Quote of the day
posted at 10:00 pm on December 16, 2008 by Allahpundit
“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.’”
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: 1 2 Next »
The ensuing comments should be good.
PBoilermaker on December 16, 2008 at 10:03 PM
Living Constitution?
Asher on December 16, 2008 at 10:05 PM
Will not take bait.
- The Cat
MirCat on December 16, 2008 at 10:06 PM
” ‘in Christ there is neither gay nor straight.’”
newsflash — not in scripture!
/sigh …
Buckaroo on December 16, 2008 at 10:08 PM
Interesting way to address one’s audience…
Andrew D on December 16, 2008 at 10:08 PM
If we let only the people who have never broken the Sabbath, taken the Lord’s name in vain, or lied weigh in on this debate it should be quite short.
pedestrian on December 16, 2008 at 10:13 PM
“Oooh, that meat lovers’ pizza isn’t loving me back” (This quote is getting strangely more appropriate for trolling here… :) )
As for the article… barf-o-rama…
This is nothing more than intellectual elite-snobism because Kellerman can’t argue Duke’s points and wants to change the subject and then goes on to personal attacks. (You don’t understand the scholarly debate over the Leviticus).
In the end, Kellerman doesn’t care about “God” or the philosophy behind what’s going on.. but rather his own personal utopia.
Remember kiddies, the argument was whether or not the Bible philosophically supported Homosexual marriage not, the socio-political implications of what it would mean for churches to accept Homosexual marriage.
Kellerman has his dream…and that’s all he cares about.
Skywise on December 16, 2008 at 10:14 PM
This is bullsh+t political activism, not theology
Newsweek is dying, and I hope they die fast
Janos Hunyadi on December 16, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Not the point at all.
To wit, Jesus’ holding up the mirror about the stoning of the adulteress was one or mob mentality and vigilantism in the guise of righteousness. Did Jesus now revoke adultery as a sin as well because of his silence? No. But if we were to shoot everybody that disobeys traffic laws, we’d all be dead. That doesn’t mean we should revoke all traffic laws…
Skywise on December 16, 2008 at 10:18 PM
God is often quoted for what He did not say but very seldom quoted for what He did say.
Romans Chapter 1:21″For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Steve_Montana on December 16, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Janos Hunyadi on December 16, 2008 at 10:17 PM
Which part? The part supporting gay marriage or the part opposing it? Or this part where you didn’t read the article?
DaveS on December 16, 2008 at 10:22 PM
I suppose one could equate the above with a man engaging in homosexual acts.
Of course, I’m not sure what type of punishment one receives from breaking the Sabbath, taking the Lord’s name in vain or lying.
Maybe it’s cancer?
It’ll be AIDS though for the homo acts.
BowHuntingTexas on December 16, 2008 at 10:23 PM
If one wishes to indulge in the game of cricket, ones observes the rules of cricket – not soccer. Same applies with any endeavour.
OldEnglish on December 16, 2008 at 10:25 PM
Here’s the problem with that theory: A man lies, or takes the Lord’s name in vain, or fails to keep the Sabbath, he’s sinning. The Word says he’s sinning, and hopefully, he agrees that he’s sinning, he asks forgiveness, maybe pays a penance, and tries not to do it again. That man does not engage in a reinterpretation of the Word of God to make what he is doing not sinful, nor demand that others reinterpret the Word so that what he is doing not be sinful. I mean, if I killed a man because I wanted to sleep with his wife — that is to say, murdered him — and I went around saying that the problem isn’t that it’s wicked or sinful, but that your interpretation of the Bible was wrong and narrow-minded, you’d call me a madman. So what is this guy doing?
Spc Steve on December 16, 2008 at 10:27 PM
Jesus used to live in me. That’s pretty gay. I spent many years hating religion until recently when I realized that if there a god out there he made me gay. I’ve known all my life, and nothing has changed it. If he made me gay to send me to hell then that’s mean and ridiculous, but there’d be nothing I could do about it. My destiny is sealed. However, I choose to believe otherwise.
SouthernGent on December 16, 2008 at 10:28 PM
I know… Let’s make God in OUR image and then we will have peace on earth and good will to men (who chose to lie with other men).
Lev 20:13 If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
Gives new meaning to “till death do us part”. Yikes!!
katy on December 16, 2008 at 10:29 PM
Why doesn’t he speak English! I don’t know the meaning of half of what he said, and I don’t believe he does either!
Cheshire Cat on December 16, 2008 at 10:31 PM
The Word of God is not open to interpretation, no matter how badly one wants to fit their sick lifestyle into the ‘acceptable’ column.
Try as you might, gay is gay, and that is wrong, immoral, and not acceptable.
I know it’s Christmastime, but the left has made it impossible to be tolerant.
Reap what you sow. And so they shall.
madmonkphotog on December 16, 2008 at 10:31 PM
It’s a very good and thoughtful exchange between two thoughtful, God-loving individuals.
As a gay man, I think “Duke” presents some very stark thoughts with respect to homosexuality as seen through the lens of the Bible — it’s a tough issue to deal with. As a practicing Catholic, I struggle with it every day, but what people don’t understand (in particular many of my gay friends) is that it is a good struggle. Faith is not easy — recall Christ’s own torment in the Garden of Gethsemane. I know I’m not perfect and that (oh the horror) I’m likely to have sex someday with another man if I really like him and he really likes me, but I understand what makes me this way perhaps a little more deeply than heterosexual folks or even gay people who blissfully ignore the reality of their own sexuality. I do think homosexuality is somewhat of a disorder (I’d be stoned in PTown for that remark), but not one that is inherently evil or hopelessly “retarded.” It’s just the way many of us are wired — the real test of our mettle is how each of us chooses to accept it. Some accept it by having sex all over the place without the fear of consquences, i.e. pregnancy and making it the defining characteristic of who they are. Others, like myself, try to understand it better and not let it consume what truly makes us good and gives us our individuality.
I don’t believe in gay marriage. You can imagine what sort of stead that puts me in with my fellow homos. I’m sorry, but the greatest good that can come of two people being together is the creation of new life, and biology – given to us by God – only permits that between one man and one woman… it just ain’t in the cards for two dudes or two women. And if that doesn’t transmit a subtle yet obvious message to people considering this whole issue of gay marriage, then I don’t know what will.
D2Boston on December 16, 2008 at 10:32 PM
The race obsessed left is now entranced with gays, how very charming.
When will the left get over their Atticus Finch complex so we can finally move on to adult matters?
I swear, every dopey liberal I’ve ever met lists to “Kill a Mockingbird” as their favorite novel.
NoDonkey on December 16, 2008 at 10:32 PM
The message is that Jesus loves us in spite of our sins, and that we should learn to get along in spite of our shortcomings. The talk separation of civil from religious marriage is very unfortunate for the strength of the God-given institution of marriage. But Christian’s treatment of homosexuals has driven people, both gay and straight, away from Christian life. Just as we find our modern concepts of male and female equality at odds with Paul’s prescription for marriage, we may have to find some type of accomodation with homosexual marriage as well.
pedestrian on December 16, 2008 at 10:33 PM
Jesus was not silent in confronting sin, however, He was not silent either in offering forgiveness and extending grace.
INC on December 16, 2008 at 10:37 PM
ahh…never mind.
jerrytbg on December 16, 2008 at 10:38 PM
Which accurately explains why he overturned the money lenders carts in the Temple…
Skywise on December 16, 2008 at 10:40 PM
This article by Lisa Miller is, or should be, an embarrassment not only to the writer but to NewSpeak for having published it.
You’ll notice that besides the expectable canards about Jesus and Paul, she can hardly wait to get to this: “California legalized gay marriage and then, with a ballot initiative in November, amended its Constitution to prohibit it”, conveniently eliding the fact that Prop 22, defining marriage as between a man and a woman only, was passed in 2000.
San Francisco mayor Newsome’s breezy (and illegal) dismissal of this by encouraging (and publicly performing himself) gay marriages led to a court challenge which forced the State to consider and pass Prop 8.
Whatever the issues are about gay marriage, this kind of egregious (and execrably written) propaganda is a blatant attempt to stir up shit by inflaming the left on the basis of some supposed victimhood. The rights of homosexual couples are exactly no less than heterosexual married couples in California. Keep your eye on the ball, folks, this is an attack on the church and nothing else.
warbaby on December 16, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Yeah, I quoted that last thread. You would find that 2 Peter 2 and 2 Peter 3 also support your argument.
You see, we have a special (read: genuine) Bible… one that doesn’t mention the alrightness of homosexual relations, just as Mark Levin’s special (again, genuine/actual) consitution doesn’t mention freedoms of abortion and privacy.
knob on December 16, 2008 at 10:44 PM
Excellent points, D2. A thing that many people fail to grasp is the difference between homosexual inclination and homosexual acts; it isn’t the inclination that’s inherently sinful, rather the acts. An analogy to explain this is that of alcoholism: I, for whatever reason, be it genetics, or environmental factors, cannot stop drinking if I start. The inclination toward alcohol abuse is disordered, but not sinful unless I act on it. On a religious/spiritual level, then, the challenge is how to direct that inclination toward God’s glory rather than my own destruction.
Southern Gent, you’ve chosen wisely!
Fallen Sparrow on December 16, 2008 at 10:50 PM
The only time I read Newsweek is when I’m at the dentists office. Reading there own special brand of journalism numbs the pain of the drill. With their circulation down to 2.6 million and the population of the US up to 300 million can’t they apply for an affirmative action grant?
Tommy_G on December 16, 2008 at 10:51 PM
If a man does not pray five times a day towards Mecca as did the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon Him, then that is a sin.
Aleph on December 16, 2008 at 10:51 PM
Infallable?
AbaddonsReign on December 16, 2008 at 10:52 PM
Here is a statement by the smiling Jesus with a little lamb under his arm so many want to picture:
Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.”
In Revelations He will spew the luke warm “Christians” out of His mouth…
My Point: “He who does not take his cross an follow after Me is not worthy of Me”.
We can’t make His words fit our lifestyle… we are commanded to make our lives fit His.
Steve_Montana on December 16, 2008 at 10:52 PM
Pointless and stupid conversation which is all this is intended to be. The fallacy of these conversations is the idea that there should be some accommodation for the spirit’s sake. There is no need for this because the text is clear, blindingly clear. Unless someone has a verifiable revelation from God, not just a feeling from the Spirit, then the only conclusion you can come to is that marriage is between a man and woman and all homosexual activity are an abomination.
I’m sure it would be, for straight people too, especially considering THERE ISN”T ONE except for ridiculous twisting of various texts.
Rocks on December 16, 2008 at 10:52 PM
I was thinking the part where 90% of a society shouldn’t be PC’d to death to accept something they find repulsive..and don’t kid yourself…we do.
The idea that the Bible or Constitution is a ‘Living, Breathing document’ is pure dogs&#t, there has to be some structure, there has to be limits.
Gay marriage..fine. Anyone that supports it has no beef with any kind of marriage..how can you?? Come up with the most twisted thing you can think of…why can’t it/they/them be married?? Why not?? They’re even less of the general population??
BigWyo on December 16, 2008 at 10:54 PM
THE BIBLE BELIEVE IT OR GO TO HELL
sonnyspats1 on December 16, 2008 at 10:54 PM
I’ve often said that one can not find support of gay marriage or homosexual activity in the Bible.
Most pro-homosexual religious folks have come to that realization and have moved their argument on to different things (‘Jesus loves us in spite of our sins’).
This article/interview is no different except it adds the new twist of deconstructing scriptural text.
Which is interesting because if one throws out the anti-homosexuality part, on what basis do you keep the rest (‘Jesus loves us in spite of our sins’)?
The issue here, by the way, isn’t love.
The issue is sin.
Religious_Zealot on December 16, 2008 at 10:56 PM
Aleph on December 16, 2008 at 10:57 PM
Yes, it does and it’s not even a difficult decision.
The inspired Word of God against sinners desperately trying to convince themselves and others that they aren’t sinners.
Your ‘hurt feelings’ are not more important that God’s will.
Religious_Zealot on December 16, 2008 at 10:59 PM
Whoa, Whoa, stop the thread, the internet is spinning!!
This tool sounds like Yoda. “In Christ there is neither gay nor straight…..Only Straight.
Newsweek is the worst piece of anti-prop 8, Pro-Obama bird cage liner. Where do they find these guys?
portlandon on December 16, 2008 at 11:02 PM
Well that tells you right there that there is a big problem with your theology, because God is love. Sin abides in all of us, and yet we are commanded to love one another. If we have to struggle to get past our revulsion with one another’s sins, then so be it, but thanks to Jesus, love trumps sin.
pedestrian on December 16, 2008 at 11:03 PM
Oh…
…and going to Newsweek for your “theological” news is like going to Al-Jezeera for news on Israel.
Religious_Zealot on December 16, 2008 at 11:04 PM
The English word, sin, is a term used in archery, it means to miss the mark. This is a very good translation because it shows the entire scope of sin. The mark could be said to be God’s will or purpose, if I miss that mark I have sinned.
We tend to think of sin in a very specific way, for us it is an act that we have come to recognize as wrong. To us, an act of sin is catagorized in one of three ways: Sin against God; Sin against man; Sin against ourselves.
But sin, in the biblical sense, is defined very strictly as a trespass against God.
Do it your way… or do it His way… it is up to you… but in the end… everyone of us will stand before Him and give account of our lives.
Steve_Montana on December 16, 2008 at 11:04 PM
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
I hate the way people want to pick and choose from the Bible, give credence to one author more than an other, and separate out to say this or that is for the Jews; not for the New Testament Christian.
Fundamental Fred on December 16, 2008 at 11:05 PM
So this is a question of relative morals …I’m sick of relativisms…
jerrytbg on December 16, 2008 at 11:06 PM
Speakup on December 16, 2008 at 11:07 PM
But the issue here isn’t about God.
It’s about us and our sin.
Yes, God loves us but He hates our sin.
Sin is a turning away from God and when judgment day comes…
…God will honor our choice to turn away from Him.
Love – yes.
Agree with – no.
Support sinful behavior – no.
Call a sin a virtue – no.
Jesus’ forgiveness is AVAILABLE to all.
But it isn’t GIVEN to all because not all ACCEPT it.
And one can’t accept Jesus’ forgiveness if one doesn’t think one is sinning.
Religious_Zealot on December 16, 2008 at 11:09 PM
Agreed!
jerrytbg on December 16, 2008 at 11:09 PM
AP is having a slow news day. Give him/her/it a break.
On the plus side, I have some spectacular pictures of Mexican whores dressed as the Virgin Mary. Why does that not count as a news item???
Oh, damn.
wccawa on December 16, 2008 at 11:10 PM
VinyFoxy on December 16, 2008 at 11:13 PM
All reading… lets this ring in your thoughts tonight as you lay your head down on your pillow.
Steve_Montana on December 16, 2008 at 11:15 PM
Well, this certainly sucks. My Che shirt isn’t due to arrive for another two weeks. Is there a grace period?
wccawa on December 16, 2008 at 11:17 PM
The cal very has arrived! Go getem’
jerrytbg on December 16, 2008 at 11:17 PM
As a Christian, and I admit I am not the best… in fact, I was always in the lower scoring. But…
There are some real wackos here. I apologize.
Screeching is not what Christianity is about.
Again, sorry.
wccawa on December 16, 2008 at 11:20 PM
Gays can do whatever they want to among themselves, that is their business, but they cannot remake my religion to suit themselves. It is one thing to say that we should accept people. There is no debate about that, we do. It is another to say that either path you chose is all the same and that our faith says that either way works out just as well when it does not and in fact it makes a clear distinction.
When you give religious instruction to the young who are still learning about the world and about their faith, do you tell them that the gay lifestyle is as easy in the long run as the traditional lifestyle; or do you tell them what scripture and experience says, which is that it is more frought with difficulty.
In my own life experience, my friends who were gay often had bad outcomes. One died of aids. One died as a result of rough sex gone wrong. Another who was a member of my church with whom I debated this very issue in my adult Sunday School class, abandoned his wife children and church to have a sex change operation so he could pursue his new lifestyle dream. He left pain and humilition in his wake as well as a broken family. He lost contact with his friends and support circle as well. Was that a good decision for him? Should I have counciled him that this was a six of one half dozen of the other, its all the same either way life decision? Should I refrain from telling young people what I have seen with my own eyes about this kind of lifestyle choice?
KW64 on December 16, 2008 at 11:22 PM
1500 comments or bust!
MadisonConservative on December 16, 2008 at 11:22 PM
In everything we do, especially discussions regarding sin and our fellow man, our focus should always be first and foremost on bringing glory to God. Since God’s main message is love and bringing others into the body of Christ, we need to recognize that will always be central to the solution, even though we might ourselves prefer an easier path.
We still recognize marriage when there has been pre-marital sex, Sabbath breaking, and other sins, all of which are equally abominable to God. We recognize the greater good in allowing marriage in those cases.
I agree that the solution has do be done in a way that does not make a virtue out of sin, but the current trend is more and more to diminish the institution of marriage, which is central to our society since Adam and Eve.
pedestrian on December 16, 2008 at 11:22 PM
Still pissed I stole your gal away, huh?
Sheesh. Wisconsinonianites are so predictable.
wccawa on December 16, 2008 at 11:25 PM
wccawa,
I don’t think they’ll get your humor…too subtle…wackem’
They’re caught up in their own self deception.
jerrytbg on December 16, 2008 at 11:26 PM
You are a very levelheaded person, I would say. This is a lot of what official LDS doctrine says. Homosexuality is inborn, it is a struggle that is given to some by God. However, we do not think that people given that struggle should ever give in to it and have sex outside of a heterosexual marriage. It’s a fight you must fight all your life, and when you die and are resurrected, it will no longer be a struggle. If one does give in and commit the sin, they are allowed to repent and are welcomed back into the fold once repentance has been completed.
Homosexuals are accepted into our church and are loved, but we expect celibacy from them, just as we expect complete celibacy from any who are unmarried. We do not encourage homosexuals to marry heterosexually.
Here’s a nice article on what the LDS (mormon) church actually believes about this stuff, and I agree with it wholeheartedly and think it makes a lot of sense how to balance homosexuality with religion:
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/same-gender-attraction
Christina D on December 16, 2008 at 11:26 PM
I would consider this the last word from a Christian perspective. I don’t think one can find a more aptly analogous situation to the one of homosexuality in the New Testament.
The question then becomes if the disagreement is valid or not, e.g. if disagreeing with this position is aligned with the text’s instructions on how to read it. Seems to me like it is.
Homosexuals should just make up their own freaking religion. I’m not even a practicing Christian (I just think texts do need to be read properly and not haphazardly) and I can see the logical leaps they are making unjustifiably. So, yes, they should make up their own religion and see if it can displace Christianity. Some will say that’s what liberalism is and I can see that point. A true battle of ideas and perspectives on the divine.
venividivici on December 16, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Folks with actual religious credentials responded here:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/12/no_case_for_homosexuality_in_b.html
“In truth, of course, Meacham and Miller actually know what everyone else knows: The Bible offers no support for homosexual marriage. Christianity teaches love, mercy, and forgiveness for those who do bad things, true enough. Look, for example, at the story in the Gospel of John where Jesus offers his divine love, mercy, and forgiveness to a woman guilty of adultery. He shamed those who would stone her. He taught us all that we are sinners and often hypocrites. And then he told her, “Go and sin no more.” He did not reinterpret the Old Testament to proclaim adultery another life-style choice.”
Bingo.
ChePibe on December 16, 2008 at 11:29 PM
If anyone ever tried to hang religious credentials around my neck, I would gut them with the bayonet of my SKS.
It’s very similar to the phrase; “Hi, I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you!”
wccawa on December 16, 2008 at 11:33 PM
I would say by the evidence in this thread, as well as the evidence of the thread on the original Newsweek site, that the Lisa Miller piece is accomplishing exactly what it set out to do. It’s all about misdirection and changing the subject.
During my life as a singer in San Francisco (in the ’70s, before AIDS), virtually everybody I knew was gay, and referred to me as “the designated straight guy”. Artistic effort creates very close relationships, and it was very saddening to me when I later realized how many of those guys had died.
I’ve never considered myself a fundamentalist; I struggle to maintain and express my gratitude for escaping the nightmare I was born into. It’s been impressed on me time and again that my survival can only be attributed to Grace.
Now is not the time, I think, for religious folks to be distracted into defending their religion (much like Conservatives have been distracted into defending their principles). This is precisely what is hoped for by the kind of hypocrites who produce this dreck.
The issue is not the Biblical argument for or against homosexuality. The intent is only to tear the fabric of society in any way possible, the only tactic ever employed by the left.
As long as we argue among ourselves, or even dignify this childishness by our notice, they win.
warbaby on December 16, 2008 at 11:35 PM
lots of questionable theology here.
It’s true, God is love – but what does that mean?
It starts with sin – God is Holy and cannot abide sin; the wages of sin are, indeed, death.
Which is why He sent His Son – His love required the sacrifice of His Son to redeem us to Him …. His love is measured by what He sacrificed to redeem us from sin.
The debate about homosexual conduct as sin is pretty pointless – “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” … we are all separated from Him but for redemption through Christ.
There’s no scriptural argument I’ve seen for classifying homosexual conduct as anything but sin. That doesn’t make “practicing” gays worse than anyone else – we’re all in the same boat because a Holy God cannot countenance any sin, “great” or “small”; we all need Christ to reconcile us to Him.
The only relevance of the whole argument is as an example of man’s effort to redefine God in our own image – - – “God’s view of adultery, fornication, divorce and homosexual conduct is so inconvenient for us ….. we just don’t want a God Who believes such things.”
Here’s one area where I’ll join forces with gay believers – the folks in the pulpit ought to spend as much time on divorce & “straight” sex outside of marriage as they spend on homosexual conduct. NONE of them pass muster with God.
BD57 on December 16, 2008 at 11:39 PM
Only if you don’t walk in the forgivness part first.
Which is why calling a spade a spade is important.
TexasDan on December 16, 2008 at 11:39 PM
Don’t forget that part of His statement.
Steve_Montana on December 16, 2008 at 11:39 PM
Palin-Warbaby 2012
jerrytbg on December 16, 2008 at 11:39 PM
That is one hell of a post. And I don’t even know what to say.
But… I’m glad you’re here, bro. Stay with us, OK?
wccawa on December 16, 2008 at 11:40 PM
Oops, thought not brought to a conclusion:
Because they don’t pass muster with God, engaging in them damages us – - – God isn’t a party-pooper, He’s telling us how to live in peace, love and contentment.
We’re too busy trying to be “happy.”
BD57 on December 16, 2008 at 11:41 PM
…and you live in Washington.
That’s all that needs to be said, other than your latte is getting cold.
MadisonConservative on December 16, 2008 at 11:43 PM
Steve_Montana on December 16, 2008 at 11:44 PM
I disagree. If we just ignore the problem, things like Prop 8 will pass and they will win. We need to educate the public and fight against this stuff, or we will all be forced to recognize gay marriage and we will be looked upon as the bad ones if we don’t, no matter how tolerant we are of homosexuals as people.
Christina D on December 16, 2008 at 11:45 PM
But disregarding sinful behavior is NOT bringing glory to God.
Nor is it bringing others into the body of Christ.
Now, all sinners are welcome in church and churches exist to reach out to sinners.
As such, we need to treat our fellow sinners with love.
But that DOES NOT mean overlooking sin.
In fact, truly loving your neighbor MEANS that you call them on their sin and try to move them toward repentance and forgiveness.
I’m unsure of your point here.
God twice (once in the OT and once in the NT) informed us that His will for marriage is one woman and one man.
Thus there can never be an acceptance or condoning of gay marriage.
The other things you referred to were sins of the past – once done and now over with (i.e. the sin of pre-marital sex goes away with marriage).
However, those living in a gay marriage are CONTINUALLY sinning.
Not only that, they are stating that they AREN’T sinning.
It’s one thing to make a mistake, admit it, fix it and move on.
That’s God’s love in action through repentance and forgiveness.
But it’s an entirely DIFFERENT thing to NOT admit, NOT fix and NEVER move on.
Religious_Zealot on December 16, 2008 at 11:46 PM
My collie says:
Sorry collie. Ain’t buyin’ it. You’ll have to try harder than that.
My collie says:
That’s more like it. Here’s a doggie treat.
CyberCipher on December 16, 2008 at 11:48 PM
Hmmm…it depends on what you mean by inclination. A man lusting after another man is a sinful act, as is him lusting after a woman. But if a man has feelings of homosexuality but wants to be rid of them, I commend him to http://www.exodus-international.org/
jgapinoy on December 16, 2008 at 11:50 PM
Yeah, it’s a bit cold.
So, I bought this device.
I’m gonna turn the switch, and voila! My latte warms up through the magical transfer of energy of the torch, through your ass, to my coffee!
You Wisconsonianites are so thoughtful. Always watching out for us Washingtonianiteians.
God bless the g*** of Christine Gregoire.
PS: AP, if I use the word “gash,” will you ban me? I just want to know ahead of time. Because I am all about playing by the rules.
wccawa on December 16, 2008 at 11:50 PM
I feel like I’m walking in a house of mirrors that are all frosted over… hasn’t anybody , besides the usual suspects, read Warbaby’s post? And if you have…let this thread die like it should have.
jerrytbg on December 16, 2008 at 11:51 PM
venividivici — Yes, gays should have a church. Maybe a nation, I don’t know. With homosexuality as a keystone.
But if you do a schism you can steal members of groups that aren’t exactly like yours. So you try to change the base ideas of larger groups. This may confuse the members of the larger group but it makes it easier for your guys to operate as they don’t have to form anything new and independent. Now the fact that you may have psychiatric problems or health problems related to your uniqueness can be glossed over and maybe the costs can be passed along to the older, more numerous or more recognized group. And a schism makes that easier.
The “checkmate” is when you do a ‘guilt’ curse on the larger group and then hit them up for goodies. Like bringing up the fact that they invented aids. Or the fact that the wonderful people in your new group have been abused for centuries by the ones who aren’t like yours. For faith? The article needs to find a preacher who understands this to really get things going and justify a lot of hate.
Newsweek better get on this. I would suggest that they call The One since he has such a wide selection( shall I say catholic range) of contacts, but he seems to have hearing problems when certain things are mentioned.
IlikedAUH2O on December 16, 2008 at 11:52 PM
The fallacy (sic) is right here:
The choice the author give us is totally bogus — we take the text equally as seriously as we take the life and humanity of a gay brother or lesbian sister.
But God did not tell us that an actively gay lifestyle is OK. In both the Old and New Testaments He says quite the opposite.
He also tells us that murder is bad. And prostitution.
In all the sins described above, he doesn’t say that we should understand and embrace the sin, but that we should love the sinner. He certainly didn’t say that we should allow the sinner to continually sin without remonstration and instruction.
That, in my mind, means no allowance for overt gay sexuality just as we have no allowance for murder. I voted for Prop 8, and I will vote against any attempt to circumvent it.
My Church suffered deeply due to the acts of homosexuals who could not restrain their urges. I am not going to let society legalize this behavior.
unclesmrgol on December 16, 2008 at 11:54 PM
Not all of us agree with warbaby’s point that this topic is distracting.
For those of us who have dedicated our lives to Christ, such discussions are very, very necessary.
We must point out bad theology and bad thinking.
We must not let it stand when people in and of the church start changing basic truths of God’s will just because it’s not politically expedient.
There’s more at stake here than just the fabric of society.
There is also the issue of God’s truth and the fidelity we have toward His revealed Word.
Religious_Zealot on December 16, 2008 at 11:58 PM
Do we think that because the gospel is good news to sinners, it is good news to sin? Does the gospel say to sin, “Come along now SIN, there is no need to hide in fear anymore. The gospel is here. You may come out and play to your heart’s content. As long as I am here, I will see to it that nothing harms you. Run around from place to place—go ahead, fulfill your every desire. You see, I am the gospel, and I am good news to you.”
Is this how the gospel would talk to sin? And yet, is this not how we often hear the gospel? We hear that it is good news for sinners, and we mistakenly infer, even if we don’t verbalize it this way, that the gospel must mean good news for sin.
the gospel is good news to the sinner, but it is bad news to sin. It is bad news to sin from this perspective: Sin, which does not wish to give up its life, must surely see the gospel as its worst enemy, because the gospel comes to kill that which has killed the sinner, namely, sin.
It is the sinner that the gospel sets free, not sin. In setting the sinner free from sin, the gospel in effect says to sin, “Your day is over, I am taking your place in the sinner’s heart. I will not peacefully cohabitate with you in the sinner. Every effort you make to regain the supremacy in the sinner will be met by my forceful opposition. I am here to put an end to you. You have held this sinner long enough, but you will hold him no more. For I am the gospel of Jesus Christ—good news to the sinner, bad news to you.”
Steve_Montana on December 17, 2008 at 12:00 AM
…of touch football.
MadisonConservative on December 17, 2008 at 12:00 AM
My collie says:
CyberCipher on December 17, 2008 at 12:03 AM
And, of course, let’s not forget that an existing church has assets, both real estate and financial.
There’s an episode of the Simpsons where it’s Maggie’s birthday and Homer is very excited to see the birthday cake. Marge tells him that she made him his own cake, so he wouldn’t ruin the real cake. The “camera” then pans in on a misshapen, crudely frosted cake especially for him. There’s a metaphor in there somewhere for groups that would arrogate to themselves traditional religions without any theological basis for doing so.
venividivici on December 17, 2008 at 12:08 AM
God’s love is not an accommodating love…
…it is a TRANSFORMING love.
We are never the same after we receive the love and grace of Christ.
Thus to continue in our old sins as if nothing happened…
…or to avoid changing our sinful actions because we happen to really, really like doing them…
…is a complete and total rejection of God’s love.
As such, God’s love is not to be used as some kind of shield to protect us from our sins.
Nor should it be used in an attempt to override God’s hatred of the sins we commit.
Religious_Zealot on December 17, 2008 at 12:08 AM
To me, it seems that the important thing is not how we categorize sin, but how we treat each other. God created us and he created sin for a reason. It seems to me that the particular details of the timing of our sins is not significant to the creator of time and space. What does matter is how we get past finding fault in each other an on to helping each other.
Just saying gay marriage is intolerable is not going to work much longer. It came within a few percent in California. Christians have to prepare a better way to deal with the fact that there are going to be more and more gay couples around who are not dying of AIDS or beating each other up. Non-Christians are going to see that and not understand why Christians are having so much trouble dealing with it.
pedestrian on December 17, 2008 at 12:09 AM
I agree with your first statement, no actively looking at a guy and saying “Man, I want to have sex with him.” But I do not agree that all people can be “cured” of homosexuality and I think it’s rude to think so.
Someone who has alcoholism can overcome it and stop drinking, sure, but it has been proven in some cases to be a genetic problem. You can go sober, you can not drink and not think about drinking or go near people who drink, but it is still genetically inborn in you to be an alcoholic… whether you choose to participate in drinking alcohol or not. You can’t be cured in the sense that that genetic predisposition is going to leave you. You just have to deal with the fact that you can not have alcohol, even though your body may want it. And yes, raging alcoholism would be a sin in God’s eyes as you are mistreating the body He gave you and not engaging in moderation in all things.
In the case of homosexuality it is the same thing. Inborn in some people, but they can choose to not participate in it, or to hang around people who participate in it. They can accept that they are genetically predisposed to it without participating. But you can’t completely “cure” them (people who are born homosexuals) anymore than you can “cure” (people who are born with) alcoholism.
I don’t doubt there are some people who are just confused about their gender attractions and can be “cured”, but there are some people who cannot be. But this does not mean they are damned in any sense, as long as they do not commit the sins of lusting or participation. Although, even if they do commit the sin, just like an adulterer or a lusting person, they can be forgiven. God NEVER says in the bible that he did not created people who are homosexuals, rather he says that engaging in homosexual acts is wrong.
Christina D on December 17, 2008 at 12:10 AM
There is much you can teach me, my socialist, rat bastard, Wisconsonianitian friend.
wccawa on December 17, 2008 at 12:11 AM
What did Jesus say about how to interpret the scripture? It seems like all the controversy about homosexuality stems from Paul’s letters, which are equivalent to Jesus’ teachings according to most Christians. Was Paul also the son of God, or God himself? I’m curious, did Jesus endorse the divinity of Paul’s letters? Did he similarly endorse the Book of Revelations? Isn’t it possible that any of the apostles, being mortal and fallible, might have made good faith misrepresentations of the true essence of divine will?
I remember from my days as a Christian that the scriptures are best interpreted with prayerful contemplation. What does it say that two men can receive such very different answers to their meditations on the scriptures?
Fred Phelps, is that you?
RightOFLeft on December 17, 2008 at 12:12 AM
We suffer together, my collie-quoting friend.
Buy lots of ammo.
wccawa on December 17, 2008 at 12:12 AM
Verily I say unto you, pedestrian, surely we find our modern concepts of child-rearing (no pun intended), adultery, crime and punishment, bestiality, and a whole host of other issues are at odds with scripture. Clearly the Bible no longer holds value in this world, as our modern concepts have rendered God’s word meaningless.
Or are their ancient concepts in God’s word that you somehow find your modern self in agreement with? How, precisely, do you pick and choose?
Jaibones on December 17, 2008 at 12:13 AM
Christina,
I say again, I think this whole thing is intended only to split the right; certainly there are many in California who voted for Prop 8 who are not religious.
In my opinion, “homosexual marriage” has absolutely nothing to do with Biblical strictures against homosexuality, but exists only as an attempt too further divide men and women of good will. I certainly wouldn’t present myself as a Bible scholar, since I’ve had way too much opportunity to learn humility (albeit usually kicking and screaming.) Nonetheless I recognize my Enemy in his many guises.
I think there are plenty of reasons other than religion to object to the topic of homosexual marriage, which is almost certainly a precursor to even greater teaching of relativism in grade school.
The use of the Bible as a proof text hasn’t produced a particularly glorious history, however central it may be to my life and I assume yours. Communism has largely ignored it, as well.
Christians and Jews as well as atheists have saved my life on the basis of perceived reality, and by recognizing and honoring my certainty that Grace will lead me home. I fear that many of the same people are in danger of being distracted by public Bible arguments, which to me smack of trying to reason with a spoiled 2-year-old.
That’s just the view from here.
warbaby on December 17, 2008 at 12:15 AM
1) It doesn’t matter what YOU think, it matters what GOD thinks, and He’s pretty big on that whole sinfulness thing (especially the part about STOP SINNING).
2) WE don’t categorize sin, GOD does that. Thus we have no right to change what God has called sin.
We can never ‘get past’ something if it isn’t first confronted and then properly labeled.
Thus, one can never ‘get past’ homosexual behavior or gay marriage if one pretends that it isn’t a sin.
Why not? Is there some expiration date on God’s will?
Or do the whims of culture override God’s will?
What better way for a Christian to deal with something than to turn to God’s Word and obey God’s will?
I’m a little surprised that the non-Christians don’t quite understand why Christians DO have a problem with it.
What’s the point of actually being a Christian if you decide that that whole “will of God” thing is really only a suggested guideline?
Religious_Zealot on December 17, 2008 at 12:19 AM
That’s why we need civil unions instead of gay marriage. If we can make homosexuals see that they should not force homosexual unions upon churches any more than we should force our religions upon them, then we may have a better argument.
Allowing marriage to be redefined as hetero and homo unions is forcing churches that perform marriages to perform gay marriages eventually, because the state would be redefining the word marriage to mean both gay and straight unions. Churches would technically not be allowed to choose to exclude gay marriages from ceremonies they perform, because marriage would mean both heterosexual and homosexual unions are the same thing and cannot be separated. Churches would be in for lawsuits and things for discrimination and they WILL LOSE because it will be in the law that hetero and homo marriages must be looked at the SAME WAY.
If we allow civil unions, homosexuals can be joined as they want, have the same rights and heterosexual couples, but churches will not ever be forced to perform civil unions because they are separate from marriage. Separate but equal. And churches can reserve the right to perform one but not the other. If marriages are defined as hetero and homo unions being the same thing though, we will not have that choice. We will not be able to choose which we want to perform. And that is the straight truth.
Christina D on December 17, 2008 at 12:20 AM
But hey, I consider myself a Federalist.
So… what about California and the gay marriage thing? Or Wisconsin? Or Massachusetts? Or friggin’ Delaware?
Can a guy be a Federalist and a conservative AND a Christian at the same time? Is that possible? Or were our founding fathers sniffing glue?
wccawa on December 17, 2008 at 12:20 AM
And you will learn much, my Trotskyist, red-headed stepchild, Washingtonian, commune-dwelling padawan.
MadisonConservative on December 17, 2008 at 12:22 AM
Yes, despite what others will tell you. Others tell me that one cannot accept the idea of evolution and creation, and I don’t buy that worthless mindset either. If your position on a specific issue was reached based on application of conservative principles, then no one has any place telling you that it is not a conservative position to hold. If they are so insecure about their own argument defending their stance, they’re the one with the problem.
MadisonConservative on December 17, 2008 at 12:24 AM
I think if you go back and examine carefully the context of the Old Testament commandments that you will find God’s wisdom in how he brought primitive man forward. He nearly destroyed us once as being intolerable, but since then he has brought us forward step by step. My comment about Paul’s description of marriage is not to say that he was wrong, just that in modern society we have had to move in a different direction because of the sinful behavior of abusive husbands.
Today there are people saying the way forward is to relegate marriage to a church-only ceremony. If that is were we are headed, I think a broader acceptance of gay marriage is a better alternative. I would ideally prefer Paul’s vision of marriage, but that isn’t going to happen.
pedestrian on December 17, 2008 at 12:26 AM
I’m sorry, but where did you get THAT?
God nearly destroyed us in the Great Flood for our sinful behavior.
One might even push that a bit further and say it was due to our TOLERANCE of behavior that went against God’s will.
Religious_Zealot on December 17, 2008 at 12:29 AM
I agree. We shouldn’t impose our religious views upon homosexuals or anyone else, but see my last post for my argument as to how we cannot avoid some form of union for homosexuals, but that answer should not be redefining marriage.
We shouldn’t use the biblical argument in our fight against homosexual marriage, because it will get us nowhere, especially with the states who are instructed to keep religion and state separate. I’m all in favor of using only non-religious arguments for the public fight against gay marriage, but that doesn’t mean I won’t discuss my personal religious beliefs about homosexuality and homosexual marriage as well on a forum such as this. :)
Christina D on December 17, 2008 at 12:32 AM
Drug users can be loving. Promiscuous people can be loving. Gluttons can be loving. Doesn’t make any of it Christian.
JohnJ on December 17, 2008 at 12:34 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »