Vigilante law
A nation that does not see in law a right to life for its unborn children and a court that allows more than 50 million of them to be killed claiming a nonexistent “penumbra” in the Constitution is not about to acquire a moral — much less a constitutional — backbone when it comes to same-sex “marriage.”
The decision by a single, openly gay federal judge to strike down the will of 7 million Californians, tradition dating back millennia (not to mention biblical commands, which the judge decided, in his capacity as a false god, also to invalidate) is judicial vigilantism equal to Roe vs. Wade.
As this case proceeds through appeals courts, to think another federal judge, one Justice Anthony Kennedy, could be the deciding vote on a divided Supreme Court, recalls the power Julius Caesar had over gladiators in the Roman Coliseum. Their fate was ultimately determined when the emperor turned his thumb up or down. At least Caesar, on occasion, was responsive to public opinion. Today, too many federal judges act more like dictators when it comes to the law.
Most great powers unravel from within before invading armies (or in America’s case, terrorists) conquer them. A preacher might develop a good sermon on how nations fare when they mock God.
No less a theological thinker than Abraham Lincoln concluded that our Civil War might have been God’s judgment for America’s toleration of slavery. If that were so, why should “the Almighty,” as Lincoln frequently referred to God, stay His hand in the face of our celebration of same-sex marriage?
There is more than one way to experience bankruptcy. America under the Obama administration is on the verge of economic insolvency, and now Judge Vaughn Walker has joined a conga line of similarly activist judges who are accelerating us down the path to destruction.
We have been spiraling downward for some time, beginning in the ’50s with the Playboy philosophy that gave men permission to avoid the bonds of marriage if they wanted to have sex. In rapid succession came the birth control pill (sex without biological consequences), “no-fault divorce” (nullifying “until death us do part”), cohabitation, easily available pornography, and a tolerance for just about anything except those who deem something intolerable. Such persons are now labeled “bigots” when once they were thought to be pillars of society.
A nation that loses its moral sense is a nation without any sense at all. Muslim fanatics who wish to destroy us are correct in their diagnosis of our moral rot: loss of a fear of God, immodesty, especially among women, materialism and much more. While their solution — Sharia law — is wrong, they are not wrong about what ails us.
Former Attorney General Edwin Meese tells me, “There was absolutely no knowledge, rumor or suspicion” of Vaughn Walker being a homosexual at the time of his nomination by Ronald Reagan. But if it had not been Walker, it would have been another judge, because America’s problem is not entirely at the top; rather it is mostly at the bottom. What we tolerate, we get more of, and we have been tolerating a lot since the Age of Aquarius generation began the systematic destruction of what past generations believed they had sacrificed, fought and died to protect.
None of this should surprise anyone who takes the time to read and understand what happens to people and nations that disregard God. A Google search provides numerous examples for the biblically illiterate. Two in particular stand out: “Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint,” which is paraphrased in The Living Bible, “When people do not accept divine guidance, they run wild.” (Proverbs 29:18); and “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.” (Judges 21:25)
© 2010 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top41 Comments to “Vigilante law”
“We have been spiraling downward for some time, beginning in the ’50s….”
Hmmm. I guess Brown v. Board set us on a downward trajectory that was only exacerbated by laws that got rid of “White’s Only” lunch counters.
Report comment to moderator
To be fundamentally fair, RSD, you should finish the sentence:
“We have been spiraling downward for some time, beginning in the ’50s with the Playboy philosophy that gave men permission to avoid the bonds of marriage if they wanted to have sex.”
The author didn’t say anything about Brown. You did, because you want to go off on a Christian’s are racist screed.
Report comment to moderator
First of all, Cal Thomas is repeating the lie that Judge Vaughan Walker is “openly gay.” It has been the right-wing meme since the ruling, is NOT true, but should not be surprising coming from “Christians” who long ago decided God has given them an exemption from the Ninth Commandment.
(I don’t know whether Walker is gay or not; neither does Cal Thomas, Tony Perkins of any of the other supposed Christians who have been saying so. It’s been alleged, never proven and the judge has chosen not to say.)
However, one wonders what the relevance is. As a judge, Walker is expected to rule impartially on matters of law. Should we assume that gay man, if he is, is more biased on this issue than a Roman Catholic or evangelical Protestant? Just who would be an entirely neutral judge? Gay or straight, married or single, Christian or humanist, whatever combination of characteristics and allegiances you can envision, somebody somewhere will whine about bias.
Report comment to moderator
Well I mean he is kind of right. The liberation of women from sexual bondage that accompanied advancements both medical and legal (such-as-actually-granting-divorces and the various steps we have taken to empower women to control there biological futures) have played a large role in making the political reality of same-sex marriage possible.
Now what we’re looking for is a more honest description of anti-marriages activists’ objectives. The ultimate goal of the “shove the gays back in the closet movement” is to strip away the rights women have gained to own their own bodies, control their reproduction, and leave an abusive or undesirable marriages!
I think they should take that message on tour next time.
Report comment to moderator
P.S. — I love how men of g-d can always blame all their problems on immodest women! Curse those she-devils; they ruin everything!
Report comment to moderator
Marriage does not put women in bondange, and quite frankly, if you think it does, it strains common sense, logic and reason that homosexuals now desire it.
What aCl Thomas is saying is that since the 1950s our society has devolved to accept any indecent immoral thing s good, including homosexuality. But that’s what we are told will happen. Woe unto those who call good evil and evil good.
Report comment to moderator
Immodesty, especially among women, is a primary concern of the Aqua Buddha vigilantes. Membership on swim teams is a natural reason for US Senators to become such vigilantes.
Report comment to moderator
NJL (2),
On the contrary, I was merely mocking the inanity of Cal’s sweeping statement.
Our culture has undergone a number of changes since the 50s. In general, we are less tied to place. Therefore, we have become less tied to traditional communities, such as rural farming communities, mid-sized industrial centers, and ethnic enclaves within the city. Most of us leave “home” at age 18, and never return but for Christmas, Thanksgiving, and Mother’s Day. Like Gatsby, we are too busy chasing after the green light. And in the far away city, we face few consequences for that.
This rootlessness has had benefits, such as greater access to education and decreases in regional prejudices, particularly along racial and ethnic lines. It’s also led to a complex economy that yields novel gadgets to satisfy niche consumer demands.
On the other hand, rootlessness has allowed us to pursue sexual pleasures with few social consequences (as long as no one gets pregnant). It’s also led to greater materialism and greater social isolation. For example, I will probably never enjoy the benefits of life-long friendships in the way that my grandparents did.
These changes in society are not random; they are interrelated in a number of ways. Therefore, it makes no sense to focus on changes in our sexual practices without considering the broader social context in which such changes have emerged.
Do I miss small town life? Yes, I do. I spent my formative years in a Midwestern small town, where I enjoyed the benefits of being raised in a tightly knit community where life revolved around family, neighborhood, church, and high school athletics. Crime was rare, and divorce was also rare. At 18, my friends and I were well adjusted, but were pretty naive of what lay beyond the corn fields, dairy farms, and woodland marshes of our town. But that town doesn’t exist anymore. The good employers have all left, leaving behind only the riff-raff and the meth-heads. The population is half of its 1975 peak, leaving middle-class neighborhoods filled with abandoned homes. Crime is high, and over 2/3 of kids are born to single mothers. In fact, we decided last year to have our high school reunion in an urban center 70 miles away because few of us had any connection to the dying town that had cradled us and shaped us in our youth.
It saddens me that my kids will never know the kind of “Land’s End”-like existence that I knew as a child. In many ways, I know that my upbringing was more peaceful and supportive than theirs will ever be. But broader social and economic changes have made it impossible for small-town life to sustain itself. Gone is the security of community. And gone is the ever-watchful judging eyes that caused us to keep our carnal desires in check.
Some evangelicals would have us believe that increased sexual liberty has come about merely because we have stopped listening to the Bible and have turned instead to liberalism. I don’t believe it. I just don’t think that the Bible and preachers ever had that much influence over us. No. We kept our carnal desires in check because we lived under the watching eyes of a community–a community where everyone knew me, and knew my parents, and knew my girlfriend’s parents, and knew our grandparents, and so on. My identity was defined in terms of the complex net of relationships that enveloped my entire existence. If I gave into my carnal desires, I risked losing my identity within the community, as family friends would inevitably be injured by my sin. But in a rootless society, I can create a new identity whenever I want. In fact, sometimes we need to do it just to keep the ennui at bay. For better or for worse, we have now freed ourselves from the watchful eyes of gossipy housewives.
So, Cal, let’s get real. Nostalgia is great when we’re hanging out with high school buddies at a bar. But it doesn’t place us any closer to recreating the kinds of communities that made small-town life so nourishing. We can preach morality until we’re blue in the face. But until we find a replacement for the once-present network of gossipy housewives, that preaching will largely be in vain.
Report comment to moderator
RSD: good post. Of all the folks who post on WMB, I find myself most often agreeing with you, HRW and JJF. And Jon Rowe, when he still posted.
Report comment to moderator
RSD, good post, BUT I don’t think the network of gossipy housewives was ever the “ideal” way to keep illicit desires in check.
The ideal is internal change–a woman wishing to keep her purity, and a man respecting her enough to wait till marriage. (And neither of them believing that sex within their own gender was acceptable!)
Besides the couple themselves, there should be a positive social network–first of all his father, teaching him how to be a man, and her father, ensuring that his daughter is protected. If she has big brothers and/or uncles, they play a role too. And then, after that, the whole community that will look on with disapproval and even gossip if he pushes the limits of what is proper (going into her house when her parents aren’t home, taking her out to “park,” etc.).
But even with the protective social network in place, there always have been out-of-wedlock pregnancies and shotgun weddings, because self-control has always been a necessary part of the equation and some have chosen to sneak around the barriers rather than protect them.
I definitely agree with you that rootedness is a better setting for human beings, however, and that we lost a lot of good things when we lost that.
Report comment to moderator
“On the contrary, I was merely mocking the inanity of Cal’s sweeping statement.”
You did a poor job.
There’s something wrong with a society that applauds killing its children. When the left destroyed the family by tearing down the ideal standard, they doomed the country which is why we are in the state we are in.
Report comment to moderator
Maybe the preachers didn’t (and don’t) have as much influence as sometimes imagined. BUT the Word they preach (accurately) was and is and always will be The one ingredient that God will use to rescue individuals and communities from the mess we make of our world. And, no, the small town life of the 50’s is not the result. The result is lives of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control, lived in whatever context we find ourselves. Only God, by His Spirit, through His Word, can accomplish this in our lives.
Report comment to moderator
Mynock, just so you know, a society with men who are willing to marry and stay married isn’t “sexual bondage” for a woman. A culture that promotes promiscuity, and tells women they’re supposed to like it because the men do, is sexual bondage. And putting women in a position of killing their children or raising them alone isn’t freedom either.
–A woman who has true freedom in Christ
Report comment to moderator
The preachers of my rebelloius youth had more influence on me than was apparent at the time. In the same way, the preaching of Jesus to the multitudes had little apparent effect upon their willingness to see Him crucified. I cannot help but think, however, that the 3,000 and the 5,000 souls saved at the early preaching of the new Peter, had to consist of more than a few of the people among the former multitudes, whose ears, dull at first, had become opened, and whose hearts, fallow at first, had become plowed and fertile ground ready for the latter seed.
Neil Evans is right: “the Word they preach (accurately) was and is and always will be The one ingredient that God will use to rescue individuals and communities from the mess we make of our world.”
Report comment to moderator
That’s all well and good Cheryl.
You are free to sacrifice your g-d given right to leave a undesirable marriage or have control over your own biological future. If you ever suffered the brutal violence of a rape pregnancy, you would have also been free to–as Sharron Angle says–make lemons into lemonade.
I’m all about trusting women to make the choices that are right for them.
I just think you should do more to connect your opposition to same-sex marriage with your desire to FORCE, not encourage, FORCE, all other women to make the same sacrifices of autonomy and security that you feel religiously compelled to do.
And don’t come at me with that lame old line that autonomy and security are marriage to a man and 14 babies. Generations of American women didn’t fight for control of their own bodies because they were burdened with too much love and freedom!
Marriage is great. But people in bad marriages should get a divorce. And babies are great, but women in bad pregnancies should have the right to make choices.
Report comment to moderator
I.e. more people need to know that when wackos like Maggie Gallagher say that marriage is between a man a woman, what they mean is that marriage is between a man and a woman who has no rights.
Report comment to moderator
MYNOCK, The name of God is spelled with a capital G, followed by a lower case o, then a lower case d. Looking at your irreverent spelling of God’s name, I can either assume you’re illiterate or, don’t believe in Him. It saddens me that I spent 23 years in the military protecting the rights of lost people such as yourself who push agendas of evil. However, my God tells me to hate the sin not the sinner. So I will not lower myself to your level of attacking individuals, because they don’t agree with your beliefs. You can hate on God, and Christians, we’ll still pray for you. I believe God’s word to be true, it seems you do not. I believe what His word states about those whom reject Him, it seems you do not. I wonder who is right? I am confident in my faith in the one true God. His word states those who reject Him will be eternally damned. How confident are you?
Report comment to moderator
It’s always funny to see a man tell a woman what would give her more freedom or happiness. But considering I am more content in my singleness than women who jump from man to man (and, BTW, who are far more likely to end up raped or abused by a boyfriend than a wife is) and that if I marry I’ll have the foundation to be a happy wife who is married for life, and considering the One who made me really does know how I function best, I’ll continue to trust God on the subject.
And for sure I’ll trust Him on the subject that men having sex with men and women with women brings shame and pain and sorrow to them and their society, not joy and happiness and genuine love.
BTW, there’s no such thing as a “bad pregnancy” that somehow needs to be made right by a murder. Even rape, on the rare occasions it results in pregnancy, brings about the life of a real baby that doesn’t deserve to be killed for its father’s sin. Also, killing the child brings more violence to the life of the mother, not less.
Report comment to moderator
Just some observations: 1) Why is it that persons of the unbelieving ilk feel the need to blog on Christian web sites? I don’t blog on sites that I deem offensive or foul. 2) Why do lost people work so hard to remove God and Christian ethics from everything, yet they don’t attack other religions with the same fervor. Could it be that the name of God and Jesus have real life changing power where other god’s, self and philosophies do not? 3) Why do people believe in Evolution when there is none, nada, zero fossil records showing the minute changes that would be required for evolution take place? 4) Why, when there is so much evidence to the contrary do billions of people still refuse to believe in God, but they’ll believe in the unsubstantiated such as evolution, UFO’s, or a heaven / paradise where only a select few of the believers will go?
Report comment to moderator
Great answer CHERYL D. I wish more single women (as well as men) would figure this out, then we wouldn’t have the horrendously high abortion rates we see today. Nor the divorce rates. It’s funny to me that people think God is trying to take the fun stuff away from them, and because “The Fall” made us self centered individuals we shun God. I lived like this for many years. I know what my life was like then and I know what it’s like now. Therefore I feel I can make a credible statement when I say that God only wants good for us, but if we don’t seek Him, then we will be easily deceived. Hence the word lost.
Report comment to moderator
If you watch the latest video of a teacher who confronts Sarah Palin, the MSM tells you that she rolls her eyes at the woman, but what it doesn’t point out is that the first few words the woman says to Palin include “your precious Bible.” We know the heart of this woman right from the start, and for a teacher not to denigrate the free exercise clause – well, maybe she shouldn’t be a teacher.
Report comment to moderator
Once again, Cal has nailed it with — “None of this should surprise anyone who takes the time to read and understand what happens to people and nations that disregard God.” All our problems, requiring ‘our’ solutions are just the beginning.
God explains what we should be doing completely yet we refuse to read, attempt to understand, let alone act in accordance with God’s instruction because our arrogance makes us think we know better. All the various detractor’s posts here drip with this self indulgent arrogance.
What the detractors fail to grasp is that: were society to follow and adhere to God’s teaching, all their various “solutions” to our societal ills—which myopically only generate additional problems while never really solving the initial one—wouldn’t be required at all. Were men and women to simply respect God, themselves, and others, as God teaches, all the solutions they so vigorously—yet so pitifully—defend would not be necessary because the true root of our problem—the lack of God taught wisdom—would cease to exist.
Report comment to moderator
ROND, Well said. We know it’s only going to get worse, and it’s our own fault. Our saving grace is that we are loved by the Creator of the Universe and our side wins (In the End). The gay marriage issue is one of many that should cause all Christians concern. Not because they seem to be winning, but because each time God’s word is discounted, or twisted, Christianity in many churches becomes a little more whitewashed. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 tell us what God has to say about homosexuality, yet some gays still want to be married, join churches and become pastors of some Lutheran & Presbyterian (Whitewashed & Deceived)churches. Ironically the aforementioned wants of gays center around principles ordained by God’s word. So if gays say they believe in God, does that mean that God’s word is flawed? If God makes mistakes then why would we need a God like that? My opinion is that gays see Christians as people haters, because many “so called” Christians are just that. They blow their witness and make other Christians look pathetic by bashing the person rather than the sin. Don’t get me wrong, I do not condone the gay lifestyle, just as I don’t condone adultry or any other sin. However, as a former adulterer that almost lost his family 17 years ago, I can unerringly state (with 29 years of marriage this month) that God loves us all and will forgive our sins because of the sacrifice of His son Jesus. The trick is to realize the sin for what it is and then stop the sinful behavior by relying on God’s strength. There is no other way. You can twist the Constitution or the Bible any way you want, it doesn’t change the temperature of what will come without salvation.
Report comment to moderator
“It’s always funny to see a man tell a woman what would give her more freedom or happiness.”
Read comprehension FAIL, Cheryl. Let me repeat myself: I’m all about trusting women to make the choices that are right for them.
You are the only one trying to tell women what is best for them rather than trusting their own faith and their own decisions. You are the only one trying to impose the force of law on women’s bodies or on other peoples marriages.
I’m not debating this with you because you are agreeing with me. Your political goals clearly don’t stop at same-sex marriages, and the symbol for you movement against gay couples shouldn’t be “the family” but a bloody hanger!
I’d like a little more honest from anti-”gay” crusaders about what they stand for when they campaign against my family.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl,
I agree that moral enforcement by gossipy housewives is not ideal. On the other hand, it accurately describes why we lived as we once did.
There’s simply no evidence to suggest our 1950s value system was based on a desire to obey God. Sure, most people attended church. But few of those churches preached the gospel. While they taught us to love our neighbor, they did not necessarily teach us to fear God.
Regarding Judge Walker, there is nothing to suggest that he is a bad judge or that this ruling represents some kind of judicial activism. After all, noted conservative Ted Olson represented those who challenged the law. Prop 8 is clearly at odds with Lawrence v. Texas; therefore, it must fail. End of story.
Report comment to moderator
Wow MYNOCK, I really didn’t get all that from Cheryl D’s response to your last tirade. In my opinion she was simply stating how she trusts God to guide her life and stating her belief in what God (Not Cheryl D) says about homosexuality. Your retort seems a little hate filled and anti-”truth”. I don’t quite get the connection between a bloody hanger and a Christian stating what God says about homosexuality. Sometimes we just get so angry that we quit making sense.
Report comment to moderator
RSD, Don’t lump anyone else in your “we”, “our” and “us” rhetoric. Use “I” statements, or add the names of people you know that agree with you. I certainly do not agree with anything you have stated. I would believe that most posting here, save a select few, would not agree with you either. I grew up in the 60’s, I know plenty of people that grew up in the 40’s and 50’s to include my older siblings. They all knew and believed in God and they learned it in churches all over the nation. Your claim has no basis other than your own desire to disparage Christianity. I feel sorry for you as you are greatly deceived, but that is the consequence of a hardened heart.
Report comment to moderator
It saddens me that I spent 23 years in the military protecting the rights of lost people such as yourself who push agendas of evil.
Thanks for your honesty, at least.
Report comment to moderator
P.S. I suspect it must also have saddened you to carry out the orders from HQ to defer separation of the wheat and the tares.
Report comment to moderator
Retiredmilitary,
Comes down to how you view rights as distinct from g-d’s guidance. A Kosher Jew might not eat bacon, but don’t you agree that he has a right to that can’t be abridged by the government?
The left has no problem with Cheryl not getting married to a woman if she’s not a lesbian and wants to live according to how she believes g-d commands. But that doesn’t mean that other women who are lesbians don’t have a right to the same legal treatment as everyone else.
Women are remarkably pro-choice on pools. They tend to like their rights and understand that Roe is important for more reasons than abortion. In fact women support reproductive rights more frequently then they support gay rights. I think to pro-choice, anti-same-sex marriage women need to pay more attention to what the real political goals of women like Cheryl are. I think they would be less willing to align themselves with organizations like NOM if they knew that the Christian right has no intention of stopping at the repression and dehumanization of my family.
Report comment to moderator
#30 “… the Christian right has no intention of stopping at the repression and dehumanization of my family.”
This statement reveals a very serious misunderstanding of what Cheryl D is saying about the purpose and goals of Biblical Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
MYNOCK,You’re right, I view my rights as God given and I am to obey the laws of the land and authorities over me (Romans 13:1-6).
A kosher Jew “not” eating bacon is bad theology according to the Bible. In (Mark 7:14) Jesus declares all food clean. “Nothing outside a man can make him unclean by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean.” In a perfect world our rights wouldn’t be abridged by our government unfortunately we don’t live in that world. Our rights are being abridged by our government as I type. As a sinner myself, I am a firm believer in hate the sin, not the sinner. I also beleive that all people have the right to live the way they choose to live. I don’t think most Christians have a problem with gays wanting the same rights as married heterosexuals. I believe that the problem lies with calling that union a “marriage”. I don’t understand why gays would take issue with calling their unions something else if they “only” want the same rights as married heterosexuals. Nor do I understand why gays would want so badly to have the word marriage attached to their union, that is clearly ordained by God in the Bible. Especially if the gay person doesn’t believe in the Bible. And if they do believe, then they know what God says about their lifestyle and they would have to change it.
Report comment to moderator
God and the government are two entirely separate entities—very, very unequal in power and therefore vastly differing in ability solve the problems of mankind—and both have entirely different goals planned for each individual person.
To think that a transient ‘right’ bestowed by government equates to the inalienable rights bestowed to all men by God is simply foolish.
Report comment to moderator
#29 SCROOP MOTH: “P.S. I suspect it must also have saddened you to carry out the orders from HQ to defer separation of the wheat and the tares.”
Not quite sure what you are alluding to here, as your post is pretty vague. Would have helped if you had cut and pasted the statement I made that solicited your response. Interesting how you used a Biblical parable, when I get the feeling from your other posts I’ve read, that you are not a believer. But I digress, you had a question, here is my answer: If you are speaking about deferring to my God about how I feel towards people (Tares) that cause evil and chaos in our world, well I simply say it’s up to my God to judge, not me. I will however stand up for my faith when I feel it’s being disparaged. If your question is in regards to my military service, well it’s called following orders, just like you do in your job, if you have one. I don’t regret serving my country, but if your trying to to disparage that, well it’s OK, I protected your right to do that!
Report comment to moderator
ROND, well said…again!
I’d like to clarify something I said in an earlier post #32 to MYNOCK. As well as correct a mispelling.
“I also believe that all people have the right to live the way they choose to live.”
This is because God gave us all free will.
Report comment to moderator
GEEZ, I hate when I have these (what I think are) great thoughts after I post.
“This is because God gave us all free will, NOT MAN!
Report comment to moderator
Well there you go RM, you want to live in a theocracy where your religious beliefs describe what becomes law. We can’t ever agree. This discussion is over. Two things first though:
There several theocracies on Earth if you would like to go live in one. Try Iran, it’s warm there.
And second, while you may want to live in theocracy, you don’t. And you never will as long as you live here. I hope that’s not the ideal you fought for, because if you did, you didn’t fight for any rights the constitution would recognize.
[Comment edited by moderator.]
Report comment to moderator
Not understanding the Bible makes it impossible to accurately understand references to it. It is not our wrong behavior that makes us sinners. Being sinners demonstrates itself in sinful behaviors. It says nothing about a green-light for gay sex or any other sin.
Report comment to moderator
#38 NEIL, Great response. You and ROND are certainly brief, accurate and to the point.
MYNOCK, I think you have twisted more than a few things I stated.
1) This discussion was over long before I ever posted on this blog. You don’t believe what I or many others on this blog believe in (GOD), which equates to zero chance for any meaningful discourse with you.
2) I stated the Bible tells me to obey the laws of the land, that includes those passed down by judges that overthrow court decisions (Prop
to allow things I don’t agree with.
3) I made it very clear when I referenced the book of Mark from the Bible and I quote myself “In (Mark 7:14) Jesus declares all food clean.” Not sure what you didn’t understand. I suppose you feel the need to twist people’s words so you have a leg to stand on, even if it’s an artificial leg.
4) Lastly, it has never worried me how many gay people have sex with each other. In fact if the gay agenda wasn’t constantly being pushed into my sight by the media, I truly wouldn’t give it much thought, if any. Once again you have missed the point. It’s not about the gays right to whatever lifestyle they choose, it’s about trashing GOD’S WORD!
Genesis 2:18-24 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the MAN to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for HIM.” ……. But for ADAM no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the MAN to fall into a deep sleep; and while HE was sleeping, He took one of the MAN’S ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a WOMAN from the rib He had taken out of the MAN, and He brought HER to the MAN. The MAN said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; SHE shall be called ‘WOMAN, for SHE was taken out of MAN.” For this reason a MAN will leave HIS father and mother and be united to HIS WIFE, and THEY will become one flesh.
Ephesians 5:31-33 “For this cause shall a MAN leave HIS father and mother, and shall cleave to HIS WIFE, and the two shall be become one flesh. This mystery is great: but I am speaking concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless, let each individual among you also love HIS own WIFE even as HIMSELF; and let the WIFE see to it that SHE respect HER HUSBAND.”
No mention of Adam and Steve, no mention of gay marriage indicating One man for one man, or one woman for one woman. In fact those places where homosexuality is mentioned in the Bible have some very harsh words indicating this is not of God. I don’t know how much clearer I can be MYNOCK, so yes, this conversation is over. However, I will be continue to pray for those that reject The One True God.
Report comment to moderator
Not sure why I have a smiley on my last post in section 2) it should read Prop 8 with no smiley. Must be a hot key combo that placed it there.
Report comment to moderator
Retired,
It does seem that you are arguing in favor of a theocracy, so it’s not clear why you object to the allegation. In a pluralistic society with a variety of religions and cultures, we can’t make public policy based merely on the fact that the Bible may proscribe something. So, your constant references to the Bible suggest that you believe that the state should be in the business of enforcing Christian ethical concerns. What’s next? Prison terms for people who don’t tithe?
Also, you seem to have an overly rosy memory of 1950s church life. The 50s were the apex of mainline Christianity. Sure, there were a number of small fundamentalist churches at the time. But fundamentalists were probably no more than 1-2% of the population. So, I don’t think that you can fairly attribute the bliss of small town life to the meager number of fundamentalist Christians who lived in the town.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!