Baptist Leader Explains Why Christians Oppose Homosexuality
- Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:05pm by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, recently shared his belief that Christians have been guilty of condemnation and their “own form of homophobia.” Despite his open discussion about the mishandling of gay issues in Christian circles, Mohler is doubling down on the Bible’s stance on homosexuality.
In a CNN Belief Blog article published on Monday, Mohler attempts to explain the Bible’s stance on homosexuality, while answering critics’ commonly held objections. He begins by bringing up one of the arguments that gay rights leaders and their adherents regularly raise. The central question posed is: ”If the Bible instructs readers not to eat shellfish or wear mixed fabrics, among other rules and believers no longer comply with these requirements, then why should individuals continue to oppose homosexuality?”
While Mohler contends that, on the surface this is a fair question, he attempts to frame the difference between Old Testament rules that were set for Israel and those moral codes that are more universal.
“An honest consideration of the Bible reveals that most of the Biblical laws people point to in asking this question, such as laws against eating shellfish or wearing mixed fabrics, are part of the holiness code assigned to Israel in the Old Testament,” Mohler explains. “That code was to set Israel, God’s covenant people, apart from all other nations on everything from morality to diet.”
Mohler goes on to explain that the Book of Acts makes it clear that Christians are not commanded to follow this same code (Acts 10:15). The verse (speaking about Peter), reads, “The voice spoke to him a second time, ‘Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.’” This is taken to mean that the kosher code is not pertinent for Christians and, thus, is no longer binding.
However, when it comes to sexual behavior, the faith leader maintains that the rules are clear and consistent. He writes:
The Bible’s commands on sexual behavior, on the other hand, are continued in the New Testament. When it comes to homosexuality, the Bible’s teaching is consistent, pervasive, uniform and set within a larger context of law and Gospel.
The Old Testament clearly condemns male homosexuality along with adultery, bestiality, incest and any sex outside the covenant of marriage. The New Testament does not lessen this concern but amplifies it.
The New Testament condemns both male and female homosexual behavior. The Apostle Paul, for example, points specifically to homosexuality as evidence of human sinfulness. His point is not merely that homosexuals are sinners but that all humanity has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
The seminary leader went on to call homosexuality “the most pressing moral question of our times.” That being said, as he has in the past, Mohler said that adultery, pornography, dishonesty, injustice and other Biblical sins should also be important to Christians. He also maintains that Christian love calls believers to teach what the Bible proclaims, even on complex issues like homosexuality.
“The Bible names sins specifically so that each of us will recognize our own sinfulness and look to Christ for salvation and the forgiveness of our sins,” Mohler continues.
Considering the high divorce rate, Mohler highlights that hypocrisy can be dangerous. While the church has failed in this regard, he calls for honest discussion and correction. This failure, though, should serve as a reminder, he contends, of what it is that the Bible teaches about all issues, from marriage to homosexuality.
(H/T: CNN’s Belief Blog)
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 690 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 660 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 524 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 363 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 330 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 212 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 227 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order Read More- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 212 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (520)
otoa
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:31pmread Jude 1 7
Report Post »7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after [g]strange flesh, are exhibited as an [h] example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.
MONICNE
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:50pmI am impressed, AvenJoKer seems to ‘***** up his ears’ (so to speak) whenever the Blaze goes to Homosexual topics, could it be the roosters are coming home to roost, Sherriff Cogburn? [Triple Entendre.] (…that’s French)
“And… here… we… go!” LOL (with respect to the Dark Knight movie script)
Tee, Hee
Report Post »gramma b
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:50pmThere is more than the moral, Biblical argument against homosexual behavior. It is, as the Catholics say, “objectively disordered.” Sexual attraction has an obvious biological purpose. The urge to have intercourse with a person of the same sex is an obvious dysfunction, because it is impossible to have intercourse with a person of the same sex. So, homosexual behavior is not only sinful, it is deviant. And, if we have to accept that form of deviance, where do we stop? Why not bestiality? Why not pedophelia or necrophilia, or any one of an infinite number of fetishes? And, if we accept any form of genital stimulation as the equivalent of actual intercourse which entitles those who wish to engage in it to “marry,” then why shouldn’t we be able to marry ourselves? Or a pet?
Report Post »rickc34
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 2:12pmThe Bible tells me so. Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth. Gods way is the only way any other way leads to Hell. Get on the right path or get left behind.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 3:49pmI have to wonder why he say that homosexuality is, “the most pressing moral question of our times.” Actually, in terms of the number of sins committed, acts of fornication, also forbidden by the Bible, must outnumber homosexual acts by about 10 or 20 to one. I’d guess that the number of heterosexuals who wait until marriage, never stray during their marriage and, if they get divorced stop having sex until they remarry is close to zero. So if the world has all this fornicating going on, why isn’t THAT the most pressing issue?
Report Post »encinom
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 3:53pmrickc34
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 2:12pm
The Bible tells me so. Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth. Gods way is the only way any other way leads to Hell. Get on the right path or get left behind.
_________________________
The BIBLE IS NOT A LAW BOOK. If you want to limit yourself to the outdate rules listed in a book of fairy tales, knock yourslef out. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DICTATE TO OTHER TO LIVE BY THIS SAME MORAL CODE. That is the issue, Christians feeling that they are entitled to force others to live by the Bible, the Constitution is designed to protec the citizens from this type of tryanny.
PubliusPencilman
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 4:02pmGramma B,
What homosexual relationships have in common with heterosexual relationship and not in common with necrophilia, pedophilia and bestiality is that it is a relationship between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. For heterosexuality as much as homosexuality, take the concept of “consent” out and you would have pedophilia and any number of other abuses. With this concept, you’re poorly thought-out stock argument makes no sense at all.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 4:11pmLOL…you’ve got to be sh#tting me MOREACNE…you logged back in as ENCIDIOT to post again? Creepy….
Report Post »jhrusky
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 4:41pm@ Gramma B
If it’s “unnatural”, why do some animals show homosexual tendencies? Do you believe they were “made” and not “born that way as well”?
Additionally, per your post, do you believe that sex is only for the purpose of creating life, or can it be enjoyed purely for pleasure between husband and wife?
Report Post »jjjj
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 5:16pmEzekiel 16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, *neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.*
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 5:24pmjzs
Judging from gays own words most of their relationships are open ones. So why do they want to get married? For the tax benefits? We get rid of the progressive tax rates & that is a non problem. For inheritance? They can make out a will like everyone else. For respect? not going to happen.
But gays are making themselves more legible to the government. They are walking willing into a trap. LOL. Soon they will indict themselves.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 6:14pmWalkabout
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 5:24pm
jzs
Judging from gays own words most of their relationships are open ones. So why do they want to get married? For the tax benefits? We get rid of the progressive tax rates & that is a non problem. For inheritance? They can make out a will like everyone else. For respect? not going to happen.
But gays are making themselves more legible to the government. They are walking willing into a trap. LOL. Soon they will indict themselves.
Report Post »___________________________
Really, did you poll all of them? Judging by the rate of adultry and the attitudes straight person, it seems the majority of them want open relationships like Newt. Are they abusing the system for tax breaks. Maybe we should do away with marriage all together.
RJJinGadsden
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 6:33pmPUBLIUSPENCILMAN, Homosexuality is an act only between two consenting adults? If that is so, please explain how Jerry Sandusky would have to be a heterosexual deviant. When a man rapes little boys regardless of your definition of consent, he still has homosexual tendencies. In Sandusky’s case he is apparently bisexual.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 6:35pmencinom
I don’t have to poll them. I just go to a gay website & read their posts.
One of them keeps going to a conservative website to mouth off. So by the typical gay logic he must be a closet conservative.
Report Post »disenlightened
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 6:37pmENCINOM – “The BIBLE IS NOT A LAW BOOK.”
Report Post »Truth is, it has served as a book of laws for a couple centuries now.
RJJinGadsden
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 6:40pmWALKABOUT, I doubt he is closet conservative. It’s just little twink ENCONO_NAMBLA-MAN doing his usual trolling routine.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 6:55pmRJJinGadsden,
It’s not MY definition of consent. It’s the legal definition of consent. I’m not entirely sure where you are going with that question. Sexually abusing a minor is obviously hurtful and illegal regardless of the gender of the victim, but this question has no bearing on a marriage between two consenting adults.
Report Post »Ari Ben TZion
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 7:01pmjhrusky
Beside act of homosexuality, there is also filicide and cannibalism in the animal kingdom.
Should we follow these examples also – think before you post.
Since when do people look to the animal kingdom as a paradigm for moral standards?
Report Post »encinom
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 7:09pmdisenlightened
Report Post »Posted on May 21, 2012 at 6:37pm
ENCINOM – “The BIBLE IS NOT A LAW BOOK.”
Truth is, it has served as a book of laws for a couple centuries now.
___________
Not in the United States, since the Constitution our laws have been secular. We have never been a theocracy.
Ari Ben TZion
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 7:10pmjzs
There is a distinct difference between fornication and homosexuality in both the Torah and in the Bible.
Fornication is when a man and a woman have sex out-side of G-d’s design. There is, on-the-other hand no provision it the Torah/Bible for homosexuality. It is unnatural.
Name one example in the Torah or the Bible where a homosexual relationship is either spoken about in a positive manner by any of the Jewish patriarchs, the prophets or any of the apostles? One?
Name one example in the Torah or in the Bible where a homosexual relationship is blessed by G-d? One?
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 7:30pm@JZS,
You didn’t need to waste your time typing that up JZS.
We all know where you stand.
But then again, you also support aborting babies before they are born, because as you say………”abortion just happens to be legal in this country, so it is not wrong.”
To me, that’s the most pressing moral issue of our times.
Report Post »woodyl1011fl
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 8:10pm@encinom
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 3:53pm
You still exhibit an irrationality that is typical of those who hate God. Like rest of you liberals when you speak on the Bible you reveal a profound ignorance; which is willful ignorance. No where did OTOA ever even allude to dictating to you how you should live, he pointed out that God sets the rules not you. Rules you reject! When fall fall on knees before Him, at the judgment, as Lord of all things you will realize too late that you determined your eternal destiny not God. Your hatred for God is manifested when you react the way you do God’s moral law for mankind you are in total rebellion against Him. Read Psalm 2 and see how He regards mans puny evil efforts in challenging the Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer and coming King. It is sad to watch people rush headlong into their own self-destruction now and for eternity. Too late you will find out those facts and opinions you expressed were based on the fairy tales of the ruler of this world system; whom you finally meet and join him for eternity.
The BIBLE IS NOT A LAW BOOK. If you want to limit yourself to the outdate rules listed in a book of fairy tales, knock yourslef out. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DICTATE TO OTHER TO LIVE BY THIS SAME MORAL CODE. That is the issue, Christians feeling that they are entitled to force others to live by the Bible, the Constitution is designed to protec the citizens from this type of tryanny.
Report Post »Jackers
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 8:13pmI’m so happy to hear that 43 Catholic institutions have filed 12 lawsuits against the Health Department and its contraceptive mandate!
This is not about contraception; it’s about freedom of religion. We either use it or lose it.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 8:56pmwoodyl1011fl
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 8:10pm
@encinom
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 3:53pm
You still exhibit an irrationality that is typical of those who hate God. Like rest of you liberals when you speak on the Bible you reveal a profound ignorance; which is willful ignorance. No where did OTOA ever even allude to dictating to you how you should live, he pointed out that God sets the rules not you. Rules you reject!
Report Post »______________
Here is the problem with your argument, you are ASSUMING GOD SETS THE RULES, I am arguing that laws are made by men and you Christians can not force me to live by the same religious rules as you choice to live by, that includes attempts to change man’s laws to conform to the bible.
Rohawk
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 8:57pmGRAMMA B – Isn’t it interesting that historically the only scripture the world has taken seriously is “BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY” and the attacks we see most against this country are a direct attack upon it!
1) Homosexuality (don’t reproduce)
2) Abortion (kill the young)
3) Eusthinasia (kill the old and handicapped
4) Control Healthcare (rationing endgame once private insurance is gone)
5) Starvation (good food’s too expensive for poor and they want to tax cheap foods)
6) Racial tension (get us to kill each other)
“THE DEVIL COMES TO STEAL, KILL AND DESTROY” and God’s word is banned in school and mocked in DC. Wonder why things aren’t working (for people I mean).
Report Post »Ask Uncle JZS
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 8:58pmjzs says
acts of fornication, also forbidden by the Bible, must outnumber homosexual acts by about 10 or 20 to one
You said it nephew, especially in our family, 20 to 1.
Report Post »nakoapa
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 9:06pmencinom
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 7:09pm
disenlightened
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 6:37pm
ENCINOM – “The BIBLE IS NOT A LAW BOOK.”
Truth is, it has served as a book of laws for a couple centuries now.
___________
Not in the United States, since the Constitution our laws have been secular. We have never been a theocracy.
Perhaps you need to read your history a little more. Washington believed and wrote that a Republic would not survive without the Morality brought forth through faith in God. Most of our founding fathers were Christians. Separation of church and state, while not actually part of the constitution, but part of the federalist papers, was to insure that no one would be forced to follow any one State religion but have the freedom to worship as they chose. They had never planned on it being used to try and wipe out all traces of God in the running of our society. They knew when that happens our country would fail, and I am sure never thought we would purposely try to destroy ourselves in this way. Not after all they went through to try and create it.
Report Post »FFTyranny
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 9:21pm@ENCINOM
The Bible is LAW and as a Christian we are to obey those laws. Do we? No that’s why God sent his son because we are ALL sinners, even YOU.
We don’t force anything on you gays or anyone. We just do as we are suppose to do according to the Bible and that is to spread the WORD of GOD, because GOD is the WORD.
Oh I am a sinner and I am homophobic. Any gay winks, touches or makes a move toward me or any one of my family, they will not enjoy their next few moments of their pathetic life.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 9:53pmAri Ben TZion, where in the Bible is fornicating or adultery blessed by God in the Bible?
But to my original question, unless you disagree than their are more people and more acts of fornification and adultery (punishable, according to the Bible, by death from stoning, or is it being burned alive?), why isn’t that the primary focus of morality.
Actually, why isn‘t helping the poor the primary focus of morality Didn’t Jesus talk more about that than homosexuality? Why don’t Republican politicians ever talk about helping the poor, being the Christians that they are?
Report Post »NickyLouse
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 10:02pmPubliusPencilman wrote:
“What homosexual relationships have in common with heterosexual relationship and not in common with necrophilia, pedophilia and bestiality is that it is a relationship between TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. For heterosexuality as much as homosexuality, take the concept of “consent” out and you would have pedophilia and any number of other abuses. With this concept, you’re poorly thought-out stock argument makes no sense at all.”
This would seem to advocate incest among brother and sister of “consenting age”. However, by eliminating the prerequisaite for those consenting adults to be of opposite sex, you are discriminating. You leave the words “two”, “consenting”, “adults”, and I infer “human” arbitrarily. “two” can just as easily become “three”, “six” or any number. Although “consenting” seems reasonable, it is still discriminating that consent is a requirement as well as the need for those involved to be adult and human.
There are many things in Pandora’s box that when it is opened leaves a lot to be desired. Leave marriage as God and nature intended it.
Report Post »LookTowardsTheLight
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 10:03pmI can‘t say that I’m a very religious person at all. However, I’d rather take my chances with a fairy tale then follow in the footsteps of @$$ h/o/l/e/s like MONICNE, ENCINOM, or JZS.
Report Post »Max jones
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 10:16pmto publius, encino ,and jvc….Some kinds of conduct are more serious, in scripture, because of the seductiveness of “certain” pleasures on weak or immature personalities. This also the reason that pedophelia is mostly male on male-children are easier to manipulate. I will tell you, that you need to grow up. Try to align yourself with wholesomeness and quit playing games with your emotions. This NOT a game.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 10:50pmLookTowardsTheLight, what makes you think I’m not a Christian? Because I think some Christians are hypocrites? You know what I mean, the Christians who mock the poor and call them lazy bums (not something you ever read Christ saying), except in church, when they toss a five spot in the tray and congratulate themselves for “helping the poor” (five bucks won’t get a poor woman a mammogram though, nor even a meal for her kids).
Because I believe, like Thomas Jefferson, that, “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.” -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814?
Because I think that the devout Florida pastor, Terry Jones, is a nut even though he agrees with the pastor above?
LookTowardsTheLight, my advice to you is, “know thyself” before you start judging others.
If you choose to be religious, well, get with it. But the starting point should be deciding what you believe, not trying to figure out what you don’t believe.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 10:51pmJZS SAYS:
“Actually, why isn‘t helping the poor the primary focus of morality Didn’t Jesus talk more about that than homosexuality? Why don’t Republican politicians ever talk about helping the poor, being the Christians that they are?”
Helping the poor? How about helping the poor unborn babies have a chance at life?
You have NO standing to lecture anyone about morality as long as you sanction the murder of unborn children.
JZS….Christians, as individuals, and through the works of their churches to much to help the poor.
Why don’t you ever see democrat politicians talking about saving the lives of THE MOST helpless of all…..the unborn,……..being the……whatever they are.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 10:58pmHey JZS,
Your Uncle looks Pi$$ed.
He must be anticipating the the failure of the Walker recall effort.
Either that, or he’s helping out the administration with a “Laser like focus on jobs, jobs, jobs.”
Report Post »Melika
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 11:08pm@ PubliusPencilman: Deviant behavior is deviant regardless of consent. You don’t need consent from an animal for bestiality to be deviant behavior. The descriptive “deviant’ is applied to the human involved in the behavior. You can have two humans voluntarily participating in the same deviant behavior. For example, cannibalism is deviant behavior. There are people who have given consent for another person to cannibalize them. Sometimes it is just drinking their blood as in the vampire cult, sometimes it involves the murder of the victim prior to being cannibalized. All involve consenting adults, yet I doubt there would be very many who would call it normal behavior.
The problem with homosexuality in this country is that we’ve skipped over the discussion regarding the behavior & went for “rights”. There is a difference between normal human behavior in an individual (ie. it is normal for person A to be gay), and normal human behavior in society (ie. it is abnormal for a group of people, therefor person A is abnormal), and how we are going to define normal. As a society, we have a right to decide if we are (1) willing to accept the behavior as a social norm (which it isn’t), (2) normal behavior for an individual and fully acceptable, (3) abnormal behavior that is tolerated (like fetishes) or (4) completely unacceptable like pedophilia. We get to decide what is normal and acceptable. You might not like the outcome, but that is one of the drawbacks of living in a societ
Report Post »encinom
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 11:15pmFFTyranny
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 9:21pm
@ENCINOM
The Bible is LAW and as a Christian we are to obey those laws. Do we? No that’s why God sent his son because we are ALL sinners, even YOU.
_________________________________
You can not go to court and provided a brief based on the bible. We are governed by the laws of man, we choose whether or not to follow the laws set in the bible. Nobody is preventing you from following the bible, just don’t force us to do the same.
@nakoapa, I am sorry, I learned actual American History and not the BS tha Beck and Barton push on you simpletons to sell more worthless books. Its clear from the Constitution, that the Founders gave us a Secular Republic are laws are drafted by men not the divine.
Report Post »Melika
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 11:24pm@ jhrusky: There is serious doubt regarding the validity of assigning homosexual behavior to animals, especially in regards to how these motives are assigned. Most of what is commonly available is from a pseudo-scientist who defines the simple act of mutual grooming among family members are a form of homosexuality.
Report Post »Of the explicit “sexual” acts that are sometimes referred by people, these are not specifically sexual in nature. The movements are generally performed by dominant males to more submissive males as a form of dominance or reinforcement of dominance. In other cases, it is simply a hormonal reaction when there are few or no females present. In all cases, if given the opportunity, heterosexual coupling is the preferred action.
However, pretending animals display true homosexual behavior (exclusivity), animals also practice infanticide, pedophilia, murder for profit, hunting a species to extinction, throwing poo, biting, brutality, rape, defecating and urinating indiscriminately and all other sorts of behaviors that are normal for animals, but generally not considered normal for people. You argument proposes that we should also practice and accept all of these behaviors as “normal” simply because animals do it, when all of history and the very definition of “civilization” cries out that we can and should be better than normal animal behavior. Sometimes that means you can’t do what you want.
Therightsofbilly
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 12:00am@MELIKA
Spot on.
Report Post »Hollywood
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 7:33amRomans Ch 1 V 21-32 says ALL that needs to be said. Verses 26,27 mentions homosexuality and lesbianism as VILE affections. I see NOWHERE in the pastors response, that one needs to REPENT. There is NO forgiveness w/o knowing/confessing, and TURNING away from our sins,THEN asking for forgiveness. REPENT and BELIEVE. SINNERS can argue all they want, to try to justify lifestyles. They are arguing against GOD, not me, or anyone else. As God’s WORD teaches: We are to LOVE the sinners, but HATE the sin.
Report Post »Maranatha
Wolf
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 10:01am“…While the church has failed in this regard, he calls for honest discussion and correction…”
Report Post »So tell me, Pastor- what is there to ‘discuss’ about this issue? God said it, that settles it. End of discussion.
That the government is getting into the issue is bad enough in itself since it is trying to legislate morality when it is immoral itslef. Get the government out of religion, period, and let the church handle its issues.
“When My people who are called by My Name will repent of their sins and turn to me, I will hear from Heaven and heal their nation.” Until that issue is resolved it’s the end of the discussion.
PubliusPencilman
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 11:55amNickyLouis,
“This would seem to advocate incest among brother and sister of “consenting age”.”
Of course, the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman does not explicitly exclude incest either. Does that definition “advocate” for incest?
“You leave the words “two”, “consenting”, “adults”, and I infer “human” arbitrarily.”
Not arbitrary. Humans are the only beings who can legally render consent. There is no such thing as legal consent from an animal or inanimate object. This is why animals cannot legally sign contracts and why bestiality ALWAYS constitutes animal abuse. The requirement for “consent” excludes all other possible parties outside of a man or woman of the legal age of consent.
I am sorry that you feel that one is “discriminating” against a lack of consent, but it is a basic tenet of the law that to enter anyone into a binding contract without their consent is a violation of their individual liberties. Such a scheme would allow people to be bought and sold, which hasn’t been legal since the end of slavery. The idea that gay marriage would somehow weaken this foundational concept of consent is absolutely absurd.
““two” can just as easily become “three”, “six” or any number.”
No. Two means two. You can make the same silly argument by saying that marriage between a “man and a woman” could easily became marriage between a “man and women.“ Just by defining marriage as between a ”man and
Report Post »SLOWBIDEN
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 11:58am@ ENCINOMYou Said ” I am arguing that laws are made by men and you Christians can not force me to live by the same religious rules as you choice to live by, that includes attempts to change man’s laws to conform to the bible.”
Report Post »Did man also create the laws of math and science? The laws which govern the universe. If you believe that than how did those laws exist before man. Please elighten me.
PubliusPencilman
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 12:05pmNickyLouse,
And one more thing…
“Leave marriage as God and nature intended it.”
If nature intended marriage to be between one man and one woman, why is it that, throughout much of history, perhaps even a majority of marriages at many times have been polygamous? And guess what: I would be willing to bet the vast majority of those marriages were heterosexual! How many wives did Solomon have? Your claim that marriage in its modern form is more “natural” is completely ahistorical.
As I have addressed all of your misgivings, I hope you will join me in saying that there should be no legal barriers against two consenting adults being married (barring, of course, incest, which is more likely in the case of heterosexual marriage than homosexual marriage).
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 12:10pmMelika,
All of your examples of deviant behavior involve abuse, injury, mutilation or even death, and all can just as easily happen between a man and a woman as between two men or two women. I don’t exactly see what these examples have in common with gay marriage.
If your problem is that we can’t rely on agreements between two consenting adults, then your issues are with the foundations of contract law itself, not gay marriage.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 12:45pmSLOWBIDEN
Report Post »Posted on May 22, 2012 at 11:58am
@ ENCINOMYou Said ” I am arguing that laws are made by men and you Christians can not force me to live by the same religious rules as you choice to live by, that includes attempts to change man’s laws to conform to the bible.”
Did man also create the laws of math and science? The laws which govern the universe. If you believe that than how did those laws exist before man. Please elighten me.
_________________
Is that your argument, is that the best you have? Fields that the majority of Christians reject, science and math. This is the purest definition of Apples and Oranges. One is a social construct, a contract among people on who to govern and the other are applies the forces that control the natural world. In what unlimited void of a mind are these two things related? Their were rocks and trees before man gave them names, the stars and planets revolved around the universe before the earliest ancestor crawled out of the infant oceans. the comparison you are making makes no sense. Man wasn’t needed to invent gravity, the Newton only explains how he believed it worked.
tarm778
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 1:34pmHusky,
Mallards are known engage in necrophilia, and mothers in the animal kingdom frequently abandon their ‘weak’ children.
Report Post »Perhaps National Geographic that isn’t the best place to look for morality?
tarm778
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 1:46pmWhen you hear liberals lie and say “Jesus never said anything regarding homosexuality” so that must make it okay? Not exactly.
Report Post »Not if you consider the facts.
Jesus also never said anything about rape, incest or domestic violence. Are those things okay, too?
There are many teachings and deeds of Christ that are not included in the Gospel accounts, as John writes in John 21:25.
Christ did say that God created people “in the beginning” as male and female, and that marriage is the union of one man and one woman joined together as “one flesh.” (Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:6-9) Nothing whatsoever else is said about any other type of union.
When Jesus discussed sexual morality, Christ had a very high standard, clearly affirming long-standing Jewish law. He told the woman caught in adultery to “Go and sin no more.” John 8:11. Jesus warned people not only that the act of adultery was wrong, but even adulterous thoughts. Matthew 5:28
And he shamed the woman at the well John 4:18 by pointing out to her that he knew she was living with a man who was not her husband.
Finally, the apostles, who were taught by Christ, clearly understood that homosexuality was a sin as it has always been. When lying liberals say, “Jesus said nothing about homosexuality,” they reveal that they really have never understood Scripture beyond the usual liberal theological spin.
SLOWBIDEN
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 2:24pm@ENCINOM- You didn’t answer my question?
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 2:31pm“When you hear liberals lie and say “Jesus never said anything regarding homosexuality” so that must make it okay? Not exactly.”
The bigger and more pertinent issue is that Jesus does not write our laws. He holds no elected office and certainly no dictatorial powers over what should and should not be legal. So, in that context, it matters very little what Jesus said about homosexuality.
Report Post »tarm778
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 2:42pmIf it doesn’t matter, then why time after time when discussing this issue do dishonest liberals bring up Jesus and the insinuation that he agreed with homosexuality, when he clearly did not. You use Jesus and his teachings when you think it applies with your twisted reasoning but reject his word when it disagress with your agenda.
Report Post »Typical liberal lies again.
gbfreak
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 3:29pmAri Ben TZion
Report Post »Consenting adults could be mother/son father/daughter brothers sisters cousins aunts uncles – where do you draw the line? Your consenting argument has huge flaws!
svan71
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 4:05pmjzs
Its simple nobody is trying to redefine fornication ?
Report Post »boyd9
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 5:01pmI personally don’t have any problem with two or three or four or five or six, etc, consenting adults doing whatever they want in terms of sexual behavior. I only have a problem when these consenting adults whether there are two of them or more than two of them believe they need to establish a legal relationship in order to engage in their sexual behavior. I understand the desire to have society recognize one’s behavior as “normal”. However for homosexual behavior there is no real need for any legal relationship because children can not be produced as a result of the sexual union. That isn’t the case for polygamists, so I actually have more sympathy for legalizing heterosexual plural marriage than I do for legalizing homosexual marriages. When it is possible that children will result from the sexual activity then an attempt at a formal, more binding, more stable relationship between the married parties is necessary for the good of society. Homosexuals can achieve all the property and other rights enjoyed by married couples contractually.
Report Post »Christ was the first teacher of the separation of Church and State doctrine, which is likely where our founders came to their understanding that this was sound doctrine. Christ taught render to Caesar that which is Caesars, but in the same sentence he taught render to God that which is God’s, making it clear that Caesar has NO right to what belongs to God. Government can determine what is legal but NOT what is sin.
encinom
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 8:40pmSLOWBIDEN
Report Post »Posted on May 22, 2012 at 2:24pm
@ENCINOM- You didn’t answer my question?
____________
Yes I did, you question makes little sense. The laws of Man and laws of nature are apples and oranges. When you graduate your home school than try again.
tmarends
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 9:14pm@Ari Ben TZion
David and Jonathan were probably bisexual, and probably intimate. David described his love for Jonathan surpassing that of a woman.
In Luke‘s account of Jesus’ encounter with the Roman Centurian, Luke uses the Greek word “pais” to describe the sick servant. This particular Greek word was used, at that time, to describe the passive partner in a homosexual relationship.
Report Post »edav38
Posted on May 23, 2012 at 12:58amIt would be nice if people like you would READ the Bible, instead of just Spouting what you have been TOLD to Believe.
Report Post »The Sin of Sodom was mentioned in 2 other places in the old Testament and at least one other time in the New Testament, and in NONE OF THEM was Homosexuality mentioned. But, then, IF you had ever Really Read the Bible and understood, it, you might have known that, instead of just Spouting off without Intelligence on the subject
DBCooper
Posted on May 23, 2012 at 11:24am1. The founding fathers came to america for religious freedom.
Report Post »2. People who quote the bible your using the bible to make your self look smart.
3. God says that homosexuality is a sin
TRUTHSENSE
Posted on May 23, 2012 at 11:25pmJZS, the main thing that makes homosexuality a more pressing issue is that they are the one’s who want their sin legitimized. I don’t see fornicators pressing for silence and acceptance from those opposed to their sin. If we are going to legitimize homosexuality, why not polygamy, incest and bestiality?
Report Post »Cpass142
Posted on May 26, 2012 at 12:33pmThe Pastor at our church gave the most inspiring and excellent sermon on this. For those of you that don‘t agree with what God’s word says should take it up with him and not argue amongst ourselves. You can view the sermon at Cornerstoneforlife.org. Well worth watching.
Report Post »Kenny Sands
Posted on May 26, 2012 at 2:11pmHeterosexuals do not look to reproduce in truck stop rest rooms — it’s that simple.
Report Post »Clear-eyed
Posted on May 26, 2012 at 4:53pmWow! There are a lot of Christians here full of hate and judgement! I thought Jesus told you not to do any of that? Yeah, I know it‘s inconvenient to follow the words you profess to believe in but at least try to LOOK like you’re trying. Because it looks a lot like most of you are profoundly anti-Christian.
Report Post »do_it_all_again
Posted on May 27, 2012 at 4:14am@tmarends
{{ @Ari Ben TZion
David and Jonathan were probably bisexual, and probably intimate. David described his love for Jonathan surpassing that of a woman.
In Luke‘s account of Jesus’ encounter with the Roman Centurian, Luke uses the Greek word “pais” to describe the sick servant. This particular Greek word was used, at that time, to describe the passive partner in a homosexual relationship. }}
According to the Greek Lexicon the word PAIS has no correlation to homosexual, or same sex activity at all.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/pais.html
it is sad how people will twist anything they can to make their sin acceptable.
Report Post »But it is nothing more than pure rebellion in its simplest form, to deny the existence of a higher authority so you can legitimize your deviant behavior. I need to make it clear though, i do not hate anyone who chooses to live that lifestyle, but i do hate the sin, and the fact that you want to make it seem normal, which it is not, i do pray for those that are blinded by the lies of satan, and hope that they will one day choose to turn from their ways and accept the love of GOD and repent and seek His forgiveness, which he will gladly give to those who sincerely and wholeheartedly ask, and He will accept them into the Kingdom of heaven.
Arandarin
Posted on May 27, 2012 at 2:58pmThis is confusing. I have read the bible in its entirety and it’s discussion of sexuality and depravity. I notice this author does not specifically refer to the bible on these. If the bible says do not engage in sexual depravity, isn’t that kind of subjective? If God is saying don’t allow yourself to be taken advantage of in the worst ways in order to achieve some other goal, isn’t that totally subjective? Whyaren’t the references included so we can debate this properly?
Report Post »ldwaddell
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:25pmEvangelicals often point out that all sins will send you to hell, that God demands moral perfection, so whether you steal a stick of chewing gum or murder your spouse, both sins will equally damn you. This is really just a way of explaining that all mankind sins, and thus all mankind is in need of a savior from that sin. It is, in other words, an evangelistic appeal more than anything else.
But when we talk about sin, we’re not always evangelizing. Sometimes we’re admonishing Christians who are already saved, and other times we’re debating public morality in the context of legislation. In these cases, stating that all sins are the same is hardly helpful.
Leaving the issue of evangelization aside, we all intuitively know that some sins are worse than others. Look at our legal system. The punishment for stealing a stick of gum is quite different from the punishment for killing your spouse. There is a wide range of punishments, from a $100 fine to the death penalty, all depending on how serious your crime is.
When we punish our children, the same rule applies. Little Johnny may be grounded for several weeks if he makes an “F” on his report card, but he may only be sent to his room for an hour for swatting his sister on the back of the head. Again, Mom and Dad know that all sins are not the same.
But what about the Bible? Is there support for the view that all sins are not equal in Holy Scripture? Yes, actually there is.
Let’s look at the wor
Report Post »wingnut1955
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 3:30pmYes, you are right that not all sin is treated the same. But that is because we look at it from our human perspective. God, however, looks at it from his Holy perspective and it is all the same. It is like looking down at people on a sidewalk from a tall building. Which person is taller than the others? They all look the same, but standing on the sidewalk we can see the difference. God is Holy and He will not let unholy people into His Heaven. Unless a person repents of his sin and calls on the Name of Jesus that person can not enter Heaven. God has provided a way to enter His Heaven and it is the only way. God is patient and will wait for the rest of your life for you to accept, but don‘t delay thinking you can repent at the last minute because you don’t know the future and how you will die. So, do it today. Accept Jesus now.
Report Post »symphonic
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 3:35pmIt is just common sense that some sins are worse than others, and God will judge. But I do KNOW that God will not judge the 9 year old who steals a stick of gum the same way as He judges a full grown man who decides to pervert the plan and become a full practicing homosexual. That man will go to hell. The kid will probably get mercy, if God even brings it up, ever.
Report Post »kadster01
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 3:48pmAs a white male, there are tons of government backed benefits and privileges for which I do not qualify due to race, gender, income-level, etc. No amount of barking about it and trying to get it changed to suit me would do any good. Any two people could enter into any legally recognized contract they wish, so why the insistence upon hijacking the institution of “marriage?” (Just as the term “gay” was hijacked.)
Aside from that…a pet peeve. **** means same. Phobia means fear. “Homophobia” would mean a fear of things that are the same…anything that is the same. Its a stupid, overused, PC term applied to anyone who disagrees with, not is afraid of, the practice of homosexuality.
Report Post »kadster01
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 4:03pmAmazing…. “H0m0” (spelled correctly) is censored, but “homophobia” and “homosexuality” are not, even though – as I pointed out – h0m0 means “same.” What a weird, messed-up, PC, comical yet depressing world we live in….
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 4:08pmKadster,
If you don’t like the term homophobe, stop being a homophobe.
You may ask why gays want to “hijack” marriage, but your question assumes that Christian conservatives “own” marriage. If a reform rabbi wants to marry two homosexuals in their faith, why would this be considered “hijacking”?
Sorry, but your terms are poorly thought out and just plain silly.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 4:43pmPencil Man
you folks on the left believe homosexuality to be genetic. Is it possible that homophibia is also genetic? Would it be possible that homophobes are born that way, and that it is a natural means in which one would inherit, to be able to reproduce, and be sickened at those who do not.
If they found the homophobe gene (being they never found the gay one), would libs be supportive of homophobes, being it is genetic, and they can not help it?
I do not believe in evolution, but if I did, the homophobe gene seems a lot more believable than the gay gene.
What say you pencil man.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 5:06pmRangerP,
Even if homophobia was genetic, that would not give you the right to codify that prejudice in the law.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 5:52pmWe are all guilty of SIN, and our manifold SINS are proof of that. Nobody will go to hell for any one specific sin. People who go to hell do so because they are sinners, i.e., have a sinful nature that separates them from God, and they rejected the vicarious redemption of Christ. That said, like rewards in heaven, punishment in hell will be more or less severe depending on the person’s knowledge of the Word (accountability) and the nature of the sins committed (Amos 3:2; Matt. 11:20-22; James 3:1; John 19:11).
Sins that pervert God’s established paradigm for procreation are especially egregious to God. The fallen angels who had sex with women were tied up in the deepest recess of hell:
=> “And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh…” (Jude 6-7) (see also Gen. 6:4)
Notice that God compares these fallen angels’ behavior to what homosexuals PRACTICED in the Sodom & Gomorrah region. He calls it “perverting to lasciviousness” (Jude 4), “changing the natural use into that against nature” (Rom. 1:26-27), and “great wickedness” (Gen. 6:5).
Report Post »BigAl78
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 9:50pmTo everyone discussing separation of church and state: no, the Constitution never says word for word “separation of church and state.” The Constitution also never says common law is derived from the Bible or that Christians get to legislate everyone else’s morality. Common law is distinct from Biblical law and other religious law for the express purpose of ensuring a majority religious group can’t force their beliefs on others! Imagine if Muslims attempted to enact laws requiring all women to wear burkas! There would be a huge outrage, and rightly so.
@Brother_Ed
Report Post »Atheists and other non-religious folk get their morals from basic human empathy. I don‘t like to be stolen from and I don’t really want to be murdered, etc. It’s the Golden Rule, really. I can appreciate that the Bible put some of these “rules” if you will into a more concrete form, but you really shouldn’t need a book to tell you that rape and murder and theft are wrong.
Git-R-Done
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 3:24amBiggal78 – Morals don’t come from empathy to normal thinking people.
Report Post »kadster01
Posted on May 23, 2012 at 3:01pmPencilman,
In case you haven’t checked history before your, oh so well though-out, argument, marriage not only predates Christianity, but all established religions. Besides, my argument was never about any religious connection at all, so your assertion that I assumed Christian conservatives own marriage is a false assumption on your own part.
I would say if any entity truly hijacked the institution of marriage already, it was government, by making it more of a business relationship than a romantic bond. You actually have to get a license to marry, but not to bear children. That is lunacy to me. I seriously doubt, if governments had not affixed all manner of monetary benefits to the institution, homosexuals would be demanding we allow them to marry.
Aside from that, I never went out of my way to insult you or anyone else. Why did you feel the need to deny me the same respect simply because we disagree?
Report Post »Zenzazin
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:24pmeveryone is entitled to his/her opinion. however, thankfully, we live in the US, with a constitution and bill of rights that are designed to protect all citizens of this country from being forced to live under any religious ideology. separation of church and state means just that. freedom means freedom for ALL citizens, not just the ones you agree with.
Report Post »JeffRN
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:49pmCan you tell me specifically where in the constitution does it say “separation of church and state,” please?
Report Post »Texas Chris
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:58pmI looked up “separation of church and state” and can’t find it in the constitution or the declaration…
Report Post »inblack
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 2:06pm“Separation of church and state” is not in the constitution, not is it american. You need to read the constitution and then you can see that the govt may not impose a religion, but there is nothing that says they must impose atheism. The govt MUST let people practice their religion.
Forcing people to redefine marriage is against the 1st Amendment. The US let’s gay people be free and “hook up” with whoever they want, however it is not marriage.
This is just like transsexuals. I will never call a man to woman transsexual a woman. I know that they are not a woman. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend, they can get hormone shots and pretend, but genetically, I know they are still a man. Can we redefine gender to a personal outlook, go ahead, I reject it. Make up a new name – “thinks they are a woman in their head”.
The same goes for gay marriage, it it not marriage, so make up a new name, “garriage”?
Then you can have the real discussion. Do Garried people deserve special benefits from the govt? Why, because they love each other? No, I don’t think so.
Gay marriage is a ploy to redefine marriage so gay couples can get SS and Medicare benefits that were never intended for them.
In addition redefining marriage will be used by radicals like Obama to force Churches to marry gays or be shut down. Which brings this back around to a 1st Amendment issue.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 2:14pmAnyone who does not believe in a separation of church and state does not agree with the laws of our country for the past 200 years. Judicial review gives the SCotUS the role of arbiter of constitutionality. Their rules interpret the Constitution; one of those rulings (Reynolds v. US, 1879) formally entered the phrase into our legal jargon and interpretation of the Establishment Clause.
Claiming the “separation of church and state is Un-American“ is roughly the equivalent of saying ”The Hail Mary is un-Christian.”
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 2:19pm@ZENZAZIN
Well said!!
Let’s release all murderers, burglars, rapists, perjurers, slanderers, tax cheats, etc. from prison.
After all, the only reason they‘re in jail is because of ’religious laws’.
You need to study the Bible’s role in the forming of the laws of this country before you make such a silly comment.
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 3:09pmThe renowned Constitutional scholar, Henry Black (1860-1927), author of Black’s Law Dictionary, and editor of The Constitutional Review from 1917 to 1927, recognized and acknowledged America’s Christian foundations. In his Handbook of American Constitutional Law (2nd ed. 1897, 3rd ed. 1910, 4th ed. 1927), he stated,
“…that many of our best civil and social institutions, and the most important to be preserved in a free and civilized state, are founded upon the Christian religion, or upheld and strengthened by its observance; that the whole purpose and policy of the law assume that we are a nation of Christians, and while toleration is the principle in religious matters, the laws are to recognize the existence of that system of faith, and our institutions are to be based on that assumption ; that those who are in fact Christians have a right to be protected by law against wanton interference with the free and undisturbed practice of their religion and against malicious attacks upon its source or authority, calculated and intended to affront and wound them ; and that the prevalence of a sound morality among the people is essential to the preservation of their liberties and the permanence of their institutions, and to the success and prosperity of government, and the morality which is to be fostered and encouraged by the state is Christian morality, and not such as might exist in the supposititious “state of nature” or in a pagan country.”
Report Post »colt1860
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 3:11pmChurch does not mean religion, it refers to an actual Establishment.
Our first college, Harvard, in its original rules stated, “Let every student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the maine end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternall life, Jon. xvii. 3. and therefore to lay Christ in the bottome, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning.” and that “Every one shall so exercise himselfe in reading the Scriptures twice a day,” (A History of Harvard University, Benjamin Peirce, 1833, Appendix, p. 5)
“All the distinctive features and superiority of our republican institutions are derived from the teachings of Scripture.” Edward Everett, President of Harvard University, Governor of Massachusetts, United States Secretary of State (Faiths of Famous Men in Their Own Words, 1900, p. 119)
“I believe a knowledge of the Bible without a college course is more valuable than a college course without the Bible.” William Lyon Phelps, American author and scholar (Human Nature In The Bible, 1922, p. 9)
President Ulysses S. Grant said: “Hold fast to the Bible as the sheet anchor to your liberties; write its precepts in your hearts, and practice them in your lives. To the influence of this book we are indebted for all progress made in our true civilization, and to this we must look as our guide in the future.” (The Literary Primacy of the Bible, by George Peck Eckman, 1915, p. 148)
Report Post »Zenzazin
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 3:21pmno, it does not say those words “separation of church and state”, but it also does not say the words “right to privacy” or “right to a fair trial”. however, the constitution does guarantee these protections. if the gov’t is not to “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”, then it has no right to prevent citizens from pursuing their own happiness and receiving equal treatment under the law.
@inblack – “You need to read the constitution and then you can see that the govt may not impose a religion, but there is nothing that says they must impose atheism. The govt MUST let people practice their religion.”
There is nothing preventing you from practicing your religion. However, the practice thereof shouldn’t take away the freedoms of other citizens who do not adhere to your particular belief set. This is a social and legal issue, not a religious one.
“Forcing people to redefine marriage is against the 1st Amendment. The US let’s gay people be free and “hook up” with whoever they want, however it is not marriage.”
Marriage has already been redefined multiple times since the inception of this country. Remember how up until the late 60s, interracial couples weren’t allowed to marry?
Report Post »Zenzazin
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 3:24pm@brother_ed – “Let’s release all murderers, burglars, rapists, perjurers, slanderers, tax cheats, etc. from prison. After all, the only reason they‘re in jail is because of ’religious laws’. You need to study the Bible’s role in the forming of the laws of this country before you make such a silly comment.”
Or you need to look at things without using your lens of religion, since there are millions of people in this country that do believe the same thing as you (not to mention, the founding fathers weren’t even devout christians). There is a huge difference between allowing to adults make their own decision and make a commitment to spend the rest of their lives together, which directly affects you in no single way, and someone committing any one of the crimes you mention, which all have a direct, unwilling victim.
Report Post »and where does it say in the bible that tax cheats should be imprisoned?
rolla020980
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 3:26pmOK, if there really is a full separation of church and state, then why does the government recognize any form of marriage at all? Most people get married at a church by a priest. That doesn’t sound religious, does it?
Report Post »Locked
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 3:34pmRollao
“OK, if there really is a full separation of church and state, then why does the government recognize any form of marriage at all? Most people get married at a church by a priest. That doesn’t sound religious, does it?”
It doesn’t matter what your ceremony is. Legally, you aren’t considered married by the government until you get a marriage license. The religious ceremony holds no meaning for Uncle Sam.
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 3:50pm@ZENZAZIN
Regarding tax cheats: Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.
As far as your morals go, they are a result of the Biblical influence on philosophy.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 4:14pmInblack,
“Forcing people to redefine marriage is against the 1st Amendment.”
What a silly and contorted thing to say. First of all, you are not forced to redefine your marriage in any way. Second of all, if a Buddhist wants to marry two consenting adults in their faith, how exactly is that a violation of YOUR right to free exercise? How is preventing them from conducting that marriage not a violation of THEIR right to free exercise?
If you are a Protestant, does the fact that their are Catholics in the U.S. threaten your free exercise? Does the fact that there are Jews and Muslims threaten your free exercise? Do these other faiths in any way threaten your faith? If not, maybe you should stop crying and mind your own business.
Report Post »Zenzazin
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 6:37pmBrother ed, my morals have absolutely nothing to do with the Bible, nor are they grounded in that philosophy. That isn‘t to say that I don’t respect the Bible and some of the morals it teaches, but I have come to these conclusions all on my own without reading the New Testament.
My solution to the whole same-sex marriage debate is, if you don’t like gay marriage and are opposed to having a gay marriage, then don’t get married to someone of the same sex as you. I fail to see how 2 men or 2 women who love each other and want to commit to one another for their lifespan lessens the sanctity of marriage while there are any number of inane dating reality shows like “The Bachelor” which completely rob the whole institution of any beauty/personalness/holiness
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 8:04pm@ZENZAZIN
I respect your opinion.
One more question – no contention intended;
Where DO you get your morals from?
My previous assertion, though it seemed persnickety, was genuine.
You are, presumably, a product of Western culture, which is heavily influenced by the Bible. It is difficult to read a book, listen to music or watch a movie that does not have biblical themes (I am talking about classic works).
You did not come up with your morals on your own, they were taught to you by others. If you follow the thread, it is ultimately going to end with Christianity.
I do not wish to argue with you, and you are free not to accept the Bible as the word of God. I am not one to condemn someone to hell for using the pages as toilet paper (though I would advise against it). However, to deny it’s influence would be disingenuous.
You sound like a good guy, I look forward to debating you on other articles. I’m sure we will find much common ground.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 8:35pm@Locked
Report Post »one of those rulings (Reynolds v. US, 1879) formally entered the phrase into our legal jargon and interpretation of the Establishment Clause.
——-
I read the SCOTUS ruling and Jefferson was quoted verbatim: “…THUS building a wall of separation…” in exact accordance with the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause. Libs have introduced a twisted version of Jefferson’s words into our legal system — one completely devoid of the cause-effect relation Jefferson made — to penalize public expressions of faith, such as praying over your food in a public school. So the fact remains that the phrase “separation of church and state” as an ISOLATED proposition is unconstitutional, un-Jeffersonian and in fact a fundamental tenet of communism.
ModerationIsBest
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 11:02pmOur Constitution doesn’t mention a particular God, much less Jesus, yet somehow we’re a Christian nation?
Stop being a hypocrite.
Report Post »Zenzazin
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 12:30pm@Brother Ed- “Where DO you get your morals from? You did not come up with your morals on your own, they were taught to you by others. If you follow the thread, it is ultimately going to end with Christianity.”
You are correct in assuming I am from the Western world (born and raised in the US), though incorrect in assuming that my morals all tie back into a Christian dogma. Most of my morals likely come from my parents, who raised me essentially without a religion (though more Jewish than anything… my parents have studied Buddhism, Hinduism, Zen, Christianity and Judaism). What I view as morally acceptable are those actions which do not negatively affect others in any real way, or exploit others for the personal gain of any one individual. This has come from years of traveling throughout the world (to many 1st and 3rd world nations), interacting with as many people from different cultural backgrounds as possible, and trying to have an open mind why my initial impressions/reactions are challenged/proven incorrect. What was probably the most helpful in forming my moral code was growing up in a very conservative, Christian town and being subjected to a LOT of prejudice/unfair treatment from classmates and teachers because I am Jewish. Having 1st hand experience with such intolerance made me realize I should never make anyone else feel the way many of my peers and teachers made me feel, in spite of the fact that they claimed to follow Jesus’s teachings (a fellow Jew, even)
Report Post »Zenzazin
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 12:39pm@Brother Ed – If anything, my moral code is more closely tied to Judaism, NOT Christianity (the foundation of Christianity does come from Judaism and the Old Testament).
“I do not wish to argue with you, and you are free not to accept the Bible as the word of God. I am not one to condemn someone to hell for using the pages as toilet paper (though I would advise against it). However, to deny it’s influence would be disingenuous.”
I appreciate you openness to a difference of opinion. No disrespect to others on here, but that is a rare trait in the majority of devout Blaze readers. While I do not believe in the New Testament even a little bit, I would never disrespect the text or the religion (which I fully disagree with) by damaging a Bible. Nor would I ever desecrate a Koran, or any holy text from a different religion. However, it is not disingenuous for me to deny the Bible’s influence on my own moral code because I have never taken, nor will I ever take, what the Bible says into consideration when trying to determine the morality of a decision. This does not mean I am a bad person, nor immoral. If my morals happen to coincide with those of the Bible, awesome, but that doesn‘t mean that’s where my morals come from. However, it would mean that you and I would have some general agreements that can be reached, which is always nice.
“You sound like a good guy, I look forward to debating you on other articles. I’m sure we will find much common ground.”
Report Post »Likewi
Zenzazin
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 12:45pm@Brother Ed – apparently the end of my message got cut off… it read: “Likewise! Enjoy the day!”
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 1:12pm@ZENZAZIN
Impressive resume!
I stand corrected.
Thanks.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 7:25pm@ZENZAZIN
What I view as morally acceptable are those actions which do not negatively affect others or exploit…. This has come from years of traveling… and trying to have an open mind…
——–
First, there are false teachings among some Christians that tell them to hate Jews/Israel. However, we know of only two recorded instances when the Son of God wept sorrowfully; one for a fellow Jew (Lazarus) and the other for Jerusalem/Israel. So to understand Christianity we have to look at Jesus, not at what people who profess to follow him do. Jesus yearns for your unrequited love. That’s the closest comparison in human terms, so it’s the one used in the Bible.
Second, you learned tolerance the hard way, but it’s one of the two commandments Jesus highlighted, i.e., “to love your neighbor as yourself.” Yahweh, the one and only true God, has put that law in man’s conscience. You have listened to your conscience and that makes you a good person, but you still need a blood covering for your sins that only Jesus can provide. The crucial question is, “Do the other major religions teach a higher love and respect for others?” (Cont.)
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 7:28pm@ZENZAZIN (Cont.)
Hindu societies used to force women to be burned alive with their (much older) husbands (sati). It was faithful Christians like Carey and Wilberforce who raised awareness and put pressure on the Brits and the Indian govt. to ban sati. However, females are still grossly abused in Hindu societies in large part because their religious texts teach and condone it: voices.yahoo.com/womens-status-hinduism-life-as-widow-31038.html
I don’t think we need to be reminded of Islam’s abuse of women and children, AS WELL AS its abuse of young men, who according to the Qur’an will go to Paradise and live in sexual ecstasy if they blow themselves up for jihad. What young male wouldn’t be allured by that! http://islamo-criticism.blogspot.com/2012/05/hypocrite-extraordinaire-part-4-reason.html!
The truth is your measuring stick is still Western and influenced by Christian principles. The whole world is a better place because of Jesus and humble disciples of his who have selflessly and faithfully taken the true gospel to the nations.
Report Post »Zenzazin
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 7:43pm@kryptonite – “So to understand Christianity we have to look at Jesus, not at what people who profess to follow him do.”
Since Jesus was Jewish, don’t you think it is important to fully understand what that ideology espouses, since he was not a Christian?
“Yahweh, the one and only true God, has put that law in man’s conscience. You have listened to your conscience and that makes you a good person, but you still need a blood covering for your sins that only Jesus can provide.”
Some might argue that since Jews are the chosen people, they do not need to accept Christ. Some argue that it was Jesus’s sacrifice that opened the gates of heaven to all the non-Jews.
“The crucial question is, “Do the other major religions teach a higher love and respect for others?
Report Post »Hindu societies used to force women to be burned alive with their (much older) husbands…
I don’t think we need to be reminded of Islam’s abuse of women and children…”
All of these religions teach love towards one another. The problem is that PEOPLE have used these ideologies to justify atrocities against their fellow person, just as many Christians have been guilty of throughout the years. Such instances can also be found in the Jewish faith.
(con’t)
kryptonite
Posted on May 23, 2012 at 5:45am@ZENZAZIN
Since Jesus was Jewish, don’t you think it is important to fully understand what that ideology espouses, since he was not a Christian?
——
“Christian” is the common term for a follower of Christ. Jesus doesn’t follow himself.
Since you are a Jew, why not focus on the fact that Messiah has come? The day you get really hungry for God, you will seek Him with all your heart and find Him. For now, you seem to be too busy, looking to people and leaning on your own understanding to find meaning in life.
= “Some might argue that since Jews are the chosen people, they do not need to accept Christ.”
—–
“Chosen” means they were separated unto God so He could bring Messiah, but God is still a holy God, and Jews are sinners like everybody else.
= “All of these religions teach love towards one another.”
—–
That is PC, kuumbaya and what not, but clearly false. Why did you ignore the links I gave you?
= “The problem is that PEOPLE have used these ideologies to justify atrocities against their fellow person…”
Report Post »——
We are a fallen humanity, but nations that have adopted Judeo-Christian values have advanced to higher levels of civilization (two steps forward, one step back), while those that have retained other value systems cause great suffering to their people, esp. to women and children, who are always more vulnerable. Only the Bible is inspired by God, and it shows.
Zenzazin
Posted on May 23, 2012 at 11:47am@Kryptonite – “Since you are a Jew, why not focus on the fact that Messiah has come?”
Because Jews don’t believe that the messiah has come. i thought that was clear.
“The day you get really hungry for God, you will seek Him with all your heart and find Him.”
Perhaps. Don’t hold your breath though.
“For now, you seem to be too busy, looking to people and leaning on your own understanding to find meaning in life.”
And how is that bad? I still do good deeds and feel happy. I am just living my life differently from how you choose to live yours.
“That is PC, kuumbaya and what not, but clearly false. Why did you ignore the links I gave you?”
Because it is always possible to find some example of some religion committing horrible acts against others, including Christians. what matters is what the basic tenets espouse, which in all cases, is love. If anything, your response sounds prejudiced, close-minded and bigoted.
“nations that have adopted Judeo-Christian values have advanced to higher levels of civilization (two steps forward, one step back), while those that have retained other value systems cause great suffering to their people, esp. to women and children, who are always more vulnerable.”
Right, because the Scandinavian countries and east Asia are doing really poorly…
Report Post »I already told you I respect your right to believe what you want, so why do you insist on telling me what I should believe?
kryptonite
Posted on May 24, 2012 at 2:58am@ZENZAZIN
“Right, because the Scandinavian countries and east Asia are doing really poorly…”
—
Scandinavian countries had a Christian background. Then came secularization, they gave God the boot, and the Islamists and all the other -ists came flooding in. Too bad. The wave has finally reached us.
East Asia is doing really well?? I thought we were talking about not exploiting or harming others.
= “What matters is what the basic tenets espouse, which in all cases, is love. If anything, your response sounds prejudiced, close-minded and bigoted.”
Report Post »—
Yep, but Daniel Pearl would side with me, ya know. He used to be open-minded, a secular Jew like you, and an idiot. What’s the name of that other Jew who will suffer the same fate? Ah, yes, Warren Weinstein. So how does that work, according to your theory? Did all the bad people coincidentally move to the Muslim world and the commie countries or what? (CONT.)
kryptonite
Posted on May 24, 2012 at 3:25am@ZENZAZIN (CONT.)
“And how is that bad? I still do good deeds and feel happy.”
—-
And God wouldn’t love you any less if you didn’t.
You do hate religion, though, which you associate with God. It’s bad because you have never given God a chance, and you would be so out of place in hell.
—-
“Because Jews don’t believe that the messiah has come. i thought that was clear.”
—-
Well, not all Jews believe that. In fact, as we get closer to the next Holocaust, Jews will increasingly recognize Jesus as Messiah. By the very end of the Church age, it will all come full circle, with more Jews than gentiles accepting Jesus.
Once the Church (all true believers) is gone, persecution will be so horrific, two-thirds of Israel will perish. Israel is pretty much friendless already.
Report Post »—
= “so why do you insist on telling me what I should believe?”
—
It’s not a what; it’s a who. Why do I insist? Well, maybe there’s a stein way back in my family tree somewhere. I tend to be pushy about Jesus. shalom.
Metallicat
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:23pmthe gays smell an Obama defeat and are pushing the issue for Obama to make gay marriage legal on his way out the door.lets get back to real issues that can benefit all of our society and not just the lunatic fringe.gay marriage is of no benefit to our society or mankind.
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 2:21pm@METALLICAT
You are correct.
Anything to deflect attention from the real issues.
Report Post »BigAl78
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 9:52pmWell, it would benefit homosexuals. But I doubt you’re a big fan of them.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 3:26amBigal78 – Why would I care about them?
Report Post »welovetheUSA
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:20pmIt is fundamentally against human nature……..period.
Report Post »Zenzazin
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 6:39pmthe simple fact that it has been a part of human nature for millennia would suggest that you are wrong
Report Post »Lord_Frostwind
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 8:13pmAnd the relationship between the “normalization” of homosexuality and the downfall of a civilization is also an interesting coincidence for those who study history. Egypt, Rome, Greece, those civilizations had sexuality become utterly pervasive right before they crumbled before a new civilization, typically one of the barbarians.
We are witnessing what could easily be described as the suicide of our civilization, but people don’t seem to understand that.
What leftists and social thinkers can’t seem to wrap their heads around, once the family collapses, your society will follow rapidly (usually within a century or so). We have sentenced the family as a fundamental component of our society to death. And once that order, predicated as one of the fundamental pillars of any social life-form is gone, then it is time for that society to go extinct.
Report Post »Max jones
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 10:01pmThe attack on morality is all pervasive in our culture. To me it looks like a co-ordinated operation. I know youngsters who think nothing of breaking into cars for booty, or shoplifting, or stealing from employers.
Report Post »All our teenage children are sexually active, most with sanction. The american ‘church’ is the lukewarm laodicean version St.Paul,described. Our leaders are lying to us about a myriad of issues and our wealth has been stolen for the benefit of world governance.
Over 60,000,000(est.) unborn humans have been willfully murdered in the last 30 years, with sanction. Homosexuality and the controversy within our society as to its legitimacy, and morality, will turn out to be as skewed as all else we are, today.
What a person believes to be true, can’t change fact, won’t change any history, although that is exactly what is being attempted by the left, –rewriting history to make it appear to be an entirely different story. This is obviously satan’s agenda.
disenlightened
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 11:05pmZENZAZIN -
Report Post »“the simple fact that it has been a part of human nature for millennia would suggest that you are wrong”
…a part of human nature? Big overstatement. It’s been part of the behavior of a small percent of humans, no more.
Zenzazin
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 1:23pm@disenlightened – “…a part of human nature? Big overstatement. It’s been part of the behavior of a small percent of humans, no more.”
It is also present in 100s if not 1500 different animal species. How’s that nature argument standing up now?
Report Post »tarm778
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 1:54pmZenzain
Do some research of your own and study the de Molay experiment or the Wieland study. There is NO predilection for homosexual preference in other species. Some animals, chimps for instance, may mount another male but it was consistently either just a display of dominance or in reaction to nearby stimuli (e.g. a female chimp in heat that just happened to be nearby). In other words, the animal had no clue what it was doing.
You in the homosexual lobby keep using animals to support the notion that this behavior is normal and actual science keeps blowing it out the water.
Report Post »Zenzazin
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 3:23pm@tarm778 – “Do some research of your own and study the de Molay experiment or the Wieland study. There is NO predilection for homosexual preference in other species. Some animals, chimps for instance, may mount another male but it was consistently either just a display of dominance or in reaction to nearby stimuli (e.g. a female chimp in heat that just happened to be nearby). In other words, the animal had no clue what it was doing.”
So one simple example is enough to discredit all of the other scientific studies produced. It’s been a while since I was directly utilized the scientific method, but that doesn’t seem like enough to “blow an argument out of the water”. rather, it seems like you are referencing the one example that proves your point, while ignoring all the rest that refute it.
You in the homosexual lobby keep using animals to support the notion that this behavior is normal and actual science keeps blowing it out the water.
Report Post »tarm778
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 11:31pmI’ve already said this but once but mallards are known engage in necrophilia, and mothers in the animal kingdom frequently abandon their ‘weak’ children.
Report Post »Perhaps Nat Geo isn’t the best place to look for your sense of morality?
nomorpc4me
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:19pmThose that promote homsexuality and abortion as acceptible are usually liberals. These are also the same people that promote evolution. Does anyone see a conflict in the evolutionary theory here? What does homosexuality and abortion do to propagate the human species. They can argue that abortion and homosexuality are a way of culling our species’ population, but I would argue that it really is just un-natural and hedonistic. The really odd fact is that if liberals are left to promote homosexuality and abortion (in their communities), theorectically, they will eventually breed themselves out of existance. Then only Christian conservatives will be left. Just a thought.
Report Post »SovereignSoul
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:31pmIs it possible that we may be at a point where we do not need to increase the human population?
Report Post »inblack
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:37pmYou must mean the Christians that support contraceptives and have been eliminating themselves all over the world. As you noted, God created a world where sex and procreation are undeniably linked and yet man has separated them.
The unintended consequence of western man separating sex from pro-creation is his eventual extinction. I would guess contraceptives have done more to lower the birth rate than abortion has.
Report Post »disenlightened
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:43pmSOVEREIGNSOUL – NOMORPC4ME said nothing about “increasing” the human population. He used the word “propagate”. Use a dictionary, or quit trying to create straw men. This is an example why it’s so hard to argue with libs – you can’t concentrate or stay on topic.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 2:43pm@Disenlightened
“NOMORPC4ME said nothing about “increasing” the human population. He used the word “propagate”.”
Just an FYI, “propagate” can (and often does) mean “to increase.” From Merriam-Webster:
“1: to cause to continue or INCREASE by sexual or asexual reproduction”
Report Post »and
“1: to multiply sexually or asexually
2: increase, extend”
SovereignSoul
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 2:45pm@Disenlightened Just for you, I busted out the dictionary…
prop•a•gate verb (used with object) 1. to cause (an organism) to multiply by any process of natural reproduction from the parent stock.
mul•ti•plySpelled [muhl-tuh-plahy] Show IPA verb, mul•ti•plied, mul•ti•ply•ing.
verb (used with object)
1. to make many or manifold; increase the number, quantity, etc., of.
If propagate means that an organism multiplies and multiplies means to increase the number, logically speaking, the human population will increase. I think the history of human population growth will confirm that assumption.
Report Post »On the other hand, I don’t think my voting record will confirm your assumption that I am a liberal. You may however label me as a questioner of many things. I will own up to that accusation.
As for the Straw man fallacy, I do not believe I am talented enough to construct such a fallacious argument by simply asking one question.
disenlightened
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 4:03pm@LOCKED – it’s rarely used to refer to increase, and it’s clear from what he wrote he was not referring to increase.
Report Post »SovereignSoul
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 4:35pmApparently, it is perfectly fine to redefine the word propagate. Could you enlighten me as to the definition of propagate according to the Disenlightened Dictionary, please? (bad pun intended)
Report Post »disenlightened
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 6:02pmSOVEREIGNSOUL – propagate is usually used to refer to CONTINUE the species, not necessarily increasing the species. Words can have multiple meanings. When’s the last time you smoked a ***?
Report Post »SovereignSoul
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 6:51pmDisenlightened: “Words can have multiple meanings.” Are you admitting that a word like marriage might have different meanings for different people? I am glad to see you’re reigning in your judgmental attitude.
Report Post »disenlightened
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 11:15pmSOVEREIGNSOUL – the word marriage is different. It’s a legal term with a necessarily specific definition. Calling something else marriage doesn’t make it marriage.
Report Post »nomorpc4me
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 12:40pmAll, I think my thought is being (maybe intentionally) deflected by this definition debate. I just thought it was interesting that those that promote evolution also endorse a homosexual lifestyle and abortion which tends to contradicts the evolutionary theory of the propogation of the species. This could eventually render those that believe in evolution extinct. I just thought it was ironic.
In my view whether propogate means to spread, increase or continue is irrelevant. The species will not move forward in a community where homosexuality or abortion prevail.
Report Post »2SENSEWORTH
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:10pmSearching for the Truth wrote at 12:19pm, “Just out of curiosity – has anyone heard of ” anyone , ” dying of aids lately.”.
Since 1988 World Aids day is on December 1st. So there still must be people infected with aids.
According to UNAIDS estimates, there were 1.8 million aids-related deaths in 2010
Do we need a list of all 1.8 million or can we trust UNAIDS that there was at least “one” aids related death in 2010 whether any of us were aware of it or not..
Report Post »Texas Chris
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 2:00pmIf the UN wrote a report saying “the sky is blue today” I would go outside to double check.
Report Post »NarnianWarrior
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:03pmCome on now! It doesn’t take much to understand why we oppose Homosexuality. “LUKERW’ explained it well, by saying it is an Un-natural use of equipment. The Bible is clear on this topic, although there are so many wayward and liberal Christians, nowadays, that try to create their own spin to defend it. In an effort to pander to those radical elements, Pastors and Saints avoid the issue altogether. Homosexuality it a disgusting sexual behavior, because it lowers humans several notches in “evolutionary” scale, if one where to adhere to that theory. In fact, such behavior is bound to spiral to the lower depths on that evolutionary scale because it has nowhere else to go. For those of you who do espouse such theories, wouldn’t that be considered a backward trend in that process? A devolution of sort? Christians who try to endorse such behavior are superficial at best, both in their walk with God and the love they profess for indviduals caught that type of slavery. We try to excuse a sin to ease the guilt brought about by own sin, weakness and failure. All that is contrary to what the scriptures teach, but ofcourse how many Christians really read their Bibles, right? We spend more time on FaceBook, than we do on the Good Book. Don‘t try to justify your sin by being accepting of someone ele’s! You do no good to yourself or to ther other person caught in that trap.
Report Post »ScienceIsNotEvil
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:19pmSo when I used unnatural medicines to resolve my child’s ear infections I was sinning? What about when I have my 4 impacted wisdom teeth removed?
Report Post »Spyderco
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:39pm@scienceisnotevil
Its a very weak argument to try to use medicine to justify the choice of homosexuality. Those are two not related topics.
Report Post »“Science is the tree of death.” William Blake
disenlightened
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:51pmSCIENCEISNOTEVIL – “unnatural medicines”?…what a rube…just what “unnatural” ingredients go into these imaginary “unnatural” medicines”? Is there really a medicine out there made from ingredients not found in nature? You chose the wrong name.
Report Post »inblack
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 2:28pm@SCIENCE
I have to agree, you failed to make any coherent point.
But if we take a scientific look at this…
Gay behavior is sterile. Science recognizes that a sterile result is a dead end path in nature and a sign that nature has rejected that behavior or mutation.
So by science and nature gay behavior is wrong.
BTW it is logical that religion agrees with science and nature. God created nature, science is our study of God’s creation, therefore we should not see many conflicts should we.
Our biggest problem in science is when we think we are smarter than we are and end up doing things that are against God and his creation without knowing it. That is where God’s revealed truth is intended to help us avoid the unintended consequences of our brash actions.
So the next time you think science conflicts with God, I suggest you go back and review why they conflict and maybe realize you are not as smart as you think you are.
Report Post »Zenzazin
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 3:27pmspyderco – if homosexuality is a choice, at which point did you decided to push away your gay tendencies and choose to be straight?
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 4:21pmInBlack,
“So by science and nature gay behavior is wrong.”
Wow. That’s one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. You put 2 and 2 together and made 8! Science does not make value judgements and determine what is “wrong” and what is “right.” Certainly science makes no claims to determining what is socially good and socially bad. Your comment shows an absolute misunderstanding of what science is.
Of course, individuals in our society make a lot of decisions that are not directly related to survival and the passing on of genes. By your thinking, volunteering for the army and risking being killed before you can have children would be considered “wrong,” as would letting a person live and consume resources if they had no chance of reproducing. Your example is just plain ignorant.
Report Post »disenlightened
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 4:30pmZenzazin – do you know of some scientific proof that it’s impossible to stop homosexual behavior? It come from that same study that proved homosexuality is genetic.
Report Post »14ESCHATOLOGY
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 4:43pmPubliusPencilman…
I’ve read many of your post and cannot determine which to rip aapart so I will focus on this one quote
.”Wow. That’s one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. You put 2 and 2 together and made 8! Science does not make value judgements and determine what is “wrong” and what is “right.” Certainly science makes no claims to determining what is socially good and socially bad. Your comment shows an absolute misunderstanding of what science is.”
First: You continuously lean on the “SOCIAL” scinece aspect for which there is mostly conjecture and theories. You do realize that there is also a “BIOLOGICAL” science don’t you. Now consider just the biological science only and rip another one to “InBlack” proving him wrong. Or the whole science community….should be good. I’ll be waiting.
Second: You finished that last sentence with a preposition.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 5:28pmjhrusky
One author of a recent book is of the opinion that Puritans or Puritan Movement was in part a response too the prolifigacy of the age & the syphilis epidemic.
Wanting to avoid poor ways now that is just stupid, is it not Jhrusky?
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 8:18pm14Eschatology,
Sorry, but you really needed to read my post a bit more carefully. I was not talking about “social science” at all. I was explaining that in what you call “Biological Science” (which is no different from any other hard science) there is no such thing as something biologically “wrong” or biologically “right.” Those are value judgements that are a product of society.
InBlack’s point is completely silly because his premises are just plain goofy. First of all, in science, “nature” doesn’t “reject” anything. Nature is not an anthropomorphic being capable of accepting or rejecting things. But still, InBlack is confusing sterility (which is a biological inability to have children) with simply not procreating. I am sure that the vast majority of gays are perfectly fertile–they are just not engaging in procreative activities.
But, if we wanted to go by InBlack’s thinking, we would necessarily need to conclude that any kind of celibate behavior in humanity is “wrong”–so I suppose we should stop giving rights to the Catholic priesthood! Or to anyone actually born sterile for that matter!
And finally: “is” is a verb, not a preposition.
But please, feel free to take another shot at critiquing my argument. Just read more carefully first.
Report Post »inblack
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 9:03pm@PUBLIUSPENCILMAN – Whether you think it is stupid or not doesn’t matter.
Biologically gayness is a dead end. Until that changes, it is nature that makes that judgement not me. Science is the study of nature so by extension it recognizes the fact the biological dead ends are what they are.
Don’t get all excited that I used the word “wrong”. That is not a moral statement, it is a biological conclusion. By nature’s rules celibacy is also wrong.
Don’t set up a strawman. No one is talking about removing peoples rights. Gays are what they are and yes nature (and God) produces them. They are humans and deserve to be loved just like anyone else. Frankly if allowing gay marriage was not a threat to marriage, the budget and religious freedom, I’d be happy to have them call it what they want. If they are not hurting anyone why should we care?
The problem is govt. A govt that imposes it’s doctrine on people and religion.
Yes – don’t be coy. If the govt redefines marriage as a same sex union, churches we will be forced to perform gay marriages and support them with equal benefits.
Finally, you have no clue what the term marriage means. You seem to think that any two people who fall in love and pronounce that love to one another makes a marriage. Marriage is pair bonding for the purpose of creating and raising children, not some romantic party with white dresses.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 10:00pmAnd the whole idea that churches would be forced to conduct gay marriages is completely idiotic. Churches have always had freedom to not conduct marriages if they choose. Some will not marry people who have been divorced, others refuse to marry couples that are not both of the same faith. To my knowledge, no one has ever succeeded in suing a church for discrimination against Jews if that church has refused to marry a Christian-Jewish interfaith couple (and the same goes for synagogues). Churches can even refuse to marry interracial couples if they choose. There is absolutely no reason to expect any of this to be different for homosexual couples.
And sure, there may be a situation in which religious organizations need to provide benefits to same-sex spouses. If the organization is against interracial couples, it would still need to provide spousal benefits equally in that situation as well. The fact that workplaces can’t pick and choose approved spouses for their workers is not a matter of religious freedom.
At the same token, in the case of an abusive or adulterous heterosexual marriage, no one confuses spousal medical benefits for an “approval” of the nature of that marriage by the institution. Why should this be the case with gay marriage?
Anyway, since you say that marriage is “pair bonding for the purpose of creating and raising children,” I assume that you want to ban marriages for old people and sterile couples.
Report Post »Max jones
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 10:39pmINBLACK….well said a very very strong. Good for you.
Report Post »jhrusky
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 10:40pm@ walkabout
“One author of a recent book is of the opinion that Puritans or Puritan Movement was in part a response too the prolifigacy of the age & the syphilis epidemic.
Wanting to avoid poor ways now that is just stupid, is it not Jhrusky?”
One author of a recent book does not a factual reference make.
Report Post »Desiring it to in order to prove your point is just stupid, is it not walkabout?
Elena2010
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:59pmHomosexual/Bisexual/bestiality CONDUCT is Biblically forbidden because it destroys the individuals, family units, and community.
Look what is it doing to civil society today in America. Today, 2-3 percent of the total population identifies as homosexual, and yet, if you listened to the news, you’d think it was closer to 80 percent! Instead of applying ourselves to real problems, we are pending time and energy fighting abt what should be a non-issue.
On marriage – since the first man and woman joined to make family, marriage has been abt man and woman or women. There are a few tiny societies that have permitted women to have multiple men but they don’t call it marriage, per se.
Shall we now redefine blue as green to suit the tastes of 3 percent of the populace?
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:08pmElena2010
Well stated. What better way to destroy a nation? The exact goal of those on the left.
Report Post »Wayner
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:36pmForgive me for just rambling here…. but remember when Al Sharpton used the term “them Greek homos”? Of course with the NAACP’s recent endorsement of gay marriage, he wishes everybody would forget he said that. But back to the Greeks… Remember? They were once a great civilization. What are they now? According to my understanding, Alexander The Great’s army was loaded with “them homos”…. And after the Greeks? It was the Romans and their decadence…. Notice a pattern here?
Report Post »SovereignSoul
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:37pmIf, as you postulate, most homosexuals are evil liberals and they can’t procreate, wouldn’t it behoove you to encourage homosexual behavior thus lowering the liberal population which in turn would bring about your conservative utopia?
Report Post »disenlightened
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:56pmSOVEREIGNSOUL – nice try….but the damage they do to civilization is too great to overlook.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 2:22pm@SovereignSoul
Nope, because they recruit heavily. They are like a cancer. Once they start to grow, they grow rapidly.
Number one recruitment area for gays in behind bars. Check the latest HIV stats, and see the rate in which black males are getting infected. it is behind bars that most blacks are getting their intro to homosexuality. Check the stats ,and see how many gay males were molest as a child. Pretty alarming. Thus the reason gays will be looking to lower the age of consent, once they get the green light for gay marriage (no such animal). gays are all about raping young boys, it is part of the recruitment process.
Report Post »SovereignSoul
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 2:54pmAs a heterosexual male I have a hard time understanding how I could be ‘recruited’. Frankly, on a personal level the whole idea of homosexual relations seems disgusting to me. I, however, am disgusted by many things such as the smell of sauerkraut, tattoos and poor grammatical skills. And, I‘m sure my feelings don’t have much bearing on the opinions of others.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 4:32pmElena,
You complain about the news coverage obsessing with homosexuality… while posting on a story about homosexuality on a conservative website that tends to focus on social issues. You probably would hear very little about gays if you did not deliberately seek out stories about homosexuality.
Report Post »Elena2010
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 11:11pm@Publius — hard to miss the headline.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 12:53pmSovereignSoul
Report Post »Posted on May 21, 2012 at 2:54pm
As a heterosexual male I have a hard time understanding how I could be ‘recruited’. Frankly, on a personal level the whole idea of homosexual relations seems disgusting to me. I, however, am disgusted by many things such as the smell of sauerkraut, tattoos and poor grammatical skills. And, I‘m sure my feelings don’t have much bearing on the opinions of others.
____________________
YOu can’t be recruited, Ranger Dan is just a bible weilding bigot.
Eric_The_Red_State
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:57pmI believe that some people are just destined to be gay.
Report Post »Elton John – Barney Frank – Micheal Jackson – to name a few….
Fine – LET them be gay. But DO NOT make it “OK”. Because if you do that – then you might as well make it OK to have incest – child sex – multiple partners – animal sex – legal prostitution – and pretty much everything else you can think of.
Spyderco
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:09pmThe only part I disagree with is that people are born gay. Its a choice. They are not having good luck with the opposite sex so they turn to the same sex.
Report Post »Tracker3
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:30pmHow very true. The first time we say “that’s ok”, it might be a little difficult, but the more we say it the easier it gets. At times it’s quite ok not to tolerate.
Report Post »inblack
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:30pmSexual attraction is a continuum. Some people are crazy over the opposite sex, some are attracted very little and some people are attracted to the same sex. I think attraction is partially natural and partially environmental.
But you have to separate attraction from relations. In a traditional human society, many people not particularly attracted to the opposite sex will get married and have kids, because it is the thing to do. Conversely in a society that praises gay people as brave or artistic, more people “on the fence” will move to openly gay behavior. Therefore you have to recognize that supporting gay behavior will influence individuals into gay relationships.
Nature has tied pro-creation to sex and therefore the underlying truth of sex being primarily for the purpose of having children is written into nature. This is a revealed truth.
I’m not suggesting that we treat gay people unfairly, but I am suggesting that promoting gay behavior is wrong.
Report Post »disenlightened
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:32pmIf people were born gay, Barney Frank’s anus would be self-lubricating.
Report Post »Texas Chris
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 2:01pmERIC_THE
You left out Rick Santorum…
Report Post »Copo
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 3:54pmNo one is destined to be gay. Environmental factors can affect it as it is a preferential choice and therefore largely subconscious, but no one is destined.
Report Post »jhrusky
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 5:03pmWow… intelligence certainly seems to be on a downward spiral here any time sexual preference is spoken of. One would think we’re listening to puritans from the 17th century!
Being gay is not in the least to be compared to incest, bestiality, child sex or any other such crime. Being gay is about sexual attraction to the same sex person. Incest, bestiality and child sex is about forcing sex upon another being without consent. There is a huge difference.
@ spyderco
“The only part I disagree with is that people are born gay. Its a choice. They are not having good luck with the opposite sex so they turn to the same sex.”
Where in the heck did you come up with that one? Do you just make them up as you go?
Report Post »jhrusky
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 5:06pm@ copo
It‘s interesting how people of your ilk can constantly talk about how it’s proven that no one is born gay, yet you cannot cite a single reference providing any evidence toward your made-up hypothesis.
Report Post »Lord_Frostwind
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 8:21pm@jhrusky:
Actually, modern intelligentsia is attempting to apply the same argument to Pedophilia and Bestiality. Numerous studies are now being spun about how people “cannot control their attractions to children or animals” respectively, and that we should decriminalize such activities.
Was it not just a few decades ago THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT was made about homosexuality. If society had memory longer than that of a goldfish they might remember these things. So forgive me for a seeing a pattern where there is one.
People keep saying the “slippery slope” argument is something only foolhardy religious zealots believe, but they seem to be more than happy to fulfill that argument in its entirety.
Report Post »mecmelton
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 9:01pmUm @JHRusky Prolly should read this one.
http://www.narth.com/docs/niconew.html
The Meaning of Same-Sex Attraction
single “very convincing” reference (among many) from one(among many)well studied therapist.
Report Post »BigAl78
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 10:04pm@Spyderco
Report Post »No, that is not at all how it works. People can “choose” their sexuality about as much as they can “choose” their height. Sexuality is linked to genetics and physiology. Tell me, when did you “choose” to be heterosexual?
jhrusky
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 10:52pm@ mecmelton
I will read your link to see if I might learn something.
The point that keeps coming up that appears to be overlooked by those “Christians” who are so quick to condemn is this…
If homosexuality is a choice, why would those people choose to endure such discrimination, hatred and loathing by the “christians” who constantly condemn them? The farther we go back in time, the more “danger” there was for the poor unfortunate person who ‘chose’ to be a homosexual. This makes no sense whatsoever unless you can make a point that those people were so twisted they wanted to be caught and then ridiculed, scorned and even tortured and killed.
Certainly there is some people who are conditioned to be gay. However, it makes perfect sense as well that many do not choose that lifestyle, but are simply ‘wired that way’ by no fault of their own.
To the person that mentioned some people are trying to make the same case about pedophiles, it’s hard to make a comparison when consent cannot be given. Trying to equate homesexuality with pedophilia or bestiality is a red herring.
Report Post »disenlightened
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 11:11pmJHRUSKY – “If homosexuality is a choice, why would those people choose to endure such discrimination, hatred and loathing by the “christians” who constantly condemn them?”
Why do people become drug addicts? Why do people join the Marines? Why do Jews remain faithful to their religion after what they’ve been through? Why did Joan of Ark burn at the stake? People do a lot of things that can and do put them at harm and cause them pain. And they don’t do them because they were born that way.
Report Post »jhrusky
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 11:34am@ disenlightened
I don’t think you can compare drug addicts and such with homosexuality. Sexual urges are powerful feelings. I guess I just don‘t fathom how someone can learn to be ’turned on’ by something. Of course, if there is proof of such, I still would love to see it. No one seems to be able to show it yet. And, if you are be “taught” to be turned on by the same sex, then being a leg man, or a breast man, or butt man, or ______ (FITB) man would also be learned traits.
Development during early childhood stages certainly can shape a person’s behavior, but it does not appear to be the end-all. There seem to be children born with specific likes/dislikes/attitudes that are not learned. The human brain is even less explored than the depths of our ocean yet so many proclaim they know how everything in it works and how a homosexual must be made because they could not be wired that way. I think it’s time for many to admit they simply do not know and, therefore, will not condemn the person because of that.
Report Post »tarm778
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 2:09pmHusky the Fat Boy,
Just the FACT that there are ex gays and lesbians that have come out of the homosexual lifestyle and are living in monogamous heterosexual relationships proves that people are not born that way and that is is not an immutable characteristic.
Report Post »jhrusky
Posted on May 23, 2012 at 9:57am@ tarm778
So, because someone changed a preference is proof?
Report Post »I certainly hope your profession is not in physics, mathematics or science.
neiman1
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:53pmThe Bible describes all sins the same. There is not worse sin or better sin and yet ‘people’ consider some worse than others. Usually those people consider their sins lesser than those of others.
Man has made laws against murder or molesting a child. God set them as equal to other sins. Hiding behind the Bible to denigrate one group as being a lesser deserving group is the next sin of not casting judgement.
People have a history of finding fault with others to justify their own feeling of superiority. Many look at skin color to define themselves as better than others. In Ireland their weren’t enough dark people so they fought over which church you attended. In both cases many considered murder as justified (think jihad) to fight for their dominance over others.
Are Christians campaigning against homosexuals doing the same?
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:59pmSome sins bring on a much stronger punishment.
Some sins do much more damage to the sinner. Homosexuality is one of those sins. It destroys the family, and destroys the nation.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:02pmNeiman
“And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;”
take not of the reprobate mind portion of the verse. That means people who have gone this route have so seared their own minds with evil, that God no longer speaks to them. They are without hope.
Report Post »Metallicat
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:04pmyou contend that because there were no dark skinned people in Ireland,they needed something to fight over so picked religion instead? you are a genius in your own mind. see my man to the left for your prize.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:05pmtake notice of world history. Every superpower nations that has evolved to the point of accepting homosexuality has soon after crumbled.
In America, gays make up less than five percent of the total population. According to the center for disease control, they carry 64% of the syphilis, made up 70% of new AIDS cases last year, they have the highest suicide rates, and their drug and alcohol rates are twice that of heterosexuals.
According to the FBI crime stats, gays commit a third of all child molestations.
Report Post »Spyderco
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:05pmNo they are not. Right is right and wrong is wrong. It does not matter what I or anyone else believes, its still wrong in His eyes.
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:07pmThe Bible does describe sins and the Bible also describes those that are an abomination to God. In my intrepretation an abomination is higher than just a sin. He perceives men with men and woman with woman as abomination. Therefore, our beef isn’t with gay people, our beef is their lifestyle and conducting sexual acts with each other. Something you leftist Liberal Progressive Democrat Marxist Socialist Communist deem as “hate”. I don’t hate gays, I just hate their lifestyle, it is not normal. Everything goes against natural laws.
Report Post »P8riot
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:16pmI agree that all sins are equally capable of disqualifying one from returning to the presence of our Father in Heaven – thus the need for the purifying effects of the atonement of Christ and why none of us can return to the Father except through Christ (since we all sin).
However, it is irrefutable that some sins are more harmful to the person and society as a whole than others. Becoming angry when someone cuts you off on the freeway impacts society quite less than deciding to run into and pummel that same person. Agree?
Thus, our society has made it clear that we (Christians and non-Christians alike) have historically rejected the idea of the state endorsing gay marriage. Some oppose it for moral reasons and others on other reasons. The fact of the matter is however, that our society has chosen to protect traditional marriage in the interests of society.
I object to homosexuality on moral grounds. I object to gay marriage on moral grounds as well on the belief that the traditional family is the anchor to our society.
That being said – I agree with Albert Mohler that we as Christians should treat homosexuals with equal love and respect as any other individual – even though we do not support their sins. As the bumper-sticker says – “Don’t judge me because I sin differently than you.” :)
Report Post »inblack
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:16pm@NEIMAN1
“The Bible describes all sins the same. There is not worse sin or better sin.”
This is false logic. It is a non sequitur. Of course killing someone is worse that calling them a pig.
Your premise is not even accurate since the term abomination is clearly intended to indicate a more sever regression and there are many statements of consequences in the bible which are different.
Report Post »SLOWBIDEN
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 12:41pm@Neiman- not all sins are the same. If I steel a pack of gum is that the same as raping someone. Also if all the sins are the same than why is their only one unforgivable sin?
Report Post »burnbabylon
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:48pmThere are scientific reasons to be against hedonism. The gaytheists* would rather change the subject to something from the bible that they can idiotically misinterpret. It’s like drunk drivers claiming a right to drive on the sidewalk because some people have scratches on their paint job.
They hate God because He’s right.
* I use that term because they let their lusts override their alleged belief in science. Would you prefer fagnostic? (Say it slow.)
Report Post »mecmelton
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 9:14pmIt is an abominable sin because it is the same class as rebellion/witchcraft both are as far from God as can be. Rebellion is the original sin, the one that caused the lightening fall from heaven of lucifer. Homosexuallity is abominable because it is choosing to be in a constant lifestyle of sin that is going directly opposed to the original intent of the heart and body which God formed for us. Those in sin despise when you explain how vile of a sin it actually is to a perfect loving God which is perfect in His love and His Judgement. When they cannot justify sin they lash out calling it ‘hate’ because they have no alternative by rational means. God still loves them and wants to heal and make them whole.
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:43pmAll I can say is, it’s refreshing to finally hear the end of this controversy!
Now we can get on with our lives, and we will not need to be so afraid all the time!
Thanks Reverend Mohler!
TEA
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:57pmmarriage
MAR’RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.
Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Heb.13.
1. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.
The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage for his son. Matt.22.
2. In a scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace. Rev.19.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:05pmThe problem for you MOREACNE is that one of your other online personas “ENCINOM” believes there‘s no where in the old or new testatments that support Mohler’s position. So you’re disagreeing with yourself now? Idiot…
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:21pmAvenJoKer _((Big Hug))_
Now that our Reverend has explained the confusion some of us had; I think we can just put this American LGBT thing to rest for a while, do you think, or don’t you think? LOL
BTW you seem obsessively drawn to these vile, sinful but titillating mano a mano naughty topics.
What is the “root” cause of your puerile hate for pansies, platy-pal? Does the topic hit one of your flaccid “nerves?” Just sayin!
How come you don’t have a female friend? Sally forth, Nancy? LOL
Have a TEA day, welcome back to work.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 3:05pm@Avengerk
I think MONICNE is hitting on you.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 3:46pmRANGERP….as a liberal elitist MOREACNE/SLEAZY HIPPO/ENCIDIOT doesn’t like being bettered by people he/she believes are beneath him/her. That’s not the way her/his keepers taught her/him it was. It all started to fall apart for MOREACNE when he/she forgot she/he was posting as “SLEAZY HIPPO” and put his/her compulsive “TEA” tagline (caps and all) at the end of that online persona’s post. Ever since then the creep has been obsessing over me and baiting me constantly…to the extent of taking previous day‘s baits and reposting them hoping that I’ll bite that next day. He/She monitors my log ins also. Try this for yourself and see what happens…whenever you see “MONICNE/SLEAZY HIPPO/ENCINOM” post something here at the Blaze..just ask “them” (actually it’s the same creepy lefty) why he/she needs so many screennames for him/herself. I refer to MOREACNE as both sexes because the idiot posts as both male and female personalities. The irony of which is not lost on me in light of the bait about “LGBT” which the cretin has been using of late. She/he seems to have a lot of “gender” confusion about him/herself and then tries to project it onto others. Try it…it’s fun to watch the lefty cur deflect, run and hide.
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 3:59pmPlease don’t be jealous! No one is trying to pry the mischievous AvenJoKer away from his manly trolling mission to watch the earth burn! We know he cannot take even a dribble of his own medicine! Not able to take it on the chin anyway! LOL
TEA – Pay that Debt, and make it Fast
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 4:09pmJust a muse to the room: ever notice that some folks are not “man enough” (so to speak), to refer directly to a woman they are afraid of, even though they go around baiting the women (and very few men) they think they can successfully bully? Isn’t that a q ueer thing to see?
It is just especially comical to hear “third party” insults from the “Q ueen of Cut & Paste” as it tries to educate us Yanks. It is almost like a watching a fictional Parasiti-Pus waddling Matilda just for me!
LOL
All you Rangers fans — Have a great day – and TEA for New Jersey
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 4:10pmForgot to mention RANGERP…if you scroll up to the top of the board you can see MOREACNE make sure his/her post is frontrow center to get my attention. The creep both as a female and male (depending which screenname he/she’s using at any given time) is obsessed with getting attention from me. I‘ve got under the elitist creep’s skin and it’s eating the idiot up.
Report Post »Here’s another experiment to try with MOREACNE/SLEAZY HIPPO/ENCIDIOT..ask anyone of the idiot‘s persona’s what SOLE policy Obama implemented that led to the finding and killing of OBL.
This is what I’ve managed to squeeze out of the cur so far…
Some lefty rote about “Cheney” policies.
Some really wild and disjointed crap about Obama “having faith in the courts”.
A direction to the propaganda film the Obama campaign commissioned where MORACNE even tried to say Obama trained the pilots on the mission. (I’m waiting for the blu-ray of that one because none of what MOREACNE said was in the current version).
And the latest one is some screeching about “ISR” and trying to sell the notion that we only knew about the courier that led us to OBL during the years Obama’s been in office.
I’m serious..try it…watch MOREACNE dance.
rangerp
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 4:49pmMONICNE
A genuine poet you are. thank for your service. We should tell you that more often. Your posts bring out the best in many.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 5:08pmMore groupthink MORACNE? You constantly try to incite the “room” in typcal lefty fashion. I’ve yet to see you succeed but hey…keep doing the same thing..it’s got to have a different result sometime right?
Report Post »Perhaps if you do what you did further up on this board and log in later as “ENCINOM” (one of your many other log in names) you can incite “him” to pick up a pitchfork and torch with you? Oh..wait..that’s too antiquated for such an “enlightened” liberal elitist like you…how about you “two” can get all “OWS” with it?
MONICNE
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 2:04amOh, no Rangerp, Thank YOU!
I got my 3rd honorable in 1981 and made a life on the outside. That was when serving the country wasn’t cool like today, LOL. You deserve all the credit for flying your desk and popping pain pills like the faithful lifer your family counts on to provide dependent bennies and divorce pensions. Thank you for sticking it out long past the time you were useful as a warrior. That takes persistence. (HUG)
Thanks so much, lieutenant, everyone should really honor you much much more than they do, didums!
TEA
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:40pmSure sure sure. He is certainly entitled to his beliefs. Certainly no one should ever force him to be a homosexual.
But please tell me why American Christians feel they have to use use civil law to prevent marriage. Now, if you are a Buddhist or a Hindu or even a Jew or a Christian that interprets the Bible differently, why should their right to be marriage in their faith be abridged because of how some read scripture? Now, this is a clear violation of religious freedom, as well as restricting the freedoms of those who are not a part of any organized faith.
If you don’t like shrimp, don’t eat shrimp. You wouldn’t go out and lobby to ban shrimp.
If you don’t like homosexuality, don’t be a homosexual. It’s as simple as that.
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:52pmWhy would a society want to set immorality into law ?
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:55pmBeginning your post with “sure sure sure” pretty much guaranted it was unreadable PENCILNECK. Thanks for playing anyway.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:56pm@Pencil Man
“But please tell me why American Christians feel they have to use civil law to prevent marriage”
We do not want to prevent marriage. We are all for marriage, and are for people staying married, once they do get married. Marriage is Biblical and ordained by God.
Check out old Webster’s definition of marriage – The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.
What we Christians are not for, is changing the definition of a word, to appease a sick and warped minority. marriage is between a man and woman. It would be like you telling us that you want to mix oxygen with oxygen, and come up with water. Sorry, it takes Oxygen and Hydrogen to make water. Play all the word games you want, you will never make water by leaving out one of the main ingredients.
A union between a man and a man is a sick and sinful relationship that leads to nothing good.
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:58pmWhen I was in the Military… I saw a Gay Sergeant, in a TuTu, dancing and cavorting with a West Point Officer. The next day… they led a Unit into a Trap. It follows… if you cannot reason the purpose of Sex & Sexes… then your Reasoning Ability may be Faulty… and that Fault can get others Killed.
Report Post »inblack
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:03pm@PUBLIUSPENCILMAN
While I agree that religion should not play any part in politics, I think preventing groups from self assigning themselves new benefits is a worthy cause.
If we allow gays to declare themselves married and start reaping SS benefits and medicare benefits, we have a new cost to absorb.
Why should we give benefits to married people in the 1st place? Good questions, unfortunately it was put in place years ago to off set the high cost of raising the next generation. While those benefits are still in place, I can’t see handing them out to sterile gay couples.
Thus the need to define what is considered married and not married.
I could easily declare myself handicap, elderly or married to a friend to reap benefits, but we try to discourage that behavior. Of course the other option would be to eliminate all special benefits for marriage, but that will just play into the leftist goal of killing off western society though depopulation.
Report Post »1Dave
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:10pmNo, it is not as simple as that. Sexually abused children may grow up to be confused people that join OR hate and try to destroy their abusers. Homosexuality arises time after time and always ends up being rejected by viable societies.
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:18pmLuker tell me how two men procreate naturally through sex. Tell me how two women create a baby naturally through sex? Marriage since day one of this world has been between one man – one woman ordained by God. It is man who has twisted to suit his purpose.
If gays want the same rights as married couples as they say they do, then petition the IRS to recognize gay partners living together under civil unions. Don’t change the definition of marriage to suit a minority.
Report Post »HuskerDave
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:36pmYou’re really missing the point, or intentionally obfuscating it. Many people do this.
To oppose gay marriage is not the same as being anti-gay. Marriage has a specific meaning, and has historically-specific purposes.
I oppose gay marriage for the same reason I oppose the marriage of first cousins, polygamy, and incestuous marriage. They fly in teh face of the purpose, intent, and definition of marriage.
I have no problem with homosexuality, however. I am the parent of a gay son and bisexual daughter. It shouldn’t be necessary to give such bonafides, but unfortunately many gays suggest that heterosexuals can’t have a dissenting opinion on these issues.
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:43pm@COFEMALE
Report Post »Your comment seems to be misdirected!
SovereignSoul
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 2:27pmLanguage, all language is fluid. Words and meanings change over time. Pejoration is the process by which a word’s meaning degenerates, coming to represent something less favorable than it originally did. The word gaudy, which used to mean ‘joy’, would be one example because the word has now come to represent tasteless or ostentatious ornamentation. Other examples of pejoration would be words like awful, which at one time meant awe inspiring and artificial which once meant ‘of great artistic value’. Amelioration is the process by which a word’s meaning improves and comes to signify a more favorable connotation. An example of amelioration would be the word ‘nice’ which at one time was synonymous with stupid or ignorant. Other examples would be girl, which was once used to identify a child of either gender and sophisticated which meant unnatural or contaminated as opposed to its current meaning of urbane or discriminating.
Report Post »To argue against same-sex marriage on the basis that it will change the meaning of a word is not valid. I don’t agree or disagree with your opinion, but to convince me or anyone of your argument you’ll need to use more compelling information and arguing points.
rangerp
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 3:24pmHuskerDave
do the rest of us a favor, and do not raise any more kids. You are not doing real well at it.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 5:04pmAvengerK,
I am sorry that you had trouble reading my post past the first few words. I strongly recommend you take a basic reading comprehension course ASAP. Literacy will change your life!
Ranger,
Yes, but you are talking about a specific understanding of marriage that not everyone outside of Christian conservatism subscribes to. If marriage is Biblical and ordained by God, how is it that Hindus, Buddhists and people of any other kind of faith can get married? Preventing them from getting married would be considered a violation of their right to free exercise, even if they are not being married under the Judeo-Christian God. So clearly “marriage” already has a wider definition than the biblical context.
Now, if Buddhists call what they do “praying,” does that threaten the traditional Christian understanding of prayer? Even if you think it does, you wouldn’t be able to have the government ban Buddhist prayer.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 5:15pmNo PENCILNECK…I didn’t have trouble reading your scribblings. I said that after “sure sure sure” it pretty determined the unreadability of your post. And sure enough…it was a garbled mess of lefty talking points and idiocies…making it unreadable. Thanks again for playing.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 8:22pmIt’s OK AvengerK. You don’t have to cover for your poor reading skills. Seek out help!
Report Post »gooeylewie
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:39pmI guess this guy will also make the case that murder and theft are fine as well yes?
the bible also says we shouldn’t do those things either, so for consistency sake…
Report Post »pilgrim249
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:37pmMohler is embracing the vocabulary of hell when he uses the words “homophobe” and “gay”.
After 6 thousand years of recorded human history, does the word pervert no longer exist?
If you concede the language to your opponent, you have already lost half the battle.
Report Post »mecmelton
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 9:26pmbout time someone hit that one. We need to take the language back. If you can change the meaning of a word in popular culture and still maintain the underlying denotation with the newer connotation in the forefront the populace will follow your doctrines unknowingly without objection. Use the correct words when describing mental and moral deficiencies as harsh as they may be and you will elevate society. I.E. Sin,
Report Post »The_Jerk
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:30pmOpposition to homosexuality is not a religious argument. Homosexuality is a physical aberration in development of the human organism. Zoosexuality is the same, as are the many other aberrant developmental patterns of attraction and behavior.
Homosexuality, like zoosexuality, has no benefit to society as a whole. It is not a successful survival strategy, and can be argued as being deleterious to survival. In this respect, it (both/all) are different from the unique heterosexual strategy devised by nature. Therefore, the state has the obligation to protect the heterosexual relationship, for strategic purposes, and not all of the other, many, aberrant relationships that exist.
The others are not evil. They just do not deserve state sanctioning, protection, and promoting.
Report Post »mils
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:44pmWHY CHRISTIANS OPPOSE HOMOSEXUALITY…that was the statement..
Report Post »It doesn’t matter what laws of man are written/enforced..
If IF..you are a Christian, the bible speaks against man with man etc…it speaks against homosexuality. IF you are a Christian, you do not pick and choose what you are going to adhere to in the bible…Christians , black or white, democrat or republican…cannot rewrite this book to suit their need, wants, political views…and ‘THE TIMES, THEY ARE A CHANGIN”..is NOT an excuse .
Otherwise, go find another religion..
there are no excuses, period. Either you are in and a christian that follows the writings of the bible, or you are out…NO EXPLANATIONS NEEDED…
I find it disconcerting..but predictible, that the NAACP now says gay unions are a civil right, and that blacks need to get with this and support Obama.
… The fabric of our nation is being tattered.
inblack
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:51pmThere are many reasons against homosexuality.
You name but one, which is a reflection in nature of what is explained in religion.
Another is that the declining populations in western society reflect a denial of biological fact. Sex is tied to pro-creation in nature for a reason. When man separates pro-creation from sex, he defeats nature and brings his own extinction. This is what happens with promoting gay behavior and this is what has happened with abortion and contraceptives.
Western society is reaping the unintended consequences of disregarding God’s law which is reflected throughout nature.
Report Post »MrSunshine
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:51pmMILS, Very well said! I think you hit the nail on the head.
Report Post »The_Jerk
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:54pmMy point is that they, the left, want to make homosexuality appear to be a religious argument. This allows them to call the religious, ‘bigots.’ When in fact, homosexuality, and opposition to it, can be explained in secular terms.
There is no need to introduce one’s beliefs. Nature makes homosexuality one of its many failed experiments. And, the state should not be in a position of sanctioning, protecting, and promoting failure.
Report Post »VinnieCCT
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:18pmGood point.
I can see the future being like “Logan’s Run“ where there will be no such thing as ”Mother“ or ”Father”. All procreation will be state controlled. Gay marriage is just the very beginning, but a necessary catalyst towards that kind of control.
Report Post »SovereignSoul
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:29pmOn the other hand, nature has a way of self-correcting. As the Earth’s human population reaches critical mass, Mother Nature will find ways to reduce the stress that mankind puts on her resources. Disease, famine and competition for limited resources will all contribute to a lowering of the human population. As the size of the human herd increases the number of non-reproducing, homosexual men and women increases. This could be viewed as one more natural form of population control. It seems marriage between two non-reproducing humans is a better alternative than one man fathering thirty children by eleven different women, to say the least.
Report Post »inblack
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:49pm@SOVEREIGNSOUL
What the heck are you babbling about Mother Nature? Is this what passes for logic in your mind?
I’m wondering where you picked up this religion?
Is Mother Nature a spirit being? Try going into public and explaining that the reason that black teens kill each other at 10 times the national average rate is that they are just too populous and Mother Nature has made them violent to control their population.
Report Post »disenlightened
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 2:02pmSOVEREIGNSOUL – Mother Nature won’t DO anything. Your little Mother Nature can’t intentionally cause “disease, famine and competition for limited resources” because she doesn’t exist……..except in your mind.
Report Post »SovereignSoul
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 3:01pmI apologize for using the idiom ‘Mother Nature’. I didn’t realize it would confuse you and cause so much consternation. What I can’t understand is why people that seem to have all the answers get so angry when questions are asked.
Report Post »disenlightened
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 4:10pmSOVEREIGNSOUL – why don’t you spend a little time explaining what you mean by Mother Nature? Are you referring to God? How about chance? How about man himself? Is she a supernatural spirit like the Native Americans believed? Tell us about your friend.
Report Post »SovereignSoul
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 7:55pm@Disenlightened: Alright, if I must explain it for you I’ll give it a shot. The term “Mother Nature” or “Mother Earth” serves as a kind of umbrella term encompassing political and cultural ideologies that have to do with our environment. Throughout history it is not uncommon for man to refer to the Earth using a female personification. Many texts, including the Bible do so, as shown below.
And now thou art cursed from the Earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand. Genesis 4:11
When thou tillest the ground, it shall not yield unto thee her strength… Genesis 4:12
And the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up…Numbers 16:32
Which shaketh the Earth out of her place, and the pillars therefore tremble Job 9:6
For the Earth bringeth forth her bud… Isaiah 61:11
Mother Nature, God, Earth, the environment, whichever term you choose to use has a way of balancing his, her or its own ecological systems including predator populations, prey populations and vegetation.
Report Post »Before I digress too far let me conclude by saying that the term Mother Nature is a common personification of the Earth that focuses on its life-giving and nurturing aspects. It is a fairly simple concept.
mecmelton
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 9:34pm@MILS
Report Post »can you start a radio show? Make that big and bold flashing letters. YOU CANT CHANGE THE BOOK, LET THE BOOK CHANGE YOU. That is truth that needs to be shouted from the highest hills, You will either fall on the Bible as your help or the Bible will fall on you as your destruction. One Jot or Tittle will not pass away (cough cough NIV). I could continue but MILS you are so right, that is the foundation of this country/society and it needs to return to it.
disenlightened
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 10:47pmSOVEREIGNSOUL – and that’s what I thought you meant by the term. And yes, it’s a very simple
Report Post »concept. But, what you’re describing is some form of intelligent direction, a guiding force, that dirt, air and water aren’t capable of providing. The Earth can’t act with intent. The Earth willfully does nothing. Your Bible verses are just examples of anthropomorphism that was common in ancient times. Aren’t you really describing……………God?
disenlightened
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 6:59amSOVEREIGNSOUL – I responded to this with a thoughtful paragraph that had no foul language and even a reference to God, but the Blaze staff, in a seemingly random fashion, never posted it. I also noted several comments of mine and others removed on this page for whatever reason. I can’t figure these guys out, but it’s getting old.
Report Post »tarm778
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 2:19pmThere are many good and valid reasons to vote against same sex marriage – natural order, public morality, law and behavior theory, child development, preserving American tradition, preventing the collapse of western civilization, parental instincts, protecting the true meaning of marriage, among others.
Report Post »Robert Hawk
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:29pmWrong again. The laws were set in place by our Father and they are fully in effect today, Christ indicated they would remain in effect and not one jot or tittle would in no wise pass from the law till all the prophecies were complete.
Report Post »The laws in Leviticus concerning food consumption were established by the creator in order to assure good health. I personally follow those laws to the best of my ability and don’t ingest items which are not healthy. Further, the idea of cloth was brought up. So why not mix wool and cotton? What happens to fabric when you do that? The law does not forbid wearing different types of fabric it discusses mixing threads together to form a mixed fabric.
Homosexuality is viewed by our Father as perversion of the worst sort, its the very reason he destroyed Sodom. We are supposed to be holy and command our vessels. Its impossible to be holy and take part in sexual acts which are perverse and against our Fathers law. What is the outcome of such perversion? Does it or can it produce children? The common sense answer is NO! It’s simply an act of sexual perversion. This man speaking for the Baptist convention needs to get another job if he is not willing to stand up for our Fathers law. Read Romans chapter 1 if you want to read today’s newspaper on this very subject. Our Father hates sexual perversion and will not tolerate it.
Chuck Anziulewicz
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:28pmConsider The Golden Rule: We do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This is what our laws boil down to. We don’t lie or bear false witness because we won’t want people to lie to us. We don’t steal from other people because we do not want people stealing from us. We don’t betray the trust of our spouses because we wouldn’t want them doing the same to us. Same goes for killing and a variety of other bad behaviors.
And yet somehow there seems to be this sheepish adherence to a double standard for Gay and Straight people. If you’re Straight, it’s all so wonderful to be able to find a compatible person of the opposite sex, court and get engaged and marry and live happily ever after. But if you’re Gay, all of that is completely out of the question. Don’t even bother trying to find a compatible person. Lesbians and Gay men are precluded from any hope for romance or commitment. Gay people are simply told: “Gosh, sorry about that. You make us uncomfortable; acknowledging your existence means we might have to revise what we’ve been teaching all these years – meaning, Whoops! No infallible Magisterium or “literal” Bible … so you’ll just have to sacrifice your life and any hope of finding somebody to love. Tough luck, kid. God said it, I don’t necessarily understand it, but there it is.”
I wish more social conservatives and Catholics would at least TRY to wrap their minds around why this makes so little sense to Gay people.
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:38pmThis is supposed to pass as a reasoned argument Chuckie?
Report Post »Duey2000
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:52pmBy your logic though, people who support polygamy, under age marriage, or even bestiality should be given the same rights. Each of these are widely frowned upon in the majority of society (Christian or not).
But as most people who don’t understand Christians, you jump the gun and say that we are hateful, homophobic, hypocrits. The Bible teaches us not to condone sin. So while we can love others as we would want to be loved, we don’t have to support their life style. Haven‘t you ever had a relative that did things that you didn’t agree with or that you knew were unhealthy for them or even illegal? Smoking, drunk driving, drug use, adultery, etc? Did you say that they should get the death sentence for it? No, of course not. You loved them and wished to yourself that they would choose a healthier lifestyle. For us it is the same thing on the scale of God’s law. We can love our fellow man, but when you ask us to stand up or to vote to make your sin okay, we cannot do that because it makes it okay.
Report Post »djsGA
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:03pmI find it interesting that people pick and choose what they want to reference and live by from the Bible. One minute people are referring to what is called the Golden Rule (Do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 7:12 (NIV)). People take what they want – Do to others what you would have them do to you – and completely ignore the rest of the passage – for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. In other words, the “Golden Rule” does not say to overlook the sin, but to live by God‘s Law and God’s Law clearly states that homosexuality is a sin.
1CO 6:9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Did you read the part about the sexually immoral, the idolaters (idol worshipers), and adulterers? God does not hate the sinner, and neither should we. It is the sin that we should hate.
Report Post »disenlightened
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:21pmCHUCK ANZIULEWICZ – your whole argument there is based on your belief that homosexuality is genetic and a predetermined trait. It’s not, and you can’t point to one single piece of scientific evidence that shows it is…not one. Just your feelings. Based on this, you have no standing to to ask to be treated equally with regard to marriage. There are more people in this country having sexual relations with inanimate objects than there are those having sex with a same sex partner………should these people demand the right to marry their sex toys?
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 5:04pmDisenlightened,
What part of “two consenting adults” do you not understand?
Report Post »disenlightened
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 6:32pmPUBLIUSPENCILMAN – two men can do whatever the h*ll they want to each other, I don’t care. Just don’t demand to be treated as equal in all ways to a heterosexual relationship. If Fred gets sexually aroused by a pair of red pumps, he shouldn’t necessarily be allowed to marry them. “Two consenting adults” has nothing to do with marriage, which is what the topic anyway.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 12:16pm““Two consenting adults” has nothing to do with marriage, which is what the topic anyway.”
Ummm… a marriage can ONLY be performed between two consenting adults. Both adulthood and consent are an absolute requirement for any marriage.
I find it troubling that you don’t seem to think that adulthood or consent are needed….
Report Post »walkintruth
Posted on May 22, 2012 at 5:20pm@Chuck Anziulewicz
Report Post »God will condemn anyone who sins. Not just the gay people. If you expect christians to except their life style you are confused with what their religion tells them. The gay people can do what ever they want, but why do they have to shout it from the roof tops that they are doing it? The rest of us don’t tell what is happening in the bedroom. After they push it in our faces and tell us that we must accept them, they then demand to have the same privileges a man and woman has by marrying. I have no problem with these people living together in some union, but to call it what I have marriage between a (man and woman) is wrong. It demeans the meaning to marriage to the rest of us. When you start marrying same sexes or a man and an animal, or women and her brother, it gets the rest of us upset. Let them choose another word for it so it is not connected to what christians believe to be the only definition of marriage. It was the only definition from the beginning. We should not change that now. Everyone should stop gossiping about their sexual preference. Maybe then we can all get along.
bdandsl
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:23pmAmen!
Report Post »pwatkins
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:22pmI am a Christian so I suppose according to this pastor. I am a homophobe, a pornophobe, an adultrophobe, an (Obamaphobe and demophobe(dishonesty)) and a Holderophobe(injustice)….enough said. Call me what I am and I will let God be the final judge.
Report Post »kaydeebeau
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:29pmDid you read all the words in the article or just the first paragraph? Did you go to school in Florida?
Report Post »pwatkins
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 2:20pmYes I did read the whole article and know the pastor is saying all of the mentioned things are sins, which I will do my best not to commit. Florida schooling?…nope…NC…the top 61% of the educated.
Report Post »searching for the Truth
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:19pmJust out of curiosity – has anyone heard of ” anyone , ” dying of aids lately.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:31pmAIDS doesn’t kill, in and of itself. It weakens your immune system to the point that it can’t fight off basic infections and then you die. I believe pneumonia kills most AIDS victims.
Thankfully, the medicines available today are often able to boost the immune systems of AIDS victims to the point where they are very unlikely to die from relatively minor (and common) ailments.
Report Post »Robert Hawk
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:35pmThe data is hidden away from view concerning HIV Aids but it continues to rise with over 34million infected currently. The news media simply does not report on it any longer since most of the new media stand for gay rights. The facts are clear, its an epidemic which continues to grow in vast numbers. The more we allow these folks to go down this pathway of lewd sexual behavior, the more we become effected by their perverse life choices.
http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:36pmYou’re really going to go with that one? “Has anyone died of AIDS recently”? Seriously? That‘s what you’re reduced to? You‘re really going to try to sell AIDS as not a threat to one’s life? By all means champ…bang away on a male homosexual…and good luck.
Report Post »leftcoastslut
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:38pmmedia has to keep is hushed in order to move forward the gay movement
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:58pmWhen over 55% of new HIV infections each year in this country are from homosexuals and they only represent less than 2% of the population then clearly something is wrong with homosexuality. Clearly male homosexual practices are counter to the well being of the human species.
Report Post »searching for the Truth
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:04pmJust out of curiosity, has any one heard of anyone dying of ” Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome,” in the past few years?
Report Post »searching for the Truth
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:13pmI believe the word ” Aids,” has been deliberately euphemized.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:38pm@Searching for the Truth
“Just out of curiosity, has any one heard of anyone dying of ” Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome,” in the past few years?”
“Almost 5,000 people die every day due to AIDS. AIDS caused 1.8 million deaths in 2009. An estimated 25 million people have died from HIV-related causes since the beginning of the pandemic.”
From the United States Agency for International Development. Note it’s “due to AIDS,“ not ”from AIDS.” A said before, AIDS itself won’t kill you – it just weakens your immune system to the point that you catch something that you should be able to fight off, but can’t.
Report Post »searching for the Truth
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 2:31pmThanks for the explanation; but, if it’s all the same to you, I believe I’ll keep my behind covered on this one.
Report Post »makeemstop
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:17pmI‘m glad he’s speaking out in defense of the Bible & God’s position… but it would’ve been useful to have pointed out some specific references, i.e. Leviticus 20:13
Report Post »justangry
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:15pmAh, it wouldn’t be a Monday without the Blaze getting their peeps fired up with some good old talk about homosexuality. With this preoccupation the Blaze has with this subject, one might wonder if someone on the staff isn’t questioning their own sexuality.
Report Post »MrSunshine
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:22pmAnd it wouldn’t be the Blaze without some dumba$$ using the word peeps.
Report Post »Pilgrimsarbour
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:23pmI don‘t think The Blaze or anyone else would be talking about it if it weren’t such a pressing social issue right now. Most people typically don’t need or want to talk about homosexuality, but it’s in our face right now with folks who want to change the thousands-of-years-old definition of marriage. As it is, it’s an election issue, so I don’t fault any news outlet for discussing it whether pro or con.
Report Post »chips1
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:24pmPost a story like this and BOING, here you are!!!
Report Post »jdog777
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:25pmJustAngry…. It is a story and it is newsworthy, considering the debate on same sex marriage. Not once did Baptist Leader preach hate or judge… he explained why Christians hold their belief, sourcing the Bible. Now tell me… why do you hold your belief (trying to use the same style of communication the Baptist Leader used). Can you?
Report Post »KickinBack
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:29pmYou’re so clever. I wish I could master sarcasm like you do. 12 year olds everywhere are laughing hysterically.
Report Post »justangry
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:51pmDon’t get your panties in a bunch people. I’m just frustrated that this crap is even relevant when our rights are being stripped away like crazy. It isn’t even a federal issue to begin with. If you think it is you’re a progressive. Homosexuality is gross to me… that’s all there is to it. But, I‘m not filled with hate towards people who don’t think it‘s gross because it’s none of my business. I just wish we could shelve this issue and take care of what’s really important, like our sovereignty, our Consitution and our freedom before they are gone forever. It’s a distraction, nothing more.
Report Post »pilgrim249
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:54pmThe tired, weak logic tactic of sodomite culture is to attempt to intimidate it‘s opponents by saying that anyone who aggressively opposes society’s acceptance of their perversions is secretly a homosexual.
Most people see through this smokescreen, but it still sends some preachers and politicians running like scared little rabbits.
Report Post »P8riot
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:02pm@justangry – LOL – you’re right, gotta jump start everyone on a Monday morning :)
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:25pmFor the record Billy Hallowell is the faith editior for the Blaze. His job is to bring faith based stories. Since homosexuality falls into this category, then it is appropriate.
When you own your own blog and hire people, you too can post any story you see fit.
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:12pmI oppose Homosexuality… because it is an UnNatural Use of Equipment… and it is an Insult to Human Intelligence, which denies the reason & purpose for Sex… not because of anything ever written!
Report Post »N37BU6
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:20pmYou need to get over yourself then.
Report Post »MrSunshine
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:21pmRight! You can’t plug a male electrical plug into another….won’t work. Seems simple to me….and I’m simple!
Report Post »hatchetjob
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:24pmLUKERW, Do you ever sleep?
Report Post »Locked
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:33pm“which denies the reason & purpose for Sex”
Someone’s never gotten a BJ or an HJ from a cute girl, it seems… nor “taken matters into his own hands!”
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:41pm@LOCKED
Report Post »You do understand what Homosexuality is… do you not?
Locked
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 12:50pm@Luke
Sure do. You understand that you stated that your opposition is because it “denies the reason & purpose for Sex.” By your own words you must be opposed to everything else I listed as well. None of them are for the “reason & purpose for sex,” which by which you presumably mean reproduction. Glad we see eye-to-eye :-)
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:20pmLOCKED…why is the need to copulate so ingrained in the human sexual psyche? Whatever pleasurable aspects there are to sex, it’s purpose is procreation. If it’s allowed to completion without contraceptives or interruption it leads to procreation. Oral sex, masturbation, etc..they’re simply stimulation and tension releases but the actual act of copulation is designed first and foremost to lead to the conception of a human child, it‘s only the choice to interrupt it’s logical completion that prevents this from happening. Homosexual sex is a dead end in terms of the imperatives of our species. In fact..it’s counter to the well being of the species. Is this not so? I know what you’ll do next LOCKED..you‘ll parse and mince and try to avoid teling me that I’m correct. You’ll perhaps cite things like “why do male dogs hump each other if they can’t procreate from it?”. In the social order of some animals humping each other is a show of dominance or dispute resolution..it’s a show of power. By all means..if as a human being you’ve been humped by another male as a show of dominance…you have my sympathy.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:35pmShhh, @Avengerk, adults are talking. Go play in the corner by yourself if you can’t contribute to the conversation. There’s no mincing needed:
1. @Lukerw says he’s against homosexuality because it denies the reason and purpose for sex: procreation.
2. Thus, he should be against all non-procreation sexual processes… as they do the same.
3. If he is not, then it must mean that he does NOT oppose homosexuality only because it denies the reason and purpose for sex. There has to be other reasons as well.
Do you agree?
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 1:38pmAvenJoKer says: “Oral sex, masturbation, etc. they’re simply stimulation and tension releases but the actual act of copulation is designed first and foremost to lead to the conception of a human child..”
So we finally understand that President William Jefferson Clinton was “not copulating” with “that woman, Miss Monica Lewinsky!”
Thanks AvenJoKer! See ya ’round! Okey-dokey!
TEA
Report Post »disenlightened
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 2:13pmLibs like LOCKED and ENCINOM use logic at the same level of children fingerpainting.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 2:29pm@Disenlightened
Want to prove you’re not a troll? I pose to you the same thing I posed to @Avengerk:
1. @Lukerw says he’s against homosexuality because it denies the reason and purpose for sex: procreation.
2. Thus, he should be against all non-procreation sexual processes… as they do the same.
3. If he is not, then it must mean that he does NOT oppose homosexuality only because it denies the reason and purpose for sex. There has to be other reasons as well.
Do you agree or not? Show me that your “logic” is greater than mine. There is only one fault in my argument, and that is that @Lukerw never said “procreation” is the reason and purpose for sexual activity. He might have meant something else… though I can’t imagine what.
So come, take a swing at it. I’m confident in my logic; do you have confidence in yours?
Report Post »disenlightened
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 4:23pm@LOCKED
Report Post »I choose door #3. Obviously when he wrote it “denies the reason & purpose for Sex” there is more to it. And if he had time beyond a quick, typed paragraph on a blog, I’m sure he would have probably thought it through and elaborated. However, you decided to ridicule him by nailing him on one fine point, which is a childish game of logic gotcha that only serves to anger people and is antithetical to problem-solving.
AvengerK
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 4:37pmYou seem to be cherry picking LUKE’s words LOCKED. That‘s unusual for the Blaze’s self appointed word policeman isn’t it?
Report Post »LUKE’s point is valid. Homosexual sex is counter to the well being of the human species and counter to the core reason we are driven to have sex. The choices not to procreate are secondary decisions to the drive itself. Homsexuality is an aberrant state of mind for the human species and a dead end. So your two-plus-two-equals-five determination that LUKE should be against sex all together is a juvenile and paltry assertion that is founded in your usual “smartarsey” posturing on these boards.
But by all means..if you insist..tell me what purpose male homosexual sex serves the species.
Locked
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 4:53pm@Avengerk
“So your two-plus-two-equals-five determination that LUKE should be against sex all together is a juvenile and paltry assertion that is founded in your usual “smartarsey” posturing on these boards.”
Stop lying, @Avengerk. I never in any way said, asserted, or implied that he said “sex all together.” By his own words, anything not working toward the “reason” for sex, which I posit to be procreation, should be wrong. By @Luke’s own wording, sex itself is right; it‘s anything else that’s sexual but -not- sex that’s wrong.
“But by all means..if you insist..tell me what purpose male homosexual sex serves the species.”
Pleasure? That would be my guess.
Question: do you believe in evolution, @Avengerk?
@Disenlightened
“I choose door #3. Obviously when he wrote it “denies the reason & purpose for Sex” there is more to it.”
What is the reason and purpose for sex, in your opinion? What do -you- think @Lukerw meant? You’re saying right here it is not procreation. So what is THE reason?
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 5:13pmLOL…what’s wrong LOCKED? You seem to be getting as shrill and unhinged as MOREACNE.
Report Post »I’m not going to get “locked” into dissecting words with you LOCKED..that’s your self-appointed schtick. You tried to paint LUKE as being against all sex. Now you’re denying it? I don’t care whether you were serious about it or not..that’s what you tried to bait him with.
Now answer my question champ…tell me what purpose male homosexual sex serves the species?
AvengerK
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 5:21pmReally LOCKED? The human species gets pleasure from male homsexual sex? You might get pleaure from it…but projecting it onto the entire species is a stretch even for you.
Now answer my question properly you mealy mouthed cretin..“tell me what purpose male homosexual sex serves the species”?
Report Post »disenlightened
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 5:47pmLOCKED – again, you have to stop making things up. You wrote, “You’re saying right here it is not procreation.” I never said such a thing. I can’t argue with you if your argument is based on a false statement.
What do I think the “purpose” of sex is? Biologically speaking, it’s to procreate. An evolutionist would agree with that. However, humans have learned to attach other, psychologically-driven, secondary purposes to it. That’s the source of your confusion. Human behavior is not always logical, so don’t fall into the trap of trying to explain it with such rules.
Report Post »mecmelton
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 9:51pmSo basically Locked flawed philosophy is that if it feels good do it? Hey Locked you know what feels REALLY REALLY GOOD??? Now remember if it feels good you have to do it, and since you are genetically predisposed to use it anyway you feel fit!! (thinking: where is my hammer at?), Just try it once, it feels Reeally gooood, I promise. Just do it like this, Hand over head and swing down.
Moral of story,
Report Post »1. Feels good (if you are mental)
2. Physically you have the parts to hold it over your head and drop it, so use them that way (even though it goes completely against logic.)
Welcome Black Carter
Posted on May 21, 2012 at 10:54pmSometimes there is no way to apply common sense to sin.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on May 23, 2012 at 8:52am@Avengerk
“You tried to paint LUKE as being against all sex.”
Absolutely false. Nice try.
“Now you’re denying it? I don’t care whether you were serious about it or not..that’s what you tried to bait him with.”
What’s to deny? I‘ll admit you’re lying. Not fooling anyone but yourself, @Avengerk :-) I said he must be against anything but heterosexual sex. But as you don’t like getting “locked into dissecting words,” apparently you‘re fine with ignoring ones that don’t agree with your idea. That’s fine. You might want to see a psychiatrist about it though; ignoring reality is usually a sign of mental instability.
“Now answer my question properly you mealy mouthed cretin..“tell me what purpose male homosexual sex serves the species”?”
Answer mine first, oh cowardly lion.
Here’s a follow-up: do you believe every action a person takes must serve their species? If not, why must homosexuality? As I said in the beginning with Luke, if you think sexual activity is only for one correct purpose, then by that view you must believe that everything sexual that does NOT go toward reproducing is wrong.
It’s fascinating to learn of your belief that every urge must serve the species. It gives great insight to how disconnected from reality you have become.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on May 23, 2012 at 8:58am@Disenlightened
“What do I think the “purpose” of sex is?”
Heterosexual sex? To procreate. Now, do you feel that all sexual activity is for that goal? That is what @Lukerw has put forward.
Does that mean that anything sexual that does NOT lead to procreation is wrong? For example, using birth control? Or masturbation? Or oral sex? Again – that is the argument that was put forward.
“However, humans have learned to attach other, psychologically-driven, secondary purposes to it. That’s the source of your confusion.”
Humans haven’t “learned” to make sexual activity feel good. It just does. Take, for example, the clitoris. This organ serves no function except for sexual pleasure. Its primary purpose is to please a woman, for no procreational benefit.
“Human behavior is not always logical, so don’t fall into the trap of trying to explain it with such rules.”
You might want to advise @Avengerk about this. He seems to think that if you don’t make your every urge a betterment of the species, you’re doing it wrong :-( Poor guy.
Report Post »Locked
Posted on May 23, 2012 at 9:02am@Mec
“So basically Locked flawed philosophy is that if it feels good do it?”
… how much did you drink before you thought that was my point? I’m actually worried. You may be dying of alcohol poisoning right now.
“you know what feels REALLY REALLY GOOD??? Now remember if it feels good you have to do it, and since you are genetically predisposed to use it anyway you feel fit!! (thinking: where is my hammer at?), Just try it once, it feels Reeally gooood, I promise. Just do it like this, Hand over head and swing down.”
I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to say here. Not all urges lead to “good” results, and not all urges that don’t lead to procreation are “bad.” People like @Lukerw and @Avengerk have argued that if you‘re doing something sexual and it won’t lead to procreation, then it’s wrong. Their example is obviously anal sex. But by their criteria, that applies to anything sexual at all. Nocturnal emissions? Wrong. BJs? HJs? Doing it yourself? All “bad.”
It makes less than no sense. There is a biological function to heterosexual intercourse, but the urges behind it are grounded in pleasure.
Report Post »