Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!
An 'urgency': Sensing threats to institutions of society, church leaders make declaration 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Traditional marriage wins out in Maine
Last spring, the Maine legislature passed a law legalizing same-sex marriage, but yesterday voters in the state repealed it. This issue has been put to the test in 31 states so far, and each time the popular vote has sided with preserving traditional marriage between a man and a woman. This is, however, the first time voters have rejected legislative action. Gay marriage is legal in five states, all through legislation or court rulings, not by popular vote.
Topic: Newsworthy, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top293 Comments to “Traditional marriage wins out in Maine”
I am not that smart. Certainly, I am not as smart as Karl Rove, whom I suspect (but do not know), may be a secret nihilist. However, I will indulge in a “told you so.” A while back, maybe even two or three years, I said on worldmagblog that I was not in favor of “gay marriage,” or as I prefer to term it, “homosexual marriage.” I said that the word “marriage” could be left to the conservative Christians, but that homosexual couples (and even polyamorous groups, though I am quite radical here) should be granted the right to form “civil unions,” or “domestic partnerships,” or similar arrangements.
So homosexual marriage lost in Maine, though I presume my brother voted for it. So far it looks as if domestic partnership is winning in Washington State.
What part of Napoleon’s retreat from Russia did Hitler not understand?
Report comment to moderator
Once again, the people have spoken!
Report comment to moderator
Random –
Would you be willing to explain how a nihilist can say “should” about anything moral?
OH
Report comment to moderator
On this date in 1999, Aaron McKinney avoided the death penalty for murdering Matthew Shepard by agreeing to a term of life without parole, and for agreeing to never appeal his conviction.
Patrol Officer Reggie Fluty described in her report that when she found Shepard’s body, his hands were bound behind his back so tightly to a buck fence that it was difficult to cut him free. Her only duty at the time was not to gather evidence but to assist Shepard. Fluty tried to cut the ropes from Shepard’s hands and when she bent him over he stopped breathing so she turned him back over. “His hands were tied tight and I wanted to free him.” She also noticed that he wore braces on his teeth. And though his face was caked in blood, his face was clean where streaks of tears had washed the blood away. “The only white skin I saw (on his face) was where he had been crying.” A watch and Matthew’s school ID card was found near the crime scene. In her testimony in the Aaron McKinney trial Tuesday, October 26, 1999, Fluty testified that trying to comfort Shepard while waiting for the ambulance she told him “Baby boy, I’m so sorry this happened to you.” During Fluty’s testimony, Prosecutor Cal Rerucha showed the jury pictures of Shepard’s face and the blood stained ground below where Shepard had been left for 18 hours. Some jurors winced as they viewed graphic photos of Shepard’s injuries, including his bloodied face and ear.
Report comment to moderator
Irrelevant for several reasons, Thomas1. Nice try, though.
Report comment to moderator
THOMAS 1: A horrible crime indeed. As well as the rape and murder of a teenage boy by two sodomites about the same time.
How evil the hearts of man can be, don’t you agree?
Report comment to moderator
Despite Maine, it was in general a fantastic night for LGBT politics, with great results seen in Kalamazoo, Chapel Hill, Detroit, Houston, and in Washington state, where Approve 71 continues to lead, with a final result possibly not coming for a few days.
A rising tide lifts all boats, as they say in Asia.
Report comment to moderator
This is the Kalamazoo ordinace, which passed 65% to 35%:
Shall Ordinance No. 1856, adopted by the City Commission June 29, 2009, which amended Chapter 18 of the City Code of Ordinances to generally prohibit discriminatory practices on the basis of an individual’s race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, height, weight, marital status, physical or mental disability, family status, sexual orientation or gender identity in the provision of housing, public accommodations, and employment, take effect?
Report comment to moderator
Whether one likes it or not….
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gCdZqWgPVPTXeB1bQGw_j7YOIvHAD9BNP59G0
Same-sex couples who identify as married are similar to straight spouses in terms of age and income, and nearly one-third of them are raising children, according to Census data released Monday that provides a demographic snapshot of gay families in America.
The study released by a think tank based at UCLA also found that Utah and Wyoming were among the states with the highest percentages of gay spouses in 2008, despite being heavily conservative states with no laws providing legal recognition of gay relationships.
The data from the annual American Community Survey showed that nearly 150,000 same-sex couples in the U.S., or more than one in four, referred to one another as “husband” or “wife,” although UCLA researchers estimate that no more than 32,000 of the couples were legally married.
The couples had an average age of 52 and household incomes of $91,558, while 31 percent were raising children. That compares with an average age of 50, household income of $95,075 and 43 percent raising children for married heterosexual couples.
Report comment to moderator
Both the hoodlums that murdered Matthew Shepherd should have been executed. Pure and simple. No ifs and or buts about it. No doubt the creep who got life without parole entered the plea bargain so he could testify against his cohort in crime.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1,
So?
Is that supposed to hurt our feelings or something?
Report comment to moderator
I think it’s hard for the public to take a group that defines itself by an alphabet soup of sexual practices seriously, a group that seems reluctant to publicly describe precisely what those initials stand for. Advocating marriage rights for bisexuals seems akin to advocating marriage rights for philanderers.
Heterosexual couples are unique due to their diversity and their potential fertility. Nothing will change that.
Report comment to moderator
I’m sure there are plenty of high-fives going around at the offices of Stand for Marriage Maine, the American Family Association, the Family Research Council, and all the other groups that promoted Question 1 in Maine. So to them, congratulations, you helped issue Gay couples in that state a setback … for now. I still take comfort in knowing that sooner or later Gay and Straight couples in the U.S. will be treated equally.
And when that happens, I promise that it will have precisely ZERO impact on your life, your marriage, your church, and your children. Your church will never be forced to marry Gay couples, any more than it is forced to marry non-Christian couples. Public schools will not be forced to “teach” about Gay marriage, any more than they are forced to teach about Straight marriage. And at last, Gay couples will finally be able take part in the legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that our tax dollars have been helping to subsidize throughout the history of this country.
Report comment to moderator
When two people marry, they must (at least they promise to) discriminate rather blatantly against all others outside that marriage. The future of any civilization depends on the freedom of people to discriminate at many levels of human life on the basis of moral principles and values.
They should be subject to public scrutiny for their freedom to discriminate, but it’s a mistake to give government and lawyers too much oppressive control on the front end of such free choices. Life has never been fully fair, but American has historically leaned toward greater freedom. This has proven to be constructive, overall. But this is changing, regardless of election results.
Now, lawyers rule and you are becoming their subjects.
Report comment to moderator
When are the threesomes getting their turn?
Report comment to moderator
12:I think it’s hard for the public to take a group that defines itself by an alphabet soup of sexual practices seriously, a group that seems reluctant to publicly describe precisely what those initials stand for.
HRC has a list for the ill-informed, and it’s hardly a secret.
Heterosexual couples are unique due to their diversity and their potential fertility. Nothing will change that. Except menopause, erectile dysfunction, and all the other things that come with age.
Report comment to moderator
#9 – “The data from the annual American Community Survey showed that nearly 150,000 same-sex couples in the U.S., or more than one in four, referred to one another as ‘husband’ or ‘wife’,”
And same-sex ‘triples’ and ‘quartets’ are on the increase too! Someday, we may even be open and fair enough to give “marriage equality” to the Los Angeles Lakers too so they to can get tax breaks & benefits, inheritance rights currently denied to them, and help out with each other’s children. Why exclude them, as long as they are consenting adults and say they are in love…
Report comment to moderator
Why stop at three? After singing in the latest “Hate Crimes” bill, the President called for a society where “we are all free to live and love as we see fit.” The conclusion to such thinking is that no conceivable sexual category can be denied. All that’s required is consent.
Report comment to moderator
Polishbear wrote; “I promise that it will have precisely ZERO impact on your life, your marriage, your church, and your children.”
Sir or Madam, if you married a polar bear, five cats or 17 telephone poles, it would probably ALSO have precisely ZERO imapct on my personal life, marriage, church and children. You are not making sense. Lose the mindless talking points. The forced legal re-definition of marriage is the point.
Report comment to moderator
Polishbear, I disagree with you about who will be “forced” to do what in the future. Recent history proves that those with a homosexualist agenda can and will be relentless in trying to force their will on others, by whatever means possible. They tried to force their will on the Boy Scouts and were willing to destroy them if they did not submit.
Report comment to moderator
Just so we are clear here:
The “Christians” who depict themselves as “loving” people are elevating sex above love as the most important factor in determining what a marriage is. And the only criterion they recognize is reproduction, which all lower critters are capable of.
And the self-styled “libertarians” are glad to have all governments determine rights based on the same factor.
Report comment to moderator
“On to sodomy and sodomites… do the people who throw the word around like an epithet actually know what it means? Of course it’s intended to be disrespectful of gay people, but the reality is much more prosaic – it refers to oral and anal sex.”
The OED has a mere 2 definitions for the word “sodomy”:
1) “An unnatural form of sexual intercourse, esp. that of one male with another.”
2) “An act or instance of this.”
I don’t see any reference to anal and/or oral sex here. So you might want to stop pretentiously lecturing everyone as if you exclusively hold the key to all knowledge.
The word derives, of course, from the biblical story of Sodom, where men were trying to have sex with other men.
The word is used to call attention to the aborrhent character of the act of men having anal sex with each other as well as to remind listeners that God will judge those who engage in sin unrepentantly.
And this is is the very prosaic reason why you detest the word so much–it reminds you of the terrible judgment of God on wickedness, which you can’t stand to hear about.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.04.09 AT 8:54 AM
On this date in 1999, Aaron McKinney avoided the death penalty for murdering Matthew Shepard by agreeing to a term of life without parole, and for agreeing to never appeal his conviction.
Patrol Officer Reggie Fluty described in her report that when she found Shepard’s body, his hands were bound behind his back so tightly to a buck fence that it was difficult to cut him free. Her only duty at the time was not to gather evidence but to assist Shepard. Fluty tried to cut the ropes from Shepard’s hands and when she bent him over he stopped breathing so she turned him back over. “His hands were tied tight and I wanted to free him.” She also noticed that he wore braces on his teeth. And though his face was caked in blood, his face was clean where streaks of tears had washed the blood away. “The only white skin I saw (on his face) was where he had been crying.” A watch and Matthew’s school ID card was found near the crime scene. In her testimony in the Aaron McKinney trial Tuesday, October 26, 1999, Fluty testified that trying to comfort Shepard while waiting for the ambulance she told him “Baby boy, I’m so sorry this happened to you.” During Fluty’s testimony, Prosecutor Cal Rerucha showed the jury pictures of Shepard’s face and the blood stained ground below where Shepard had been left for 18 hours. Some jurors winced as they viewed graphic photos of Shepard’s injuries, including his bloodied face and ear.
–
wrong place
Report comment to moderator
False Analogy: In this technique, two things that may or may not really be similar are portrayed as being similar. When examining the comparison, you must ask yourself how similar the items are. In most false analogies, there is simply not enough evidence available to support the comparison.
So! The lovely posters who are bringing threesomes and foursomes into the discussion actually have a name: false analogists. Which I suppose is like being a homosexualist or a sodomite, only not as much fun.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
Do you love your mom and dad? Does that make you married to them?
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1:
Almost all heterosexual couples deal with the fertility issue in one way or another. It is a constant issue in their relationship. Some have to deal with the disability that makes them infertile. Some have made themselves infertile, and must deal with the consequences of that. Older couples have dealt with it all their lives, it has lasting effects on them and their relationships that are huge. Fertility is not a trivial issue. It is life and death.
Heterosexual couples are different and can’t be compared with homosexual couples for this reason, and because they are diverse – men and women are vastly different.
Most people do not deny this.
Report comment to moderator
So Roger, what Thomas1 is saying is, the two men who raped and murdered that 13 year old boy should be called gay men, not sodomites.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.04.09 AT 9:10 AM
This is the Kalamazoo ordinace, which passed 65% to 35%:
Shall Ordinance No. 1856, adopted by the City Commission June 29, 2009, which amended Chapter 18 of the City Code of Ordinances to generally prohibit discriminatory practices on the basis of an individual’s race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, height, weight, marital status, physical or mental disability, family status, sexual orientation or gender identity in the provision of housing, public accommodations, and employment, take effect?
–
does this law cover the sexualy perverts? since they can claim sexual orientation.
Report comment to moderator
Which, I believe takes us back to your original point. Matthew Shepherd’s murder does not justify same sex marriage any more than the gay men murdering the boy makes all gay men evil.
Report comment to moderator
@27 – Adios, I think they should be called murderers.
Report comment to moderator
“you are once again typically wrong.”
Take it up with the OED, smart guy. If they’re not good enough for you, you can always try the pocket Webster’s for $1.99 at Save-a-Lot.
So now you want to talk about “sodomy laws” instead of just “sodomy”? Way to change the subject when you’re proven wrong.
Report comment to moderator
BY adios 11.04.09 AT 10:02 AM
So Roger, what Thomas1 is saying is, the two men who raped and murdered that 13 year old boy should be called gay men, not sodomites.
–
no in htat debate Thomas said that the men were not gay.
Report comment to moderator
arcadia 11.04.09 AT 9:53 AM
Just so we are clear here:
The “Christians” who depict themselves as “loving” people are elevating sex above love as the most important factor in determining what a marriage is. And the only criterion they recognize is reproduction, which all lower critters are capable of.
And the self-styled “libertarians” are glad to have all governments determine rights based on the same factor.
—
Not at all ,the Amercian people in 31 States have said no to gay marriage. Not all of them are Christian.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1, then that is all you can call the murderers of Matthew Shepherd and so one wonders as to your point @ #4.
Report comment to moderator
Polishbear, how will Gay marriage impact Christian caterers and photographers who don’t want to do gay weddings or Christian employers who don’t want to pay insurance for a gay spouse?
This is not about rights. This about trying to force the rest of society to affirm your choice against their will.
Report comment to moderator
kBells – how about Churchs that say no you can not use our buidling.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas, the false analogy is to apply marriage to other groups besides those included in the long-standing definition of marriage–a man and a woman who unite and normally become a mother and father. Any change in the definition of marriage to fit some other advocacy group is a false analogy.
Report comment to moderator
David L: my point is that under the definition of the word, lots of heterosexual folks are sodomites. It renders your usage of the term meaningless.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia accused “Christians” of “elevating sex above love as the most important factor in determining what a marriage is.”
1. Marriage is first of all, a sacred ordinance–a promise (covenant) a man and woman mutually make to each other to unite for life. Jesus said, “What God has joined together, let no man separate.” (Matthew 19:6). God does it.
2. Love may be “a many splendored thing,” as they said in the 1960s, but it does not necessarily create a marriage. See David L’s point at #25.
3. But I plead guilty for “elevating sex” as a key factor. After all, Christians believe that sex is sacred. It is God’s very idea, created by Him for multiple godly purposes. It functions to bond the couple, embellish their love, and if God wills, it brings in children into the world who need to be raised in a home where his or her mother and father love each other profoundly and keep their promises steadfastly. God made marriage for sex and sex for marriage, on His awesome and brilliant terms. It’s a great and godly gift when accepted and taken on God’s loving terms for us.
_________
Report comment to moderator
Joel – how does the defeat here, effect the GLBT Community and Obama desire to lift the Defense of Marriage Act and the ban on God’s in the Military?
Report comment to moderator
The result in Maine is certainly disappointing. Most likely it will take till 2012 to sweep equal civil right across all of New England. Mid-term elections don’t succeed well at creating big changes.
Maine also has the benefit of being close to several states without this particular form of misogyny written into their legal systems. Let the lawsuits and begin.
Does anyone know the state of domestic partnerships in Maine? I know nothing about it, but I am wondering what they look like because it will affect the pressure businesses will be under to appease LGBT employees.
So unfortunately the narrative of the right wing and the ballot box will live on for another couple of years. It will take only time and a high interest election to change things.
Some good news, while the governors races were predictably wipes for the democrats, good progressive measure passed all across the country. Anti-discrimination in Kalamazoo and public transit in Cincinnati are two stellar examples.
More importantly, Dems picked up seat in two congressional special elections, including the NY-23. So while the news narrative of the right wing and marriage at the ballot box is alive and kicking, the Tea Party narrative about a populist revolt against healthcare reform, the congress, and Nancy Pelosi has been fastened into its coffin with another nail!
Report comment to moderator
sorry folks meant to say ban on Gay’s in the Military?
An install the ban of God in the Military.
Report comment to moderator
Uh, Thomas1, you’re wrong again. My usage is perfectly in accordance with the recognized authority on the English language–the OED.
To reiterate, sodomy is defined as:
1) “An unnatural form of sexual intercourse, esp. that of one male with another.”
Report comment to moderator
David L., the Oxford is good, but not the only recognized authority on the English language. Dictionary.com defines it rather differently.
Would you say that such activity between spouses is unnatural?
Report comment to moderator
Will not be surprised by Washington State.
What do you expect from a state that allows children to leave their family only because they restrict them from sex and drugs.
Not a place I would wish to visit or live.
Report comment to moderator
Obama is NOT worried about anything states decide.
With one swipe of the almighty Presidential Pen Obama plans to do his own bidding.
I’m sure he has a CZAR working on it, because he’s busy playing through another round of golf.
Report comment to moderator
mynock 11.04.09 AT 10:44 AM
The result in Maine is certainly disappointing. Most likely it will take till 2012 to sweep equal civil right across all of New England. Mid-term elections don’t succeed well at creating big changes.
-
the maine is not a disappointing at all. It shows that the people of the nation have said no to gay marriage again.
Report comment to moderator
Is there a way for Obama to get all the Governors to hand over control? (I don’t believe they have to be Democrats to follow Obama.)
Report comment to moderator
First off I am offended by Thomas1′ gratuitous mentioning of heterosexual couples who are infertile. My wife and I are infertile because of my drug habit before I became a Christian and I am very highly offended at your use of that to justify gay marriage. Sir, don’t play around with something like that.
Second and this is confusing. Citizens of Maine (which last time I checked was still part of the United States of America) exercised their constitutional right and voted a resounding NO to marriage being redefined in their state despite the fact that a bunch of liberal, out of touch with the people politicians wrote a law to make it so and now those CITIZENS are being told that they are wrong? They voted incorrectly in the views of our liberal posters (and why is Thomas1 not banned if NJL is banned? – his use of graphic sexual language should be enough to ban him) and now we should take this to court and tell these nasty people that they are dead wrong.
So, until President Obama finishes what he has started and we no longer have the right to vote, I think we should say the PEOPLE have spoken and they have said NO. If you want to try again in 2010, that is your right, do the referendum and get it on the ballot again and let’s see what the PEOPLE say next time.
Until that time Thomas1 I expect you to lay off using your graphic sexual language on this site and I expect you to lay off lumping couples like my wife and I in with gay partners who do not have the ability to procreate.
Report comment to moderator
Mynock,
Are you sure you menant to use the word ‘misogyny’ at #41? If so can you explain who other states around Maine have the hatred of women written into their legal systems?
Report comment to moderator
news2me 11.04.09 AT 11:00 AM
Is there a way for Obama to get all the Governors to hand over control? (I don’t believe they have to be Democrats to follow Obama.)
–
he who control the money control the states. Since he has bailed them out. He can then order them just like he has order other Companies around.
Report comment to moderator
The public, just about everywhere, does not look at same sex couples as equivalent to heterosexual couples. This in spite of media, academia, etc constantly shouting the opposite for years. This in spite of outspending on ads in liberal leaning Maine by a factor of 2 to 1.
Why is this? Are Americans that prejudiced, or do gays not get something critical about marriage?
Report comment to moderator
Please stop using sly references to perverse sexual practices in place of “Tea Party,” the chosen name to describe the movement that reflects the Boston Tea Party patriots. The leftist obsession with this practice is juvenile in the extreme.
Matthew Shepard was killed over drugs. His sexual orientation had nothing to do with his murder. His murderers were convicted and given appropriately severe sentences under present laws without indulging in thought crime “hate crime” enhancements. Moreover this has nothing to do with the election in Maine.
As in California, the pro-gay marriage faction outspent the pro marriage advocates by vast margins, only to fail at imposing their faux morality on the majority of citizens, who are smart enough to reject the Orwellian language that mispropriates the language of the civil rights movement to decry the absence of a false equality between different things.
Report comment to moderator
Ken – it is call hate.
Report comment to moderator
Ken, the cops in the Matthew Shepard case were very clear that he was murdered because of his sexual orientation. It was likewise clear at the trial.
IAF – no offense intended, though my, you seem to take it rather easily. The point is that fertility is not required for a marriage. Some people choose not to have children, or to limit the number of children that have.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you KEN! Even a host on msnbc told a snarky guest to use the correct name instead of that cryptic mocking insult. Homosexual men and women, not to mention all the other variations, rarely base their cultural arguments on more than emotions and victimhood. Lobbying for their constitutional civil rights is perfectly fine. Wanting to be accepted by society based their personal relations is counterproductive.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve lost all interest in Maine since that incredible little storefront restaurant in Boothbay Harbor closed. The one that sold the cod chowder that changed my life.
It was that good.
Report comment to moderator
Folks, it is about hate and envy.
The GLBT Community have lost 31 times. In stead of saying the American people, are not ready for us or have rejected us. The must find some one to blame. The people that they hate it the Bible Believing Christian. So we are the one’s they blame for their loses. They can not the American people have rejected them, so they must say it is about bigot in control.
They envy the those who are against gay marriage. Why? The GLBT Community have failed to educate the people and convince them to vote for them. So they envy those who have stood their grown and educate the people not to vote for the GLBT Community.
Since GLBT Community have lost 31 times. Now they are going to use voter intimidation, to force people to lose their jobs, in order that they will not have the money to stand up against them, with the hope that these people will chose their jobs over voting against the GLBT Community.
They are going to use voter intimidation an go after the Churches in order to stop them from speaking out.
The fact is The GLBT Community will us voter intimidation and many people will praise them for it.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1, then what was the little boy murdered for a few weeks later?
Matthew Shepherd’s murder has nothing to do with how the citizens of Maine voted.
Report comment to moderator
As you know by now, NJ will have a Republican governor — who will be appointing members to the state Supreme Court because we have age limitations on serving. Maybe this topic is why Christie won because we don’t have the same options here as Maine and California.
Report comment to moderator
JM: Marriage is first of all, a sacred ordinance–a promise (covenant) a man and woman mutually make to each other to unite for life
So why can’t a man and a man make the same covenant? Aren’t commitment, personal responsibility to one another, love, and even a joint commitment to worship, values which your church honors and supports? I’m sure your church supports marriage by couples who know they will remain childless…
Report comment to moderator
arcadia 11.04.09 AT 12:04 PM
JM: Marriage is first of all, a sacred ordinance–a promise (covenant) a man and woman mutually make to each other to unite for life
So why can’t a man and a man make the same covenant? Aren’t commitment, personal responsibility to one another, love, and even a joint commitment to worship, values which your church honors and supports? I’m sure your church supports marriage by couples who know they will remain childless…
–
As Christian, God’s Word is clear marriage is between a man and a woman. As for society, the people have the right to decide. An I would 0 for 31 on gay marriage, is pretty clear sign is it not.
Report comment to moderator
NJL
I was thinking about that last night. Perhaps there’s still hope for NJ. We both have potentially good governors now!
Report comment to moderator
Let’s please leave the descriptions and definitions of certain sex acts out of this discussion. We try to make this a family-friendly site, and although the discussion hasn’t been all that vulgar, I request that you put it aside and move on. Thank you.
Report comment to moderator
Can we likewise ban the use of the word “sodomite” as a pejorative for gay people?
Report comment to moderator
The question is, will young people acquire the attitudes of their elders, or will traditional concepts fade away as this generation of oldsters bites the dust?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth 11.04.09 AT 12:37 PM
The question is, will young people acquire the attitudes of their elders, or will traditional concepts fade away as this generation of oldsters bites the dust?
–
God’s Word is clear in the end days man will enbrace sin.
Report comment to moderator
#64 – Thank you so much. It is uncomfortable read those particulars when intelligent and considerate people know better.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1,
Why do you think the word “sodomite” is pejorative, anyway? I suppose it is, in the sense that those who engage in that activity are under the wrath of God, and are we to act as if that’s not a bad thing?
Report comment to moderator
re #67
“God’s Word is clear in the end days man will embrace sin.”
This is true but God willing not all men will.
Case in point; my sons who are all in their mid-twenties have proven to be far more morally upstanding than either of their parents.
If they are at all representative of their generation there is still some faint hope for humanity. At least for a little while.
Report comment to moderator
“So why can’t a man and a man make the same covenant? Aren’t commitment, personal responsibility to one another, love, and even a joint commitment to worship, values which your church honors and supports? I’m sure your church supports marriage by couples who know they will remain childless…”
Gee, I dunno Arcadia, why dont we call an apple an orange from now on??
Or blue, yellow…
What distinguishes is the discontinuity, and rightly so.
Report comment to moderator
If you want to usurp “equal civil rights” rhetoric for a homosexualist agenda forcing a redefinition of marriage for homosexuals, then you must answer questions as to why you may refuse ‘equal civil rights’ and ‘marriage equality’ to polygamist and polyamorus marriage advocates. Those advocates are also talking about consenting adults who love each other. They are also concerned with tax benefits, inheritance rights and hospital visitation rights.
If it is a “civil right” for homosexuals, it is a civil right for polygamists and polyamorists and conceivably others.
Report comment to moderator
Mynock @ 41 – Regarding domestic partnerships’ status in Maine: Maine for several years now has had a ‘domestic partner registry’ which permits any two cohabiting people – same or opposite sex – to register as domestic partners and gain legal rights as partners. Here’s a link to a brief summary: http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/bohodr/domstcprtnrspge.htm
I’m running out the door shortly and don’t have time to look up anything further – hope this helps answer your question.
Report comment to moderator
David L.? Go call these guys a bunch of sodomites and let me know how it works out for you, ‘k? http://gothamrfc.org/drupal/
Further – what are you people so afraid of? That The Gays will start buying houses, raising kids, and driving station wagons? Where I live, they already do those things and it certianly doesn’t bother anyone.
They even ‘mo their lawns.
Report comment to moderator
Well, there – problem solved!
Report comment to moderator
Anonymous editor at 64:
This thread is about gay marriage, not petunias. I think your family friendliness went with the first post.
I don’t like talking about these issues, but we are dealing with a group that defines themselves based on their sex acts. The fact that decent people will not discuss them is a big part of their success. You enable them to remain just like everyone else, as if the behavior you find so offensive and they claim makes them who they are is irrelevant.
This is your site, but I’m telling you and everyone else here that your scruples are not helping the overall cause of decency. It is impossible to deal with these issues without getting into particulars. We may as well be discussing gardening.
Report comment to moderator
From the link above:
“You are eligible to be a registered domestic partner if:
A. At the time when a declaration is filed, each domestic partner is a mentally competent adult and not impaired or related in a fashion that would prohibit marriage under Title 19-A M.R.S.A. section 701 (2), (3) or (4). (See back of brochure for relevant sections of Title 19-A §701)
B. The domestic partners have been legally domiciled together in this State for at least 12 months preceding the filing;
C. Neither domestic partner is married; or in a registered domestic partnership with another person; and
D. Each domestic partner is the sole domestic partner of the other and expects to remain so.”
Doesn’t it seem arbitrary to limit these rights to couples? Why must they be 2 cohabiting adults?
As some have argued on other threads, “traditional” marriage encompasses all manner of relationships besides those involving just one man and one woman?
Why is polygamy “wrong,” if the partners are all consenting adults? What about a group of, like, 5 men and 3 women? Why should they be denied hospital visiting rights?
Report comment to moderator
Amphipolis,
Very well said. Great points.
As my pastor says, homosexuality is not about limp wrists and lisps and women with butch haircuts; it’s all about body parts and what people do with them contrary to nature and God’s law.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia asked; “So why can’t a man and a man make the same covenant?”
For the same reasons a man and a man and a man cannot make the same covenant: Because the definition of marriage is a union between one man and own woman. That’s what marriage is. All other variations are illegitimate to be labeled as marriage. I already said that marriage is sacred and the word “sacred” literally means “set apart.” If you want to make marriage anything anyone wants it to be, then nothing is actually “marriage.’ It loses all distinction, and we move still closer to a “nothing is sacred” culture.
Your question has been often answered before. We have a moral disagreement, Arcadia. Your moral convictions are radically different from mine, and miny others.
Report comment to moderator
Amphipolis, I usually agree with you, and you make an excellent point, but we have a lot of synonyms from which to choose that don’t have to be as offensive as graphic descriptions of the topic.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, we aren’t necessarily discussing general principles of commitment, personal responsibility to one another, love, joint commitment to worship, values and such, Arcadia. Conservative Christians have stood by those principles for generations. Nothing new there. We are discussing the legal definition of marriage and attempts to change it, ONLY to suit homosexuals and their demands but NOT polygamists or polyamorists.
Arcadia wrote; “I’m sure your church supports marriage by couples who know they will remain childless…”
What does this have to do with anything on the table, Arcadia? Remaining childless does not disestablish a genuine marriage nor does it change the core definition of marriage.
Report comment to moderator
Public schools will not be forced to “teach” about Gay marriage, any more than they are forced to teach about Straight marriage.
******Except, they already are in California.
So, you can SAY it won’t happen, but it already IS happening.
Report comment to moderator
I remember all the thousands of hours I had to spend studying marriage in school… not.
Report comment to moderator
Just more verses of the BIBLE that have to be altered and/or removed by people who say Christianity has nothing to do with the Bible and what it says.
What does your Bible say about marriage Thomas?
Report comment to moderator
I also don’t understand why the “GLBT” movement is associated with the gay marriage issue in the first place.
The “G” and the “L” I suppose make sense.
But the “B”? Bisexual people really want to get married? Really? To whom? This is why the traditional, binary understanding of relationships is so obviously bigoted. I mean, if a bisexual person was going to get married, it logically have to include at least one man and one woman in addition to the main “bi” person, right? Basically, you’d have to have either 3 bisexual individuals, or perhaps 1 bisexual man, 1 bisexual man and 1 gay man. How many other permutations or variations am I missing here?
Also, same with the “T”? Do “transgendered” people really want to get married? Really? I’m no expert, but if a man becomes a woman, can he still enjoy physical pleasure, and whom would it be with… another woman or a man?
So that leaves the whole interest of “gay marriage” in the realm of the “G” and the “L.” And I know that the public face of these people claims that all “G”s and all “L”s are in exclusive, lifetime commitments with one partner. All who really believe this, raise your hand. I’ll bet it’s a small minority, comprised mostly of lesbians, who have monogamous, exclusive, long-term relationships. Much less likely for men, I’d wager.
So does that mean that these pro-gay-marriage advocates are indirectly condemning the non-monogamous, non-lifelong, non-exclusive, non-committed lifestyles of their gay/lesbian friends? Really?
My guess is a big, fat “No.” They don’t think their gay/lesbian friends are wrong to be promiscuous, to have one-night stands, to change partners every few months or weeks, and so on.
So, what’s going on, then? What’s painfully clear for anyone who has eyes to see, is that all the talk about committed, monogamous, lifelong, exclusive, etc., etc., is a smokescreen. The whole pro-gay marriage bit is a bait-and-switch tactic that is only interested in validating homosexual “marriage” as a way station onto normalizing all aberrant sexual behavior in society as a whole. The “committed, lifelong, monogamous” schtick is only the most publically respectable face of the greater homosexual lifestyle movement; and if you think they’ll be happy once they get society’s blessing of calling their cohabitation “marriage,” you’re wrong. Once the wheel has been set in motion, it’s not going to stop of its own accord. Laws of Thermodynamics, and all that.
There’s more on the way.
Report comment to moderator
Amphi: I don’t like talking about these issues, but we are dealing with a group that defines themselves based on their sex acts.
Actually, no. YOU insist on defining them by (reducing them to) their sex acts.
They would prefer to be seen as whole persons. It’s those who oppose them that seem to be insistent on making it all about sex.
Report comment to moderator
The real issue here is the normalization of a sexual behavior, homosexuality, which is leading to the ultimate removal of any moral restraints.
Recently on Law & Order a Pedophile made parallel arguments for his love of young girls (or boys)that are the same argument used by the homosexual community: its about love. Actually, it is about lust.
Report comment to moderator
Speaking as someone who has had enough dealings with molestations and perverts.
Does this mean I will have to stop using the public restrooms?
I don’t care what you call yourself, if you were born with man parts you should not be allowed in the ladies bathroom.
Make an extra bathroom for the whatever people and then allow anyone who is ok with that to use those bathrooms. Put a GLBT over the door.
This has already been talked about so don’t even think it won’t, or hasn’t, happened.
Report comment to moderator
Amphipolis @ 76 and David L @ 78,
You are dodging Thomas1’s questions at 38 and 44. Since you are saying “it’s all about body parts and what people do with them”, is this activity, when engaged in by married heterosexual couples, unnatural as well? What say you?
Report comment to moderator
“Actually, no. YOU insist on defining them by (reducing them to) their sex acts.”
Really, Steve? So it was straight people who came up with the acronym GLBT?
Report comment to moderator
The message from Maine should be very clear – tolerance does not mean acceptance and normalization.
Why the GLBT crowed is getting shriller and more violent isbecause they are so close to having society and culture seeing their perversion of sexuality as “normal”, and thus endorsing it, that they can taste it, but so far, culture is saying we will tolerate but we resist normalizing because same sex activity is just not normal. Our bodies weren’t built for it.
Our Lord says it is wrong like any sex outside marriage as He designed (between a husband and a wife – i.e. male and female). Sorry but no amount of Scripture twisting negates that fact.
Report comment to moderator
To paraphrase TWPECK: the issue here is the demonization of a group of people based on their sexual attraction which has been shown to be part of the normal curve of human sexuality.
And despite attempts to conflate homosexuality with pedophilia based on a TV show, of all things, it fails. It also gets one in trouble around here, so you might want to knock it off.
Report comment to moderator
news2me 11.04.09 AT 1:59 PM
Just more verses of the BIBLE that have to be altered and/or removed by people who say Christianity has nothing to do with the Bible and what it says.
What does your Bible say about marriage Thomas?
–
Thomas rejects the passage that stay marrige is between a man and a woman
Report comment to moderator
‘Since you are saying “it’s all about body parts and what people do with them”, is this activity, when engaged in by married heterosexual couples, unnatural as well? What say you?’
It’s apples and oranges, RoyClay. Rather, it’s like apples and giraffes.
Sex the way God designed it can only be performed by a man and a woman. Two women and two men can’t do that (d’uh, am I really having to explain this to a grown person?). It’s all about context. It’s ontologically and biologically impossible for two men or two women to have God-designed sex with each other.
So the acts that gay men or lesbians perform with each other are by definition unnatural. (And don’t forget that they are biologically unable to have true sex with each other.) The same acts simply don’t exist in a real marriage, because it’s made up of man and wife, not man and man or wife and wife.
Report comment to moderator
DavidL (#84): Excellent points, especially your final paragraph with the “bait-and-switch” observation.
Amphipolis (#76): I agree—mostly. Americans need to know some of the ugly details in order not to be lulled asleep by euphemisms and coverups. Homosexuals should be exposed for the shameful things they do. If the details are so disgusting as to be forbidden in the debate, then that virtually assures that they will continue and increase. Pro-death abortion supporters employ similar tactics—they don’t like anyone to see the bloody results of their handiwork.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 11.04.09 AT 2:07 PM
Amphi: I don’t like talking about these issues, but we are dealing with a group that defines themselves based on their sex acts.
Actually, no. YOU insist on defining them by (reducing them to) their sex acts.
They would prefer to be seen as whole persons. It’s those who oppose them that seem to be insistent on making it all about sex.
—
Steve they insistent on defining themselve base on their sexuly bbehavior
Report comment to moderator
re #88
I have no firm doctrinal opinion on the question but speak only for my own understanding, such as it is.
I don’t believe the acts themselves, distasteful though they may be, are inherently sinful when conducted within the confines of a biblical marriage.
The acts however are clearly sinful according to Scripture when they are performed upon members of the same sex.
Regardless how some contemporary dictionary may define sodomy today the stigma and the sin concern the gender of the participants far more than they do the acts themselves.
Report comment to moderator
Homosexuals do themselves no favors in trying to denigrate traditional marriage by suggesting husbands and wives are no better than they are. That’s a wierd way of legitimizing perversion.
Report comment to moderator
Nana 11.04.09 AT 2:35 PM
Homosexuals do themselves no favors in trying to denigrate traditional marriage by suggesting husbands and wives are no better than they are. That’s a wierd way of legitimizing perversion.
–
it is called envy.
Report comment to moderator
I think you’re right Pastor.
Report comment to moderator
Who says “sodomite” is pejorative? It’s a descriptive term that refers to a specific practice. “Homosexual” generally refers to an attachment orientation. Not all homosexuals are sodomites; not all sodomites are homosexual; although there is an extremely high co-incidence of the two. “Gay” is, or was, slang. What it means now between sodomy and homosexuality is a little unclear.
But the issue of hate-crime legislation is an interesting one to have been brought up. Instead of trying someone for a crime committed, it would attempt to alter the punishment base on some arbitrary status of the victim of the crime as though to discern the intent of the perpetrator. (How foolish is that with regard to justice?) In the case of race, race-typical morphology can often be synthesized). (Ever heard of someone of one race “passing” as someone as another race?) In the case of homosexuality, orientation can be claimed. What proof does the hate-crimes law provide to prevent the victim from seeking greater punishment than would otherwise be allowed by law? And what proof can be made for the intent of the perpetrator?
This should impact our reasoning on marriage as a legal contract. If we apply the premise that some arbitrary people group can determine the legal status of a crime, then we are justified in apply arbitrary terms as a requirement for marriage, such as the couple must be male-female.
Mind the fact that I said “marriage as a legal contract.” Marriage is so much more and the fact can’t be missed. American jurisprudence was based on English Common Law, no? There’s a sense in which we judge based on commonly held sociological values. As sad as it is, less people value marriage as a social covenant that reflects a spiritual commitment. More and more heterosexuals are cohabiting rather than marrying. So then, what value is it that homosexuals want to marry? By the time homosexual marriage is legally approved in the US, it will be essentially meaningless for all but conservative Christians, Jews, Muslims and a variety of factional offshoots and other religious groups.
The good news at that time will be that traditional covenant marriage will have the opportunity to stand out against the meaningless civil farce that the popular culture will have made it. It also means that churches need to get busy reinforcing Biblical relationships as countercultural.
Report comment to moderator
I daresay that some homosexual couples have relationships that are far more functional and healthy than those of some heterosexual couples.
Report comment to moderator
102 – and you can prove this because….
Report comment to moderator
Homosexuals do NOT have the right to demand that traditional marriage be redefined just so they can marry, no matter how healthy they may think their relationships are.
Report comment to moderator
Nana, it’s not meant to be proven. It’s a childish insult, like saying “yeah, well, my dad can beat up your dad!”
Report comment to moderator
To imply that LGBT has nothing to do with specific sexual practices is absurd. They define themselves on the basis of their sexual desires, and in great detail. They call themselves bisexual, carefully distinguished from homo or heterosexual, and then say we focus on sex when we ask what that means in particular?
89 Rodclay & Thomas1 – I’m not going to get into specifics, but if certain medication was involved – say hypothetically for the sake of argument something like an enema, or hypothetically there needed to be precautions for fear of fecal bacteria – I would say that is not natural or healthy for anyone.
Nana – I’ll use synonyms wherever possible.
Report comment to moderator
Nana – the law of averages, empirical observation, and Jerry Springer. ;/
In other news, champion of “opposite marriage” Carrie Prejean was demanding over a million dollars in her lawsuit against the beauty pageant she was bounced from.
When shown about 15 seconds of her very racy sex tape by pageant lawyers, which has been leaked to website TMZ, she walked away… with nothing.
Gotta love those traditional values! I wonder if Maggie Gallagher will be putting a stop payment on Carrie’s checks.
Report comment to moderator
Man, Thomas1, you really got nothing left after all this, do you? Carrie Prejean? Lol.
Report comment to moderator
Nana: Homosexuals do themselves no favors in trying to denigrate traditional marriage by suggesting husbands and wives are no better than they are. That’s a wierd way of legitimizing perversion.
There ya go. “We [heterosexuals] are better than they are.” That’s the anti-gay argument in a capsule.
Well, we’re not. And that’s my point from earlier. Homosexuals want to be treated like everyone else, including the right to marry — and not the oh-so-clever response “you can marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else” — the right to marry the person they love.
It is those who oppose them in this that describe what they imagine homosexual sex to be in great detail, and seek to stigmatize them for no reason other than their sexual orientation.
Report comment to moderator
David L,
But of course many (most) of the same sexual acts clearly do take place within heterosexual marriages. (And of course, it is none of your business what my wife and I do, nor my business what your wife and you do.)
Conor @ 97 has actually answered the question, thanks!
He makes clear Thomas1’s point, and it negates PastorRoy’s claim that “they insistent (sic) on defining themselve (sic) base (sic) on their sexuly (sic) bbehavior (sic)” The objection is not to specific acts per se, rather to the genders of those participating in the acts.
To put it delicately, and hopefully non-offensively – married heterosexual couples kiss passionately. So do homosexual couples. What is objected to is not lips contacting lips, but the genders of the owners of those lips. The same of course could be said of holding hands.
Disagreement is fine, but we should be clear about what we disagree with. Nothing is clarified by worrying about who does what to whom with which body part.
Santiago @ 100 makes perhaps the best point of all:
Regardless of the legality of the matter, it is the spiritual committment, that is unique within the context of each marriage. Those of us who are married heterosexuals know how difficult this level of commitment is to acheive. And we have the support and legal sanction of society for our marriages. Even when they acheive legal sanction homosexual couples will find building true lasting committment just as difficult.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.04.09 AT 3:07 PM
Nana – the law of averages, empirical observation, and Jerry Springer. ;/
In other news, champion of “opposite marriage” Carrie Prejean was demanding over a million dollars in her lawsuit against the beauty pageant she was bounced from.
When shown about 15 seconds of her very racy sex tape by pageant lawyers, which has been leaked to website TMZ, she walked away… with nothing.
Gotta love those traditional values! I wonder if Maggie Gallagher will be putting a stop payment on Carrie’s checks.
–
She was punished by your GLBT Community for daring to speak out against them.
Report comment to moderator
royclay – they do defining themselve base on their sexuly (sic) bbehavior.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 11.04.09 AT 3:15 PM
Nana: Homosexuals do themselves no favors in trying to denigrate traditional marriage by suggesting husbands and wives are no better than they are. That’s a wierd way of legitimizing perversion.
There ya go. “We [heterosexuals] are better than they are.” That’s the anti-gay argument in a capsule.
Well, we’re not. And that’s my point from earlier. Homosexuals want to be treated like everyone else, including the right to marry — and not the oh-so-clever response “you can marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else” — the right to marry the person they love.
It is those who oppose them in this that describe what they imagine homosexual sex to be in great detail, and seek to stigmatize them for no reason other than their sexual orientation.
–
So Steve, they do wish then to force their moral values, views and ideas onto people and Society that has said no to them 31 times. The people have the right to decide what marriage should like in Society.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor: The people have the right to decide what marriage should like in Society.
If that were the way it worked, inter-racial marriage would still be illegal. It wasn’t “the people” that overturned the laws against it, it was the “activist” Supreme Court.
You cannot entrust the civil rights of minorities to the will of the majority, and our system is in fact structured so that that’s NOT how it works.
Report comment to moderator
“Actually, no. YOU insist on defining them by (reducing them to) their sex acts.
They would prefer to be seen as whole persons. It’s those who oppose them that seem to be insistent on making it all about sex.”
The process of identifying a select group of people identified as an oppressed group clamoring for rights and equality with other people groups, the whole noxious tribalistic pseudo-theory that drves identity politics, as applied to LBGT, begins with and is utterly dependent on the specific sex acts that give them their “identity.” It is the LGBT alphabet soup that insists on this identification by their sex acts. The reduction of their identity to these acts is their choice and their responsibillity.
“Homosexuals want to be treated like everyone else, including the right to marry — and not the oh-so-clever response “you can marry someone of the opposite sex just like everyone else” — the right to marry the person they love.”
Nobody is trying to be “oh-so-clever.” You’re just bumping up against the hard truth and the actual meaning of the words we use. Delusional thinking and Orwellian Newspeak might feel good for those who want to hide in their sin and call it good. Truth still wins out. Nobody has the right to marry, period, let alone the one we love. Some of us are fortunate, and some of us make sure WE love the one we marry, but there have always been restrictions on who may enter into a recognized marriage relationship. The word marriage has always meant a union of binary and complementary sexual partners. Create your own relationship and define its rules, name it something else, and stop pretending it’s something that it can never be.
Report comment to moderator
This issue has zero to do with race and ethnicity. The traditional definition has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. It has to do with a sexual identity group that seeks to force a redefinition of marriage itself on us, and continue to force an immoral agenda down our collective throats.
I do not oppose inter-racial marriage and niether did the Bible (Moses, Esther, Ruth and others married outside their ethnicity and race). Had the court not ruled, other resolutions would have soon changed that old policy in states where it was banned. Our system has worked rather well in the past. It’s just a red herring in this discussion.
Report comment to moderator
Ken says: Nobody has the right to marry, period, let alone the one we love.
Not according to the Supreme Court in Loving v. VA, which famously said that “The right to marry the person of one’s choosing has long been regarded as a fundamental right.”
The word marriage has always meant a union of binary and complementary sexual partners.
No. Or rather, yes – a whole posse of them! Polygamy was sanctioned in the Bible and existed largely in places where the male population was decimated by war. Later (hello, Jane Austen & Edith Wharton) it was a property chattel arrangement. It wasn’t until around the 1920s that people started marrying for love.
Report comment to moderator
I would say that pretty much everybody is missing the point. We are arguing about whether homosexuality is a normal behavior or not when the whole point of the vote in Maine and Washington and California earlier was whether the PEOPLE would vote in the majority that a homosexual union be defined as marriage. The PEOPLE have spoken and they have said NO! The PEOPLE have said that marriage is a word that is reserved for the union between a MAN and a WOMAN.
If you would like to call your union a union and receive rights that way, then perhaps it is up to the GLBT community to get that into the voter booth. The PEOPLE have spoken and I believe the PEOPLE will continue to speak that the majority of Americans would like the word “marriage” to be a union between a man and a woman.
Notice the word MAJORITY and the word PEOPLE. These two words define why America is free. When we allow a couple of politicians or a couple of judges to make all our moral rules for us, we will no longer be free. As long as we are free the MAJORITY rules.
The MAJORITY ruled yesterday and that should say enough to the GLBT community. If you want to have your union legalized perhaps it is time you change your agenda and your language and get your union legalized.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 11.04.09 AT 4:13 PM
Pastor: The people have the right to decide what marriage should like in Society.
If that were the way it worked, inter-racial marriage would still be illegal. It wasn’t “the people” that overturned the laws against it, it was the “activist” Supreme Court.
You cannot entrust the civil rights of minorities to the will of the majority, and our system is in fact structured so that that’s NOT how it works.
–
First off inter-racial marriage was between one man and one woman. They did not redefine what marraige is. An gay rights is not a civil rights issue. It is a sexualy issue by it’s nature.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark misses the point in #116. It doesn’t matter than sexual orientation and race are different things. What matters is that it wasn’t the majority of the people who overturned laws against interracial marriage, it was the courts. If we’re going to wait on the majority to come around to support for civil rights for minorities, we’re going to be waiting a long time.
Report comment to moderator
The rights of the minority should never be put to a popular vote. If they were, we’d still have slavery, and anti-miscegnation laws.
In other words, just because a lot of people are wrong about who should have what rights doesn’t make them somehow correct. We have equal protection under the law in our Constitution.
Report comment to moderator
AMPHIPOLIS @ 76″ I believe it was my post that the editor deleted and commemted on. After thinking it over, I believe that he was right in doing so. Sometimes I get caught up in the heat of the momment. I am grateful that he called me on it.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas1 11.04.09 AT 5:20 PM
The rights of the minority should never be put to a popular vote. If they were, we’d still have slavery, and anti-miscegnation laws.
In other words, just because a lot of people are wrong about who should have what rights doesn’t make them somehow correct. We have equal protection under the law in our Constitution.
-
thomas what if the minority is wrong? If equal protection under the law in our Constitution, is to be for all sexual behavior . Then are not the perverts cover? Are not those who want to have more then one wives/ husband cover?
Who makes that decission?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 11.04.09 AT 5:18 PM
Joel Mark misses the point in #116. It doesn’t matter than sexual orientation and race are different things. What matters is that it wasn’t the majority of the people who overturned laws against interracial marriage, it was the courts. If we’re going to wait on the majority to come around to support for civil rights for minorities, we’re going to be waiting a long time.
–
Again gay’s rights is not a civil rights issue, it is a sexual issue.
Report comment to moderator
Sexual orientation and race are different things.
Inter-racial marriage is between one man and one woman.
Homosexual men don’t want to be called sodomites.
Homosexuals feel government approved contracts aren’t enough.
Most Americans vote against redefining marriage.
What am I missing?
Report comment to moderator
I’m wondering what they expect to happen, more than already has happened.
I’ve never seen a convincing argument that marriage confers astounding benefits. Are you saying the whole brouhaha is about some minor tax break? Isn’t there a tax burden too?
“Gay Rights” is certainly catchy… no wonder I don’t ever hear exactly what those rights are supposed to be.
Report comment to moderator
I’m thinking a case might even be made that the government has no business involving itself with marriages. I’m thinking it’s primarily a statement before God and the Church.
If your love can transcend gender, why can it not transcend a silly piece of paper? (The purpose of which I am still fuzzy on.)
Report comment to moderator
I think another important point that may or may not have been mentioned, (it’s a long thread, and it seems posts were removed), is that voters repealed legislative action.
Forget what that action was for the time being: it was simply an action, that the legislature passed over the heads and without the approval or consent of the constituents. It’s nice to see that repealed.
Report comment to moderator
I’m thinking you’re right TJS, but it is what it is and the feds had to outlaw polygamy. Homosexuals create their own little enclaves and gain political power in small cities. So be it. But the activists even like to “out” their own who’d rather keep personal their sexual proclivities.
They deserve our prayers, reminders of Truth and opposition to accepting as normal their abominable practices.
Report comment to moderator
The government, you see, can’t use religious arguments. This may or may not be a bad thing.
Therefore, the government has no business telling gay people they can’t get married, or whatever it is they truly want.
The (unfortunate? Only if you’re thinking religiously.) side-effect being that the government has no business telling anyone they can’t have whatever sexual lifestyle they desire. All they can do is prevent harm to society. So: no rape. That’s about it. You decide whether you even care.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, that’s what Initiatives and Referendums are all about: putting a check on runaway legislatures that ignore the consent of the governed (originally a Progressive idea).
Report comment to moderator
TJS,
You’re sounding very Libertarian. I’m not sure that I agree. But, I can follow the logic.
Report comment to moderator
It isn’t about lifestyles. It’s about morals and traditional families as healthy building blocks of society.
Report comment to moderator
Our government uses religiously-based moral arguments all the time, except when they decide they can’t define it unless they see it.
Report comment to moderator
“The rights of the minority should never be put to a popular vote.”
Irrelevant point. The legal definition of marriage should indeed be submitted to the will and consent of the governed.
Report comment to moderator
NANA – you’re dating yourself, here:
It isn’t about lifestyles. A lifestyle choice is freely chosen and easily changed. It’s way of doing things – recycling, eating healthy food, shopping at Wal-Mart – all lifestyles. Being gay is not a lifestyle – there are many different ways to live life as a gay man or a lesbian, for starters, and choice doesn’t enter into who you’re attracted to. (If you say there is, it begs the question of how many same-sex faire l’amour did you indulge in before you decided to choose the opposite sex? In my case, it was 0.)
Then we have this: It’s about morals and traditional families as healthy building blocks of society.
How do gay couples harm traditional families in any way, materially or incidentally?
*crickets chirp*
It’s about morals and traditional families as healthy building blocks of society.
Report comment to moderator
The legal definition of marriage should indeed be submitted to the will and consent of the governed.
Not according to the SCOTUS in Loving v. VA., as well as many others.
Report comment to moderator
JML Irrelevant point. The legal definition of marriage should indeed be submitted to the will and consent of the governed.
You say that here because the vote in Maine went the way you prefer. What if voters started to vote for gay marriage? Would you maintain this position, or suddenly decide that the courts should rule?
Report comment to moderator
Well, Thomas, aren’t you nice to an old lady – who is not afraid of dating herself or her chosen lifestyle as a Christian. Many people make juvenile counter-culture choices which they come to regret and decide to go in the opposite direction.
Sexual attractions only determine who we are when they’re allowed to control thoughts to the extent that our whole being revolves around carnality. Caving in to act on homosexual feelings is an act of the will, not predestination. Almost like saying “The devil made me do it,” as a childish excuse.
Homosexual family arrangements hurt themselves and society by pretending that they are a natural environment for raising children which they can not have naturally. Children don’t naturally have two “mommies” or “daddies.” And if you’re too obsstinate to understand that, I can’t help it.
Report comment to moderator
Getting a big kick out of Pastor Roy. He keeps saying that “the people”, not courts, should have the right to define marriage. Then when Steve G points out that “the people” in many states outlawed interracial marriage, but the courts threw that definition out, he says that’s different, because “the people” were wrong to oppose interracial marriage. IOW, when “the people” agree with Pastor Roy, courts shouldn’t mess with their definition of marriage. But when the “the people” disagree with him about marriage, the courts should step in and overrule the people.
Report comment to moderator
Nana, thanks for the laugh.
…not afraid of dating herself or her chosen lifestyle as a Christian.
Thank you for making my point. You could choose to be a Buddhist oor a Wiccan tomorrow. I don’t think you could choose a romantic or sexual attraction to a woman quite so easily.
Many people make juvenile counter-culture choices which they come to regret and decide to go in the opposite direction.
I look forward to your ultimate reform.
Sexual attractions only determine who we are when they’re allowed to control thoughts to the extent that our whole being revolves around carnality. Caving in to act on homosexual feelings is an act of the will, not predestination. Almost like saying “The devil made me do it,” as a childish excuse.
Gay people are incapable of love, in your view? That’s interesting, and contra to the census data posted above.
Homosexual family arrangements hurt themselves and society by pretending that they are a natural environment for raising children which they can not have naturally.
Heterosexual couples often adopt from Asia or Russia because it’s easier. Surely such families are not natural, and those children couldn’t be there naturally. And yet, they are. And they do fine. Likewise, every peer-reviewed study of children raised by gays and lesbians shows that they do fine also. Your argument here, if there was one, failed.
Children don’t naturally have two “mommies” or “daddies.” And if you’re too obsstinate to understand that, I can’t help it.
Children don’t always have both a “mommie” or a “daddie”. Sometimes they have both, and both are awful. It’s nothing to do with obstinacy. Children need people who love them, nurture them, and help them grow to responsible adulthood. You’re all hung up on the plumbing, which we all know is a lot less relevant than the factors I listed.
Who’s being obstinate here?
Report comment to moderator
#134: Aaah, but not according to our liberal friends. No religion allowed, right? Wouldn’t want our politicians to be corrupted by a moral system.
Thomas: Just because it’s not easy to flip flop back and forth doesn’t make it not a choice. Many choices in life are completely irreversible.
Report comment to moderator
Ok, TJS. Want to marry a “formerly” gay guy? How about your daughter getting engaged to one?
Didn’t think so. Merle Haggard didn’t know what she was getting into because her husband was full of baloney. But now, she knows. I guess she truly believes that Ted will never, ever, toot crystal meth off a gay massuese’s hoo-ha, ever again, because he said so.
Do you know what that makes her?
Report comment to moderator
Well, Thomas: if I married him, he wouldn’t exactly be “formerly gay,” now would he?
My daughter, if I had one, could marry a formerly gay guy. I’d hope that this hypothetical daughter would know better than to be taken in.
I don’t know a Merle Haggard. A quick Google search, however reveals that he is a male country singer. I assume this is not who you were referring to.
Report comment to moderator
TJS – simplicity is not your strong suit:
Well, Thomas: if I married him, he wouldn’t exactly be “formerly gay,” now would he?
He surely would if he had romantic relationships with other men. But you’d find that out in short order.
My daughter, if I had one, could marry a formerly gay guy. I’d hope that this hypothetical daughter would know better than to be taken in.
Taken in by what? Or whom? If he’s formerly gay, if there is such a thing, what’s to be taken in by?
Ted Haggard’s wife’s name is Gayle, not Merle. I stand corrected. Do you? Gayle, rather than Merle, knows about Ted tootin’ coke off a male hooker’s hoo-ha. And now Ted is formerly gay, so both Ted and Gayle say.
I do not believe them, and I bet neither do you.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas, I’m male. If I married a guy, both of us would be gay. Presently, not formerly.
About my hypothetical daughter: if he’s formerly gay, then that’s fine. Hopefully, she wouldn’t be taken in by a guy who was lying about it and would just dump her for a boyfriend later.
Ted Haggard? I don’t know his heart. He could very well have repented. No sin is so great that it can’t be forgiven and overcome with God’s help.
Report comment to moderator
Hermes at #140: Yep. That’s about how it always goes. At least they’re inconsistent in consistent ways.
TJS Catlover: About my hypothetical daughter: if he’s formerly gay, then that’s fine. Hopefully, she wouldn’t be taken in by a guy who was lying about it and would just dump her for a boyfriend later.
But she might end up hypothetically married to a man who fights his orientation every day and after 15 or 20 years of resisting, gives in to it.
Report comment to moderator
Where in any constitution does it say marriage has to be redefined from what it has been for thousands of years?
Report comment to moderator
As I’ve stated many times (in the past), I think human sexuality is very fluid. I think most people could be bi-sexual given the right circumstances, climate, world view and upbringing. We’re seeing a lot more of it even now as it becomes more acceptable. I think we’re actually talking a very small proportion of people who are thoroughly, totally homosexual.
People get turned on by shoes, rubber dolls, and a myriad of other things.
If this were NOT about sex, and were really about “loving” someone, then I see no reason that people can’t choose someone of the opposite gender to love. After all, they’re still a person of worth regardless of “hoo hahs.”
But, apparently, to the gays, it is ALL about “hoo hahs.”
A former gay has no more excuse to cheat on a spouse than a heterosexual spouse has to cheat on a spouse, or a bisexual person has to cheat on their spouse. You CHOOSE to cheat. You CHOOSE to think about “hoo hahs” instead of the person and the relationship. It is a CHOICE.
Choose to feed the right things and not feed the wrong thoughts.
Report comment to moderator
HERMES 11.04.09 AT 8:34 PM
Getting a big kick out of Pastor Roy. He keeps saying that “the people”, not courts, should have the right to define marriage. Then when Steve G points out that “the people” in many states outlawed interracial marriage, but the courts threw that definition out, he says that’s different, because “the people” were wrong to oppose interracial marriage. IOW, when “the people” agree with Pastor Roy, courts shouldn’t mess with their definition of marriage. But when the “the people” disagree with him about marriage, the courts should step in and overrule the people.
–
the different was a man and woman wanted to marry. This was not refining marriage.
Report comment to moderator
TRS, you’re kidding yourself if you don’t understand that “hoo-hahs” are a big part of why people are attracted to each other. Yes, there’s more to love and marriage than hoo-hahs, but they’re a big, big part of it.
And I think it was TJS who said liberals are obsessed with hoo-hahs. Well, if they are, they got nothing on the god of the bible. That’s the guy who created circumsision, remember? It’s supposed to be a “sign” of the covenant. He’s also the guy who wrestled with Jacob and grabbed his hoo-hah. I know the bible says his “thigh”, but if you look up the Hebrew you’ll see what it really says. Translators are just too squeamish to say it. He’s also the guy who said that a woman should have her hand cut off for grabbing a man’s testicles if he’s fighting with her husband. Talk about detail oriented! Strangely, there’s no penalty prescribed for a man’s male buddy if he does the same thing. Apparently “god” doesn’t mind that too much.
Report comment to moderator
“But she might end up hypothetically married to a man who fights his orientation every day and after 15 or 20 years of resisting, gives in to it.”
He might also never give in to it. Though it isn’t easy some of us have fought the good fight and prevailed over our carnal nature’s; God willing we will continue to do so.
What annoys me and presumably many others is the insistence that one surrender to their carnality as if it were irresistible, then to go even further and insist their carnality is in fact good and proper.
Report comment to moderator
the different was a man and woman wanted to marry. This was not refining marriage.
Yes, it most certainly was redefining the legal definition of marriage. And yes, it most certainly did overrule the will of the people, which you say courts have no right to do when it comes to marriage. According to you, the people’s idea of marriage should be honored by the courts, who have no right to override their will.
You’ve said so repeatedly, on this thread and others. Now you want to claim you’ve been saying something different all along. No dice. If it’s wrong for courts to overrule the will of the people when it comes to saying who should marry who, then it’s wrong. And that’s what you said. Now you want to insist that it’s good and proper for courts to do it when it suits you, but wrong when it doesn’t. No dice.
Report comment to moderator
Conor and TJS, the track record of “former” gays isn’t very good, to put it mildly. Anyone who would have no problem with their daughter marrying a “former” gay man is living in a fantasy world.
Report comment to moderator
HERMES 11.04.09 AT 11:01 PM
the different was a man and woman wanted to marry. This was not refining marriage.
Yes, it most certainly was redefining the legal definition of marriage. And yes, it most certainly did overrule the will of the people, which you say courts have no right to do when it comes to marriage. According to you, the people’s idea of marriage should be honored by the courts, who have no right to override their will.
You’ve said so repeatedly, on this thread and others. Now you want to claim you’ve been saying something different all along. No dice. If it’s wrong for courts to overrule the will of the people when it comes to saying who should marry who, then it’s wrong. And that’s what you said. Now you want to insist that it’s good and proper for courts to do it when it suits you, but wrong when it doesn’t. No dice
–
The different in the two issues is, one was based on race. Which is a civil rights issue.
The other is based on someone sexual behavior. Which is a sexual issue.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas, I don’t mind giving you a wierd chuckle, but you’re no laughing matter. The real reform would be for you to grow up. Presuming that I don’t think homosexual men and women are capable of feeling love would shock my friends, but then you don’t actually know me. I wonder if you’re really talking to someone else you’re angry with.
There is no such thing as “every peer-reviwed study” showing that homosexuals’ adopted children do fine. That’s your argument, not mine.
Plumbing is your issue. Mine is not perverting it for selfish purposes. You might not be hopless, but I’m done here.
Report comment to moderator
Nana – for a Christian it comes down to God’s Word. Do we believe in God’s Word that says marriage is between a man and a woman? Are we going to stand against the darkness of sin that is coming? Are we going to stand in the way of that darkness and be those people standing on the walls shouting repent oh nation of the sins before it is to late.
Report comment to moderator
Thomas wrote; “Not according to the SCOTUS in Loving v. VA., as well as many others.”
Huh? Nonsesne, Thomas. The definition of marriage has often been and continues to be put before the people. This is a fact, and Maine proves it.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, Pastor, and we don’t know who will have ears to hear.
Report comment to moderator
The different in the two issues is, one was based on race. Which is a civil rights issue.
The other is based on someone sexual behavior. Which is a sexual issue.
No, that’s just the pathetic straw man you want to set up, but keeps falling over.
Both cases had to do with sexual behavior; about who can marry (legally establish a protected sexual union) whom.
Laws against interracial marriage didn’t outlaw “race”. They outlawed a kind of sexual behavior – interracial sex.
And they didn’t treat the races differently at all. Whites had to marry someone of the same race, just as blacks did.
Report comment to moderator
I think it is ridiculous that we even have to vote on it and yes I would be upset if we voted it in. But it is silly to think that SCOTUS has ruled against doing that. Thomas has it wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Nana – for a Christian it comes down to God’s Word. Do we believe in God’s Word that says marriage is between a man and a woman? Are we going to stand against the darkness of sin that is coming? Are we going to stand in the way of that darkness and be those people standing on the walls shouting repent oh nation of the sins before it is to late.
See? You keep changing your argument. You’ve been saying all week that when it comes to the definition of marriage, the will of the people should prevail, and courts have no right tinkering with it.
When it’s pointed out that if it weren’t for the courts overruling the will of the people in the 60s, interracial marriage would still be illegal, you suddenly become embarrassed at your argument that courts shouldn’t flout the will of the people when it comes to defining marriage would, and want to start arguing from the Bible.
Just admit it. You think it’s fine for courts to flout the will of the people if the people’s views don’t match your views, but you think it’s wrong for the courts to overrule the people when you happen to share the people’s view.
Nice work if you can get it.
Report comment to moderator
Nana 11.04.09 AT 11:44 PM
Yes, Pastor, and we don’t know who will have ears to hear.
-
As we stay the course many non-believers will hate us for it and many who call themselves believers will hate us for it.
Report comment to moderator
HERMES 11.04.09 AT 11:45 PM
The different in the two issues is, one was based on race. Which is a civil rights issue.
The other is based on someone sexual behavior. Which is a sexual issue.
No, that’s just the pathetic straw man you want to set up, but keeps falling over.
Both cases had to do with sexual behavior; about who can marry (legally establish a protected sexual union) whom.
Laws against interracial marriage didn’t outlaw “race”. They outlawed a kind of sexual behavior – interracial sex.
And they didn’t treat the races differently at all. Whites had to marry someone of the same race, just as blacks did.
–
Wrong, the straw man argument is the one you and other have been thrown around. The issue of interracial marriage was based on race. The issue of gay marriage is based on someone sexual behavior.
Report comment to moderator
Hermes 162 – not that I should mind or disagree, but that wasn’t my statemenet.
Report comment to moderator
As for the rest of, that sounds a bit confused, too.
Report comment to moderator
“Conor and TJS, the track record of “former” gays isn’t very good, to put it mildly. Anyone who would have no problem with their daughter marrying a “former” gay man is living in a fantasy world.”
I agree 100% the track record of “former” gays is horrendous; so is the track record of “former” adulterers and among those who have engaged in promiscuous premarital sex. The rate of recidivism among all of them is truly frightening. The point however is that an attempt to overcome it can and should be attempted.
An honest attempt to overcome ones sin is far preferable to continuing to wallow in it all the while maintaining that it is not actually sin at all.
Report comment to moderator
HERMES – Dred Scott.
Report comment to moderator
Brown v. Board.
Report comment to moderator
HERMES
Not at all, I have separate the Christian views on marriage based on God’s Word and society views on marriage. I have made it clear the people have the right to say no or yes to gay marriage.
“you suddenly become embarrassed at your argument” Not at all why should I be embarrassed when your side is 0- 31 when it comes before the people to vote on it.
As for my statement of “for a Christian it comes down to God’s Word. Do we believe in God’s Word that says marriage is between a man and a woman? Are we going to stand against the darkness of sin that is coming? Are we going to stand in the way of that darkness and be those people standing on the walls shouting repent oh nation of the sins before it is to late.” It is a fact as a Christian, God’s Word is the standard by which we are to live. It tells is what is right and what is wrong. It tells us of the coming days of darkness, control by the anti-Christ. It tells us that in then end God’s people win.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, your avatar looks familiar. Is that the United Methodist symbol by any chance?
Report comment to moderator
HERMES 11.05.09 AT 12:17 AM
Pastor Roy, your avatar looks familiar. Is that the United Methodist symbol by any chance?
-
no,
Report comment to moderator
TRS, you’re kidding yourself if you don’t understand that “hoo-hahs” are a big part of why people are attracted to each other.
*******Funny. I’ve managed to stay happily married almost 25 years to the same man and have three children. Perhaps I understand relationships a bit better than you do.
Report comment to moderator
Roger 122 – OK, thanks for telling me – we should discuss these issues using the most toned down language possible, but at some point in order to really deal with them we would need to get explicit.
It is a dilemma. If we are explicit, it understandably drives people away. If we are not, the decency shroud makes everything look normal and acceptable. I would like people to see that truth needs to trump politeness while it still can.
They think a man can be a mother. So can we talk about what gay men do to enable them to nurse babies like a mother would?
I can’t right now. Feel free to google it if you dare. I wish I had more time to post this week.
Report comment to moderator
TRS: If this were NOT about sex, and were really about “loving” someone, then I see no reason that people can’t choose someone of the opposite gender to love. After all, they’re still a person of worth regardless of “hoo hahs.”
But, apparently, to the gays, it is ALL about “hoo hahs.”
Well, no, not really. What happens is a man, call him “Bob,” grows up and realizes he feels sexual and romantic attraction to other men, not to women. And at some point he meets another man, call him “Joey,” who has the same situation. And over time, they decide that what they feel for each other must be the same love they hear their straight friends talk about. Because while they are sexually attracted to each other, they also respect and care about each other’s whole selves.
So far, it’s all well and good. Then they decide they would like to declare themselves to be committed to each other for life, and to live together in a legal and spiritual bond that intertwines their individual selves into a new entity. And that’s when they hit the societal roadblock that says no, you can’t … because you have the same kind of hoo hahs.
It isn’t the homosexuals who are obsessed with sexuality. They are just living their lives as they come and feeling their attractions to whom they are attracted to. It’s only when society tries to deny them the right to form legally-approved families that it becomes an issue.
A former gay has no more excuse to cheat on a spouse than a heterosexual spouse has to cheat on a spouse, or a bisexual person has to cheat on their spouse. You CHOOSE to cheat. You CHOOSE to think about “hoo hahs” instead of the person and the relationship. It is a CHOICE.
Sorry, but that’s bull. A heterosexual man who finds himself attracted to a woman other than his wife is still feeling heterosexual attraction. He can resist the temptation to that particular woman and rededicate himself to the woman he already has at home.
A man who never was really attracted to women at all — not just the one he married in hopes that he would come to be attracted, but all women — is not in the same category. His attraction to men is not something he can just turn off. Granted, he can choose to sublimate his real desires, but that causes a great deal of psychological stress and rarely really works over the long term. Those men you hear of who “decide” they’re gay after 20 years of marriage, and leave their wife and children? They were gay and in denial all along, and knew it. They were just hoping that “fake it til you make it” could work on something so profoundly fundamental to self-identity.
I am a Christian and I recognize that this is a controversial topic (although conservative Christians obviously can’t comprehend why any other Christian might disagree with their view). But I also am an observer of human nature. I know a few gay people now and have known others in the past, and never yet have I met a single one who had any degree of choice in his or her attractions.
I remain convinced that there’s no reason, Biblical or otherwise, to tell homosexual people they must change something that cannot be changed. I do believe they should be expected to live in faithful monogamy, but I do not believe that there is anything to be gained in pressuring them into living a lie (pretending to be straight) or requiring them to sacrifice any chance of intimacy by remaining celibate for life.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG:
that cannot be changed
This is a false assumption. I can’t say whether a particular person will change, but I can say for sure that people have. Which stands to reason. I would not credit someone’s assertion that they know for sure what their desires will be for the rest of their lives.
By the way, here is some interesting analysis here, a sample:
There are not very many Mormons in Maine, or black people, either, so they cannot blame this loss on either minority group.
http://www.uexpress.com/maggiegallagher/
Report comment to moderator
For those who might be interested, a staff writer for the Portland Press Herald offers this analysis of Maine’s vote on the gay marriage issue: http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=294189&ac=PHnws
My own take on it is that the people of Maine – who have in the past supported some gay rights referenda and where a domestic partner registry has been in place for 5 years – are not willing to change the definition of ‘marriage’ to mean a legal relationship between any two consenting adults who are not related by blood.
Report comment to moderator
Do our desires control us, or do we control our desires?
If we are serious about marriage the correct answer had better be the latter one.
All relationships are a choice. Heterosexual relationships are inherently different.
Report comment to moderator
Amphipolis: When did you choose to be heterosexual?
Could you choose to be homosexual? I realize you don’t want to; but if you did want to and didn’t believe it was wrong, could you?
Individual relationships are choices, but orientation is not. And anyone who insists it is should be able to point to the time they could have gone either way and chose to be heterosexual. But almost no one can do that, because it is not a choice.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG -
“I remain convinced that there’s no reason, Biblical or otherwise, to tell homosexual people they must change something that cannot be changed. I do believe they should be expected to live in faithful monogamy, but I do not believe that there is anything to be gained in pressuring them into living a lie (pretending to be straight) or requiring them to sacrifice any chance of intimacy by remaining celibate for life. ”
Steve your problem is with God’s Word
Rom 1:25-28
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator — who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
NIV
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 11.05.09 AT 10:41 AM
Amphipolis: When did you choose to be heterosexual?
Could you choose to be homosexual? I realize you don’t want to; but if you did want to and didn’t believe it was wrong, could you?
Individual relationships are choices, but orientation is not. And anyone who insists it is should be able to point to the time they could have gone either way and chose to be heterosexual. But almost no one can do that, because it is not a choice.
—-
Steve you ever heard of the idea of a sinful nature?
Report comment to moderator
When did you choose to be heterosexual?
Sometime in the afternoon of July 5 1986. The day I got down on both knees and gave my girlfriend a diamond ring.
All relationships are a choice.
Report comment to moderator
When did you choose to be heterosexual, Pastor?
Romans 1 says nothing about committed, monogamous same-sex relationships. It is talking about heterosexuals turning to homosexual relations, as punishment for worshiping idols. Unless you can show that all modern-day homosexuals were originally straight, then worshipped idols and turned gay, it’s not applicable.
Report comment to moderator
Amphi: Sometime in the afternoon of July 5 1986. The day I got down on both knees and gave my girlfriend a diamond ring.
So you could just as easily have pursued a homosexual relationship up until that point? You were attracted to people of both sexes?
Stop being deliberately obtuse. You know you did not choose to be sexually attracted to women. You chose to pursue the attraction to that specific woman, but you have been attracted to women in general, and not men, from the earliest time you were attracted to anyone, right?
Report comment to moderator
“heterosexuals turning to homosexual relations” steve, why do you justify sin?
Report comment to moderator
There was absolutely a time when I could have gone the other way. I believe just about anyone could under the right circumstances. Orientation is about desire, and desire is fickle. It is dangerous to base an absolute argument on human desire, but that’s what you do.
I reject your premise that desires are locked in and can not change. That is a lie. That is one of THE lies of modern America. There are lots of people who have changed, and any of us could if we allowed our desires to wander. This is obvious.
Note that my argument is general. You can not say that orientations never change because they DO. That does not mean that everyone’s orientation could be changed.
My desire is for my wife, and I intend to keep it that way. That is what marriage is all about.
Report comment to moderator
Interesting – I posted 186 before I read 184. I gotta get back to work before I start channeling more of Steve’s thinking.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 11.05.09 AT 10:56 AM
When did you choose to be heterosexual, Pastor?
Romans 1 says nothing about committed, monogamous same-sex relationships. It is talking about heterosexuals turning to homosexual relations, as punishment for worshiping idols. Unless you can show that all modern-day homosexuals were originally straight, then worshipped idols and turned gay, it’s not applicable.
—
good try but wrong understanding – go back Romans 1:21-24 “For although they knew God; they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claim to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.”
Steve, Paul is written to people who believe it is ok to be gay. They believe this, due to the fact their false religion said it was ok to be gay. Very much in the same level what you are saying.
What does marriage look like in God’s Eyes? Genesis 1:24 “For this reason a man will leave HIS FATHER AND MOTHER and be united to HIS WIFE, and they shall become one flesh.”
Steve it is clear here Father, Mother not father, father or mother, mother. United to His Wife. Not united to his husband or untied to her wife.
Your problem Steve is your understand of God’s Word. The Word of God is not impacting your world view, you are letting your world view impact your understand of God’s Word.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy: Steve, Paul is written to people who believe it is ok to be gay. They believe this, due to the fact their false religion said it was ok to be gay. Very much in the same level what you are saying.
Nope. Watch.
Step One: People knew something of God, but chose to worship created things … idols of man-made gods that represented aspects of nature. Remember, Paul here is writing to Christians in Rome, where worship of these idols was the majority religion.
Step Two: To punish them for this, God turned them from their original affections, for the opposite sex, to the same-sex. Look at Paul’s language closely: Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another.
He is talking about men and women who had relations with the opposite sex and turned from them to have same-sex passions. This does NOT describe people who grew up always feeling attracted to the same sex. It is a different thing.
Pastor Roy asks me: steve, why do you justify sin?
I ask in return: Why do you expand sin beyond what God says it is?
Report comment to moderator
Steve says, “Romans 1 says nothing about committed, monogamous same-sex relationships. It is talking about heterosexuals turning to homosexual relations, as punishment for worshiping idols. Unless you can show that all modern-day homosexuals were originally straight, then worshipped idols and turned gay, it’s not applicable.”
Of course it doesn’t, because such things are practically non-existent, especially in the ancient world. When Paul says “contrary to nature,” it’s so obvious that he’s talking about contrary to the way God designed relationships to be, i.e., male and female. There was no such thing as homosexual “orientation” in those days–only homosexual activity, and that is what is “against nature.” You need to learn to see the very existence of so many homosexually “oriented” people in the world today as itself a result of our huge cultural drift away from God and into idolatry. We’re not talking about individuals, but about cultures now. But the truth is, you have to be especially calloused and indoctrinated to read Romans 1 the way the gay-”marriage” advocates read it.
This Scripture-twisting is probably the most repugnant aspect of the pro-homosexual movement. It’s worse than a hundred flamboyant , genital-flaunting gay “pride” parades.
But let me ask you something, Steve. Since, in your mind, the Bible approves of monogamous, committed same-sex relationships, are you willing to say that God disapproves of non-monogamous, non-committed homosexual relationships and lifestyles? Are you willing to say publically that promiscuous homosexual behavior is sin and that, if churches are going to ordain and recognize these types of relationships, that they ought just as vehemently call those in promiscuous sexual activity to repentance?
I’d love to see the day, but you know it won’t happen. As I said above, the entire “committed, monogamous” schtick is just a smokescreen. It’s an attempt to put a publically respectable face on something the public (as proven 31 times and disproven 0 times) rejects as somehow or other aberrant.
The truth is, there’s no illegitimate homosexual practice in your mind, right? So, why are you talking about “monogamous” and “committed”? Don’t you realize that the vast, vast majority of homosexual activity is quite non-exclusive and quite non-monogamous? Stop playing charades.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG
take what Paul is saying put it in relationship with Genesis 1:24 “For this reason a man will leave HIS FATHER AND MOTHER and be united to HIS WIFE, and they shall become one flesh.” An you see what is the natural relations of men and women. Now the people in Roman, that Paul was written to reject this idea found in Genesis 1:24. They believe it is ok for gay sex’s, an Paul was address it as a behavior that is wrong. Lets look at Paul’s written in 1 Timothy 1:8-10 “But we know that the Law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, FOR SODOMITES, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is CONTRARY TO SOUND DOCTRINE.”
2 Timothy 3:1-5 “But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come; FOR MEN WILL BE LOVERS OF THEMSELVES, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanders, WITHOUT SELF-CONTROL, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, LOVERS OF PLEASURE rather then lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And fro such people turn away.”
An from the Old Testament – Exodus 20:12 Honor your FATHER and your MOTHER, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your god is giving you.”
Steve the key in that passage “Honor your FATHER and your MOTHER” not father and your father or mother and your mother. Through God’s Word, He shows that marriage is between one man and one woman.
“Why do you expand sin beyond what God says it is? ” Not expanding anything God’s Word is clear on what is sin. Your problem again is you are not letting God’s Word impact your world view. You are letting your world view impact your understanding of God’s Word.
Report comment to moderator
I have another question. Look at the following passages of Scripture:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.”
Romans 1:27-28
“For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper…”
1 Timothy 1:8-11
“But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.”
Leviticus 18:22
“You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”
Leviticus 20:13
“If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.”
Now, in order to argue, with a straight face, that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, you have to concoct elaborate explanations of what these texts are *really* saying. You have to say that *all* of them are ambiguous or unclear and that Christians for the past 2,000 years have consistently misinterpreted them, because what they really say is that homosexuality is just fine and dandy.
OK, that’s enough to stretch anyone’s credulity. One passage being unclear, maybe–maybe even two. But for all of them to be unclear *in the same direction* (i.e., they all are *apparently* condeming homosexuality) is just too much. The weight of the evidence overwhelms the supposed lack of clarity of any one passage.
But furthermore, why is it only homosexuality that we Christians have gotten wrong for 2,000 years? Many of these Scripture passages list numerous sins, and there’s never a word about re-defining those sins. Why is that?
Nobody is saying, “Well, when the Bible says ‘murder,’ it doesn’t really mean murder as we understand it in our advanced, enlightened time.” You’d think if the Bible couldn’t get it right on homosexuality, it wouldn’t be able to speak clearly on anything else, like rebellion or coveting.
The answer is, people who are motivated to normalize homosexuality aren’t interested in being morally righteous, in holiness, in purity, in godliness, in sobriety. I truly wish those who love sin and congratulate those who engage in it would simply ‘fess up and be honest about their hatred of Scripture and stop using their participation in a church to cover their rebellion against God in some veneer of pseudo-moralism.
Report comment to moderator
David L.
I believe Steve problem is when he looks at God’s Word it is through the eyes of his world view. Which tells him it is ok with God for people to be gay. So he then must find a reason to change the Word of God or the understand of what that passage says. This is the problem with many of the Churches on the left. Instead of letting God’s Word change their world views, they are willing to let their World Views change God’s Word.
Report comment to moderator
David L. But let me ask you something, Steve. Since, in your mind, the Bible approves of monogamous, committed same-sex relationships, are you willing to say that God disapproves of non-monogamous, non-committed homosexual relationships and lifestyles? Are you willing to say publically that promiscuous homosexual behavior is sin and that, if churches are going to ordain and recognize these types of relationships, that they ought just as vehemently call those in promiscuous sexual activity to repentance?
Yes. I have said this in other threads where the topic’s come up. I do agree with this.
Report comment to moderator
#192: This also has come up before.
The New Testament passages you quote do not use any koine Greek words that refer to any kind of same-sex relations. One word, malakosm is sometimes translated as “homosexual” (it appears as “effeminate” in the translation you’re quoting), but it literally means “soft.” It appears once in the Gospel of Luke to refer to soft clothes.
There’s another word used, arsenokoitai that has no clear meaning because it does not appear in any Greek writing prior to Paul. In the past it was translated as masturbation or “abusers of themselves.” Some translators decided it means “homosexual,” but there’s no reason to think that’s any more certain than masturbation. It is a guess.
Do you really want to base your stigmatization of millions of people on such vague lexical evidence?
The Old Testament passages are more clear, but there you have a contextual problem. The same passages that call men lying with men an “abomination” also call eating shellfish an abomination and call for the death penalty for insolent children. Most Christians would argue that those rules no longer apply, but there’s really no coherent argument for why the ban on eating scallops is lifted but the ban on same-sex relations remains in place.
Report comment to moderator
But furthermore, why is it only homosexuality that we Christians have gotten wrong for 2,000 years? Many of these Scripture passages list numerous sins, and there’s never a word about re-defining those sins. Why is that?
Because:
1. Homosexual orientation isn’t a choice, and many thoughtful people wonder how a merciful God could afflict someone with an unchosen circumstance and then punish him for having it.
2. The Greek words for those other sins are clear and their meanings well-established; they are not vague terms that translators have to guess at the meanings of. But ALL of the words translated as “homosexual” are vague, and there is no clear lexical evidence that they actually do mean homosexuals.
Report comment to moderator
Homosexual orientation isn’t a choice
Do you get this from the Bible, or do you read the Bible through it?
Report comment to moderator
Amphipolis at #186: There was absolutely a time when I could have gone the other way. I believe just about anyone could under the right circumstances.
If that’s true, then you’re a bisexual man whose chosen a heterosexual monogamous path. And that’s commendable, but your second sentence is the error of trying to universalize the particular. Your experience is just that, your experience. It isn’t mine or anyone else.
I could no more choose to be homosexual than I could grow a third nostril. It holds no appeal for me whatsoever. And the homosexual people I know say the same about heterosexuality. They could never do it. For most of us, it is not a choice.
Report comment to moderator
Amphipolis: Do you get this from the Bible, or do you read the Bible through it?
As you know, as I have said often, I am not a Biblical inerrantist. I read the Bible as a 21st-Century, scientifically literate, intelligent thoughtful person. I regard it as inspired but not dictated by God. It bears the mark of the human cultures that created it.
As has been noted here, the ancient Hebrews had no concept of sexual orientation. To them, homosexuals were heterosexuals who had gone wrong somewhere and and were misbehaving. The idea that some people might just BE homosexual was foreign to them. So I read the Biblical injunctions through that lens.
I realize that most posters here do believe God dictated the Bible and it can’t be wrong about anything, so my saying this will invalidate anything else I say for most of you. So be it. That’s how I see it.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG – “Do you really want to base your stigmatization of millions of people on such vague lexical evidence?” This idea is used to remove passage that point to sinful behavior. The fact God’s Word is clear shows again you do not understand God’s Word.
Genesis 1:24 “For this reason a man will leave HIS FATHER AND MOTHER and be united to HIS WIFE, and they shall become one flesh.” Do you reject this passage Steve? or do you change it so you can read father and father or mother and mother. United to His Husband or her wife?
Exodus 20:12 Honor your FATHER and your MOTHER, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your god is giving you.”
Do you reject this passage Steve? or do you change it so you can read honor your father and father or mother and mother?
Report comment to moderator
“The New Testament passages you quote do not use any koine Greek words that refer to any kind of same-sex relations. One word, malakosm is sometimes translated as “homosexual” (it appears as “effeminate” in the translation you’re quoting), but it literally means “soft.” It appears once in the Gospel of Luke to refer to soft clothes.”
Wow, that’s your defense? That instead of condemning homosexuality, that passage is really condemning “softness”? Effeminacy? That’s somehow better? And how exactly do you follow up on the Bible’s stern warning against “softness”? Does your church preach against “softness”? If not, why not, since it’s apparently such a serious sin?
As for your attempt to obfuscate arsenokoite, I offer the following response:
‘Paul coined 179 terms in the New Testament. The terms do not, because they are original, significantly change the context of the verses they appear in.
‘Nor is it remarkable he would have coined this one, considering he derived it directly from the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint):
meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gyniakos
(Lev 18:22)
hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos
(Lev 20:13)
‘In other words, when Paul adopted the term arsenokoite, he took it directly from the Levitical passages-in the Greek translation- forbidding homosexual behavior. The meaning, then, could not be clearer: Though the term is unique to Paul, it refers specifically to homosexual behavior.
‘As for the inference that it applies to male prostitution, a breakdown of the word shows it implies nothing of the sort. ‘Arsene,’ as mentioned earlier, appears few times in the New Testament, always referring to “male.” ‘Koite’ appears only twice in the New Testament, and means “bed,” used in a sexual connotation:
‘Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality [koite] and debauchery… (Rom 13:13)
‘Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed [koite] kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. (Heb 13:4)
‘The two words combined, as Paul used them, put “male” and “bed” together in a sexual sense. There is no hint of prostitution in the meaning of either of the words combined to make arsenokoite.’
Report comment to moderator
#192 “people who are motivated to normalize homosexuality aren’t interested in being morally righteous, in holiness, in purity, in godliness, in sobriety”
David L,
I believe that statement to be an over-generalization. There are many people to whom it would apply but others to whom it would not. My husband is an ordained pastor in the PC(USA), so we have naturally followed their struggles over the issue of whether to ordain non-celibate homosexuals. (My husband intends to renounce jurisdiction if that does become standard practice.) I don’t know any gay (celibate or not) clergy personally, but I have read discussions between them and their ideological opponents within the church.
Some of them do appear to be very interested in being morally righteous, in holiness, in purity, in godliness, and in sobriety. More than that, one of the men who was trying to oppose their efforts to change the ordination rules was part of a group that brought together people from both sides to see what they could do besides throw accusations at each other. Over the time that they got to know each other, this man, who firmly believes that homosexuality is against God’s law, nevertheless came to see that his gay colleague did love God and wanted to live a holy life (and didn’t see monogamous homosexual relationships as a barrier to holy living). That went against what he had always thought he knew about the motives of homosexuals. It didn’t change his belief that homosexual behavior is sinful, because he is committed to the authority of Scripture. But it certainly challenged his thinking about those who took the opposite view.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 11.05.09 AT 1:12 PM
Amphipolis: Do you get this from the Bible, or do you read the Bible through it?
As you know, as I have said often, I am not a Biblical inerrantist. I read the Bible as a 21st-Century, scientifically literate, intelligent thoughtful person. I regard it as inspired but not dictated by God. It bears the mark of the human cultures that created it.
–
with that understand then I guess you do not believe that Jesus arose from the dead and sits at the right hand of God.
Since you can not prove it through your scientifically views and since you have this scientifically literate, intelligent thoughtful person. You must believe there are other ways to heaven not just through Jesus Christ Correct?
Report comment to moderator
then you’re a bisexual man
You think so, based on one sentence I have written? Yet elsewhere (183) you write about heterosexuals turning to homosexual relations. These are inconsistent. You make sweeping conclusions about people’s very nature based on what?
I was not basing an argument on my anecdotal evidence, I was answering a question. You can not make absolute statements about people based on their desires, especially since it is documented that many people claim to have changed.
To say that you know you will not ever be attracted to someone of the same sex, or opposite sex, not ever, is simply not reasonable because you can’t know that for sure. It is unreasonable – unless it is a decision, a commitment.
Desires are malleable and controllable, perhaps for some more than for others. Relationships are decisions. Marriage is a relationship.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
Your post at 199 is a convenient escape-hatch. Now it’s no longer encumbent upon you to make rational arguments about any of the specific points you’ve made, because they all are covered under this umbrella of “I’m judge of what the Bible means” and “The Bible is a relic of the past.” (Which, if true, means you can no more trust the story of Christ’s death and resurrection than you can anything else. Seriously, why be a follower of such a weak construct?) The claim that you’re smarter than all the orthodox Biblical scholars on the planet, not to mention God Himself, does indeed render your opinions absurd.
God says it’s wrong, you say it’s right. In the process you are ushering homosexually-inclined or -tempted people into hell and away from the transformative grace of Christ’s Gospel.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 11.05.09 AT 1:02 PM
But furthermore, why is it only homosexuality that we Christians have gotten wrong for 2,000 years? Many of these Scripture passages list numerous sins, and there’s never a word about re-defining those sins. Why is that?
Because:
1. Homosexual orientation isn’t a choice, and many thoughtful people wonder how a merciful God could afflict someone with an unchosen circumstance and then punish him for having it.
2. The Greek words for those other sins are clear and their meanings well-established; they are not vague terms that translators have to guess at the meanings of. But ALL of the words translated as “homosexual” are vague, and there is no clear lexical evidence that they actually do mean homosexuals.
–
It is called a sinful nature,
Report comment to moderator
Steve says, “1. Homosexual orientation isn’t a choice, and many thoughtful people wonder how a merciful God could afflict someone with an unchosen circumstance and then punish him for having it.”
Have you stopped to think about how many other things aren’t a choice that God has “afflicted” us with?
Anger, lust, gluttony, depression, and the list could go on and on.
These are all the results of living in a sinful world and of being born sinners ourselves. The fact that just about every male on the planet has a desire to lust for women does not mean that lusting after women is not a sin.
But if being born with a condition validates that condition, then not only am I free to lust in my heart, but (according to you) I’m free to act on that lust in any way I choose. This is twisted thinking.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor: with that understand then I guess you do not believe that Jesus arose from the dead and sits at the right hand of God.
And why would you guess that?
You assume incorrectly. I do believe Jesus rose from the dead.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 199:
You read the Bible through your modern orientation lens, as I thought.
Report comment to moderator
Amphi at #204: You said you could have gone the other way. If you truly are someone who could have gone either way (into a relationship with either a man or a woman), then you are bisexual, by definition. Most people can’t just pick one way or the other. That’s not a pejorative, just a fact.
If that’s not what you meant, then rephrase it so I can understand it. But that’s sure what it sounded like.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 11.05.09 AT 2:08 PM
Pastor: at the right hand of God.
And why would you guess that?
-
. ” I am not a Biblical inerrantist. I read the Bible as a 21st-Century, scientifically literate, intelligent thoughtful person. I regard it as inspired but not dictated by God. It bears the mark of the human cultures that created it.”
Since God’s Word is only a inspired but not dictated by God. Then what the matthew, mark, luke and john wrote is not real. The reason you do not believe them to be Biblical inerrantis. Sine they are not of God and they talk about the life of Christ. Then in your understand Christ died and did not rise agian.
Report comment to moderator
That’s not a pejorative, just a fact.
It is a fact if based on your assumptions about sexual orientation, which I do not accept, as stated above. You need to get rid of the boxes you put people in.
I do not believe a person’s momentary desire determines the type of human they are. There are people who are attracted to nobody, to animals, to children. To their secretary. To all of the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders. People’s desires change – as mine have. Your assertion that this can not happen is not reasonable. Your assumption that there are certain definite categories of humanity, certain labels you apply – hetero, GLBT, whatever based solely on momentary desire is not reasonable. You falsely assume that if someone is once attracted to the same sex, they will always be attracted to the same sex. Your assumption that some people are heterosexual and acting homosexual is also not consistent.
You just can’t reasonably make such absolute statements about human desire. It is malleable.
People have various desires. Some are acted upon. Some are rejected. But all relationships are decisions.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor: Then in your understand Christ died and did not rise agian.
Except I just said I DO believe Christ rose from the dead. He did so by God’s power.
So are you going to listen when I say what I believe, or are you going to ignore it? Nothing about my view of Scripture means I can’t believe in Christ’s resurrection. It was a miraculous event and well attested to by witnesses. The later actions of the disciples make sense only if they experienced His resurrection.
I believe this. You tell me I can’t possibly believe it. I think I know what I believe better than you do.
Report comment to moderator
Your assertion that this can not happen is not reasonable.
I didn’t say it can’t happen. I said that you can’t assume your experience is true for everyone. If your desires have changed, then that’s your experience. Mine have not. I have been attracted only to women and never to men my entire life.
For you to say “I changed, so anyone can” is what is not reasonable.
Report comment to moderator
I never used my experience as an example, you did. I called forth the example of many, many people who testify that their desires change – often from hetero to homo, but sometimes the other way around.
You have no basis whatsoever to say that people’s sexual orientations can not ever change. I didn’t say they can always change.
Report comment to moderator
Mine have not. I have been attracted only to women and never to men my entire life.
You assume your experience is true for everyone.
Report comment to moderator
Amphi: You assume your experience is true for everyone.
Duh, no. I said that in direct response to your describing your experience. Clearly, different people have different experiences.
I am skeptical that people who are truly homosexually oriented can really change, but I am sure that there are people whose orientation is ambiguous and they can choose same or opposite sex, or go between both. Some can, some can’t. You can, I can’t.
Report comment to moderator
Amphipolis: You read the Bible through your modern orientation lens, as I thought.
I believe God reveals himself in many ways. Thought the natural world, through our own intuitions and consciences, through realms of human knowledge, and through direct revelation. I believe the Bible is a collection of writings of people who sought to hear the words of God and write down what they heard. They came at it through their own levels of understanding, cultural influences and limitations, just as all of us do.
Others believe that God dictated the words of the Bible to the human authors, and that every jot and tittle is the literal and full truth. I do not share this view, but I still hold Scripture in high regard.
You say I read it through my “modern orientation lens” as if that were some kind of flaw. I think that insisting that the Bible (and more specifically, your particular interpretation of the Bible) is always true, even when it directly contradicts observed reality, is foolish — and not true to the Bible itself.
Report comment to moderator
You can
I don’t know if I can. I know that I won’t.
Desires happen. They do not have to control us.
Report comment to moderator
This is just the second act in the comedy. Straights are mad that they’ve lost control of the narrative and they’re setting up obstacles. As in any good comedy, it’s hard to predict the third act. But romantic love will triumph in the fourth act, and queers will marry. Straights will realize it’s OK in the fifth act, apologize, and be forgiven. In the last scene, WorldMag bloggers will shout “sodomy”, someone else will shout, “Oh shut up you medieval toads!”, and every one will roar with laughter and join in a happy dance and choral finale.
Report comment to moderator
Unfortunately for most, that’s not really the last scene. There’s an epilogue at the judgment seat of Christ.
Report comment to moderator
teveG 11.05.09 AT 2:45 PM
Pastor: Then in your understand Christ died and did not rise agian.
Except I just said I DO believe Christ rose from the dead. He did so by God’s power.
So are you going to listen when I say what I believe, or are you going to ignore it? Nothing about my view of Scripture means I can’t believe in Christ’s resurrection. It was a miraculous event and well attested to by witnesses. The later actions of the disciples make sense only if they experienced His resurrection.
I believe this. You tell me I can’t possibly believe it. I think I know what I believe better than you do.
–
You logic when it comes to God’s Word is what leads me to question your belief in Christ.
Report comment to moderator
But you have a stray you have not answer tmy posting I will repost it for you.
Genesis 1:24 “For this reason a man will leave HIS FATHER AND MOTHER and be united to HIS WIFE, and they shall become one flesh.” Do you reject this passage Steve? or do you change it so you can read father and father or mother and mother. United to His Husband or her wife?
Exodus 20:12 Honor your FATHER and your MOTHER, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your god is giving you.”
Do you reject this passage Steve? or do you change it so you can read honor your father and father or mother and mother?
Report comment to moderator
#222: I don’t really care what you “question,” I know what I believe.
#223: Heterosexual marriage is the norm and that’s what the Bible addresses. But that doesn’t mean it’s the only allowable arrangement. Many of the men who are considered heroes of the faith in the Old Testament (Abraham, David, Solomon and many others) had several wives. Some had wives but had children by their servants. Nothing in the Bible says they were wrong to do so, so obviously God permits arrangements that are other than one man, one woman.
There are no examples of same-sex, but there are plenty of examples of polygamous, and Christians today say those are wrong too.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 11.05.09 AT 4:54 PM
#222: I don’t really care what you “question,” I know what I believe.
#223: Heterosexual marriage is the norm and that’s what the Bible addresses. But that doesn’t mean it’s the only allowable arrangement. Many of the men who are considered heroes of the faith in the Old Testament (Abraham, David, Solomon and many others) had several wives. Some had wives but had children by their servants. Nothing in the Bible says they were wrong to do so, so obviously God permits arrangements that are other than one man, one woman.
There are no examples of same-sex, but there are plenty of examples of polygamous, and Christians today say those are wrong too.
—
An that is your problem “I don’t really care what you “question,” I know what I believe. ” as Christian we should be concern if our brother and sister in the Lord question our faith.
as for having more then one wives –
Abraham – we have the issue we face in the middle east over his unfaithfulness.
David – His faimly fell apart. one son try to kill him.
Solomon – The Nation was divide between his kids.
“There are no examples of same-sex, ” – why is that? could it be because God has called in wrong?
Report comment to moderator
“There are no examples of same-sex, ” – why is that? could it be because God has called in wrong?
According to you, God calls polygamy wrong too (even though there is no passage that says so) and yet there are many examples of it. Why is that?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 11.05.09 AT 5:33 PM
“There are no examples of same-sex, ” – why is that? could it be because God has called in wrong?
According to you, God calls polygamy wrong too (even though there is no passage that says so) and yet there are many examples of it. Why is that?
–
man’s sinful nature and the result of giving into sin.
Report comment to moderator
So Pastor, you just feel it’s ok to change your arguments willy-nilly? Earlier, you argued that the will of the people should prevail in defining marriage, except when you don’t agree with the will of the people, and then you argued the courts should step in. (#119). When you’d had enough responses trying to get you to explain the self-contradiction, you chucked out both the will of the people and the courts and made appeal to the Bible (#157).
Now you suggest there are no examples of same-sex couples in the Bible because it’s wrong (#225), and then turn around and say there ARE many examples of polygamy in the Bible … because it’s wrong. (#227)
Look, if you can’t be consistent, there’s no point in continuing the discussion. Good evening.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 11.05.09 AT 7:25 PM
So Pastor, you just feel it’s ok to change your arguments willy-nilly? Earlier, you argued that the will of the people should prevail in defining marriage, except when you don’t agree with the will of the people, and then you argued the courts should step in. (#119). When you’d had enough responses trying to get you to explain the self-contradiction, you chucked out both the will of the people and the courts and made appeal to the Bible (#157).
Now you suggest there are no examples of same-sex couples in the Bible because it’s wrong (#225), and then turn around and say there ARE many examples of polygamy in the Bible … because it’s wrong. (#227)
Look, if you can’t be consistent, there’s no point in continuing the discussion. Good evening.
–
First off you asked a question I answer you question. the problem is the answer comes into conflict with what your want to believe.
“Many of the men who are considered heroes of the faith in the Old Testament (Abraham, David, Solomon and many others) had several wives. Some had wives but had children by their servants. Nothing in the Bible says they were wrong to do so, so obviously God permits arrangements that are other than one man, one woman. ”
My answer
Abraham – we have the issue we face in the middle east over his unfaithfulness.
David – His family fell apart. one son try to kill him.
Solomon – The Nation was divide between his kids.
This defeats you argument, the issue God showed man lust and the problem it causes.
Second – ‘Now you suggest there are no examples of same-sex couples in the Bible because it’s wrong”
There is one spot in the Old testament that talks about same-sex and you dismissed because it does not fit your world view.
Steve, your problem is your world is in direct conflict with God’s Word. So in stead of letting God’s Word change your world view, you have decided to change God’s Word to fit your world view. The person that has the issue with God and His Word is not me, but you.
Report comment to moderator
#151
Hermes,
“He’s also the guy who wrestled with Jacob and grabbed his hoo-hah. I know the bible says his “thigh”, but if you look up the Hebrew you’ll see what it really says. Translators are just too squeamish to say it.”
Baloney. Exodus 32:27 translates the same word as “side”, where a man puts his sword, just as Ehud hid his sword under his garment on the inside of his right “thigh” (same word) in Judges 3:16.
Report comment to moderator
This is a good illustration of the problem with literalism. As we’ve discussed, the ancients had no concept of sexual orientation. They could not conceive of a small number of people simply being same-sex attracted by nature. Those who were drawn to the same sex were seen as deliberately choosing to engage in aberrant acts.
Today, we have a much greater understanding of human sexuality and most of us believe — based on evidence — that some people are drawn to the same sex as innately and strongly as most people are to the opposite sex.
Those of us who are not Biblical literalists are able to reconcile the two, with some thought. We recognize that the words of Leviticus are the ancient Hebrews’ understanding of God’s will, and not dictated directly by God. We believe revelation continues even today, and that the current move within the church toward greater acceptance of responsible homosexuality in monogamous commitment is coming through the Holy Spirit’s inspiration.
Literalists are stuck, though. Most realize that it does God no favors to say that a condition people don’t choose is a damnable sin (in fact, usually singled out as one of the worst), but they can’t rethink their view of sexuality. So instead they doggedly insist that it’s a choice. (As if anyone would choose to be marginalized and stigmatized, as homosexuals have been up until maybe the past 30 years.)
To do this, they point to “ex-gays” who have been through a program like Exodus, and try to ignore the fact that Exodus’s founders have decided the group doesn’t work and hurts many people, and issued a public apology in 2007.
Or they point to bisexual people, who really do have the ability to choose a same- or opposite-sex relationship and insist that all people with an attraction to the same sex have a similar ability to choose — ignoring all the science showing that human sexuality runs a spectrum.
But they’re wrong. The vast majority of us cannot choose which sex we’re attracted to. We can and do choose which individuals to develop intimate relationships with, but we can’t choose which sex we want to choose an individual from. For most of us, it’s the opposite sex. For some small percentage of us, it’s the same sex.
Biblical literalists have to contradict a lot of well-established fact in order to declare those people condemned by “choices.” But if tthey don’t, they’re left with a God who would condemn someone for an innate trait as unchosen as being left-handed or red-haired (examples I picked because, like homosexuality, they can be covered up or fought, but never really changed). And that’s one example of many of why I can’t be a literalist.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor: Your argument that the examples of polygamy were meant to show man’s “lust and the problem[s] it causes” fails. There is no Biblical command against polygamy, so it was not seen as a sin. It was just part of the culture.
Marriage in that time was usually not about lust anyway, but at any rate, men with multiple wives was common and nothing in any of the scriptures says “thou shalt not have more than one wife.”
You are just making up a reason to explain why modern day Christians condemn something the God of the Bible never did.
You point out some examples where polygamy caused problems, but there were plenty of Biblical cases where monogamy caused problems too. Adam had only one wife, and that didn’t work out so well.
And you keep ignoring (or not understanding) when people point out your inconsistencies. If you say there are no same-sex couples in the Bible because it’s wrong, and then say there ARE polygamous arrangements in the Bible for the exact same reason, you’re being logically inconsistent.
Report comment to moderator
Steve, #231,
Everyone who aspires to truly follow the way of Christ struggles with their thought life. Christ is the one who introduced the revolutionary idea that if you look at a woman to lust after her, you’ve committed adultery in your heart (Matt.5:28). I’m pretty sure everyone (male and female) has done this before, and has to struggle with their sexual urges. But improvement always involves some kind of struggle, whether it’s seen by others or not. And some people do have more struggles than others. I think you’re trying to change the meaning of scripture to permit homosexual marriage in order to ‘equalize’ everyone’s struggle. Part of the problem is found in your statements that seem to indicate that you do not believe Scripture to be inspired by God Himself, but rather by human understanding of who God is. [ the words of Leviticus are the ancient Hebrews’ understanding of God’s will, and not dictated directly by God] Under those circumstances, it’s no wonder that the Bible would not hold a preeminent place in theology—at least, not without significant contortion of meaning.
I also believe that God is still revealing Himself today, but He is not going to contradict Himself, so current prophecy and revelations must adhere to and be consistent with known scripture. I am afraid that people who throw out offensive scripture wholesale, will some day awaken to the realization that they have no need of scripture at all—since the mind of man has been the source of their faith all along, and ultimately, the source of their god as well.
Report comment to moderator
—-
Steve,
“If you say there are no same-sex couples in the Bible because it’s wrong, and then say there ARE polygamous arrangements in the Bible for the exact same reason, you’re being logically inconsistent. ”
It is only logically inconsistent because it does not fit your world view. I have said it before an I will say it again your issue is with God’s Word which is in direct conflict with your world views.
Report comment to moderator
No Pastor, it’s logically inconsistent because you’re contradicting yourself.
If the sinfulness of a marital arrangement is the reason there are no examples of it in the Bible, then you are saying that the Bible does not provide examples of sinful marital arrangements. If that is the principle you believe to be at work, then a marital arrangement that the Bible does provide examples of must not be sinful.
On the other hand, if you argue that the Bible provides examples of sinful marital arrangements in order to show their destructiveness, then the sinfulness of a marital arrangement cannot be the reason for its absence.
It has to be one or the other. Either the Bible DOES show examples of sinful marital arrangements, or it does not.
If it does show such examples, then the absence of same-sex couples in the Bible cannot be because it is sinful, because that is not a reason for something to not be in the book.
If it does NOT show such examples, then the presence of polygamous families is proof enough that they are not wrong in God’s eyes, because they would not be in there if they were.
However, what you like to do is change the standards around every time you need a different response. If same-sex arrangements aren’t in there, you say it’s because they’re wrong. But polygamous arrangements ARE in there, and you say that’s because they’re wrong. That is self-contradiction.
Report comment to moderator
DJ: You are right that I do not believe the entire Bible was dictated by God. It does reflect the cultural biases and limited knowledge of its human authors. I am not a literalist or an inerrantist.
In that, I believe I am with the majority of Christians. It has only been in the past couple of centuries that strict inerrancy has become a doctrine, and even then it is not one that all denominations have adopted.
However, I do take scripture seriously. The ancient Hebrews were close to God, felt his presence and heard his voice. The disciples of Jesus were in the presence of the living Lord for some years. If they wrote down something as being a revelation from God, then they were probably right. I do not take that lightly, but neither do I feel compelled to follow it slavishly.
Report comment to moderator
Steve -
“No Pastor, it’s logically inconsistent because you’re contradicting yourself.
If the sinfulness of a marital arrangement is the reason there are no examples of it in the Bible, then you are saying that the Bible does not provide examples of sinful marital arrangements. If that is the principle you believe to be at work, then a marital arrangement that the Bible does provide examples of must not be sinful”
Genesis 1:24 “For this reason a man will leave HIS FATHER AND MOTHER and be united to HIS WIFE, and they shall become one flesh.
God does not need to speak about same-sex marraige because He reveal here what marraige is to be. An yes, this passage comes into conflict with your world view.
Exodus 20:12 Honor your FATHER and your MOTHER, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your god is giving you.”
This here shows again what marraige to be and what is best for Children, An yes, this passage comes into conflict with your world view.
So your arugment does not hold up to God’s Word. “do not take that lightly, but neither do I feel compelled to follow it slavishly. ”
It must be great to pick and chose what part of God’s Word you are going to follower.
Report comment to moderator
But apparently, SteveG., you are with the minority of not only Christians but proponents of every other world religion, including Buddhists (i.e., an infinitesimally small group approaching zero) who for the past thousands of years have regarded homosexual relations as immoral. It has only been in the past couple of decades that pro-homosexuality has become a “doctrine,” and even then it is not one that all denominations has adopted.
I really don’t understand how you can fail to spot the hypocrisies of your own beliefs while pointing them out in those of others without ceasing.
Your attitude toward the Bible is the most inconsistent, illogical and self-serving jumble of conveniences ever. Basically, if you like it (i.e., lets you fit in with the hip crowd), it’s true and if you don’t like it (i.e., would make you look like a retrograde, uneducated rube), it’s false.
What you said above in #199 is so telling: “As you know, as I have said often, I am not a Biblical inerrantist. I read the Bible as a 21st-Century, scientifically literate, intelligent thoughtful person.”
This boils down to nothing but your intellectual pride, which you’re not willing to let go of even if it sends you to hell. People like Pastor Roy, with all his typos and bad grammar and (according to you) unreasonable arguments, are therefore infinitely more wise than you will ever be in your great, self-exalting intelligence.
Report comment to moderator
David: OK. No point in going further, then.
I bow out of this thread.
Report comment to moderator
Whatever. I’ve posted numerous arguments that you’ve simply ignored, either because you don’t like dealing with me as a person or because you don’t have good rebuttals. Instead, you step back and start making blanket claims about how only certain parts of the Bible are true.
This is a frustration of yours that’s a direct result of trying to hold the Bible as simultaneously true and not true. I would really love to engage you on some of these questions. I was pleasantly surprised by your response earlier when I challenged you that churches who ordain practicing homosexuals should also preach repentance for promiscuous lifestyles. I don’t think that’s a faithful position, and it leads to other problems, but at least you’re trying to be consistent.
But if you’d rather pick up your toys and go home, we’ll just have to meet on a different field on another day.
Report comment to moderator
David L. – People like Pastor Roy, with all his typos and bad grammar and (according to you) unreasonable arguments, are therefore infinitely more wise than you will ever be in your great, self-exalting intelligence.
–
I am a better Preacher and teacher then a writer.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor Roy, your points are plain, to the point, effective and Biblical. I’m sure you are also a good preacher and teacher.
Report comment to moderator
DJ 11.06.09 AT 1:04 PM
Pastor Roy, your points are plain, to the point, effective and Biblical. I’m sure you are also a good preacher and teacher.
–
I find Steve views to be very troubling, even after when the Word of God is posted. He still look for away around it.
Report comment to moderator
The problem is that we simply don’t come at the question from the same perspective. We all believe the Bible is the word of God, but we mean very different things by it.
For David and Pastor, the plain sense of the text is literally true and cannot be in error in any way. For me, the text is not the dictated words of God, but the record of people attempting to understand and hear God. It can be wrong in some ways, and in other places it might be time-bound or limited by the human author’s knowledge.
So the pastor criticizes me for look for a “way around” the “Word of God.” I’m not. I am trying to discern what the actual word of God is, when what we have is the record of what an ancient people thought it was.
David accuses me of disregarding parts of the Bible I don’t like. This is also false. The discernment of the will of God is hardly a matter as trivial as what I do or don’t like. However, Biblical inerrantists, to me, are just taking a cop-out position. Their view is: I have no idea how to discern and disntinguish between the ideas in this book, so rather than even try, I’ll just insist it’s all literally true.
Given that our starting points are so different, it is little wonder that we disagree. But it’s also almost certainly an unbridgeable gap.
Report comment to moderator
David L.: But apparently, SteveG., you are with the minority of not only Christians but proponents of every other world religion, including Buddhists (i.e., an infinitesimally small group approaching zero) who for the past thousands of years have regarded homosexual relations as immoral. It has only been in the past couple of decades that pro-homosexuality has become a “doctrine,” and even then it is not one that all denominations has adopted.
Yes. Of course it’s only in the past century or so that scienitific understanding has found that homosexuality is a natural condition for a small number of people, and not the perversion or mental illness that it was long thought to be. So it’s no wonder that the populace in general and religious thought in particular is only slowly catching up.
Report comment to moderator
Whatever. I’ve posted numerous arguments that you’ve simply ignored, either because you don’t like dealing with me as a person or because you don’t have good rebuttals.
I don’t think so. I did not return to the linguistic discussion in #201, but I believe I have responded to everything else you’ve asked.
You could try talking to me without the undercurrent of seething anger that appears in virtually all your posts. And stop telling me what my positions must be on matters where I’ve not said anything, or have in fact said the opposite of what you suggest. That might help me be amenable to engaging you.
Now it’s no longer encumbent upon you to make rational arguments about any of the specific points you’ve made, because they all are covered under this umbrella of “I’m judge of what the Bible means” and “The Bible is a relic of the past.” (Which, if true, means you can no more trust the story of Christ’s death and resurrection than you can anything else. Seriously, why be a follower of such a weak construct?) The claim that you’re smarter than all the orthodox Biblical scholars on the planet, not to mention God Himself, does indeed render your opinions absurd.
…
The answer is, people who are motivated to normalize homosexuality aren’t interested in being morally righteous, in holiness, in purity, in godliness, in sobriety. I truly wish those who love sin and congratulate those who engage in it would simply ‘fess up and be honest about their hatred of Scripture and stop using their participation in a church to cover their rebellion against God in some veneer of pseudo-moralism.
…
The truth is, there’s no illegitimate homosexual practice in your mind, right? So, why are you talking about “monogamous” and “committed”? Don’t you realize that the vast, vast majority of homosexual activity is quite non-exclusive and quite non-monogamous? Stop playing charades.
…
People like Pastor Roy, with all his typos and bad grammar and (according to you) unreasonable arguments, are therefore infinitely more wise than you will ever be in your great, self-exalting intelligence.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 11.06.09 AT 1:26 PM
The problem is that we simply don’t come at the question from the same perspective. We all believe the Bible is the word of God, but we mean very different things by it.
For David and Pastor, the plain sense of the text is literally true and cannot be in error in any way. For me, the text is not the dictated words of God, but the record of people attempting to understand and hear God. It can be wrong in some ways, and in other places it might be time-bound or limited by the human author’s knowledge.
So the pastor criticizes me for look for a “way around” the “Word of God.” I’m not. I am trying to discern what the actual word of God is, when what we have is the record of what an ancient people thought it was.
David accuses me of disregarding parts of the Bible I don’t like. This is also false. The discernment of the will of God is hardly a matter as trivial as what I do or don’t like. However, Biblical inerrantists, to me, are just taking a cop-out position. Their view is: I have no idea how to discern and disntinguish between the ideas in this book, so rather than even try, I’ll just insist it’s all literally true.
Given that our starting points are so different, it is little wonder that we disagree. But it’s also almost certainly an unbridgeable gap.
—
Steve here is your logically inconsistent comment
“We all believe the Bible is the word of God” Then you make this statement “For me, the text is not the dictated words of God, but the record of people attempting to understand and hear God. It can be wrong in some ways, and in other places it might be time-bound or limited by the human author’s knowledge. ”
Is it God’s Word or is it someone attempting to understand and hear God?
“However, Biblical inerrantists, to me, are just taking a cop-out position”
Genesis 1:24 “For this reason a man will leave HIS FATHER AND MOTHER and be united to HIS WIFE, and they shall become one flesh.” What is the cop-out position here? God is clear “man will leave HIS FATHER AND MOTHER and be united to HIS WIFE” How hard it that to understand?
Exodus 20:12 Honor your FATHER and your MOTHER, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your god is giving you.” What is the cop-out position here? God’s Word is clear ” Honor your FATHER and your MOTHER’ How hard it that to understand?
Steve, your problem is these passage come in direct conflict with your view , that a Christian understanding of marriage can include gay marriage.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, I don’t know if it’s worth jumping into the conversation at this point, but I don’t know that you can make an argument about how someone uses logic based on a question he asks. I think you’re referring back to the end of Pastor Roy’s #225, where he said
“There are no examples of same-sex, ” – why is that? could it be because God has called in wrong?
You seem to take his meaning to be that no examples of same-sex relationships were included in Scripture because God called them wrong. But it’s quite likely that there were no examples of ongoing same-sex relationships to include.
Some cultures tolerated such relationships; others did not. The Jews were among the latter, whether out of cultural traditions or respect for God’s law. (Obviously they didn’t always act out of respect for God’s law, and we have plenty examples of that.)
So if I had to guess at what was behind Pastor Roy’s question in #225, it would be that there were no examples because the Israelites knew God said it was wrong. So the inconsistency would then be with the Israelites, who knew that God said idolatry was wrong but sometimes fell into idol worship, who knew that God said to depend on Him but sometimes depended on strong kings and armies instead, and lots of other examples of disobedience.
It’s really not that unusual for a group of people to carefully avoid one sin because they know it is wrong, yet fall into another sin even though they know it’s wrong. We see it all the time. For instance, some Christians make sure they avoid drunkenness by never using alcohol, but tolerate gluttony.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 11.06.09 AT 1:34 PM
David L.: But apparently, SteveG., you are with the minority of not only Christians but proponents of every other world religion, including Buddhists (i.e., an infinitesimally small group approaching zero) who for the past thousands of years have regarded homosexual relations as immoral. It has only been in the past couple of decades that pro-homosexuality has become a “doctrine,” and even then it is not one that all denominations has adopted.
Yes. Of course it’s only in the past century or so that scientific understanding has found that homosexuality is a natural condition for a small number of people, and not the perversion or mental illness that it was long thought to be. So it’s no wonder that the populace in general and religious thought in particular is only slowly catching up.
–
“scientific understanding has found that homosexuality is a natural condition ” If you base your belief on scientific understanding to justify your views of homosexuality. How then can you believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ since you can not prove it by scientific understanding?
Report comment to moderator
Pauline – thank you for your posting, you stated it far better then I could have. thank you
Report comment to moderator
Not “Thy will be done”, but My will be done.
Nothing is more important than What I Want.
And “What I Want” can be rationalized as ok any number of ways.
Report comment to moderator
Steve says, “Yes. Of course it’s only in the past century or so that scienitific understanding has found that homosexuality is a natural condition for a small number of people, and not the perversion or mental illness that it was long thought to be. So it’s no wonder that the populace in general and religious thought in particular is only slowly catching up.”
So when you’re not an inerrantist, the fact that you claim you’re with the majority of Christians is supposed to bolster your position.
But when you’re pro-homosexual-marriage, the fact that you’re with the minority of Christians is also supposed to somehow bolster your position.
Heads you win, tails I lose.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor: How then can you believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ since you can not prove it by scientific understanding?
Because it was a single miraculous event. It doesn’t require me to deny the observed reality of things to believe that God raised Jesus from the dead.
Report comment to moderator
David: No, it doesn’t bolster my position to be with a minority of Christians on the homosexuality issue. I recognize that my position is not widely shared and that I am at a disadvantage form both a Scripture and tradition standpoint in any debate about it.
But I also believe it to be correct, despite that. Only God knows if I’m right, and only time will tell if Christianity in general will come to adopt it or not.
Report comment to moderator
Believing that homosexual behavior is sin does not require me to deny the observed reality of things, unless I believe myself to be the arbitor of what is or is not sinful….Unless I substitute my own thoughts and feelings for the reality of things ordained by God.
Report comment to moderator
Steve, you said, “I don’t think so. I did not return to the linguistic discussion in #201, but I believe I have responded to everything else you’ve asked.”
You didn’t respond to my comments on the following points:
What “against nature” and “the natural function” (or “use”) mean in Romans 1.
The Greek words in comment #201
The other ways in which God has “afflicted” us in comment #207.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG., you said, “You could try talking to me without the undercurrent of seething anger that appears in virtually all your posts.”
I wouldn’t call it “seething anger” but “exasperation.” You are right to call me on that, though. I apologize for speaking unkindly to you.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG., this is probably not the right thread for it, but there should be a separate discussion about “literalism.” You keep using the word “dictate” (I think in an attempt to be belittling) to describe how God inspired the writings of Scripture. You should know better. I think you know that the “dictation” theory isn’t the normal argument that Biblical literalists use when describing inspiration.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 11.06.09 AT 2:44 PM
Pastor: How then can you believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ since you can not prove it by scientific understanding?
Because it was a single miraculous event. It doesn’t require me to deny the observed reality of things to believe that God raised Jesus from the dead.
—–
Now that is double talk. You tell us, that when it comes to God’s Word and the homosexuality you used scientific understanding to justify your views. Even if you have disregard these scriptures.
Genesis 1:24 “For this reason a man will leave HIS FATHER AND MOTHER and be united to HIS WIFE, and they shall become one flesh.”
Exodus 20:12 Honor your FATHER and your MOTHER, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your god is giving you.” What is the cop-out position here? God’s Word is clear ”
But when it comes to Jesus, you throw aside your scientific understanding, which can not prove that Christ arose from the dead.
Please expain your double talk here?
Report comment to moderator
David #258: You keep using the word “dictate” (I think in an attempt to be belittling) to describe how God inspired the writings of Scripture. You should know better. I think you know that the “dictation” theory isn’t the normal argument that Biblical literalists use when describing inspiration.
No belittling meant, just an attempt to explain the different views. Inerrantists believe the Bible is inerrant. That, however it was that God inspired the words, it cannot be in error.
I do not share that belief. I think the Bible is inspired, but also human-filtered, and is not inerrant.
Report comment to moderator
Pastor: No double-talk. I did not say science can prove Jesus’s resurrection.
What I said is that nothing in science forbids a miraculous resurrection. God is not proveable by scientific means. If I believe in God, and I do, and I believe that God raised Jesus from the dead, and I do, then I am making a statement about something I hold by faith and do not claim to be able to prove.
Science cannot prove it, but science cannot contradict it. Science does contradict the notion that homosexuals are really heterosexuals behaving badly.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 11.06.09 AT 4:05 PM
Pastor: No double-talk. I did not say science can prove Jesus’s resurrection.
What I said is that nothing in science forbids a miraculous resurrection. God is not proveable by scientific means. If I believe in God, and I do, and I believe that God raised Jesus from the dead, and I do, then I am making a statement about something I hold by faith and do not claim to be able to prove.
Science cannot prove it, but science cannot contradict it. Science does contradict the notion that homosexuals are really heterosexuals behaving badly.
–
Now, we are getting some where “Science does contradict the notion that homosexuals are really heterosexuals behaving badly. ”
Science can not prove what is amd is not a sinful life can it?
So why then do you hold God’s Word on the sin of homosexuality captivity base on science?
Report comment to moderator
Pastor: Science shows that homosexuality is not a chosen orientation.
Sins are things people choose to do.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 11.06.09 AT 5:37 PM
Pastor: Science shows that homosexuality is not a chosen orientation.
Sins are things people choose to do.
—-
Oh Steve, is sex’s out side of marriage a sin?
Report comment to moderator
You know, I am about done with being examined. We’re not going to agree. I’ve answered several questions that I know you are asking just so you can declare my answers deficient, and I’ve been a good sport about it, but enough is enough.
We can agree to disagree, or we can just disagree. Those appear to be the only options.
Report comment to moderator
Steve the reason I asked that. Science has shown man is a sexual creature. If we take your logic then any sexual conduct be man is no a sin.
My understand is Science is divided on homosexuality. Some believe it is a chose, some do not. It depends on the person, personel views.
Steve, what Science? What happens to your view if it is proven the Science you are basing your belief on is false?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 11.06.09 AT 5:46 PM
You know, I am about done with being examined. We’re not going to agree. I’ve answered several questions that I know you are asking just so you can declare my answers deficient, and I’ve been a good sport about it, but enough is enough.
We can agree to disagree, or we can just disagree. Those appear to be the only options.
—
It is not me that you have a disagreement with. It is God’s Word
Genesis 1:24 “For this reason a man will leave HIS FATHER AND MOTHER and be united to HIS WIFE, and they shall become one flesh.”
Exodus 20:12 Honor your FATHER and your MOTHER, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your god is giving you.”
An other passages that you are having the disagreement with.
Report comment to moderator
Steve the reason I asked that. Science has shown man is a sexual creature. If we take your logic then any sexual conduct by a man is not a sin.
Report comment to moderator
Steve – Science is based on man’s wisdom not God’s wisdom.
God’s word is based on His wisdom not man’s wisdom
Report comment to moderator
Sexual behaviors are choices. Sexual orientation is not.
A man can choose to be faithful to his wife or to cheat. He cannot choose to not be attracted to women.
Likewise, a homosexual man cannot just choose to be attracted to women instead of men. People talk about “it’s a choice” like they think a homosexual man can just wake up tomorrow morning and decide not to be homosexual anymore. It doesn’t work like that.
My understand is Science is divided on homosexuality. Some believe it is a chose, some do not.
When did you choose to be heterosexual?
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 11.06.09 AT 6:10 PM
Sexual behaviors are choices. Sexual orientation is not.
A man can choose to be faithful to his wife or to cheat. He cannot choose to not be attracted to women.
Likewise, a homosexual man cannot just choose to be attracted to women instead of men. People talk about “it’s a choice” like they think a homosexual man can just wake up tomorrow morning and decide not to be homosexual anymore. It doesn’t work like that.
My understand is Science is divided on homosexuality. Some believe it is a chose, some do not.
When did you choose to be heterosexual?
————————————
God’s Words calls it a sin, regardless what Science says. So who should we obey God’s Word or Science?
As for marriage you can not get around
Genesis 1:24 “For this reason a man will leave HIS FATHER AND MOTHER and be united to HIS WIFE, and they shall become one flesh.”
Exodus 20:12 Honor your FATHER and your MOTHER, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your god is giving you.”
And other.
Report comment to moderator
How many times have you quoted those same passages in this thread? A dozen or more? I am aware of them. You are not understanding me. For the third time, I’m going to try to step away from this thread. We disagree and that is not likely to change.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 11.06.09 AT 7:33 PM
How many times have you quoted those same passages in this thread? A dozen or more? I am aware of them. You are not understanding me. For the third time, I’m going to try to step away from this thread. We disagree and that is not likely to change.
—
I keep quoting because that is your problem God’s Word.
God’s Words calls it a sin, regardless what Science says. So who should we obey God’s Word or Science?
As for marriage you can not get around
Genesis 1:24 “For this reason a man will leave HIS FATHER AND MOTHER and be united to HIS WIFE, and they shall become one flesh.”
Exodus 20:12 Honor your FATHER and your MOTHER, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your god is giving you.”
And other.
Report comment to moderator
David L. and Pastor Roy,
I have, with great interest, been following your conversation with SteveG. All of you have been most patient and, despite some understandable frustrations, have shown admirable good will.
I think 1 Cor 1 & 2 describes the impasse between the two of you and Steve. Here are some applicable excerpts:
I see the debate as between the wisdom of God as expressed by the two of you and the blind “wisdom” of man, as expressed by Steve.
Report comment to moderator
In other words, Michael, you doubt the sincerity of my Christianity because I take a non-traditional position on this issue. I’m not as good a Christian as you, Pastor Roy and David L because I don’t regard homosexuality as a great evil.
That about right?
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin,
Thank you for your comment. Another passage I’ve been thinking about recently in relation to these impasses (which I was struck by while reading Calvin’s “Institutes”) is 2 Thessalonians 2:8-12. The larger context has to do with the last days, but I think it’s applicable here, also.
“And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”
Steve, I don’t know where your heart is with God, honestly, but in this area you’re either plainly in rebellion against His Word, or you’re plainly deceived by the god of this age. This is not about “traditional” or “non-traditional,” but about biblical or not biblical. Don’t talk about this in the trendy political lingo of the day. It’s not a matter of regarding homosexuality as “a great evil,” but about agreeing with, and submitting to, God’s ordering of the universe, especially in sexual matters, as revealed through the Bible.
You seem to be stuck in an impasse where you can conceive of only two ways of regarding people tempted by same-sex intimacy: you either say “God hates fags” and go around beating gay teenagers to death; or else you affirm everything about them in the name of “compassion” and “tolerance” and act as if they’re the one group in the country about which nothing critical can ever be said.
But this is a false choice, as you’d know if you spent any time whatsoever getting to know how true Biblical churches deal with this sexual sin, which is very similar to the way they deal with the sexual sins of heterosexuals. There’s no bashing or demeaning or belittling; but there’s also no false compassion or false love that turns a blind eye to sin so that everyone can just get along with each other. To ignore a brother’s temptations and sins is not how the Bible teaches the church to be. I hope you will think and pray about this.
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin – thank you for the kind words.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG (#275):
I don’t know if you are a Christian or not. If you are a Christian, I see you as a thoroughly misguided one and devoid of the spiritual wisdom and insight Paul spoke of in the 1Cor passages I cited.
You are unable to biblically support your position on this issue. The Bible is a Christian’s only true guide of faith and practice. It is God’s word as surely as if He were standing in front of you and speaking every word of it directly to your face. If you cannot positively support your position biblically, then you are in error. The only support you have cited for your position is non-biblical, while rejecting biblical admonitions against your position. You may as well stand directly in front of God and say to Him, “You, Jehovah God, are wrong!”
So, you tell me what kind of a Christian you are.
Report comment to moderator
David L (#276):
Your comments are very pertinent from the first emphasis on judgment down to your last paragraph on how Christians should deal with sin. The overall message is one of recognizing the terrible nature of sin and then presenting a hopeful way of dealing with it. We do not criticize the sin of homosexuality just to be critical and condemning, but to point out a problem with the hope of getting to a solution.
I am reminded of Question 2 of the Heidelberg Catechism:
In the debate with most homosexuals, and people like Steve, the problem is that we never get beyond item 1 because they stubbornly refuse to recognize or acknowledge the sin of homosexual behavior. So we rarely get to the more positive aspect of our message, the solution to the problem of sin (any sin, not just homosexual sin).
You touched on this in your final paragraph as you alluded to how the church handles any sin. Sin must be recognized and acknowledged for the serious problem that it is; otherwise, a person sees no need for a solution and he will continue in his sin until he admits his problem.
People normally see the sinfulness of things like stealing, murder, and lying, but the self-serving rationalizations for denying the sin of homosexuality seem especially effective for those caught up in it. This seems to be the constant battle going on in these debates—homosexuals doggedly defending their behavior, while most Christians adamantly uphold the Bible’s view of its sinfulness.
The difficulty with Christians like Steve (if he is a Christian) is that he soft-pedals the problem of sin so much that, ultimately, it is practically not a problem at all—not just homosexuality, but any sin. This seems consistent with his viewpoint as a universalist, believing that almost everyone will be saved in the end. The downside of this, as I see it, is that this diminishes the sacrifice of Christ almost to the point of a trivial afterthought. And that is definitely not the way that the Bible portrays the problem of sin and the horrendous cost paid by Christ in solving the problem for us.
Report comment to moderator
MM: You are unable to biblically support your position on this issue. The Bible is a Christian’s only true guide of faith and practice. It is God’s word as surely as if He were standing in front of you and speaking every word of it directly to your face.
No, I don’t think so. And neither do most other Christians. This sola scriptura idea comes from Luther and is solely a doctrine of conservative Protestantism. Roman Catholics add tradition and Church authority to Scripture as sources of faith and practice. For Anglicans, it is tradition and reason. For most mainline Protestant denominations it is less formalized, but there is room for increasing knowledge and reason to guide the use of Scripture.
Obviously, the conservative Protestant view predominates here, and I have been told more than once that I am supposed to just read the Bible and believe it, as literally as possible, and ignore every other possible source of knowledge unless they agree with the literal reading of the Bible.
I can’t, and won’t, do that. If you feel you must deny my Christianity because of that, I think you’re being un-Biblically judgmental, but whatever. I am not overly concerned with the opininions of other people. I need only to be true to God as I experience and perceive Him, and to myself.
Report comment to moderator
“Roman Catholics add tradition and Church authority to Scripture as sources of faith and practice.”
And what, exactly, is the official Roman Catholic position on homosexuality and gay “marriage”?
That’s what I thought.
“I need only to be true to God as I experience and perceive Him, and to myself.”
Is there really any difference between the two?
The phrase “God as I experience and perceive Him” subjectfies religion to such an extreme degree that it no longer means anything whatsoever. In fact, I’d say that this “God as you experience and perceive Him” is a complete fabrication, a figment of your idolatrous imagination no different from the convenient and self-justifying gods worshipped by the Greeks, Romans, Hindi and Wiccans. You have no basis in natural theology or revelation (not to mention the Christian Bible) for believing in this “god.” It’s pure wish fulfullment; it’s a projection, a hologram, that enables you to defend your political views on the one hand and your “god-talk” on the other. It provides you with your spiritual bona-fides.
You haven’t responded directly to most of the questions addressed to you on this thread, because you can’t. All of your answers boil down to the fact that you believe what you want to believe because you want to believe it. We are left with nothing except the conclusion that you’re an adherent of some weird, postmodern pagan religion meant to be acceptable because it uses the language and terminology of biblical Christianity. Your use of the signifier “Jesus” doesn’t automatically mean that you’re referring to the Jesus of the Bible. It’s a completely different signified that you have in mind.
I’m disappointed that you don’t care about any of the opinions expressed here, but I’m also suspicious that that’s not true. Why then do you comment here so much? Are you trying to “evangelize” us to your point of view, or are you just killing time by stirring up controversy?
“I am supposed to just read the Bible and believe it, as literally as possible, and ignore every other possible source of knowledge unless they agree with the literal reading of the Bible.”
This is surely a caricature of what you’ve been told. Even if not, it’s a caricature of what we believe as Biblical Protestants. But concerning the issue of homosexuality, you don’t have to “believe it as literally as possible and ignore every other possible source of knowledge,” etc., etc. All you have to do is read the numerous texts condemning gay sex in the Bible and affirming true, monogamous, heterosexual marriage as God’s design, plan and ideal for His creatures; and not go to absurd lengths to explain why they mean the opposite of what they say. But you don’t want to do that, and the reason is not intellectual. It’s spiritual. Think about that.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG 11.09.09 AT 10:59 AM
MM: You are unable to biblically support your position on this issue. The Bible is a Christian’s only true guide of faith and practice. It is God’s word as surely as if He were standing in front of you and speaking every word of it directly to your face.
No, I don’t think so. And neither do most other Christians. This sola scriptura idea comes from Luther and is solely a doctrine of conservative Protestantism. Roman Catholics add tradition and Church authority to Scripture as sources of faith and practice. For Anglicans, it is tradition and reason. For most mainline Protestant denominations it is less formalized, but there is room for increasing knowledge and reason to guide the use of Scripture.
Obviously, the conservative Protestant view predominates here, and I have been told more than once that I am supposed to just read the Bible and believe it, as literally as possible, and ignore every other possible source of knowledge unless they agree with the literal reading of the Bible.
I can’t, and won’t, do that. If you feel you must deny my Christianity because of that, I think you’re being un-Biblically judgmental, but whatever. I am not overly concerned with the opininions of other people. I need only to be true to God as I experience and perceive Him, and to myself.
——
. I need only to be true to God as I experience and perceive Him, and to myself.
How do you be true to God when you dismiss His Word and what He calls sin?
Genesis 1:24 “For this reason a man will leave HIS FATHER AND MOTHER and be united to HIS WIFE, and they shall become one flesh.”
Exodus 20:12 Honor your FATHER and your MOTHER, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your god is giving you.”
These passages come in direct conflict with your support of Gay Marriage. An you just dismiss them because they are in conflict with your world view.
Report comment to moderator
David L. that is what I have been posting the same passage over and over again. He just dismiss it and God keeps telling me to repost them.
Report comment to moderator
David L.
I heard a Preacher one time tell a story about how he preached the same message over and over again for 2 month straight. The elders came to him and told him they got the message move on and preach something else. He told them he can not move on until they not just get the message of God but act on the message from God.
I believe Steve understands the message of God and wants us to move on, but I believe God has not let him move on because he has not acted on the message from God.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG (#280):
I don’t deny your Christianity. As I said before, I don’t know if you are a Christian or not. Only God knows that. In #275 you couched your “confession of faith” in terms of sincerity, and I certainly don’t doubt that you are sincere. However, you are a smart enough guy to realize that sincerity cannot be the primary factor in issues like this. Deluded people are often sincerely wrong.
In the context of this discussion it is also important to clearly understand Sola Scriptura as our primary guide to objectivity, as opposed to the smorgasbord results of other inputs. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not reject the additional factors you mentioned, tradition, church authority, reason, increased knowledge, or personal experience. All of these are important and have their place, but they must be subordinate to Scripture, especially when there is conflict. None of these factors is the equal of Scripture. Scripture (the very Word of God) is our ultimate source of objectivity as to what Christianity is all about, not tradition, not our fallible reason, not our incomplete knowledge, and certainly not our feelings of sincerity.
Luther clearly saw the practical reasons for this in our fallen world. The sinful church of his day, via these other sources of authority, inserted all sorts of self-serving practices that made a mockery of the Christian faith. No doubt, many in the church of Luther’s day were also “sincere.” No doubt, many homosexuals today (and their supporters) are also sincere as they try to redefine the Christian faith to suit their own agenda. But the contradictions between the clear meaning of Scripture and the twisted interpretations of the homosexual camp are so severe that only the willfully blind can accept them.
The other alternative for people like yourself is to just outright reject the portions of Scripture that you dislike and cobble together your own “Bible according to Steve.” Perhaps there is enough truth left in your abridged version to bring you to Christ (I just don’t know), but you are certainly not faithful to the whole counsel of Scripture as it is written—I think even you will admit that, since that is why you reject portions of it, right?
Scripturally, it is impossible (and I noticed that you didn’t even try) to positively justify homosexuality as a behavior permitted by God, let alone advocated by Him. On the contrary, Scripture repeatedly condemns it in no uncertain terms.
In the final analysis, the last sentence of your post (#280) should be rewritten as follows:
“I need to be true only to myself, and secondly to god as I experience and perceive him.”
Report comment to moderator
David L and Pastor Roy,
I don’t know how you could make it any more clear than you have.
Report comment to moderator
——-
Michael Martin – ‘Scripturally, it is impossible (and I noticed that you didn’t even try) to positively justify homosexuality as a behavior permitted by God, let alone advocated by Him. On the contrary, Scripture repeatedly condemns it in no uncertain terms.”
Steve told me that since God’s Word does not address homosexuality marriage in the Old Testament and New Testament, then it is ok with God and since science has proven people are born into the homosexuality then God must approve of it.
I did ask him who should we obey God and His Word or Science and he never answer that question.
Report comment to moderator
Just a few final comments, as this is becoming tedious.
David L: The phrase “God as I experience and perceive Him” subjectfies religion to such an extreme degree that it no longer means anything whatsoever. In fact, I’d say that this “God as you experience and perceive Him” is a complete fabrication, a figment of your idolatrous imagination no different from the convenient and self-justifying gods worshipped by the Greeks, Romans, Hindi and Wiccans. You have no basis in natural theology or revelation (not to mention the Christian Bible) for believing in this “god.” It’s pure wish fulfullment; it’s a projection, a hologram, that enables you to defend your political views on the one hand and your “god-talk” on the other. It provides you with your spiritual bona-fides.
Whereas you believe in the Bible … why? On what basis do you know it is “the Word of God?” (That question is for Pastor Roy and Michael Martin too). The collection of 66 books that comprise the Protestant canon … you know it is God’s word, how exactly?
Are you not also believing in God as you experience and perceive him? Choosing to believe the words of a holy book are inerrant and literally true is no less arbitrary than anything else.
I believe God is much too big to be confined in the pages of the any book.
You haven’t responded directly to most of the questions addressed to you on this thread, because you can’t. All of your answers boil down to the fact that you believe what you want to believe because you want to believe it. We are left with nothing except the conclusion that you’re an adherent of some weird, postmodern pagan religion meant to be acceptable because it uses the language and terminology of biblical Christianity. Your use of the signifier “Jesus” doesn’t automatically mean that you’re referring to the Jesus of the Bible. It’s a completely different signified that you have in mind.
I have responded to the questions as best I can, understanding that we have very different views of Scripture. My view is not as heretical as you imagine, although it does have little in common with conservative evangelicalism.
I’m disappointed that you don’t care about any of the opinions expressed here, but I’m also suspicious that that’s not true. Why then do you comment here so much? Are you trying to “evangelize” us to your point of view, or are you just killing time by stirring up controversy?
I am here because I like a good debate. It is better when people debate with an open mind to each other’s points of view though, and that’s not been happening (on either side) in this thread. You said earlier that you hoped I’d think amd pray more about this issue, as if I just arrived at my position last Wednesday at 2:37 p.m. But that’s not the case.
But concerning the issue of homosexuality, you don’t have to “believe it as literally as possible and ignore every other possible source of knowledge,” etc., etc. All you have to do is read the numerous texts condemning gay sex in the Bible and affirming true, monogamous, heterosexual marriage as God’s design, plan and ideal for His creatures; and not go to absurd lengths to explain why they mean the opposite of what they say. But you don’t want to do that, and the reason is not intellectual. It’s spiritual. Think about that.
You are the one who wants to believe that some people are hellbound because of an orientation they didn’t ask for and can’t change. Tell me how merciful is the God who does that. It is a spiritual matter, you’re right; but I’m not the one limiting God’s grace.
Michael Martin:
In the final analysis, the last sentence of your post (#280) should be rewritten as follows:
“I need to be true only to myself, and secondly to god as I experience and perceive him.”
I said it the way I meant it.
As for remarks on the Bible, see above. The book did not simply drop out of heaven in perfect and final form. It was written by humans, over a great period of time, with a particular cultural viewpoint and limitations of knowledge, and any objective reading of it recognizes that. I believe it is inspired; I do not believe it is inerrant or without cultural articifacts that don’t reflect God’s actual will.
You choose to believe it wholesale, which is just as arbitrary. You can accuse me of picking and choosing, but you do the same .. it’s just that you choose to believe the whole thing. (Well, probably not in practice, but in theory anyway.)
Report comment to moderator
“It was written by humans, over a great period of time, with a particular cultural viewpoint and limitations of knowledge, and any objective reading of it recognizes that. I believe it is inspired; I do not believe it is inerrant or without cultural articifacts that don’t reflect God’s actual will. ”
Steve, then it goes right back to How can you claim to believe in Jesus of the Bible, when your very Word tells us that the Bible is not true?
Report comment to moderator
“You are the one who wants to believe that some people are hellbound because of an orientation they didn’t ask for and can’t change. Tell me how merciful is the God who does that. It is a spiritual matter, you’re right; but I’m not the one limiting God’s grace.”
You’re right, Steve. It becomes very tedious when you keep asking questions I’ve already answered. I dealt with this issue dozens of comments ago, and your glib little summary here doesn’t accurately capture what I’ve said or what I believe. You seem to have some kind of mental block that won’t allow you seriously to consider my arguments. Like I said above, you seem to be incapable of understanding that people can respond to homosexual people without calling them faggots and beating them to death on the one hand or affirming every little detail of their lives on the other. What’s going on with that?
“some people are hellbound because of an orientation”
No. People are hellbound because they don’t repent of their sins and accept Jesus Christ in faith.
“an orientation they didn’t ask for and can’t change.”
You mean like an orientation to lust after women? An orientation to anger? Propensities to certain addictions that are handed down genetically?
“Tell me how merciful is the God who does that.” God is merciful because He is powerful to change peoples’ hearts and save sinners. But “if we say we have no sin, we make God a liar.” There is no salvation for the unrepentant.
It seems that you’ve decided what God is like and how He acts long before you ever even opened up the Bible.
I’d really like you to tell me where in natural theology or in what divine revelation you found this “god” of yours described and explained.
“I have responded to the questions as best I can,…”
I already mentioned, a dozen or two comments ago, which points I’ve raised that you haven’t responded to. One is raised yet again in this comment. There are at least two others of mine. But you keep changing the focus and the subject, backing up from particular questions to larger issues, in order to avoid giving answers.
“You said earlier that you hoped I’d think amd pray more about this issue, as if I just arrived at my position last Wednesday at 2:37 p.m. But that’s not the case.”
No, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that prayer is a part of your spiritual life. Guess I was wrong. Sorry.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG (#288) asks:
“Whereas you believe in the Bible … why? On what basis do you know it is “the Word of God?” (That question is for Pastor Roy and Michael Martin too). The collection of 66 books that comprise the Protestant canon … you know it is God’s word, how exactly?
Are you not also believing in God as you experience and perceive him? Choosing to believe the words of a holy book are inerrant and literally true is no less arbitrary than anything else.”
In John 7:14-15 the Pharisees challenged the validity of Christ’s teachings. His reply to them in verse 17 was basically this: “If you do what I ask you to do, then you will know.”
Christ promises to forgive sins, to bring healing and peace into your life right now. His promises are not just reserved for the after life. So when a man does what Christ insists that he do (repent of his sins, seek His forgiveness, and yield to His lordship) he receives today the peace, the reconciliation with God, and the indwelling Holy Spirit that Christ promised. This is the verification of the greater hope to come.
The Christian’s experience now becomes his additional “proof,” his additional guarantee of the greater hope to come. Here on earth he has experienced the hand of God in his life and now his hope for the final outcome is immeasurably assured. Speaking for myself, the Holy Spirit in my life does not cause me to roll on the floor or babble in some unknown tongue. He is a gentle and quiet spirit who assures me of my eternal salvation, counsels me through His word (the Bible), convicts me of sin when I err, prompts me to repent and seek forgiveness daily, and also verifies the validity of His Word. He is the same Holy Spirit Paul was referring to in 1Cor as the giver of wisdom and insight that Christians understand and non-Christians do not.
But for that Holy Spirit to do what He promises, every Christian must at some point bow the knee
and subordinate his understanding, his reason, his knowledge, his views, and his desires to that of God. That is what faith, trust and submission to the sovereign God is all about.
In the book of Job we have 37 chapters where Job justifies himself and yearns to make his case before God, knowing, he thinks, that he will be proven right if just given the chance. Finally in Chapter 38, God answers him:
Then God asks Job a series of questions about Himself and the world that Job is completely unable to answer. He is forced to recognize the infinite difference between himself and God. Even then God does not relent and still leaves the majority of Job’s previous questions unanswered. God does this so that Job will still be required to submit in faith and not on the basis of Job’s complete understanding and approval of God’s methods.
Finally Job submits:
#291 “every Christian must at some point bow the knee
and subordinate his understanding, his reason, his knowledge, his views, and his desires to that of God … the Christian, by the Holy Spirit, then knows that the Bible is God’s word, that he has been forgiven of his sins, has peace in his earthly life, and has a guarantee of an infinitely wonderful future to come”
Michael Martin,
What of the Christian who repents, seeks forgiveness, and submits to Christ’s Lordship, but does not have that same experience?
For a long time I did not dare admit to other Christians that I did not simply “know that the Bible is God’s Word” or have certainty of eternal life. Because the response was no doubt going to be that that I had not truly repented or had not truly submitted to Christ’s Lordship.
After years of praying about it, asking counsel of mature Christians, but still finding no certainty, I finally found some peace of mind when I found myself in a situation where I was convinced that I was going to die soon, and I found myself able to trust God with whatever was going to happen, even if I still wasn’t positive I was saved. Those I talked with afterward agreed with me that being able to trust God was probably a better indication of my spiritual state than having some kind of certainty about it.
There aren’t any passages of the Bible that I want to explain away or ignore (though there are certainly some that I find difficult for one reason or another). But I still don’t “know” that it is 100% God’s Word. I accept the testimony of twenty centuries of Christians as pretty good confirmation that it is, but that’s not the same as being sure.
And among those twenty centuries worth of Christians who accept the Bible as God’s Word, not all of them hold to inerrancy. Some (including my husband) take a position they refer to as “infallibility” – meaning that it is true in matters of faith and practice but not necessarily historical and scientific detail (i.e. historical events which are central to the Bible’s message, such as the resurrection, and the fact that God created everything, are true, but not necessarily the details of Genesis 1).
Report comment to moderator
Pauline (#292):
In my experience the assurance that I spoke of has been progressive, gaining in strength over time and with increased growth as a Christian. Though my conversion experience was significant in the relief and peace that it immediately brought to my soul, it was not everything at once. For some time doubts would still arise and give me trouble, especially in times of crisis or when I was lax in my walk with the Lord. Your experience sounds similar.
I am now 67 and no longer a “baby Christian.” I am more sure than ever of the things that I spoke about to SteveG. Still, I have to admit that I don’t “know” some of these things in the absolute technical sense of an already accomplished event. That is where faith comes in. Heb 11:1 describes faith as “…the substance of things hoped, the evidence of things not seen” (KJ) or, “… faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” (NIV). Thus, faith is operative in the realm of the future and the realm of the invisible, and it gives a certainty about those things as close to knowing as one can possibly be.
Furthermore, we are told that “the just shall live by faith,” and that “…without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. (Heb 11:6) God is invisible, but He has given us promises about the future, which when they are fulfilled, gives us assurance about other promises related to either things still unseen or things still future.
For example, when the Bible told me that repentance and submission to Christ would bring me forgiveness, peace, and the presence of the Holy Spirit in my life, that was a promise of the immediate future contingent upon my obedience to it. God was true to His word—I know that because it is a past event. Many of the examples of faith in action in Heb 11 are similar: a promise, obedience, and fulfillment. Yet, sprinkled throughout the chapter are other examples of faith and promises yet unfulfilled—things still in the future for the individuals involved. We have to operate this way because we are limited in time and space; however, I personally know Someone who is not so limited and I have the utmost confidence in what He tells me in His word.
My initial salvation and many other instances of His work in my life give me great assurance about His word and His promises for the future—so much so that I can say I “know” that His word is true. Christ said, “If you do what I ask you to do, then you will know.” I have taken Him at His word and He has never failed. So, progressively, and throughout my life He has given my a stronger and stronger faith. I think this is true for all growing Christians and I see it as part of the sanctification process.
From what you say, it seems that you have also had a similar growth experience. You also know that His word is true and that He will not fail you. That is worthy of great praise and a source of great joy in our lives.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!