...and I don't disagree with her. But what about Indifference? Is it not just as damning?
What's the old saying?
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing?
In Ms. Green's most recent post, Who are the Real Haters? Part 2, there is a link to an Agape Press article entitled, Homosexual Activists' War Against Christianity, in which "Michael Swift" first declared in the February 1987 issue of Gay Community News:
We shall sodomize your sons .... We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all-male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together... All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked .... [W]e shall make films about the love between heroic men .... The family unit -- spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence -- will be abolished .... All churches who condemn us will be closed.
The article clearly shows how much of a "beachhead" the enemy has already made against the standards of Godly morals in America. But to threaten churches with their tax-exempt status? So what. Jesus said "render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's." I'd prefer my church willingly surrender its tax-exempt status so that our pastor could freely speak out against specific candidates from the pulpit. This way if the Gay & Lesbian movement ever caught wind of our church's stand against the Homosexual lifestyle they could cry all day long and not constrain us or stop us one. Besides which, this whole notion of "tax-exempt status" is simply a leash the government uses to ensure the religious right stays "in the yard."
Well, sorry! Jesus commanded us to go into ALL THE WORLD... not just the governmental yard, under the government's rules, and its less than benevolent and watchful eye. Convicts in prison have THAT much. But "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" is what Jesus said. He did NOT say 'render unto Caesar the thing's which are mine...'
I welcome the revocation of my church's tax-exempt status. In my best George W. Bush imitation... "Bring it on!"
The only real danger then is, as the article points out, a showdown between the 1st Amendment and some nefarious and nebulous law establishing a protected class of citizenry based solely on sexual preference [not orientation]. And the only way we can lose that fight is if we allow, through inaction or indifference, the election of men like Barack Obama. For while the Constitution and its Amendments supersede "laws"; in that laws do not take precedent over the Constitution, as demonstrated by the recent decision to over-turn D.C.'s gun ban.
I understand Ms Green's reluctance to vote McCain, just as I understand TugboatCapn's reluctance. But when you consider that had Gore been successful in stealing the '00 election, and were it not for George W. Bush's appointment's of Roberts and Alito, we would have lost yesterday our 2nd Amendment right to possess and bear arms.
McCain is no prince of a conservative, but Barack Hussein Obama...? To allow him the presidency through inaction, or indifference [there's that word again!], or just plain 'ole down to earth disgust with the Republican party and its candidate, you allow Barack Obama to appoint judges and inJustices that will hasten the defeat of Christian morality in America.
It is easier to keep a ship from running aground than it is to drag it off the sandbar. It would have been easier by far to appoint judges that would NOT have discovered a Constitutional right to an abortion in 1973, than to overturn Roe v Wade in all the 35 years that have since followed.
If we allow Obama to appoint judges like the ones he currently admires on the U.S. Supreme Court we are, in effect, giving the victory to the Homosexual agenda.
And this is just ONE issue. Consider all the other issues the Supremes have decided recently, and imagine as well all the issues that COULD come up in the next eight years. What happens if Obama stacks 3 more Liberal inJustices on the Supreme Court before the end of his second term?
I fear for my country. But I fear for my freedom to openly worship God more. I don't like McCain, but I like the threat of an Obama presidency far, far less.
76 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your underlying theme regarding indifference is indeed important today as we near the election and still know that there are those who think it doesn't matter. How wrong they are and shame on them. It is true that McCain might give us another Kennedy on the Court. But there's no doubt that Barry will get us another Ginsburg or worse. A 50/50 chance is better than no chance at all.
Your paranoia is amazing.
Also, there is no more a "Christian morality" than there is a "Christian" anything else.
There are Christians.
The narrowness of the DC gun ban decision alone, not to mention the court's narrowly overturning the death penalty for those that rape children, and the granting of rights to the enemy during wartime in lands outside our courts' jurisdiction that even our own citizens to not enjoy if they are found to be enemy combatants all argue for the importance of elections. A court that can substitute the policy preferences of a single man with no solid principles for the plain meaning of the words of the Constitution or for the long history of our nation is a clear and present danger to our liberties and our religious freedoms.
As for a "Christian morality", yes, there are Christians and there are non-Christians. The freedoms of Christians are under attack on many fronts, most especially our freedom to worship the Lord as we see fit, and to live a Godly life in public. The twisted notion of "incorporation" that has resulted from a perverted interpretation of the fourteenth amendment has resulted in a constant assault on our freedoms in the public square. Where the fourteenth amendment says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States", the courts have decided that that means that the words "Congress shall make no law..." apply to the states and local jurisdictions as well. At the same time they take (read the court's decision and it's reference to Presser v. Illinois in 1886) the second amendment, that makes no mention of Congress, and say that it does NOT apply to the states.
That's definitely upside down if you ask me. Our courts need an overhaul, but we won't see it with Barrack Obama as President. We won't see it with John McCain either, but at least the slide won't be as fast. And we just might, with prayer, manage to reverse the trend.
Is that what we have come down to?
I'm sorry to have to be the one who breaks this news...
We are already on the sandbar, my friend. The Liberal Agenda is what will be pursued and enacted during at least the next four years, regardless of who wins the Presidency this time around.
McCain has proven repeatedly that he will side with Democrats, even if it means selling out his base. (Especially if it means selling out Religious Conservatives.)
To elect McCain to the Presidency is to reward the Republican Party for kicking us to the curb, and to send a clear message to the Elites in the Republican Party that we are comfortable with our second-class citizenship, and will continue to swallow whatever they decide to shove down our throats just because Democrats are just a little bit stinkier than they are.
A pox on BOTH their houses, I say.
A Democrat Monopoly in the Senate will never confirm a judge who would rule against the Homosexual Agenda, and McCain will sell the Constitution out just so that his nominees will be confirmed.
I wish this were not the case, but sadly, it is.
The only thing we can do at this point is plan for the rebuilding later.
They stem from a passionate intent to stop just rolling over and taking the crap thrown at me by those who have decided that I, and others like me, do not matter, and will just go along no matter what.
I find no Biblical Command to "choose the lesser of two evils."
It all feels like "choosing evil" to me.
Were it not for Roe v. Wade, AlGore would have been elected President in 2000, and there would have been no George W. Bush, no Iraq War, none of it... And we would all be living in a totally Green Socialist Utopia with free Healthcare for All, and no nasty guns to hurt people.
Libs, it's all your fault!!
Yes indeed, we have come to this. We have come to choosing between crappy and less crappy. That's the fact, Jack, and despite the frustration we all feel for this predicament, the choice is still an important one. Yeah, I don't think McCain is conservative enough, either. But Obama isn't conservative at all, and worse, he has blatant Marxist leanings. Perhaps McCain will struggle in his judicial appointments. But constantly barraging one's representatives with mail, email, phone calls, etc. will have an effect. And the effect just might be that enough Dems, who aren't too leftist, will have the sense to vote up a nominee on his merits, rather than on his lefty creds. It's really all we've got and to dismiss it is irresponsible.
In the meantime, staying active locally, contacting your congressman and senators, and most importantly, your local as well as national party officials to let them know that we expect better than McCain the next time around. In other words, just because things ain't rosey is no reason to be indifferent. Get on the stick!
I am amazed when people say that. Consider this hypothetical: If voting would yield 30% less evil than not voting, then you should vote.
The key in this case is that there is no third choice. You get a little evil, or a lot of evil.
I don't like being force-fed a Democrat, even if the other guy IS a Socialist.
Don't you guys remember McCain- Feingold?
McCain-Kennedy?
McCain-Leiberman, for God's sake?!?
What makes us believe that McCain would nominate judges who are ANY better than the ones Obama would nominate?
The fact that he now claims to be a Republican?
Can no one but me remember that McCain flirted with the idea of switching parties and becoming John F'ing Kerry's running mate in '04?
I'm telling you guys, if we in the so-called "Religious Right" support McCain in any signifigant way in this Election, we are forever throwing away any political clout that we, as a group, might have had.
We will be telling the Republican Party that we will support anything they throw at us, just because the other guy is a Democrat.
Once again, not indifference.
I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!
Sadly yes. Even if there were a "good" out there.
If those of us that really wanted a "good" candidate to be elected voted for that candidate, I'm afraid we'd still be in the minority thanks to the large machines of the two major parties.
Not voting for McCain essentially yields a vote to Obama, at least ths year.
The Democrats are coming out in force for Obama, and he's going to come close to 50% of the vote regardless of whether we as Christians vote for a candidate that stands for all that we do or not. That's reality. If we split the vote against Obama among several candidates, nearly all of which have no chance of winning, then Obama will win by default as none of his possible opponents will be able to come close to his vote count.
That's politics under our system as it exists today. And I'm NOT willing to see Obama elected. His choices for the federal bench would erode our liberties even further. Further, even though many of McCains policies are also socialist policies, Obama's are even worse.
As to your statement: "The only thing we can do at this point is plan for the rebuilding later."
What rebuilding? If Barack tears it all down, what rebuilding? Government has NEVER relinquished power once it's been given. If Nationalized Healthcare comes into being, we will never get it back. If Barack appoints uber-liberal injustices to the bench... this nation is pretty much cooked. As you said, we're already ON the sandbar, but all the pulling in the world won't to the little ship of freedom any good if the Barack manages to dam the river.
I agree with you 100% on McCain. But I still have to oppose evil wherever I encounter it. And the only thing that will counter the evil Barack wants to foist on us is to vote against him. Hoping something will arise that will kill his chances is all well and good, but should that fail... the ballot box is our only option.
There are other ways, but those are unconscionable. You can't fight evil with evil.
Myself, while I may use the phrase sometimes when it comes to politics, I don't think McCain or Bush are "evil," just severely flawed. So, my choice in elections past has not been a choice of a lesser of two evils, but a choice of the less awful candidate.
Now this time, for the first time in my voting life, I have a candidate who, while not perfect at all (by a longshot, given his recent FISA position), is actually a candidate that I can feel halfway decent about voting for.
But if you truly think your two candidate choices are two evils, then we CANNOT embrace or encourage folk to vote for a lesser evil. We can and ought, in those circumstances, opt for a third or fourth or some other option.
Choosing a lesser evil is and always will be choosing evil.
Stick to your guns, Tug.
Grown-ups are talking.
The LAST thing we want is for the Republican Party to get the notion that their base is independants and Moderates. If that happens we have lost the ability to fight.
And regardless of what idiots like Dan think, the President has relatively little power if the Senate is against him, and McCain is weak kneed and spineless when it comes to fighting Democrats anyway.
And the maddening thing is that I probably will wind up having to vote for McCain, as much as it chaps my hide to have to do so.
I'm just afraid that when I do, the Republican Machine will never again take me seriously, and I will have given up my right to be represented.
We are in the process of being consigned to "Kook Status", and unless we make the Republican Machine understand that they need us to win elections, we have lost the war.
If we support McCain, we can't just support him. We have to make him work for it, and scare the daylights out of him in the process.
That's all I'm sayin'...
Grown-ups are talking.
Oh, I see. No problem.
If by "grown-up" you mean boys who like to pretend they can reason their way out of a wet paper sack and can't see to appreciate it when someone agrees with them, you're absolutely right.
What a jerk.
It's a freakin' expression. Except for Obama, who's evil manifests in his support of abortion and homosexuality most obviously, I don't believe McCain is evil. Just wrong far too often.
But Tug, if all we do is vote, then we will indeed be sending a message to the GOP by our silence. We must vote for McCain because the alternative is far too dangerous to our nation.
What gives me hope regarding judicial nominees is McCain's support for Bush's nominees. Despite his "Gang of 14" nonsense, I don't think he was in opposition to Bush's choices. Plus, he has stated that he would select a justice in the mold of Alito and Roberts, if not Scalia as well.
In truth, there is enough of a Republican presence to block much of Obama's moves, just as there are plenty of Dems to foil McCain. But once again, and I can't push this too hard, constant contact with our representatives in all levels of government and party business is essential both now and during the term of whomever wins the Big Chair in Nov. That would include the president himself, no matter which is installed. This is how it remains a government of the people. And the political animals respond to such contact by their constituents. Some don't need very many letters or calls, others more, but all respond.
So yeah, my hide will also be extremely chapped come November. But that's far less painful than having one's ass totally burned by the likes of a Barry Obamanation.
You ain't the boss of me, little brother.
Yes, Marshall, I agree, it is an expression and if you - like me - think that when faced with two very flawed candidates, then it still behooves you to vote for the less flawed candidate, then you ought to do so.
But for those who insist that their choices are between two real evils, then they ought not vote for the lesser evil. Choosing a lesser evil is always choosing evil and we ought not do so - whether we're talking war or political candidates or torture or what have you.
There are always other choices besides evil ones.
You piped in here to make fun of my point, and to cause trouble.
I don't need your help, nor would I ever ask for it.
I do not have time to straighten you out on everything you are wrong about, so the only option I have is to dismiss your blitherings, and move on.
You say that I should not vote for McCain if I think he is evil, but then you wet yourself about the prospect of voting for a candidate who has exhibited the most capacity for supporting evil things that this nation has ever seen in a National Election.
You obviously have no ability to recognize evil when you see it.
As I said... Be quiet.
Grown-ups are talking.
Not in this election.
I agree with Tug. I don't like being force-fed McCain. We're already plunging over the cliff, and whether it's McCain or Obama, we'll still be crashing and burning. Obama will just get us to the bottom more quickly than McCain will.
We must also keep in mind that we are not being force-fed anything. We are merely facing the ramifications of our own inactions. To support my position, I offer the homosexual lobby. Here is a group that is no more than 2-3% of the population, and through their perserverance and determination may soon force their perversion upon us and our culture. What have WE done to bring forth the type of leader we now claim to demand? I would say, jack-shit. Now we have only McCain and the weak hope that he'll choose a good running mate that will excite the other pissed off conservatives who also did nothing. The indifference of which Eric speaks, as well as comlacency, has put us in this position. Now you think we'll be teaching anyone a lesson by allowing Obamanable to win? Keep dreaming. We'll merely be saying, "kick me again". We can't wait and hope the his guaranteed mistakes will be fixable, we can't wait in the hopes that his idiot supporters will wise up even then. So here's another bumper sticker: "Hold your nose! Vote for McCain!"
"may soon"?
ALREADY HAS!
John McCain is also not some new strain of conservative. Despite his reputation as a "maverick", McCain's voting record is almost pure conservative. He has never voted against conservative social legislation. He is one of the biggest hawks in the senate. McCain is a true conservative. He's just better at rhetoric that doesn't piss off independents. Don't be sheep lead by message meisters.
Little brother, you are not God enough to know my thoughts. Your presumption that you know my reasons for doing so shows just how foolish you are.
I was absolutely not making fun of your point, I was agreeing with you. We ought not choose lesser evils.
Now, though, I AM making fun of you because you apparently believe yourself to be a god and your shoes are just too small (not to mention your brain).
"APPARENTLY" - from all appearances. I do not know if he thinks he is a god or if he is just deluded that he knows my thoughts, but from all appearances, something along those lines appears to be the case.
Tug claimed unequivocally "You piped in here to make fun of my point, and to cause trouble," while I stated "you APPARENTLY think..."
Understand the difference?
Now both of you, go get someone to change your diapers, now that you've received your spankings.
Apparently, you believe that no sentence in the history of the English language has ever omitted that word where it could still be understood to be implicitly present. Rather, apparently, you believe that every declarative sentence that omits this particular adverb asserts epistemological certainty and does so unequivocally: if this certainty is outside the scope of the writer's sphere of experience, he's not only presumptuous, he's apparently guilty of infinite egomania and he apparently considers himself to be God.
I wonder how much time would pass online before you failed to write with such precision, where you would write something that you don't know with complete certainty but failed to include this crucially important adverb. Years? Decades?
It's not as if there's a recent blog entry of yours where you wrote the ridiculous, something like, "No one is excited about voting for McCain." (No one? Not even his children?) It's not as if, in the comment thread of this very blog entry, you then criticized someone for a broad generalization based on "anectdotal 'evidence.'"
Your hair-splitting regarding tug's failure to use the adverb "apparently" is, at least, well rooted in your own history of careful precision in what your write, right?
If it isn't, what could we conclude from all appearances?
Could we say, Dan, that you're apparently willing to engage in uncharitable hair-splitting to trot out one of your favorite accusations?
(Your three favorites, apparently, are the charge of mind-reading that means the person thinks he's God; the accusation of bearing false witness; and the charge that the other person isn't willing to answer your simple questions, never mind how evasive you prove to be.)
Should we conclude that you're apparently a petty and predictable hypocrite?
To be clear, I'm not making those accusations: those are hypothetical questions, based on the wholly unrealistic assumption that we could easily find evidence that you're not nearly so precise in your use of the English language as to justify the careful distinction you make here between tug's statement and your own.
And, besides, I'm couching this comment in numerous uses of the word "apparently", a magic word that covers a multitude of insults.
Touché!
Dan, I am not little, nor are you my brother.
Son, let me explain something to you...
I've got YEARS of experience dealing with you.
Not just with people like you, with you.
I don't have to be God, or believe myself to be "a god" to know what your thoughts and motivations are...
I know you.
Go and peddle your garbage somewhere else.
We here know who you serve, and it ain't who you say it is.
Not an "apparently" in there anywhere.
You're a poopy-head!
(I guess I told YOU!!)
I was wondering if you were going to defend yourself by focusing on that adverb.
And now that Tidbitcapn has outed himself as an megalomaniac with a god complex, shall I expect an apology from you, Bubba?
If Tug had MEANT that I "APPARENTLY piped in here to make fun of my point, and to cause trouble..." then you would have been correct perhaps in your criticism of me, or at least had a foot to stand on. But now Tug has made clear that he MEANT TO SAY exactly what he said, that he believes he knows me well enough to read my mind and know my motives.
And so, now your rather expansive defense of him has been shipwrecked on the cold shores of reality, I'm sure you will apologize as I try to do when I make a mistake, yes?
Dan, How many times have you and I gone around on this blog or that one?
You are as predictable as the sunset, as arrogant as Hillary Clinton, and as hypocritical as Dan Trab... no wait...that IS you.
Dan, I don't have to be bitten by a thousand rattlesnakes in order to recognize one when I see it... I don't have to be waist deep in horse manure before I am qualified to point at it and call it what it is, and I don't have to be God to know where it came from or why it happened.
Stop claiming victory here.
You are an idiot, misguided at best, malevolent at worst, but most assuredly wrong about almost every opinion I have ever seen you express.
You are a wind-up toy that I play with occasionally when I feel like it, and your self-important self-righteousness only makes you that much more funny.
Megalomaniac?!?
HAH!!
DANCE FOR ME SOME MORE, PUPPET!!
(snicker...)
What's Dan thinking right now??
What I criticized was your selective precision when it comes to the English language. "I used 'apparently' so my insult's okay; he didn't, so his wasn't," is a silly position for someone whose writing is sometimes quite sloppy.
It was a weak argument on which to assert an appreciable distinction between Tug's criticism and yours. Rather than admit that you really were engaging in precisely the behavior you were criticizing, you apparently reached for whatever you could -- no matter how slender a thread, no matter how inconsistently you affirmed that principle in the past -- just so you could avoid facing your own hypocrisy and having to apologize for it.
1) you've lost your balance
2) you demand answers but rarely answer any yourself, and
3) you're bending over backward to defend a position that has quite literally crumbled away beneath your feet. Your pride is become a thin tuft of grass to which you feebly cling.
Just let go, Dan. No Christian here will lambaste you. We'll welcome you back to the fold.
These posts on Homosexuality will not end here. This will go on until I feel I've exhausted the word of God on this particular subject. And for the record, nothing I post against homosexuality will have any bearing on what I feel personally for the individual[s] trapped in that depressing-as-hell lifestyle. I will personally extend love and mercy to homosexuals... but not to their sin. I just can't do that.
Ha! After quite literally thousands of words written by myself in an attempt to answer your questions?
Is this spoken with irony or blissful ignorance?
Get real, indeed.
Could it be possible - just possible - that I honestly have tried to answer your questions and you all simply have failed to recognize those answers? Or is it easier to just assume - with no evidence - that I'm merely taking time from my busy day to write thousands of words that are unrelated to your questions merely because I'm stupid or deliberately trying to mock you or whatever it is that you all think?
In the other thread, I refuse to answer your latest side questions because you have arbitrarily and unfairly made answering those questions a precondition to answering my earlier and more germane question, regarding a passage I brought up ten days ago, a passage that I had to mention a full five times before you even acknowledged it. But, up to that point, I have been quite thorough in answering the questions you've asked me.
So having done that, I tell you now that I admit that you've written a whole heckuva lot. But that doesn't mean that, in those hundreds or thousands of words, you've actually answered our questions and have done so promptly and thoroughly.
To use an example from another conversation, I repeatedly asked you whether you believe there is a casual connection between Christ's death and our forgiveness. You repeatedly emphasized that they were part of the same story, but that's a non-answer from which a clear answer to the question of causality cannot be implied.
Here, we ask a question, you write volumes in avoiding the answer, so we restate the question and often rephrase it to make it simpler to make your evasion less possible: we ask you binary questions and you manage not to provide one of the two possible answers.
You'll write essays, not to elucidate or explain your answers to our questions, but apparently to avoid providing a clear answer in the first place.
You'll write thousands of words to avoid either of the two words that our question would require: "yes" and "no."
On the subject of Matthew 19 as it relates to "gay marriage", I had to invoke the passage literally five times before you even acknowledged it -- you now claim, absurdly, that you didn't see the passage's relevance -- but in stating that we disagree on our interpretation, you didn't actually provide your interpretation.
I had to ask repeatedly for that interpretation; providing the implausible interpretation that absolutely neuters the text, you didn't provide your justification for that interpretation.
It's not as if your reams of words answer the question that's on the table, explain your position and its reasoning thoroughly, and anticipate our objections and follow-up questions. If that were the case, you would deserve commendation.
Instead, it appears that you want your verbal diarrhea to serve as a substitute for an actual answer. Either you don't care that what you write doesn't resemble an answer to what was asked, or you're deliberately avoiding an answer.
For that you don't deserve our praise. You deserve our scorn, for wasting our time in such an uncharitable fashion.
Could it be possible - just possible - that I honestly have tried to answer your questions and you all simply have failed to recognize those answers? Or is it easier to just assume - with no evidence - that I'm merely taking time from my busy day to write thousands of words that are unrelated to your questions merely because I'm stupid or deliberately trying to mock you or whatever it is that you all think?
This is a false dichotomy. Another possibility isn't that it's "easier to assume" that you're being deliberately obtuse in the absence of evidence: it's that your answers serve as evidence. Your evasiveness is so habitual and so predictable that if it isn't deliberate, it can only be that your grasp of English or simple rhetoric eludes you.
To bring up the example again, it's absurd to claim that Matthew 19 isn't "germane" to the discussion of "gay marriage."
I brought up the passage five times. Once you finally did acknowledge that I brought up the passage, you said we disagreed on our "understanding" but didn't explain what your interpretation was.
I asked for your interpretation. You claimed that it is "observably" true that you're not being willfully obtuse regarding this passage, and you accused me of arrogance and/or lying, but you didn't provide your interpretation.
I asked for it again, and you gave your implausibly neutered interpretation without a word to justify it.
I've now asked for you to justify your interpretation, and you now demand that I answer others questions as a precondition to your answering mine.
This ain't the behavior of someone who's being thorough and sincere in answering questions.
On June 20th, here, you wrote the following:
We've already covered that base before Bubba - "My will" was opposed to gay marriage and homosexuality in general. I was thoroughly indoctrinated by my religious upbringing and the traditions of humanity.
I only changed my position in honest and prayerful Bible study and even then, it was against my will. I DID NOT want to believe that the Bible says homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality.
I fought with God and God won.
You wrote that you "DID NOT want to believe that the Bible says homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality," that you fought with God and God won.
The implication is that your current position IS what you did not want to believe, that is, that "the Bible says homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality."
This is an incredible claim, so I explicitly quoted the claim to ask you to prove it.
After saying that it wasn't the right place for us to ask each other questions (even though you earlier berated me and Ms. Green), ELAshley quoted the very same passage and asked you to prove it.
Then Marshall quoted the same passage and said that you didn't prove your claim.
Between the three of us, the three of us directly invoked the passage nine times before you finally told us that that wasn't your position. You quoted the passage in context -- when the context actually suggests that it is your position -- and then wrote that it isn't:
And to be clear, the Bible does NOT say that homosexuality is no different than heterosexuality. Doubtless, this was one of my many comments I wrote (in trying to deal with the many questions and thoughts about my position) sloppily.
When did you finally clarify yourself? June 29th, nine days later.
This isn't some side issue: when we've been trying to ascertain how you justify your position on the Bible and homosexuality, you're only now clarifying that your position isn't what we repeatedly quoted as your position for over a week.
How can we possibly discuss the plausibility of your position when you take so long to make clear what your position actually is?
How can you expect us to believe you're really arguing in good faith when you don't make clear the position you're trying to prove?
CONSIDER THIS: WHAT IF IT ISN'T EVASIVE BUT THAT YOU ARE MERELY NOT UNDERSTANDING MY ANSWERS?
One of the problems in our world and nation is that people come from different paradigms and it is almost like we speak a very different dialect of the same language.
I am honestly striving my hardest to communicate here and you all are often not understanding.
Now certainly, it may well be partially my fault and it may be partially your fault. But it also has to do, I think, with this paradigm difference.
Regardless, one difference is that you all seem to want to assume the worst of those who disagree with you. I must either be purposely evasive, or dishonest, or too dumb to effectively communicate. There seems to be no room for considering that you could be wrong or misunderstanding my position or that we're simply failing to communicate well.
I have not assumed the worst of you all. I don't assume you're not Christians. I don't assume you're being deliberately evasive. I don't assume you hate America. I don't assume that you are lying. When I make an obvious mistake, I apologize. When I have failed to communicate well, I have apologized.
There just does not seem to be much room for all of that in your world.
Clear concise answers. That's all we want. Give us that and all these recriminations back and forth can end, and this debate can move forward.
I apologize again for my part in failing to communicate, it is not from a failure to try.
He needs dissention and confrontation like a fish needs water.
To directly answer a question from anyone here in a truthful manner would be to either admit that his points don't make any sense, or to reveal in clear detail that he is on the wrong side of the issue.
And Dan knows this.
So he redirects the discussion, shucks and jives, and tapdances.
When pinned down about his tactics, his answer is "Maybe you just don't understand me".
Well, I do.
I understand him all too well.
You asked for all of this.
No problem, Tug. I appreciate the blessings.
Eric, Bubba, anyone else...
(You be quiet, Dan...)
Have any of you ever seen an instance, in all of the reams and reams of his writings all over the internet, where Dan was right about anything?
Have you ever had him actually enlighten you on one single point?
Have you ever seen him say that anyone else was right about anything, or admit that he had been mistaken, and thank someone else for enlightening him on some subject or other?
Have you?
Matthew 7:15
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mark 13:22
For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
2 Peter 2:1
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
1 John 4:1
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
13For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
14And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
2 Peter 3
2That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
3Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts...
2 Timothy 3
1This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
Copied and pasted from a previous post:
Statement: None of your gay church members are legally married according to the law of your state and according to God's law. (that - by the way, makes them fornicators if they are in a "relationship" that is anything but plutonic)
Questions:
So, I repeat - fornicators are admired and exalted as leaders in your church?(this is question #1) They teach your children? (this is question #2) And you are ok with that? (this is question #3)
Statement: You deny that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin.
Do you also deny that the Bible teaches that fornication is a sin? (question #4)
All four questions require "yes" or "no" answers.
Regardless, one difference is that you all seem to want to assume the worst of those who disagree with you. I must either be purposely evasive, or dishonest, or too dumb to effectively communicate. There seems to be no room for considering that you could be wrong or misunderstanding my position or that we're simply failing to communicate well.
Ignoring the seeming inconsistency, I would like to address this charge. I can speak for no one else, but I imagine that what I have to say here will resonate with several others, both those who continue to try to engage in a dialogue with you and even those who have long since given up.
For myself, it's not that I "assume" the worst about you, Dan: it is that my lengthy encounters with you online -- spanning months and who knows how many thousands of words -- make it nearly impossible to continue to give you the benefit of the doubt.
And just because I find you personally difficult, it doesn't mean I assume the worst of everyone who disagrees with me.
Now, about the cause behind our increasing unwillingness to give you the benefit of the doubt, you offer a "third-way" alternative between deliberate obfuscation (on the part of one party or the other) and some form of intellectual inadequacy: "different paradigms."
I reject the notion that there are different, equally valid, equally rational "paradigms" where two people using essentially the same language at essentially the same reading level cannot communicate abstract ideas. If our communication breakdown can be attributed to some sort of difference between paradigms, my guess is that one paradigm or the other is deficient: that it is less rational and more prone to fallacies, or that it is less precise and less likely to be clear.
In which case, I don't see the difference between the two options: saying that your paradigm is less rational or less precise, and saying that your analytical or rhetorical skills "need work."
But beyond this general skepticism of the idea, I reject the specific notion that our problems in communicating are due to paradigm differences. After all, you had no problem speculating about paradigm differences, and even though I reject the theory, it doesn't appear that I've had any problem grasping it.
I personally can't buy the theory that some paradigm difference is interfering with our discussions about abstract ideas, except for discussion about those discussions.
"You ain't the boss of me..."
Danielsan
LOL!
He doesn't eve realize the confirmation by his own hand.
I answered your questions a long time ago, Ms Green. Unlike you, who never answered my questions.
(In case you forgot them, I asked:
1. If you're going to make the claim that homosexuality is a mental illness, would you point please to the scientific study to support your position? Do you have even one such study?
2. I also asked, are you a trained psychologist/psychiatrist who is able to make such a diagnosis?
3. Because you were asking about our Sunday School teachers, etc, I asked you: Does YOUR church ask your SS teachers about their sexual habits?
4. I also asked a few rather rude questions along these lines: "We know that most child molesters are married white males. So, given this, I suppose it is safe to assume that your pastor is going to be humping his 12 year old baby sitter this weekend?"
You didn't answer those, either.
5. Following that satire of your questions, I said: To make a blanket statement like that based on a misguided stereotype, why, that's just bigoted, isn't it? Wrong, offensive, un-Christian, uncharitable, graceless and bitter, right?
More questions unanswered.
You were also silent on other questions I asked on the topic. So, I'd suggest you repent of your pride and hubris and for making false charges and for being divisive, sister.
I've answered your questions. You have not answered a single question of mine. Do you understand the notion of rank hypocrisy and utter spiritual cowardice?
Read about it. They're talked about in the Bible a whole lot - unlike gay marriage or homosexuality.
Eminent Psychiatrist Says Homosexuality is a Disorder
Homosexuality and Mental Health Problems
Why Isn't Homosexuality Considered A Disorder On The Basis Of Its Medical Consequences?
The Myth That Pschiatry has Proven that Homosexuality is Normal
Answer to #2.
No, I am not a trained psychologist/psychiatrist who is able to make such a diagnosis. Neither are you a trained psychologist/psychiatrist who is able to refute such a diagnosis.
Answer to #3.
We don’t question our SS teachers about their sexuality. However, if they were openly engaging in homosexuality, adultery or fornication, they would not be a SS Teacher – and in fact, if they were unrepentant in these activities, they would be church disciplined according to the Scriptural procedure for such. You are the one who stated that your daughter’s SS teacher was a lesbian, not I.
Answer to #4
You are correct. You were very rude with this question. And since homosexuals have a higher percentage of child molesters than do heterosexuals, could we assume the same thing, but more so, about your homosexual church members?
Answer to #5
I don’t know which statement I’ve made is the “blanket statement” to which you are referring, therefore I cannot answer your question. However, saying that I am bigoted, … wrong, offensive, un-Christian, uncharitable, graceless and bitter seems to be a rather judgmental comment doesn’t it? (except for the “wrong” remark, which is a matter of opinion).
Answer to #6
Yes, I do understand rank hypocrisy and spiritual cowardice. Do you?
Now that I have answered your questions one by one, I challenge you to answer my 4 simple questions. You say that you have already answered them, but you have not. Copy and paste the four answers you gave for me here for all to read and I will make a formal and public apology for accusing you of not answering my questions. Again – remember that the questions are simple yes or no answers.
Copied and pasted from a previous post:
Statement: None of your gay church members are legally married according to the law of your state and according to God's law. (that - by the way, makes them fornicators if they are in a "relationship" that is anything but plutonic)
Questions:
So, I repeat - fornicators are admired and exalted as leaders in your church?(this is question #1) They teach your children? (this is question #2) And you are ok with that? (this is question #3)
Statement: You deny that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin.
Do you also deny that the Bible teaches that fornication is a sin?(question #4)
All four questions require "yes" or "no" answers. Can you do this for me Dan? Can you answer with a yes or no to each of these 4 questions? You say you have already, but have you? I’ve gone back over all these posts and I don’t find a list of yes or no answers to these 4 questions.
Remember what you said about “rank hypocrisy and spiritual cowardice”?
I’ve answered your questions for all the world to see. Can you do the same?
NO. But we do have admirable lesbian, gay and straight Christians as members and leaders in our church and they are the most Godly, Spirit-filled (as evidenced by the fruit of the Spirit in their lives) people you could hope to meet.
They are Christian in every way, saved by God's Grace, following in Jesus' steps, trusting in Jesus' salvation and asking for forgiveness of their sins. Hallelujah! You could not hope to find a more Christ-like group of people and I thank my God daily for their Christian lives.
They teach your children?
"They," who? Fornicators? As far as I know, we have no fornicators in our church. How about you?
And you are ok with that?
See my previous answer.
Statement: You deny that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin.
Do you also deny that the Bible teaches that fornication is a sin?
The Bible is silent on homosexuality in general. There appear to be a few places that are talking about some certain homosexual activities that are sinful, JUST LIKE there are dozens of places that talk about certain heterosexual behaviors. I don't think that any of those places are an indication that hetero- or homosexuality in themselves are sins. Just certain negative behaviors.
Behaviors like fornication, like adultery, like bestiality. These are all sinful, harmful behaviors, it seems to me.
I answered all these down in the first series of comments, but I will answer them here again just to make it more clear.
AS I ANSWERED BEFORE, none of my lesbian and gay church members are married according to the state, BUT they are indeed married in God's sight. We have held many of their marriage blessings at our church and they were holy and Godly unions.
IT IS YOUR OPINION that gay marriage is wrong according to "god's law" but the Bible does not say that, it is YOUR opinion based upon human tradition, not upon the Bible. Just to be clear. I wouldn't want you to make a false statement by accident.
You seem to want to go around the block with this debate again. All it takes is ONE statement by God, not a multitude, for believers to understand His Will. YOU seem to want to play childish games with the fact that He said no cookies yesterday, but not today.
In addition, Ms. Green owes no apologies for believing, as I do, some mental elements to homosexual behavior, as she has provided several links to support her opinion. She is justified, therefor, for believing the studies that make more sense and seem far more believable to her, than does the abdication of responsibility that I believe the APA has shown as a group toward the condition. Thus, you owe HER an apology for your hubris.
THAT is a blanket accusation and epithet cast on a whole group of people and it IS offensive, arrogant and just wrong.
No, Dan. They are neither "married" in God's sight, nor were their "marriage blessings" holy or Godly unions.
The logic you employ to defend this sinful practice is both insupportable and inept. It only needs for God to say it ONCE for it to be true, and He said it in Leviticus 20:13. He never amended it-- which should speak volumes, but you and many others seem strangely deaf to this inconvenient truth --and Jesus confirmed it; every jot and tittle of it.
And since God said it, that settles it. Homosexuality is an abomination, end of story. Getting married does not address the fact that God views the act of homosexuality an abomination.
Your rhetoric to the contrary is like putting lipstick on a pig.
Grace? Sure, that works for Salvation. In fact, it's the ONLY way to salvation-- through the shed blood of Jesus --but the Law's standard of righteousness is still in effect. Grace simply means you're not held to account for your failure to perfectly adhere to God's perfect and righteous Law. It is the Law from which Jesus saves us, but the Law is not made entirely null and void. Everyone who dies without Christ will be judged by the Law.
Not only are homosexuals guilty of the abomination of lying with a man as though with a woman [and vice-versa] but now they are guilty of fornication because churches like Jeff Street condone and celebrate their behavior. If any of these folks end up in hell, their blood will be required at YOUR hands. The blood-guiltiness of Jeff Street and so many other congregations is too great for me to contemplate.
Be that as it may. It's not my place to condemn you or your "church." I truly wish you the best. But rest assured that when I say that, what I mean is I hope you turn from this evil practice and return to walking holy and circumspectly in the Lord.
Once again: Says you.
The Bible doesn't say so. YOU are presuming to speak for God and say so.
You CAN NOT point to any place in the Bible that says "homosexuality is an abomination," meaning ALL homosexual acts, including loving committed marriages. That verse does not exist in the Bible.
It is YOUR speaking for God to suggest that it is. Careful.
If any of these folks end up in hell, their blood will be required at YOUR hands. The blood-guiltiness of Jeff Street and so many other congregations is too great for me to contemplate.
And, conversely, if your church drives people away by being so legalistic and denying people grace, is it not also true that their blood will be on your hands?
I know you meant as offensive sounding, but perhaps it's a Fruedian slip.
In any case, to use such a silly example like "All pastors rape children on Saturday nights." is demonstrably false (nevermind that such stories involve a priest and a boy, not a girl). But when regarding the statement suggesting mental illness in homosexuals, I think you assume mental illness is always something obvious, something overt, manifesting in a manner that is plainly outrageous and stereotypical. I don't think that's necessarily true, but at the same time, they are attracted sexually to members of the same sex. That's plainly not normal or it would be far more prevalent than 2-3% of the population. So it's neither arrogant or wrong, even if anyone finds it offensive, as it's a result of simple observation.
I would like to ask you a question, Dan, that has occurred to me while thinking over the comments of this debate. I hope you choose to answer it. You asked the question regarding knowledge of sin. That is, if one is unaware that an action is sinful, will that person be held responsible by God? My question is, if the answer you believe to be true is "no", does that hold for any action whatsoever? An example would obviously be murder. Just as you believe that through your prayerful consideration you no longer consider certain manifestations of homosex behavior to be sinful, what of those who might feel they are doing God's Will by, say, killing abortion doctors, or taking it upon themselves to kill gangsters. They might not be able to justify their position as arftully as do the homosex supporters, yet they could be every bit as sincere in their belief, AND be otherwise as "Godly and Christ-like" as anyone you could ever hope to meet. Do you think they will not be judged for their sins as you think homosexuals who have heard about the sinfulness of their actions won't be judged for not believing themselves to be doing anything wrong either? This is really a Yes/No type question, as clumsily asked as it might be. If you need it reworded, I'll be happy to do so, though it might take a week as I'm vacationing beginning tomorrow morning. Please respond.
One more thing: I notice that after word verification failed I see you have responded to Eric. You have again pretended that because the Bible doesn't list every conceivable variation of homosex behavior that you can then assume a given form, "loving, committed, monogamous" is somehow exempt from Lev 20:13. Only those trying to find a loophole would suggest that this verse isn't speaking of homosex behavior, period. One needn't be a genius or Biblical scholar to understand the obvious. So it doesn't need to have extra verses regarding "loving, committed, monogamous" variations and it is not in anyway "speaking for God" when in fact it is merely repeating what He has already plainly said. The fact is, YOUR version is a case of "speaking for God" by assuming He wasn't referring to YOUR version.
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Leaving off the death penalty aspect of this verse, since I personally don't advocate such. Let's look at what precedes.
If a man [any man] lieth with mankind [another man], as he lieth with [in the same manner] a woman, both of them [both men] have committed an abomination....
The English is plain as day, even in the King James... but let's not stop there!
What was it you said?
"Once again: Says you."
NO, Dan! Says thirteen OTHER TRANSLATIONS BESIDES!!!
ASV: (American Standard Version, 1901) "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
Darby: (J.N. Darby Translation, 1890): "And if a man lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall certainly be put to death; their blood is upon them."
ESV: (English Standard Version): "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them."
HNV: (Hebrew Names Version): "If a man lies with a male, as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
LB: (Living Bible): "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have brought it upon themselves."
NASB: (New American Standard Bible): "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."
Net Bible: "If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves."
NIV: (New International Version) "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
NKJV: (New King James Version) "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."
NLT: (New Living Translation): "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act, and are guilty of a capital offense."
RSV: (Revised Standard Version): "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them."
Webster: (Noah Webster Version, 1833): "If a man also shall lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them."
Young: (Robert Young Literal Translation, 1898) "And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood [is] on them."
What conceit has whispered into your and the greater collective ears of Jeff Street Baptist Church and told you otherwise? Fourteen translations contradict your "prayerfully changed mind." You have believed a lie, and you allow heretics into your church to perpetuate this lie.
This verse doesn't neglect to address committed relationships because the verse denies the act to ANY pair of men. The English is clear. Your interpretation of it is tortured, and beyond reason. By saying "A man" the verse is saying, in effect, "ANY" man... at any time, in any instance, it is ALWAYS wrong.
And this issue is a classic example of what is wrong with the modern church. She has turned away from the truth and believes now in fables. Your church, Dan, is NOT teaching the truth about homosexuality. You are NOT listening to the Spirit.
But I lied earlier Dan. I can actually point to TWO verses-- Leviticus 20:13 and another more expressly damning to your position, Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
How is this verse stronger? If you can weasel provisional circumstance into an express command from God-- THOU SHALT NOT! --then you open a Pandora's Box of provisions in,
"Thou shalt have NO OTHER God beside me..."
"Thou shalt NOT take the name of the LORD thy God in vain..."
"Thou shalt NOT kill."
"Thou shalt NOT commit adultery."
"Thou shalt NOT covet..."
"Thou shalt NOT bear false witness..."
...which you do-- against GOD, no less! --every time you insist His CLEAR word does not mean what it says. You have turned from the truth, and the express command of God, and believed a lie. And you do far more harm than good by condoning what God calls an "Abomination."
Plain and simple.
No, you have believed a lie. Two lies. One, that your interpretation = God's Word. That is a dangerous lie.
It leads to seriously perverse problems like your second lie: That we have any heretics in our church.
YOU, brother, do NOT know our church or the saints therein. You do not know their Godly lives. You do not know the slander and gossip you are spreading. You have convinced yourself of a lie and that lie is this: If anyone disagrees with me, they are a heretic.
Eric, friend, you are not God.
If you wish to disagree with the Christians at my church on a particular sin, by all means, DO! I will do the same for you.
What I WON'T do is act as if I'm God and decide, "Well, because Eric disagrees with me on THIS sin, he is a heretic!" No. You will be mistaken - maybe seriously so. But you won't be a heretic unless you begin to reject God or put yourself in God's place.
Biblically speaking, being wrong about a sin is not a heresy (as you, yourself agreed with earlier). Speaking as if you are God, though, comes much closer, though, so be careful.
No. If anyone disagrees with the plain teaching of the Bible, and teaches against the express command of God. [Lev 18:22]
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables."
--2 Timothy 4:3-4
Those are God's words, not mine.
"...you aren't a heretic unless you begin to reject God or put yourself in God's place."
Which you have done by rejecting the clear interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13, and putting yourself in God's place made allowable what God has called "Abomination."
'Heretic' may be too strong a word, but 'Silly Woman' [2 Tim 3:6] certainly fits.
I wouldn't let my daughter [if I had children] sit in Sunday School at Jeff Street... not if this is what's being taught, and by whom.
ON that note, unless something changes in this discussion, I'm done.
Words mean things, and your excellent post showing the interpretation of those passages in so many different translations further condemns Jeff Street's claims that they are right and everyone else is wrong.
God warned against this kind of thinking in Deuteronomy where He said “Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes.”
And in Numbers He said, “And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye seek not after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go a whoring: That ye may remember, and do all my commandments, and be holy unto your God.”
Dan, you have been duped - either by a false spirit or your own desires for a particular "truth". This is not me saying that - it is the Word of God (not my interpretation -as Eric has so aptly pointed out), and the early church fathers, and the men and women of the Judeo-Christian faiths for thousands of years. For you to expect Christians to take your word and the word of your church over the overwhelming majority of Christendom seems a little prideful coming from someone who accused me of having no humility at all. Your argument is not with me, or Eric, or Marshall, or Neil - it is with God's Word and the majority of Christendom. It is not we who are in the minority, it is you and your church.