was in fact evil — as defined in scripture — I would not attempt to change the way the world views that behavior, I would attempt to change my behavior. That is the honorable thing to do.
Behavior that is contrary to Biblical righteous behavior has no rights. That is true for the fornicator, the adulterer, the homosexual, the drunkard, the thief, the liar, the killer, the gossip — none of them has a right to subvert what is right and replace it with what is wrong. (ACT, I disagree with you on this one. Rights are something that are inalienable and not granted by governments, but that exist even for the oppressed under the suppression of those rights by an evil government. There is no right to get what is wrong accepted.)
April 14th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Thanks SPaMM, I too have a sarcastic side if you haven’t noticed..
Maybe you’re not a buckeye after all..
April 14th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Dan,
I tend to agree at least in part. Tolerance does not mean acceptance as valid. I am very tolerant of Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, etc. I know they are wrong … their religion is not “valid” but false. That does not mean that I would want to prevent them from buying property, living, raising children, having equal access to public facilities , etc. What I would oppose is someone telling me that I have to accept their faith as “just as valid as mine.” It just isn’t true.
By the way, it would be good for you to not lower yourself to ad hominem — while your “oxymoron” statement was not directed, it does not assist your otherwise logical argumentation.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Brian,
“Behavior that is contrary to Biblical righteous behavior has no rights”
Hmm, while I certainly respect your opinion, I think that this is not entirely accurate (politest way I could phrase what I am thinking).
Our society has determined that our rights are enumerated in our state and federal constitutions, and not a religious text.
Is it really your place to pass judgement, or is it God’s ?
April 14th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
“it does not assist your otherwise logical argumentation.”
Can’t a guy have a little fun once in a while ?
April 14th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Act
The real problem is that “Alas, poor Jonathan. I knew him not” said by the mouth of Christ at the final judgment would be “I never new you” with all that entails. I would not wish that upon anyone.
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. “Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’ — Matthew 7:21-23 NASB95
April 14th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Of course you can have fun once in a while. Over a cup of coffee would be great — here in Leesburg would be wonderful. I keep threatening to find some time to talk with people, but I’ve always got something I’m doing.
People think that being a teacher is so easy — short hours and no work during the summer. Boy, I wish it were so!
April 15th, 2008 at 1:21 am
Dan,
What society determines is beside the point. In the original founding document of this country (the justification for the just war against the tyranny of England) the Declaration of Independence stated: “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”. The government does not “confer” or “grant” rights. Rights are intrinsic to humans because God gives us rights. The war against England was initiated because England violated the law of God and therefore we were justified in throwing off their rule.
If rights were just what the government enumerated in the constitution, then we are traitors to the lawful government of Great Britain. Also, you may not be aware, but one of the greatest arguments against having a “Bill of Rights” enumerated in the constitution was that someone, far down the path of time, would state what you just stated … that the rights are in fact enumerated in the constitution. That implies those things not enumerated are not rights — the argument was made strongly that it would never be: the tenth amendment (the last of the Bill of Rights) was put in place to demonstrate that the rights of the people were not limited to what the Bill of Rights stated, but that it included anything not specifically prohibited by the constitution.
The declaration of independence stated that it was the duty of a people to throw off unjust government — not just a right. I quote the declaration:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government ….
The predicate is that rights of government are derived from the people, but the people derive rights from God (”the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” is in fact an explicitly, well understood phrase to those at that time.) Blackstone (to this day the SCOTUS refers to his work) was well known to the framers of the Constitution and Declaration. The phrase Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God would have immediately rung of Blackstone’s work.
The foundation of our country rests solely upon the principle that rights are God given, not granted by governments. If we do not have that as a principle, then we ought bow our heads in shame and invite English rule back into our land.
April 15th, 2008 at 6:44 am
ACTivist and Brian,
Thanks for caring about my soul. There’s a lot to talk about here. If I find time, I’ll put together a post on Equality Loudoun and track back.
April 15th, 2008 at 8:12 am
This Brian who writes so much here sounds like one heck of a fun guy to hang out with! There’s just ONE thing; he seems to think he knows and awful lot. And, as the grandmother of a lovely granddaughter who WAS BORN a lesbian, I take umbrage at his statements that this is something chosen.
Why would anyone in his right mind choose to be the target of hatred and ill will and be called a sinner by such as Brian? Can Brian tell me why anyone would do that?
April 15th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Marshmallow,
“do gays have the right to actively work toward creating a climate of acceptance or not?”
Actively work toward acceptance is not the stated goal. To be ‘left alone’ was the original stated goal. Pointing a lawyer at someone and pulling the trigger when someone offends you is a recipe for fear and resentment, not acceptance.
The crux of the matter is sexual behavior. Heterosexual partners who get drippy in public don’t get accepted either. If a business owner has religious beliefs that consider a behavior to be wrong, he has the right to not conduct business with the individual, based on the behavior. The market will reward or punish this behavior as providence sees fit.
“If they do, (which they do) why are you so offended that they would try to do that?”
To conflate a sexual behavior with belonging to a racial group IS offensive, ask Reverend Wright. Africans were brought here in chains, beaten, subject to generations of slavery. They did not ask to become members of this community. Gays are all volunteer members of their community.
Furthermore, human behavior in every dimension is fungible, but in the past 10 to 15 years we have been subjected to this mantra that in this one aspect it is set in concrete. That is propaganda pure and simple. The science of human behavior is immature, but I have seen some seriously over the top assertions made in this one dimension. Why? Because it is a political and not a scientific finding. Such a lie IS offensive.
“If you found yourself among a similarly marginalized segment of the population, would you act differently?”
Marginalized yes, but how? Gays choose to engage in a behavior many find offensive, and then seek affirmation for this behavior. Would you say such a thing about another group that engages in some other socially unacceptable behavior?
Look at the economic status of the gay community, they are not economically subject to hardship, their income is well within the norm of the distribution. One cannot say this historically about the black community.
Think of this another way. We all welcome Jonathon here for debate. His views while not agreed with, are not ignored nor is he abused. Furthermore he is not subject to any physical threat for his views or behavior. Actually as Christians we do wish him well, we also pray for his soul and hope he joins us and reject all sin.
Thar sir, is acceptance of him as a person. As a person we do not molly coddle him and tell him the lie that he does no wrong, which actually would be a deadly disservice to him in our eyes. We are willing to speak the truth as we see it to him.
April 15th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Joe, where are you? This is beginning to sound like an religious, sermonizing blog.
April 15th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Lovisa,
Naaagh, we are just a bunch of Neanderthals. We want to be left the alone to sink or swim on our own (libertarian), we want our destinies un-collectivized (still libertarian). We want a small federal government (conservative and federalist) that does not interfere with the 50 sovereign states (federalist), unless these states are actively infringing upon someones pursuit of happiness.
We want a strong national defense and secure borders (common sense). We do not want to fix the world, but we are not interested in seeing fascism or socialism dominate it either (non-isolationist).
We acknowledge a higher authority and that our Natural Rights where established by this higher authority. This higher authority is God and his son is Christ.
I contend that all of the above view points are the result of a development of 2000 years of thought and a welding of the Anglo-Saxon common law with Roman Republican practices and all of it leavened with Jewish Theology. The result is something precious. This something gave rise to the idea that a libertarian and democratic form of governance is superior to all others for the purpose of bringing freedom and prosperity.
It is this civil ideal that cannot be readily reproduced and so it must be defended, for in my estimation it is under attack. It is under attack precisely because it is not revered publicly above all others. If something is not recognized, taught and practiced then it is forgotten.
So no Lovisa, we are not a religious sermonizing blog, we are Conservative Americans, and that means we know our History, our Constitution and yes, we know our Bible.
April 15th, 2008 at 10:51 am
As I said before. YOU KNOW SOOOO MUCH!
Must feel good ~
April 15th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Lovisa,
Beats the snot out of howling ignorance. How is that working for you anyway?
April 15th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Brian,
Why am I getting the feeling that if you had your way that you would go “gay hunting”? After all, it does say in the bible to kill gay people. Ah, but here’s the rub dear Brian. We have laws in this country against killing. We also have laws against discrimination. If you do business via the bible, you would deny thousands of persons the ability to do trade.
This is why, unlike some religion run countries, this country is NOT run by one or any religion. We are an egalitarian country. Discrimination is wrong, period. Whether it is people’s orientation or color or creed, discrimination is wrong. Gay people pay taxes, serve in the military, have jobs and contribute to the American economy and culture as much as heterosexuals.
Also, not all Christians feel as you do. The Methodist, many Episcopalian, and Church of Christ churches are very accepting of gay people.
Would you like it if businesses stopped doing business with you because you are a Christian?
ACTivist,
The only time I’ve been to Florida was to go to Disney World and that was some years ago.
April 15th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Is that the kind of language libertarians use when discussing subjects with people with whom they disagree?
Pitiful!
April 15th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
That is addressed to jacob at 11:58 am.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Lovisa,
If you wax sarcastic, why are you outraged when I return fire?
April 15th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Robin,
Try this …
“Why do I get the feeling you would like to kill all conservatives, socialists in other countries have done so.”
or
“Why do I get the feeling that you would like to kill babies because liberals kill 5000 a day in abortion clinics.”
or
“Why do I get the feeling that socialists like you want to kill Jews, because Jeremiah Wright and other members of the socialist party spout antisemitic garbage just like Hitler.”
If you don’t like the implication of the statements above then don’t do it. Such argument is designed only to insult. I have never heard Brian ever espoused violence of any kind and let alone murder.
As for Murder, dearest Robin, please see the 6th command for that whole deal.
The Episcopal church went down this garden path about 10 years ago. It has lost close to half its membership and is in hot water with the Anglican mother Church over this issue. The day I left was when the dolt in the pulpit said the first five books just don’t aply anymore. I asked afterwards why, the answer was they are old fashioned. Such reason!! I was overwhelmed. I hear membership at the ol’ UofM has been declining in the US. Ever wonder why robin dearest?
April 15th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
I’m always a day late and dollar short on the homosexual posts, so I have learned to keep my distance.
But if you want to talk about AK-47s, I’m your huckleberry.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
I am a gay, agnostic, Mexican illegal alien. I’ll talk about AK47s with you.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Joe,
Sure! now you show up. Tell Robin and Jacob to play nice.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
[…] example of this, you need look no further than the angry-man sputterings of Brian Withnell over at Nova Townhall. He claims, among other fascinating things, that GLBT people have “no right” to work in […]
April 15th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Btw, you misspelled “believe.”
April 15th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Brian,
“I don’t say that it is likely that anyone be overtaken by the demons of hell, but it happened in the past. Go read the Bible.” that’s because they didn’t have a name for epilepsy. Can you fathom that, or is it too relativistic for your black and white mind? Interestingly, demonic possession still happens in papua new guinea.
did you ever notice that they didn’t have germs in biblical times, either? That must be because… OH MY GOD A UNICORN JUST FLEW PAST MY WINDOW!
Jacob, did really you just back up your argument by citing Rev. Wright? Speaking of race, do you think anyone thought blacks were being all uppity and trying to push their views on others when the whole civil rights thing was going on?
but that’s right, gays choose to be gay. Just like you chose to be not gay. It’s something every man has to do at some point, “Hmmm, should I be gay or straight? Gay looks like a lot of fun. Oh, but it is sinful. I guess I’ll be straight. Thanks God for guiding me down the right path”
Act: “Replace “gay” with, say, pediphile. Still okay? How about “incest”?”
Wow, did you know that different words mean different things? and that if you change one word the sentence can change it’s whole meaning? WOW!!! Let me try one:
The ball is RED
ok, now i’m going to replace the word “red” with “blue” let’s see what happens:
The ball is BLUE
yipee!! Did you see that, when I replaced one word with another word that has a different meaning, the meaning of the sentence changed!!
Here’s another one “He really loves his mother”
ok, now “He really loves his crystal meth”
!!! oh, ACT, what a fun activity you’ve discovered!!
April 15th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
“And, as the grandmother of a lovely granddaughter who WAS BORN a lesbian….”
When they were born, my daughters were sucking tit just as hard as my sons did. Does that make my girls “born lesbian,” too?
April 15th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Stay Puft: Funny you should mention that particular example. I recently learned that one of the “techniques” taught to people who have been advised that they can “change” their sexual orientation is this one: “Look at a yellow wall, and tell yourself ‘that wall is blue.’ With enough repetition, you will begin to see the wall as blue.”
You cannot make this stuff up
April 15th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Lovisa,
I doubt seriously that anyone is born sexually active in any way shape or form. Baby boys that eventually become oversexed heterosexuals that chase every skirt they see are not sexually active at birth.
That a person chooses to become a sexually active being is something that is without question, unless of course you are going to say that we have no choice — that we are automatons and have no free will. No?
As to why people choose to become homosexuals, at least in part it is because they refuse to submit to the God of the universe:
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. — Romans 1:25-27 NIV
That is not my thought, but part of a broader section on the general evil of mankind in Romans chapter 1, starting in verse 18. It doesn’t leave anyone out–it explains why a lot of the evil in the world exists. God will not be ignored or mocked — that is not one of the choices we can make with impunity.
By the way, you are mistaken if you think I target anyone with hatred or ill will — in the sense that while someone is attacking me, I will defend myself, and if they attack my God, I will allow his word to defend him. It is not mine to know who will repent of sin and come to Christ. Therefore I tolerate, not accept as “okay” but ignore, behavior that does not affect me or mine.
April 15th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Juan,
FINALLY!!
April 15th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Robin,
You totally miss my view of the world. If you think I would want to go “gay hunting” (a totally revolting idea even more than homosexual activity) then you do not understand me. When you say the Bible teaches such things, you also have a wrong view of scripture. The laws of Israel regarding homosexual activity were part of the laws of a theocratic state that no longer exists. They were very specific in that they prescribed a sentence for immoral behavior — but God gave to Israel “also, as a body politic, … sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.” The Westminster confession of faith. (Chapter XIX, 4).
So I’d say your premise is wrong. Not only would I not want to “hunt gays” but I would consider it absolutely wrong. It would be illegal, and it would be very much wrong for an individual to decide what ought to be enforced. Individuals are not the civil magistrate — they do not carry the power of the sword, and so “gay hunting” is just plain wrong. “Hunting” people in general is so wrong on so many levels I cannot possibly describe the disgust it raises.
I know people who have been sexually active outside of marriage — it is wrong. It is not okay for someone to decide to kill them. The law against murder predates the even the 10 commandments.
As to “Christians” that believe other than I do, of course there are plenty of people that call themselves Christian and believe differently, and even those who are Christian that believe differently. All people are imperfect, and they get the interpretation of scripture wrong. (Notice I don’t say “their interpretation” — there is only one interpretation, and God is the one who determines what that interpretation is.) God is not a wax nose that we can shape any way we want.
April 15th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Joe,
Did you see Brian’s proclamation?
““Hunting” people in general is so wrong on so many levels I cannot possibly describe the disgust it raises.”
You’d better take that “Border Patrol” bumper sticker off your SUV. Wouldn’t want to get on Brian’s bad side. He “knows” God’s Word.
See Mark, I do comment on other topics. Are you happy?
April 15th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
SPMM,
Perhaps you have read something in scripture that I missed? While the Bible doesn’t talk about germs, it does talk about people being sick. It also has statements that show a person, demon possessed, speaking as a demon controlling that person — including acts that are beyond human capability. Perhaps you could read Mark 5:1-13, I don’t see how you can fit all the details of that into a neat little package of “epilepsy” (especially the curing of the man, and the pigs rushing headlong into the sea.) But I’m willing to learn — show me from scripture that it was not demon possession.
Of course if what you are doing is attempting to come up with “rational” explanations (i.e., you cannot accept the plain meaning of the text, so you have to rationalize what it says to fit your world view) … then I guess you are just grasping at straws because the truth has come upon you. It would appear you have to start yelling “I can’t hear you! La da da dee dum da da ….”
God speaks, if you don’t like what he says, don’t try to explain it away. Try to understand it–because you ignore it at your own peril.
April 15th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Brian is an insufferable, insulting (super)man. - See you when you stop regurgitating all your holier than thou stuff; demon possession; shameful lust,and on and on.
Once again I ask: Why would anyone, ANYone, choose to be a homosexual? Look at what you write about them, and you are only ONE. Tell me what reason anyone would have to make that choice!
April 15th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
jacob,
right. emissions drop because of a school’s stance on the first 5 books of the bible. Let me find out what the official university position is regarding the role of the pentateuch in modern life and get back to you.
BW
“The law against murder predates the even the 10 commandments.”
so, logically, older laws are better?
grasping at straws? Please, you are way too full of yourself right now. After your dumb exercise in “logic” you’re going to talk to me about rational, while using “Mark 5:1-13″ as some kind of proof that demons can possess people!? Holy cow! Did you also know that horses can talk? It’s true, I seen it on TV
“god speaks” great, now you’re hearing voices!
I can accept that you have your world view, but you should know that it’s wrong. I’ll tolerate you and your ignorance, but at the end of the day I’m slightly better.
April 15th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Jacob, that should be “admissions” not “emissions” I blame spell check
April 15th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Jack,
Thanks for correcting my spelling….or were you calling me a moron? No, no! It’s okay. I can take it.
April 15th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Jonathan,
I did mean to post one thing here directed to you. You mistake me for someone who is angry. I’m not. While I certainly stand for what I believe, even as you do, I am not angry, and resorting to name calling doesn’t help your argumentation either. You do not know the heart of a person, so when you say someone is “angry” you can very easily be mistaken. In my case you most definitely are wrong. I’m neither angry at you (or even the couple that ambushed the photographers). I find it outrageous that such things are allowed. But I don’t get angry just because something is outrageous. That would be counter productive. I just do what I can to try to change the situation to what it ought to be.
From what I can see, the post you point to is mostly honest statements, that for the most part are reasonable. One of the things though that I would take exception to is “discretion” being the answer for that photographer. The post hypothetically states that the photographer was the antagonist in the conflict. It might have just as easily been other wise. The idea of “white lies” (stating they were already booked) would not work for someone if they believed truth is also a religious requirement. Also, suppose the photographer was asked to photograph a wedding — and the person making the arrangements did so alone, and stated it was a “wedding” (which is how one of my friends refers to her “marriage” to another woman). The photographer agrees to the event, and then asks for the woman and her spouse to come in to pick out a package and arrange things. The photographer then is confronted by two women, and shocked at the prospect, states “I’m sorry, I cannot participate in a homosexual union, it violates my religion.”
That might be all it takes for someone that is “radical” about the issue to then take it to court.
Personally, I feel the state law is unconstitutional. The right to freedom of religion is the first amendment to the constitution. While it says “congress” — a federal level — the courts have consistently stated that the states must also abide by this rule. If that is true, then telling someone that has a religious belief, common to the era in which the amendment was passed, can have that right suppressed by a law within a state is unconscionable. Every time cases have been made for “non-establishment” the same would also have to apply to “free exercise” for at least those religions that would have been prevalent at the time of the amendment. I would state it would also cover those that are “bona fide” rather than religions of convenience (e.g., those that attempted to establish “The Church of Golf” in order to be able to deduct greens fees from their taxes.)
April 15th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
NoVisa,
“Once again I ask: Why would anyone, ANYone, choose to be a homosexual? Look at what you write about them, and you are only ONE. Tell me what reason anyone would have to make that choice!”
Well I will give you some answers from some individuals who CHOSE that route. Some do it as curiousity and ended up liking it. Some do it becasue of peer pressure of others who are “gay”. Some do it because they had bad relations with the opposite sex and same sex partners tend to have more understanding of feelings and viewpoints.
If they were bothered by what we write about them then that should make them quit, right? I can’t say that anything that is said here makes a change. If it just makes you think and helps to put you on the right track then something good is being accomplished. After all, we have been trying to change the liberal mindset but haven’t found a way to get your attention. And no, sticks are for donkeys!
April 15th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
SPMM
Funny how I’m not the one resorting to ad hominem and you are saying I’m the one not using logic.
Of course I quote an eye witness account. What do you use to refute? From what I’ve seen, you seem to be pontificating and acting like it ought to be taken as fact. I’m sorry, I don’t accept what you say as fact without question.
From what I can see, I’m quoting authoritative sources for what I state, and you are not. You are making statements without proof, you are resorting to name calling, you are doing in essence the very things that show a lack of logic. You accuse me of being “full of yourself” when what I have said is quoting sources. What sources have you quoted in any of what you have said?
April 15th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Jonathan,
“See Mark, I do comment on other topics. Are you happy?”
I haven’t seen any comments from “Mark” so I am guessing that you are referring to my statement of you not contributing on other issues. You might think you know me but I assure you you don’t. And, yes, I am happy. But I definately am not “gay”.
April 15th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
““god speaks” great, now you’re hearing voices!”
Mostly when I ask for GOD’s help is when I hear HIS voice. It is quite a wonderful feeling. As far as the rest of your senseless whine goes, I still won’t resort to saying you’re a moron! (I got it right that time Jack)
April 15th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Lovisa,
First, did I ever say I was any better than anyone else? Show me where if I am wrong in that.
Just because I’m willing to point out what is wrong does not mean I’m not just as corrupt as anyone else. You mistake saying what is true for thinking I am better. I’m not. You might then ask “then why do you point out such things? You aren’t any better and you admit it!” What difference does that make? We are all going to die at some point — does not talking about it make it go away? If a person in a prison who has admitted his own guilt says that someone else is just as guilty as he is, without trying to get out of the punishment he is suffering, does that make it any less true?
Did you read the section from Romans chapter 1? You asked why someone would choose to become a homosexual — it gives reasons based not in the positives of the choice, but in terms of rebellion against God. The same reason that others choose whatever sin they commit. We (all mankind) choose to do what is shameful and wrong. All deserve justice for those shameful acts.
We do not let a murderer go free without punishment, do you think God would be less just than we are? If a doctor finds a cure for cancer, “saves” thousands of lives in the process and then says “I’ve done so much good in the world, I should be able to get away with killing my wife and still have a positive credit” and then acts on that — should he not be punished? We commit treason against God on a daily basis, how then can we expect to be guilt free?
Does it matter that someone is better than most? Suppose you have a 55 gallon drum with 50 gallons of water, and the rest (5 gallons) is sewage, would you want to drink from it? Suppose instead of 5 gallons of sewage, it only contained a pint of sewage? That is 40 times better. Still don’t want to drink it do you? How about a tablespoon of sewage? That’s almost a thousand times less corrupt. Do you want to drink it?
When anyone goes through the motions of comparing one person as better than another, they are doing what is wrong. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. No man has performed any significantly better than any other (except Jesus). All of us fully deserve hell, and there is nothing in us that could be good enough to say “Well, I’m not as bad as Stalin or Saddam Hussein” and so be pure enough to escape judgment. That is true for all of us.
Mercy. It is our only hope. Mercy is not something anyone deserves — what we deserve is justice. And as I’ve said before, I would not wish that on anyone. Those that have already passed from this life are beyond change and either have obtained mercy, or they have obtained justice.
Those that are still here are either walking toward justice, or walking toward mercy. I’d be a poor excuse for a man if I see someone that was on their way to a sure and certain death and didn’t point it out to them.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:03 am
Joe,
We have reached that point. With so many comments from so many different commentors about death and killing, I feel it is time for a primer on the fuctionality of the AK47 and what “game” it will takedown.
April 16th, 2008 at 12:26 am
The bible doesn’t say kill? Oh please, have you really read the bible?
Joshua in the Old Testament claimed that God told him to kill and destroy all of the native people, including babies and children. Joshua justified military destruction (genocide) of whole cites and races as the will of God.
The one always used against gay people is Leviticus 20:13:
“If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination and they shall surely be put to death.”
The bible also says has laws against eating pork, wearing mixed fiber clothing etc. So, if these are the laws and admonishments of the bible then why aren’t you following them?
And even without all that (because you can believe whatever you want in this country), it does not allow you to cost people individual liberties such as their jobs, housing, or the ability to do business.
You didn’t answer my question Brian. How would you feel if someone refused to do business with you because of your religion?
April 16th, 2008 at 12:38 am
Yes, ACT, I also feel it is AK-47 time…
April 16th, 2008 at 1:07 am
As I said, it has laws that were part of national Israel that are no longer binding on any other nation today. There are three types of laws in the Old Testament: Judicial laws for the nation (passed with that nation), ceremonial laws (dietary laws, sacrificial rule, etc.) which were all fulfilled by the sacrifice of Christ and therefore no longer in force (and not to be followed), and third, the Moral Law — summarized in the ten commandments — which is binding upon all men for all time. In none of these is it okay for an individual to kill someone. It was judicial process for a death sentence to be carried out, or an army fighting against another nation (that is not an individual killing someone else). So while you see only the English, remember there are at least seven different words that we would translate as “kill” in English. They are all different.
How would I feel about someone not wanting to do business with me because of my religion? I’ve already seen that, and it doesn’t bother me at all. I don’t see it as anything but them choosing with whom they will do business. They had that right, and who am I to deny them the right to choose with whom anyone would want to trade? It doesn’t make me feel bad, it doesn’t cause me pain, it doesn’t make me angry, it just means that person just doesn’t like to deal with people of reformed Christian faith. Why should I have a problem with that?
April 16th, 2008 at 1:39 am
[…] we do have a gift for controversy here. As a matter of balance, to bring the love, I feel compelled to offer some middle-of-the-road, […]
April 16th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Brian,
Apparently you are a minority in your feelings.
Google to be Sued for Anti-Christian Discrimination for Refusing Advertising
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/apr/08040806.html
So is what you are saying is we should be following Jesus Christ?
April 17th, 2008 at 9:35 am
So, Brian, where in the bible does it differentiate among all the laws? Seems to me that all the verses condemning homosexuality would fall into the Judicial or Ceremonial categories? I’m just confused as to how being gay is against your religion.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Sanity?
“I’m just confused as to how being gay is against your religion.”
I’m confused by your question. There is nothing in the Bible that says it is againest GOD’s intent for you to be happy. Are you perhaps misusing the English language in terms of being PC? When you talk about homosexuals, say homosexuals. I know it is a lot to type but be correct-not politically correct.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:48 am
ACTivist, at least get into the 20th century, will you? I know the 21st is too much of a reach at this point.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Sanity, Robin,
Try Romans 1:18-31 for an overview of the Church’s stance on homosexuality and other worldly views. When I say Church I reference Christianity in general. If you are wondering what that means look at the Nicene and Apostles creeds as a starting point.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Robin,
I read the article a few weeks ago, I think I saw it on Drudge. Google has a virtual monopoly, would you agree?
April 17th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Ok, since Romans was written by Paul, are we to agree with all that Paul wrote? Or are we able to decide that “shameful lusts” or “vile affections” in the first century AD aren’t so shameful or vile now?
Almost sounds like we’re all naturally gay, but God keeps us from acting out our gayness as long as we follow him. I hope we can all agree that much of Pauls’ writings are abstruse.
April 17th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Sanity,
“Ok, since Romans was written by Paul, are we to agree with all that Paul wrote?”
I left the episcopal Church because some passages out of the old testament were deemed socially unacceptable. Does God bow to us, or we to him? Scripture is either divinely inspired or its just another “Shirley McLain how-to-live-a-better-life guide”
This discussion, if we go down that path, will land us in the same old place where we have already gone before. Lets move on to your latter statements, and we can return here if you insist.
“Or are we able to decide that “shameful lusts” or “vile affections” in the first century AD aren’t so shameful or vile now?”
interesting question. It is written that God is eternal and unchanging. The ramifications of his being otherwise are not good. For if God were to start changing his mind about things, would he not become capricious? If this is what you are praying for, please stop.
“Almost sounds like we’re all naturally gay”
Drop the term ‘gay’ and add the term ’sinful’ and you have nailed it right on the head. Face it, humans will have sex with each other, beasts of the field, household tools, furniture components, themselves, some varieties of tree and with the new technology various battery driven toys.
We all are nasty. Note, God does not seek to be a kill joy, otherwise sex would not be as enjoyable as it is. He just has a plan, and it is his plan we reject.
“God keeps us from acting out our gayness as long as we follow him.”
Almost again, try this instead …
IF you love me, you will keep my commandments.
The implication being that if you are attuned to God, and not the world your interests and inclination differ than when you are attuned to you flesh and the world. Note that this change of focus is what makes keeping God’s law not a burden but a highly desirable challenge.
“I hope we can all agree that much of Pauls’ writings are abstruse.”
I totally agree, this is very heavy stuff. Romans is considered the Mt Everest of the New Testament from a Doctrinal standpoint. Job, is its counterpart in the Old Testament.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Sanity,
Don’t like Peter either then?
2 Peter 3:14-16
“Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand[emphasis added, I agree, it isn’t easy to understand, but that is no excuse], which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.” — NASB95
Peter is the one who said “as they do also the rest of the Scriptures” in talking about what Paul wrote.
As to were the laws are differentiated, first I’d ask if that is an honest question of interest, or just to argue for no particular reason. If it were honest (or for those that are reading and are honestly interested) the best place for the cessation of the ceremonial law is Heb. 9. As for the judicial, some of the reasoning comes from several places — but the behavior of Daniel (read the whole of the book) shows that Daniel, while keeping the ceremonial law and moral law was more than happy to work under the judicial laws of Babylon, the Medo-Persian empire, and finally the Persians. I would suspect he may have died in Babylon during the Persian rule of that city (though that is not within scripture, he would have been there 70 years more or less).
April 17th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Robin,
It is a little more dicey for a publicly traded company to fall into such exemption. If a corporation is bought and sold publicly (anyone can buy stock in it–not a “closed corporation” which is not traded) it would seem that there is no single person to whom one could point and say “it [whatever moral issue “it” entails] violates my moral values.”
I would think that Google would not want to come down on any side of any moral/religious issue that would have stockholders of multiple sides supporting. Publicly traded companies don’t have a single view among the owners of the company.
So how does that play with Google? Personally, I’d rather not have them saying (even if it is legal) they would not hire or not do business with someone for anything other than reasons of staying within the law.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Sanity
One other thing, in the first century, homosexuality was probably more acceptable than it is today. It was more common in Greek culture of the day, but of the emperors, most seemed to have been at least bisexual (at least the first century emperors). What Paul was condemning was probably, at least from a public standpoint — especially in Rome — not considered vile by the people, even though it is vile is God’s view.
So “aren’t so shameful and vile today” isn’t the issue. Eternally shameful and vile is more the question.
April 18th, 2008 at 2:19 am
God thinks eating shrimp is vile. What is up with that?
April 18th, 2008 at 3:03 am
Yeah, but I think that one was superseded
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/tit001.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/bible/act010.htm
April 18th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Marshmallow,
“God thinks eating shrimp is vile. What is up with that?”
That only applies to Jews. I do not know why. if you look at a transliteration of this section you will see ‘it is a despicable thing for you’. It is not an abomination nor vile, most translations goof up somewhere along the way. That is why i is a good thing to have more than one translation around the house.
April 18th, 2008 at 9:29 am
This is great guys, but you’re not answering the simple question: Are we to believe the entire bible is true and relevant, or not? If you say yes, then I will note that there are many verses of the bible that you clearly don’t follow, no one does. So we are left with the conclusion that, no, there are substantial parts of the bible that are not relevant today. We ALL pick and choose which parts of the bible we feel we are required to follow. To argue otherwise is simple rationalization if not folly.
Jacob, there are hundreds of passages out of the old testament that are no longer socially acceptable. It’s perfectly fine for you to leave the Episcopal Church because YOU’VE CHOSEN to follow passages that that church does not deem as requirements. But you don’t follow them all! So, you can’t conclude that the Episcopal church is inherently wrong, just that it’s not your particular cup of tea. That’s fine.
It’s also fine if I conclude that your choice of what’s socially acceptable, or not, differs from my view. So, the view becomes less about religion and much more about our personal views.
It’s easy to dismiss my Paul question, but you didn’t answer that one either. Again, there is much that Paul says that NO ONE (or almost no one) believes is relevant and appropriate for today’s social norms. So, you can’t simply quote a verse of the bible and say “See, this is the truth,” when there are other verses and passages that you dismiss as old and irrelevant. What’s the criteria that you use to choose? Very simply, it’s, again, a question of today’s societal norms.
The inescapable conclusion is that the specific social commentary from the bible is ALL dependent on what’s acceptable to society and has little (if anything) to do with divinity. We have ALWAYS interpreted the bible in relation to the current mores of the day.
I completely understand the reticence to say that the bible is open to interpretation because of the potentially slippery slope of acting sinful while pretending to not be. I get it. The problem that folks like you and Brian fall into is the same trap that the Jewish leaders of Jesus’s time did. One of the three major themes of Jesus was that the religious leadership of the day focused much more on the letter of the law and not the spirit. Jesus himself broke many religious laws and condemened others because he saw them as (a) irrelevant and (b) not in keeping with the main goals of peace, love, brotherhood, and personal redemption.
There are strong parallels to today where much of the Christian leadership focuses on specific, hateful, biblical passages, ignores others that they don’t like, involves themselves in politics, suppresses disagreements and intellectual discussions, is nationalistic, and spends much of the time condemning others. These are ALL characteristics of the 1st century Jewish leadership.
If you look at what Jesus did, his primary condemnation was not of other religiouns or nations or cultures, but of HIS religious leaders. He specifically embraced criminals, the diseased, people of other nations. he did NOT talk about homosexuality, and very little about violence and Leviticus. And he was very specific about NOT involving himself or his followers in the secular, political hierarchy.
His “grand themes” were:
* Condemning the religious leadership for being “holier than thou”;
* Not worshipping money (there are surprisingly many passages in the Gospels on this theme);
* Loving and accepting one another and believing that no one is inherently evil, that all can be redeemed.
In short, Jesus is arguably the most liberal person in history, especially given the culture in which he lived.
I’m sure, today, Jesus would “love” your AK-47 videos, the invasion of Iraq, and the tax cuts for the rich. I’m also quite confident that he would focus far more on the love in a person’s heart than he would their sexual orientation.
I’m also sure he would spend the same percentage of time condemning the religious leaders that he did in the 1st century.
Last, I find it funny that folks say things like “Of course you can’t personally interpret the Bible”, and then never dismiss the arguments except through interpretation and rationalization.
Tell me again why we condemn gays, but allow women to braid their hair?
Tell me again why we condemn gays but allow women to talk in church?
Tell me again how “Thou shalt not murder” isn’t simply a culturally-based interpretation of “Thou shalt not kill?”
Tell me again how we can say that the bible is so divine and complete when it wasn’t until almost 400 AD that a group of men decided what would be in the bible and what wouldn’t be?
April 18th, 2008 at 10:34 am
“That is why i is a good thing to have more than one translation around the house.” hahaha, so you can find the one that allows you to eat shrimp!
?
April 18th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
We need to end the use of religion to justify bigotry and discrimination, not embrace it.
The “majority” of Massachusetts citizens are fine with same-sex marriage The most recent Massachusetts poll, in April 2007; found that 56 percent of those surveyed would oppose the amendment.
I hope that if you had a son or daughter that was gay, in a long loving relationship with or without kids, that you would want them to have the same protections that you and your husband/wife have/had. I would never want my child to have less rights then I…. I would die in order to protect them from the ones who got in the way, I hope you would too.
If you really feel strongly about marriage, you should look at doing something about the divorce rate, the US’s divorce rate is near 50%, while countries that allow same-sex couples to wed are considerably lower (I listed the facts below – link 1 & 2) – It’s also very ironic that the very state that allows same-sex marriage also is the one with the fewest divorces in the country (fact link #3)
One last thing, Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience. (fact link #4)
So as I laid out so carefully, it has nothing to do with “protecting marriage” as it has to do with religious discrimination and outright bigotry.
I really hope that you try to look at this issue from outside your religion.
Thank You,
Johnny K
Link#1
http://marriage.about.com/cs/samesexmarriage/a/samesex.htm
Link #2
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0200806.html
Link #3
http://mwangilaw.com/blog1/2007/08/17/massachusetts-has-the-lowest-divorce-rate-in-the-country/
link #4
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
April 18th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Did you even notice that the country with the highest divorce rate, Sweden, has had gay marriage since 1996? That’s not very convincing.
The article in link 3 gives the following reason for the low divorce rates in MA and PA:
“[People in those] states are ‘highly educated, who tend to have lower divorce rates. They are also more Catholic, which has an effect.’ Indeed, half of Massachusetts residents and a third of Pennsylvanians are Catholic.”
Hmmm — religion plays a role there, not gay marriage.
Your last link provides some interesting data, but does not bother to do any regression analysis, without which the information is useless.
April 19th, 2008 at 1:34 am
Sanity,
You just don’t seem to get it.
“… Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar ….” — Romans 3:4 NASB95
All of the Bible is true, all of it is relevant, even if nobody follows it — in fact the truth of a matter has nothing to do with belief. The whole of western civilization used to think the world was flat. That did not change facts. People used to believe that the universe had to be slowing down in expanding — we know better now. Truth does not change.
Also, you cannot just say “because you don’t follow all of this …” when you are taking the Bible piecemeal instead of as a whole. You are not the one to say what it means — neither am I — the only one that can absolutely be correct on the meaning of scripture is God. He is the one who authored it, and it means what he intended, not what we want to force it to mean. The best example I can site is the prophecies in the O.T. that state Jesus would be born of a young woman — the word used could have meant “virgin” but did not explicitly mean virgin. The Greek translation (septuagint) though used a Greek word that could not mean anything else but virgin — and while either would have been from human standards “correct” that did not meet the meaning God intended. There is only one interpretation of the Bible, all else is misinterpretation.
“What is socially acceptable” has nothing to do with what is right and wrong. Personally, I could care less about totally private dealings between people I do not know — but what I care about personally has nothing to do with what is right and what is wrong. I don’t work towards what I think is my view of what is socially acceptable — thinking I should work toward what I find “ok” is not ok. What is right and wrong is what I need to work toward, not what I want. What I see that you seem to think is that everything hinges (or even should hinge) on what people want. That is what I would say is absolutely wrong.
As to there being verses that may have been culturally centered, perhaps that is true, but that does not mean they are not relevant today. The Bible does not answer the question you might want to ask — it answers the questions God wants to, and asks questions He thinks we need to answer. The Bible isn’t a way for us to get answers to any question we might want ask, it is what God wants to communicate to us. Because it is what God is saying, it isn’t up to us to decide what we are going to keep and what we are going to eliminate. The Bible has only one interpretation — and it is up to us to figure out what that interpretation is. We don’t judge the Bible, the Bible judges us.
It is absolutely true that Jesus condemned those that were attempting to be self-righteous. But he did not condemn religious leaders out of hand (Nicodemus, while he did face some correction from Christ, was not condemned like the rest of the religious leaders.) And even though he condemned the things they did, he did not condemn the doctrine they taught (”The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.” — Matthew 23:2-3 NASB95)
April 19th, 2008 at 5:23 am
What does divorce rate have to do with same-sex marriage, I ask?
April 19th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Lovisa,
It is a smoke screen.
If you can’t convince people logically that what you are saying is right, put forth a different subject, not related to the present subject, and say how horrid it is (especially if you can find one that the “opposition” to your point of view finds near and dear to their hearts. You move the discussion from what you cannot defend to a different topic. It isn’t very different from a little kid who answers “well, your mother wears army boots” when he realizes that the logic just isn’t going his way.
April 19th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Johnny,
I’ll tell you the same thing I told sanity — what difference does it make what the citizens of any state think? None. What is right and what is wrong is not based on what people think. If that were the case, then slavery wasn’t really wrong in the South, because the citizens of Southern states thought it was more than okay. That they thought it okay did not make it okay — they were wrong. It doesn’t matter if the whole world thinks the earth is the center of the universe, they would be wrong.
Mankind as a whole has a problem with seeing things clearly — we as an entire race are fallen. All of our faculties are tainted by sin. Our minds are corrupted, our bodies are corrupted, our wants and desires are perverse, we continually are bent toward evil — it is only by grace that we are not as evil as we might be, but are all restrained from what would undoubtedly be worse behavior.
Though we are all corrupted by sin, we are not left without hope. We are offered forgiveness from the sin we have done if we repent and trust in Christ’s death as atonement. To those that embrace that, it is life. To those that know they are not perfect, understand that justice requires penalty for sin, and yet reject Christ’s atonement, there is little to no hope.
April 19th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Did “I” move the discussion? jack, on 18 April at 11:26 pm, brought up the subject of divorce and same-sex marriages, not I!
You must be a barrel of fun: “our minds are corrupted, our bodies are corrupted, our wants and desires are perverse, we are continually bent toward evil…”
Is this what you tell your children, (if you HAVE children?) Quite a happy outlook for the future. If my mother (who didn’t wear army boots) had talked like that to me and my brother, I would probably have drowned myself in the lake.
April 19th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Actually, Lovisa, it was the previous post by Johnny K, April 18th, 2008 at 8:01 pm. I merely rebuffed his silly arguments.
April 19th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Sorry!
April 20th, 2008 at 11:45 am
No problem.
April 20th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
ok…so brian is a dumbass who needs to go and kill himself. and i know him personally; he is extremely ugly and i totally understand why he hates other people. I went to the school that he teaches at. all the students hate and the only ones who pretend to like him are the ones who want good grades. brian, i hope that one day some discriminates against you for being so ugly and ignorant. you have a small head for a humongous body. you have a brain that is so small that its almost non existence. and PS: you cant teach to save your life. find a new profession; such as: gay hunting
April 20th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Brain:
I HATE YOU. and so does GOD
April 20th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Sarah,
Wow, that was two of the dumbest comments I have ever seen on this blog. Good luck in life, when other people say things you don’t agree with hope you don’t react this way.
April 20th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Marshmallow,
““That is why i is a good thing to have more than one translation around the house.” hahaha, so you can find the one that allows you to eat shrimp!”
No you twit, I am relating that translation is a mother. Reading several different translations can help you get at the intent of what is written. A dictionary, a concordance and a transliteration are also a good idea if you are going to delve into anything that has philosophical content.
April 20th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Sanity,
It takes a lot more effort to attack than to defend in this arena. I have an idea, why don’t you tell ME why it is Okey Dokey for a woman to braid her hair. You pluck a few isolated verses out of over 32K and frankly you and others have done it before, I am tired of hashing it out over the same old ground. If getting in to this would actually accomplish something then I might bother going down this rutted road for the 30th time.
Try reading the whole book, not with an eye to attack it, but to understand it. There is a common theme, and plot to the story, it is a heavier slog than “Star Wars”, or “A Fable”, but if you do this with an open mind then you might understand where us ignorant bible thumpers are coming from, you don’t have to agree but at least the argument can get out of Apologetics and Christianity 101. Then we can argue this on different plane. The current one is stacked with the corpses of the written yet unread comments over the past 2 years or more on this particular topic.
Look at comments by Sarah. We have seen their like here before. This is someone who want to silence all who offend her. She is in your corner, is this your idea of diversity and respect for those who are different than you?
April 20th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Jacob, are you really thinking about the bible’s common themes when using isolated passages to argue that homosexuality is wicked?
If you want to think about the broader themes, great! God didn’t send his only son to this world to deliver the message that gay is wrong, did he?
oh, and regarding, “you twit” I can’t forget the olbigatory Typical Conservative, resorting to name calling!
April 21st, 2008 at 12:33 am
Marshmallow,
“are you really thinking about the bible’s common themes when using isolated passages to argue that homosexuality is wicked?”
There is way more to this than the stuff in Deuteronomy boy. But I keep seeing it held up as all there is and it is not. Go look in Genesis, Romans, and elsewhere in the New Testament for this particular form of extramarital sex.
The topic of extramarital sex in general is covered in throughout the old testament and the new. God gives us many passages in which such behavior is covered and what makes for a successful marriage. Please note this is always framed in a heterosexual context.
The relationship between Christ and the Church is held up as that of the groom and his bride. This image is not currently popular in the ‘progressive’ view of the world. God covers the marital and sexual waterfront in many places in the Bible. So no, I am not fixated upon one verse, but the skeptics and others