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.
cooler,
If you have never had any sexual activity, you are asexual, as all should be prior to monogamous, heterosexual marriage. While I would support the right of any shop owner for serving or not serving anyone (as long as the shop was not in a monopoly position — for example, the only gas station in town). Monopolies should be held to a higher standard — they should have to serve anyone that is legally able to purchase the goods sold, and there should not be a price difference either. That is personal belief. There are some that would disagree, and there are some instances which I think go beyond this as well. A bed and breakfast should be able to restrict service to those whom they feel comfortable with in their home — as most B&B’s are in people’s homes. And they should be able to also advertise those restrictions without having to worry about lawsuits. That just doesn’t seem likely — too many people are so bent on forcing their morality on others (in this case, that people cannot have convictions if they run a business.)
What a person calls themselves is not necessarily what they are. If you have never had any sexual relations, then you are asexual — without sex — to this point in time.
Here you go, puffalump: Fetus at Eight Weeks
“in fact, the majority of abortions take place at 8 weeks or less”
Could you please provide a source for that claim?
Jack,
Read Romans 9 in its entirety. Then pay close attention to the arguments Paul raises, particularly:
You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles. — Romans 9:19-24 NASB95
Even if we are made as a vessel “prepared for destruction” we are created things. The sin is ours, we are responsible for the things we do. Yet God is sovereign over everything — whatever comes to pass God has ordained, yet so as the sin belongs to the sinner, and God is never the author of sin. It is not Satan that causes such things — he has no power to act apart from God in the first place (read the first couple of chapters of Job).
It isn’t easy — and even though I might not fully understand it, I know it is true. I do not understand elliptic curves, yet I know/believe the proof for Fermat’s last theorem is true and complete. It may be that it is beyond me — but those that are better than I do understand and witness to it. While I cannot fully understand all the implications of the responsibility of man and the sovereignty of God, I can take the witness of Jesus in the gospels, and that of the apostles in the letters (as well as the Old Testament prophets) as true. Can I fully comprehend God? Of course not — a finite mind cannot contain the infinite God.
SPMM,
While I might occasionally put forth the emotional argument — and point it out — as a way of talking to those that have no intent of talking from a logical point of view, I do not generally rely on such.
The axiom set from which I start is that the Bible is true as God intended it. Not all of the Bible is as easily understood as some of the parts, but call for perfection (that is, saying we must understand the whole before we act on any part) is not a logical position, but a fallacy. Yes, we might get something wrong. Yes, we might do harm in some way because we follow imperfectly. That is no excuse for not attempting to understand, and follow as best we can.
Any law restricting and/or requiring action apart from a Biblical basis is tyranny — it is by nature arbitrary and could change from one generation to the next. And those changes would not be because we have better uncovered what the text states, but just that we no longer support this action or sanction that action.
In every case I’ve seen here, the points of logic used by those that want to turn the discussion always seem to be over something like “you cannot possibly accept the Bible as authoritative because …” and fill in the blank. My response is the Bible is authoritative, and it is what judges us, not we it. God is not “in the box” (brought up on charges and required to stand trail) it is we who are in the box. God does not answer our questions as we see fit to ask them, he answers the questions he sees fit to answer. If you don’t like that, take it up with him, not me.
Dan,
In #175 you make a perfectly correct conclusion, and I’ll quote it here:
“If God made them this way, is it his place to pass final judgement, or ours ?”
The implied conclusion is that it is God’s place to pass final judgment on everyone. Of course, final judgment is not something that happens in this age — and just because it is within the realm of God’s non-delegable responsibilities, does not mean that those that engage in actions that are ultimately within that sphere do not face judgment in this sphere as well. God ultimately will pass judgment on all actions and the intent of the heart as well. If you do what is arguably perfectly correct and good, without having the appropriate attitude, then you will either face judgment for it yourself, or that judgment will be paid for you.
All things sinful that face judgment in this age should be based on some violation of what the Bible contains and proscribes or the lack of doing what the Bible prescribes.
We have laws, and those laws are fallible and imperfectly enforced. That is not a reason to reject enforcement of laws.
In my church, at baptism, we are asked these questions:
“Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God?”
“Do you renounce the evil powers of this world
which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God?”
Brian,
The point I was trying to make in 175 was that one can be genetically predisposed to kleptomania, but that in itself does not mean that one is necessarily a shoplifter or thief, i.e. a lawbreaker.
Also, some seem to be, imho, too judgmental of homosexuals, purely because of who they are. They are just like the kleptomaniac, and us, in that they should not be judged by who or what they are.
Judgement should not be passed on one’s being, but on how one manifests that existence.
Dan,
being predisposed to anything is not a sin. acting on it is the sin. which is the essence of “on how one manifests that existence.”
“While I might occasionally put forth the emotional argument — and point it out — as a way of talking to those that have no intent of talking from a logical point of view, I do not generally rely on such.”
nice cop out. Apparently you define “talking from a logical point of view” as citing scripture for everything you say. How axiomatic of you.
Jack, it’s nothing short of impressive that you have so much time to devote to blogging about gays while we’re in the midst of a baby holocaust. (Brian, can you follow that logic?)
Thank you, puffalump. We must oppose sin whatever form it takes.
Marshmallow,
speaking of logic, those picture where of both third and 1st trimester babies. What feat of logic did you use to declare them all late term? Also what is your source that says most babies are aborted in the first 8 weeks?
i didn’t say they were all late term. in your own words, learn to read. preferably before clicking on the link you asked for:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm
jacob, i didn’t say all of the images depicted late term. In you own words, learn to read! preferably before clicking on the link you asked for:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm
SPMM,
“How axiomatic of you.”
At least I state up front what my axioms are, and I stay consistent within them (as much as I understand them to be).
I do follow what you say, and what I find abhorrent is that both are going on with little to no opposition by society at large. When Muslims state that we are a decadent society, I have little or nothing to say against it — we kill our children, we sexually exploit our children, those who pervert sexuality created by God are being defended, marriages are looked at as temporary — the west is becoming more and more a corrupt society.
While I find Islam’s treatment of women and those of other faiths outrageous, they at least have a moral backbone instead of a moral wax nose.
Dan,
I believe we are in agreement.
Someone that acts upon sinful predisposition should be judged, not someone that has a predisposition.
Take for example the idea of “hate crimes” that receive additional penalty because of some perceived reason for hating. Not hardly what I would call reasonable. Behaviors are what people ought to be judged upon, not emotions. (When is the last time that someone beat the daylights out of someone else without hating them?)
SPMM,
Try this for a moment … presume the scripture is without error, in fact that it is incapable of being in error. Look through what I have said — are those things in general logical conclusions of that axiom set? Is that not how I have stated everything I’ve said? I may not be perfect in having done so, but do you see a striving for that in all that I have done?
I realize that attempting to look at things from a different axiomatic position is not easy — if you don’t know that set completely, and have not studied it intensely it may be nearly impossible to fully comprehend the subtlety of some of the reasonings. But you should at least see (if you can put the mindset into place that scripture cannot be wrong) that the discussion is logical.
Brian,
I concur totally on the issue of hate crimes. Emotion is a motive for a crime,not the crime itself. Making emotion a crime is a very slippery slope.
May you all work through your sins, I pray for you!
I hope you can learn to live and accept everyone, gay and straight, the ones who can’t are true sinners
God bless you
Wow, as a homosexual, I can say that I have never decided to be gay, and that my sexual practices are as natural as any straight persons. Now I do agree that a law firm should be able to decide whether or not they want to work for homosexuals, as I am a strict libertarian who believes in the free market. I also believe a law firm should be able to discriminate freely against the different races and religions. It would not be a violation of the first amendment for me to say “Christians can not enter my store” as it is my business and I am not stopping retardo christian morons from practicing their retardo religion.
I’d also like to point out that as someone who clearly has NO knowledge of genetics, you shouldn’t open your big mouth about that topic, although you have every right to do so.
One more point is that Jesus wouldn’t like your hatred of gay people. Don’t say you don’t hate us because it is clear you do. You’d be happy with us being sent of to concentration camps in order to purify the world (BEING THE FASCIST SCUM YOU ARE)
Thank You very much asshat
Adam Stilwell
P.S. You are not God, therefor you have no biblical obligation, authority, or “right” to judge us “fags”. God Will Judge us, and it is up to god to determine what happens to us. NOT YOU. If you were a true believer in that bullshit religion blindly follow, then you would accept that as the truth.
One last thing, your god doesn’t exist, and neither does right or wrong. Have fun in church.
“[My] sexual practices are as natural as any straight persons.”
True or not, that is irrelevant. God does not call us to do what is “natural,” but what is contrary to our nature, because our nature is sinful.
“One more point is that Jesus wouldn’t like your hatred of gay people.”
Quite true, but neither would he like our acceptance of sinful behavior.
“you have no biblical obligation, authority, or ‘right’ to judge us ‘fags’.”
On the contrary, Paul tells us “you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.” (1Cor. 5:11)
Of course, you do not call yourself a brother, therefore it would be OK for us to associate with you, for the purpose of showing you the truth. Care to join a few of us for a drink and discuss it?
I guess I will get all quoty too:
“True or not, that is irrelevant. God does not call us to do what is “natural,” but what is contrary to our nature, because our nature is sinful.”
That is bull shit. Our nature is not sinful. It is simply nature. Yes I know your scripture (that was written by men thousands of years ago, only to play the biggest joke on humanity there ever was or will be) says we are born with that original sin B.S., but you have to understand that anything that is natural is how god created us (according to your book) and for god to want us to change the way he/she created shows us he/she is not an all mighty god, and is in fact fallible. For god to want us to change our nature contradicts the idea that we are created in our creators image.
I guess that’s just one of the many contradictions in the bible.
“Quite true, but neither would he like our acceptance of sinful behavior.”
He might not like your “acceptance” of sinful behavior, but he would not condone judgment of the sinners. This was shown when the whore was about to be stoned…
Stoner1:”blah blah blah, stone the whore”
Stoner2:”Blah blah blah Stone her”
Jesus: “Let he who blah blah blah”
You get the point.
Okay, Next:
“On the contrary, Paul tells us “you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.” (1Cor. 5:11)”
Paul is a Jackass who also tells us to not eat shell fish…. Wow! Great Source… that verse should say
“You must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is shellfishally immoral or greedy, a clam eater or crab fisherman, a lobster dunker or anyone who smells of shellfish (excluding on hot days when you can get really sweaty in that place that is forbidden. With such man do not eat unless you are holding your breath.”
“Of course, you do not call yourself a brother, therefore it would be OK for us to associate with you, for the purpose of showing you the truth. Care to join a few of us for a drink and discuss it?”
No thanks. I prefer logic rather than superstition. We could have a nice debate about whether or not the bible is even relevant.
Adam Stilwell
I don’t hate you by the way, just your sin
“anything that is natural is how god created us (according to your book)”
Wrong again. (What a surprise.)
“Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live….” (Romans 8:12-13)
“For god to want us to change the way he/she created shows us he/she is not an all mighty god, and is in fact fallible. For god to want us to change our nature contradicts the idea that we are created in our creators image.”
Nonsense. An image is an image, not the original. God gave us free will. We rebelled. We still do.
“You get the point.”
But YOU do not. What did Jesus say to the woman? “Go, and sin no more.” (John 8:11)
“Paul… who also tells us to not eat shell fish….”
What do you know? Wrong again! “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.” (Romans 14:14)
“We could have a nice debate about whether or not the bible is even relevant.”
Indeed, and you would lose that debate, too, especially since you do not even know what it says.
Adam,
Who is here calling other people names? While Jack is answering your posts, he has done so without name calling — and while his tone to your direct name calling has not been the best. It is not he who has to resort to ad hominem in argumentation. You speak as if you know a very few Bible verses, taken out of context, and then want to use them as “proof text” for your position. Proof texting is not appropriate Biblical exegesis. While you might not care what the Bible says, and that is your right. If you want to argue that a Biblical world view would support your position, you would have to be much better versed in the Bible than you appear to be.
One example: You rail against Paul, and yet you do not know the words of the apostle. As Jack pointed out, Paul was in total agreement with Christ when Jesus pronounced all foods clean (the context of what Jack cited was meat sacrificed to idols, which would have been an even bigger Old Testament taboo). If you rail against Paul, you also reject Peter, for Peter said of Paul’s writing:
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, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. — 2 Peter 3:14-16 NASB95
The emphasis is mine, but Peter says of Paul’s letters, that they are hard to understand and people distort them — and then the important part — as they do the *rest* of *scripture*. In other words, Peter certifies Paul’s writing as scripture.
If you are going to try to show that a Biblical world view would state homosexual activity is not immoral, you cannot throw out large portions of the Bible. If you really want to understand what it says, you have to be willing to approach it on its terms, not your terms.
What does that mean? Well for starters, you would have to have the attitude that it might be that the God of the Bible in fact does condemn homosexual activity (just as I would have to have the attitude that it might condemn my most inbreed behaviors.) If you are going to approach something as an investigation into what that system states, yet refuse to believe it might state something you don’t like, then you have already determined the outcome before you start. You won’t find what you are unwilling to see even if all the evidence points to it.
I am a lesbian and I only have a couple of comments to make to you “Christians” first God said “judge not lest you be judged” and second what is in the bible , all bibles , was transcribed by man and only a fool would believe that it is not colored by mans opinions.
Robin, I like to think this blog doesn’t reflect the majority of opinion within Loudoun County. I think there are enough free thinkers in this County to counter anything you read here.
.
Somethings just take time before ignorance is overtaken by logic and caring.
Ah, fantastic to have this thread opened again …
Great. Its like watching a mummy kick the lid off its sarcophagus. I can’t help but start screaming.
It’s all George Bush’s fault.
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
2 Timothy 3:16-17
“[He] who hates correction will die.”
Proverbs 15:10
Go and sin no more.