[What follows is an adaption and expansion of a comment here]
In previous posts it has been established that the "norm" for Godly marriage, that is to say, God's original intent--providing a mate for Adam --was one woman for one man, for the express purpose of procreation. And though it is not expressly stated, for pleasure as well.
As an aside, and not part of this discussion: I arrive at that last statement quite simply: If God had not intended sex to be pleasurable, He would not have made it pleasurable. After all, it's one thing to be told not to cross a specific line-- a line that is wholly external in terms of one's own physical senses --but it is quite another to make sinful the sensations of skin and nerve endings; the mechanics of flesh and sensation cannot be extricated from our flesh, nor the emotions we attach to various sensations. We are what God made us: sensory beings. The problem lies in using our inextricable sensations as excuse for behavior outside ourselves, beyond the line of permissibility; i.e., fornication, homosexuality, bestiality. No longer is the act confined to one's own flesh, but now the sin involves crossing a line. A line God has said is only acceptable within the confines of marriage. And only between one man and one woman.
Marriage then, being the rule, God drew more lines: Homosexuality and Bestiality were clearly and expressly declared forbidden.
Yet many so-called Christians today-- even calling themselves Evangelical --are turning away from the original intent [or design] for marriage, and are deliberately blurring and even erasing the lines God drew. They make allowances for behavior the LORD God expressly declares an abomination. They condone and celebrate the abomination, and play at Exegetical Twister to rationalize their heretical views.
Would that this problem resided in but a few wayward congregations, but it is a growing trend, and a trend represented in almost every Christian denomination. The biggest problem seems to lie within the Emergent Church, and among the larger more liberal congregations; those that do not preach the blood of Christ, or the penalty of sin, among other failings.
Recent conversations have illuminated a number of errors in interpretation:
First, the idea that because a 'Sin' is not specifically mentioned in language a 21st century reader can understand, allowances can and should be made to reflect the changing of the times. Social mores change with each new generation, so too must the Bible, lest it slip into irrelevance.
The problem with this argument is that the language is Quite plain. In sixteen different translations the truth is indelibly etched; no longer the tradition of men, as some argue, but engraved in the very stone of scripture. Using Leviticus 18:22 as an example:
CEV: (Contemporary English Version, 1995, American Bible Society) "It is disgusting for a man to have sex with another man."
Darby: (J.N. Darby Translation, 1890): "And thou shalt not lie with mankind as one lieth with a woman: it is an abomination."
DRB: (Douay-Rheims Bible, 1899) "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: because it is an abomination."
ESV: (English Standard Version): "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
GNB: (Good News Bible): "No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God hates that."
HNV: (Hebrew Names Version): "You shall not lie with a man, as with a woman. That is detestable."
KJV: (King James Version, 1611) "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
The Message: "Don't have sex with a man as one does with a woman. That is abhorrent."
NASB: (New American Standard Bible): "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
NASV: (New American Standard Version, 1960) "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Net Bible: "You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act."
NIV: (New International Version) "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."
NKJV: (New King James Version) "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination."
NLT: (New Living Translation): "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin."
NLV: (New Life Version, 1969) "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman. It is a sinful thing."
Young: (Robert Young Literal Translation, 1898) "And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it [is]."
These verse don't neglect to address committed relationships because they deny the act to any pair of men. The English is clear; by saying "a man" the verse is saying, in effect, "ANY" man... at any time, in any instance, it is always wrong. Each of these translations leave no room for doubt. Homosexuality is an abomination, a sinful thing, abhorrent, disgusting, a detestable act, sin, and God hates it. There is no room here for provisional circumstance and/or condition. That two men or two women marry, standing before a "pastor" and a congregation of witnesses, doesn't change the fact that God finds the practice of homosexuality detestable, abhorrent, disgusting, a SIN... and He hates it. Just as He hates other things...
These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: a proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, an heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
--Proverbs 6:16-19
By no means a comprehensive list, but boil these seven down, and one can simply say that God hates Sin. Anything that misses God's ideal, anything that falls short of that ideal, is Sin. And God hates it, and if it is not dealt with it will keep you out of Heaven.
Another error in interpretation-- Recognizing that marriage is the only institution wherein sexual activity is allowable, marriage can therefore provide a reprieve from the penalty of their sin a loving, monogamous, homosexual couple would otherwise incur. The problem however is that this argument asks homosexuality to take second place to fornication. While both are synonymous in one respect they are also quite different. In addition, this argument seeks to augment the express ideal and will of God with imperfect human artifices of provisional circumstances and/or conditions. The idea that allowing a gay couple to marry somehow mitigates or condones the sin of homosexuality simply because the institution of marriage is a holy contract before God is a failure of logic in the worst way.
Sex outside the confines of marriage is Fornication, and this is a sin that will keep millions out of Heaven. Homosexuality falls into the sin category by virtue of the fact that God's ideal, and ONLY expressed configuration for, marriage is that of one man, and one woman [Genesis 2:24-25, Matthew 19:4-5].
Genesis 2:24-25 says,
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
'The man and his wife...' one man for one woman.
Jesus confirmed this ideal in Matthew 19:4-5,
Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Since Jesus IS God, and He through the power of His Holy Spirit breathed the scriptures into righteous men of God; that the scriptures therefore are His words, and confirming them, said not one stroke of the pen, however small, shall depart from the Law till ALL things are fulfilled, marriage is thus a divine appointment. But homosexuality is an perversion of God's divine appointment: one man for one woman.
It is illogical therefore to think that God would condone the sin of homosexuality simply because two men observe a ceremony, which ultimately means nothing because the divine appointment of marriage is for one man and one woman. Adding insult to injury for the proponent of gay marriage, they compound the sin of those trapped in their perverse sexual unions by allowing them to add the sin of Fornication to their Homosexuality.
God will never contradict Himself. The Holy Spirit of God will never contradict himself, or scripture. Jesus will not contradict Himself, His Father, or His Holy Spirit, especially since He affirmed the scriptures to His disciples, the priests, the scribes, the pharisees, and anyone else close enough to hear Him as He spoke. And we who read the scriptures and understand. Homosexuality is a sin, and marriage does not mitigate that sin. If anything, it compounds it by throwing fornication into the mix.
So where does this leave the Churches and Congregations that turn their backs on God's standard and make concession with sin? Well, they have believed a lie, and they allow heretics into their midst to teach them and perpetuate the lies of the enemy. Make no mistake, this is a spiritual battle...
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils...
--1 Timothy 4:1
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
--2 Timothy 3:1-7
The modern church has turned away from the truth and believes now in fables. They are listening to spirits, but sadly, not the Spirit of God. Those whose consciences are not already seared-- deadened to the promptings of the Holy Spirit --can more easily be brought back from the brink; they need not be led away captive by doctrines of devils, seducing spirits, and diverse lusts.
What then does it say about a church who condones homosexuality, gives it positions of trust and authority within its body, and performs ceremonies to affirm it-- ceremonies that reject God's holy ideal? They have departed from the faith. They worship the creation rather than the Creator. They have pleasure in both the sin they condone and those who perform it. In the very strictest of senses, they are heretics.
That "some" would argue as much as "some" have in defense of this abomination, who hearing the truth of God in relation to this sin and rejecting it, it becomes clear that they cannot endure sound doctrine. Their consciences ARE seared, and so, they are unable to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit. They cannot hear the Truth for the truth it is.
Finally, to correct a common fallacy about the Church: there are so many different brands of Christianity, but they're all false. All but one, that is. There is only one true denomination, and while it is expressed many ways in the New Testament, 1 John 5:12 simply says,
He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
There is no other measure by which men are judged to be children of God. Do they have the Son? Do they have Jesus? Jesus Himself said,
I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
--John 14:6
There can be, therefore, no contradicting spirits leading the True Church. Honest Christians can disagree about many things that do not touch the simple Gospel of 1 Corinthians 15:1-8, but the same Spirit is in us all, and the same Spirit convicts of sin in all. There will be no dichotomy of faiths within the True Church.
Our obligation therefore, since faith without works is dead [James 2:26], is to "earnestly contend for the faith that was once [and for all] delivered unto the saints [Jude 1:3]," We are to...
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 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 4:2-4
If we fail in this, and the Lord tarries another generation, we will lose the next generation to Spiritism, and New Age lies. We must fight the future the enemy wants to give us. We must stand in the gap... We Must! Or we lose it all. And in the midst of our fight we must proclaim the truth of God and the Gospel. Furthermore, if we allow these false congregations to continue to condone and celebrate the abomination of homosexuality, many of those caught in that abomination-- and even one is too many! --will stumble across the threshold of eternity without the blood of Christ coving their sin.
Their blood will be required at OUR hand.
When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
--Ezekiel 3:18
Final Thought:
There is only one way to God, and that is through Jesus. No other religion or faith will gain its adherents entrance into God's glory. One common New Age lie is that any man who earnest seeks God, even within the confines of his own pagan religion, will find forgiveness for their sin, and gain entrance to Heaven. But as I said, this is a lie. And a lie that many so-called "Christians" propagate.
No man, in any religious faith, who earnestly seeks the true God of the Universe, will ever die in his sin without God sending someone, somehow, some way, to give that man the truth. A missionary. A television broadcast, a radio broadcast, a book, a gospel tract, something. Just as the Lord sent Philip to talk to the Ethiopian eunuch, so too will God send someone to the man who genuinely seeks Him. Because there is no other name given under heaven by which men must be saved. No other name but Jesus. Not Buddha, not Mohammad, not Vishnu... no other name but Jesus.
If... thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.He is your God whether you know Him as such or not.
--Deuteronomy 4:29
I love them that love me; and those that seek me early shall find me.
--Proverbs 8:17
And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.
--Jeremiah 29:13
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
--Matthew 7:7
God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; and hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: for in him we live, and move, and have our being...
--Acts 17:24-28
Seek Him with all your heart and you will find Him.
...Just as an aside, it is interesting to note that you have previously branded 15 of these translations to be "corrupt."
(PM, April 2006)
But you are right, whoever you are. I did brand every translation but one corrupt, and still do. That doesn't mean honest Christians can't disagree on issues that don't touch the Gospel and the clear prohibitions CLEARLY defined and delineated in scripture.
Just so you know. I won't address or entertain here, the material in the above two articles, than I already have in my last comment.
So very true. And I don't argue against it. What I do argue against is the Church's sanction and acceptance of it as "blessed by God," because it clearly is not. But in America there is this curious phrase in one of our founding documents that speaks of 'inalienable rights.' Things like, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. They have a right to choose an inconvenient lifestyle. And if they want to be able to share their lives to the extent of worldly possessions and "Call ____ in Case of Emergency" situations, fine-- Civilly speaking. But that doesn't mean the Church is to accept their choice as sanctioned by God.
...
Make them feel guilty? I can't do that. Only the Holy Spirit can speak to their consciences. If they feel guilty it is none of my doing.
That "some" would argue as much as "some" have in defense of this abomination, who hearing the truth of God in relation to this sin and rejecting it, it becomes clear that they cannot endure sound doctrine.
Are you saying that any church or Christian that gets it "wrong" on one sin is heretical and leading people to hell?
Or is homosexuality a special case?
You seem to go back and forth on this point, Eric. I thought earlier you indicated that you acknowledged that, Yes, sometimes we will be wrong and that being wrong is not a matter of heresy or a block to salvation.
Here today, you seem to be saying that if you are wrong - at least about this case of homosexuality (which, as Ben notes, you seem to be fixated upon) - then you are hellbound and the church that is wrong on this "sin" is heretical.
Which is it?
Are we saved by grace or by having a perfect knowledge of every sin?
How about driving over the speed limit - driving 70 mph on the highway when the speed limit is only 55, or driving 50 in a neighborhood where the speed limit is 25?
How about copying songs for a CD without paying for them? How about lying to a panhandler who asks you for money?
How about supporting an unjust war or even being silent and not actively opposing an unjust war that your country is waging? Sinful?
Are any of these actions a sin, in your opinion?
Any pastor, however, is supposed to be both knowledgeable of the Scriptures, and led of the Spirit. Furthermore, the guiding of the Spirit will never contradict the scriptures.
In answer to your questions:
Yes, any church or Christian that gets it "wrong" on one sin is heretical and has the potential of leading people to hell. All sin, any sin, even one sin will lead an unrepentant soul to hell. And also, any deviation, deliberate or otherwise, that changes the Gospel, or introduces changes in thought to clear scripture is heresy.
A man who drives 60mph in a 30mph zone is guilty of speeding whether he's seen or knows the posted limit of not.
We are saved by Grace, but heresy can lead a Church to teach evil in the name of good, doing more harm than good.
Lying to panhandlers? Yes
Speeding? Yes
And I'm guilty on all three counts. Most everyone is, though that's no excuse.
So, if your church, your pastor, you are mistaken about a sin, you are heretical?
Where's the grace in that?
So, if you think smoking marijuana is a sin (although the Bible does not identify it as such) and it turns out you were wrong, are you heretical?
What if you thought supporting the Hiroshima bombing was a good thing (as most churches today appear to think) and it turns out that "hands that shed innocent blood" is an abomination to God, as the proverb notes, are all of those churches heretical?
Do you fail to see the problem with your stance? No human - no human-based institution IS GOING TO BE RIGHT ON EVERY POINT. We're not perfect, that way. And so, to suggest that those who are mistaken are heretics, then you've just pronounced the whole of Christianity heretics. Eric included.
Is that what you think?
I know it is up to Eric, because this is his site, I'm just speaking for myself. I have plenty of praying to do about myself, so may you find true peace Dan. Mom2
I suppose Dan thinks he knows the will of God better than Paul did.
Aren't we saved by Grace? Isn't that the point - that we DON'T get it right all the time and that is why we need God's grace?
Since you all share my concern for striving to get Christian teaching right, isn't important for us to clarify this point together?
Are we saved by God's Grace or must we be able to perfectly discern each and every sin?
Or, conversely, if there is someone who is teaching the heretical point that we must be perfect in our knowledge of all sin and this teaching is driving people away from an impossible-to-please God, is that not a concern?
But Eric just said:
What then does it say about a church who condones homosexuality, gives it positions of trust and authority within its body, and performs ceremonies to affirm it-- ceremonies that reject God's holy ideal? They have departed from the faith. They worship the creation rather than the Creator...
In the very strictest of senses, they are heretics...
Yes, any church or Christian that gets it "wrong" on one sin is heretical...
Eric seems to be advocating a salvation of works which DOES cheapen grace - it gets rid of it altogether!
Eric allows that "Honest Christians can disagree about many things that do not touch the simple Gospel of 1 Corinthians 15:1-8" and yet in the same post he disallows disagreement.
Can we or can we not disagree?
I am saying it is ridiculous to say that we can't disagree on individual sins. There is not, I am willing to bet, within you who agree or within Eric's own church a full agreement on every sin. And this divisive nature would say, "IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME on THIS sin, then you are a heretic!" It is not of God, nor is it logical.
And so I am striving to get to what Eric truly believes because he says first one thing and then the opposite. Can we disagree about individual sins and not be heretics or not?
Surely you others here will agree with me that YES, we can disagree on individual sins and not consider one another heretics merely because we disagree.
Otherwise, it would seem to me you're advocating a hellish and bitter world where we must always be at one another's throats over one heretical cause or another.
I am relatively certain that each and every one of you agree with me on this (as it is basic orthodox Christianity) but for some reason you seem to want to cling to the ability to reject those who disagree with you on at least some sins, the "really bad ones..."
A heretic is defined as one who adheres to a doctrine contrary to the word of God, and teaches to others his or her heresy.
Plenty of people "get it wrong" on occasion. The difference between these and heretics is a matter of repentance: Do the "get it wrong" people, when they discover their mistake, repent? If so, no harm, no foul, Grace can cover a mulitude of sins. If not, if they willfully declare in their hearts that they will continue in their "wrong" stance whatever God's word, and teach others their "wrong" stance... what else should we call such folk but heretics?
You posted a flier at your place inviting people in your area to come and hear a lecture series (or some similar such) on gay marriage. Knowing your own stance on the issue, as well as Jeff Street's, I know that whoever sits in on this seminar will hear an artful, albeit heretical, defense of gay marriage.
I have no personal animosity toward you or your fellow congregants. What I DO have a problem with is the heresy that's being taught there in God's name, when God has clearly and expressly condemned the act of homosexuality in ALL instances, conditions, and circumstances.
Your recent defense of gay marriage has been laughable, and no defense at all. Your preference for 'sleight of hand' rhetoric has served you poorly in this debate.
Now, Ben has asked why I keep dredging up this issue when the only person disagreeing with me is you. The answer is simple: I wrote initially about the California Supreme Court's decision to allow gay-marriage which is a clear violation of God's law. You chose to defend it as Biblical... not on its civil merits.
As a Christian-- and a poor one at that --I have to counter the lie that homosexuality is acceptable in God's sight if it occurs within the confines of a loving, monogamous, GAY marriage.
THAT's what I'm doing with this recent spate of posts. As far as I'm concerned this issue is not even close to tapped. Besides which some may be reading and getting their consciences pricked. If I don't speak out against heresy, I allow the Gospel of Christ to be besmirched. Would I allow my wife to be slapped and abused in public? Absolutely not! Why then would I allow my LORD to be slapped and His word abused in public?
To remain silent in the face of false doctrine is to condone said doctrine by proxy. And I can't do that.
Do you understand, then Eric, that we have not "discovered our mistake" and therefore do not know to repent?
Do you understand that when Eric or Mom2 fully and in good conscience supports a sin (say, for instance, bombing Hiroshima or opposing gay marriage) that they do not repent because they have not discovered their mistake? Therefore, unless you believe that we are held accountable for our ignorance, ought we call them heretics because they are merely mistaken?
I'm not asking you to be silent in the face of a group or individual who are mistaken about a sin, I'm asking that you do it as one Christian to another, for that is what we are.
You can not point to a single orthodox doctrine that our church is not fairly normative upon. We believe in salvation through God's Grace through faith in Jesus who is the Son of God who lived and died and rose again. We believe in the basic tenets of Christianity. As do you.
We disagree about an individual sin. Disagreeing about a sin is not what makes one a heretic. Although some sins are so egregious (killing children, for instance) that it is hard to imagine folk in good conscience advocating that as Christians.
Nonetheless, disagreeing about individual sins is not what makes one a heretic - rejecting God's grace and the basics of Christianity, that is more fundamentally what heresy is.
And so I still wonder: Can one disagree with Eric on a given sin and not be a heretic? Ought I consider Eric a heretic because he disagrees with me no what I think are some painfully obvious Christian ethics?
"[It] doesn't mean honest Christians can't disagree on issues that don't touch the Gospel and the clear prohibitions CLEARLY defined and delineated in scripture."
Leviticus 18:22 says... THOU SHALT NOT..." There's no way to honestly parse that, and it is therefore a clear prohibition against a specific brand of sexual activity.
We, the two of us, CAN honestly disagree on a host of issues, but not this.
Moreover, I am not saying, nor HAVE I said, that you or anyone in my own church family has to agree with me on every little sin or be branded a heretic. That's how YOU have construed and parsed my word and meaning.
As to Grace... Grace simply means that a sinner need not stand before God to have his works judged by the Law; a prospect that should frighten EVERY sinner, because no one could survive that trial and NOT be found guilty. The only people who HAVE grace are those who have accepted the LORD Jesus Christ: His Death, His Burial, His Resurrection, with the understanding that it is because of these three imperatives that Grace is even possible. The baby Christian need not understand all this to BE saved, but it is something he comes to learn as he walks in the spirit.
Churches teach false doctrine every day... to my mind... but some of this doctrine doesn't touch the Gospel or clearly defined and delineated doctrine. OSAS, for instance. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans in terms of Salvation or Grace whether or not a person believes they can lose their salvation. It makes their lives more fraught with anxiety and frustration... more of these types seem to live perpetually defeated lives. But when you talk about there being many paths to heaven, those 're fightin' words!
Every Christian has a divine obligation to study the Bible and learn the mechanics of Salvation and Grace so that they too can go out and teach the Gospel to the lost. It is not a Works Salvation, it is our reasonable service... presenting ourselves a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God. Part and parcel with our "Living Sacrifice" is doing the Father's will. Which is to spread the Gospel. And while few of us are called to be Pastors and Leaders in the Church, we are ALL called to be Disciples.
No, Dan. That is simply foolish.
Heresy implies more than simply rejecting the Gospel. The lost do that, but it doesn't make them heretics... only fools. To be a heretic is to depart from one's faith and teach doctrine contrary to said faith.
Teaching that homosexuality is blessed of God within the confines of marriage is heretical, and entirely contrary to the ORTHODOX teaching of the Church. You have said gays and lesbians hold positions as Deacon and Sunday School teacher at Jeff Street, in effect teaching and spreading to the body at large the heresy that homosexuality is blessed by God.
If this is the ONLY matter about which Jeff Street is wrong, Jeff Street is still and remains heretical. You, as Jeff Street's representative here online have failed to prove to any orthodox Christian anywhere outside your own place that homosexuality is anything other than the abomination scripture says it is. Your argument supporting gay marriage has no biblical support. None whatsoever. WHEREAS Leviticus 18:22 alone unequivocally rejects gay marriage.
How do you deal with that inconvenient Scripture? Apparently you reject it and teach the opposite. Ergo, heresy.
Could you please provide, then, a list of sins about which I MUST agree with Eric in order to be saved? AND the Biblical reasoning to support such a position?
After all, if there are honestly a host of sins out there that are unforgivable sins, then you'd be doing me a favor by providing the list and the Biblical reasoning to support such an unorthodox view.
Does that mean, then, that I ALSO ought to be calling you and your group of believers heretics if you cross that line (targeting children for death, for instance)?
Says you.
Dan is saved by God's Grace through faith in Jesus. I have asked for forgiveness of sins and committed my life to Jesus. I am born-again.
And yet, according to Eric, not only must I ask for forgiveness of my known sins, I must also ask for forgiveness of sins that I don't know about.
According to Eric, then, we are all lost. For none of us perfectly know God's will.
Salvation by works. Heresy, according to some.
I find it interesting that in order to maintain human tradition and condemn heresy, you are pushing the line at that very thing you condemn. And apparently without knowing it.
Which, according to you, means you're a heretic.
Do you not see how your argument lacks even internal logic?
If I'm not misremembering, you actually agree with me about Hiroshima - that to target and bomb a civilian site for a nuclear holocaust was wrong. Sinful. Evil.
Isn't that correct? You think it was wrong?
And I wonder why you think it is wrong - is it because it was a sinful act, or was it just tactically incorrect in your opinion?
Assuming you agree with me and agree that targeting children and civilians for mass slaughter is wrong - a sin ("These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him... hands that shed innocent blood" - pretty clear) - then if you think that all the churches and Christians out there teaching that it was a good thing, if you think they are heretics, too?
If not, why are we a heretical church for disagreeing with you about gay marriage (in which no one is harmed and it's really an individual issue) but these other churches are not heretical when they disagree with you about mass slaughter (in which tens of thousands of innocents and children were slaughtered horribly)?
You seem to fixate on this one particular sin for some reason. Is the BIBLICAL LIST OF UNFORGIVABLE SINS only one item long?
But please, continue with whatever point you're trying to make.
Is this what you're saying or have I misunderstood you:
Dan is saved by God's Grace through faith in Jesus. I have asked for forgiveness of sins and committed my life to Jesus. I am born-again.
And yet, according to Eric, not only must I ask for forgiveness of my known sins, I must also ask for forgiveness of sins that I don't know about.
"Involuntary, or unknown sin, is not excluded in the life of the one who is entirely sanctified. Thus, no one has reached sinless perfection."
Jay Rogers, talking about John Wesley's views here
I do see here that this writer believes that the "Holiness Movement" is different from other evangelicals (and consistent internal logic) in that they don't believe in the concept of "unknown sin."
I can see that in the Church of God's and Church of Christ's of which I'm aware. But I was a part of a Nazarene church for several years and I'm not sure that is true for them. Nor am I sure that it is true for Methodists.
I will investigate that some more. Is this the case for you? You don't believe in the possibility of unknown sins in one's life?
I can't speak for elashley, but I don't use religious reasoning to oppose oxymoronic "same sex marriages" (although no Christian should support them).
Those unions do not by nature or design produce the next generation, and they can NEVER provide a mother and a father to a child. Never.
Also, they don't create a slippery slope to polygamy, incestuous marriages and bestiality, they create a cliff by which we have redefined marriage to mean whatever a group lobbies it to be.
"Civicaly gay men and women should be encouraged to establish stable monogamous relationships."
Now you are the one who appears to be using religious reasoning. Why should the state get involved in the sex lives of people? How much "encouragement" do you want the gov't to use? Do you want laws passed against fornication and adultery?
Gays can have as stable and monogamous relationships as they like, right now.
Would it be acceptable in that case?
Dan's really good at propping up straw men and knocking them down. He's also pretty good at throwing in the occasional red herring. He's not very good at providing convincing arguments on the merits of the ideas being discussed though.
The plain fact is, that heresy is heresy, and that the deliberate spreading of heresy is a sin and a particularly abominable one. The plain fact is that homosexuality is sin.
Dan's arguments don't change that. Eric's post has nothing to do with the merits of using nuclear weapons, or the morality of participating in a war, just or unjust. These are simply red herrings that seek to divert the focus of the argument. They open up side issues that distract from the main point.
Yes, from a purely secular viewpoint, offering people, whether homosexual or not the opportunity to solemnize a monogamous relationship is a good thing for society. Our Constitution doesn't allow law to be based upon a particular religious viewpoint, and so the fact that Christianity views homosexuality as a sin is not a sufficient reason to ban gay marriage. There are plenty of reasons to do so on a secular basis though.
You can begin with the psychological impact upon children raised with homosexual parents. You can consider that the very nature of homosexual activity doesn't exactly lend itself to monogamy and faithfulness to one's partner in the first place. There are any number of secular arguments for and against gay marriage. In my opinion there are more that argue against it than for it.
There is not, however, a single Christian argument in favor of gay marriage. Not one. Based upon the clear fact that homosexuality is a sin separate from fornication and one particularly noted in scripture as an abomination, the idea that God somehow looks upon gay marriage as a mitigation of homosexuality is heretical.
Teaching otherwise is spreading heresy. It seems to me that that's what Eric has been trying to say for some time now.
Eric isn't preaching a works based salvation either. Our salvation isn't dependent upon our works, but upon the grace given by God and the sacrifice of His Son for us. When Christ forgave people he also enjoined them to "go and sin no more". Our salvation isn't true salvation without repentance of sins.
As for unforgivable sins, only one is mentioned in the Bible that I am aware of. It's not homosexuality, murder, or any of the "six things that God hates". Others who have studied the word of God longer than I might be able to produce more, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only one that I can recall. The Holy Spirit convicts us of sin and calls upon us to repent our sins. If the Holy Spirit leads you to the truth and you refuse to accept the truth, then there's not much hope for you.
If you'd like to make a secular argument, you'd have to provide actual evidence. I believe the studies don't support your opinion.
I don't believe there to be any legitimate secular reasons to ban gay marriage. But I'm glad to hear that you don't think we ought to implement religious rules nationally.
Other than that it is an oxymoron to begin with, plus the fact that it would have to exist first to ban it. That is just another disingenuous lefty argument that pretends something is being taken away from gays.
But wait, your apostate church will probably give them their oxymoronic "marriage," right? So how are they banned?
The gov't just has no reason to recognize them, because they can never provide a mother and a father to a child. Oh, and who the heck are you to deny marriage to incestuous couples, polygamists and animals? What a Pharisee. Jesus didn't specifically say those were sins, so they must be OK.
Try and explain why the sex of his partner is completely paramount to a gay but the sex of one's parents is completely irrelevant. Your "gay marriage" and gay parenting arguments are sinful and wrong on biblical and secular grounds, and they are contradictory as well.
Moving on...
The issue here isn't unforgivable sins. It isn't Hiroshima either. And it's not an individual's failure to be conversant with every sin under the sun.
What's at issue is a church's corporate excusal of what God has called an abomination. What's at issue is a church's leader's method of rationalization.
I'm not arguing any one individual's salvation, least of all your's, Dan. Can a saved person be led into heresy? I think the Bible says as much. I do believe however that those who are daily in the word; hiding it in their hearts, and daily in thoughtful, heartfelt, and considered prayer are rarely, if ever, led astray.
What this says about the pastor of ANY church who has led his flock astray I leave to others-- my position is fairly clear in this respect.
Since this nation is not directed by the tenets of any religion-- as Perry pointed out --civil unions are certainly an option for homosexuals. I have no qualms with it other than what my faith teaches me about the practice.
But civil acceptance does not, nor should not, equate religious acceptance. The Bible clearly rejects homosexuality. Having said that, NO church should ever turn away homosexuals from attending services, but membership should be incumbent upon salvation and observable repentance. Homosexuals who claim a genuine salvation experience will be led by the Spirit to exit their lifestyle. God pulls us out of the cesspool, washes us clean, and puts our feet on a righteous path. Someone who continues in the homosexual lifestyle after their "experience" is still in the cesspool.
And Churches that condone this behavior... celebrate it... teach it as blessed of God... such a church is not walking in the truth.
1. "Heresy" is not a biblical term.
2. Heresy means: "a dislocation of some complete and self-supporting system of belief, especially a religion, by the introduction of a novel denial of some essential part therein."
In the Catholic church, it is "the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church."
3. You are defining down "heresy" to "Disagreeing with me on any sin that I think it is important to be opposed to."
4. Historically, the charge of heresy has been mostly used to demonize a group with which the more powerful religious establishments have used right before they start burning the heretics at the stake and drowning them.
Coming from a faith tradition and a family thusly oppressed and falsely charged with heresy (before being executed) in my anabaptist and huguenot roots, I am especially aware of how the dominant religious powers have misused the idea in an effort to marginalize and kill off (in the past, quite literally) minority voices. It is with this awareness that I rebuke the light use of this term.
6. You DISAGREE with my church (and I with yours) about a particular sin. Our disagreement does not rise to the level of heretical beliefs and we'd do well to disagree as a family, with love, rather than resort to the demonization route in which fundamentalists (among others) have tended to engage. We have a point of DISAGREEMENT, not a point of heresy. Tread lightly brother.
Peace.
You can begin with the psychological impact upon children raised with homosexual parents. You can consider that the very nature of homosexual activity doesn't exactly lend itself to monogamy and faithfulness to one's partner in the first place.
Again, I'm glad that she agrees we ought not implement laws purely because "the Bible tells some of us so." In a secular society - or even a society with mixed faith traditions, we don't want gov't implementing religious doctrine! What a horrifying and scary thought.
But then Perri went on and made the above statements. This approach is a concern for many.
IT SEEMS that because she is convinced that homosexuality is wrong, she is equally convinced that "Gay parents = bad," and "gay couples = unfaithful."
The problem is that reality does not match her preconceived notions. I'm sure she didn't mean to slander a whole group of people, but she has, in fact.
First, studies show that kids are not harmed by gay parents, as you can read here.
Secondly, to say "the very nature of homosexual activity doesn't exactly lend itself to monogamy and faithfulness..." is a statement that sounds like it is based on ignorance (again, no offense, I just mean simply not knowing any better.) What about "the very nature of homosexuality" is different than the very nature of heterosexuality? What is this statement based upon? Stereotypes of gay orgies and partner hopping?
And to the extent that such behavior happens (less than in the fevered imagination of some, but too often, nonetheless), is that not an argument in FAVOR of supporting monogamy for everyone?
Dan's really good at propping up straw men and knocking them down.
If I have propped up a straw man argument, feel free to point it out and I can immediately apologize and correct myself. In reality, you won't point it out because in reality I haven't offered one.
So, when we see that you do NOT point to any straw man arguments from me, then the Christian and responsible thing would be to say, "I'm sorry for mischaracterizing your position."
I'm also doubtful that this apology will be forthcoming.
Here we have the obvious and biblically evident sins of slander, bearing false witness, rumor-mongering, hypocrisy etc being winked at and ignored while you all are spending preponderous amounts of time and energy pursuing a non-existent sin. Do you not recognize the irony?
But wait, your apostate church will probably give them their oxymoronic "marriage," right? So how are they banned?
Ummm, legally? In that gay spouses don't have the legal rights and opportunities afforded to straight spouses.
"A report from the federal government’s General Accounting Office lists more than 1,138 legal and financial protections granted to opposite-sex couples but denied to same-sex couples."
Yes, legally, that's how they're banned.
The gov't just has no reason to recognize them, because they can never provide a mother and a father to a child.
Neil, sometimes you seem like a reasonable fellow. But the above argument is just offensive, morally misguided and asinine.
The gov't has NO REASON to recognize a marriage unless that marriage can bear children?
Are you daft?
1. Gay marriages often have children, either through the Godly and wonderful gift of adoption or other means.
2. There are more reasons than having children to get married. Indeed, in an over-populated world full of orphans in need of homes, it is increasingly a great moral good to have marriages without children or with adopted children.
3. It is offensive in the extreme to suggest that childless marriages are unnecessary and invalid. Shame on you.
4. If you want to believe in your church the sin of opposing gay marriage, that is your business. BUT, if you have no legitimate civil reasons for opposing gay marriage (and you have offered none), then keep your religion out of our bedrooms.
Could Paul have been directly referring to the sin of hoimosexuality by using this word? Would God sanctify, or even condone the kind of behavior that would cause this kind of physical damage to oneself?
If God is not willing that any should perish, how much more would he be not willing that any would have to wear diapers because they have caused permanent physical damage to themselves through homosexual acts that have already been declared abominable by the Creator of the Universe?
There were physical common sense reasons for the rules set down in Leviticus. The reason they were told not to handle or eat pork and shrimp etc, was the same reason they were told not to penetrate each other's rectums with penises. Irrepairable physical damage and even death resulted from those behaviors then. Now, we have learned how to process and cook pork and shrimp, etc, but the ramifications (Pun not intended) of homosexual behavior are not only still physically harmful, they are now deadly, like AIDS, the various new strains of different STD's etc.
God knew these ramifications then, and He predicted them accurately.
Notice in Acts 10: 11-13: 11He(Peter) saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."
He was referring to the old prohibitions against eating unclean food. And comparing them with the old Jewish prohibitions against fraternizing to Gentiles.
He wasn't saying homosexual behavior is now considered clean. God has never changed the rules referring to homosexuality. If He had, there would be no such thing as AIDS.
The only entity that can change God's rules is God Himself. He has the advantage of forethought. No one else does.
This term is translated "without self-control" in other translations.
If you want to believe in your church the sin of opposing gay marriage, that is your business. BUT, if you have no legitimate civil reasons for opposing gay marriage (and you have offered none), then keep your religion out of our bedrooms.
The issue has nothing to do with our bedrooms. The issue is not whether homosexual intercourse between/among consenting adults should be legal -- it is, and most of us agree it should be even though we believe the behavior's immoral -- but whether that behavior should be officially condoned by the government by redefining the legal definition of marriage to include homosexual relationships.
We're not discussing what's legally permissible in the privacy of one's home, but what's officially sanctioned in the public square. It's not "the bedroom" we're discussing, but the courthouse.
Therefore, while appeals to the sanctity of the bedroom are emotionally satisfying, they are fundamentally dishonest.
In fact, I believe that such appeals are quintessential straw-man arguments.
Regarding the charge of your engaging in straw-man tactics, it's not that we ignore and wink at "the obvious and biblically evident sins of slander, bearing false witness, rumor-mongering, hypocrisy etc."
It's that we think the charge is accurate, and this bit of rhetoric about bedrooms is excellent evidence of it.
(Another very recent example is your "shame-on-you" criticism of Neil, saying that he argues that "childless marriages are unnecessary and invalid." I believe he has done no such thing, and I doubt you can point to clear evidence to the contrary.)
Having engaged in straw-man argumentation, Dan, the Christian and responsible thing would be to say, "I'm sorry for mischaracterizing your position."
It's not you who is owed an apology.
More disingenuousness. Your heretical view of the Bible is the larger issue. Authentic Christians agree with what Jesus clearly said about the OT and you disagree with it.
"In that gay spouses don't have the legal rights and opportunities afforded to straight spouses."
That is a lie. They can marry someone of the opposite sex if they want to.
"Neil, sometimes you seem like a reasonable fellow. But the above argument is just offensive, morally misguided and asinine."
Please elaborate. Explain to me why pointing out how two gays (or two lesbians) can't provide a mother AND a father to a child is offensive, morally misguided or asinine. It seems rather obvious to me. Then again, truth sounds like hate to those who hate the truth.
""The gov't has NO REASON to recognize a marriage unless that marriage can bear children?"
Are you daft?"
Wow, Dan, you are being even more deceptive than usual today. That "quote" is nowhere to be found on this site. You posted a false quote and acted is if someone actually said it word for word, then asked if I (or someone else?) was daft. Cute double play: A blatant, easily identifiable straw man with an ad hom attack to boot.
Just use ctrl-C to copy and ctrl-V to paste if you want to quote me.
Here's what I really said: "The gov't just has no reason to recognize them, because they can never provide a mother and a father to a child. Oh, and who the heck are you to deny marriage to incestuous couples, polygamists and animals? What a Pharisee. Jesus didn't specifically say those were sins, so they must be OK."
I noticed how you didn't respond to the rest of the quotes.
Maybe you'll just repeat your deceptive logical fallacy about how Jesus never addressed "same sex marriage." Yes, but He also never addressed square circles, in part because they don't exist!
"the sin of opposing gay marriage,"
Where did Jesus say that was a sin?
"BUT, if you have no legitimate civil reasons for opposing gay marriage (and you have offered none)"
I offered several, and you ignored them. Then you created straw men and attacked those.
"The gov't has NO REASON to recognize a marriage unless that marriage can bear children?"
Where Neil had said:
"The gov't just has no reason to recognize them, because they can never provide a mother and a father to a child.
Neil said, "THE GOV'T JUST HAS NO REASON TO RECOGNIZE THEM..."
Them who? Gay marriages, right? Is that not what you were saying?
Neil continued, "BECAUSE THEY CAN NEVER PROVIDE A MOTHER OR FATHER TO A CHILD"
Fair enough. Here, I paraphrased and perhaps inaccurately. Neil's point, I believe, was that they can't provide a certain role. That of mother or father.
My apologies. There was no intent WHATSOEVER to misstate Neil and accusations to the contrary or an out and out lie. If I mis-wrote, it was an honest mistake and I apologize here and now for the mistake (which is something most of you never do, I might note).
And so, I restate it:
The gov't has NO REASON to recognize a marriage because they can't be a mother or father?!!
Are you daft?!
What of all the families out there that aren't made up of parents? Should elderly folk never legally marry because they can't bear children? Should the infertile not be able to legally marry because they can't be a mother or father?
MY POINT - which you all went on to demonize and twist - was that it is WRONG to say that the only reason gov't has for sanctioning marriages and giving benefits and rights to married folk is so they can be parents.
That is a deviant message and an ugly one. Shame on you.
I'll entertain apologies for your misrepresentation of my postion and for your lies (I'm sure unintentional) about me.
If you want to argue that the gov't has no business getting involved in the marriage business and giving benefits and rights to certain groups that it denies other groups, then you might have some ground on which to stand.
As it is, you're suggesting (correct me if I'm wrong) that gov't OUGHT to give rights and benefits to straight people who wed but deny them to gay folk.
The only reason for doing so is religious prejudice.
I repeat: Keep your gov't out of the bedrooms - which is a legitimate point, because they are selectively "looking into people's bedrooms" (metaphorically speaking) and saying, "Oooh, yeah! That's a man and a woman getting it on. Let's sanction their union and give them legal rights and tax breaks."
BUT then looking into another bedroom and saying, "Ewww! that's a man and a man getting it one. That's just yucky and against my religious values! We won't sanction that union. In fact, we may help to demonize and marginalize such behavior. We won't allow them to adopt children, for instance. NOT because of any studies supporting such a behavior but because a man and a man being together is just yucky!"
Keep your gov't out of our bedrooms.
Whatever happened to real conservatives?
Yes. I sort of accept your sort of apology.
"The gov't has NO REASON to recognize a marriage because they can't be a mother or father?!!
Are you daft?!
What of all the families out there that aren't made up of parents? Should elderly folk never legally marry because they can't bear children? Should the infertile not be able to legally marry because they can't be a mother or father?"
More straw. Infertile couples could provide mothers and fathers to adopted children. Grandparents could as well.
Gay couples NEVER can, so why encourage that?
And again, try and explain why the sex of his partner is completely paramount to a gay but the sex of one's parents is completely irrelevant. Your "gay marriage" and gay parenting arguments are sinful and wrong on biblical and secular grounds, and they are contradictory as well.
"I'll entertain apologies for your misrepresentation of my postion and for your lies (I'm sure unintentional) about me."
You are the only one I've seen who clearly and repeatedly lies here. If anyone misunderstands your arguments it might just be because in your disingenuousness you contradict yourself and are deliberately confusing, such as saying how much you love the Bible, it is God's word, etc. then attacking it and disagreeing with Jesus' view of it in virtually every thread.
Also, no matter how many times you are corrected about logical fallacies such as arguing from silence, you keep repeating them. It is bad that you are unteachable and worse that you spread your untruths so aggressively.
What a joke. You are the one saying they should get involved in the bedrooms. No one is stopping gays from loving each other and living monogamously. So why should the gov't be involved in their relationships?
I assume you use the same reasoning when you oppose Planned Parenthood and the like teaching sex education in schools? After all, if that isn't gov't involvement in the bedroom I don't know what is.
Again, if you want to make the case that gov't ought not be in the marriage-sanctioning business at all, then you might have a point that is non-hypocritical. But you are saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that gov't ought to sanction and give special rights to what happens in THESE bedrooms but not in THOSE bedrooms.
These days, I'm leaning more towards thinking gov't shouldn't be in the marriage licensing business at all. BUT, if they are and if they're going to give special rights to law-abiding heterosexuals, then they ought to give those same rights to law-abiding homosexuals.
If we're not starting with the religious assumption that gay=bad, then why wouldn't we?
Yes, you are wrong. I have no idea where you make these things up. Gays don't produce kids together in any bedrooms.
By nature and design, heterosexual couples produce the next generation. Even the kids that gay couples have came from unions of male sperm and female eggs.
And gay couples can never provide a mother and a father. You want to argue by exceptions.
And of course, your argument proves way too much. You have no reason to deny recognition of polygamy, incestuous couples or bestiality.
"If we're not starting with the religious assumption that gay=bad, then why wouldn't we?"
You're the one who keeps bringing religion into this. It is another one of your straw man / ad homs designed to make us look like we're forcing our views on others.
For the 3rd time, try and explain why the sex of his partner is completely paramount to a gay but the sex of one's parents is completely irrelevant. Your "gay marriage" and gay parenting arguments are sinful and wrong on biblical and secular grounds, and they are contradictory as well.
I've looked and all I can find is...
Those unions do not by nature or design produce the next generation, and they can NEVER provide a mother and a father to a child. Never.
Also, they don't create a slippery slope to polygamy, incestuous marriages and bestiality, they create a cliff by which we have redefined marriage to mean whatever a group lobbies it to be.
So it appears Neil is saying that there are two non-religious reasons for not allowing gay marriage.
I'll attempt a summary, but clarify me if I get it wrong:
1. Because, in Neil's words, "Those unions do not by nature or design produce the next generation," [without adoption, I'll note -Dan] they ought not be allowed.
2. Because "they can NEVER provide a mother and a father to a child," they ought not be allowed [and I suspect that the point here is that they can't provide a MALE parent and a FEMALE parent for children]
3. Because some might say, "If we allow state-sanctioned gay marriages, then we have to allow people to marry goats," gay marriage ought not be allowed. [and here, I summarized Neil's position, correct me if I'm wrong]
=====
Fair enough, Neil has offered THREE (as far as I can see) non-religious reasons for opposing gay marriage.
I suppose I should have clarified and said that I was looking for non-religious/civic-based reasons THAT MADE SOME LOGICAL SENSE.
I mean, if we're going to stick to nonsense answers, then I could add that...
4. We ought not allow gay marriage because then all the children of gays will have better fashion sense than other children, giving them an unfair advantage...
Gee, nice trump card. How can we argue with that? We just forgot to use it first.
The reasons I gave make sense now, they made sense for hundreds and even thousands of years and for any Christians they made sense to Jesus.
Oh, and you forgot one: By DEFINITION marriage is between a man and a woman. If you are going to determine what qualifies wouldn't you look to the definition first? You, of course, want to change the definition to "a union of whatever we want it to be."
For the 4rd time, try and explain why the sex of his partner is completely paramount to a gay but the sex of one's parents is completely irrelevant. Your "gay marriage" and gay parenting arguments are sinful and wrong on biblical and secular grounds, and they are contradictory as well.
By his reasoning (his first two reasons), the only marriages that the state ought to sanction are the ones with the potential for producing children. But says who? Why would we limit marriage to just the fertile? Who says "produc[-ing] the next generation" is the sole reason for marriage?
What if two people want to get married and not have children? Ought they not be allowed to wed?
As for your slippery slope reason, yes, some people COULD say, "IF you allow gay marriage, then on what basis would we disallow bestiality?"
But the thing about slippery slope arguments is that most slopes are slippery. "IF we're going to allow the state to sanction marriage at all, then why can't I marry my puppy?" That straight marriage is a slippery slope.
The question is, is there a reason to think that going from straight marriage to gay marriage makes the slope any slippier. I see no reason why this should be the case.
We can and do outlaw behaviors that society has deemed (hopefully with some reason) negative - usually because it hurts someone without their consent.
And so, we can outlaw bestiality because it inflicts damage upon an unwilling creature. Similarly for pederasty - we have decided that children ought not be subject to sexual advances from adults, and rightly so. And so, those are quite unique and different instances than two lesbian or gay adults wanting to get married.
No slippery slope whatsoever.
And no legitimate civic-based reasons for not allowing gay marriage.
And by DEFINITION, "free man" legally meant white landed males at one time. Not anymore.
Sometimes, definitions adapt for good reasons.
You have offered no legitimate non-religious reasons for opposing gay marriage.
I'll answer your obvious question before you ask it, Dan: Because homosexuals wil teach the children that homosexuality is normal and natural, and that is a lie. Raising children on lies is child abuse.
For the 4rd time, try and explain why the sex of his partner is completely paramount to a gay but the sex of one's parents is completely irrelevant.
I'll have to admit that I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.
Are you asking WHY is it important for a gay man that his partner be a male? For the same reason that for a straight man his partner be a female.
What does that have to do with parenting?
I believe that studies have shown that having male and female role models is important for children. Studies have shown that having two parents in a solid relationship is important. I don't disagree with that.
But studies have also shown that children of gay parents do just fine, thank you.
What are you talking about?
Can you go one comment without a distortion? I explicitly said that the unions are already allowed. Apostate churches like yours will even "marry" them. But the gov't has no need to recognize them.
"Because some might say, "If we allow state-sanctioned gay marriages, then we have to allow people to marry goats," gay marriage ought not be allowed. [and here, I summarized Neil's position, correct me if I'm wrong]"
Wrong again, because you used the least likely - though still possible - consequence. Isn't it interesting that you ignored polygamy and incest? Please share your bullet-proof reason why people in any of those 3 categories wouldn't have legitimate reasons to claim marriage benefits if you grant them to gays.
Heck, the polygamists should be the first in line, since they at least have a male and a female involved.
And it remains the case that marriage licenses clearly doesn't involve breaching the sanctity of the bedroom, because such licenses only endorse particular relationships, they do not forbid other relationships.
I repeat: Keep your gov't out of the bedrooms - which is a legitimate point, because they are selectively "looking into people's bedrooms" (metaphorically speaking) and saying, "Oooh, yeah! That's a man and a woman getting it on. Let's sanction their union and give them legal rights and tax breaks."
BUT then looking into another bedroom and saying, "Ewww! that's a man and a man getting it one. That's just yucky and against my religious values! We won't sanction that union. In fact, we may help to demonize and marginalize such behavior. We won't allow them to adopt children, for instance. NOT because of any studies supporting such a behavior but because a man and a man being together is just yucky!"
Metaphorically, they do no such thing.
A marriage license doesn't involve peering into people's bedrooms, but rather simply announcing which relationships that we as a people officially endorse as normal, healthy, and moral. Those for whom the licenses are issued aren't found by the government's peering into their lives and forcing the license upon them: they willing choose to enter the public square, go to the courthouse, and apply for the license themselves.
The fact is, any meaningful legal definition of marriage is going to exclude somebody: the definition you apparently support would exclude polygamy, and presumably adult incest, zoophilia, and necrophilia.
If the mere act of giving legal marriage a meaningful definition is "selectively 'looking into people's bedrooms' (metaphorically speaking)" to approve some relationships and stigmatize others, then -- logically -- you must support one of only two positions:
- A meaningless legal definition of marriage that is truly universal: anything goes.
- The abolition of marriage as a legal institution.
If you don't take either of these positions, don't invoke the bedroom hypocritically.
As I said, Only God has the right to change His own laws.
By the way, I made that previous comment an entire post over at my God's way/My way blog.
It's the same reason you offer for why we shouldn't let polygamists claim marriage benefits if you grant them to straights.
The slippery slope is no more slippery in that argument whether it's gay or straight marriage you're talking about.
Fine? By who's definition? Homosexuals? Or just by some studies conducted by those who are synmpathetic to the homosexual agenda?
If a child is being taught homosexuality is natural and normal by their "parents", and homosexuals think that is "fine" well....
Other studies conducted by Christian researchers have proven just the opposite.
Are you saying that your studies are more factual than yours? By who's standards?
Heh heh heh, Dan thinks he can prove his dog is bigger than my dog by using biased science.
More deception. I also said that gay unions can never provide a mother and a father.
"Why would we limit marriage to just the fertile?"
Straw man. No one claimed that.
"by DEFINITION, "free man" legally meant white landed males at one time. Not anymore."
Bad example. Free man meant someone who was free. They freed blacks, so they then met the definition. Try again.
"I'll have to admit that I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about."
Your premise is that a gay man MUST have a gay man as a partner - not a butch woman or a woman who thinks she's a man, but a physical gay man - but that the mother and father roles are completely irrelevant to a child. That is what is nonsense.
"You have offered no legitimate non-religious reasons for opposing gay marriage."
And you have offered no legitimate non-religious or religious reasons for supporting the oxymoron that is "same sex marriage." So here we are.
"We can and do outlaw behaviors that society has deemed (hopefully with some reason) negative - usually because it hurts someone without their consent."
But you don't explain why that applies to polygamy, incest or bestiality. Perhaps the dog is consenting. The wives are consenting. The incestuous couple could consent.
"And so, we can outlaw bestiality because it inflicts damage upon an unwilling creature."
BTW, it isn't a slippery slope, it is a cliff. Your reasoning for marriage supports marriages for polygamy, incest and bestiality. Just because those lobbies are not as loud and well funded doesn't mean they couldn't use the same arguments.
You are just forcing your morality on those situations.
"Similarly for pederasty - we have decided that children ought not be subject to sexual advances from adults, and rightly so."
I agree that pederasty is completely wrong, but you are a hypocrite for saying so. "We decided" a long time ago that marriage was between one man and one woman, but you think that is sinful to say now. So why wouldn't the pederasty rules be as fluid?
"And so, those are quite unique and different instances than two lesbian or gay adults wanting to get married."
Says who? I think polygamists have a much better case to make than gays. What do you have against them? Religious bigotry?
Yeah, and you most likely molest grandmothers.
Y'all can pat yourselves on the back or buttocks or wherever all you want. I'm outta here, I've had enough of your hypocrisy.
Just keep your religious eccentricities out of the public square and we'll get along relatively well.
I find that a less than thorough refutation. You completely ignore that polygamists et al could use your same arguments as you with even more force behind them. But your (religiously motivated?) bias against them keeps you from pressing their case with the same force you do for oxymoronic "same sex marriage."
"Just keep your religious eccentricities out of the public square and we'll get along relatively well."
Couldn't leave without a straw man, could you? Yeah, one man/one woman marriage sure is an eccentric view.
Please remember your quote when you try to argue for anything in the public square based on your religious beliefs (i.e., welfare, anti-war, etc.)
Personally, I have no issue with people having their religious beliefs inform their political views. After all, do we really want people to vote the opposite of their religous views?
But I wouldn't want you to be a hypocrite, so be sure to leave your religious views at home.
Just keep your religious eccentricities out of the public square and we'll get along relatively well.
It's worth noting here that, despite the consensus of the world's religions across the centuries, you think the traditional definition of marriage -- male and female, "husband and wife" -- is a "religious eccentricity."
This, in the midst of your supposed wonder at the absence of real conservatives, is absurd.
Mine was a legitimate point: presumably Dan's proposal for the legal definition of marriage excludes somebody, so the same metaphorical window-peering applies just as well to his definition as it would to ours.
My comment did not merit an ad hominem attack.
Homosexuality has always, until very recently, been viewed negatively; disadvantageously.
The Bible itself clearly defines homosexuality in negative terms... Abomination. Dan has repeatedly failed to prove otherwise.
For myself, and in spite of my faith, I don't care if homosexuals want to live loving monogamous lives together. There are also simple and thoroughly legal ways to get around the 'lack of benefits' issue, effectively making that point of contention moot. If it's validation homosexuals desire, they're getting that already.
The Church however, bought and paid for by the blood of Jesus Christ should not be expected nor required to accept as moral a lifestyle the basic tenets of faith calls an abomination. Law requires the Church to be civil. The Bible requires the Church to love the homosexual and seek his salvation and repentance. But the Bible does not require the Church to condone homosexuality. It in fact commands the Church, "...from such turn away." Churches that choose to disregard this admonition have strayed from the truth, fallen into error, gone their own way. Dan obviously doesn't like the word "Heretic" but these three are just as bad.
..:: Notable Opinions ::..
"History shows that male homosexuality, which like prostitution flourishes with urbanization and soon becomes predictably ritualized, always tends toward decadence"
--Camille Paglia
"To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching."
--Warren E. Burger
"AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals"
--Jerry Falwell
You guys all have a talent for using rhetorical scalpels, while I tend to use hammers and crowbars to accomplish my tasks.
You have some brilliant people who visit here, and I learn from every comment.
I LOVE your Blog.
God bless you.
You guys are all great.
When Dan rejects the meanings of the passages about homosexuality, that is addressed there as well...
Verse 22: Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Verse 32: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
It is possible that Dan believes that he is being led by God, but actually cannot hear the convicting spirit of God on this issue.
Again, from the First Chapter of Romans, Verse 28: And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
The fact that he claims that these passages do not apply to him or his church are proof that they do.
We are warned about Dan and his church in the First Chapter of Romans.
We are told that there will be people who pursue the interests of the Flesh, and that some will advocate overlooking sin within the body of the Church.
We are also told that these people will not be able to hear the Truth of God when it comes to these matters.
All within the First Chapter of Romans.
It is pointless to argue with Dan.
He CANNOT hear us, because God Himself has stopped arguing with him.
The rest of us need to continue to seek God's Truth where it concerns ourselves and the Church.
We may yet be able to find it.
Dan has chosen his path.
I, until this past weekend, was working 70+ hours a week, and raising an eight month old baby.
And my new situation might take up even more of my time than that did.
But I believe that blogging is a worthwhile project, so I will try to keep it up, no matter what.
I hope that you do too...
You have been a blessing to me.
This sort of stereotype only works if you believe that women and men have set roles in marriages. Are all women supposed to cook and clean while the men set on the couch watching sports? Or was your pastor speaking sexually? The man always on top as God meant him to be? Be a fervent Christian if you want, but don't be a caricature.
That's the problem trying to live your life through a prophetic book from 1800 years ago. Certainly first century Jews read those passages and said, "those verses surely point to the gobbledy-gookites over there." I have a hard time imagining the early popes saying "No. These verses aren't for us. They're for a country and people a millennium in the future on a continent we don't even know about yet." But sure as shit every group of Christians from the earliest to that latest has had someone to point to after reading those condemning verses. Even now no Christian reads the bible and says this this and this are guidance for our first colony on mars.
Perhaps the answer is not that these verses are tailors to specific times and places, but rather earnest christians search and create meanings from these verses to suit their current situations. God inspired? maybe. Prejudice inspired? maybe. A little of both? Oh most definitely.
Did you, yourself, not just point to " the gobbledy-gookites over there", and try to demonstrate some percieved hypocrisy based on what you think that we believe?
And, as I said to you before, nobody expects YOU to get it.