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?

[Darias]

lastcallhall,

Looking at these statements, I do not see any direct calls to violence, but I sure do see hatred. And it's not hard to see the connection between their statements and the bill in Uganda... it's just not a stretch at all. This is because the claims they make about gays and the consequences of tolerating gay people forms the whole rationale for the bill in the first place.

From what I read in the above statements is Falwell and Robertson are making statements that certain sin is bringing God's judgement on people and America. I don't see the connection to a bill to put people to death or in prison but we all see it different. Would you then say liberals who blame America for the 9/11 attacks hateful? I have heard everything from Bush did it to our foreign policy causes the hate or our support of Israel was the cause and we should stop our support of Israel. Would they be anti sematic then?

9/11 "truthers," people who claim thet the United States government orchestrated the attacks on 9/11 offend me deeply because their disdain of government has led them to disregard facts and embrace conspiracy.

Claiming that Bush caused 9/11 is also outright dumb.

Claiming that the State of Israel caused 9/11 is ignorant and essentially racist at heart.

As for your other analogies...

I support the State of Israel in it's right to exist, but I do not condone the actions of its government against Palestinian civilians. Just because people think that the modern State of Israel is indistinguishable from the Israelite kingdoms mentioned in the Bible does not give Israel a warrant to do whatever it wants without fair criticism.

In the same way, I love America, but I do not condone all of its actions, specifically our foreign policy in the Middle East over the past 40 years or so.

It is not hateful to state that American actions have greatly affected, enabled, and motivated terrorist activity because this is factual. In saying that, I am not claiming America deserved any attack -- exactly the opposite conclusion that Falwell made. But I am saying that our government, the CIA, armed and funded al-Qaida during the early 80s in their struggle against the Soviets. This no doubt emboldened a group of fanatics leading them to believe that they could defeat any superpower. Our subsequent wars, which created a lot of collateral damage, re-enforced the terrorist narrative that "The West is at War with Islam." Think about it; if you are a poor, uneducated Iraqi/Afghani farmer and a coalition bomb destroys your house and your family -- which narrative are you more likely to believe? The former? Or "America is here to bring freedom and democracy!"

Claiming that terrorists attack us because they are disgusted with our culture and hate our values is inaccurate. Yes, they are, but that is not the source of their motivation. And whether you like it or not, our foreign policy has resulted in devastating consequences for a lot of people, not just Americans. This is not a dogmatic or unprovable statement of faith -- it is reality.

However, what Jerry Falwell said was that America's toleration of gay people -- not our celebration of equal rights, not pride parades, not gay marriage, but homosexual individuals ushered in God's wrath in the form of a deadly virus which is indiscriminate in what it kills, and Islamist terrorists -- also indiscriminate in who they kill.

If you did not get the connection between what he said and the bill in Uganda, I will explain it:

The whole rationale, or "irrationale," of the bill is to crack down on Homosexuality by targeting the source -- gay people. This it does by imprisonment and capital punishment.

This bill exists because many people in Uganda really believe in a sinister "gay agenda." They make no distinction between gays and pedophiles, much like the Catholic Church does.

But in essence, the bill itself is born out of a desire to avoid God's wrath, in the form of disasters and disease, namely AIDS -- which flourishes in that country -- by not tolerating homosexuals, at all. Because of this, the bill and the will of the people who vote for the people takes Falwell's "warnings" and other Christian's fear-bating into serious consideration.

The connection here is undeniable. It doesn't mean that Falwell wanted to kill gay people, but it certainly means that "words" have serious consequences in this world... and that other Christians around the world, namely the uneducated, really believe what preachers in the West say.

This isn't the only example of Christian paranoia leading to atrocities. During the Middle Ages, in efforts to appease God's wrath (AKA the Black Death), Christians burned Jewish villages -- Jews, who they felt had murdered their Lord and continue to murder their children (see Blood Libel). They felt this would bring an end to the deadly "curse." And while clueless villagers were slaughtering or flogging themselves to appease "God's wrath," Muslim empires were supporting science to combat the Black Death.

It's just sad to know that such primitive thinking has not left the Church since that time, and that it continues to flourish even to this day -- not just in Christian circles but in other faiths as well.

Read what Rev. Falwell said; he said that the deadly AIDS virus is not only the physical embodiment of God's wrath upon gays -- but also a deadly punishment upon a society that tolerates gay people -- not homosexual relationships or gay-marriage -- but gay people. Aside from making God look like a murderer, is that not a hateful thing to say about homosexuals?

I don't see it as hateful because God destroyed Sodom in the OT because of the homosexual lifestyle, I don't agree with him because will live in the state of grace now but at some point the blessings of God will be taken away if we continue to openly sin. I am not just saying the homosexual lifestyle I am talking ALL sin because no sin is worse than any other.

First, there are many Christians, including myself, that disagree with the claim that God destroyed Sodom because of gays.

Claiming this is like claiming that God killed Onan because of masturbation.

(Just for the record, Onan was killed by God, not because of masturbation but because he refused to inseminate and impregnate his brother's wife, by pulling-out just before climax. The cultural custom, indistinguishable from God's perceived will at the time, demanded that a man marry his brother's wife upon his brother's death. )

Similarly, Sodom, was supposedly destroyed by God, aka a volcano raining down sulfur and ash -- not because two friendly guys wanted to get married, but because the city practiced in-hospitality by raping strangers. Back in the day, raping a man was a great dishonor for the victim because, in that sense, he became a woman in the eyes of all who knew him.

It's funny how God spared Lot, the man who willingly gave the mob his own daughters without a second thought. This is because women were considered "worthless" back then in every since of the word. Yet this would have been the moral thing to do back then as hospitality was a moral imperative.

But to claim that God destroyed a city cause of gay people -- well that's just not a conclusion one gets from a studied reading.

But to use this story, which very well could have been nothing more than a "moral" myth -- not a literal history, in order to claim that God still sends down fire from heaven to destroy sinners goes against New Testament teachings of grace and whatnot.

Ever heard of this song?

"Till on that cross as Jesus died, The wrath of God was satisfied..."

Or maybe not; His Wrath still lives, Now in the form of bombs and plagues!

He also said gays caused 9/11. In saying that he meant that God was with the terrorists, and by His will, God sent them to obliterate thousands of people into ash -- all because we tolerate gay people. Not hateful? Well, then this must be a different definition of love that I've never heard of -- if nothing else it has to be pure ignorance on his part.

Again look at Sodom, God will eventually judge sin

Even if Sodom wasn't about punishing gays but a mob of rapists, I don't see how that justifies God in his supposed genocide of women and children. Again just because God is omnipotent, it may give Him a license to do whatever He wants, but it doesn't give Him the right to be considered Just or Good in my eyes.

And Robertson has made similar statements before about the Haitians -- that 10s of thousands of people, many of them children, most of them impoverished Christians perished -- not because of a natural disaster, but because of God's wrath. They had it coming.

All I can say is I disagree with Pat Robertson

Well, thank-you. I disagree with him as well.

Also I left something out, he claimed that Haitians were given this earthquake because of the witchcraft in the country. With this in mind, do you still disagree with him or do you find what he said to be perfectly acceptable, as several in my church have -- (a church I no longer attend for obvious reasons).

How is it that Christians are supposed to love, be merciful, forgive, not kill, not judge, etc. and God pretty much does the complete opposite? Is it because His omnipotence entitles Him to do whatever He wants and still be recognized and praised as being "Just" and "Good?"

We are to love on people and I will be the first to admit christians usually do a very poor job of loving on people and we make Jesus look bad a lot. We as humans can't understand why sin is so untolerable to God and I don't know why the punishments seem so harsh. I figure I will understand on the other side. But because we think it is harsh or don't understand does not mean it is not a just punishment.

This is probably because Christians try to emulate God more than they try to behave as Christ would behave. Also it's because Christians are humans who are no different than the rest of us. Also it's because their faith doesn't create a magical change in behavior.

I can understand your position of wanting to give God the benefit of the doubt without even so much as daring to ask Him about this, because 5 or 6 years ago I was not any doctrinally different than you are today.

But the fact is I could not continue to glaze over the appalling, divinely orchestrated bloodbaths in the Bible. I could no longer continue to wink at God and say "this is okay." Because it wasn't okay. In fact, 1 Corinthians 13's description of God made me realize that God could not have done these evils mentioned in the Old Testament. This is because the qualities mentioned in 1 Corinthians 13 are the exact opposite of an angry, vengeful, jealous, merciless, arbitrary grace giving, being. And that the two cannot exist unless God is not love. If this is the case He cannot be benevolent. And if He is not benevolent - why should I call Him "God?"

If we judged God by human standards, he wouldn't even be a descent person! I mean he would be found guilty of countless genocides and murders.

This is why I refuse to even embrace this concept of God. God, in my mind, cannot be the monster as He is described to be in the Bible.

My God is Just and Loving -- I have no reason to worship an omnipotent evil for fear of hell.

And as you can see this one of the reasons why the Bible cannot be the inerrant and infallible Word of God. Because if it is, God is a horrible monster -- and... the God I grew up worshiping and loving cannot be that.

You however, are entitled to skip the pages and read the good snippets. You don't have to question God or question your concept of God -- you can just avoid those inconvenient truths.

But I cannot. And neither can other Christians -- especially non-believers who can see these unjustifiable evils so plainly.

I just think it's dishonest to pretend they don't exist, ignore them, and just trust and believe that everything God does is fine no matter how evil they are -- for fear of God's wrath or hell or being disowned or whatever.

Is God really malevolent, or are some concepts of God just demonizing? I certainly believe that God is both just and loving -- but I don't know how people can view God in such a manner unless:

A. They have hatred in their heart
B. "They know not what they do/say"
C. All of the above.

I'm going to go ahead and say C.

I don't pretend to know what is in anyone's heart, I usually give people the benefit of the doubt until they prove me wrong. I try to not judge a persons motives or heart.

I've seen enough statements from Robertson to get a good idea of what's in his heart -- and I have to say, it's pretty dark.

But let's give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who calls themselves Christian because they are Christian and Christian = good.

And as for them citizens of Sodom -- you didn't give any of them the benefit of the doubt. Your judgement of them for their "sins" was pretty straight forward. And that must be just fine because God destroyed them.

It's funny how "hate the sin, love the sinner" only targets gays. Even if the New Testament is the standard -- the other sinners... people who divorce and remarry are adulterers , and as long as they stay married a second time, they are living an adulterous lifestyle.

What if they divorced prior to accepting Jesus and have since repented? This is a bad argument as most homosexuals don't view the lifestyle as sin and will not repent, big difference. If a person who is a christian got divorced and then remarried and did not repent I feel they would be treated as any other unrepentant sinner.

Adultery, as described Biblically (see Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18[/url]), is not just lusting after a woman in your heart, and it's not just being divorced.

A person living in an adulterous lifestyle, according to Biblical standards, is one who has either divorced or has been divorced + and has remarried to another person.

One can repent of their divorce, but they cannot repent of their adultery, which continues as long as the second marriage does. Thus this is a "sinful unrepentant lifestyle."

An analogy of this would be like a gay person repenting of the relations they had with their boyfriend, but who is still in a relationship with said boyfriend. If this act of repentance does not end the "lifestyle," then how can you logically claim that asking God to forgive you of divorce makes it okay to get remarried/ stay in your second marriage?

And yet, I don't need statistics to know that there are many pastors in this country who have second, perhaps third wives.

Yet no one is condemning them. This is because it is culturally acceptable to remarry in this country. But gays are still frowned upon. And gay marriage is still a cultural taboo. Hence why the focus is on gays and their sins -- not on practicing adulterers (AKA, remarried Christians).

Why is this the case? Well, because the spec is so much more fun to pick out than the telephone poll.

Yet such people are legally allowed to remarry, and many are pastors of churches -- and no one is preaching against it. This because it is a cultural norm that everyone has accepted -- gay marriage however, is still a taboo, and that's why its so often condemned in churches today.

Again if they are in open sin, at least my church, would ask them to resign if a pastor.[/color]

Would you personally ask a remarried Christian who has asked God's forgiveness for being divorced or divorcing his previous wife to step away from the altar for good?

Do you understand that being remarried after divorce constitutes adultery, and that simply asking God to pardon the divorce does not change the fact that you are "living in adultery" by being in that second marriage according to Jesus Christ Himself?

Under these conditions, I doubt you would ask. This is because you understand adultery to be sex outside of marriage, including private lust, or divorce -- but not remarriage. But, if you read those verses I gave you, you might want to re-examine what the Bible says about remarriage and adultery.

Women who wear gold and fine garments; women who braid their hair, have short hair, or fail to cover their hair; and women who have the habit of talking to their husbands in church, or preaching in church, etc. -- all these people are living in a "sinful lifestyle" according to Paul, AKA God's infallible Holy Word(I guess this only applies when Paul is speaking of Homosexuals).

Yet that's all fine by us. Paul must have just been giving his cultural opinion there...

No Paul does not call any of those an abomination or sin. The OT do not call any of that sin. Our church do not allow women to be lead pastor. Homosexuality is called sin and if he had called the other things sin we would not let them happen.

First "Homosexuality" mentioned by Paul, is not exactly what we would consider today as homosexuality; rather he is referring to temple prostitution which became popular in some Christian churches, or the widespread culturally accepted practice of young male escorts -- which is essentially pedophilia.

And, even if it was specifically referring to same sex or gay marriage in 1 Corinthians 6:9, the words preceding it sentence the adulterers to hell as well. Neither they nor gays can be saved, according to this reading. Yet apparently the church has become lenient on one group and not the other. Is it because they care more about the souls of one group of sinners more than another? Or is it because they filter which New Testament commands they which to adhere to via their particular cultural sieve? I say the latter.

Second, neither homosexuality nor modern cultural norms for women are explicitly called sins in the New Testament. However, especially for the latter, they are definitely implied sins.

Behold the infallible, perfect, inerrant word of God

As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
_____
SOURCE

Women speaking in churches is a no-no -- according to Paul, AKA infallible Word of God.

6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.c 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
_____
SOURCE

Here we see that short hair on women, or uncovered long haired women is an unnatural offense, in much the same way that homosexuality is "unnaturally" (even though both are in reality pretty natural) As for the "no such practice," that specifically refers to being contentious and argumentative -- as what Paul says goes because He is the man of God speaking God's Words.

5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the mana Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. 7 For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

8 I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; 9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness"with good works. 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
_____
SOURCE

Based on God's infallible truth, women shouldn't be preachers or even Sunday-school teachers. They shouldn't braid their hair or wear gold or anything nice. They should be covered, silent, and submissive.



And yet all of these inconvenient "infallible truths" have managed to escape the sermons of so many Christian churches in America?

Why is that?

Because such things are so culturally accepted, that the Bible is being reinterpreted/ignored to conform to the cultural sensibilities of modern Christians.

And unfortunately, since homosexuals are still treated like pariahs in this country, and since the thought of a traditional, monogamous, loving, same-sex relationships deeply disturbs so many Christians -- odds are some of them might latch onto decontextualized Old and New Testament snippets which seem to refer to gays and their ways.

In fact, sermons about homosexuality are so commonplace, and championed so often that it has almost replaced Christ centered worship. My case in point is the fact that the way one votes regarding equality and fairness is believed to affects one's relationship with God --and that gays cannot be Christian (aka saved). That voting for equality under the law makes someone like a Judas Iscariot.

It has almost come to the point, for so many Christians, that being anti-gay/ anti-gay marriage is synonymous with being a good servant of the Lord.

I think it is a hypocrisy and that it is unChristlike. It's a deadly obsession with a perceived sin -- to the point where Pat Robertson and others promise nuclear holocausts and terrorist attacks and storms as proof that God is pouring out his wrath upon a society that tolerates human beings who happen to be gay.

It's sad and disgusting, but it's true. This is where Christianity has come -- and this is why I left my church. I couldn't stand to hear anymore hate speech. I couldn't stand to listen to any more ignorance. The double standard was killing me.

So I did the Christlike thing and left -- I probably should have knocked over the offering plates on the way out but I'm not as cool as Jesus.

[micatala]

Where is the compelling secular reason for banning gay marriage or discriminating against gays in other ways?

If any law was put up for vote I will vote the Bible. The secular argument for me is the system can't handle the hit to social security because the you can't tell anyone in any group with any number of people that they can't get married. If you throw out the Bible then are you ready for any form of marriage that someone can dream up?

First, if we are to deny marriage to gays on the basis that it would cost money in the form of Social Security, then equal protection says we should deny all marriages on the same basis. To apply this criteria only to gays would be hugely inconsistent and hypocritical.

Secondly, the Bible condones polygamy and condones treating women largely as property with their marriages being determined by their fathers. If you are basing what marriage law should be on the Bible, then we should allow polygamy and not allow much freedom fro women to choose who to marry.

Thirdly, as pointed out, this is a slippery slope fallacy. Furthermore, it assumes that there can be no other rational basis for deciding on marriage law other than the Bile. That is one huge assumption.

[Lux]

First I don't think this is a slippery slope because people like in the New Mexico case have been sued for trying to stick to thier religious views. I see more to come

That doesn't have anything to do with the possibility of other forms of marriage being legalized in the future. Just because one homosexual couple in New Mexico acted one way it means that all gay couples would? Or even more far-fetched, that eventually we will be forced to allow other forms of marriage?

On this thread it has been said many times that I hate, oppress, and want to deny rights to gay people and that because the Bible calls it sin that I still have no business using it to form my opinion. I have been told that even if the vast majority of people are against gay marriage that it still does not make it right.

I haven't said anything like that to you, and I honestly don't see how it relates to what you said on your previous post.

If we go with that how can you possibly deny ANYONE any form of "marriage"? To me this is very hypocritical if you take the stand that gay marriage should be allowed. How can you tell one "oppressed" group they should not be but another smaller minority they are not worthy of being helped? I stand by the Bible to justify my vote how do you justify yours?

I do not see any logical reason to deny consenting adults the right to get married and start a family if that's what they want. However, I have a problem with people entering a marriage with a parter that is unable or unwilling to legally consent.

[lastcallhall]

9/11 "truthers," people who claim thet the United States government orchestrated the attacks on 9/11 offend me deeply because their disdain of government has led them to disregard facts and embrace conspiracy.

Claiming that Bush caused 9/11 is also outright dumb.

Claiming that the State of Israel caused 9/11 is ignorant and essentially racist at heart.

Then we agree

As for your other analogies...

I support the State of Israel in it's right to exist, but I do not condone the actions of its government against Palestinian civilians. Just because people think that the modern State of Israel is indistinguishable from the Israelite kingdoms mentioned in the Bible does not give Israel a warrant to do whatever it wants without fair criticism.

Israel defends itself against muslims who want Israel to be destroyed, plain and simple. They have rockets fired upon them daily and suicide bombers all around them, I side with Israel and actually give them credit for showing some mercy because if those things were happening in America we would bomb that country back to the stone age and rightfully so. I support Israel and believe God when he said in Amos
Amos 9:14-15
New King James Version (NKJV)

14 I will bring back the captives of My people Israel;
They shall build the waste cities and inhabit them;
They shall plant vineyards and drink wine from them;
They shall also make gardens and eat fruit from them.
15 I will plant them in their land,
And no longer shall they be pulled up
From the land I have given them,
Says the LORD your God.

In the same way, I love America, but I do not condone all of its actions, specifically our foreign policy in the Middle East over the past 40 years or so.

It is not hateful to state that American actions have greatly affected, enabled, and motivated terrorist activity because this is factual. In saying that, I am not claiming America deserved any attack -- exactly the opposite conclusion that Falwell made. But I am saying that our government, the CIA, armed and funded al-Qaida during the early 80s in their struggle against the Soviets. This no doubt emboldened a group of fanatics leading them to believe that they could defeat any superpower. Our subsequent wars, which created a lot of collateral damage, re-enforced the terrorist narrative that "The West is at War with Islam." Think about it; if you are a poor, uneducated Iraqi/Afghani farmer and a coalition bomb destroys your house and your family -- which narrative are you more likely to believe? The former? Or "America is here to bring freedom and democracy!"

I agree that we have made mistakes but in no way would I say that we have any responsibility for them hating us. We are the most generous country on the earth with the US Europe would be goose stepping right now. We are not perfect but I love this country, I have served in the military and if people don't like us to bad.

Claiming that terrorists attack us because they are disgusted with our culture and hate our values is inaccurate. Yes, they are, but that is not the source of their motivation. And whether you like it or not, our foreign policy has resulted in devastating consequences for a lot of people, not just Americans. This is not a dogmatic or unprovable statement of faith -- it is reality.

We give so much money to other countries and go out of our way to help them. Some countries in the middle east will hate us no matter what we do. If someone wants to attack us for our foreign policy then I would ask how we could act so nobody hated us?

However, what Jerry Falwell said was that America's toleration of gay people -- not our celebration of equal rights, not pride parades, not gay marriage, but homosexual individuals ushered in God's wrath in the form of a deadly virus which is indiscriminate in what it kills, and Islamist terrorists -- also indiscriminate in who they kill.

I am not saying his opinion is spot on but to tie his words to african bills is silly. I will not be silent on this issue because someone somewhere might maybe possibly take my words and use them for violence. If somebody does the blood is on their hands not mine or anyone elses. Dr. Falwell was a wonderful man of God and he did much good and was friends with people who he disagreed with (Larry Flynt)

If you did not get the connection between what he said and the bill in Uganda, I will explain it:

The whole rationale, or "irrationale," of the bill is to crack down on Homosexuality by targeting the source -- gay people. This it does by imprisonment and capital punishment.

This bill exists because many people in Uganda really believe in a sinister "gay agenda." They make no distinction between gays and pedophiles, much like the Catholic Church does.

But in essence, the bill itself is born out of a desire to avoid God's wrath, in the form of disasters and disease, namely AIDS -- which flourishes in that country -- by not tolerating homosexuals, at all. Because of this, the bill and the will of the people who vote for the people takes Falwell's "warnings" and other Christian's fear-bating into serious consideration.

The connection here is undeniable. It doesn't mean that Falwell wanted to kill gay people, but it certainly means that "words" have serious consequences in this world... and that other Christians around the world, namely the uneducated, really believe what preachers in the West say.

This isn't the only example of Christian paranoia leading to atrocities. During the Middle Ages, in efforts to appease God's wrath (AKA the Black Death), Christians burned Jewish villages -- Jews, who they felt had murdered their Lord and continue to murder their children (see Blood Libel). They felt this would bring an end to the deadly "curse." And while clueless villagers were slaughtering or flogging themselves to appease "God's wrath," Muslim empires were supporting science to combat the Black Death.

It's just sad to know that such primitive thinking has not left the Church since that time, and that it continues to flourish even to this day -- not just in Christian circles but in other faiths as well.

I will say again if any christian wants to hurt, murder, or imprison gays they do not see the state of grace the same way I do and I believe they are biblically wrong.

First, there are many Christians, including myself, that disagree with the claim that God destroyed Sodom because of gays.

Claiming this is like claiming that God killed Onan because of masturbation.

(Just for the record, Onan was killed by God, not because of masturbation but because he refused to inseminate and impregnate his brother's wife, by pulling-out just before climax. The cultural custom, indistinguishable from God's perceived will at the time, demanded that a man marry his brother's wife upon his brother's death. )

Similarly, Sodom, was supposedly destroyed by God, aka a volcano raining down sulfur and ash -- not because two friendly guys wanted to get married, but because the city practiced in-hospitality by raping strangers. Back in the day, raping a man was a great dishonor for the victim because, in that sense, he became a woman in the eyes of all who knew him.

It's funny how God spared Lot, the man who willingly gave the mob his own daughters without a second thought. This is because women were considered "worthless" back then in every since of the word. Yet this would have been the moral thing to do back then as hospitality was a moral imperative.

But to claim that God destroyed a city cause of gay people -- well that's just not a conclusion one gets from a studied reading.

God destroyed Sodom because it was full of sin, one of them rampant homosexuality. I could give you a list a mile long of pastors who agree with me on that subject.

But to use this story, which very well could have been nothing more than a "moral" myth -- not a literal history, in order to claim that God still sends down fire from heaven to destroy sinners goes against New Testament teachings of grace and whatnot.

I believe it actually happened just like the Bible said.

Even if Sodom wasn't about punishing gays but a mob of rapists, I don't see how that justifies God in his supposed genocide of women and children. Again just because God is omnipotent, it may give Him a license to do whatever He wants, but it doesn't give Him the right to be considered Just or Good in my eyes.

God is perfect we are not, he can't be around sin and before Jesus God judged sin on spot sometimes. God is good and just if he was not he would not have made a way out for us in Jesus. He paid a debt he did not owe because it was a debt I could not pay.

Also I left something out, he claimed that Haitians were given this earthquake because of the witchcraft in the country. With this in mind, do you still disagree with him or do you find what he said to be perfectly acceptable, as several in my church have -- (a church I no longer attend for obvious reasons).

witchcraft is a sin no doubt but because we live in grace I do not believe God will punish sin on spot or Vegas would have been gone years ago. He wants people to repent and I hope the Lord becomes more known in Haiti.

But the fact is I could not continue to glaze over the appalling, divinely orchestrated bloodbaths in the Bible. I could no longer continue to wink at God and say "this is okay." Because it wasn't okay. In fact, 1 Corinthians 13's description of God made me realize that God could not have done these evils mentioned in the Old Testament. This is because the qualities mentioned in 1 Corinthians 13 are the exact opposite of an angry, vengeful, jealous, merciless, arbitrary grace giving, being. And that the two cannot exist unless God is not love. If this is the case He cannot be benevolent. And if He is not benevolent - why should I call Him "God?"

If we judged God by human standards, he wouldn't even be a descent person! I mean he would be found guilty of countless genocides and murders.

I believe God is just and I believe he did everything in the OT. Sin must be so offensive to God that he can't even be around it and he created us so I trust him. I go back to the cross if he did not love us he would not have sent Jesus to die, period.

This is why I refuse to even embrace this concept of God. God, in my mind, cannot be the monster as He is described to be in the Bible.

My God is Just and Loving -- I have no reason to worship an omnipotent evil for fear of hell.

God is more than fire insurance he, if you let him, will help you and talk to you every day. He is far from evil.

And as you can see this one of the reasons why the Bible cannot be the inerrant and infallible Word of God. Because if it is, God is a horrible monster -- and... the God I grew up worshiping and loving cannot be that.

You however, are entitled to skip the pages and read the good snippets. You don't have to question God or question your concept of God -- you can just avoid those inconvenient truths.

I skip no passages and believe the Bible to be his perfect word. I have read the OT and the people in Noah's day were given warning, Sodom was given warning, and people now are given warning if you reject God that does not make him evil it makes you guilty.

I've seen enough statements from Robertson to get a good idea of what's in his heart -- and I have to say, it's pretty dark.

But let's give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who calls themselves Christian because they are Christian and Christian = good.

And as for them citizens of Sodom -- you didn't give any of them the benefit of the doubt. Your judgement of them for their "sins" was pretty straight forward. And that must be just fine because God destroyed them.

I didn't judge Sodom God did and he is smarter than me

after a woman in your heart, and it's not just being divorced.

A person living in an adAdultery, as described Biblically (see Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18[/url]), is not just lusting ulterous lifestyle, according to Biblical standards, is one who has either divorced or has been divorced + and has remarried to another person.

One can repent of their divorce, but they cannot repent of their adultery, which continues as long as the second marriage does. Thus this is a "sinful unrepentant lifestyle."

An analogy of this would be like a gay person repenting of the relations they had with their boyfriend, but who is still in a relationship with said boyfriend. If this act of repentance does not end the "lifestyle," then how can you logically claim that asking God to forgive you of divorce makes it okay to get remarried/ stay in your second marriage?

And yet, I don't need statistics to know that there are many pastors in this country who have second, perhaps third wives.

Yet no one is condemning them. This is because it is culturally acceptable to remarry in this country. But gays are still frowned upon. And gay marriage is still a cultural taboo. Hence why the focus is on gays and their sins -- not on practicing adulterers (AKA, remarried Christians).

Why is this the case? Well, because the spec is so much more fun to pick out than the telephone poll.

I understand Jesus raised the bar for what adultery is but let's say you were divorced before you became a christian and re married before you became a christian what should you do now? Commit another sin by divorcing your wife for no reason? I don't buy it at all.

Would you personally ask a remarried Christian who has asked God's forgiveness for being divorced or divorcing his previous wife to step away from the altar for good?

Do you understand that being remarried after divorce constitutes adultery, and that simply asking God to pardon the divorce does not change the fact that you are "living in adultery" by being in that second marriage according to Jesus Christ Himself?

Under these conditions, I doubt you would ask. This is because you understand adultery to be sex outside of marriage, including private lust, or divorce -- but not remarriage. But, if you read those verses I gave you, you might want to re-examine what the Bible says about remarriage and adultery.

I answered and will add that if a christian divorces he is guilty of a sin but I believe there is NO sin to big for God. I believe the blood of Jesus is stronger than divorce and it will make ANYONE if truly repentant white as snow and ready for heaven. (sorry if I was preachin)

First "Homosexuality" mentioned by Paul, is not exactly what we would consider today as homosexuality; rather he is referring to temple prostitution which became popular in some Christian churches, or the widespread culturally accepted practice of young male escorts -- which is essentially pedophilia.

And, even if it was specifically referring to same sex or gay marriage in 1 Corinthians 6:9, the words preceding it sentence the adulterers to hell as well. Neither they nor gays can be saved, according to this reading. Yet apparently the church has become lenient on one group and not the other. Is it because they care more about the souls of one group of sinners more than another? Or is it because they filter which New Testament commands they which to adhere to via their particular cultural sieve? I say the latter.

Second, neither homosexuality nor modern cultural norms for women are explicitly called sins in the New Testament. However, especially for the latter, they are definitely implied sins.

I disagree and have given many NT and OT verses that call the homosexual lifestyle sin.

Behold the infallible, perfect, inerrant word of God

As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
_____
SOURCE

Women speaking in churches is a no-no -- according to Paul, AKA infallible Word of God.

6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.c 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
_____
SOURCE

Here we see that short hair on women, or uncovered long haired women is an unnatural offense, in much the same way that homosexuality is "unnaturally" (even though both are in reality pretty natural) As for the "no such practice," that specifically refers to being contentious and argumentative -- as what Paul says goes because He is the man of God speaking God's Words.

5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the mana Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. 7 For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

8 I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; 9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness"with good works. 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.
_____
SOURCE

Based on God's infallible truth, women shouldn't be preachers or even Sunday-school teachers. They shouldn't braid their hair or wear gold or anything nice. They should be covered, silent, and submissive.



And yet all of these inconvenient "infallible truths" have managed to escape the sermons of so many Christian churches in America?

Why is that?

Because such things are so culturally accepted, that the Bible is being reinterpreted/ignored to conform to the cultural sensibilities of modern Christians.

I have heard many people speak on this and this is worthy of a thread but the verses are not ignored and I believe Paul is speaking of a few specific problems that would have been problems in that time. He clearly let woman participate in church when he allows all to pray, prophecy, and speak in tongue. The word for brother he uses in greek is adelphoi which is gender neutral. (1 Cor 11:10-11 and 1 Cor 14:39). Many of Pauls letters dealt with specific church problems and during his time the woman of the day were largely uneducated. This may have been the reason he told them to not ask questions but rather wait until after because they were disrupting service with all the questions. If you look at Paul's words as a whole in the NT and Jesus it is clear they value woman.

And unfortunately, since homosexuals are still treated like pariahs in this country, and since the thought of a traditional, monogamous, loving, same-sex relationships deeply disturbs so many Christians -- odds are some of them might latch onto decontextualized Old and New Testament snippets which seem to refer to gays and their ways.

In fact, sermons about homosexuality are so commonplace, and championed so often that it has almost replaced Christ centered worship. My case in point is the fact that the way one votes regarding equality and fairness is believed to affects one's relationship with God --and that gays cannot be Christian (aka saved). That voting for equality under the law makes someone like a Judas Iscariot.

It has almost come to the point, for so many Christians, that being anti-gay/ anti-gay marriage is synonymous with being a good servant of the Lord.

I think it is a hypocrisy and that it is unChristlike. It's a deadly obsession with a perceived sin -- to the point where Pat Robertson and others promise nuclear holocausts and terrorist attacks and storms as proof that God is pouring out his wrath upon a society that tolerates human beings who happen to be gay.

It's sad and disgusting, but it's true. This is where Christianity has come -- and this is why I left my church. I couldn't stand to hear anymore hate speech. I couldn't stand to listen to any more ignorance. The double standard was killing me.

So I did the Christlike thing and left -- I probably should have knocked over the offering plates on the way out but I'm not as cool as Jesus.

I am sorry that you left your church and that you do not see the homosexual lifestyle as sin. Many of us do and out of love try to speak the truth

[lastcallhall]

Duplicate post

[lastcallhall]

Thank you for that admission. You essentially admit that you disapprove of the principle of the separation of church and state. You have such confidence in the truth of your religion that you seek to impose its principles on those who do not share your faith. Can you tell me, other than degree, how this is different from the Taliban?

I hope I am at least honest. Yes if they tried to pass a law that banned pron I would vote for it. How should I vote then? Does this country not allow to to vote based on my religious views?

This is your criterion for restricting humans rights? It might cost too much? What a wonderful way to exemplify the teachings of Jesus!

I am not using a secular argument I was just providing one because I have been asked. My point with the financial one is how do you figure out who gets what once marriage is opened up to every form of matrimony people can think up?
I am against gay marriage because of my beliefs.

[lastcallhall]

Furthermore, it assumes that there can be no other rational basis for deciding on marriage law other than the Bile. That is one huge assumption.

My point was if you look at marriage from just a strictly secular point of view how can you open it up to gays under the banner of equal rights but deny another group the same equal rights if they want to be 6 people who are married? If you throw out any religious objections what secular one can you possibly have and how would you figure out who gets benefits and how do we pay for them when SSI in bankrupt now?

[Darias]

As for your other analogies...

I support the State of Israel in it's right to exist, but I do not condone the actions of its government against Palestinian civilians. Just because people think that the modern State of Israel is indistinguishable from the Israelite kingdoms mentioned in the Bible does not give Israel a warrant to do whatever it wants without fair criticism.

Israel defends itself against muslims who want Israel to be destroyed, plain and simple. They have rockets fired upon them daily and suicide bombers all around them, I side with Israel and actually give them credit for showing some mercy because if those things were happening in America we would bomb that country back to the stone age and rightfully so. I support Israel and believe God when he said in Amos
Amos 9:14-15
New King James Version (NKJV)

14 I will bring back the captives of My people Israel;
They shall build the waste cities and inhabit them;
They shall plant vineyards and drink wine from them;
They shall also make gardens and eat fruit from them.
15 I will plant them in their land,
And no longer shall they be pulled up
From the land I have given them,
Says the LORD your God.

There are a number of Muslims around the world that despise Israel for various reasons. And there are a number of Palestinians, namely HAMAS, which doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist.

But not all Muslims hate Israel, nor do they all wish to see it destroyed. And the Gaza strip isn't just composed of a few terrorists - its slam full of impoverished civilians.

The fact is, both Palestinians and Jews have ancestral right to the land, which is why I support a two State solution, and a more stable and peaceful region.

However, that does not take away from the fact that Israel took a lot of Palestinian land, and the fact is the Gaza strip is being occupied and there are checkpoints meant to stop weapons -- but those same checkpoints prevent food from going in.

And there have also been accounts of Israeli troops using white phosphorus -- a weapon that causes unnecessary collateral damage upon civilians -- deaths which only continue to recycle hatred.

And yes, crude weapons are being lobbed on schools and marketplaces, and those deaths are inexcusable -- but the Palestinian people as a whole don't deserve blame and hatred for this conflict, nor do they deserve wholesale annihilation - in the form of nuclear weapons or divine wrath.

To even say such a thing is thoughtless, callous, un-American, and un-Christian.

It is also very important to make the distinction between the modern state of Israel and ancient Israelite kingdoms. If this distinction is not made, then Old Testament texts can be used to justify genocide -- not that I believe that Israel would ever do this, but there are a lot of extreme Zionists and Fundamentalists Christians who show no compassion for the plight of the Palestinian people -- and they justify injustice by hiding their political opinions behind supposedly divine utterances of God Himself.

In the same way, I love America, but I do not condone all of its actions, specifically our foreign policy in the Middle East over the past 40 years or so.

It is not hateful to state that American actions have greatly affected, enabled, and motivated terrorist activity because this is factual. In saying that, I am not claiming America deserved any attack -- exactly the opposite conclusion that Falwell made. But I am saying that our government, the CIA, armed and funded al-Qaida during the early 80s in their struggle against the Soviets. This no doubt emboldened a group of fanatics leading them to believe that they could defeat any superpower. Our subsequent wars, which created a lot of collateral damage, re-enforced the terrorist narrative that "The West is at War with Islam." Think about it; if you are a poor, uneducated Iraqi/Afghani farmer and a coalition bomb destroys your house and your family -- which narrative are you more likely to believe? The former? Or "America is here to bring freedom and democracy!"

I agree that we have made mistakes but in no way would I say that we have any responsibility for them hating us. We are the most generous country on the earth with the US Europe would be goose stepping right now. We are not perfect but I love this country, I have served in the military and if people don't like us to bad.

No responsibility for any ill will felt by the Muslim world?

We are one of the most generous yes... we helped rebuild Europe and Japan after strategically bombing the hell out of their civilians during WWII, but yes we're not a 12th century Mongolian hoard -- what does that have to do with how devastating our foreign policy has been in the Middle East over the past 40 some odd years?

There have been many recent democratic uprisings in the Middle East as of late, against many dictatorial governments. And this is great. But one things Americans forget is that many of these regimes have been pretty brutal towards their citizens, and that it was these regimes that were backed by the U.S. government with lots and lots of money. Egypt is a perfect example.

Aside from supporting dictators for whatever reason -- be it a Soviet threat or whatever -- America has also invaded Iraq two times and Afghanistan -- and while conservatives in this country can't wait to provoke a war with Iran, I have to take a step back and say, maybe invading bombing and occupying Muslim countries, in addition to supporting Muslim dictators for our short-term national interests is probably not the best way to "win hearts and minds" -- probably not the best way to "win" any war on terror...

But it's a great way to inflame anti-Americanism and feed the narrative put forth by Al-Qaida which affirms that "The West is at War with Islam, fight! resist!"

And yes, unwavering unquestioning support for Israel, even when its armed forces gun down protestors and Americans who support a free Palestinian state and peace in the region -- also probably inflames present resentments towards the west.

Claiming that terrorists attack us because they are disgusted with our culture and hate our values is inaccurate. Yes, they are, but that is not the source of their motivation. And whether you like it or not, our foreign policy has resulted in devastating consequences for a lot of people, not just Americans. This is not a dogmatic or unprovable statement of faith -- it is reality.

We give so much money to other countries and go out of our way to help them. Some countries in the middle east will hate us no matter what we do. If someone wants to attack us for our foreign policy then I would ask how we could act so nobody hated us?

Yes as I said before our coffers are being poured out into dictatorships which oppress their own people -- but our foreign policy leaders havn't cared at all until all of the recent democratic uprisings...

Of course some countries will despise us no matter what we do, so how does that give us the right to invade bomb occupy and prop up dictatorships? How does that make Americans more safe? I mean seriously?

We should support democracies and the peoples of the Middle East, and distance ourselves from our dictator friends if we even want a chance at gaining enough credibility to help stabilize the region in the future -- specifically to help America best help Israel and Palestine to find some sort of two state solution -- and yes a peace -- and no Obama isn't the Anti-Christ; Left Behind is fiction.

Too many Christians in America fear any talk of peace in the region and are absolutely against it because due to their fundamentalist, literal, and prophetic reading of an historical book (Revelation) -- which was meant to reflect issues in its own time and place -- they associate peace with the devil and the anti-Christ -- so if left up to them, the Israeli Palestinian conflict would last literally "until kingdom come."

For a number of Christians, the only lives that count are the Israelis. Palestinian deaths are inconvenient truths. "They had it coming; they are enemies of God."

However, what Jerry Falwell said was that America's toleration of gay people -- not our celebration of equal rights, not pride parades, not gay marriage, but homosexual individuals ushered in God's wrath in the form of a deadly virus which is indiscriminate in what it kills, and Islamist terrorists -- also indiscriminate in who they kill.

I am not saying his opinion is spot on but to tie his words to african bills is silly. I will not be silent on this issue because someone somewhere might maybe possibly take my words and use them for violence. If somebody does the blood is on their hands not mine or anyone elses. Dr. Falwell was a wonderful man of God and he did much good and was friends with people who he disagreed with (Larry Flynt)

Why is it silly? Did you read the article I provided? Claiming that God dooms and punishes nations with terrorism and natural disasters because they tolerate gays can and has lead many Christians in Uganda to support a bill that would insure that no such wrath ever reaches their homeland. It's not a leap or conjecture, it's a perfect fit.

That doesn't mean Falwell would condone the bill, but it's not like his words were taken out of context -- the bill is ultimately the logical end of his argument -- prevent wrath by locking up gays and or killing them... plain and simple.

But there is a deeper connection; I challenge you and everyone following this thread to read this news article. I wanted to post the entire thing here but it would take up too much of my post.

And despite the charitable work done by Dr. Falwell, I must strongly disagree with you. He was not a wonderful man. He was a spiteful divisive, harsh and hateful person who caused a great deal of pain to many Americans. He and others demonized the Democrats and bred hatred -- and because of his words, many many could be killed in Uganda today. I certainly hope that if God exist that he has mercy on this man.

And likewise with Christian leaders like Rick Warren, Don Schmierer and others -- their words about gay people could cause deadly effects when they are distributed to an extremely homophobic, and profoundly Christian Uganda. Read the article, it lays everything out plainly.

These leaders have had a direct impact on the events in Uganda, far more so than Falwell... and while they are trying to distance themselves from the bill, and while they do not support the murder of homosexuals -- their words will bring consequences.

You can preach hate as lovingly as possible, but at the end of the day, hate and fear-mongering is what it is, and it harms good people -- it really does.

I'm sorry but Fundamentalist Christian leaders bare some responsibility for this; saying they are good people doesn't really cancel out anything they have said, and it certainly won't loosen the noose for the future victims of this bill.




As for the rest of your post I will reply with a subsequent post at a later time, as they are getting quite large as we continue the debate.

[lastcallhall]

The fact is, both Palestinians and Jews have ancestral right to the land, which is why I support a two State solution, and a more stable and peaceful region.

Where in history has Palestine been a state? The reason there is any confusion is an anti- sematic Roman general named Hadrian wanted to get rid of the Jews like Hitler. He just made up a name and took the name of Israel off the map. Israel was given to the Jews by God and satan has since put it in the hearts of many men to try to get rid of the jews, none will be successful. The mantle is now with that anti-semite Ahmadinejad.

However, that does not take away from the fact that Israel took a lot of Palestinian land, and the fact is the Gaza strip is being occupied and there are checkpoints meant to stop weapons -- but those same checkpoints prevent food from going in.

Took? Again please show me when Palestine was a state and that the land the Jews took back in 1967 was not theirs.

And there have also been accounts of Israeli troops using white phosphorus -- a weapon that causes unnecessary collateral damage upon civilians -- deaths which only continue to recycle hatred.

Please provide proof as I believe Israel only defends itself and is not the aggressor.

And yes, crude weapons are being lobbed on schools and marketplaces, and those deaths are inexcusable -- but the Palestinian people as a whole don't deserve blame and hatred for this conflict, nor do they deserve wholesale annihilation - in the form of nuclear weapons or divine wrath.

Who deserves the blame then for the bombs and suicide bombers? Do the Palestinian people speak against Hamas and the nuts that blow themselves up? No this is a feud that goes back to Isaac and Jacob and will not be finished until Jesus returns.

To even say such a thing is thoughtless, callous, un-American, and un-Christian.

Really, I go with Genesis 12:3, I will bless those that bless you (israel) and curse those who curse you. Ask Egypt they have had a rough go since God took the Jews out of Egypt.

It is also very important to make the distinction between the modern state of Israel and ancient Israelite kingdoms. If this distinction is not made, then Old Testament texts can be used to justify genocide -- not that I believe that Israel would ever do this, but there are a lot of extreme Zionists and Fundamentalists Christians who show no compassion for the plight of the Palestinian people -- and they justify injustice by hiding their political opinions behind supposedly divine utterances of God Himself.

I don't want anyone to die but Israel is a mandate from God to the Jewish people and he gives it's borders in the Bible. We must never divide Jerusalem, never.

Aside from supporting dictators for whatever reason -- be it a Soviet threat or whatever -- America has also invaded Iraq two times and Afghanistan -- and while conservatives in this country can't wait to provoke a war with Iran, I have to take a step back and say, maybe invading bombing and occupying Muslim countries, in addition to supporting Muslim dictators for our short-term national interests is probably not the best way to "win hearts and minds" -- probably not the best way to "win" any war on terror...

But it's a great way to inflame anti-Americanism and feed the narrative put forth by Al-Qaida which affirms that "The West is at War with Islam, fight! resist!"

America has made some bad choices with the dictators we have got into bed with but I do not see us as an evil country at all. We went into Iraq and Afghanistan with justifiable reasons. The intel that the entire western world had about Saddam turned out to be bad but the fact he is gone is a wonderful thing. Iran needs to be stopped because they WILL use the nuke against Israel and we can't take that chance. They lie and do not cooperate with the UN. Remember Neville Chamberlain.

And yes, unwavering unquestioning support for Israel, even when its armed forces gun down protestors and Americans who support a free Palestinian state and peace in the region -- also probably inflames present resentments towards the west.

I will always support Israel, they are not the aggressors. How would you feel if every country in the region hated you and launched bombs into your country EVERY day. I think Israel shows much restraint.

Yes as I said before our coffers are being poured out into dictatorships which oppress their own people -- but our foreign policy leaders havn't cared at all until all of the recent democratic uprisings...

Of course some countries will despise us no matter what we do, so how does that give us the right to invade bomb occupy and prop up dictatorships? How does that make Americans more safe? I mean seriously?

With Saddam gone we are safer are we not? He was no friend of the U.S.

We should support democracies and the peoples of the Middle East, and distance ourselves from our dictator friends if we even want a chance at gaining enough credibility to help stabilize the region in the future -- specifically to help America best help Israel and Palestine to find some sort of two state solution -- and yes a peace -- and no Obama isn't the Anti-Christ; Left Behind is fiction.

Left Behind may have been fiction but it is based on true events. I believe in the rapture and I believe the anti christ is alive and well. I have no idea who it is and nor do I care, we will be in heaven when satans messiah shows up. The 7 year peace deal will be signed soon and the world will rejoice and then it will know who the true anti christ is.

Too many Christians in America fear any talk of peace in the region and are absolutely against it because due to their fundamentalist, literal, and prophetic reading of an historical book (Revelation) -- which was meant to reflect issues in its own time and place -- they associate peace with the devil and the anti-Christ -- so if left up to them, the Israeli Palestinian conflict would last literally "until kingdom come."

I don't fear peace at all I hope peace comes for Israel. I pray for Israel. The difference is God tells us there will not be peace until the anti christ signs the 7 year treaty and I believe God. Revelation is a literal book and I read it that way, Jesus will return literally. Do you know that the whole feud started between 2 brothers Esau and Jacob and there is little chance it will be resolved. (this feud is thousands of years old)


I will look at the Falwell article

[Scotracer]

From Post 306:

...Christians today make a similar mistake when they ignore what God says about homosexual activity.

If only Christians could show their god has spoken on the issue.

Instead we typically get such as, "I believe God said to hate on homosexuals,

Cite? God doesn't hate homosexuals any more than He hates alcoholics, in fact He offers them a way out.

I take it you are referring to the Old Testament on this issue.

Well, if so, how do you explain the following admission from yourself:

I'm not saying the OT is pertinent only to Judaism, I'm saying the OT ceremonial, dietary, and disciplinary laws were pertinent only to the OT theocracy of Israel, and Judaism today, for those that choose to follow them. Really, this has been a settled issue in Christianity for 2,000 years. See Galatians.

If the OT isn't relevant any more...where do you base god's 'hatred' for homosexuals (or drunkards for that matter)?

God hates sin, not people. The prohibitions against homosexual activity, and other sexual immorality were restated in the NT, the OT Jewish ceremonial and dietary laws were not. Again, see Galatians.

I am not going to back up your argument for you. Show your case.

I've not quite sure what your question is, but if it is the Old vs. New Covenant for the umpteenth time, here is a summary:

http://www.nlbchapel.org/covenant.htm

I understand the idea of the covenant but I want you to state explicitly the sections of the NT where god is apparently against homosexuality. Also, how god defines homosexuality as 'sin'.

I just traped through the last 6 pages to see if my request had been met. Unfortunately, I do not see where EoE has fulfilled it...so I ask again:

I understand the idea of the covenant but I want you to state explicitly the sections of the NT where god is apparently against homosexuality. Also, how god defines homosexuality as 'sin'.