Dobson endorsed sermon blaming "lesbian sex" for God's "abandonment" of America, justifying destruction of a U.S. city by God
On the June 4 edition of his Focus on the Family radio show, Focus on the Family founder and chairman James C. Dobson broadcast a sermon by John MacArthur, pastor of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California, titled "A Nation Abandoned by God." In the sermon, MacArthur said America had forsaken God and engendered the "wrath of abandonment" as a result. MacArthur declared: "You know a society has been abandoned by God when it celebrates lesbian sex." MacArthur further argued that as a result of America's abandonment, the destruction of a major U.S. city "could happen" and that "God would be just in any calamity he brought upon us."
According to Dobson's co-host, John Fuller, MacArthur's sermon was originally delivered on the National Day of Prayer, an observance established by Congress to encourage ecumenical prayer. The National Day of Prayer Task Force operates out of the offices of Focus on the Family in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and is chaired by Dobson's wife, Shirley Dobson.
Dobson endorsed the content of MacArthur's sermon in his introduction of the broadcast. Dobson stated:
DOBSON: Some of our listeners are not going to agree with what he [MacArthur] has to say, but it's going to make you think, and it's also going to be somewhat disturbing. And I happen to agree with what John MacArthur was saying on this day, and I want to thank him and his team and Woodman Valley Chapel for allowing us to share this message. It needs to be heard, especially at this time in our nation.
In his sermon, MacArthur cataloged the symptoms of what he called America's "abandonment" by God and warned of dire consequences:
MacARTHUR: I don't believe we're waiting for God's wrath in this society. We haven't had a massive calamity such as the destruction of an entire city. We certainly don't want that to happen -- pray that does not happen -- but it could happen. And God would be just in any calamity that he brought upon us. We have not entered into eschatological wrath; that comes in the end times. We are experiencing -- all of us do -- consequential wrath of sin. But this massive concept of the wrath of abandonment, I'm convinced, is now at work in our society. We like to talk about the fact that America was founded on Christian principles, God was at the center of it, and all of that -- whatever it might have been in our founding, it's no longer the way it is, and I want to show you how you know that has happened.
[...]
MacARTHUR: The first thing that happens in a nation when it has been abandoned by God is a sexual revolution. Moral sexual perversion, pornographic desire describes the general character of the culture. You can't even count how many million pornographic websites there are. When a society is abandoned by God, it operates out of its own perverse sexual passion without restraint. You can go back to the '60s and the sexual revolution of the flower children, or Hugh Hefner and the Playboy world, and it has gone like a flood since then.
[...]
MacARTHUR: So the first thing that you look for in a society if you're trying to discern whether God has abandoned that society is whether or not that society has gone through a sexual revolution so that illicit sex, adultery, every form of immorality is accepted as normal in that society. And we're there. The second step in the progression, [Romans, chapter 1] verse 26: "God gave them over not just to passions that are explicable," because they're men and women, "but to inexplicable, degrading passions. For their women exchange the natural function for that which is unnatural." You know a society has been abandoned by God when it celebrates lesbian sex. God has given them over -- gross affections, unnatural, unthinkable. So you follow a sexual revolution with a homosexual revolution. And homosexuality becomes normalized.
[...]
MacARTHUR: The amazing thing of it is this, verse 27: "The men abandoning the natural function of the women, burning in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts, and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." Right into this wrath of abandonment comes the wrath -- the consequential wrath. And even though it generates venereal disease and AIDS, they keep doing it.
MacArthur and his Grace Community Church were sued for clergy malpractice in 1985 by Walter and Maria Nally after their son, a church member, killed himself. Kenneth Nally was 24 when he committed suicide in 1979. According to the Nallys' lawsuit, MacArthur discouraged their son from seeking outside help and worsened his suicidal tendencies by telling him his depression was the product of sinful behavior. Though the lawsuit was ultimately thrown out of court, MacArthur pledged to reform his counselor training programs.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
You know a society is abandoned by God when it celebrates hate and bigotry in his name. I hope Dobson chokes on sandwich. What a waste of humanity.
Was not the next President of the United States Obama saying the same thing when talking about quiet riots and how America is in terrible shape?
Per Obama:
young people all across this country look at the way the world is and believe that things are never going to get any better. You tell yourself, "My school will always be second rate." You tell yourself, "There will never be a good job waiting for me to excel at." You tell yourself, " will never be able to afford a place that I can be proud of and call my home." That despair quietly simmers and makes it impossible to build strong communities and neighborhoods. And then one afternoon a jury says, "Not guilty" -- or a hurricane hits New Orleans -- and that despair is revealed for the world to see.
Um, no. I'm not sure what Obama's comments have to do with Dr. Bigot here. Enlighten me. Are you saying that Obama is blaming America first or something? I don't get it.
I agree it is not lesbians fault that is a bigot view point. But, you tell me, who is the next President of the United’s States Obama blaming?
He doesn't appear to blaming anybody, merely stating what many people are feeling. Just because someone says that something is wrong doesn't mean they either condone it or are looking to place blame. I still fail to see how either comment fits here.
It seems to me that Obama is going to great lengths not to place blame on anyone in that statement. But I'll take the bait, Duncan: who do YOU think he's blaming?
Maybe it's just me, but I'm thinking it's no even close to the same thing.
"This is not to excuse the violence of bashing in a man's head or destroying someone's store and their life's work. That kind of violence is excusable and self-defeating"
That was also part of his speech.
"You know a society is abandoned by God when it celebrates hate and bigotry in his name"
The only one who is hateful is you. Calling for the death of a Christian conservative is pretty low even for a liberal. You should be ashamed of yourself. Dobson has his point of view, and you have yours. You shouldn't personally attack the man simply because you disagree with his point of view.
Who says these clowns are Christians. What I hear is anti-christ. Hate filled little men who preach the word for money.
What is anti-Christian about preaching the word of God and pointing out behavior that the Bible says is sinful?
You sound like Fred Phelps. You can call yourself a prophet and speak for God all you want, but please respect everyone else's right to their own opinion.
I call myself a Christian who believes in biblical truth. And no, I'm nothing like Fred Phelps. That man is a disgrace to the human race. I believe in the philosphy "hate the sin, love the sinner." I know people who are gay and I don't make fun of them or denigrate them. Everybody should be treated with respect. But that doesn't mean that I have to agree with the lifestyle that they choose to live.
You justify hatred and bigotry by saying that your imaginary friend wrote a book telling you what to think. Doesn't sound any different from Phelps to me. You may not denigrate your gay friends to their faces, but you certainly don't have a problem doing it online by defending a hatemonger like Dobson (not to mention having the gall to defend him as an upstanding Christian)!
Dobson is an upstanding Christian, and he's definetely not a hate mongeror. He's a soft spoken and nice man who simply has a different point of view than you do. You then denigrate him for simply having a different opinion. You're the hater, not Dobson.
Are we talking about the same Dobson? I've seen and heard him on videos and radio recordings, and he's neither soft-spoken nor nice. I'm not denigrating him for having a different opinion, he's just not a decent human being.
Rino that is a lie
A "decent" person does not demean and insult a group of people for thier "homosexual lifestyle." Let us pretend that the bible infered that being black was a sin. Would you be okay with people diminishing thier natural born rights just because your holy text says so? If you do then...well...you might want to reflect on your attitute towards others...
Rhino, thick skinned poorly sighted animal, is confusing the bible with Christianity.
Christianity is the following and living your life according to the teachings of Jesus the Christ.
The Old Testament just set the stage for the arrival of the redeemer, Jesus the Word of God as revealed to his children. Jesus was sent because men were defaming God and misusing the scriptures.
Words of Jesus, where did HE say anything about gays?
Any fool using the O.T. to shame and condemn in the name of Jesus is not a Christian and should not be represented in that fashion.
How does it square with do unto others? If someone thinks your not following the correct teachings of Christ would you want them in your face and denying you, your rights?
Now if you just want to use the O.T. feel free. The Jews have used it for 4-5 thousand years. Just don't use it to make Christian points.
To use the O.T. is such a fashion is Anti-Christ.
The Bible condemns certain actions, not something you're born with. There's absolutely no evidence that anybody is born gay.
In a society where "upstanding Christians", as you call them, say that God hates gays and lesbians so much that He causes horrid disasters, why would anybody choose to be gay?
And if there is someday, how overwhelming must it be for you to believe it? You don't seem to believe in any evolution.
Evolution isn't overwhelming. It's a theory. Nobody was around billions of years ago or even thousands of years ago. If being gay really was genetic, scientists would be able to prove it. They can't, and those who go around and say that people are born gay are making a baseless claim. There's absolutely no proof that people are born gay.
"Evolution isn't overwhelming. It's a theory."
The evidence for the theory is overwhelmingly accepted in the scientific community.
"Nobody was around billions of years ago or even thousands of years ago."
The concepts of fossils and carbon dating do not exist in your brain, obviously. A truly idiotic comment on your part, sorry.
"If being gay really was genetic, scientists would be able to prove it."
So nothing can be true if it hasn't yet been proven? Ridiculous. Is genome mapping complete? Science doesn't prove any such thing beyond any doubt anyway, as you hopefully should know.
"They can't, and those who go around and say that people are born gay are making a baseless claim. There's absolutely no proof that people are born gay."
Real-world experience means nothing because you choose not to see it. People who are disowned by their parents because they're gay, or beaten up, taunted mercilessly, and who all continue to be gay are clearly just really really stubborn and stupid people. Parents of gay children who say they always knew they were different are out of their minds. People who say they've always known they were gay are self-serving liars. What a nice, Christian way to view the world you have.
As for "absolutely no proof" you are either ignorant or a liar.
"If being gay really was genetic, scientists would be able to prove it"
Don't confuse "congenital" with genetic. A person is not necesarily genetically "gay", for instance, just because they were born gay. Chemical imbalances, for instance, can affect how genes are triggered: triggered when they wouldn't normally be; not triggered when they should be; or the actual expression of the gene is altered in some way.
So, despite your assertion to the contrary, yes condemning homosexuality - as you claim the Bible does - CAN be exactly the same thing as condeming "something you are born as" - like, in the example in other posts, being black.
Rino-
You have no proof of your belief that homosexuality is NOT heritable. What makes it so hard for you to believe it is natural?
Rino, if Dobson et al are "good christians" I'm the frikken pope. The only thing I ever hear coming out of these so called good christians mouths is hate and bigotry. It seems they forgot some of Christ's teachings along the way like love your neighbor as you love yourself, a camel will go through the eye of a needle before a rich man get into heaven and last but not least remove the log from your own eye before you remove the speck in your neighbor's eye. There are many more I could cite but my post would be far too long.
If Dobson really "hated" gays then why would he go out of his way to help them?
http://www.lovewonout.com/
Yeah, we all know how well Jesus took care of Ted Haggard's love of men.
It seems that Dobson hates gays for who they are and loves them for who he wants them to be.
Nobody is born gay. It's a phycological disorder, and Dobson is trying to help them out.
Dobson is not a Christian. He does not follow the teachings of Jesus. He follows Jehovah, the war god. Jesus, god of peace, is actually the slave of Jehovah, crucified forever, to suffer as people kill and hate in his name. War is not the Father of Peace. Peace is the natural state of the primate, not war. Set Jesus free by rejecting Jehovah.
It was the late Romans who militarized Christianity. It was they who put the Old Testament together and stuck Jesus in amongst it. It was they who formulated a theology based on blatant contradictions and intolerance and forced later generations to be tied eternally to the politics in Canaan. It was they who created the crucifix then carried it into battle for the next 1800 years. Jesus's old symbol is the fish, not the cross.
Any Christian worthy of the name needs to set Jesus free. Everything he taught was totally contradictory to bigotry and intolerance. The Golden Rule is the cornerstone of toleration. It's the essence of Peace. To hate in Jesus's name is just wrong. Revise your bible. Take only the first four of the new testament and drop the rest in the garbage. Christianity needs reborn.
He's not an ordained Pastor, he is a lay person and has no authority. In face I consider him and his ilk to be anti-christ for denying the love of Christ to others.
Not that these small minded people have the ability to deny others the love of Christ. No one does. But their very representations of themselves as Christians crucifies Jesus again.
How many people have these prostitutes turned aside from the God by their profaned use of the Word? I am sickened by what they say is God's Word.
God is Love. We all know what love feels like. If someone is trying to pass off some message as from God, test the spirits. It must be a message of love.
Tough love is crap. But true love from God is real.
Jesus/God loves you, all of us.
God Bless
And may the blessings of Freya be upon you, as well, for the Goddess is also Love.
Please explain to me this "hate the sin, love the sinner." I have looked for this passage in the Bible, but cannot find it. I can see where that might apply when it comes to the fat people I see waddeling in to churches. I have witnessed this when it applies to the drunks I partied with the night before. Both of which are sins and both are welcomed with open arms come Sunday morning. I have never seen a known homosexual be welcomed into any Evangelical Church. Why are these sins of weakness never told from the pulpit how they too are going to Hell and not welcome in God's eyes?
Because, unfortunately, the majority of organized religions today are full of hypocrites and don't really preach the word of God.
"What is anti-Christian about preaching the word of God and pointing out behavior that the Bible says is sinful?"
And how is this the word of God? I don't recall anything in the Bible talking about lesbians. Admittedly it's been a while since I've read it. Why don't you point out the passages that show lesbians are sinners for being lesbians.
It's the eleventh commandment: Thou Shalt Not Be Gay
There's countless passages in the Old Testament and several passages in the New Testament which explain that homosexuality is an abomination.
Let the mock outrage begin. If I wish ill on another that's my poison. Don't ASSUME I was serious. What's the word you conservatives use, um satire, that's it! AndI don't care if the guy's a registered Republican, a conservative a Christian or anything else. I despise him for his bigotry. Wishing for his death, affects only me in a negative way. So I don't. Do I hate him? No. Would I feel better if he wasn't around anymore like Jerry Fallwell I sure would feel better. I don't care what makes him a bigot and divider of this country. I don't care abouthis motives or his intentions. I dislike him because he's a bigot. Project and assume all you want there ringo.
"Don't ASSUME I was serious. What's the word you conservatives use, um satire, that's it"
So I assume that you've never criticized Ann Coulter over her remark about Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens?
When I get as much as exposure as Ann Coulter, i'll be sure to watch my mouth.
Is the statement: "Pretty low even for a liberal, " hateful?
Not really. Most posters on this site use personal attacks and hateful rhetoric on a regular basis. You're simply one of the exceptions. You're not like many who post here.
Wrong, you're statement is saying Liberals are inferior. "Even for a liberal"...yeah that sounds really positive and only referring to people here. Why is it a single word always seems to come to mind when reading your posts. LIAR.
Don't you see? In Rino's world, Liberals ARE beneath contempt. We are sin by definition, Godless, unworthy. So it's not wrong to speak ill of us in his world.
Dobson hates clams.
Absolutly!
It is these kind of people like Dobson that have lead me to become a progressive. A group of people like him and his ilk are evil, devisive human beings who care about one thing and one thing only...themselves
"It is these kind of people like Dobson that have lead me to become a progressive"
Progressive? You might want to think about changing your user name. The ultra conservative Barry Goldwater wasn't at all progressive.
Rino you are wrong
During Goldwater's later years (between 1980-1990) Barry became more and more concerned about the erosion of civil liberties brought about by the Republican party he once held dear. If you read John Dean's book "Conservatives without a Conscience" you will notice in the foreward that Barry Goldwater helped in the project...however Goldwater passed on before the project was complete and Dean continued; adding on the evil of the Bush admin as well as others. The original idea, and principal of Authoritarianism was developed by Barry Goldwater. Secondly, Barry is a TRUE conservative. In the 80's he changed dramatically; and began standing up for homosexual rights. During this time he began to support gay marriage and other gay rights issues and became vastly supportive of secularism. He feared the religious right stole his party, and wished to fight against them... And to leave this off I issue a quote of Barrys that I truly respect:
"And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of conservatism."
Oh here is another one for good measure:
"They{religious fundamentalists} are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I am frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A,B,C, and D. Just who do they think they are?"
Sounds pretty secular to me...
You're right about all that. Goldwater was a social liberal in his later years. However, he was ultra conservative on economic issues. He made Ronald Reagan look like a big government liberal. He was basically a libertarian. He was an anti-government guy. He just wanted to keep the government out of people's lives in ALL areas. I wouldn't exactly call that progressive. No liberals share Goldwater's anti government views.
I just knew it was Rosie O'Donnell's fault
Thanks for the confirmation.
;-)
I think you just ruined some guys' mental imagery with that one.
Pretty lowdown if you ask me.
; )
Sorry Open_Mind.
How about Angelina Jolie & Gisele Bundchen in a clutch?
Neither is a lesbien, but you can still use your imagination ;-)
And it will get that Rosie image out of your head!
Dobson obviously hasn't seen the same movies I have.
Otherwise he would know that lesbian sex is like...totally awesome.
Deez,
Very likely it is two gay guys sex video's that he watches behind close doors........
Blaming all this on lesbians, how disgraceful! Doesn't he realize that two women in bed together was probably Gods being mischievious.
Even deity's can have a quirky side!
This could be Dobson's moment where he loses his audience, just like when one of the other ones wanted to boycott Disney. Every guy in that audience knows that lesbian sex is the greatest gift God ever gave us. I could post links proving this statement, but I'm sure my comment would get flagged.
Rosie? Nahhh.
Actually, I thought it was Cheney's daughter and Gingrich's sister.
So no speculating on what Paris did in prison?
I don't know of anybody celebrating lesbian sex, but they sure do make for some interesting videos!
Dobson is a sick person.
Hey, just wanted to let you know I had responded to your query in the carlson quote. I wasn't intending to pick on gays.
Why? Because he wants to restore traditional values back to America and live a life that is pleasing to God?
And gay baiting is pleasing God how?
The Bible states over and over again that homosexuality is a sin. God makes it clear that we should love everybody as well. I believe that we should reach out and show love to homosexuals, but at the same time we don't have to agree with their lifestyle. We should show love to homosexuals and show them that there is a better and more fulfilling way to live.
Nice try, but that's not what Dobson is doing. He's telling us that if we don't push homosexuality to the backburner that God's going to strike us dead.
He's saying that homosexuality is one thing that is leading to a coarsening of the culture in which we live in. The pastor in the sermon mentioned many other things as well. MMFA simply singled out the lesbian comment to make Dobson look worse. They took it out of context as usual.
Also, God destroyed the whole earth with a flood when humans turned evil and turned away from him, and it's possible that something like that could happen again, at least on a smaller scale.
I only recall 10 commandments. I guess the one on homosexuality was on the third tablet that moses accidentally dropped.
There are other acts which God says are sins in the Bible. There's a lot more to the Bible than simply the ten commandments. Surely you're smart enough to at least realize that.
and 7 deadly sins...
Yeah like eating crustaceans and lying with women who are having a period. You going to sart a boycott of Red Lobster and Platex? Jesus said, don't hate fool! And persecution nd subjagation are hateful acts. God, I would guess, would accept the people as he made them and Jesus would embrace them as he did all people of his time. Same can't be said for the true believers.
"Yeah like eating crustaceans and lying with women who are having a period"
That was meant for a certain group of people in a certain period of time and doesn't apply today. Some of the old traditions were wiped out by the new covanent, or new testament.
How convenient!!!!!!
You are such a moron that you can't even see the irony in your own point of view. Who is the authority that gets to decide which parts of the Bible are now obsolete and irrelevant? And how convenient for straights that the parts that are now irrelevant are the parts that allow them to get away with every vice in which they choose to indulge. Your post is the best advertisement for the abomination defense of bigotry I've ever read. Hypocrite.
I meant to say that it's the best advertisement AGAINST the whole "it's an abomination" baloney. And you're still a hypocrite. A flaming one at that.
The New Testament condemns homosexuality as well, genius.
1 Cor 6:9-10
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 (malakoi) nor homosexual offenders (arsenokoitai) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
I Timothy 1:9-10
This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching
That kind of lazy Bible quoting worked in the past RINO, but today we have the INTERNETS.....
The original Greek word "arsenokoitai" was apparently created by Paul when he wrote 1 Corinthians. The author of 1 Timothy used the same term. 3 It comes from the Greek words "arseno" which means "male," and "koitai" which means "beds." The latter was a common euphemism for a person who has sex. So, arsenokoitai is a "male-bedder."
The word is often translated in English versions of the Bible as "homosexual." That is, a men or women who are sexually attracted only to persons of the same sex. Some theologians are fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey, since the idea of sexual orientation only surfaced in the 19th century after human sexuality started to be scientifically studied.
Other versions of the Bible translate "arsenokoitai" by a phrase that describes sexual activity between males. The King James Version translates it as "them that defile themselves with mankind." Again, it is unlikely that the author(s) intended that behavior. The author(s) would have used the Greek word "paiderasste" -- the standard term at the time for males who had sex with other males.
Instead Paul used this made-up word which is not found in other Greek literature of the time. Other theologians are quite positive that Paul was condemning same-sex sexual behavior by men, and perhaps even by women.
I see that you're quite the biblical scholar. But you were wrong on at least one point. Homosexuality was common back then as well. There are numerous instances of homosexuality in the Bible. It isn't merely a recent development. The only difference between homosexuality back then and now is that it is now a political issue.
Sex between people of the same sex was relatively common.
It was not viewed in the same way, numbskull, because they didn't understand human sexuality, and they didn't understand that being homosexual was a different sexual orientation! They thought that everyone was heterosexual but some of them chose to have sex with people of the same sex.
Also, it is the translation of a translation of a translation that we read in English today, and it does not mean sex between people of the same sex is bad. The original phrasing means forceable sex used as a powerful and/or violent act is wrong.
Sue,
You really should quit with the personal attacks. You don't want to get banned again.
This is why i choose Atheism
When I see people of faith use thier holy book to discriminate and hate others, it just makes me sick to my stomach...
Please say your just agnostic. I hate to think knuckle heads like this, misusing the bible would dominate your perception of the Word to the point of being an unbeliever.
The bigots that misrepresent the word of God do much damage to the human race. They teach things contrary to the word of God.
Mike-
It is not just the religious bigots that drove me away faith...I seriously don't believe in God. Sorry...I am a huge Richard Dawkins fan...
I don't think it is fair to judge any one religion by its ugliness or worst elements. It is important to see the good and the bad in what religions can do.
I guess Jesus (you know, the guy the religion is named after) never had anything to say about this "abomination" directly. If it was so important, why the silence from Jesus on the subject?
It wasn't as big of an issue back then. It wasn't a political issue then like it is now. What most Christian conservatives object to is having the homosexual agenda forced on them. That's what I object to. I could care less what two gay people do in the privacy of their own home.
"It wasn't as big of an issue back then. It wasn't a political issue then like it is now."
What the hell does that have to do with anything? Are you telling me that homosexuality is a major sin, but in all his teachings Jesus never found it worth mentioning at all? Jesus avoided talking about sins because they weren't big "political issues"? Or are you admitting that the Bible is influenced by man's interests, which would make it slightly questionable as the literal word of God.
I'm saying that homosexuality wouldn't be a big issue now if homosexual activists weren't forcing their agenda on the rest of us. The reason that Dobson and others talk about homosexuality so much is that it's now become a major political issue in the United States. If homosexuals simply minded their own business and quit trying to influence public policy, we wouldn't even be having this debate. Homosexuals have the right to do whatever they want to do in the privacy of their own home. No one is taking away their rights.
Your conflations are hilarious. Something is morally wrong, a sin, but Dobson wouldn't ever talk about it because people have privacy rights? What the...? Are you telling me that Dobson is more concerned with politics than what's right? If so, what makes you think he's on the bullet train to heaven?
The reason it's such a big political issue these days is because of people like Dobson, Robertson, etc. who insist on it being a political issue.
When the political issue raised by these hypocrites puts American lives in jeopardy, it's time to draw the line.
The ANTI-Homosexual Agenda has seen that many Arabic speaking translators were forced out of the military due to their homosexuality. This is an example of how the religious right trumps national security and imposes their nonsense of the rest of America and puts our troops at further risk.
And what do you mean when you say "No one is taking away their rights"?
Does that mean that because someone is a homosexual, he has a right to be tied to a fence post and beaten to death? Does that mean that homosexuals now have the right to be chased onto busy highways to be killed by passing cars because of their homosexuality?
Or are those who commit these crimes against homosexuals given the right to persecute those who they despise because they're taught by Religion that homosexuals practice abominable behavior?
You always make statements that you know what Jesus would say. What I know about Jesus is that if he were with us today, he would be tied to that fence with Matthew Shepard in Wyoming. He would have ran along side Michael Sandy as he was chased onto the Belt Parkway in Brooklyn.
He would have lived among the people of the Ninth Ward in New Orleans, he would be picking fruit with the undocumented labor force in California, and he would never, ever associate with miserable men like James Dobson, Pat Robertson or the late Jerry Falwell.
No one condones violence against homosexuals. What happened to Shepherd was sick and a disgusting. The person who did that deserved to be put to death. I'm simply saying that I don't care what two gay people do with each other in the privacy of their own house. I just don't think that we should abandon a 2000 year old tradition of marriage being between a man and a woman.
"I just don't think that we should abandon a 2000 year old tradition of marriage being between a man and a woman."
That isn't a 2000 year old tradition. It's a millenia old survival technique. Today's LEGAL form of "marriage" was invented in Medieval times because there were so many deaths and so many couples that lost a spouse and formed new relationships, sometimes mulitiple times...that the tranfer of estates became cumbersome and almost impossible to follow.
LEGAL marriage was invented as a way to resolve that problem with estates.
NO ONE is wanting ANY religion who opposes gay marriage to conduct those ceremonies. THEY can restrict a marriage to any form they choose...BUT those couples whom they DO marry are not LEGALLY married if the presiding church leader doesn't sign the LEGAL PAPERS.
Gay marriage is not intended to be a religion based marriage, it is meant to be a LEGAL MARRIAGE and under our Constitutional guarantee of EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW, it should already exist.
And, of course, some day we'll have a PROPER Supreme Court that correctly interprets the Constitution and STOPS the discrimination against Gays. I hope for the day.
But ofcoarse reasoning like this is somehow imposing the 'homo-sekshul agenda' on conservative religious nuts. In their eyes, marriage belongs solely to them and should only be the way they see it. Even though allowing gay marriage has NO AFFECT on them whatsoever.
Ah yes, we should long for the day when activist judges force their own view on the American people. Voting on controversial issues that the Constitution is silent on is way over rated anyway.
"Voting on controversial issues that the Constitution is silent on is way over rated anyway"
At last we agree on something. Welcome to our side.
Why do you right wingers always get your undies in a bunch over the judicial branch interpreting the law? You had your fun with the rubber-stamp Congress, now shut up about the judiciary.
"Ah yes, we should long for the day when activist judges force their own view on the American people. Voting on controversial issues that the Constitution is silent on is way over rated anyway." --rino hunter
This is so wrong headed. First of all, Justices are supposed to interpret the Constitution, treaties and applicable law to reach conclusions about important questions. Apparently you don't like those interpretations, so you claim they are "voting" - something they aren't supposed to do.
I can only suppose that if the court ruled your way, blacks would still be second class citizens, denied the vote in many states, homosexuals would still have to worry about Sodomy legislation, etc. Your side restricts everyone elses' freedoms and you sit on the sidelines and cheer them on. I shudder to think what America would be like today if you, Dobson and people like Strom Thurmond had their way. Thank God you lost.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave blacks civil rights. No one wants to take that away. The vast majority of conservatives support the Civil Rights Act. Also, you don't seem to understand the difference between public policy and interpreting the law. There are many conservatives like myself who adamently oppose sodomy laws but feel that the people should still be able to vote on the issue, since the Constitution says absolutely nothing about the issue. In his dissent, Justice Thomas said that he was personally opposed to the Texas sodomy law and would've voted against it if he had been in the Texas Legislature. However, he still realized that the people should have the right to vote on the issue, because sodomy is not a constitutional right. I believe that Congress would've been better off creating a Constitutional amendment making sodomy a Constitutional right. That would've been much better than having activist judges basically re-write the Constitution.
Again. You show the utter shallowness of your Constitutional knowledge. The Ninth Amendment was created so that every single right did not have to be enumerated.
The fact that sodomy laws were usually selectively enforced meant homosexuals were not given equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment as well.
There is no way such a law should have ever been Constitutional.
As for the 1964 Voting Rights Act, it was passed as a reaction to the court decisions. If there were no court decisions, we don't know if such a great law would have ever been passed - and definitely not as quickly. From wikipedia:
As for your contention that "The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave blacks civil rights." That is utterly false. God gave them their rights. The government simply failed to recognize them or enforce them until court setbacks for your side forced Congress to cut their losses by creating the act which put in writing what should have already been known.
We dont get to vote on taking away rights if we did Jim Crow laws would likely STILL be in effect in Mississippi. Every argument I have ever seen against gay marriage is a rehash of the arguments for miscegenation laws.
Uh, no. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended segregation.
Worrierking You are so correct
Good analysis
WK can I give you an amen for that post? If so i give you an AMEN!!!
You sure can. Amen gratefully accepted.
Thanks MODem and Barry.
OH yes blame the gays...
For wanting to be married and raise a family...Oh that is so evil and wrong of them...Rino get a life...
You're in affect insulting the majority of the American people who believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman. That a way to be an extremist.
He's merely pointing out the hypocrisy of vilifying marriage and family in the name of discrimination. If the majority of Americans are hypocrites, it's not his fault, ne?
Correct Iflurry...
The far right are making a big deal about NOTHING. I mean gay is gay, you can't change it, so Rino needs to grow up and act more mature and just deal with it...
Homosexuals have as much right as any other citizen to try to influence policy. Your very statement smacks of bigotry
"What most Christian conservatives object to is having the homosexual agenda forced on them." --rinohunter
Have you ever considered homosexuals object to having the fundamentalist agenda forced on them?
You are the ones restricting homosexuals with sodomy laws. How does the homosexual agenda similarly restrict the activities of fundamentalists?
"You are the ones restricting homosexuals with sodomy laws"
I'm firmly opposed to sodomy laws, as are most conservatives. The government has no right to tell two consenting adults what they can and can't do in their own bedroom.
If most conservatives didn't believe in sodomy laws, they would have never been on the books, much less been repealed by now. They are on the books in the conservative Bible belt to this day - belying your dubious assertion.
Secondly you did not answer my questions.
"They are on the books in the conservative Bible belt to this day"
That's blatantly false. The Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas struck down all sodomy laws. Also, name one conservative Congressman who supports anti-sodomy laws.
You obviously don't understand the law very well. Those laws are indeed still on the books. They may be unenforceable at the current time, but if conservative judges have their way, the Lawrence v. Texas decision could be reconsidered and eventually overturned -- just like the plans for Roe v. Wade.
The laws would not need to be re-enacted either for them to take effect upon reversal of the court case.
Here is a link to Wikipedia about Sodomy Laws that supports my argument that the laws are still on the books in the Bible belt states:
...
And from another site:
So Rino, when are you or Dobson going to advocate the repeal of these onerous laws?
Oh and Dobson was really upset about the sodomy laws being invalidated. Here is what he wrote about it:
So much for your assertion that you don't know anybody who wants sodomy laws. It is clear Dobson thinks striking them down was a travesty on par with Roe V. Wade.
"It is clear Dobson thinks striking them down was a travesty on par with Roe V. Wade"
All that means is that Dobson has an originalist judicial philosophy. He wants judges to let the people vote on issues that the Constitution is silent on, rather than have judges re-write the Constitution. He never gave his opinion on sodomy laws.
So his crusade against homosexuality, abortion and porn have nothing to do with his commentary on rulings about homosexuality, abortion and porn? Come on, now.
It defies all reason to argue as Rion hunter does. RH is being disingenuous at best.
"All that means is that Dobson has an originalist judicial philosophy. He wants judges to let the people vote on issues that the Constitution is silent on" --rino hunter
I'm sorry, but that looks like pure delusion. If that is true, then post his argument instead of making one up for him.
The quote above makes no reference to your supposed argument in any way. Please provide evidence to backup your baseless assertion.
"He never gave his opinion on sodomy laws." --rino hunter
In the quote above, it looks like Dobson is doing just that.
And I answered your question. There are no more sodomy laws. Most conservatives believe in a smaller government and more individual freedom and oppose sodomy laws. Gays are free to do whatever they want within the privacy of their own bedroom. They aren't being discriminated against in any way.
If your answer is that there are no more sodomy laws, that is false. As I stated above, these laws are unenforceable, but they haven't been repealed. You are just ignorant of how lcourt decisions affect laws.
If the laws aren't enforceable, that's the same as having no law. You're using a technicality to try to claim that you weren't wrong. The bottom line is that gay sex is not illegal in any state in this country.
No. I was right. I consistently made the same point. You were wrong. There is no "technicality" here. If I was wrong about any part of what I said, post an example of it below. Otherwise I will assume you could not find one.
And no. You didn't answer my question. What restrictions are homosexuals placing on you?
Weren't you arguing that the government had the right to tell people what they can do in their own bedrooms when you were arguing that Lawrence V. Texas shouldn't have been overturned?
You were saying there was no such right explicitly in the Constitution, so the states could regulate it if they wanted.
Which is it? Does the government have a right or doesn't it in your view?
The people have the right to vote on the issue. There is no constitutional right to sodomy in the Constitution. I'm personally opposed to sodomy laws and would vote against them if I was in a state legislature and a sodomy bill ever came up, but the people still have the right to vote on the issue. You can't seem to understand that public policy and the interpretation of the law are two completely different things. I think that the states have the right to make sodomy laws, but I don't think they should. Congress should've made a Constitutional amendment making sodomy a Constitutional right rather than having activist judges re-write the Constitution.
"Congress should've made a Constitutional amendment making sodomy a Constitutional right rather than having activist judges re-write the Constitution."--rino hunter
To bad for you Madison and Jefferson disagree with you. That is why they pushed for the Ninth Amendment as the full text of your original quote shows. Madison believed that enumerating every single right was silly as it was nearly impossible to do. Instead they decided to limit the powers of the state and left personal rights wide open.
Your interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is as faulty as your apparent comprehension of the Bible and its principles.
The homosexual agenda is being forced on you? That is fascinating. So then you are being FORCED to commit homosexual acts by someone?
Careful with that beam in your eye, Rino
It's not a good idea to call someone "genius" in that belittling way when you've managed to make elementary errors of your own, such as when you confused "covenant" with "testament" a few posts ago. They are very different things.
Also, you should mention that the idea that God's laws are sometimes for specific people and specific times is called dispensationalism. It would have been better to get the correct English terminology out there before trying to claim any specialized knowledge in Koine Greek.
Covanent and testament mean the same thing. They are used interchangeably. The New Testament can also be called the New Covanent. I used the word "genius" because I didn't want to use a personal attack like "moron" or "idiot." "Genius" is a complimentary word. I don't use personal attacks.
When you use the word "genius" as sarcasm, that is a personal attack. The tone and context indicate that to be the case.
Since this is something even grade-schoolers understand, I have to assume you're lying. I think the Bible says something about that.
Oh so you just believe in being condescending and deceitful, well that makes it all better and not a personal attack then....oi.
Rino hunter also frequently insults through generalizations and his use of strawman arguments to dishonestly describe the positions of his opponents.
Actually, I just use the voting records of liberal Democrats in Congress to explain the fundamentals of liberalism.
Only the archaic meaning of testiment is anywhere near covenent. In common usage today the words mean nothing similar
Also, if you really are on the religous right then you should agree with much of what I've said concerning homosexuality.
Don't jump to conclusions, Rino
I never said I didn't agree. But apparently you need to be reminded that Jesus had harsher words about hypocrites than he did about any other group of people.
And no, "covenant" and "testament" are not synonymous, and never have been. If you're really a Christian, you'll show some humbleness now and admit you're wrong, just as you were wrong to claim that you never use personal attacks.
The attitudes of people like you, Rino, will, unfortunately, drive more people away from Christ than bring them to Him. Think about that for a while.
Yes and no, PL. You are correct that, in general useage, testament and convenant are not synonymous. However, in a scriptual context, they are used interchangeably. (Note the Wesbter definition http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/testament )
The scriptual useage is the subject of much scholarly debate, but is still standard practice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament#The_history_of_translation_and_usage_of_the_term_New_Testament provides a reasonable starting point for studying the debate.
Religous Right,
Are you now going to show some humbleness and admit that you were wrong?
Careful, Rino. Don't forget Matthew 7:1-6. Or have you admitted error every time you've been wrong?
No, because I'm not wrong in this case. I said they're not synonymous, and they aren't. My brother ChristianDemocrat and I can have a difference of opinion--we may, in fact, have many, and I thank him for researching it; which is apparently more than you've done.
But you seem to like to flaunt your knowledge of the Bible. Have you read the entirety of the Old and New Covenants? (Just try to call them that in any Bible-believing church and watch the reactions around you.)
The ball's back in your court, Rino. Will you address the points I made, or will your pride get in the way?
P.S., Rino
It's "religious," not "religous," and you've been consistently misspelling "covenant." That's not very good for someone who proudly claims to have earned a 3.9 GPA. But hey, "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble" (Proverbs 3:34).
And if you want to call me the spelling police, feel free. I see little reason to put much stock in your personal attacks.
So calling you the "spelling police" is now a personal attack? It's pretty funny that you think that that's a personal attack, while at the same time you claim that I'm stupid. Talk about a hypocrite.
Now, now, Rino
Just when did I ever call you stupid? I never said it, or implied it. You've made mistakes, and so have I. The difference appears to be that I'm willing to admit to mine.
I referred to the "spelling police" because you used that bit of name-calling with someone else a little farther down the thread. Are you really so sensitive and so full of pride that you can't stand it when someone points out an error?
Now, Rino, unless you can point to an example of me calling you stupid (and I'll clue you in here--you can't), you've told a lie. That's a sin, Rino, and unless you repent of it, you will have to answer to God for it. Are you prepared to stand before Him and do that?
This is your quote:
It's "religious," not "religous," and you've been consistently misspelling "covenant." That's not very good for someone who proudly claims to have earned a 3.9 GPA.
You implied that I was stupid with your comment. I didn't lie. And just for the record, I make mistakes just like everybody else. I've written thousands of words on this thread, and it's nearly impossible to spell every single word right. There's no spell check on the comment section.
No he didnt. Showing you mispelled a word is NOT implying you are stupid. Linking it to you TALKING about your GPA is only implying that if you are going to brag about your education you ought to be more careful about what educated people are careful about. Spelling is not directly connected to intelligence, now there is a fair correlation between spelling and eduction. Those two things are NOT the same.
JDAQUINO
THE BEST POST EVER!!!! YOU ARE A GENIUS!!!!
You're right! The Bible evolves. So stop being bigoted. The time is right to dismiss the homophobic parts of the Bible and move on. Welcome to 2000 years after Christ walked the earth.
The bible evolves but the constitution doesn't? God's law can change, but man's law can't? someone needs to do some 'splainin here, cause that just don't sound right...
We aren't allowed to make amendments to the Bible. The Bible is something that can never be changed. The Constitution can be changed through Constitutional amendments.
The Bible can't be changed????
I wish someone had told the First and Council of Nicea that. You know, back in 325 when they didn't even have a Bible.
They've found other books by the direct apostles of Jesus. They could make a whole new holy book with the material. I myself want to read the gospel of St Thomas. Jesus's identical twin brother, the orthodox preists in Bethlehem have the documents. It has to be the least biased and most reality-based account just because of that viewpoint.
They need to hold a new Council, methinks, and redo the Bible again. Long overdue.
I have read the Gospel of Thomas. If you want to read it find the book called the Other Bible. It is a collection of the early works of Sacred literature from the early Christian period written in the area.
Ta, I'll look into that one.
"We aren't allowed to make amendments to the Bible. The Bible is something that can never be changed."
If that were the case there would only be one Bible, no the many versions we see today.
Mind making a list?
Rhino, where in the Bible does it state that only certain things in the Old Testement no longer applied by the new covenant? You cannot pick and choose which parts of the Bible you believe in. Those are the false prophets teachings. Either you beieve in the entire word or you don't? You can't offer up part of your heart to God for forgivness. It is all or nothing.
There are certain customs in the Old Testament that were meant for the people of that particular time. Many of those customs were wiped out by the new covanent and don't apply today. One example is sacrificing an animal to God. In the Old Testament God told his followers to sacrifice an animal to attone for their sins. However, God then brought his son Jesus Christ to earth to die on the cross for our sins. He was the sacrificial lamb who died in our place. He took away the sins of the world. After that many of the customs that God's people had engaged in became mute. Christ's death on the cross ended many of those customs and old laws.
The word is "moot", genius, not "mute".
Thanks. Now maybe you or someone else can reply to the content of what I said instead of simply being the spelling police.
Well, it seems to be that you are saying that God isn't all-seeing or all-knowing. Because if He was, why would He bother to dictate rules into the Bible that he knew he was going to change through his only begotten son? That doesn't make a lot of sense.
If you believe in God and his rules, then it seems like sin is absolute. If the Bible evolves, then God is changing his mind. That clearly suggests that he was less than perfect at one of those two points. Or is God flawed, in any way?
You may want to dig out your Bible and read it for yourself. God never said not to sacrifice animals in His name. He did however state that no one is to eat the sacrificed animals offered to the demon idols in 1 Corinthians.
We still offer up sacrifices as we know them in the 21st century in every Christian home at meal time. When we ask for him to bless the food we are about to eat we are offering it up to God to bless. Just because you did not personally kill it to eat in your church, does not mean you are not offering it up to God.
But the sins of the world never went away. I never understood where that part got tacked into the theology. He "died" because the Temple preists lodged complaints with the Roman governor about this religious radical from Samaria who just stepped foot on Temple grounds and wrecked up the money men. A dangerous religious radical, with a royal blood line and a growing following.
That is why I call them cafeteria christians. They pick and choose what best suits their needs at the time for political points.
Rino you could say the same thing about homosexuals, and yet you seem to think that they shouldn't be let off the hook....How selective of you....
RINO,I love the Lord, but for the life of me I can't believe that God spends time worrying that two consenting adults who love each other are expressing their affection/love in a physical way. It just seems utterly ridiculous to me. God’s got more important things to do. That also goes for you guys that keep praying for your favorite sports team to win, leave God alone he’s busy. The truth is that when we human beings can't explain things we have historically attributed perceived phenomenon as something supernatural. We didn’t understand sex , it was a force to reckoned with and it was scary, so it was evil and being sexually attracted to a member of the same sex well that was doubly evil. I believe this was the case with those divinely inspired but flawed human beings who wrote the stories in the Bible. Jesus spent no time discussing homosexuality and the big guy didn't address it in the Ten Commandments.
The scene from History of the World: Part I that backs up snoopy's post:
http://video.google.com/url?docid=-1143784911208603707&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=mel+brooks+moses&vidurl=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3D8CB1ruv1n8U&usg=AL29H21810H10pLL2vAH4uciPF--YPa_zw
">[link to www.youtube.com]Oh yeah, the bigotry was completely taken out of context! Good one Rino. Look if your sympathetic to Dobson's point of view that's your right as well as it is his to have his backwards opinion. And anyone else has the right to complain about it. Get it? We don't like him because he says despicable and hurtful things about a segment of society. He has a disease. It's called homo-phobia. He is afraid of homosexuality. Whatever, he can live in fear all he wants. The Constitution of the United States 9th amendment protects equal rights for all citizens. Through our history we have acknowledged different groups and helped fill that promise. Now it's the homosexuals turn. You want to have an irrational fear of something pick another group because it's time to recognize the rights of homosexual citizens. Get out of the way.
"He has a disease. It's called homo-phobia"
So according to you anyone who reads the Bible literally and believes that homosexuality is a sin is a bigot or homophobe? Why do you hate Christians so much?
As I have said clearly. It's the bigotry and homophobia I dislike, I do not care where they get their ammunition. Saying I hate Christians because I despise 2 things is disingenuous. Many Christians do not choose to selectively trust a handful of verses from a book translated by men, written by men and preached by men to justify their bigotry and hatred. Plenty of non-Christians are homophobic, I despise them too. They are equally as ignorant. Use your common sense. you don't need a flawed book made by mortals and twisted by same to know right from wrong. Did God give Adam an instruction manual?
The Bible is the literal word of God. God was speaking through all these men who wrote each book in the Bible. It wasn't simply their own opinion, but it was God speaking through them.
You can't seriously believe that your, what King James Version, wasn't altered over time and is purely the word of God? You can't seriously believe that. I got news for you, the bible was not written in english and unless your a biblical scholar able to read ancient languages on dusty scrolls you can't assume that the bible you use is the actual word of God. To base a belief that views homosexuality as a sin and to hold down an entire group of people you better have more than that. Sorry, it's just not believable.
Anyone who reads the bible literally is misreading it. God transcends literalism. Metaphor is required.
Besides, Dobson and his ilk are not reading the Bible literally. They cherry pick parts they can twist to their own ends, using ignorance to create a false idol of the GOP and political power.
Great point, Craig.
My God is much more than simply a magician.
Miraculous events mean much more to me than mere trickery. If I read it literally, that's all it would be. Luckily for me, the Bible is much more deep than that.
This is another example of the superiority of the liberal philosophy over the rightwingers. We are the mature Christians who don't need tales of magic to believe. Our faith is mature, and multi-faceted, and nuanced and deep. Those on the right see things in black-n-white, as either/or (see the argument yesterday about whether one bad Democrat equals many bad Republicans in recent history), and as immature as can be. Children versus adults. Black-n-white versus many shades of gray. Two dimensional versus multi-dimensional.
Indeed, this is why Catholicism (most anyway) take a contextualist approach to interpreting the Bible. That is, understanding the audience, the author, the time period/political environment etc. before making conclusions about the meaning of any particular statements.
"So according to you anyone who reads the Bible literally and believes that homosexuality is a sin is a bigot or homophobe? Why do you hate Christians so much?"
And why do YOU think that only people who read "the Bible literally" are Christians? It is absolutely impossible to take EVERYTHING in the Bible literally - there are too many contradictions. EVERYONE who "believes" the Bible cherry picks it...EVERYONE.
Amen, brother. True dat.
I would call them a fundamentalist, which is largely inclusive of bigots and homophobes. As much (but not all) of the Bible is contradictory, ridiculous and irrational, I would have to question the intelligence and/or genuine sincerity of a person who would make such a generalized statement like that.
It isn't hard to compose some simple questions that in answering them either demonstrate the respondant is a wacko or they really don't believe everything in the Bible as they say they do.
yeah, what Bing said, and also, your argument lacks merit because your underlying assumption is that it is universally accepted by all the churches that homosexuality is a sin. I beg to differ:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homosexuality
I never said that all churches say that homosexuality is a sin. I said that the Bible says that homosexuality is as sin. Some churches don't follow biblical teachings. My pastor told our congregation a few months ago that you couldn't be a Christian and a homosexual at the same time. I think I'll take his word for it, as he's a man who studies the Bible and actually takes a literal interpretation of it.
Except the obsolete and irrelevant parts apparently. Go away now. You've thoroughly exposed your hypocrisy and self-serving agenda.
Are you sure? I mean that Ted Haggard pastor from Colorado was a pastor with a little on the side. And I'm not talking about his meth habit either.
Am I the only one who noticed that when Haggard lost his pastorship, his church's stated reasoning for dismissing him was because of his legal homosexual behavior, but not his illegal drug use? How strange.
That is sick! You can be gay and Christian! What sins can you commit and still be Christian?!?! My pastor, who has also studied the Bible extensively preaches that God loves us all and wants us to find love. It is printed on our bulletin that we accept everyone who wants to hear the Word of God.
I am amazed that any preacher could judge anyone like that, much less other Christians. People in this country turn away from religion because of the arbitrary division and condemnation found in American Christianity. Should I tell my gay friends who are Christians that they "can't" be Christians?!
"What sins can you commit and still be Christian"
There's a difference between sinning every now and then and living a sinful lifestyle. Once you become a Christian, your lifestyle must change. You can't live the same way you did before. Every one of us is a sinner, and it is only by the grace of God that we are saved. But those who LIVE IN SIN and reject biblical truth cannot be Christians. You can't live in sin and be a Christian. There's a big difference between committing the occasional sin and actually living in sin.
Rino,
Do you find the Episcopal church to be an abomination? They all homosexuals to be preachers and even bishops.
When was the last time you saw a fat sinner find Christ and then become Twiggy? Gluttony is a sin. Does your pastor preach this or is this one of those questionable areas where God really did not mean it?
Any god that forbids bedding two women at once is no god for a man to follow.
Hey dude, I'm catholic. My priest told me that to preach to the congregation, you must be celebate. Any religion that allows their spiritual leaders to get married are living in perpetual sin according to my beliefs. Makes you a hypocrite, doesn't it?
Before you answer, why do you hate catholics?
/sarcasm off...
Unbelievable. You claim to take the Bible in it's totality, but you rely on someone else's opinions about it.
I am betting you haven't even tried to interpret the Bible yourself. It is really quite simple to do with all of the modern resources at your fingertips.
Before you claim to believe everything in the Bible, you need to really get down to study it in depth. Your claim appears to be hollow and uninformed if you continue to rely on others to explain it to you.
Why is it that you feel the need for someone else to read the Bible interpret it and then share their interpretation with you? Do you suffer from ADD or ADHD? If you are indeed a true literalist believer, you are surely then a true liar because no one else’s opinion matters.
If you are indeed a true literalist you had better bone up on your Aramaic and Hebraic, the languages of the original written word, before you set out on your search for the original manuscripts that no one has ever seen. Should you chose not to search for the original manuscripts and settle for existing Greek interpretations please note there are over 200,000 variants in the text of New Testaments alone, when Bible scholars compare the 5,600 old Greek manuscripts to the King James.
Since Pope Liberius decided not to include the Gnostic Gospels in his version of the Bible, you might want to pick up a copy of them too since they too are the word of God. The Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas are of particular interests since they were excluded by Pope Liverius. His vision of the word of God saw fit to exclude these but to include the Gospel of John and the book of Revelations. The criteria he used was to select the books that had to have been written by one of the Apostles. However it is very questionable that the Books of John and Revelations meet this criterion. We report, you decide which literal translation you pastor is qualified to preach to you as the truth.
Gee Rino thats sad....
Are you saying we are all going to die if we accept homosexuals? You would think if God hated Gay people so much that they wouldn't exist in the first place...Oh Well....lol
What flood? Okay, Genesis claims there was a flood. Heck, other cultures have their flood stories (because floods are scary and destructive and must be the work of an unappeased god). But the archeological evidence for a world-wide flood just doesn't exist. Or, maybe I should put it this way: the evidence we have of the ancient (stone age and later) Middle East rules out a flood that wiped out everything.
And what about those equally old cultures (like Egypt) that don't have a flood myth where everything gets destroyed. Funny thing about Egypt; in ancient Egyptian culture, floods were good, since they brought fertility to the land. A kind and loving god brings the flood waters. The floods come in the spring and you know it's going to happen (because the gods smile on you). Lots of cultures just dont' have flood myths (check us out, we're in a region not prone to floods). Lots of cultures have existed continuously since before a dating of the (fictional) flood.
No flood. No Noah's ark. It's just a story.
Not exactly. There is archeological evidence of at least a series of catastrophic tidal waves about 12,000 years ago. It is shown in mass graves of Mamoths and other Animals in Alaska and Siberia, several Islands in the Mediteranean for example for a more comprehensive look at the evidence see Velikovski Worlds in Collision. The Greeks in ancient times said that in the Age of Leo comes the flood and in the Age of Aquairus fire and Eathquakes. 12000 years ago would have been the Age of Leo. They also said there had been two great floods during recorded in their History a worldwide flood (the flood of Deucalion) and a later and lesser flood the flood of Ogyges. I know that is historical in fact legendary evidence but it fits with the Egyptians saying the Earth is destroyed periodically by floods and Earthquakes. The Priests of Sais told Solon that the myth of Phaeton (Appollos son who stole his chariot and flew to close to the Earth and burned it) had the appearance of a myth but described a real thing that happened periodically when the orbs were disturbed in their Orbits. Now what there ISNT is any evidence of a worldwide flood in the last 10,000 years. However dont be too quick to dismiss the flood story. As long as you leave off the 'Earth is 6000 years old' thing there may have been great floods.
So you presume that gay people are incapable of having fulfilling lives?
The following people are people who were once gay but changed and became straight. They now lead ministries preaching hope to gay and lesbian people.
Joe Dallas, Mike Haley, Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D., Alan Chambers
Those are just a few examples. There's many more.
C'mon now. Answer the question. Do you think that gay people are incapable of leading fulfilling lives?
Yes. God meant for human beings to find love and fulfillment from a member of the opposite sex. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
God also meant for women to be subjugated to men and for the Israelites to own slaves. What's your point?
You can criticize the Bible all you want. Just don't falsely claim that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality.
And don't falsely claim you believe in Biblical truth - unless you really are a woman-hating, slave-owning, animal-sacrificing kind of guy.
The Bible says that wives should submit to their husbands. That's not "hating women." The Bible also says that men should love and cherish their wives. That's the role that husbands and wives should have. Animal sacrificing occured in the Old Testament. God told his people to sacrifice an animal to atone for their sins. Then God sent his son Jesus Christ to die for our sins, and he was in affect the sacrificial lamb who took away our sins. Animal sacrificing isn't necessary anymore, because Jesus came and died for us. And God never condoned slavery in the Bible.
So, you believe that men should hold dominant positions in marriage over women in all cases? Not attacking, just trying to wrap my hands around your analysis.
Also, lust is one of the 7 deadly correct? Is homosexuality on par with lust or worse in your opinion?
All sins are equal according to the Bible. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Every human being is capable of being saved no matter what they've done. The reason why homosexuality is such a big issue and why we're talking about it is because it's now become a political issue. Before about ten or fifteen years ago, gay marriage and gay adoption weren't even political issues. Gays generally just kept to themselves. But now homosexuality has become a major political issue, and my overall point is that the federal government shouldn't recognize same sex relationships. The government shouldn't try to control what people do in their own bedrooms, but it shouldn't condone or recognize same sex couples either.
So, by that logic, what do we think of women? Women pretty much kept to themselves, but all of a sudden, some wanted to vote. Even though "traditional values" folks said they shouldn't, society did the right thing.
More recently, in Virginia, there was a state law saying people from different races couldn't marry. Before Loving v. Virginia, interracial couples stayed underground, but one couple stood up for their rights and took their case to court and got the law overturned despite the "traditional values" group.
Before that, "the traditional values" folks favored segregation. Not the best track record...
"My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become evil thinking judges?" (James 2:1-4)
It also condemns eating shellfish, planting two different crops side by side and sewing cloth with two different threads.
Adam and Steve !!! I haven't heard that one in ages.Nice one, RH!
If God did not create Steve, who did? Do you think Steve knows?
Actually since God created ALL things that would include Adam and Steve
So you know their hearts and not just what they say? Here's one for you, I am a strong black woman. Do you find that statement to be true?
Seriously doubt it Rino...
They may be able to cover up thier homosexuality...but that doesn't change who they really are...
Where, where, and where? All over the O.T.?
I thought this was about Christians.
And the Constitution states the Bible is fine for the church but not the government and that people are not to be discriminated against and one of governments roles is to uphold the Constitution. Pretty much does it. As I said one's freedom to be a bigot stops when it infringes on the rights of others. Deal.
"And the Constitution states the Bible is fine for the church but not the government"
I agree. But the Constitution also says nothing about the issue of gay marriage. The people should have the right to vote on that particular issue, since the Constitution is silent on it. It's called democracy. I'm a big fan of it.
"The people should have the right to vote on that particular issue, since the Constitution is silent on it. It's called democracy. I'm a big fan of it."
This has been pointed out to you before, but I guess you "need to hear it three times to believe it's true": the Constitution SPECIFICALLY SAYS that it encompasses rights not listed. Democracty or not, we don't have to vote on what rights we get...we already HAVE them, listed specifically or not.
That's what the Supreme Court is ultimately for - to strike down lawas that TAKE AWAY our rights unconstitutionally.
When did you vote on your right to drive a car?
So do you support anarchy then? Is everything a right? Even polygamy and child molestation? If everything is a right, then what was the point of our founders putting in specific rights like the right to bear arms and the right to free speech? Couldn't they have written the Constitution with one line which said, "An individuals' rights are unlimited." Gay marriage is not a constitutional right. It amazes me that you want nine un-elected judges to force their views on Americans and not let the American people vote. You're not a Democrat at all. You're as anti-democratic as they come.
I'm surprised it took you this long to get into this BS. How is gay marriage like child molestation? it's a consentual relationship, not an abusive one.
And you've already said you don't care what happens in people's bedrooms. But at the same time, gay marriage is something horrible. Why? Really, what's the difference? Under one scenario you have men living together, under another they have legal rights. As far as the sexual relationship goes, it's the same. But now that we're crossing the line into marriage, all of a sudden the child molestation comparisons come out. Why is it the breaking of the tradition of heterosexual sex isn't a big deal, then?
Really, adults are supposed to accept that men are having sex with each other, and nobody should care, but as soon as there's talk about legal commitment, then all hell breaks loose. Utterly bizarre.
Oh no the slippery slope...
Thought you would pull it out of your dirty bag of tricks Rino... THE CONSTITUTION STATES THAT NO LAW SHALL BE MADE THAT RESTRICTS AND INDIVIDUALS RIGHT TO LIFE,LIBERTY, and PERSUIT OF HAPPINESS WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW!!!! Plessy vs. Fergussen ruled that MARRIAGE IS A NATURAL BORN RIGHT!!!!! I will let you connect the dots....
Plessy vs. Fergussen ruled that MARRIAGE IS A NATURAL BORN RIGHT!!!!!
I thought the "natural right" argument is one advanced by opponents of same-sex marriage. ??? In any event, Plessy made no such ruling. Please recheck your reference.
"An individuals' rights are unlimited."
There's a difference between that and what the poster was communicating, i.e., that not all rights are enumerated in the Constitution. However, enumerated or not, they are still protected. We don't get to vote on them. It's an important part of the design of our Constitution intended to protect a minority from the tyranny of the majority.
I made that point elsewhere here. I think it is important to point that out. It is a bedrock democratic principle.
I'm not sure this deserves an answer, but I'll give it a go, just for the record:
"So do you support anarchy then?"
No
" Is everything a right?"
No
" Even polygamy and child molestation?"
Why do you tie these together? Polygamy? I see nothing wrong with it IF ALL PARTIES are in accord on the marriage.
Child molestation is a TOTALLY different subject. I believe in the very, very basic principle that "your rights end where my nose begins" and child molestation is a VIOLATION of the CHILD'S right not to be injured deliberately by someone. So it's in society's interest to punish those who molest children and to do what can be done to avoid such damage to innocents.
" If everything is a right, then what was the point of our founders putting in specific rights like the right to bear arms and the right to free speech?"
Are you REALLY that ignorant of our history? They enumerated those specifically because those were among THE oppressions that were inflicted on the colonists in order to suppress their rights as British citizens. So they were specifically listed to point the fact that WE, as a nation, would NOT suppress them.
" Couldn't they have written the Constitution with one line which said, "An individuals' rights are unlimited.""
Nope, because an INDIVIDUAL can never have unlimited rights. See above about my nose.
" Gay marriage is not a constitutional right. It amazes me that you want nine un-elected judges to force their views on Americans and not let the American people vote. "
That's what those unelected judges are FOR - to ensure, to the best of their ability, that laws passed in this country do not TAKE AWAY constitutional rights. As ALWAYS, the important section is Aricle 9 of the Amendments: Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
"You're not a Democrat at all. You're as anti-democratic as they come."
Luckily for me, it's not YOUR call...it's mine. *I* will decide what party I prefer. But it's not MY fault the facts have a liberal bias. In OUR Democracy the Constitution protects our rights - we don't have to vote on them, we HAVE them. We vote on regulating them...and yes, rights do need to be regulated (it's my nose again).
If this were a PURE Democracy we could dispense with the Presidency and the Legislature and vote directly on all all laws and regulations, but we would still need the Judiciary to ensure that the minority is protected from the tyrany of the majority and that any such laws are still CONSTITUTIONAL.
They arent forcing their views on anyone. No one is saying YOU have to enter into a Gay Marriage. If two other people want to how is that any of YOUR business? Where is the victim? Jim has the right to marry Cindy why doesnt Annie have the right to marry Cindy? If the SC says she does how does that effect YOU in any tangible way? YOU dont get to tell other people that THEY must adhere to YOUR narrow view of morality, nor demand that THEY adhere to YOUR view of a Christian prohibition eve it it DOES exist.
The constitution also says nothing about miscegenation laws yet they are unconstitutional. We dont get to vote to take away Rights from the minority.
You have got to be kidding me.Do you think homosexually is a choice? Do you think men and women wake up and decide to be gay? They know that you are showing love and support (sarcasm) when most of the world’s evils are blame on homosexuality.
Show them a better what? I could be mistaken but I think the current divorce rate is close to 50%. Rino, my neighbors are gay. They get up each and every school morning to feed their son a warm breakfast and get him off to school. They have a beautiful home, great jobs and are basically people that you love to live by and hang out with. I don’t care what they do when their bedroom door closes. And somehow I think they would show you that their lives are certainly full.rino, at best there are only two passages in the Bible that may touch on homosexuality, and those are up for debate. The word homosexual wasn't even coined until the 1800s. To say the Bible is littered with denounciations of homosexuality is dishonest.
Now, there are hundreds of passages that talk about treating others kindly. Hey, there's even a Golden Rule about that. There are also hundreds more that talk about taking care of the less fortunate. Why don't Dobson and his cohorts ever preach on that?
The answer is simple -- they are men of politics, not men of God. Besides, we all know that conservative Christina preachers prefer man-on-man sex as opposed lesbians.
"rino, at best there are only two passages in the Bible that may touch on homosexuality"
That's absolutely false. There's four verses in the New Testament alone, and many more than that in the Old Testament. The Bible condemns homosexuality over and over again. And yes, the Bible also says that we should love others and treat them with respect. But that doesn't mean that we have to agree with their lifestyle. It just means that we should be kind to them and not pick on or make fun of them.
"That's absolutely false. There's four verses in the New Testament alone" --rino hunter
As far as I know only one of those verses is arguably in the gospels, but it the verse itself is not really even about about homosexuality, but the subject of marriage and divorce in Matthew chapter 19:
I dont believe it condemns it over and over again I believe it is about 7 times. Not ONCE by Jesus. Jesus was asked directly how to reach salvation he said simply love God and obey the commandments. When asked which commandments he said honor your father and mother, dont murder or steal and love your niegbor as yourself. Not a thing about homosexuality nor about any of the other judgemental rulings you want to cram down others throats.
Would that include all those instances of homosexuality in nature? If I have a pet gay flamingo (there was just recently a study done showing homosexuality among flamingos), should I try to convince him that there is a better lifestyle choice that would please God?
muwahahahaha!!!!! Rino you crack me up!!!
The bible says that we should stone sinners, slavery is perfectly okay, and shellfish is evil...Let me ask you this, do believe this is true too? If you don't than you are nothing more than a christian who picks and choses which sins to abide by...
The bible also states that it's a damnable offense to eat shrimp or lobster or to ware clothing made of more than one type of thread, that a child who talks back must be stoned to death and women must cover their heads in church. Nice try, Rino. You're bible is full of crap and your justification that "the bible says so" is a cover for hate. If it were not for christianinsanity, you would simply find some other cover for your apparent dislike of other human beings.
Traditional values? You can keep yours. "traditional values" were used to justify slavery, segregation and persecution. You're Constitutional right to be a bigot stops when that bigotry encroaches on the liberties of others. Why don't you just leave people alone? How dare you and your bigot pal Dobson.
Why can't you state your point of view without throwing out personal insults like bigot and homophobe. You simply insult those with whom you disagree without debating the actual issue. Polls show that the majority of the American people believe homosexuality is morally wrong, so you're basically calling the majority of Americans homophobes. That a way to insult over half of the American people.
http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=37
From the article: A 55% majority believes it is a sin to engage in homosexual behavior, and that view is much more prevalent among those who have a high level of religious commitment (76%). About half of all Americans have an unfavorable opinion of gay men (50%) and lesbians (48%), but highly religious people are much more likely to hold negative views
Polls show that the majority of the American people believe homosexuality is morally wrong, so you're basically calling the majority of Americans homophobes. That a way to insult over half of the American people.
And if the majority of Americans thought the moon was made of cheese, would you think it's "insulting" to call them ignorant and stupid? I think it would be rather accurate.
But Rhino, you can't state your opinion without insults against my husband and myself.
That we are sinners or by the very hate you show I your postings.
That is the problem with fundamentalism. It is fundamentally anti-democratic. They want anti-sodomy laws to specifically restrict the freedom of gays and they view any equal footing of their own religion and religious preferences with other beliefs or non-beliefs as an erosion of their rights.
"They want anti-sodomy laws to specifically restrict the freedom of gays"
I don't know of anybody who wants that. I definetely don't. I don't think that the government should make any laws restricting what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom. I believe that the people should have the right to vote on the issue since it isn't a Constitutional right, but if I was a state legislator are a Congressman I would vote against sodomy laws. I don't know of any conservatives who advocate bringing back sodomy laws.
"I don't know of anybody who wants that." --rino hunter
If that is true, how did it become law in most of the bible belt?
"I don't know of any conservatives who advocate bringing back sodomy laws." --rino hunter
They don't have to bring them back. They are already on the books. The real question is why no conservatives want to repeal them. It doesn't make the fundies very happy.
There are no sodomy laws on the books! The decision in Lawrence v. Texas repealed all sodomy laws.
In your opinion, was that judicial activism or ok?
That is a false statement. You don't know much about the law.
The laws were "invalidated" by Lawrence v. Texas. "Invalidated" does not mean "repealed". The laws are most certainly on the books.
From Wikipedia:
...
Your statement is utterly false. If Lawrence is ever reviewed by a more conservative court and overturned, these laws would be in effect that very second.
And I have demonstrated that Dobson himself has been outraged by Texas Sodomy laws being ruled unconstitutional. Don't be disingenous. Whether or not you personally don't want sodomy laws, the people and organizations you support and defend definitely want them.
Here is a list of states that still have sodomy laws on the books:
1) Alabama
2) Arkansas
3) Florida
4) Georgia
5) Idaho
6) Kansas
7) Kentucky
8) Louisiana
9) Maryland
10) Massachusetts
11) Montana
12) Michigan
13) Minnesota
14) Mississippi
15) North Carolina
16) Oklahoma
17) South Carolina
18) Tennessee
19) Texas
20) Utah
21) Virginia
"But Rhino, you can't state your opinion without insults against my husband and myself"
What in the world are you talking about? I've never insulted anyone. I give my take on various issues, and you give yours. I don't personally attack others on this board the way others personally attack me.
Um, Rino? When you basically say gay people are going to go to hell, that might offend certain gay people. You think?
I'm saying that people who live in sin are going to hell. The Bible makes that very clear. I'm simply the messenger. You can choose not to believe the Bible if you want. Also, "living in sin" applies to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. A man and a woman who live together without being married are living in sin as well. I'm not simply singling out gays.
"Messenger" or not, it's still insulting, obviously. To argue that homosexuals are going to hell and then act like "what did I say?" when a gay person takes offense at it is utterly ridiculous.
I never said you were singling out gays when talking about "living in sin", but nice strawman.
"Also, "living in sin" applies to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. A man and a woman who live together without being married are living in sin as well. I'm not simply singling out gays." --rino hunter
Good. Then I suppose you support the right for gay people to get married so they aren't "living in sin" anymore? ...As long as you aren't singling out gays and all.
Funny that Jesus didnt mention that when asked about salvation
Rino,
I am not sure why you use polls. If we use polls on religion, the American people are wrong. There are more who are Muslim in this world than Christian. So, if you say that you have the only true religion, are you putting down the rest of the world?
"Why? Because he wants to restore traditional values back to America and live a life that is pleasing to God?"
No, because he wants to impose them on EVERYONE and do away with God's gift of Free Will.
It does please his God. His war god. He makes war on lesbians. They are not breeding for the wars. Women slave to men. It's straight from the fascist news reels of Nazi Germany. Fascists follow the war god.
I hope that if God wants to smite a city, he's going to have a better reason than lesbian sex.
That's not a God that I could grovel before.
Worr, I live in Las Vegas. I think we'll be first.
But hey, what a way to goooooo!
"The first thing that happens in a nation when it has been abandoned by God is a sexual revolution."
Interesting. Does God really administer his wrath or love according to state and national borders?
"And even though it generates venereal disease and AIDS, [homosexuals] keep doing it."
Earth to Dobson: heterosexual acts generate VD and AIDS, just ask Africa.
Dobson here: Earth, you're breaking up, I can't hear you!
"Earth to Dobson: heterosexual acts generate VD and AIDS, just ask Africa"
Dobson is against pre marital heterosexual sex as well. He's not a bigot as you all like to say. The Bible clearly says that a physical relationship should consist of one man and one woman who are married. Anything else is a sin, according to the Bible. Dobson believes what the Bible says about the issue and opposes all other immoral forms of relationships. He isn't singling out gays.
A bigot is one who holds on to a belief despite evidence to the contrary. Dobson relies more on scripture than observable evidence. In fact he has exhibited a willingness to dismiss conflicting evidence and accept dubious claims that support his bigoted view. He's got a picture in the dictionary next to the definition of bigot. And further more, we could debate verse for verse the interpretations of the obscure references people like Dobson cling to to embolden there ideology. Jesus didn't teach to persecute and shun segments of society. The church may teach it but that doesn't make it right.
It's amusing that you keep calling Dobson a bigot when it's quite obvious that you're a bigot against Christians. You single out a segment of society and condemn them, so you're basically doing the same thing that you accuse Dobson of doing.
You have selective reading friend. I've illustrated quite clearly there are many christians who do not share Dobson's bigotry. And it is not his motives or his intentions I am riled about. It's his bigoted and hateful view that ticks me off.
I think you confuse anti-fundamentalism with anti-Christian. They are not the same.
Personally I have great respect for Christians, however, I admit my patience has grown thin for the obvious flaws of the fundamentalist point of view.
I do not support religious/ideological traditions that openly promote anti-democratic ideas and restrictions on personal freedoms like anti-miscegination, anti-sodomy, anti-abortion, blue law legislation, &c. -- all of which are largely passed with fundamentalist support.
I feel the same about other religions as well. There are large elements of Islam that are anti-democratic in similar ways. I oppose them on the same grounds.
I support the fundamentalist right to free speech, but I am not so confident if fundamentalists were ever in control, they would extend to me the same courtesy as they appear all too willing to take freedom away from others as it is.
"I do not support religious/ideological traditions that openly promote anti-democratic ideas"
The only thing that is "anti-democratic" is when liberal judges refuse to allow the people TO VOTE on controversial issues like gay marriage and abortion that the Constitution is silent on. I'm a big fan of democracy. It's those on the left who are anti-democratic and want to force their views on the entire country through activist judges.
"The only thing that is "anti-democratic" is when liberal judges refuse to allow the people TO VOTE on controversial issues like gay marriage and abortion that the Constitution is silent on. I'm a big fan of democracy. It's those on the left who are anti-democratic and want to force their views on the entire country through activist judges."--rino hunter
The problem with your point of view is that fundamental rights cannot be simply voted away. We all have equal claim to them. You say those rights aren't in the Constitution and I believe they are in the Ninth Amendment:
The Bill of Rights was created to protect minorities from the predictable and self-serving tyranny of the majority. It seems that fundamentalists cannot understand this most fundamental democratic principle. As you just demonstrated, fundamentalists believe it is okay to take away the rights of their opposition by simply being a majority. Rights don't work like that. We all have them and everyones right is equal.
Madison to Jefferson in 1789:
''My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration"
You are aware of the difference between "powers" and "rights"?
Here is the expanded version which further elucidates the point:
"Powers" are the duties and responsibilities assigned to governments and government entities in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. "Rights" are those inalienable things granted by "nature's God" that cannot be taken away by the government. Madison and Jefferson were extremely suspicious of government abusing their powers to intrude on natural rights. That is why the Constitution and the Bill of Rights limit what the government can do by precise enumeration of powers and the same Constitution and Bill of Rights works to give the greatest amount of freedom by allowing for non-enumerated rights.
You simply fundamentally misread the passage. It demonstrates the exact opposite of the argument you were trying to make.
I would accuse you of being dishonest, but it appears you are pretty sadly misinformed over much of this as your earlier posts have demonstrated.
BANG. Shot that one down DEAD. Good job Open mind
Dobson and his ilk really are bigots. Here's a great example courtesy of crooks and liars:
Weyrich: “Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.
Isn't that special?
Another great example of the anti-democratic spirit of these fundamentalists.
These guys must know a different God than the one I know. The God I know isn't that petty.
Their God sounds an awful lot like it was made in their image, not the other way 'round.
That seems to be the way it usually works. Decent, loving people seem to worship a god whose essence is love, while bigots worship a bloodthirsty tyrant.
"These guys must know a different God than the one I know. The God I know isn't that petty. "
You know your God is made in man's image when he hates the same people you do. That's not a direct quote, but it's a paraphrase of one I heard...just don't remember who said it.
Dobson and those like him don't hate gays. They hate homosexuality and what it's done to this country, but not gays themselves. They believe that we should love gays, but we don't have to agree with their lifestyle.
I wish the argument was that simple. By not allowing homosexuals to marry as us heterosexuals do, you are participating in denying homosexuals the same freedom us heterosexuals enjoy.
How does expanding freedom and tolerance towards gays (by granting them an equal opportunity to marry) do harm to Christianity? Do you view freedom as some sort of zero-sum game? Does freedom for gays somehow restrict it for Christians? Please explain.
"They hate homosexuality and what it's done to this country, but not gays themselves."
And just exactly WHAT has homosexuality "done to this country"? Personally, I can't think of a thing. There are so few gays in relation to the general population that their "influence" is practically nil.
"They believe that we should love gays, but we don't have to agree with their lifestyle. "
WHICH lifestyle? There's no such thing as a "gay lifestyle." I promise you, for every "lifestyle" example you can come up with for gays I can match it word for word with heteros living the same "lifestyle"...or "worse"
They hate homosexuality and what its done to this country??? Can you expand on this clearly bigotted statement?
I for one think the world needs more lesbian sex. I'm sure if we could ask God, he'd agree.
I agree, so long as the lesbians involved look like Sarah Jean Underwood or better.
I'm surprised that you didn't get struck down by lightning for simply typing that sentence. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. You obviously haven't read the Bible, and you obviously don't have any morals.
At least he's not secretly wishing for God to unleash his wrath on a whole city.
There's some folks who used to live in tornado alley early this year. Couple good sized towns arn't here anymore. Must not be big enough for Mr. Dobbs. Not an area known for its burgening gay population anyway. The good christians are the ones helping out here. Probably some nonchristians too. Bless you all.
With all of the noted sins in the bible, regardless of translation. The emphisis on the dubiouly, so defined, gay sex sin. Is not reasonable.
Till the late middle ages there were eight separate acceptable sexual identities used and lived in Europe. I haven't investigated this. It was mentioned in a biography of a Dr. David Barry. A Victorian Doctor's Victorian Doctor. The book, Scanty Particulars. The book makes a case that the Doctor's sexual identity was mixed.
I'm more interested in the wonders possible though inclusion. I've met a lot of people. The ones I've found least threatening are often gay. There's some scuts in the population, name one that doesn't have more than those concerned are happy with.
You silly person. You poor misguided soul. Hate to break it to you because you seem comfortable in your biblical world view but yours and Dobsons view of homosexuals is immoral in many people's eyes. Some dig the bible, some don't. And one thing is for certain, you do not need the bible to be moral. Your passing judgement like that is really insulting.
My mom used to say that people like you don't even make NON-sense. You've already said that a lot of what's in the Bible is obsolete and irrelevant in this day and age. We get it. The parts that you don't like no longer matter. The parts that apply to gays apparently do. You've exposed your hypocrisy and your self-serving agenda. You can no longer be taken seriously. So go post on some other topic.
RinoHunter, a poster most pious
Lesbian action he would deny us
God's his close pal
and if a gal loves a gal
Rino's hit man God will fry us
The only thing I am sure of is you are a bigot and a hater and dont have a single working brain cell
I love you too Solon.
Bing-
the quote is from Anne Lamott:
"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."
sorry, that was meant for doggone-ga....
I believe that an America which would be "abandoned by God" would be one where adults engage in indiscriminate sex and bring unwanted children into this world through unplanned pregnancies. Where adults do not think beyond their enraged libido and give into some feeling, whereby an innocent life is then born, shuffled around, and devalued in a society which does not hold their welfare above all else.
If two adults act responsibly towards one another in every way, commit to each other, and treat each other, and the lives of others they touch, with dignity, respect and kindness.......then God smiles on them regardless of their sexual orientation.
Well said Tommy. Well said.
Wow! Well said Tommy!Both you and Jeter give conservatives a great name. He has a post on the Obama/riot and now yours.
Yah! Tommy and Jeter.
Your limrick was good HTL. Sorry I don't feel inspired there. The only limrick that's stayed with me was one considered the worst in the world in the late 70"s by an Australian sailor. Interesting possibly from an taxinomical point of veiw, but fairly nasty even today.
Oops, should be HBL.
Maybe God is up for smiting the old US of A because we have a bunch of hate mongers and bigots preaching to the masses about what they perceive God to want? I mean, taking God's words and twisting them to fit into some perfect little gay hating agenda is, well, I don't think God would like that. Maybe that's why God is going to smite us? I think the hate mongering of lesbians is far more abundant than lesbianism itself.
I did hear Michael Savage let out a gem of a comment the other day. He said something along the lines of, "I'll tell you why God hates America now. It's because the women of this country don't think about having children these days. No. All they think about is pointy shoes and orgasms".
I can't make this stuff up.
Something tells me Dobson, and this guy, and others like them will have a special place in hell soon enough. Turned away at the pearly gates I'm certain of it, while all the lesbians go marching by.
'At good ole boy Savage's onta sumpin thur. Ain' it ar God given raht n dooty t' keep 'em li'l darlin's barefoot n preggers? 'N how we gonna do that if they're wearin' footgear that kin damage yer privates? An fer them femals tuh thank thet procreation's s'posed tuh be recreation fer them, too? Wull, that'd be unnatr'l. Too much pressure, man.
"Something tells me Dobson, and this guy, and others like them will have a special place in hell soon enough"
Wrong. Dobson is a God-fearing Christian who not only will make it to heaven, but will receive special awards there as well. He is doing a great job of trying to clean up our culture and restore traditional values, and I'm sure that God is looking down at him and smiling and saying, "Well done my good and faithful servant."
And you know this, how?
How comforting it must be to know the mind of God.
oh please!
Rino, the Bible commands us to do violent things such stoning non-virgin brides, adulterers, etc. Do you agree with that?
Those were laws that were meant for a certain group of people during a specific time period. It was during the Old Testament days. The New Testament came and rendered many of those laws and traditions mute.
So how do you know that another "newer: testament won't come about that renders the new testament laws and sins null and void?
I know, I know - because the Bible say that this is the "new and everlasting convenant"
But God may choose to break his covenant, he obviously did it once before.
Which is the problem I have with hard-core Christians - you think you know everything about what God wants or thinks because "it's in the bible" Have you ever considered that God may have witheld a few things here and there or intentionally contradicted himself in order to test his followers - to see which message they take up.
Just curious if you ever think about stuff like that.
Keep that up RINO. It's simply fabulous. I wish all evangelicals would just admit that they cherrypick the parts that serve their own agenda. We need more people like you to admit it. Oh, and by the way, the lesbians are winning.
I refuted this silly talking point in an earlier post. Why are you so quick to personally attack me without even giving me a chance to respond?
I got your "talking points" for you. And I'll continue to attack you as long as you keep posting rubbish. For every Bible citation you can post re: homosexuality I can find a rebuttal. Yeah, it's THAT easy.
The original Greek word "arsenokoitai" was apparently created by Paul when he wrote 1 Corinthians. The author of 1 Timothy used the same term. 3 It comes from the Greek words "arseno" which means "male," and "koitai" which means "beds." The latter was a common euphemism for a person who has sex. So, arsenokoitai is a "male-bedder."
The word is often translated in English versions of the Bible as "homosexual." That is, a men or women who are sexually attracted only to persons of the same sex. Some theologians are fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey, since the idea of sexual orientation only surfaced in the 19th century after human sexuality started to be scientifically studied.
Other versions of the Bible translate "arsenokoitai" by a phrase that describes sexual activity between males. The King James Version translates it as "them that defile themselves with mankind." Again, it is unlikely that the author(s) intended that behavior. The author(s) would have used the Greek word "paiderasste" -- the standard term at the time for males who had sex with other males.
"Some theologians are fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey"
Some theologians? You're going to try to discredit an entire verse because of the views of "some theologians?" Simply because some theologians take a different interpretation of the verse doesn't mean that it wasn't translated correctly. Many others validate the translation. There are a couple of other verses in the New Testament which condemn homosexuality as well. Give it up. The Bible states over and over again that homosexuality is a sin. If you don't want to believe the Bible, then fine. But quit making false claims about the content of the bible.
There are no uncontested verses in the New Testament which condemn homosexuality.
Why do you continue to distort reality?
The words for homosexuality didn't exist back then.
Words for innocent, non-sinful sex with another person of the same sex existed. Words for forceful, unwanted sex with another person of the same sex existed.
Consensual sex was not forbidden. Rape or violent sex was sinful. That's what the words meant.
Rino,
You ridicule the arguement above by noting its only by "some theologians," but tell us that "homosexuals" cannot be Christians because your pastor has studied the Bible his whole life. Why is your preacher's opinion worth more than that of "some theologians?"
By over and over you mean 7 times. The bible condemns avarice and commands that the poor be helped a couple of thousand times but for some reason that means a lot less to you. Translation isnt that simple besides the points already made there is always the problem of translating idioms. How would we translate a guy at a campfire telling other guys he was going to see a man about a horse into Farsi by way of German, to Spanish to Ancient Mayan, to French to Farsi? Would it survive as some sort of urination or would it turn into an implication about a horse trade? You pretend this is all so very clear. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isnt. Sex is a topic particularly rife with idioms that do not translate precisely that well.
Rino, please make a list of those sins mentioned in the Bible which are no longer sins.
You're surely smarter than that. Old laws and customs such as not eating pork and sacrificing animals no longer apply today. God sent his son to die for us, and after that happened many of the old traditions and laws were no longer necessary.
If you can say eating pork became quaint, why cannot homosexuals say the same about OT prohibitions regarding homosexual acts?
In order for what you say to be irrefutable, the "revealed" word of God would have had to have been written as Christ spoke, verified by Christ as to it's accuracy after it was transcribed and the chain of custody protected from then until now.
The New Testament was not even written during the life of Christ. There were many parts of the New Testament cast aside by the church.
You may think you know the truth, but in actuality there is no way to know. I'd suggest that you live your life to your beliefs and we'll live ours according to our beliefs.
Most of us here are more forgiving and accepting of people and their shortcomings.
"The New Testament came and rendered many of those laws and traditions mute." --rino hunter
Then how do you reconcile what Jesus said about the Old Testament law with your statement:
Are you saying you are able to believe two contradictory views are absolutely correct at the same time as a Biblical literalist would have to believe? Or are you not really a literalist and you have just chosen to believe one passage of the Bible over another?
Jesus was talking about the prophesy that a messiah would come. He was saying that he came to fulfill that prophecy.
Absolutely wrong. Jesus was talking about Jewish law and custom. If you read the Ancient Greek translation on the link I provided above, you can easily see that he Ancient Greek word in question is nomos:
As you can see this has nothing to do with "prophesy" and everything to do with "anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, a law...".
It would be really nice if you would avoid posting nonsense. The question remains. Which contradictory view do you believe or do you somehow believe both? If you believe they are not contradictory, please provide a much better demonstration than your previous failed attempt.
Rino, your selective grasp of biblical quotes are absolutely astounding! Jesus himself is quoted as saying "I have come not to change, but to uphold the old laws." If you actually believe that you can pick and choose which biblical passages are now "relevent" and which ones are "outdated" you have no understanding of this man-made, censored and voted-on book at all. If every word written is god-inspired, how do you get to state which ones no longer apply? Your scholarship of the bible is abysmal, at best, and your selective understanding shows just how hypocritical you are. By the way, "hypocrite" was one of the worst sins possible, according to your guy, Jesus. Try explaining that to St. Peter at the gates.
I tend to agree with Jesus on a few points. Those hypocrites who use their religion to puff themselves up have already gotten all the reward they're going to get.
Jesus spent a large amount of time preaching against hypocrites, but he said nothing directly regarding homosexuality. I think Jesus knew what was important and what wasn't important at all.
A generation ago preachers of this same ilk were standing up against interracial marriage using the same "Traditional American Values" rhetoric.
Do you think we should have voted on interracial marriage or was the Supreme Court right to overrule a Virginia law?
Oh please gimme a break. Dobson is precisely the type of person God wants to keep out of heaven.
Dobsons words are those of a hater and a bigot. If we had a whole lot less of him and those like him in public discourse and a whole lot less people taking him seriously this would be a kinder world.
Is this abomination preparing to take over for Pattie-cake Robertson? (I'm talking about the freak from Sun Valley.)
Maybe he attended the "Pat Robertson Dingbat Prediction Seminar."
"You can't even count how many million pornographic websites there are. "
I'm sure that's not for lack of trying.
I am amazed...
that anyone takes Dobson seriously. I love that it is lesiban sex and not our really jacked up foreign policy that will get us in the end. Certainly, and sadly, America will see terrorism rear its ugly head again and it will be most like a major city -- because it makes little sense to attack where people aren't -- these guys are doing the religious fear-mongers equilvalent of magic's force push. "I know it will happen no matter what, why not use it to advance my own power and reputation." And that is why they hopefully will not make it pass St. Peter. It's themselves they are promoting, not God -- he quit smiting people and destroying cities in the Old Testament.
Dobson is no ordained pastor or Rev. Just a loud, judgmental fool, leading other fools down a path of damnation.
God is love.
Love and honor God.
Love your neighbor as yourself.
Anyone who has a message from God that isn't full of and all about love, is full of fecal.
Easy no?
I can see why the Christian Right especially hates lesbian sex.
- It's safer, STD-wise than heterosexual sex
- It carries no risk of unwanted pregnancy
- It frees women from being dependent on males.
The Christian Right hates the independence of women, and they especially hate it when women can freely choose to "sin" without suffering some horrible consequence. Since we don't let men like Dobson gang up on women and stone them to death anymore, they're reduced to wet-dream fantasies of God torching a city and laughing as the inhabitants burn.
Mr. Big also frees women from men but he’s not as much fun J
everything i've read in the bible only mentions men on men. i think, like most men (assuming he is a man) god likes watching women action, hence, no mention.
Good point, DailyHobo. Maybe Earth is God's entertainment center, and he just doesn't want to watch the guy/guy action.Although some imagine the deity as female, in which case God is obviously a lesbian.
"The Bible is the literal word of God. God was speaking through all these men who wrote each book in the Bible. It wasn't simply their own opinion, but it was God speaking through them"
Yeah? Yet you say "That was meant for a certain group of people in a certain period of time and doesn't apply today. "
Does that make you God's latest and greatest prophet? Sorry, God hasn't told ME yet that I'm supposed to follow YOUR word. See my other post about "cherry picking" the Bible. You're getting real good at it, REAL fast.
Remind me again why it's liberals who hate America, but men like Dobson and MacArthur who think God is going to destroy an entire city? (after removing the one hetero who lives there, of course).
"Remind me again why it's liberals who hate America, but men like Dobson and MacArthur who think God is going to destroy an entire city? (after removing the one hetero who lives there, of course)."
If you go back and read that particular story carefully, you'll see that it WASN'T the "knowing" of one man by other men that was the abomination, it was the LACK OF COURTESY.
Lot even offered them his daughters, but in the end he said "But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof." Obviously it wasn't the sex, either homo- or hetero- that was the issue. It was the abomination of hurting a guest.
In subsistance communities, especially in desert climates, the protection of guests in your midst was crucial - because the day might come when YOU are the "guest" in need of help and protection. It's was, and is, a mutual agreement for survival's sake.
Wow, doggone. Taking care of people when you're able because you might need help someday,being punished for selfishness.That God sure sounds like a hippie pinko.
"That God sure sounds like a hippie pinko"
Sure does! Isn't it grand?!
Thanks for clearing that up! But I quoted the story mostly ironically, as I knew it's the kind of thing those guys are likely to use in their rationalizations.
"Lot even offered them his daughters, but in the end he said "But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof." Obviously it wasn't the sex, either homo- or hetero- that was the issue. It was the abomination of hurting a guest." --doggone
You make a good point. One I hadn't considered. The story of Sodom and Gamorah is indeed a strange one. Many apparently baffling contradictions in it.
"You make a good point. One I hadn't considered"
Thank you, it's not original to me though. It's the same logic that made stealing someone's horse a hanging offense in the American West. Steal his gun, his food, his clothing, even his water - crimes, yes...but steal his horse and you may have condemned him to death because of the distance between watering holes that can't be reached by a person on foot...hence, a hanging crime.
Dobson can't be straight. Straight men love lesbians. I'm off to the DC gay rights march this weekend with me girl just to ogle the cute lesbians. There is something wrong with a man if he doesn't like the sight of two women kissing. Dobson, this is Alpha Male Headquarters, buy some viagra and spend your money on a lap dance before you die. Or just come out the closet. Your choice. If you keep ranting, we know how you've chosen. Clock's ticking.
Addendum: Went to DC on Saturday for the gay pride thing. Rode the subway getting positive reaction from a very cute lipstick lesbian, spent the entire day ogling cleavage and getting more positive reaction from cute lesbians, while keeping both hands on me woman at all times. I was the island of straightness in a sea of gay men, the border-line lesbians lapped it up. It was great!
You bible-thumping war-god boys don't know what you're missing. My love-goddess says go out and convert lesbians...the fun way! You guys really need a new religion.
Rino Hunter, you really are dense. First off, I could care less what the Bible says. I know what modern science has to say about homosexuality, therefore what the Bible says is pretty much irrelevant. You probably believe in "creationism" too, despite evidence to the contrary. Sorry, but only an idiot would believe a Bible written by men and translated a countless number of times would be the "absolute" word of God. I suggest you take a history class at a college not approved by Falwell or Robertson.
You have every single right to roll around in your ignorance, but don't project it on the rest of us. People like you give Christianity a bad name. The percentage of people claiming to call themselves "Christian" drops by 1% every year because most people are sick of being associated with bigotry and hatred in the name of religion. People don't want to be associated with a petty, jealous God who has a hatred that seems, well, almost human. Makes you THINK, doesn't it?
And don't give me that nonsense about me being "anti-Christian" too. That is the normal line people like you spout out when rational people point out your obvious lack of intelligence. All the Christians I know are normal, loving people who realize that Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, but he did say a lot about loving others and helping those in need.
Now get lost, moron. Believe me, if idiots like you are "true" Christians, I'll gladly burn in "hell" with the lovely lesbians.
"Now get lost, moron. Believe me, if idiots like you are "true" Christians"
Don't worry. Jesus will forgive you for your hateful attacks and evil heart if you just ask him.
Did you just judge his heart? Worry about your own hateful nature let Aries worry about his.
http://www.ncf.ca/ip/sigs/life/gay/religion/bob
All of Rino Hunter's "arguments," smacked down by somebody who knows what he is talking about.
Well, well
The same Christian-Dominionists that gave US a multi-million dollar theme park replete with Fred and Barney of Flintstone fame occupying a lush river valley in a Land between the Rivers......... accordingly named the Tigris-Euphrates (As in Iraq) are now calling upon the Old-Testament God to incinerate in a technical feat reminiscent of Sodom & Gomorrah a US City because some members of our species absent the Y Chromosome embrace each other in lustful carnal decadence. Be sure when it happens that if you are unfortunate enough to be an inhabitant of the target city and escape..... Don't look back for if you do, Your toast or as Genesis reminds US, You are metamorphosed into a pillar of salt!!!
But let US not digress about Biblical fables but word has it that the recently opened Biblical Creation Park shows in all its Bronze-Age tradition Humans tilling the Edenic soil with pet T-Rex's and Veloci-Raptors in docile subservience to their human and male masters all the while the females are nowhere to be found.......... Hmmmmm./
BTW, If the Creator truly loves his creation .. You would think that He/She might be a tad PO'd for destroying an area which was chosen for its beauty and splendor to place the first human pair.
Can't help but wonder that depleted uranium is not looked upon favorably, Ya think!!!
Those who want to try to make the Bible 'Gay-friendly' just can't do it. The Bible consistently condemns homosexual behavior. Jesus didn't specifically condemn homosexual behavior (its condemnation was nearly universal amongst the first century Jewry, thus the conversation was unnecessary), but He did affirm heterosexual marriage.
As to 'insulting' those who practice sexual deviancy by calling it sin, my doctor told me that my heart condition would kill me if it wasn't dealt with. That wasn't insulting, anymore than telling someone they are facing an eternity separated from God unless they deal with their homosexual actions (repentance).
God is gracious, but just like adultery and gossip, homosexual behavior is sin, and earns God's wrath. Dobson and MacArthur both take the moral teachings of the Bible seriously.
The good news is that God doesn't want to leave us in our sin (be it overeating or lesbianism). He has provided an escape through faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus, His Son. But, in order to enjoy the benefits of Jesus' sacrifice, we must 'let go' of our sin and seek His forgiveness. The Bible calls that repentance and faith. It works.
"Dobson and MacArthur both take the moral teachings of the Bible seriously."
They must have forgotten the part about bearing false witness:
MacArthur - "We like to talk about the fact that America was founded on Christian principles, God was at the center of it, and all of that..."
Liar!
You are correct. MacArthur was lying. Our government (especially the Constitution and Bill of Rights) was based on secular values:
In the battle of homosexuality vs. the Bible, the Bible is doomed in the long run. While true believers can justify their own bigotry through those means, it can not be used as a means to sway the general public. Even if it does say that homosexuality is wrong (a debatable point in itself, clearly), Bible literalists are not a very large portion of the population. Most people understand it has contradictions and symbolism, as far as I've seen. Further, my mother herself claimed to believe the Bible was literally true, but she held no condemning opinion of homosexuality. That may be rare, but it shows that people who claim to believe in the Bible don't necessary subscribe to the belief that homosexuality is a sin. As was mentioned earlier, everyone picks and chooses, some with a greater sense of humanity than others.
I've often heard it stated that Christians make up 85% of the country. The actual statistic, if I remember rightly, is that 85% of the country believes in a higher power, and could belong to any religion (or none at all). But even if that 85% was truly Christian, what is the percentage of people who have premarital sex? It's pretty high. No matter how you cut it, that has to include a huge number of people who are supposed to believe in the Bible and the teachings of their church. Either churches are secretly telling their members that premarital sex is acceptable, or people really just aren't buying everything that the Bible and its interpreters are saying. If they did, then they surely wouldn't risk eternal damnation for a roll in the hay, would they? Clearly they're viewing those religious teachings as a mere set of guidelines, not the literal demands of God.
The reality of the situation is that most people value their real-life experience and the teachings of their parents over any book, supposedly holy or not. This is why public opinion continually and predictably shifts to more liberal viewpoints regarding inclusion and equality. Women and black people have gained rights and respect over time, because people begin to recognize that they deserve it. If the Bible really was such a huge factor, how would that happen? Women are portrayed horribly, and the story of Adam and Eve especially pins a tremendous amount of blame on woman. I've heard biblical justifications for segregation and against mixed marriages. But even Christians value their personal experiences more than that, and so their opinions of women or black people that they know instill a sense that they deserve equality. And it's going to be the exact same thing with homosexuals. It takes time for it to happen, but just as it has in the past, those who thump the Bible in efforts to condemn a group of people will fade away, a slow and humiliating descent into the pit of irrelevancy.
Per a recent mmfa study of two years. 90 percent of us self identify as religeous. near 25 percent as evangelicals. 10 percent of the evangelicals are very concerned about abortion and those awful gay people -). Yet which voice's dominate the conversation.
"Jesus didn't specifically condemn homosexual behavior (its condemnation was nearly universal amongst the first century Jewry, thus the conversation was unnecessary)" --edross...
Can you provide a link or two to scholarship that expands on that claim?
Open_Mind;
You could try [link to www.cbmw.org] The writings of Wayne Grudem, I think the best is called Biblical Manhood & Womanhood; Slaves, Women & Homosexuals by William Webb. The book takes a position on women I disagree with, but is an interesting approach to interpretation of the Biblical issues (not a hermeneutic that I would subscribe to, however).
Thank you, I appreciate your response.
Rino, I've been looking through my copy of the Bible. I seem to be missing the part where it says, "the following laws are no longer applicable, but these other ones are still in play."
Please provide this list for m
You should also know that except for some really freaky (what they call) orthodox guys (and that's very questionable), the majority of Jews do not see Homosexuality as a sin. If fact gays and lesbians are allowed to serve openly in Israel's Military. Rabbi Forstein tells me that what a lot of people mistake for homosexuality in the bible is in fact something other. They are referring to the act of that in fact was very common at that time. When one army won in war it was common for the winners to rape enemy soldiers and leaders (all male), it was an act to show dominance over your enemy. The early Jews were one of the first cultures to not carry on this practice.
Did you also know that the early Christian church allowed gay and lesbians to serve openly in the church? That in fact it was not really until closer to the middle ages, that the versus were taken to mean homosexuality (a word that until the 1920's did not exist). This was a period of rampant homophobia.
History is fun.
Craig;
Have you ever heard of the 'Great Awakening?' It was a major revival that swept across the colonies under the preaching of a man named George Whitefield. The 'American' idenity was born in that revival. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are imbued with Christian - biblical principles. The founders were men who knew the Bible - they didn't all believe it, but they were educated in it. They purposefully created a 'secular' government to keep free from the 'state' church - that may have been the only revolutionary thing about the American rebellion.
To call MacArthur a "liar" because he references those facts of history is wrong.
aDifferent McCain;
Your Rabbi friend is ignoring large portions of his authority. The Bible, both Old and New Testaments- is very emphatic in its condemnation of what we today call 'homosexual' practice.
As to your query about "the following laws are no longer applicable, but these other ones are still in play." There are rules of interpretation for any literary document. Using those rules (hermeneutics) most reasonable persons will arrive at the conclusions the evangelical church propounds. The fact is, the Old Testament was a theocracy. The New Testament expands the faith across cultural and national boundaries. But what was wrong in the Old Testament is still wrong in the New.
And homosexual behavior, like murder, is still wrong - according to the God of the Bible. Nature itself - especially a Darwinian view of the survival of the fittest - shows homosexual behavior to be counterproductive and thus 'wrong.'
Many of the Old Testament 'rules' were intended to modify and curb the common practices of the Jews' pagan neighbors (like slavery laws, and justice ['eye for an eye'] for instance). Some were rules that were inherently 'Jewish.' Others were moral principles that are quite pertinent today.
It is true, for instance, that 'feminism' as a social movement could never have arisen were it not for the dignity provided women through the teachings of the Bible. That 'feminism' has become an excuse for immoral behavior (which the Bible condemns) doesn't change the fact that no other culture ever acknowledged the value of women as Western civilization has - largely as a result of Christian teaching.
Slavery is no longer an accepted practice in the world today because Christians in England and America applied the teachings of the Bible to their situation. The apostle Paul felled slavery in a little letter called Philemon in the New Testament.
History really is fun. His story is even better.
Read it over again, Ed
Paul did not fell slavery in the Book of Philemon, or in any other epistle. You have a pretty wild imagination to have come up with that.
Sir;
William Wilberforce was a Bible believing Christian acting out of conviction that the Bible's teaching condemned slavery. Wilberforce was largely responsible for ending the slave trade in the British kingdom. The abolitionist of the US were driven by their conviction that the Bible's teachings condemned slavery. Lincoln brought the issue to its 'nub' by stating that some people thought slavery wrong, while others did not.
That teaching came from Philemon. The 'wall' of the slavery institution was broken by that letter. It took nearly 19 centuries, but Paul 'felled' slavery.
I think that qualifies as a wildly imaginative argument. You don't need the bible to realize that slavery is wrong. In fact, the bible was used to justify slavery.
And by your logic, if the people who murdered Matthew Shepard were driven by their conviction that the Bible's teachings condemned homosexuality, then Paul "felled" him.
I'm not sure anyone can get a rabbi to do anything but ignore the references to homosexuality (if that's what they are) in the Christian Scriptures. Rabbis don't actually feel are binding on Jews. It's not a winning gambit to say to a rabbi, "yeah, but Paul said..."
So, for the Jewish Scriptures (the Tanakh), we're down to two verses. And it's not the plainest Hebrew in there. Literal translations of Leviticus 18:22 give us something like (I don't have a reference at hand for an exact translation), "do not lie the lieings of a woman with a man, it is toevah). There's some debate about how to translate toevah, but it's clear that shrimp and cheating at business fall into these categories.
Obviously, we need to restrict the civil rights and ban from marriage anyone who eats shrimp or is found guilty of shady business practices. And, sure, you and Rino Hunter can point out that Paul permitted Christians to eat shrimp. He certainly didn't approve of dishonest business practices.
Three of the four main Jewish streams (Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist) now all agree that the verses in Leviticus simply were not talking about something that applies to modern same-sex couples. My rabbi noted recently that this is in sharp contrast to Christianity. The three streams constitute a supermajority in American Judaism. And while Dennis Prager (Conservative) may talk of homosexuality as an abomination unto God, his movement no longer agrees with him.
Sure, the conservative voices agree with conservative Christians on this issue. But, though loud, they are a minority viewpoint in Judaism. And if you're going to take a position on a mitzvah, maybe it's not such a bad idea to go for the consensus position from the group that can read the Hebrew.
Speaking of reading Hebrew, most evangelical ministers are ignorant of the language. I don't think we can trust what they say about a text they are unable to read in the original.
Jaidit
Sorry, my Hebrew is a little rusty. Although it does not need to be up to snuff to realize Dobson and company are idiots.
(on a more personally note, I really should study more Hebrew. Make my gran happy. I remember enough I can could tell Rino what I think of his views, but someone at mmfa might translate and ban me.)
"The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are imbued with Christian - biblical principles." --edross...
The Declaration of Independence and (more importantly) the US Constitution are based on secular principles based in the enlightenment / Age of Reason philosophies (Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu and John Locke especially) and ideas borrowed from ancient antiquity (Rome and Greece) according to the history I have read. You need to provide more than just a vague generalities to support your statement.
Christianity is what one might call theological spaghetti. They take a Hebrew war god, give him the same position as Zeus and Odin, tack on a Greek myth about virgin births, and presto, a religious acitivist made demi-god is tacked onto a very bigotted war cult. On top of that, it claims to be monotheistic, but has two main gods, a goddess cult of The Virgin, and you can even pray to the saints, little minor spirits with distinct portfolios, like St Francis of Assissi as the protector of animals or St Christopher of travelers. It has a huge catalog of beings you can pray to....but has only one god???
It's a mess, it really is.
I think it can be said that just about any scripture is theological spaghetti. Most were composed over long periods and preserve conflicting beliefs and traditions. So, take Christianity. I've been listening to a course on the historical Jesus (from the Stanford courses on iTunes). The professor asks the simple question: according to the Christian scriptures, when did Jesus become the messiah?
Paul says when he died. Mark says at baptism. Mathhew and Luke say at birth. John says he was the messiah from the beginning of time.
Someone no doubt has a subtle argument to harmonize these disagreements, but that's not the point, is it?
The point here is that in a free society, I'm allowed to believe that Jesus wasn't the messiah, wasn't a manifestation of a deity, that no one is going to be the messiah, and supernatural beings do not and never have walked the earth.
Compelling such belief or even the faked acknowledgement of such belief is tyrrany. To suppose that I should live my life drawn from precepts of this belief is un-American.
It's not conservatism that proposes a Christian America, it's the fascist impulse.
"I'm allowed to believe that Jesus wasn't the messiah, wasn't a manifestation of a deity, that no one is going to be the messiah, and supernatural beings do not and never have walked the earth. "
Try this one too: he never said the only way back to God was THROUGH him. The whole focus of his ministry was to return his people to GOD, not to found a new version of Judaism in his own name.
Dobson = Dominionist. That says it all!
Well wait a minute now, The Religion of Peace "Islam" preaches death to homosexuals and is taught by Imams yet nobody talks about that. Convenient...
What is this "Islam" you speak of? I haven't heard anything about it. Has it been in the news recently?
Oh, yeah. It's "the other ultra-conservative fundamentalist religion".
I denounce all fundamentalists equally.
Dobson = Dominionist. That says it all!
And of course Dominionism itself is a subset of the Scofieldite, dispensationalist Christian Zionism, which actually wants to facilitate the end of the world.
What fascinates me about Dobson's claim is that, by saying that God caused or allowed 9-11 to punish America for hot girl-on-girl action et al., and that He used a fanatical Muslim group to carry out that punishment, Dobson validates the idea that these guys are actually praying to the right God, since they are being used to carry out His will.
There are many millions of people who believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God -- millions who think that this book is staff and guide, counselor and consoler; that it fills the present with peace and the future with hope -- millions who believe that it is the fountain of law, Justice and mercy, and that to its wise and benign teachings the world is indebted for its liberty, wealth and civilization -- millions who imagine that this book is a revelation from the wisdom and love of God to the brain and heart of man -- millions who regard this book as a torch that conquers the darkness of death, and pours its radiance on another world -- a world without a tear.
They forget its ignorance and savagery, its hatred of liberty, its religious persecution; they remember heaven, but they forget the dungeon of eternal pain. They forget that it imprisons the brain and corrupts the heart. They forget that it is the enemy of intellectual freedom. Liberty is my religion. Liberty of hand and brain -- of thought and labor, liberty is a word hated by kings -- loathed by popes. It is a word that shatters thrones and altars -- that leaves the crowned without subjects, and the outstretched hand of superstition without alms. Liberty is the blossom and fruit of justice -- the perfume of mercy. Liberty is the seed and soil, the air and light, the dew and rain of progress, love and joy. Robert Green Ingersoll
Time to throw a virgin into a volcano! He's got so much wrath against U.S., it might take more than one virgin to appease it!
silly Dobson! we all know that lesbian sex makes for the hottest love scenes in movies... further, lesbian sex is every straight man's fantasy... even yours, Dobby... come on, you know you love it... you borrowed from Clarence Thomas' porn library, for God's sake!
(sorry to bring up CT, there, Mr. Brock... nothing personal)
I think that Dobson and his ilk are wrong about their view of God. And what if He doesn't exist? That makes all this Bible talk the same as a Hollywood script.
But lesbians causing the destruction of an American city through God..wouldn't God have to recognize them as His own children first?
Damn lesbians, damn gay men, damn lying ministers. They are going to get us all killed.
Rino Hunter stated: “And God never condoned slavery in the Bible.”
And edrossinoelwein9669 stated: “Slavery is no longer an accepted practice in the world today because Christians in England and America applied the teachings of the Bible to their situation. The apostle Paul felled slavery in a little letter called Philemon in the New Testament” and “It is true, for instance, that 'feminism' as a social movement could never have arisen were it not for the dignity provided women through the teachings of the Bible”
Here’s what the Bible says, Old and New Testament:
Exodus 21:20-21
20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property
Leviticus 25:44
“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves
Titus 2:9
Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,
1 Peter 2:18
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
1 Corinthians 14:34:34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.
1 Timothy 2:11 -1211 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
I can continue on as there is a lot more but I think I make my point.Where did the abolitionist movement in the US & England come from - Disneyland? Where did the feminist movement in the west come from - Islam, perhaps?Or maybe Buddhism? It didn't arise out of the Greek and Roman cultures. It came from Christianity.
These things didn't arrive in a vacuum. Until Darwin, nearly the whole western world would have qualified as what posters on this site call 'fundamentalist.' And it was Christians, like Wilberforce, who brought slavery to an end - putting into practice the principles of the Bible - like in the letter to Philemon.
The OT limited slavery and controlled it. Jesus and Paul taught the death of slavery. Both Jesus and Paul taught the basic dignity and value of women. The value of the feminine is lost in our world of post-Christian 'hip-hop.'
It always saddens me to see women in the business world trying to dress as men - ties and all. They have lost their feminity, their God-given dignity - perhaps it is better to say they have sacrificed their femininity - to a misguided, misogynistic feminism.
The difference of the sexes is biological reality. Biblical femininity recognizes and celebrates that reality. Secular feminism denies and distorts that same reality. Secular society celebrates women as sex objects, a radical denigration from the femininity of a Biblical world view. The Bible's instructions about marriage/male-female relationships is not about domination but about dignity. Those who live their lives under the authority of the Bible live in dignity. Christianity produces women like Joan of Arc. Feminism can proudly point to - Paris Hilton?
So everything "good" is inspired by the bible and everything "bad" comes from secular culture.
I think that castle is made of sand.
"Until Darwin, nearly the whole western world would have qualified as what posters on this site call 'fundamentalist."
Yes, and I am glad I was not alive back then.
"And it was Christians, like Wilberforce, who brought slavery to an end - putting into practice the principles of the Bible"
Some Christians were opposed to the practice of slavery, indeed. It was mostly Northern churches who were a part of the anti-slavery movement. Many Southern churches were strictly opposed to ending slavery, and likewise, they used the bible to justify their cause.
"It always saddens me to see women in the business world trying to dress as men - ties and all. They have lost their feminity, their God-given dignity - perhaps it is better to say they have sacrificed their femininity - to a misguided, misogynistic feminism."
First of all, who is to say what women should and shouldn't wear? I personally have worn a suit and tie, but I also wear dresses too. It depends on my mood. I have not lost any dignity for having worn a tie. The whole point of feminism has ALWAYS been that women are unique individuals who do not need to be told their place by society, men, or even other women. Some women, and some men (gay/lesbian or straight) are more feminine, some are more masculine. It is more a matter of the individual than some rigid gender role.
"The difference of the sexes is biological reality. Biblical femininity recognizes and celebrates that reality. Secular feminism denies and distorts that same reality. Secular society celebrates women as sex objects, a radical denigration from the femininity of a Biblical world view."
The differences within the sexes is also a biological reality, ie. some women have less estrogen than others and some men have more testosterone than others. I have met Christian, Jewish, athiest, Buddhist, black, white, etc. feminists, and we all have our differences, but we all believe in one thing- we are valuable. That's it- feminism is a sub-sect of humanism, nothing more, nothing less. It is true that some Christians embraced feminism, but many also rejected it. Susan B. Anthony was criticized by the church, and she disassociated herself from organized religion, and many other feminists at that time did so as well.
"Those who live their lives under the authority of the Bible live in dignity."
Some do- some don't. And many who live their lives without religion also live in dignity. Christianity is not a precursor to all that is good.
"Christianity produces women like Joan of Arc. Feminism can proudly point to - Paris Hilton?"
Joan of Arc killed was killed for heresy, a direct result of the combination of church and state. And Paris Hilton is the result of rich parents who spoiled her, not feminism.
As for Christianity and gay rights, as it was with slavery and womens rights, there are Christians on both sides. In my opinion, gay rights are civil rights, and if we were to assume that the struggle for gay rights is the modern day equivalent of abolition or womens suffrage, people like you and Rino are equivalent to those who were pro-slavery and against womens rights. Religion is a tool used to justify both good and evil deeds. It is all in how you use your faith.
"Also, if you really are on the religous right then you should agree with much of what I've said concerning homosexuality."
Maybe you should change your name to CINO...you seem to believe you can 'out' Republicans In Name Only..why not these fake Christians too. So is it only those that believe exactly as you can truely call themselves Republicans? Christians?
Rino's comment:
We should show love to homosexuals and show them that there is a better and more fulfilling way to live.
How dare you assume YOU could show me a more fulfilling way to live? I've been in a committed relationship for 20 years that neither you nor your ilk undestand or care to. I want no love from you. I want no guidance from you. Why not mind your own business and bother adulterers - there's a hell of a lot more of them out there.
With Christians like Rino and Dobson, who needs Satan? If God is the bigot they claim him to be I'll gladly go to hell. After telling God he can kiss my a$$
To me arguing about whether God or the Bible condemn homosexuality is just an exercise in (another cardinal sin). Others have their opinions, I have mine. The part of this piece that most concerns me is the idea that God, as an expression of his wrath, would be just in destroying a city. Assuming a like-minded individual or group acquired the means to bring this about as earthly agents of God, are they condoning an act of "Christio-Fascist" terrorism? I, for one, want no part of a God who considers the razing of a city and the resulting carnage "just". Random acts of destruction happen, of course, but to attribute them to a just God is perverted, and medieval.
I wonder if Dobson has the same irrational hate and bile toward shellfish eaters and Long John Silver's patrons? I guess that being a bigot allows people like Dobson to select what parts of the bible apply to other people and their lives.
If man isn't to lay down with another man like a woman then is it okay if we do it standing up or sitting in a chair? Why oh why are far-right folks so fascinated with gay sex? Obsession is a more apt word than fascinated actually. These people think about gay sex more than we gays do! Hmmmmm, me think they gots lotsa issues.
edrossinoelwein9669
"The New Testament expands the faith across cultural and national boundaries. But what was wrong in the Old Testament is still wrong in the New."
Tell that to RINO who, throughout this thread, has been arguing that large portions of the Bible are null and void because of the New Testament. I don't mean to be glib, but if it was wrong to wear blended fabrics in the Old Testament, should the garment industry be ready for some smiting?
"And homosexual behavior, like murder, is still wrong - according to the God of the Bible."
Are you stating that these two acts are morally equivalent? Just asking.
"Nature itself - especially a Darwinian view of the survival of the fittest - shows homosexual behavior to be counterproductive and thus 'wrong.'"
Are you saying that homosexual acts are counterproductive simply because they are not procreative? If so, are straight people who choose not to procreate also "wrong"? Will God be destroying any cities to show his displeasure here as well? Also, many of the same fundamentalist Christians who are most discomforted by homosexuality dismiss the Theory of Evolution. If you are one of them (not saying you are), then your statement on this appears opportunistic.
"It is true, for instance, that 'feminism' as a social movement could never have arisen were it not for the dignity provided women through the teachings of the Bible."
Western feminism does draw from some Christian precepts, though Christianity was also used to counter women's rights. The fact that you chose to put "feminism" in quotes (twice) gives me an indication that you don't particularly approve of feminism, even though you are using it as a selling point for Christianity. Your contention that feminism "could never have arisen" as a social phenomenon except as part of a Christian mileau is speculative. Some earlier, non-Christian cultures (e.g. the Minoans) were believed to observe equality between the sexes, with inheritance devolving matrilinealy. That said, the vast majority of societies throughout history (including Christian ones) have been undeniably patriarchal. Equal rights for women is a comparatively new phenomenon in Christian and non-Christian societies alike.
"That 'feminism' has become an excuse for immoral behavior (which the Bible condemns) doesn't change the fact that no other culture ever acknowledged the value of women as Western civilization has - largely as a result of Christian teaching."
Feminism is a broad and varied movement. Your stating that feminism monolithically has become an excuse for immoral behavior is painting with an impressively broad brush. If I chose to adopt your standard, I could point out that Christianity per se has also been used as an excuse for immoral behavior.
Your statement that no other culture has "acknowledged the value of women as Western civilization has" is open to debate, but I'm prepared to cede its essential correctness in that Western women have greater independence than women in many parts of the world. Before we get too proud of ourselves, however, let's not forget that women didn't even have the vote in many Western societies until well into the 20th-Century. Moreover, it's not like the rest of the world is standing still. Islamic feminism, for example, continues to make inroads in the Muslim world. The Qur'an is arguably no more regressive vis-a-vis women than the Bible, though women certainly have less rights in practice in Islamic cultures (due to both religious and cultural factors).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_feminism#Muslim_feminism
The mullahs who oppose women's rights in the Muslim world have at least something in common with those Christian fundamentalists (like Dobson) who believe that women should submit themselves to their husbands.
"Slavery is no longer an accepted practice in the world today because Christians in England and America applied the teachings of the Bible to their situation."
No argument, as far as it goes, but Christianity was also frequently used as an argument against abolition. (The African slave trade was born and flourished in Christian countries, as well as dying there.) I'm glad the good Christians won.
Have a nice weekend.
christopher howard
I'm a 'six-day creationist' so the Darwin argument was probably 'opportunistic.' But homosexuality doesn't fit an evolutionary world-view at all. Perhaps that was one of the reasons that the Nazis were so intent on killing homosexuals (at least publicly).
I don't equate murder and sodomy. They are just both wrong, not equivalent.
The mullahs who oppose women's rights in the Muslim world have at least something in common with those Christian fundamentalists (like Dobson) who believe that women should submit themselves to their husbands.
That is a pretty broad brush, as well. To compare the Islamic subjagation of women as chattel property to Biblical female subordination is apples and oranges. Christian husbands don't own their wives. The Koran teaches women are equivalent to cattle.
Also, to say that the Koran and the Bible are equally regressive toward women is plainly wrong. The Bible grants great dignity to women. The subordination of women as taught in the Bible is a matter of roles, reflecting a similar economy in the Godhead. There is no inferiority between the Father and the Son, and yet the Son is willingly subordinate to the Father. The modern feminist movement paints a 'straw man' of Biblical subordination. Biblical subordination does not imply domination, inferiority or ownership. It is a position of dignity.
You say that feminism is making great strides in Islam - by whose measure? Any feminist rights in Islamic countries are mostly as a result of the westernization of the culture and contrary to the teaching of the Koran. Do women have the right to vote in any Islamic countries? The Taliban are the 'future' if Islam gains the ascendancy over Western Civilization.
In comparison, western feminism, though a bastardization of Biblical femininity, sprang from a system that gives real dignity to women.
Incidentally, Dobson is an evangelical, not a fundamentalist.
Good day.
Homosexuality has no place in evolution, yet there are gay animals as well as humans. Why is that? A trick of the devil?
This is the real head-scratcher though:
"There is no inferiority between the Father and the Son, and yet the Son is willingly subordinate to the Father. The modern feminist movement paints a 'straw man' of Biblical subordination. Biblical subordination does not imply domination, inferiority or ownership. It is a position of dignity."
This is bizarre. You use the phrase "willingly" subordinate regarding Jesus, but that doesn't apply to women in general. Not all women are willingly subordinate, where they are equals with their husbands but choose to let him make all the decisions no matter what she thinks. The argument seems to be that Christian women should willingly do so, which is religious pressure that influences their behavior! If a woman demands decision-making capabilities from her husband, does that disqualify her as "Christian", because that's not how Christian women behave? Or is the idea that women in general don't have the capacity to make decisions? That would clearly define them as inferior.
Is there some clarification you could make here, please?
brabantio;
This is bizarre. You use the phrase "willingly" subordinate regarding Jesus, but that doesn't apply to women in general. Not all women are willingly subordinate, where they are equals with their husbands but choose to let him make all the decisions no matter what she thinks. The argument seems to be that Christian women should willingly do so, which is religious pressure that influences their behavior! If a woman demands decision-making capabilities from her husband, does that disqualify her as "Christian", because that's not how Christian women behave? Or is the idea that women in general don't have the capacity to make decisions? That would clearly define them as inferior.
Christianity is a 'voluntary' association. And there is certainly peer pressure upon all people - not just in Christian circles - to conform to certain 'group' behaviors. That's not necessarily a bad thing. A Christian woman who refuses the Biblical model doesn't cease to be a Christian anymore than my son would cease to be my son if he disobeyed me (which was fairly common!). But she would lose the blessings that God's prescription for her brings.
God is not some ogre trying to stifle humans (male or female), He is a loving Father/Creator Who knows how we were designed and how we will work to best bring us the joy and satisfaction that He intends for us to have.
Biblical submission isn't about ability or superiority or domination - it's about dignity. It's about recognizing our creatureliness and God's wisdom.
++++++++++++++++
Was it you who asked if homosexuality in the animal kingdom didn't negate the evolutionary argument against homosexuality? Mutations are 99% bad, does that refute the idea of 'natural selection' in an evolutionis's mind? The central idea of evolution is survival of the fittest. Homosexuality doesn't reproduce - therefore, it cannot be 'fit' in an evolutionary system. Idividual homosexuals might reproduce with the help of the other gender, but homosexuality, in a pure form, must die out in one generation.
Gotta go
Peace
"But she would lose the blessings that God's prescription for her brings."
So, if a woman isn't subservient, then she goes to hell? Is that what that means? It doesn't sound good, in any case.
Thanks for making my point. Women must be subordinate, and let men dominate them, or they are punished in one form or another. So it's not "willing" by any stretch of the imagination. They're pressured to behave that way through religion, that is clearly domination. "Do what I tell you, woman, or God will punish you". Now if a woman chooses to be dominated, that's one thing. Religious pressure to accept subservience is quite another. You can't apply "willing" to the collective of millions of women, obviously.
Equating your wife to your son doesn't help. You clearly have control over your child until they turn eighteen, legally. They are dominated and subservient, since your actions provide them their very lives and any comforts they have. As far as knowing the way that makes us happy, how on earth do your reconcile that with the idea that women aren't inferior? If women have their say, then somehow we're going to lose out on happiness? This doesn't make sense on any level, as far as I can see, without being a blatant self-contradiction on your part. It seems to be "A man-controlled world is the best way to insure happiness...but women aren't inferior or dominated, and have a place of dignity". What the hell?
Also regarding the "son" comment, the definitions are completely different. Your son is always your son, but it is possible for people to abandon religions, or to be kicked out of them, or to be declared to be "not a true" member. I myself used to be a Mormon, but I no longer am. I am still my father's son, and nothing can change that.
brabantio;
Thanks for making my point. Women must be subordinate, and let men dominate them, or they are punished in one form or another. So it's not "willing" by any stretch of the imagination. They're pressured to behave that way through religion, that is clearly domination. "Do what I tell you, woman, or God will punish you". Now if a woman chooses to be dominated, that's one thing. Religious pressure to accept subservience is quite another. You can't apply "willing" to the collective of millions of women, obviously.
You misunderstood me. A Christian woman is God's child (like my son is my child) - she always will be - and if she disobeys His will for her life, she misses the blessings that obedience to His will would otherwise bring to her. It's not a question of heaven or hell -her destiny was decided when she became a Christian - she was given heaven by a loving Father. That same loving Father tells her how to best use the life He has given her. God's instruction to the wife is to submit to her husband. But the husband's role is not to dominate the wife - (a lot of Christian men misunderstand this and misuse their role) - he is to love her sacrificially like Jesus loves the Church.
Here's an analogy. Let's say that Snickers candy bars are really tasty and good for you. I offer you a thousand snickers candy bars - if you refuse them, would you say that I am punishing you?
I would not counsel any woman to accept subservience. That is a part of the world's 'straw man' on Biblical submission. It is not dominance, either. Tho you will probably obey a police officer directing traffic, I doubt you would describe yourself as dominated by him.
Biblical submission is a matter of roles, and the Christian woman has great dignity. Jesus willingly submits to the Father - without subservience, without being dominated, without any loss of dignity. The Christian wife has the opportunity to model Christ to the world - to be a witness through her marriage - just as the husband has the opportunity to model Christ through his sacrificial love for his wife.
I am not trying to apply Biblical submission to the collective millions. I joined this conversation to say that while the Bible condemns homosexual behavior, God offers grace and forgiveness to repentant sinners.
Have a good one.
Your snickers bars are contingent on my behavior though, a part of the argument you conveniently ignore. That's influencing behavior, obviously, and that is what makes it inconsistent with "willing".
If women are insured a place in heaven, then what is the reward for submitting to their husbands? Happiness, where if they have their own power they won't be happy? The knowledge that they're doing what God tells them to do? You aren't making this clear.
It's all well and good that men are supposed to behave a certain way in exchange for women accepting a non-speaking part in the relationship. The definitions of that behavior are subjective though, clearly. A man can beat his wife and believe that he's doing what's best for her, and tell her not to talk to anyone about it. She has to submit to his will, right? An extreme example, but everyone knows that relationship is give and take. There will always be differing opinion. The demand that a woman submit to a man's will means that she has no input, no influence on decisions. And it also allows a man to demand sex at any time, whether that's right for him to do or not. She has to submit.
A police officer is a figure of authority. He or she is a representative of the legal system. If one is demanding something from you, they think you're doing something wrong. They are keeping you in line. By your comparison, men are representatives of a greater authority, the way police have the ability to arrest you, a man has the ability to "correct" his wife's behavior as he sees fit. That's not dominance?
I honestly don't care what the purpose of your post was, your point is completely ridiculous. The only way this concept works is if women accept being dominated, or if you believe they are naturally inferior to men. No matter how you cut it, a woman's place is below that of her husband, because he's in charge.
Let me simplify this for you.
Do you believe a woman has the ability to reason and think for herself?
Do you believe her reasoning abilities are equal to that of men?
If the answer to either of those questions is "no", then you think women are inferior. Now then, if you believe that they are equal, and have their own thoughts and desires that may conflict with those of their husband, then the idea that the husband wins any conflict by default makes her dominated, whether you would counsel her to view it that way or not. What would you counsel a woman to do if she disagreed with her husband? To accept his will, whether he's right or wrong, and whether you choose to call that subservience or not.
The idea that there is some sort of holy reward system for this is simply a way of asserting male control through the name of God.
What it comes down to is this, despite the excessively wordy post by edrossinoelwein9669: the attitude shown in that post is the Victorian attitude of "He for God, she for God in him"
And no, I don't believe in that principle as the word of God. I think it was put into the later letters - now "books" of the Bible - by authors who, like far too many "Christians" today, could not accept Jesus message that ALL ARE EQUAL BEFORE GOD and who had to cling to their male dominated societal structure at all costs.
This still leaves one unanswered and largely ignored question: Exactly how is the religious community, or the world at large, threatened or harmed by the union of gay couples? Really.
As an individual, how are you harmed? As a religious group, what do you fear?
Yes, we've all heard the argument that gay marriage goes against the "institution" of marriage as defined as one man and one woman. It's a flimsy argument at best. But even so, is that "institution" so fragile that recognizing the love between people, regardless of sexual orientation, will destroy it???
If that's the case, then maybe we had better look again at the concept of "marriage" with a more jaundiced eye
- jackstraw