The Gay agenda

[lastcallhall]

This is an article from Jim Daly on Foxnews and it looks like what a few of us conservative christians believe is the gay agenda moving forward to get marriage passed.

I am, naturally, personally opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage for the simple but profound reason that it violates and contradicts the sacred text of the Bible, which I believe to be true and inspired. But on what basis should I expect people who dont believe as I do to likewise oppose same-sex marriage?

On the basis of logic, reason, common sense and the fact that preservation of traditional marriage is in the best interest of the common good, as evidenced by any number of factors, including reams of social science data and thousands of years of history.

Any discussion on the definition of marriage incites strong emotional reaction. And those of us within the orthodox Christian community understand that many in the culture see this issue very differently, and hold to very passionate views on the subject. We understand that on this matter, in some circles, that never the twain shall meet. Nevertheless, this difference of opinion does not preclude us the privilege of championing a principle we hold dear, especially since its our Christian faith that motivates us to support and defend what we believe to be Gods blueprint for human relationship. In the last half-century, progressives have exercised their own rights of cultural engagement, aggressively championing sweeping cultural changes on numerous levels. Although we may disagree with them, we certainly dont begrudge them the right to engage the process. But in this pursuit to redefine marriage, wouldnt it make sense to consider the outcomes of prior social reengineering efforts?

In the late 1960s, no-fault divorce promised to simplify, streamline and decrease the contentiousness surrounding marital breakup. Instead, it only encouraged struggling spouses to throw in the towel. Fathers abandoned their families in droves. Poverty levels skyrocketed. Prison populations increased at dramatic levels, a consequence of kids now growing up without a father in the home.

A few years later, in 1973, the Supreme Court legalized abortion in all 50 states. Supporters heralded a new era of responsibility, where every child would be a wanted child. Tragically, over 48 million babies have now been aborted and the beauty of life has been cheapened as a result, while child abuse has skyrocketed.

The expansion of welfare promised to alleviate human suffering. While in some ways noble in intent, it disincentivized work, undermined the family unit and created a perpetual cycle of dependency and poverty. Fathers were no longer needed to be an integral part of the family.

Cohabitation is yet another experiment which promised to liberate couples from the burden of marriage. The number of couples living together outside of marriage has increased ten-fold between 1960 and 2000. Over 12 million unmarried partners now live together in the United States. The result? Cohabitation not only decreases a persons appetite for marriage, it also increases the risk of divorce, should the couple ever tie the knot.

Further, a home with two unmarried partners has proven to be the most dangerous place for children in the U.S. Children who live with their mother and boyfriend are 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents.

In each example of social reengineering Ive noted, progressives promised good things. Sadly, the exact opposite has happened. However well-meaning the motivation, reengineering what God has designed is not only unwise, but radical and dangerous, too.

Without evidence of success to which to point, supporters of these ill-fated ventures are left with but one choice: If you cant change unfavorable outcomes, you change the minds of people as to what is considered favorable and good.

Here lies the last great frontier and the last gasp for those determined to re-engineer marriage. Those committed to this form of radicalism have systematically broken down the cultural barrier to same sex marriage by desensitizing people on the issue, stigmatizing those who oppose the movement and potentially criminalizing anyone who stands in opposition to them. The irony in our cultural discussion currently, is if you support traditional marriage, you are the one perceived by the cultural elite to be the radical.

Consider the case of a New Mexico couple who own and operate a photography business. When they kindly refused to shoot a lesbian marriage ceremony, they were summarily brought up on human rights violations by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. They were fined for not accepting the job. While on the other hand, Christian organizations are now being singled out and suppliers are threatening to no longer supply them with critical support functions like computer technology because of their stand in opposition to same-sex marriage. Those in favor of same-sex marriage do not see the contradiction in these two examples. One group must perform the services and is fined for not doing so (in the name of human rights); the other is allowed to default on their contract because of alleged bigoted behavior on the part of the religious organization (with no regard for religious expression).

If religious liberty is lost in America, we will cease to be the nation our Founders intended us to be. Our rights will no longer be derived from God but from man, and therefore, dangerously beholden to political despots. I dont think Thomas Jefferson intended that to be the outcome for our great nation when he wrote the famous Danbury Baptist Church letter which mentioned the separation of church and state. Contrary to conventional wisdom, President Jefferson was expressing a concern that the church needed to be protected from the state, not the state from the church. It appears his fears are now being realized.

Jim Daly is president and host of "Focus on the Family."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/ ... z1NJdkc5AN


The questions I have for debate are:

1. Is what happened to the New Mexico couple proof that gay marriage will threaten christians and the church from living our faith?

2. If gay marriage is legal in the entire US would churches be forced to recognize gay couples and be forced to hire gay people to positions even if that would be against our beliefs?

[Clownboat]

And still I'm sorry for applying a blanket for all Christians as if they are worse than the rest of us, they aren't. They are good people as people everywhere generally are. But still, My reading of the Bible says that, that is not enough. And I wouldn't want to hold Christians to Jesus' standard, unless they are citing him as a standard.

How can it be that there are churches that will marry gay couples, and there are churches that would never do so? How is it that there are Christians who will make wovs(sic?) of poverty and Christians who gather riches as if they are a blessing from God?

Christians have, will, do things contrary to the actual teachings of Jesus, not because it's hard, but because Jesus' teachings were insane for a people that is involved in running a society. Christians live for this world while keeping hopes up for the next.

I believe that Christians should attend to the things of Christ and the State should attend to it's matters...It is the State that enforces power in marriages..I believe that the churches have the right to deny gay marriages and should.. But Christians should get out of other people's lives on the state level...I do not believe that gay marriages are acceptable to God whether by Church or State...but that's from my position in life and not that of another person who eyes the same sex.

Today, could you choose to be aroused by the same sex, while at the same time choosing to not be aroused by the opposite sex?

(Unless I have missed something, and you choose to correct me).
If yes, then you are either gay already, or being gay is a choice (at least for you, but that would be "some" evidence of it being a choice I suppose).

If no, then people do not have a choice to be gay, and they are that way naturally, or a creator (if there is one) created them that way.

Will/can you answer honestly?

I have chosen and always lusted for the opposite sex.. I am only interested in the proper position Christians should take in this issue...I'm tired of hearing about it like abortion as well..We have too much to do...we are neglecting our children watching football and too much tv and drinking far too much alcohol ...

I don't care whether a man or woman chooses for sexual pleasure..only that Christians have the right agenda..to mind his own manner of living in the right way which is being led by the Spirit of truth.. truth since you mentioned it is following Christ who was not in the business of other people..

You have just supplied evidence suggesting that being gay is not a choice.

So, if being gay is not a choice and you believe a God created all of us, then if he does not like homosexuality, why does he make so many homosexuals?

I am glad though, that you don't care what people choose for their sexual pleasures.

Adam in his transgression made homosexuality; just like murder and every sin under the sun....
but this was all to reveal the glory of God before we meet him..we are formed from the dust of the ground but God is spirit, spiritual..to survive our initial encounter with him we must conform to the image of his son.. or else :2gun:

Take 2:
So, if being gay is not a choice and you believe a God created all of us, then if he does not like homosexuality, why does he make so many homosexuals?

If you want to blame Adam, does that mean you think Adam is our creator? If so, where does a God come in? Or do you think Adam is actually god. Please answer the question above and clarify this if you are able.

It is Paul that said that Satan is the god of this world..with that being true, it would mean that when Adam was in the garden of Eden, that Satan robbed him of his right of ownership of the earth...because God had given that to man.
so Adam was a god..even as I am now..but that's another story ..the point is Adam's fallen nature came upon all mankind, and every person became subject to the nature and character of Satan, whose power and hold is still upon mankind through the nature of our flesh; which is at enmity with God..which is why Jesus came and demanded that we crucify our own flesh (it's affections and lusts) to be re-generated by the power of the holy Spirit...

Take 3:
So, if being gay is not a choice and you believe a God created all of us, then if he does not like homosexuality, why does he make so many homosexuals?

[riverslivnwtr]

Adam made homosexuals..

God makes new creatures by the faith of Jesus Christ...

he has written Adam's race off..

he has given them only this life..which comes from Adam..

[Clownboat]

Adam made homosexuals..

God makes new creatures by the faith of Jesus Christ...

he has written Adam's race off..

he has given them only this life..which comes from Adam..

You must not have gotten the memo yet then, but there was no Adam. Therefore all of your un-evidenced claims can be discounted.



According to the Bible (Genesis 2:7), this is how humanity began: "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." God then called the man Adam, and later created Eve from Adam's rib.

Polls by Gallup and the Pew Research Center find that four out of 10 Americans believe this account. It's a central tenet for much of conservative Christianity, from evangelicals to confessional churches such as the Christian Reformed Church.

But now some conservative scholars are saying publicly that they can no longer believe the Genesis account. Asked how likely it is that we all descended from Adam and Eve, Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, replies: "That would be against all the genomic evidence that we've assembled over the last 20 years, so not likely at all."

Researching The Human Genome

Venema says there is no way we can be traced back to a single couple. He says with the mapping of the human genome, it's clear that modern humans emerged from other primates as a large population " long before the Genesis time frame of a few thousand years ago. And given the genetic variation of people today, he says scientists can't get that population size below 10,000 people at any time in our evolutionary history.

To get down to just two ancestors, Venema says, "You would have to postulate that there's been this absolutely astronomical mutation rate that has produced all these new variants in an incredibly short period of time. Those types of mutation rates are just not possible. It would mutate us out of existence."

Venema is a senior fellow at BioLogos Foundation, a Christian group that tries to reconcile faith and science. The group was founded by Francis Collins, an evangelical and the current head of the National Institutes of Health, who, because of his position, declined an interview.

And Venema is part of a growing cadre of Christian scholars who say they want their faith to come into the 21st century. Another one is John Schneider, who taught theology at Calvin College in Michigan until recently. He says it's time to face facts: There was no historical Adam and Eve, no serpent, no apple, no fall that toppled man from a state of innocence. <--- Please, read this one twice.
[...]
"From my viewpoint, a historical Adam and Eve is absolutely central to the truth claims of the Christian faith," says Fazale Rana, vice president of Reasons To Believe, an evangelical think tank that questions evolution. Rana, who has a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Ohio University, readily admits that small details of Scripture could be wrong.

"But if the parts of Scripture that you are claiming to be false, in effect, are responsible for creating the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, then you've got a problem," Rana says.
[...]
Mohler says the Adam and Eve story is not just about a fall from paradise: It goes to the heart of Christianity. He notes that the Apostle Paul (in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15) argued that the whole point of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection was to undo Adam's original sin.

"Without Adam, the work of Christ makes no sense whatsoever in Paul's description of the Gospel, which is the classic description of the Gospel we have in the New Testament," Mohler says.
[...]
"The evolution controversy today is, I think, a Galileo moment," says Karl Giberson, who authored several books trying to reconcile Christianity and evolution, including The Language of Science and Faith, with Francis Collins.
[...]
"When you ignore science, you end up with egg on your face," Giberson says. "The Catholic Church has had an awful lot of egg on its face for centuries because of Galileo. And Protestants would do very well to look at that and to learn from it." <--- This means you.
[...]
"I think this is going to be a pivotal point in Church history," he says. "Because what rests at the very heart of this debate is whether or not key ideas within Christianity are ultimately true or not."

(Credit to Sailing Cyclops)

[riverslivnwtr]

I receive not the testimony of man.. even as Jesus. would not..John 5:34

I am rivers of living water as in john 7;37-39 ... I drank from this well. literally



it is my direct connection to Jesus..

[Goat]

I receive not the testimony of man.. even as Jesus. would not..John 5:34

I am rivers of living water as in john 7;37-39 ... I drank from this well. literally



it is my direct connection to Jesus..

That is your claim and your belief.

Why should I believe you? Can you show your belief is true?

[riverslivnwtr]

I receive not the testimony of man.. even as Jesus. would not..John 5:34

I am rivers of living water as in john 7;37-39 ... I drank from this well. literally



it is my direct connection to Jesus..

That is your claim and your belief.

Why should I believe you? Can you show your belief is true?

If I may borrow a line from the "Ten Commandments"

I am that I am..

This event was for my own benefit..it carry's more weight with me than the weight of the entire earth..whatever that might be...

it is my direct evidence that everything Jesus said is true...
Why do many a Christian fight against it is a question I want to ask...they each believe they got it all ..yet they have never tasted..

not a single Christian in all of Europe during the Crusades had this..not a single one... doubtful even at Muhammad's time ..

[Clownboat]

I receive not the testimony of man.. even as Jesus. would not..John 5:34

I am rivers of living water as in john 7;37-39 ... I drank from this well. literally



it is my direct connection to Jesus..

That is your claim and your belief.

Why should I believe you? Can you show your belief is true?

If un-evidenced claims are considered proof, then yes he can.

Upon reading the forum rules to which he said he would follow when he joined the site, apparently he must think he is above the rules of this forum, if not, I would expect him to start making claims that he can back up (at least to some degree for starters).

Seriously river, you need to realize that when you quote the Bible on this forum, you might as well be quoting the Quran or Gone with the Wind. I know it sound profound in "your" mind, but don't project that on to others.

[Clownboat]

I receive not the testimony of man.. even as Jesus. would not..John 5:34

I am rivers of living water as in john 7;37-39 ... I drank from this well. literally



it is my direct connection to Jesus..

That is your claim and your belief.

Why should I believe you? Can you show your belief is true?

If I may borrow a line from the "Ten Commandments"

I am that I am..

This event was for my own benefit..it carry's more weight with me than the weight of the entire earth..whatever that might be...

What event?

it is my direct evidence that everything Jesus said is true...

What is?

Why do many a Christian fight against it is a question I want to ask...they each believe they got it all ..yet they have never tasted..

Do they not have taste buds?

not a single Christian in all of Europe during the Crusades had this..not a single one... doubtful even at Muhammad's time ..

Are you able to make these claims with a straight face, or are you laughing uncontrolably at your PC while writing this drivel?

[Clownboat]

I'll post this again since you must have missed it.

You must not have gotten the memo yet then, but there was no Adam. Therefore all of your un-evidenced claims can be discounted.



According to the Bible (Genesis 2:7), this is how humanity began: "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." God then called the man Adam, and later created Eve from Adam's rib.

Polls by Gallup and the Pew Research Center find that four out of 10 Americans believe this account. It's a central tenet for much of conservative Christianity, from evangelicals to confessional churches such as the Christian Reformed Church.

But now some conservative scholars are saying publicly that they can no longer believe the Genesis account. Asked how likely it is that we all descended from Adam and Eve, Dennis Venema, a biologist at Trinity Western University, replies: "That would be against all the genomic evidence that we've assembled over the last 20 years, so not likely at all."

Researching The Human Genome

Venema says there is no way we can be traced back to a single couple. He says with the mapping of the human genome, it's clear that modern humans emerged from other primates as a large population " long before the Genesis time frame of a few thousand years ago. And given the genetic variation of people today, he says scientists can't get that population size below 10,000 people at any time in our evolutionary history.

To get down to just two ancestors, Venema says, "You would have to postulate that there's been this absolutely astronomical mutation rate that has produced all these new variants in an incredibly short period of time. Those types of mutation rates are just not possible. It would mutate us out of existence."

Venema is a senior fellow at BioLogos Foundation, a Christian group that tries to reconcile faith and science. The group was founded by Francis Collins, an evangelical and the current head of the National Institutes of Health, who, because of his position, declined an interview.

And Venema is part of a growing cadre of Christian scholars who say they want their faith to come into the 21st century. Another one is John Schneider, who taught theology at Calvin College in Michigan until recently. He says it's time to face facts: There was no historical Adam and Eve, no serpent, no apple, no fall that toppled man from a state of innocence. <--- Please, read this one twice.
[...]
"From my viewpoint, a historical Adam and Eve is absolutely central to the truth claims of the Christian faith," says Fazale Rana, vice president of Reasons To Believe, an evangelical think tank that questions evolution. Rana, who has a Ph.D. in biochemistry from Ohio University, readily admits that small details of Scripture could be wrong.

"But if the parts of Scripture that you are claiming to be false, in effect, are responsible for creating the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, then you've got a problem," Rana says.
[...]
Mohler says the Adam and Eve story is not just about a fall from paradise: It goes to the heart of Christianity. He notes that the Apostle Paul (in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15) argued that the whole point of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection was to undo Adam's original sin.

"Without Adam, the work of Christ makes no sense whatsoever in Paul's description of the Gospel, which is the classic description of the Gospel we have in the New Testament," Mohler says.
[...]
"The evolution controversy today is, I think, a Galileo moment," says Karl Giberson, who authored several books trying to reconcile Christianity and evolution, including The Language of Science and Faith, with Francis Collins.
[...]
"When you ignore science, you end up with egg on your face," Giberson says. "The Catholic Church has had an awful lot of egg on its face for centuries because of Galileo. And Protestants would do very well to look at that and to learn from it." <--- This means you.
[...]
"I think this is going to be a pivotal point in Church history," he says. "Because what rests at the very heart of this debate is whether or not key ideas within Christianity are ultimately true or not."

(Credit to Sailing Cyclops)

[Goat]

I receive not the testimony of man.. even as Jesus. would not..John 5:34

I am rivers of living water as in john 7;37-39 ... I drank from this well. literally



it is my direct connection to Jesus..

That is your claim and your belief.

Why should I believe you? Can you show your belief is true?

If I may borrow a line from the "Ten Commandments"

I am that I am..

So, not only you quote from someplace other than the Ten commandments, you use a mistranslation.

Does that make you appear to have any creditability at all?

[/quote]

This event was for my own benefit..it carry's more weight with me than the weight of the entire earth..whatever that might be...

it is my direct evidence that everything Jesus said is true...
Why do many a Christian fight against it is a question I want to ask...they each believe they got it all ..yet they have never tasted..

not a single Christian in all of Europe during the Crusades had this..not a single one... doubtful even at Muhammad's time ..[/quote]

So, you are going into preach mode with more unsupported claims.

It is your claim that 'everything Jesus said is true'.

yet, you can not show other than pointing at a book that Jesus said it, or that it is true.

You follow unsupported claim by unsupported claim...

Which breaks the rules for this site for debate.

Can you show you speak accurately?