@Grover You say that if we don’t overlook certain Biblical truths, people will not choose Christianity. The problem is that the entire point of Christianity is our own hopeless, fallen, sinful state and the saving blood of Christ. Telling people that they aren’t sinners, when the Bible teaches that they are, doesn’t point them to Christ. It points them to a morally neutral god of man’s own making. When we adapt our faith to fit with the current trends of man, we are worshiping man. Not God. Leading people to the humanist version of Christianity is like patting them on the backs while they walk into Hell. It is to the detriment of both the unregenerate sinner and the faithful to incorporate unGodly principles into the Church. Those who are not saved falsely believe that they are. Those who are saved are robbed of spiritual and theological growth because they are ignoring portions of God’s word.
June 21, 2013 at 12:50pm
I just want to point a common mistake, that is NOT what Presbyterians believe. That is what the PCUSA believes. They are one, very liberal and not theologically sound branch of Presbyterians. The PCA, the OP, and the Reformed Presbyterians all believe that only ceremonial laws (food, washings, etc) went away after Christ’s resurrection. We would hold that homosexuality is absolutely a sin. I attend a PCA church. We would allow anyone to visit the church, but you cannot be a communicant member if you are unrepentantly engaged in any continuous sin. Like you said, if you are cheating on a spouse, a criminal, living with a boyfriend/girlfriend you would not be allowed to join until the sin is addressed and if you are a member, the elders &pastor would council you to turn from your sin. If all prayer &counseling failed, you would be excommunicated with a hope that you would one day repent and rejoin. Homosexuality is treated the same way. While we all strive for righteousness and fail, practicing homosexuals are engaged in an ongoing sinful lifestyle. It is not that they can never be saved or never join the church, but those who have truly been born-again show the fruits of the Spirit by turning from their sinful lifestyles. We are warned that we bring judgement upon ourselves when we take part in activities like the Lord’s supper which expressly reserved for members of the believing body. It is out of love that we do not encourage an unrepentant sinner to believe they are sav
March 22, 2013 at 9:20am
First, it doesn’t matter if it works. Parents have to maintain the right to seek out the religious and moral training of their choosing. When we lose that right, it’s all over folks. Secondly, Part of the reason many people believe gays can’t change is that everytime we hear about someone who used to be gay we say “they went through a phase” or “they were experimenting.”. It’s easy to say that practicing homosexuals can’t change when we dismiss every instance of change by saying “they weren’t really gay to behin with.” I have met two people who said that a similar therapy worked for them after they became Christians. I believe God can work all sort of changes in repenting heart. We shouldn’t dismiss these therapies just because they don’t work for everyone,
March 20, 2013 at 10:37am
Democrats have a funny way of defending women. They want to take away their guns and then let men into women’s bathrooms and locker rooms. They want college campuses to be “gun-free zones” but they also want unisex dorms. The places that have gone the route of exceptions for “transgenders” typically decide that it is easier in the long run to eliminate gender specific areas in the first place. Inviting men into the places where women are the most vulnerable and then denying those women the right to protect themselves, sure sounds like a War on Women to me.
March 19, 2013 at 9:42am
So it’s official. Billy and the Blaze staff are posting a pro-sodomy article every day now. None from the other side. Funny how Glenn used to warn about liberals trying to overload us on a topic so that we are desensitized and eventually accept it, and now his site is doing the same thing. Every day there is an article about some ” Christian” or “conservative” who now supports gay marriage. Of course, it always turns out that they were neither Christian nor conservative to begin with. Rob Bell is a perfect example. He is a universalist who believes there is no Hell, God is someone or something but he doesn’t know what, and that all people (even Hitler) go to heaven even if they never believe in God. Christians and conservatives need to be alert that there is an effort to convince us that our own people have abandoned us, and it’s happening right here on the Blaze. Take heart, the faithful will not be moved by the wickedness of our culture.
I was wondering about that. Just shows how deep the poison has gone in.
March 18, 2013 at 12:53pm
Surprise, Surprise another gay marriage article on the Blaze. Wow, I think they waited one whole day between pro-sodomy posts this time. Funny, I have seen almost daily articles on new supporters of gay marriage, but none on the millions of Christians who will not be moved. I have not seen any articles about Conservatives who say that they will not allow the whims of sinful man to turn them from the laws of God. Come on, Hilary Clinton supporting perversion is news? Really? The Blaze has apparently gone from covering conservative/libertarian news and views to a vehicle for pushing Glenn Beck’s personal ideology on conservatives. What a shame.
I'm glad that they carry articles like this. Our culture is in meltdown. Only by telling people what is going on, can you 1. define the problems, and 2. fix the problems, that we face.
Ignoring these things would help no one.
March 15, 2013 at 10:04am
Sorry about the double post. Guess the comment went through after all. My bad!
March 15, 2013 at 9:53am
@behindblueeyes i did post an extensive list of links as per your request but it must have triggered the spam filter. just search “gay marriage” in the Blaze search bar and you will see a pretty big list just for the last two weeks. Almost all of them revolve around a “conservative” changing their mind. Just saying, you rarely saw an article like that before and now they are posting them almost daily. You can’t tell me that a solid month of conservatives-are-seeing-the-light-and-embracing-gay-marriage doesn’t point to an agenda.
Ugh. I’m about done with the Blaze. I hate to say it, but it’s true. This site has been pushing the gay marriage angle ever since Glenn Beck changed his mind. It will never be a conservative position. Maybe a libertarian, maybe a Republican, but never ever ever a conservative one. True conviction means standing firm even when it’s hard, unpopular, and personally difficult. People who allow their beliefs to be determined by the changing winds of popular culture are not conservative and they certainly aren’t Christians either. Beck and the “pastors” who advised Portman have shown that they put man above God and popularity above conviction. Winning elections by embracing immorality would be hollow and meaningless.
I didn't realize the Blaze was pushing the gay agenda. Can you explain or provide links supporting your claim? You can't possibly take issue with the reporting of this story as justification.
I think LHILLS just means that the Blaze are trying to make it an unignorable elephant in the room that we must discuss.
As for it never being a conservative position.. that depends on why you are conservative..
If you're Conservative about protecting the Constitution, you seek to get the Feds out of marriage while simultaneously recognizing that gay unions should have the same government status as straight unions.
If you're Conservative about maintaining the traditional Judeo-Christian norms of our society and think the government has a responsibility to maintain these ethics regardless of the Constitution, then no, Gay marriage won't ever be a Conservative position.
You are correct in that as Christians we are to follow God, not man. Christ even says that we cannot follow two masters, so why is Glenn and Billy (the person who penned this "article") doing so? Many have told me that I was "ridged and unmoving" on stances such as this that I take. I tell them that narrow is the path for everlasting life, wide is the path to destruction. I'm old enough to know that people will do what people will do, regardless of what God says.
"For me and my family, we will follow God!" Don't like it, fine, I don't and will not recognize an abomination as sinless.
These are just from the past couple of weeks. Just saying there is one of the articles almost every day now. I don't see the Blaze rushing to cover those who are still opposed to gay marriage. And their coverage of pro-gay supporters went from an occasional piece to an all out everyday thing as soon as Glenn became more vocal about his position. Enough already, we don't need an update every single time a "conservative" changes their mind.
“The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected, in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity.”
– John Quincy Adams
I don't think Glenn endorses same-sex marriage on a personal spiritual level but simply thinks there's no Constitution argument to prevent them.
“Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian.”
– Supreme Court
Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892)
“Whosoever shall introduce into public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Still waiting for two quotes to post.
Those are great quotes reflecting the personal beliefs and principles of great men but those same great men failed to define marriage, or authorize the Federal government to define marriage when they drafted the Constitution.
I try to look at things Constitutionally when it comes to legislation.
If there was an amendment granting government the right to define marriage, i would stand by that Constitutional definition.
but there isn't.. so it's up to the States to define.. but they can't define it in such a way that it gives tax preferences to straights over gays because that would be unconstitutional.
If your desire is to prevent government endorsement of anything that could be construed as religious, well, that's just impossible. If your intent is to usurp the foundation of this country, then fine, say so. Own it. If you think that government should have nothing to do with it fine, then nothing means nothing, then no one gets tax breaks for being married (can't even asked), and no "registration" of marriage at ANY court, county, or government department on ANY level. You WILL NOT force me AT ANY level to recognize a "marriage" (abomination) between two unholy creatures. People say that they don't want to "make anyone" go against their religion and that "we only want the government to recognize that they have rights too". THIS IS A LIE!!! By forcing government to recognize an abomination as "good", then you force business owners and the government to grant their "God Given Rights" of marriage (children, tax breaks, insurance, ect.). By forcing the government you are forcing the people. I will NEVER recognize an abomination as marriage.
@behindblueeyes i did post an extensive list of links as per your request but it must have triggered the spam filter. just search "gay marriage" in the Blaze search bar and you will see a pretty big list just for the last two weeks. Almost all of them revolve around a "conservative" changing their mind. Just saying, you rarely saw an article like that before and now they are posting them almost daily. You can't tell me that a solid month of conservatives-are-seeing-the-light-and-embracing-gay-marriage doesn't point to an agenda.
I'm not trying to force you or the government to do anything. If you are against gay marriage... great. Work hard to get an amendment passed defining marriage as you see fit.
In the meantime, the Feds don't have the authority to arbitrarily define it... or collect unbalanced revenue based on their arbitrary definition.
Sorry about the double post. Guess the comment went through after all. My bad!
Maybe you need to work hard and amend the constitution to prevent the country to recognize any union. Also to prevent the government from even asking (census, medical..as they have taken over, business, tax forms, local government, etc.)
You are correct that the constitution did not allow for government to define marriage. The government (local and federal) have broken the constitution many times in that regard. However, you cannot use a double negative in your argument, as liberals will states that your argument supports their decision as an endorsement FOR government sponsored homosexual marriage.
I do work hard at spreading the "get the government out of marriage" philosophy.
Lest you misunderstand my position, it goes like this:
I am a Catholic. The only definition of marriage that means something to me spiritually is the Catholic church's. They won't marry gays and i don't want them to either. The church's definition is important enough to me that i have been celibate since my divorce and don't intend to ever re-marry because the church doesn't recognize divorce. The State does, however, so i am legally divorced. I will never be spiritually divorced from my ex, however.
If another church wants to marry gays or allow divorcees to re-marry- that's their prerogative.
But the Feds should have nothing to say about any of it.
So, following your logic, it's ok for beastealogy, as it does not hurt anyone and not in the constitution? How about marriage to a dog? Your argument is wrought with holes as large as the liberal argument.
The reason why the framers did not put something like that in the constitution is because it was unheard of for someone to seek confirmation by the government for their actions such as this. If you bothered to do any historical digging, you would find that government had NOTHING to do with birth, marriage, or death at the time of the framing of the constitution. All of those where written in the family bible, not the state. It's obvious why the people who support abomination (like you), do not want it like it was when our framers formed this nation, it would force you to speak as Christ spoke, to LIVE the WORD. You state that "it's not the governments business", however, you promote your ideas in direct response to a senator who "changes his stance" on homosexual marriage, which is in DIRECT contradiction to GODS WILL. You say you support your church and the views of the church, but you OPENLY ENDORSE the rights of others to commit an abomination, under the auspices of "it's their right". Would that be a God given right, as the founders put it?
May you get right with God, and follow his WILL IN ALL ASPECTS OF YOUR LIFE!
Thought I'd drop in to expand the conversation. Marriage, at its base is a contract between to willing participants (we both obviously see it between a man and women). But because this is a voluntary association between two willing people, marrying an animal, incapable of consenting to terms, such as vows, is impossible, and a moot and ridiculous notion unworthy of serious debate.
Another thing, how do you interpret the Treaty of Tripoli, unanimously ratified by the Senate and Signed by President Adams in 1797; specifically noting Article 11, "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."
Bestiality isn't a valid comparison because animals cannot provide informed consent.
You keep saying i endorse gay marriage when i don't.
I don't endorse government interference with religious sacraments, period.
I also don't think the government has any right treat gays differently than straights when it comes to hospital visitations, taxes, etc.
That's my only argument. If you want to speculate beyond that- go ahead but don't put words in my mouth.
I can separate my Constitutional views from my religious views. i'm not a Theocrat, but it sounds as though you are. That's fine. I support the first amendment.
Although I understand what the president and the senators that where available at the time that this was read and past (23 of the 32 where present) where doing, I do not agree with how it was put forth. Also note:
The official treaty was in Arabic text, and a translated version by Consul-General Barlow was ratified by the United States on June 10, 1797. Article 11 of the treaty was said to have not been part of the original Arabic version of the treaty; in its place is a letter from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. However, it is the English text which was ratified by Congress. Miller says, "the Barlow translation is that which was submitted to the Senate and which is printed in the Statutes at Large and in treaty collections generally; it is that English text which in the United States has always been deemed the text of the treaty."
According to Frank Lambert, Professor of History at Purdue University, the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers." Lambert writes
No academic historian has suggested the treaty provides evidence to settle that question in either direction. In addition many Founding Fathers and newspapers described America as a Christian nation during the early-Republic
Thanks for the list, I haven't had time to look over what is being said in each but will read them and see what I come away with.
March 6, 2013 at 5:04pm
I get it, the Blaze is jumping on the gay marriage bandwagon because Glenn Beck did. But let’s try to remember that as great as Glenn has been the last few years, he kind of went a bit wacky after the last presidential election too. Remember the whole “McCain would have been worse for America than Obama” interview http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-504423_162-5328053.html ? And there is no doubt, that he was WRONG. He even said he would have voted for Hillary Clinton if he had the chance. He spent the first few months of Obama’s presidency insisting that conservatives were overreacting. But by the end of 2009, he was our fiercest ally once more. Glenn is an emotional guy and he belongs to a religion that is not based in scripture. So when the poop hits the fan, he is prone to go off the rails a bit. He can say all he wants that he is a Christian who believes in “the truth,” but he has shown that he puts the popular sentiment of man above God’s word. I like him, he’s usually on our side, but at the end of the day, he’s not a conservative, he’s a libertarian, and he’s not a Christian either. I take Glenn Beck for what he is, I just wish the editors of the Blaze would stop tailoring the articles here to his latest mood swing.
I bet that very few of those “1.4 million signatures” were from parents of Boy Scouts. No one else’s opinion should matter. As a mother of three boys, I can guarantee that I would never lobby for the “right” to send them in the woods with a homosexual male.
April 2, 2012 at 11:43am
If you can separate your Christianity from the rest of your life, you’re not a Christian. Period.
So true. You are either with God or you are not.
"I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth."
March 1, 2012 at 10:56am
“Evil. It does the body good.”
August 19, 2011 at 10:25am
Sorry, but the store should have the right to refuse service. This is not the same as discriminating by race because it involves the store owner’s religious sensibilities. If the owner feels that this would be an endorsement of an immoral behavior, then she has the right to refuse. If people don’t like it, they don’t have to patron the store. If she is willing to sacrifice the business, then no one should be allowed to tell her that she can’t stand up for her beliefs. This is the real problem with legalizing gay marriage. It is often used as an excuse to attack Christian business owners and put them in the position of abandoning their beliefs or risk being attacked/sued for discrimination.
August 18, 2011 at 11:28am
Fatsoman- HAHAHAHAHA yes!
August 18, 2011 at 11:17am
So let me get this straight. Someone who doesn’t believe in the free market couldn’t fix the auto industry? That’s like saying a tax cheat couldn’t fix the treasury department. Or that a communist green jobs czar and manufacturing czar couldn’t stimulate the private job sector. Weird. It’s almost like saying that someone who has never accomplished anything except for community agitating would make a crappy president.
Careful..........the man will send Eric the Red to your home to adjust your thinking. We are not allowed to be logical and intelligent......... Nevermind, rip them up!
August 18, 2011 at 11:08am
How about a black guy who sent black unemployment soaring? Or a black guy who eliminated funding for vouchers that allow poor black children to attend better schools? Or a black guy whose energy policies are causing a spike in costs that most working class black people can’t afford? Or a black guy who wants to fund an institution which aborts a disproportionately high number of black babies? Could that guy be a racist plant by liberals?
Nice of him to whine about the rich after he’s made millions in films that are funded by the investments of other rich people. Also, he apparently doesn’t understand the term job creator. You don’t have to literally start a small business to create jobs. Every time he and his fellow wealthy stars send their dogs to therapy, get a coffee enema, or spends their money on even the most frivolous things, they are keeping people employed and creating jobs. As for those who “sock it away,” unless they are literally hiding it in a mattress, they are helping the economy also. When their money is invested in the market or even just sitting in a savings account, they help to grow the financials market. Where does this genius think our 401K’s and IRA’s are invested? Where does he think even the lefty union pensions are invested? When the government takes all the money that the rich are “hoarding,” we can kiss our investments, retirement plans, and kid’s college funds goodbye.
First off, no one knows what Jesus Christ looked like in human form!!!!!! The Bible doesn’t tell us. Anyone who thinks they see His face, is wrong. Not to mention that God tells us not to embrace graven images or to worship things made in the “likeness” of God. That, is idol worship. Finally, you must ask yourself a simple question: “Why in the world would Jesus choose to appear on a WalMart receipt?!”