Quote of the day
posted at 10:00 pm on December 16, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
“From my perspective, it seems to me that you want trust of the text without having to wrestle with it, which is to say, without having to bring yourself to it. All you want to know is: Can I trust this written text? Texts are vulnerable to interpretation. There is no certainty in that easy sense. All we can do is bet our lives and trust ourselves to the judgment and mercy of God.
It also means you take the text more seriously than you take the life and humanity of a gay brother or lesbian sister. Let me tread carefully here. I know you’ll disagree. From the standpoint of the Living Word, I bring the reality of my beloved brothers and sisters to the study table. They are part of how I read. I can’t sit next to them in worship, know their faith and integrity, witness the loving fidelity of their relationships (despite the lack of institutional support), feel the pain of rejection or theological bludgeoning, recognize their gifts and graces of ministry (as well as their human failings and frailty) and not hear that ‘in Christ there is neither gay nor straight.’”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
While I tend to agree with what you said…
…I would also add that if proponents of gay marriage try to use the Bible to further their cause, then we SHOULD engage them there.
Or at the very least, let the REAL theologians engage and dispatch these heretics.
Religious_Zealot on December 17, 2008 at 12:35 AM
And just so I don’t get beat upon for saying that; There are many arguments against abortion and prostitution, etc, that are not religious also. We can’t argue with religion as our reasoning any more, because many people are not religious or the same religion as we may be and we cannot impose our religious reasons/beliefs upon them. We have to use secular arguments.
Christina D on December 17, 2008 at 12:38 AM
Agreed. :)
Christina D on December 17, 2008 at 12:39 AM
I just picked up Patrick Tyler’s forthcoming book, A World of Trouble, about America’s tortured relations with the Middle East, and the prologue contains this whopper of a scene, one that is quite devastating, if true: An enraged George Tenet, drunk on scotch, flailing about Prince Bandar’s Riyadh pool, screaming about the Bush Administration officials who were just then trying to pin the Iraq WMD fiasco on him:
A servant appeared with a bottle. Tenet knocked back some of the scotch. Then some more. They watched with concern. He drained half the bottle in a few minutes.
“They’re setting me up. The bastards are setting me up,” Tenet said, but “I am not going to take the hit.”
And then this:
“According to one witness, he mocked the neoconservatives in the Bush administration and their alignment with the rlght wing of Israel’s political establishment, referring to them with exaxperation as, “the Jews.”
Tyler reports in a footnote that, when asked, Tenet initially denied staying at Prince Bandar’s palace, then denied that he had said anything in the pool. “He disputed the remarks attributed to him and denied that his memory might have been affected by the amount of alcohol he was reported to have consumed on top of a sleeping pill,” Tyler reports.
I’ll ask around about this and post any responses I get.
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/12/george_tenet_drunk_in_bandars.php
This is worse than TMZ!
Mr. Joe on December 17, 2008 at 12:43 AM
None of us can really be sure of what God’s will is exactly for every circumstance, but I think he made it quite clear that loving one another was pretty high on the list at all times. Yes homosexuality is a sin, but it seems to appear to non-Christians that rejection of gay marriage is more important to us that treating gays as brothers in Christ.
I’m not a better person that someone who died in the flood. I simply have received more of God’s grace.
We need to show our thanks to God that he didn’t burden us with the sins that he might have and show some empathy with the people who are not so fortunate.
pedestrian on December 17, 2008 at 12:46 AM
No surprise there. These days, there’s a better than even chance that any denomination with “United” in front of it is skipping merrily along the path of heresy and reconstructionalist heterodoxy.
Oh boo hoo. He would have us believe that the homosexuals are Faberge eggs whose delicate psyches can’t handle the reproof and correction of their sinful behavior by Scripture. Aside from being patronizing, his attitude ignores the fact that ALL believers must endure the hard reproof and correction for our sinfulness (Non-believers are free to pass on that discomfort, at their own peril).
This is NOT hard:
Theft = sin. Worshipping anything other than the true God = sin. Sexual acts between members of the same sex = sin. Extramarital, heterosexual sex = sin. Lying = sin. Murder = sin.
Every single item above is declared a sin by God. Wylie-Kellerman’s assertion of there being “neither gay nor straight” could logically be extended to neither “murderer nor life-saver”, “liar nor truth-speaker”, “fornicator nor chaste”. This is moral relativism, pure and simple.
And in case the heretical absurdity of his mis-quote of Paul still wasn’t obvious enough, the original quote from Galatians 3:28 has NOTHING to do with a person’s sinfulness. Paul is declaring that all of the common ways of segregating people — by ethnicity, by gender, by social status — are null and void in Christ. In fact, by Paul’s reckoning, the ONLY truly segregating force in all Creation is SIN. (cf. Romans 8:38-39)
Wylie-Kellerman is so consumed by his warm feelings for homosexuals that, in order to condone the sinful practice of homosexuality, he is willing to twist Scripture into a blasphemous pretzel.
I think Isaiah 5:20 and Matthew 7:15 very clearly apply to Mr. Wylie-Kellerman.
Harpazo on December 17, 2008 at 12:47 AM
To condone gay marriage as a society… is as a society to spit in the face God and tell Him that we are are own gods and we will make are own judgements on what is right or wrong.
No true Christian who has picked up his cross and followed Christ can join whether it is the masses or the minority… the condoning of such that God calls sin.
That is why we will always stand in oposition to such… it is never because we hate homosexuals…. for a true Christian quite the oposite.
Steve_Montana on December 17, 2008 at 12:53 AM
Christina,
Of course I agree with you. It should be noted however that civil unions, as I pointed out in my initial post (hours ago, it now seems) are already the law of the land in California. I’m pretty sure, as a matter of fact, that the whole push for that started in San Francisco as a result of gay men needing their partners’ city medical benefits to fight the early AIDS onslaught.
None of the gains made in this respect have had any effect on the continuing agenda to redefine marriage, nor the establishment of pro-homosexual “diversity training” in every public forum. A San Francisco (private) schoolteacher recently took her middle-school class on a field trip to witness a colleague’s marriage to her girlfriend, and was loudly praised for her recognition of “a teachable moment” (her words) in the local press.
I fear there is to be no mollification of this by granting “rights”, even were it in our power to do so.
warbaby on December 17, 2008 at 12:56 AM
I agree with where I think this sentiment is going.
Civil unions, fine. Come up with a euphemism that can be used to characterize these “partners” so that state legislatures can then revise all the state laws to provide these “partners” with rights (and duties) comparable to spouses. But don’t call the civil union a marriage.
The left loves slippery slopes, so here’s one just for them. In fairly short order, some gay couple will be taking a traditional Christian denomination to court because the denomination refuses (as it should) to perform the wedding ceremony. Somewhere down the road, churches will lose their tax-exempt status because they won’t perform these ceremonies.
I also don’t like the notion of marriage because it legitimizes a relationship that gays insist should be celebrated and embraced in schools and other public forum–and it shouldn’t. Especially for gay men, I can’t past the revolting nature of the act. As far as I’m concerned, God didn’t create our thangy to go where gay men would have it go. And that’s that. Gays don’t want others in their bedrooms, so why can’t they keep their conduct out of the public square and public schools?
But then Obama voted for “age-appropriate” sex education, which extended to everything and was not, as his campaign insisted, limited to “inappropriate touching.”
BuckeyeSam on December 17, 2008 at 1:00 AM
The secular argument against the open promotion of homosexuality by the State is actually far simpler than the religious arguments against it: demographics.
Homosexuals in long-term monogamous relationships do not reproduce themselves at a sufficiently-high enough rate. As Europe is learning harshly, if people don’t make enough babies the population (and thus the tax base) shrinks. Left alone, this continues until the society is bankrupt and vacant, or until another, more fertile people group (and culture) move in and take over.
It is in the best interests of the society and its government to promote replenishment-levels of reproduction (average of at least 1 child per mature adult). Homosexuality is a bad deal demographically for a society.
Harpazo on December 17, 2008 at 1:01 AM
This reminds me that we are probably going to not be able to teach abstinence sex ed anymore in the near future because of this, because what’s going to happen is everyone is going to say “No teaching in school about marriage or unions period, because it’s infringing on everyone’s beliefs.” and how can you teach abstinence education if you can’t talk about marriage? Our children will only learn preventative measures and it will be harder for me to make my children understand why sex should wait until marriage when the school would rather say “Hey sex is ok if you use a condom” and have no mention of it being ok to wait until you’re married. :\
Am I going to have to resort to home school? I really don’t want to have socially inept children.
Christina D on December 17, 2008 at 1:16 AM
I’m not religious but since the Bible explicitly condemns homosexuality as sinful, I highly doubt that “God” would condone an institution that facilitated it (ie. gay marriage).
But whatever. The mainstream media has an agenda and facts be damned. I mean, these are the same people who tout Barney Frank as “the smartest guy in Congress” and tell us that we’re lucky to have him there.
Mike Honcho on December 17, 2008 at 1:18 AM
Are homosexual relationships prevalent enough in Europe to make that much of a difference?
Additionally, if that’s the case, practicing catholics and mormons will take over the world soon, because they have so many babies! Being LDS myself, I plan on having 6+ if I can. :D
Christina D on December 17, 2008 at 1:19 AM
Er … doesn’t your Bible say that God created man in His image?
OldEnglish on December 17, 2008 at 1:24 AM
Yes, but that means physically my friend. Are you trying to say you believe that disabled people are not built in God’s image either, because they were born with brain/physcial disabilities? Or people who are born with genetic alcoholism are not created in God’s image? If we were born in God’s image the way you’re implying, we’d all be perfect.
Christina D on December 17, 2008 at 1:30 AM
Prohibiting gay marriage is not going to cause homosexuals to have more babies. There would need to be a much better reason than that for the government to be able to tell people who they can and can’t marry.
Neither can I, but the fact is that God can see into all of our hearts and our sin is even more repulsive to him, and yet he still loves us. The thing is that the sinfulness of gay marriage I think is being taken too far and is used as a way to keep something we find icky out of our lives without due consideration to the effect it has on the lives of gays. I think that God causes everything for a reason, and it seems to me that he has used our own revulsion to homosexuality to help us understand his revulsion of all of our sins.
The fact that gays are insistent on gay marriage having the same social acceptance as regular marriage is a reflection of the persecution they have received from a predominantly Christian society. Without some that persecution a regular marriage would be as irrelevant to them as home decorating is to me. I think that Christians need to spend more time thinking about how they have been treating gays that gays want to intrude on education, when for the most part gays don’t even have kids.
pedestrian on December 17, 2008 at 1:31 AM
Ok, I’m going to go to bed now. :) Goodnight everyone. Have fun discussing things without me!
Christina D on December 17, 2008 at 1:37 AM
Yes it is not hard. I couldn’t agree more. The problem is men call evil good and good evil as the bible says. All these sins you mentioned are rationalized nowadays.
There is no difference with Christ. He commands everyone everywhere to repent.
The big problem is, they love their sin that they have an irrational hate for God’s word, and make a god out of their own imaginations like this person in the interview does.
maynila on December 17, 2008 at 1:51 AM
It’s true: in Christ there is no gay or straight.
However, there is still use versus misuse of sex, right action and wrong action. We can debate what those are (and it is a worthy debate) but given the Christian notion that sex ought to be somehow related to offspring, it follows that some sexual behaviour is bad.
Friends don’t encourage friends to do what is bad, and they also don’t support the state giving it a seal of approval.
Of note: heterosexuals are much more to blame in terms of misusing sex these days than homosexuals. Marriage was already in a pretty bad way before gay marriage cropped up to finish it off.
Gaunilon on December 17, 2008 at 1:52 AM
I think it’s pretty cool how modern liberals found an issue that God had not had the foresight to know would arise when He inspired scripture. Oh wait, He did, that’s why the NT Is even more clear regarding homosexuality being a sin than the old testament.
Different times, same old sin.
Nothing new under the sun.
If we tell God what is right and wrong, who is God?
TTheoLogan on December 17, 2008 at 2:17 AM
OK………….. If it is OK to kill an unborn baby, then murder is also OK, in fact, if I like your wife, I can take her any time I want, better yet, your house, your possessions are mine, and your children will be my slaves…….. because that is how “some” interpret it, and it is all subjective………….. fu%k it, I have weapons and ammunition, I am taking all I want, and since it is all up to interpretation…………
…………….. I will take it all.
How is that for interpretation…………?
/sarc
Seven Percent Solution on December 17, 2008 at 2:26 AM
Allahpundit,
While I respect the fact that you want to stir up controversy and therefore bring in more traffic/comments, I don’t think this is the most astute time to be arguing about things of this nature. In light of the last couple elections, do you seriously want to bring up arbitrary arguments that split whatever group we may have? One thing most people posting here can agree on is: the government can get the hell out of the personal details of our lives. As a conservative Christian, do I believe in gay marriage? No, I don’t believe it’s right. However, I do believe that God gave free will to people to decide how their life will be lived. I have plenty of gay friends that I truly respect, but at the same time I think that “marriage” should be left between a man and a woman and “civil union” should grant them the same taxed-based privileges. However, in reality, the point is moot because that’s the least of our concerns for us and our political party at this moment in time. Right now we’re dealing with a 40+ year deficit on conservative teaching in the classroom (I’m a recent college graduate – trust me, I know), the world’s best (by far) economy being destroyed by liberal agendas, a majority Marxist Congress (I’m sorry, but liberalism nowadays is Marxism), an immigration problem that does not want to be solved by either party, and a president-elect who has known ties to Marxist radicals (however pragmatic he may seem to be right now, wait till the next 4-year cycle). Do we want to prevent our government from taking absolute control over our lives, or do we want to live as sheep (pardon the phrase – I hate it when truthers use it) grazing off the field of federal benefits and largess? F*** all the b.s. – we should be focusing on the values that bring us together. And, on top of that, how do we translate our ideas into a modern theme that resonates with the younger class. Do you know how many classmates/friends/colleagues that I had calling/texting/Facebooking me to remind me to vote for Obama? Hell, I was watching a show on Hulu and saw an Obama ad. Besides my few conservative friends here in Tallahassee, we were waaaay outnumbered. It’s time to step up to the plate, screw all the trivial sh*t, and reform our country and our school system so that the kids we raise (hopefully for me, one of these days) will have a kick @ss country to live in still.
specialkayel on December 17, 2008 at 2:39 AM
Since you would be going to teach them, as long as you are not socially inept that shouldn’t be a problem
onthego on December 17, 2008 at 3:28 AM
I cannot believe there is another one of these threads here!
We have discussed and argued this to the point of distraction!
Homosexual sex is a sin and anyone who engages in it is a sinner.
That hasn’t changed for the last 5,000 years or so and it hasn’t changed today because some Leftist “Christianist” clown like the one cited says so.
“In Christ, there is no straight or gay?” What blasphemy!
But, of course, in most “modern” demonational churches, this is what goes for progressive theology and thinking.
Don’t be surprised to see these folks in Hell in the next life…
Jenfidel on December 17, 2008 at 4:08 AM
Of course, he does.
Blake on December 17, 2008 at 4:09 AM
“For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, and He will not let the honor which is His be given to any other.”
“Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. For our God is a consuming fire.”
TMK on December 17, 2008 at 4:54 AM
/eyeroll
You can tell the argument for gay marriage is bullcrap because of how it’s being argued, the actual argument notwithstanding. Pay careful attention to what is being asked, and then what is being argued in response.
Question: Does the Bible support homosexuality?
Answer: If the Bible didn’t support homosexuality, it would make people feel bad.
Um, not exactly answering the question… Or maybe it is!
Also, I’m as gay as springtime, but I don’t have to pretend that the Communion of the Saints and the Faith Once Delivered has been in serious error for 2000 years just to validate my existence. It undermines the entire idea of Christianity to believe that an omnipotent God let the church languish in such a fundamental error for 2000 years until Marxism and moral relativism came along to show us the way… How I feel about being gay has no bearing on the truth or untruth of the word of God.
Lehosh on December 17, 2008 at 5:22 AM
Sorry, the majority of Americans feel that homosexuality is wrong. A larger % of Christians feel that way based upon Biblical teachings which clearly articulate God’s dictates that the “lifestyle” is wrong. Keep selling the left’s diversity tripe…it doesn’t change a thing!
sabbott on December 17, 2008 at 5:28 AM
I repeat myself. It’s not about human rights. It’s about legitimizing homosexual behavior as “normal”. Nobody wants to be thought of as outside-the-mainstream. This will only open the floodgates and all unnatural abberations will become “normal” in turn. Get ready for it. It’s gonna get weird(er).
SKYFOX on December 17, 2008 at 5:40 AM
And God also gave us this little gift called “free will”
christene on December 17, 2008 at 5:46 AM
I find age-centric high schoolers who can’t have an intelligible conversation with someone more than a year removed from their own ages far, far more socially inept than homeschoolers, who (generally) have an opportunistic learning strategy that brings them in contact with a wider variety of ages and social classes.
Quisp on December 17, 2008 at 6:27 AM
Christine D,
There are arguments that you don’t need a bible for. I know Partial-Birth Abortion is a vile thing, but that’s because its offends my sense of humanity.
rob verdi on December 17, 2008 at 6:28 AM
Succinctly, homosexuality is an act/crime against nature.
hoi polloi on December 17, 2008 at 6:59 AM
AP can we get an attribution on that quote? Whoever said that is a complete imbecile of theology. Jesus was a deeply orthodox Jew and homosexuality would be anathema to him.
dogsoldier on December 17, 2008 at 7:37 AM
Home Schooling may be the only salvation to conservatism and Christianity in the future.
hawkdriver on December 17, 2008 at 7:49 AM
Another egghead who is convinced that the Bible does not mean what it says.
Mojave Mark on December 17, 2008 at 7:51 AM
…and after her accusers put down their stones and left, Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery, “Go, and sin no more.”
Quite simple, really.
locomotivebreath1901 on December 17, 2008 at 7:54 AM
.
You’ve got this way too simple. It’s essential that these kinds quotes be de-prioritized. Today, the most important mission for the democratic bodies determining Christian faith, is to make faith conform to the current political will. If these people were our Church in the first three centuries, we would be worshiping Roman gods and emperors today, instead of treasuring our faith at the risk of life itself.
Mark30339 on December 17, 2008 at 8:22 AM
If you have to rely on the public schools to socialize your children, then you have much bigger problems then whether or not to home school them.
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 8:29 AM
In Canada, a minister was brought up on charges of hate speech for merely reading from his pulpit, those sections of the Bible that deal with homosexuality.
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 8:33 AM
This kind of reminds me of those “God Speaks” billboards.
Specifically, the one the said: “What part of ‘Thou Shalt Not’ don’t you understand?”
Sin is sin and while God’s love provides a bridge back to Him…
…we have to cross that bridge for ourselves.
And we can’t do that if we think that ‘love’ is some Hallmark schmaltzy warm feeling that fixes everything without actually changing anything.
It’s interesting that those who lift up love, love, love forget that we are also supposed to FEAR God.
What that means is to respect and honor His will and never forget that God is a just God who will punish sinners.
Religious_Zealot on December 17, 2008 at 8:47 AM
Love the homosexual, hate the sin of homosexuality.
God understands the distorted sexual desire of same sex attraction, and because it is sin when acted upon, abhors its presence.
Liberal pseudo-theologians can candy coat it all they want with humanistic emotions, but it’s still not a healthy lifestyle or a way that leads salvation.
Hening on December 17, 2008 at 9:05 AM
The demand for girl-on-girl porn says it’s nowhere near 90%….closer to 10%. Darn near EVERYONE enjoyed the lesbo scenes from “Wild Things”. :)
Folks, the text is clear: homosexual behavior is a sin.
Then again, so is divorce in every case except for when the spouse commits adultery (that one’s in red text, so it’s indisputable). What does that mean? Someone participating in gay acts is committing a sin, just as my main man Ronald Reagan did when he married Nancy.
Both examples can still accept Christ and be bound for glory, ya know. THAT is the most important thing, not the particular sins that we can play “gotcha” with while on earth.
Google the most important commandments. Jesus talked about them. Again, the text is clear. Any disagreements can be taken up with him. If you’re gay, divorced, a drug abuser, a thief, etc., you’re not bound for hell. John 3:16 says “that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish but have everlasting life”.
So, if you’re gay you can still punch your ticket for heaven.
Doesn’t mean you should be legally married, though. The bible is also clear on that, too.
rjwest21 on December 17, 2008 at 9:07 AM
The Greek word translated as ‘believe’ is pisteuo, which can also be translated as ‘commit.’
Since the English word ‘believe’ can be very wishy-washy (I believe in love, I believe in God, I believe in UFO’s, I believe I’ll have another slice of cake)…
…I like to use ‘commit’ which helps bring back the original power of the verse.
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who COMMITS to Him may not perish but may have eternal life.
You see, it’s not just about have a warm fuzzy feeling in your heart about Jesus.
It’s about committing your life to Him and His teachings.
It’s about letting God’s love flood your soul and remove the sin like a refiners fire removes the impurities in gold.
But, and here’s the important point…
…you can’t commit your life to Christ IF you continue in your sinful ways. ESPECIALLY if you’re trying to pretend that what you’re doing isn’t a sin.
Homosexual behavior and gay marriage are both sins. If one repents and STOPS their behavior, then that shows commitment to Christ.
However, blatantly and willfully continuing such behavior shows a commitment to turn AWAY from Christ.
And the thing about God is that, come judgment day, He will honor our decision to turn away from Him.
Religious_Zealot on December 17, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Get use to it folks: We are going to be battered with pro-gay marriage articles and stories.
Blake on December 17, 2008 at 9:23 AM
St. Paul’s epistles were written, among other things, to condemn and correct heresies and immoral practices. There have always been apostates and pretenders in the Church from day one.
To believe that the pro-sodomy group is correct one must believe that A) the Bible means the opposite of what it says, and B) those who have been on the side of traditional biblical/Christian morality since the beginning have been wrong, and those who have been the object of condemnation and calls to repentance have been right.
Which is more likely the one on God’s side?
Akzed on December 17, 2008 at 9:23 AM
I’m sick of talking about the concept of homosexuality. You’d think there were unlimited hours in the day to address important issues. I told every gay person I knew to focus on civil unions to avoid the appearance of trying to change religion — and all of human history — by fiat of government or abuse of judicial power. “Avoid trashing sacraments” I said.
But noooooooooo….
Beagle on December 17, 2008 at 9:58 AM
To me, gay marrage is absurd. It is an affront to nature itself. It is painfully obvious to me that males and females were made differently, and natures way for reproduction and mateing is crystal clear. To elevate and legitimize perverted behavior is nuts.
Stay in the closet please.
saiga on December 17, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Let’s just do away with all laws. Let everyone do whatever they want, and we’ll all be happy. Right? Well, what about the NAMBLA crowd? Can’t a man marry a 14 year old boy? I mean, he obviously loves him…
The ONLY reason it’s an issue at all, is because gays want to destroy the part of marriage that is a Christian institution in America.
kirkill on December 17, 2008 at 10:27 AM
‘Real’ meaning those theologians whose beliefs are shared by you and those like you? I just want to clarify so we can see if there is room for open serious debate or if this is one-sided.
grdred944 on December 17, 2008 at 11:15 AM
So the government’s singular role in all of this is to permit marriage among so-called straights to promote mating? Is that really the role government should take on?
grdred944 on December 17, 2008 at 11:18 AM
I miss those fights between you and MadCon over tickledragon. They were so much fun to read. Aah, the good old days.
macblanegirl on December 17, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Says the poster who accused all Christians of adultery…
Esthier on December 17, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Age of consent laws would have to be lowered first. Your better argument is something like adult consensual incest. Most people are creeped out by it, but it’s no more harmful to my marriage than a gay marriage is.
Esthier on December 17, 2008 at 11:42 AM
All? Where was your reply to the original poster of that topic? I missed your assertion of his blanket assertion regarding readers of Playboy. Not that credibility is an issue for you but you would have more if you would be even-handed. I never said ‘all.’
Now are you interested in this topic or are you going to continue to troll the site looking to slap at those who you have disagreed with on past issues? My guess is trolling comes easier for you.
grdred944 on December 17, 2008 at 12:04 PM
I’ll raise you this quote:
“Is there any system of governance or economics that can withstand rampant corruption or self-entitlement? … Has the astounding success of American capitalism spawned people who consider themselves completely removed from the ethical guidelines that govern mere mortals? Has the wholesale abandonment of religion for secularism produced a moral vacuum? … No system can survive when its prime movers and shakers are fundamentally corrupt — most especially when they don’t consider themselves to be so.” –columnist Arnold Ahlert
kirkill on December 17, 2008 at 12:20 PM
To “your” marriage. But to the overall institute of marriage it is very harmful. Which is why you only have to look at the experiment as it is played out in countries that have gay marriage. It ends up that more and more people simply don’t get married at all anymore. Gay or straight. Game set match.
kirkill on December 17, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Yes, all.
That’s what Christians do, right? You don’t have to say the word “all” in order to include all Christians. It’s a superlative word in the sentence you typed.
And that was my problem with you. You’re asking others to meet a standard you haven’t held yourself to.
Esthier on December 17, 2008 at 12:33 PM
All the Secularist want is that society all comes down to the lowest comon denomenator.
At that point they can do what they want to do and no one is to oppose it. Acceptance of homosexuallity is one of those front issues that they want society to view as “normal”… gay marriage is just the front for this.
If gay marriage becomes the norm of the society… what is next on their list of acceptance… the killing of unborn children has already passed this line of acceptance in our modern society.
What WILL HAPPEN… and mark these words… any opposition to this and you will be marked a “HATER”. Christians who stand by God given values will be known as “HATERS”.
HATERS… get used to seeing that word used by those pushing for this “lowest common denominator” society.
Steve_Montana on December 17, 2008 at 12:33 PM
How is that match? The argument is that people should be able to do what they want, and if less people are choosing to marry, that’s on them.
But I wasn’t arguing the validity of gay marriage. I was only using the argument to make a point about the validity of other denied marriages.
Esthier on December 17, 2008 at 12:38 PM
LOL — how many shows a night do you do? This is going to be filed in the same tray as:
“It depends on what the meaning of the words ‘is’ is.” –Bill Clinton
And to your second point, I didn’t ask anyone to meet a standard. Where do you pull this stuff from? Go ahead and quote what I wrote earlier in this thread. I’d like an answer still.
grdred944 on December 17, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Only for the grammatically challenged.
I didn’t realize you’d argue nothing but semantics. That got old for me in high school, and the argument hasn’t aged well.
Esthier on December 17, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Dang, I’m gone for a couple weeks, and a “gay thread” can’t even generate 200 comments on HA? It’s like bizarro world…
JetBoy on December 17, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Semantics? While you are browsing through your ‘Word A Day’ clippings see if you can match what it means to attribute words to other people with no basis. If you can come up with a correct word before Xmas you get the cookie.
As for this topic, I am done. I look forward to your trolls in other topics you know nothing of and hope you have a Kwazy Kwanza.
grdred944 on December 17, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Ah, projection in all its glory.
Just because you had to look up the word, it doesn’t mean I had to. It’s not even a big word. I could prove my English creds by going grammar troll on all your posts, but I prefer to instruct people who can actually process what I’m sending them.
Esthier on December 17, 2008 at 2:09 PM
Judging by your comments…
…”serious” debate is not one of your forte’s.
Religious_Zealot on December 17, 2008 at 3:33 PM
As an ex-teacher, I can tell you that the most socially adept children I have met are home schooled. The only way to have socially inept children is if you refuse to let them play sports and clubs.
Then again, all this is mute if you consider socially adept children those who can use the F-bomb in a sentence multiple times. Let me list the following things that happened in my last year of teaching:
-14+ girls became pregnant (all were under 16 years old.)
-3 became heavily addicted to drugs.
-8+ were arrested.
-20+ were suspended throughout the year for fights.
-1 girl was suspended for giving head in the hall (guy was too, but I didn’t have him in my class).
-Countless cell phones/ipods were taken due to them having porn on them.
Yup, that is what I want my children’s social interaction to be like.
Tim Burton on December 17, 2008 at 4:00 PM
You’ll let us know of the person who stops sinning, right?
Heck, the first tenant of being a Christian is ADMITTING that you’re a sinner.
BTW, your logic dictates that Ronald Reagan couldn’t commit his life to Christ, being an adulterer & all that until the day he died (both he & Nancy were on marriage #2. Sorry, I (and the bible, which isn’t greek by the way) don’t subscribe to the theory that a sinner cannot commit to Christ. And since you’re hip deep in judging others (a no-no according to J to the C), neither do you.
Step number one is admitting one is a sinner. A good #2 is pulling the burr out of your a$$ and reading the second most important commandment, according to Christ.
rjwest21 on December 17, 2008 at 4:46 PM
Continue as in willfully choosing to continue one’s sins.
We all sin – but those who commit their lives to Christ do their best to STOP sinning.
My “logic” dictates no such thing.
The New Testament was originally written in Greek.
Or do you really think Jesus walked around Israel speaking in King James English?
You also continue to miss the point.
Sinners can commit to Christ.
Unrepentant sinners, though, prove that they HAVEN’T committed to Christ.
Ah, yes, nothing like proving one’s Christian ‘bona fides’ by swearing at someone you disagree with.
Yes, you will know a person by the fruit they bear.
Religious_Zealot on December 17, 2008 at 5:03 PM
Okay, let’s cut to the chase: did Ronald Reagan (or Bob Dole, or John McCain) commit to Christ or are they headed for eternal damnation, in your opinion. And to bypass the minutia, there are only two possible answers: yes or no.
I don’t have to prove my Christianity to any human, least of all you. That’s the problem with the Church Lady types, they’re always judging. Here’s a tip: you’re in no position to judge anyone. Folks like you do little other than hurt the cause. Oh, you tell yourself how much more of a Christian you are than those who don’t bear the ‘fruit’ that you deem acceptable, but you’re part of the reason that so many people disdain Christians.
BTW, I think the language was aramaic (hence the need for King James to have it translated) but it’s not that big a deal. I’m not trying to hammer someone under my holier-than-thou thumb.
So, which is it, yes or no? The readers at Hot Air might be interested in learning that Ron is already in hell & Nancy is soon headed in that direction.
rjwest21 on December 17, 2008 at 8:19 PM
No, there is one other possible answer: I don’t know because I don’t know the state of their heart.
And what’s with this preoccupation with Regan?
The disposition of his soul is a matter between him and God.
All I CAN tell you is that divorce is a one-time sin and can be forgiven and moved on from.
Living in a gay-marriage is a constant state of sin and can only be forgiven if one repents and moves out of the marriage.
No, it wasn’t.
Maybe before you decide to debate theology…
…you should actually KNOW what you’re talking about.
Again – you will know a tree by the fruit it bears.
What kind of fruit have you been bearing?
Religious_Zealot on December 17, 2008 at 10:59 PM
.
Remarriage is adultery.
A constant state of sin.
You ducked. Then, you punted (I saw it coming a mile away).
Just as I thought. Church Ladys are often cowards when put under the bright lights.
I know when I’m casting pearls before the (cowardly) swine.
Not.
Worth.
My.
Time.
Church Lady.
rjwest21 on December 18, 2008 at 7:32 AM
Not if the divorce was due to adultery/unfaithfulness:
“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” – Matthew 19:9
Maybe you should, I don’t know, actual READ the scripture before you pretend to be a teacher of it.
Funny of way of putting the inability for anyone of us to truly know what lies in the hearts of people.
But, then I guess you must have super-secret psychic powers!
I realize that actually LEARNING theology is a waste of your time.
I figured that out when you claimed the Bible was originally written in English.
Again – before you come into a discussion on a subject you should actually KNOW what you’re talking about.
Until then, you’re just another false teacher professing knowledge yet possesses nothing.
How’s that fruit you’re bearing? Seems kind of rotten and bitter to me.
Religious_Zealot on December 18, 2008 at 12:27 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2