Friday, December 05, 2008

Rights vs "Rights"

In a recent post, Shedding Light, I ruminated on a few aspects of the homosexual agenda situation and in the subsequent comments once again dealt with questions concerning why I should feel threatened by the country someday granting marital "rights" to homosexuals. One of my concerns regards the clashing of our well established right to practice and express our religious faith vs. the "right" to openly live as a homosexual and go through life pretending there is no difference whatsoever between them and heterosexuals, otherwise known as "normal people", forcing them to act as if they believe it, too. And without a doubt, clash we will, just as we are doing now. This piece from Illinois Family lists a number of case studies where that clash has actually played out, and how the already well established right has too often been dealt a blow (pardon the expression) in favor of the fantasy "right". In addition, there is also the right of free association that will be expected to take a back seat to the rights of these sadly confused people.

I offer this from the same newsletter as a kind of companion piece that shows the determination of the homosex activists to force the rest of us to comply with their selfish sex-based demands. They have a friend in Barry Obama and likely most of the Dems that he has chosen to staff his cabinet.

188 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

Some of your examples…

The California Supreme Court voted unanimously that the City of Berkeley could withdraw a rent subsidy to a Boy Scouts affiliate (the Sea Scouts) at the city marina because of the scouts' opposition to homosexuality.

Robert J. Smith, a member of the board of directors of the Washington Metro Area Transit Authority, appointed by Governor Robert L. Ehrlich, discussed the federal marriage amendment on a local cable show and stated that gays and lesbians are "persons of sexual deviancy," and was subsequently fired from his position.


ARE about religious freedom. Would you deny the City of Berkley the freedom to follow their beliefs? Would you FORCE them to rent to a group which they don’t condone? Would you force them to rent to the KKK, for instance? Would you tell the Transit Authority who they can and can’t fire?

Just because you disagree with their beliefs does not mean they don’t have a right to follow them. This is the US, after all.

Others of your examples…

Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco, leader of the Italian Bishops' Conference, received his second death threat, in the form of 3 bullets, from an anonymous militant homosexual activist enraged at the Catholic Church's campaign

Involve bad behavior. It is wrong to send death threats. No one – especially not the state – is condoning such behavior. So, what of it? We ought to stand against violence, death threats and other bad behavior. Nearly all gay marriage supporters would agree with this – they are, after all, quite familiar with legitimately oppressive behavior and that’s what they’re seeking to end.

Most of the other examples at your source are actions that happened outside the US – but here in the US, we have the Constitution and the American Will protecting us, protecting our free speech. This seems to be mostly more fearmongering.

Ought we be vigilant to maintain the right of people to have free speech? Sure. But I see no evidence whatsoever that there is any danger of religious freedom being limited here.

To the degree that it IS a danger, it is so because of religious extremists, whose “free speech” borders on hateful-ness towards a group of people and Americans are opposed to that sort of thing and sometimes there is a backlash.

Ms.Green said...

Most of the other examples at your source are actions that happened outside the US – but here in the US, we have the Constitution ...

A Constitution for which the President elect seems to have very little respect.

To the degree that it IS a danger, it is so because of religious extremists, whose “free speech” borders on hateful-ness towards a group of people and Americans are opposed to that sort of thing and sometimes there is a backlash.

Very telling statement from you here, Dan. You really do not support free speech - if, in your opinion, it "borders on hateful-ness". You just proved Marshall's point. The homosexuals want Christianity silenced because, in their opinion, it "borders on hatefulness".

You definitely contradict yourself by espousing the Constitution as protection for religious freedom and then making statements like that.

Dan Trabue said...

Very telling statement from you here, Dan. You really do not support free speech - if, in your opinion, it "borders on hateful-ness". You just proved Marshall's point. The homosexuals want Christianity silenced because, in their opinion, it "borders on hatefulness".

Perhaps you have misunderstood.

1. I AM a Christian, so it would be idiotic to suggest that I want Christians silenced. I don't want myself silenced, or other Christians silenced.

2. "The homosexuals" don't want Christianity silenced. They generally WOULD like to be treated with the respect and dignity that they deserve as human beings.

3. My point - you may want to re-read what I wrote, because you misunderstood it - was that Christian extremists often bring a backlash upon Christians in general. The Phelps of the world, the Christians who castigate homosexuals specifically as a major cause or sign of moral degradation in the world, who call gays by all manner of ugly names - THESE type of folk have the effect oftentimes of causing a backlash against Christianity. "IF that's the way Christians are going to speak, maybe we need to curtail how much they can speak. That's just wrong. Something needs to be done about that sort of vile hatred!"

These kinds of thoughts are often produced in response to hateful speech towards a group. I'm not suggesting we limit people's rights or curtail freedom of religion. I did not say that because I do not believe that. The way you can tell that I don't believe that is by the way I did not say that.

There ARE limits to free speech. We can't yell fire in a crowded theater, being the famous example, but also, we can't deliberately inflame hatred towards a group of people. We can't incite riots. We can't advocate violence to a group of people. These actions are wrong and people are opposed to such speech.

The more churches (and others) come across as partaking in THAT sort of speech, the more backlash there is against churches. THAT was my point.

Glad to clarify so you can better understand my position.

Anonymous said...

Dan, a minority should not violently protest the results of an election where the majority won. Did you see any pictures of the protests? Not peaceful or pretty! mom2

Ms.Green said...

I don't want myself silenced, or other Christians silenced.

IF that's the way Christians are going to speak, maybe we need to curtail how much they can speak.

Again, you contradict yourself.

Dan, there are two types of Christianity.

One group (the ones you call radical) believes that God is not only capable of giving us His infallible undeniably inerrant Word, but has done so through the Bible. This group does not pick and choose what to believe, but bases its doctrine on God’s Word.

The second group (the group you are in) does not believe the Bible to be the infallible inerrant Word of God, and therefore picks and chooses what doctrines to espouse based on “feelings”. i.e.: I don’t “feel” that God would condemn homosexuality if it’s in a loving long term relationship. I don’t “feel” that God would condemn a woman’s having an abortion when she was raped. I don’t “feel” that really God means (fill in the blank) just because it’s written in the Bible.

So basically, what you really mean, is that if “Christians” are in the second group (your group), they are not in danger of being silenced, but the “Christians” in the first group (the group I’m in) probably should be silenced because, in your opinion (which lines up with the homosexual agenda) we are wrong and full of vile hatred when we quote scriptures such as Leviticus 18:12 and I Corinthians 6:11 among others.

Ok. Gotta work. Didn’t mean to turn this into a Dan vs Sharon discussion. I can’t think of anything else I want or need to say.

Good post, Marshall.

Dan Trabue said...

Ms Green said:

The second group (the group you are in) does not believe the Bible to be the infallible inerrant Word of God, and therefore picks and chooses what doctrines to espouse based on “feelings”.

Given that you're doing a fairly consistently poor job of understanding what I'm writing, I'd suggest it would be in your best interest not to presume to tell me what group I'm in. As you are fairly consistently wrong.

1. I do not support choosing what to believe based upon "feelings." So, you have made a mistake right off the bat, right there. The way you can tell that I don't believe that is that I have not said that. If I had believed we ought to base our beliefs on our feelings, I would have said something like, "I think we ought to base our beliefs on our feelings." When I didn't say that, that would be your first clue that I don't think that.

2. I believe God to be inerrant. God's Word - as in what God says and as in Jesus - is also wholly without error.

3. Wayyyy too often, those on the Religious Right base their belief system on feelings "It's my hunch that THIS particular interpretation of a passage in the Bible is what God wants us to do. That's what I feel to be right, that's what my pastor tells me, that's what my parents believed, therefore, it is right."

For instance: "I FEEL like the 66 books of the protestant Bible are inerrant and without flaw. Never mind that the Bible never SAYS this and it is an entirely extrabiblical position, that is what I think!"

4. To be fair, though, in this regards, we ALL are relying upon our own God-given logic and reasoning skills in reading the Bible and making sense of it. Neither Ms Green, nor Marshall, nor Dan nor anyone else has been given a perfect understanding of what the Bible says and what it means. We are all striving our best to rightly divine God's Word. Sometimes, Ms Green is wrong. Sometimes, Dan is wrong. I am sure we can all agree upon this.

Dan Trabue said...

So basically, what you really mean, is that if “Christians” are in the second group (your group), they are not in danger of being silenced, but the “Christians” in the first group (the group I’m in) probably should be silenced because, in your opinion (which lines up with the homosexual agenda) we are wrong and full of vile hatred

Basically, what I REALLY MEAN is what I REALLY SAID (as opposed to your mistaken assumptions above): That is, that I am opposed to restrictions of our freedom to speech within limits. I do remained opposed to hateful speech that serves to incite hatred and oppression.

IF your group is not one that participates in that sort of hate speech, then I'm not opposed to it. IF it is, then I wouldn't be surprised when some push back against that sort of hateful speech.

I have no problem with someone quoting Leviticus 18:12 ("You shall not have intercourse with your father's sister, since she is your father's relative." - not sure that that's the verse you meant to cite) or even Leviticus 20: 13 ("If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed"). Quote it if you want.

BUT, when you start quoting that verse and then saying, "THEREFORE, because of what the Bible clearly says in Leviticus 20, then let us go and put gays to death!", then that's a problem and such churches could be rightly accused of hateful, dangerous speech.

If you're not of the sort of group that would say such despicable things, good for you. If you are, don't be surprised if people take offense at such language and perhaps even seek legal remedies to potentially dangerous speech.

With great freedom (such as we have in the US and such as we have in Christ) comes great responsibility.

Ms.Green said...

I have no problem with someone quoting Leviticus 18:12

I don't have a problem with that verse either...but I quoted from memory ( or lack thereof) and meant Leviticus 18:22. *grin*

Just to set the record straight.

Back to work...

Dan Trabue said...

Here would be an example of the sort of hateful, demeaning, demonizing speech (of a mild sort, to be sure, compared to others out there) that is off-putting:

the "right" to openly live as a homosexual and go through life pretending there is no difference whatsoever between them and heterosexuals, otherwise known as "normal people", forcing them to act as if they believe it, too.

Marshall here suggests that folk who are homosexual aren't normal. Does he do this for other folk he considers sinners? That is, does he consider liars "not normal" or are the greedy "not normal"? No, he targets one particular group - gay folk - for ostracization, to be called "not normal."

Since he is targeting this one group for such treatment, we might reasonably ask, "why?"

In times past, we have too often jumped from, "They're not like us," to, "They're not normal," to "there's something wrong with them!!" to, "Burn 'em!!!" (or stone them, or gas them, or hang them, depending upon which time period and which marginalized group you're talking about.)

And so it is a bit of a slippery slope. I would not suggest that Marshall be convicted of hate crimes for calling a group of people "not normal," that would be extreme and no one much is suggesting that kind of reaction.

Still, given the human history of oppression of those who "aren't normal" or who are less than human or otherwise different, you can hardly blame good, moral folk - Christians and others - for raising an eyebrow and being a bit concerned about such language.

Marshall Art said...

Reading Dan's comments is often like ramming my head repeatedly into the side of a Buick.

I'll start at the most recent and work my way to the top.

Despite how you may respond, I'm fairly confident that you say nonsense with purpose. I am not about to temper my speech in order to assuage the sensitive nature of a small portion of society, a portion that has trouble understanding the most basic concepts as well as small words. Therefor, to say that I have offended people with my choice of words rather than requesting clarification instead leads me to believe that you wish to attack my position yet retain your pose of sanctimony. Give it up and get down to it. You're boring the hell out of me.

Homosexuals aren't normal. Normal is being attracted to those of the opposite sex. It's how God intended us to be. It is nature's design. To put it another way, if they truly are "born that way", then they are born abnormal. If they choose to act on a desire that somehow, somewhere developed and became their current paradigm, another word might be more appropriate. But "normal" is not one of them. This isn't a statement of hatred or bigotry, it's a statement of fact.

"Marshall here suggests that folk who are homosexual aren't normal. Does he do this for other folk he considers sinners?"

The behavior is sinful, the desire is abnormal. Get the distinction?

"Here would be an example...that is off-putting:"

No more off-putting than their own about themselves and those who disagree with them. But again, I'm no longer willing to tip-toe about worrying about how my words might be taken. The truth can cause discomfort, but it's best to take it between the eyes. More to the point, the quote you found troublesome is a totally accurate description of reality.

Any concerns about inciting anything are easily addressed. I don't seek to provoke anything but honesty and thoughtfulness. If someone hears my words and goes on to join up with a Fred Phelps, that's person's a jackass like Phelps. Not my problem as I've said nothing that should lead people to take that course and they will ultimately suffer the consequences of their own stupity. But homosex activists and their enablers (like yourself) enjoy using those accusations about incitement as another means of stifling opposing opinions. I won't put up with that crap anymore. No one's inciting hatred like the anti-Christian left, the homosex activists and their enablers. The Fred Phelps crowd is laughably small and not representative at all of the average opponent to the homosex agenda.

From your 9:54AM comment:

1. Yes you do indeed base much of your belief on feelings. This is borne out by your inability to explain why your position on homsex marriage is totally contrary to clear Biblical teaching on human sexuality. This has been argued ad nauseum at other blogs.

2. Not always. See #1.

3. Now you accuse in a manner that you've dismissed when being accused of the same thing. But here's the difference: the people to whom you refer support their positions with direct Scriptural support. Your use of the "66 books" angle might work on the surface, but the hard core points are always based on the words of God/Jesus and everything else simply explained in a more correct manner, i.e. what Paul might mean in Romans, for example.

For the first comment, you, in a Geoffrey like manner, miss the point, which is that there already has been a clashing of "rights" and this will only continue and even pick up intensity if homosexuals gain their marital sanctioning nationwide. Also, it is my understanding that the notion of 1st Amendment protection of religion is extended to state and local government as well. Thus, they cannot base their decision in the manner you suggest. However, I believe they are not doing so, but basing their decision on the mythical discrimination against the behavior of homosexuality. In this manner, the right of the Boy Scouts to freely assemble with like minded individuals (right of free association) who hold the same religious beliefs (right of religious expression) is being trampled in favor of the "right" to openly live as a homosexual and go through life pretending there is no difference whatsoever between them and heterosexuals, otherwise known as "normal people", forcing them to act as if they believe it, too.

But to answer your question, I personally wouldn't "force" them to rent to the KKK, or the GSA, or the Knights of Columbus. But the thing is, they are likely not supposed to be making such decisions based on the religious beliefs of the group in question. So, they're supposed to rent to the KKK if the KKK seeks the space and not reject the request on the basis of their politics or religion.

Marshall Art said...

Typo correction: #1 above should read This is borne out by your inability to explain why your position on homsex marriage isN'T totally contrary to clear Biblical teaching on human sexuality.

hashfanatic said...

i did not support prop 8

but i have to say, marshall, that i'm disappointed

virtually EVERY single post here is in regard to the marriage equality debate, and the abortion debate, to the point of total exhaustion

you all seem to miss the larger point

it is RELIGION itself that has been targeted, and the gay and abortion aspects are only the devices the extremist left uses to oppress the ultra-conservative right

as the right uses patriotism and security issues, to derail the left

america has an ATHEIST problem that must be considered and dealt with, because they are not content with leading secular lives, to them that would require the eradication of specifically christian institutions and religious freedom for believers

gays and the church have had a terrible history of conflict, and unresolved anger toward religious institutions and their members, which they believe see them as second-class citizens

in reality, simple greed and false pride is at the very heart of the gay-rights extremists, even though they will realize only meager financial reward through same-sex marriage, there is not one single legal advantage that cannot be gained through a visit to a lawyer, even without a civil union

this is much more personal, and has indeed evolved into an unquenchable hate, which will generate an unprecendented social backlash, from which peaceful gays and everyday families will suffer

the extremists WANT for them to suffer as such, they do not WANT peace with you in the first place!

similarly, why would abortion become a flashpoint, when no scotus will EVER overturn roe v wade, and the number of abortions are miniscule, compared to only a few decades ago?

so they can cause tension from WITHIN the american family by striking at its very heart, the american woman, wife, and mother, who may have legitimate concerns and personal conflicts regarding reproductive rights vs traditional religious doctrines, which are the atheists' prime TARGET, to undermine

THAT should be the primary focus of such questions, not specific sex acts that are obviously abhorrent to many, or photos of vile procedures vs. billboards promoting the value of religions built around worshiping NOTHING, while the idea that one's OPINION about all of the above is in some way homophobic, racist, sexist, etc.

everyone has a right to their opinion, and everyone owns their vote, as even an insightful pro-hillary blog promoted, as their theme

so why hyperfocus on the MEANS to destroy that very force that gives your life meaning, when the real evil is the cause and the threat and the danger, and you've been warned six ways to sunday, and you STILL won't stand up to the real enemy?

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall said:

Homosexuals aren't normal.

So, left-handed people aren't normal, since they are not in the norm? How about Church of Christ-attenders? They are nowhere near the norm, so they're just not normal, right? They're ABnormal.

Assemblies of God folk? VERY abnormal. Republican Senators are becoming increasingly abnormal. Is this your point? Everyone who has some characteristic that is not of the norm, is not normal? Well, then let's hear you stand up and start announcing with the same vitriol how abnormal so many are - you, yourself, as a bitter McCain-supporter are not normal, Marshall. Say it loud and proud!

Yes you do indeed base much of your belief on feelings.

Well, hell, you're not only abnormal because of your beliefs, you're not normal because you're a mind reader who knows what I think better than I do. Time to burn a witch!

Dan Trabue said...

The truth is, o psychic one, that gay folk ARE normal. They are just like everyone else, in that they are born, they love their parents, they fall in love, they break up, they work, they go to church sometimes, they dance sometimes, they eat and drink like normal human beings.

Inasmuch as they are not of the norm in their attraction (much the same as left-handed folk aren't of the norm in their use of hands), they have that trait that makes them different than the norm in that one regard, but that does not mean they're not normal.

Any more than your abnormal arrogance and hypocrisy means that you're not a normal human being. You just happen to be a normal human being with an unusually (and unhealth-ily) hyper-developed sense of your own godhood and supernatural powers.

Teresa said...

These are the guys that bother me...but hey, they can talk all they want. There's no law against it. As long as none of their people listen to them and actually start killing.

Shouldn't surprise us when they DO, however.

I mean, why would someone preach like this is if they didn't want their followers to promote killings of homosexuals?

There might be a reason. maybe someone could help me out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDWSwvVZ6Bs

Marshall Art said...

Hash,

Long time no read. I must say that you have definitely changed and don't seem as goofy as you once did. Will it last? I'll enjoy it while it's here.

As to the subject matter, there is much that has been in the news since the passage of Prop 8 and it is to that news that I speak.

I, too, see a connection between homosexuality and abortion in that they are manifestations of a rejection of traditional values, that is to say, Judeo/Christian values. I have often made mention of that point, but often there are tangetial points to make as well.

I'm not sure if this addresses your concerns or not. Feel free to restate in a more concise manner or respond to the above.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

Nice try. No. Not really a nice try. Very lame in fact to list various other examples of normalcy and trying to put forth that they are all of equal importance or even significant "abnormalities" at all. Left-handedness? Yeah, that changes everything! Different faith traditiona? Yeah, that's exactly like sexual attraction. Got any other stretched-beyond-belief arguments?

As to my psychic ability, none is required to determine how you arrive at your positions when there is nothing concrete upon which to base any of it. At the same time, you speak of the hunches of others and expect me to NOT say "look who's talking"?

Yes, homosexuals are NOT normal in the same way that sociopathic killers are not normal. They, too, often have merely that one trait that is different than the rest. How do you like THAT comparison? It's far more accurate a parallel than any of yours.

The point here is more what they expect of US regarding their abnormality. Left-handed people, people of other denominations, even sociopathic killers, are NOT asking for special recognition from the rest of us.

One more point about normalcy: The "normalcy" of homosexuality has never been clinically confirmed. It was not removed from the list of mental illnesses/abnormalities for scientific reasons, but through a vote forced by activism.

Finally, there is no arrogance whatsoever in my position, and I fail to see how you could possibly apply the "hypocrisy" to it, either. Also, I don't consider myself a god and my supernatural powers are used for truth, justice and the American way.

Marshall Art said...

Teresa,

Are you freakin' serious?

"I mean, why would someone preach like this is if they didn't want their followers to promote killings of homosexuals?"

When a preacher preaches against greed, are they encouraging their listeners to kill the greedy? When they preach against adultery, are they looking to whack adulterers? How about lying? Kill perjerers? Where the hell did you come up with THAT?

Dan Trabue said...

As to my psychic ability, none is required to determine how you arrive at your positions when there is nothing concrete upon which to base any of it.

Well, this much is obviously true: You obviously DON'T have psychic abilities. Your claim that I base my conclusions on feelings is so far wrong as to be absurd.

Yes, we have gone over this in the past. I have told you how my FEELINGS were that I was opposed to homosexuality. If I were relying upon my feelings, I would still be opposed to gayness, to gay marriage, etc.

But I'm not because, after studying the Bible and using my God-given reasoning ability, I came away from a different conclusion that the almighty Marshall. Try to ocmprehend this, brother: Just because someone has studied and read and come to a different conclusion than you have, does not mean that said person is then basing his opinions upon feelings.

You have nothing in anything that I have ever written anywhere in all the time that you have known me on which to base your spurious conclusion that I base my opinions upon my feelings. And truth be told, you do NOT know what I think better than I do.

Twould be ridiculous to continue to make that claim. Reasonable people should be able to understand this.

Teresa said...

Marshall,

When people preach against the greedy, they don't USUALLY state that the greedy are filthy animals, no longer human, and that it is the will of God that we destroy them...did you watch the video in the link I provided?

If I saw someone preaching against the greedy the way that man was preachin'...then Yes. I would say that his intent is for the listener to go otut and kill the greedy.

Teresa said...

Here's that link again, in case you missed it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDWSwvVZ6Bs

But just in case you don't want to cut and paste, the guy is preaching the Calvanist view that homosexuality is not actually part of the sin nature...but the result of such a sinful mind that God has "given over" a person in order for them to become homosexual. In other words, homosexuality is God's punishment for being irredeemably sinful...and homosexity itself is a death sentance from God.

He gives very thorough biblical support. I've been trying for a long time to find a conservative Christian who can give me a Bible-based argument as to why this man is wrong...but nobody has wanted to tackle it. I think it's becausee it is just Calvanism taken to it's ultimate conclusion.

There is nothing in the man's theology to contradict yours, that I can see...he just doesn't stop short of its ultimate implications.

But I could be wrong. It would be great to finally find someone who can argue against it.

I've seen some people on this guy's wife's blog try to argue with her, they agree that homosexuality is sinful, but think that the idea of homosexuals being irredeemable and under a death sentance due to being unable to repent (because God has "turned them over") id "hateful"...

...but, sharing the exact theological philosophy makes it impossible for them to argue biblically with the idea. All they have is that they just don't like it,. and that it is "hateful".

Ms.Green said...

Teresa said "I've seen some people on this guy's wife's blog try to argue with her, they agree that homosexuality is sinful, but think that the idea of homosexuals being irredeemable and under a death sentance due to being unable to repent (because God has "turned them over") id "hateful"...

...but, sharing the exact theological philosophy makes it impossible for them to argue biblically with the idea. All they have is that they just don't like it,. and that it is "hateful"
.

Actually, those who disagree with her just don't know their scripture as well as they should.

I've posted on Calvinism numerous times - it is unbiblical. God is not a respector of persons. That means that he loves homosexuals just as much as he loves the sweetest little ol' grandma who's been saved all her life and served God faithfully. He does not choose some to be saved and others to be damned. ALL of us have an opportunity to get saved.

Fred Phelps and his kind believe that they are saved because they have been "Chosen" or "Elected" as opposed to those they think God hates and has not chosen. That is totally contrary to "whosoever shall believeth on Him shall be saved".

PLEASE don't use Fred Phelps as an example of Christianity. His doctrine is straight from the pits of hell.

Teresa said...

Mrs Green,

I never mentioned Fred Phelps. This has nothing to do with Fred Phelps. What are you talking about? This is another group entirely. This is quite a common belief, and based in the verse saying that if people reject God and his grace enough times...essentially rejecting the intercession of the Holy Spirit...(When I was a kid, it was often called "sinning against the Holy Spirit")

God will "give them over". The unforgivable sin is to know God and reject him. Once you do that, you are made irredeamable, and given up to a nature that is outside of nature...demonic.

Not born that way...but made that way in punishment of God.

This guy's assertion is not that Homosexuals were born evil, but that they were made evil by rejecting the Holy spirit. (knowing God, but knowing him not AS God).

Did you watch the video at all?

Teresa said...

And anyway, this was in response to Marshall's assertion that the man's preaching was no different than someone preaching against greed, and was not a call to murder...I'm just saying, that people like this who use Chrisitanity to call a whole class of people "Brute beasts to be taken and destroyed." should not be able to claim innocence when one of his followers finally goes and takes one of the poeple he describes that way and destroys them.

And I find people who can preach that stuff scary.

Ms.Green said...

My apologies, T. I was reading several different blogs and Fred Phelps was mentioned - I read your post and thought you were referring to him, especially since you mentioned Calvinism. What I said about him and Calvinism is true though.

No, I did not watch the video. You gave a good synopsis of it, and I believed what you said about it.

I'm also in agreement with you that if a preacher calls a whole group of people "Brute beasts to be taken and destroyed", that is a scary thing. God can forgive any sinner for any crime at any time. If the worst murderer on earth was laying dying and came to the realization that he had done horrible things to people and had sinned against them and against God, and realized that he could do nothing but throw himself at God's mercy, beg forgiveness, and accept Christ's payment on the cross for his benefit, he would be saved.

Saul of Tarsus, after all, was a murdered and persecutor of Christians - men, women and childre. God saved him.

Now I WILL have to go watch the video.

Ms.Green said...

Ok, I watched the video. This man's exegesis leaves much to be desired. He is twisting the Scripture to say that God made these homosexuals that way AFTER their other sins. His assertion that homosexuality is not part of the sin nature is ridiculous. Anything we do against God is due to our sin nature. There are sins that we are born knowing - such as lying, stealing, hurting others. Some are learned behavior, such as gambling, cursing, homosexuality and other sexual perversions.

This man is preaching hate, and that is unfortunate, but when someone is a Calvinist, which I suspect he is, it is easier to get to that point - because Calvinism teaches that God hates some and loves others - which is contradicted all through Scripture. I suspect that this preacher himself is not even saved - his fruits don't show it, and it's a shame anyone can hear this on Youtube.

But even as hateful as this man is, if he were to realize his own sin, and call upon Jesus and beg forgiveness, asking Jesus to save him, he could be saved too.

Dan Trabue said...

if he were to realize his own sin, and call upon Jesus and beg forgiveness, asking Jesus to save him, he could be saved too.

And what if he fails to realize his own sin? Is he lost? That is, are those who sin ignorantly doomed to hell? Doomed to be given over to sinful hedonism and ultimately cast into hell?

Teresa said...

Mrs. Green,

Thank you for watching the video, and for apologizing, which is very gracious of you as it was a simple misunderstanding that I immediatly understood when you explained the circumstances and not a result of any fault of yours.

Now, here's my problem.

The Bible DOES say that anyone can call on God and be saved, but it ALSO says that we are powerless to do so without the Holy Spirit...and it also says that offenses against the Holy Spirit, (such as rejecting or profaning it's gifts) are automatic damnation. There's no coming back from that.

The verse that the preacher quoted clearly says that God gave them up after their rejection of the Holy Spirit (the force through which we know God - as in "they knew God, but knew him not as God"- in otherwords, the Holy spirit showed them the truth and they rejected it.)

So the preacher is not saying it...but it is the Bible certainly seems to be saying it.

You obviously interpret those verses differently...but they seem pretty plain.

So my problem is, what is the test to determine which verses are true and which ones are not?

Or if the problem is interpretation, how is it to be said that one interpretation is the right one and one is not?

When someone points out that homosexuals are to be put to death according to the Bible law, what makes it OK to ignore that, and did later verses just do away with the penalty, and not the crime? How is that justified?

I hope you understand my confusion.

I agree that it is hateful, but I don't understand how it is not Biblical, as it is clearly rooted in scripture...anyone can call on God for grace, but if he provides it and you profane it by rejecting it, off you go to being damned.

I mean, presumably, Satan can't just repent and make it all better. He went to war with God, though he knew him he knew him not as God, did not honor him, and God cast him out...the verse the guy quoted is similar, but regarding human beings having similar rebellion and being "given up".

I realize that it is possible that you haven't studied these verses as deeply as he has, and maybe aren't prepared to answer these questions...or maybe you have and have a totally different interpretation...or even translation.

Just trying to illustrate why some of us apostates get nervous...there's no consistant way to predict what someone will think is good theology or bad.

I'm glad that you feel his preaching is hateful. I agree...but I don't understand how it is unBiblical, and he seems to have rooted it fairly well in the Bible. And he would respond that HE is not being hateful, he's just repeating what the Bible says...and as far as any of us theologically impared apostates can tell, he's right.

Anyway, thanks for attempting to educate me. Don't be too frustrated with me...my sainted Sunday School teachers found me impossible to teach as welltry though I might.

Ms.Green said...

We are guilty of our sin whether we recognize that fact or not.

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Ms.Green said...

T, I think I understand your question now.

The Bible is clear that no one comes to the Father unless He draws them. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him.

The Bible is also clear that all men will be drawn. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

It also says While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation.

I think, as do many others, that the Bible clearly teaches that we are not promised tomorrow, and that there may come a time, when if a person has rejected the drawing and conviction of the Holy Spirit, he or she may not get another chance. I know in my life, I rejected God for almost 40 years - but He drew me once again and this time I truly heard His voice and came to Him and was saved. I'm not sure how many times it takes to reject God before He finally stops drawing us... I believe (and have Scriptural grounds) that since God is omniscient and knows ahead of time whether or not we will be saved, he draws us enough times to show that we were given the choice...and then He stops that drawing, knowing we won't accept Him anyway. By the same token, He also draws those of us that He knows will accept Him until we finally do so. Thus deathbed conversions.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. He doesn't want us to be lost forever, but He also does not force Himself on us.

He does not joy in seeing any sinner die without salvation...

One of my favorite verses in all Scripture is this one:
For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.

Dan Trabue said...

We are guilty of our sin whether we recognize that fact or not.

Wow. So, IF you and Marshall are mistaken and opposing gay marriage is a sinful thing to do, and yet you cling to your honest mistake, THEN you and Marshall are hellbound? What about those who believe that Jesus wants us to kill terrorists - If they are mistaken and it is a sin, then they are hellbound, too?

By saying this, do you mean that we have to be perfectly correct on each and every sin in order to be saved? I don't think that's what you mean because that is hardly orthodox Christianity, but I'll let you and Marshall speak for yourselves, if you wish.

The notion that one has to be perfectly correct on every sin seems to be a salvation by works sort of affair, as opposed to salvation by grace. For my part, I freely admit that I WILL be wrong on some sins. My knowledge is not a perfect knowledge and I won't always be right. That is why I thank God for grace.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

You continue to insist that you believe you are correct on this issue. As has been demonstrated to you many times over, you cannot justify your belief in any way. We, on the other hand, have shown clearly where we HAVE support and CAN justify our position. Without Scriptural support of any kind, one must rely on that which is not Biblical, where one MUST then rely on one's feelings about that which is outside the Bible somehow contradicting or overturning that which is plainly read in the Bible. So how can be we be wrong when we are clearly and properly interpreting plain English? Whether one might be wrong and still be saved makes for an interesting discussion, but it has no place in this one. This is not a case of being wrong, but knowing full well and denying what you know. No amount of psuedo-sanctimonious double-talk will help convince anyone otherwise.

Marshall Art said...

Teresa,

When one looks around and sees parades and street fests and other opportunities for their desire to publicly debauch themselves, it does indeed look as if they've been given over to their sin. Those must be the hardest of cases as well as the saddest. Others live more "normal" existences but are merely more inhibited. Some will change for the sake of their souls, and others never will. There's nothing in what that preacher of yours is reading that says they are unrecoverable. Ms. Green says it well enough. I'm not chapter and verse enough to do better.

One thing I CAN say though, is that there's definitely nothing in what I say that should ever incite anyone to physical confrontations of any kind. Should anyone be so inclined by reading my words, they are jackasses and neither my concern nor responsibility. Anyone with half a brain would seek clarification if they thought they were being encouraged to murder and/or mayhem. A second opinion would definitely be in order. Perhaps a third.

Mark said...

I saw Fred Phelps on Donahue many years ago, and on that show, he stated that gays can repent and be saved. Even Fred Phelps doesn't believe Gays are beyond hope. His message is based on Biblical truth but he has perverted it and turned it into a message of hate.

So Dan says he believes the Bible is the inerrant word of God, yet he doesn't believe some of the Bible?

He states, "And what if he fails to realize his own sin? Is he lost? That is, are those who sin ignorantly doomed to hell? Doomed to be given over to sinful hedonism and ultimately cast into hell?"

Well, yes and no, Dan. Yes, one who fails to realize his own sin is condemned already--As the Bible clearly states. But never doomed, that is, at least not while still alive.

But Dan intentionally fails to grasp the concept that--as the Bible clearly states--Man is born with a knowledge of God. However, man is also born in depravity with a sin nature. It is when man refuses to seek God that he condemns himself.

Another straw man that Dan continually sets up, is the one in which he equates naturally occurring things with unnaturally occurring deviancies, such as equating left handedness (A naturally occurring trait) with homosexuality (An unnaturally occurring deviancy).

He simply denies the fact that gays are not born gay, but left handers are born left handed. It is simply a variation of the same tired, old, debunked argument that gays are born gay in the same way that blacks are born black, asserting that gays cannot change their sexual orientation as blacks cannot change their skin color.

Totally false. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of men and women who have successfully changed their sexual orientation. There has never been an instance in which a black changed his skin color. Except artificially.

But, if Dan wants to continue to use the example of left handedness to illustrate his misconception that gays are normal, let me remind him that left handers can train themselves to use the right hand. Gays can change, too.

But a black man will always be black. An Asian will always be Asian. A horse will always be a horse. A vegetable will always be a vegetable.

And Dan will seemingly always be wrong.

Mark said...

And that brings us back to the original point of the blogpost:

Gays can change but they don't want to. They would rather force the other 97% of us to accept their deviant lifestyle as normal, when common sense and logic, not to mention God, tells us it isn't.

And they are very militant in their efforts. It would seem to me that Dan would find their tactics unacceptable since he abhors the use of violence and coercion in all other matters. Or, at least he says he does.

Of course, since Dan has friends who are homosexual, they can't be wrong. Their friendship apparently means much more to him than the inerrant Word of God.

Dan Trabue said...

Gee, you all are so off on so many points, I don't know that I can wade through the mistakes here to correct all the misstatements, wrong understandings, illogic and hypocrisies.

So, I am still wondering (as no one gave a straightforward answer): CAN you be mistaken about a sin and still be saved? This is at the heart of at least part of this discussion.

If you all believe that one CAN NOT be mistaken on a sin and still be saved, then you have changed the definition of what it means to be saved in evangelical Christian orthodoxy.

We are saved by God's grace, not by our perfection. At least according to Christian orthodoxy.

Since our perfection is, by some of your own admissions, not possible, it would seem to be obvious that one could not be saved if a perfect understanding of every sin is required to be saved. Therefore, by your own definition (IF that is how you define Christianity), you yourselves are not saved.

Dan Trabue said...

Mark said:

There has never been an instance in which a black changed his skin color. Except artificially.

Yes, Mark. Exactly.

Dan Trabue said...

I will tackle one of Marshall's misunderstandings:

Without Scriptural support of any kind, one must rely on that which is not Biblical, where one MUST then rely on one's feelings

1. There are other options. One could rely upon logic, for instance, or scientific data. These are both not related to "feelings." Although I understand in some of your minds that science is a touchy-feely exercise, more related to your feelings, I don't believe that is not the case for most people.

2. I DO have biblical reasons for believing as I do. That you don't understand my biblical reasoning is not the same as my rejecting what the Bible has to say and not on this or any other topic.

3. Since gay marriage is never addressed in the Bible, it could also be suggested that YOU are relying upon your feelings and your human traditions ("It is my hunch that the Bible would be against gay marriage if it talked about it, I was always taught by my pastor that gay marriage is wrong, therefore it is wrong," etc) and not the Bible. It is an extrabiblical topic with only VERY few bible passages (five-seven) that even superficially SEEM related.

5. Mark here himself has admitted that his own feelings are that gays are not born that way (to hell with science, I THINK it, therefore it is).

6. Finally, as has been repeatedly pointed out, my FEELINGS towards homosexuality and gay marriage were exactly the same as yours. I was opposed to it. It was only prayerful study and consideration that changed my opinion and that was contrary to my feelings.

Teresa said...

Mrs. Green and Marshall,

Thank you for your patient attempts at teaching.

It still doesn't make any sense to me, and I still think that the Bible contradicts itself on this point...and many others...because I can't see that one argument is more Biblicly based than the other...

...but I will keep trying to find out. If nothing more than I am curious if anyone has a compellingly rational and consistant interpretation of the Bible.

Its sort of fascinating the different ways it can be read.

Ms.Green said...

Dan, you totally misunderstand what my post was about. Anyone can be saved. At the point of salvation, one must realize that he/she is a sinner in need of salvation and realize that there is nothing he/she can do on his/her own to gain that salvation. It the cross - the finished work of Christ - that saves us. Any pastor who would counsel an unrepentant homosexual and allow them to believe they can be saved without repentance of this sin is also not saved. You may not like hearing that, but it's not my words, it's based on God's Word.

I have a hard time with your assertion that an unrepentant homosexual, having sex with another of the same sex, would even WANT to come to Christ - if their gross unnatural sin against nature and God does not seem sinful to them, what would make them remorseful enough of their other sins to warrant coming to Christ?

I picture an unrepentant murderer coming to Christ asking forgiveness for stealing a pack of cigarrettes. It's just not logical, Dan.

If a truly saved person continues in unrepentant sin, God has promised He will first convict them, then chasten them, and then if they still ignore Him, He will bring about the sin unto death. His grace will not be presumed upon. If you have unrepentant homosexual friends who say they are saved, but are not being chastened by God , then Dan, according to Scripture, they are not saved. That's not my interpretation.


It was only prayerful study and consideration that changed my opinion and that was contrary to my feelings

I find this statement completely disengenuous. You have stated that you once believed homosexuality to be a gross sin (I'm paraphrasing - don't remember the exact words) and that you were led "kicking and screaming" (I believe these were your words) to the conclusion that homosexuality was not sinful after all.

So should you prayerfully study and consider what other sins are actually not sinful after all? What about adultery? Fornication? Lying? Stealing? Cheating? Pride?
I'll bet you could twist the Scriptures to support these traits as normal and healthy as well if you tried hard enough.

Ms.Green said...

It still doesn't make any sense to me, and I still think that the Bible contradicts itself on this point...and many others...because I can't see that one argument is more Biblicly based than the other...

T, I would be happy to discuss this with you further in private. You can email me from my blog.

I don't think this particular venue is a good place to study on this in depth.

My mailbox is always open. If not, I urge you to continue searching the Scriptures for yourself. There are no true contradictions in Scripture. God does not contradict Himself. However, there are difficult passages that can lead someone to think there is a contradiction. Without knowing which verses you are referring to, we can't really address the issue.

Marshall Art said...

Teresa,

Ms. Green's offer is worth real consideration. Another good place would be 4Simpson's Blog listed on my blogroll. Either gives you a good opportunity to review a more fleshed out explanation.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

Once again, I do not wish to change the topic of this discussion to the purposely distracting and muddling idea of being saved while being wrong. It is not relevant to this discussion as there can be no true justifiable claim to not have known about this particular sin. The Bible is clear that homosexual behavior is sinful, it doesn't in any way give any suggestion that there could be any form of it that is not sinful, and since it IS sinful, there logically would be no mention of "gay marriage", since there couldn't be any mention if it was clearly understood that the underlying behavior is sinful. As stated ad nauseum, there is also no mention of incestuous marriages.

You have never truly offered any Biblical proof to support your position. You've only used the "prayerful consideration" angle with a little alleged "reason" thrown in, as if reasonable people could or would see in Scripture what doesn't exist.

There is also no scientific data that confirms anything related to the notion that homosexuals are born, though I don't deny biology plays a role, and there is definitely no science that went into the removal of this condition from the lists of mental abnormalities by the APA. But, because a few studies (none of which were ever duplicated) suggested the possibility, you then feel that science backs your position, where we know that science provides nothing concrete or even anything close to concrete.

So regarding your feelings about the subject, they were once one way, and now they are the opposite, but now you claim they aren't feelings. Of course what else COULD they be with less to support your current position than what exists to support your former position? You've denied what is clear and plain in order to cling to what is tenuous at best and then pretend you've got the better opinion.

Dan Trabue said...

Again, so much wrongheadedness, it's hard to know where to begin. Ms Green said:

At the point of salvation, one must realize that he/she is a sinner in need of salvation and realize that there is nothing he/she can do on his/her own to gain that salvation.

Okay, so my gay and lesbian church friends have indeed realized they were a sinner, asked for forgiveness of sin and to be saved by God's grace and they've made Jesus the Lord of their lives. That much is a fact.

What hasn't happened is that they have NOT been convicted that homosexuality is a sin. They have not been convicted that gay marriage is a sin. Rather, they and I believe that it is a blessed thing of God.

Similarly, you have not been convicted that your opposition to gay marriage is sinful. You have not been convicted that your position on other issues is wrong (for instance, you probably support the Iraq War, you probably support bombing the innocent at Hiroshima - just guessing). Or perhaps it might be better worded to say that you have been convicted but you've hardened your heart and not realized that you were being convicted.

OR PERHAPS, it is the case that my gay friends were convicted and didn't realize it.

My point is that sometimes, we simply don't always get it right. Sometimes, we are honestly pursuing behavior that we think is right and godly and are simply wrong on that front. Your opposition to gay marriage would be one such example, in my opinion. You THINK you're doing right by opposing gay marriage. I believe you are in the wrong. BOTH of us are sincerely acting out what we believe God would have us do, what the Bible and logic teaches us. ONE of us is wrong. That being the case, we are wrong in ignorance. I, for my part, am not deliberately choosing wrong, I'm striving for the good, right and just position. If I am wrong, I can assure you it is in ignorance, not a deliberate choice.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I assume that if you are wrong, you are doing so in ignorance, not as a deliberate choice.

The point is, it IS entirely possible to be honestly seeking God and to be wrong. It happens all the time. I'm not suggesting it's a good thing. I'm saying it's a reality of the human condition.

Do you disagree?

Further, I'm saying that IF we are wrong, but are sincerely striving for God's will in our lives, God's grace covers our stupidity. My stupidity. Your stupidity. That's what grace is for. If we can perfectly ascertain and act out God's will, there would be no need for grace.

Do you disagree?

Dan Trabue said...

Ms Green also said:

If you have unrepentant homosexual friends who say they are saved, but are not being chastened by God , then Dan, according to Scripture, they are not saved. That's not my interpretation.

Then, by YOUR reasoning, IF MS Green is not being convicted of her sin of opposing gay marriage or of supporting Christians killing people in war, and she gets to the judgement seat of Christ and God tells her that she was mistaken, THEN Ms Green is not saved. Is that your position? IF you have been mistaken - despite sincere efforts to follow God - about even ONE sin, then you are not a Christian? You believe that you have to have perfect knowledge of each and every sin in order to be saved? Really?

Again, this is not an orthodox evangelical belief system.

Ms Green also said:

I find this statement completely disengenuous.

You are free to find it disengenuous if you wish. But who was there, you or me? Who once believed one way and was convicted - despite my feelings - to believe another way, you or me?

I am telling you truthfully that the case is that I once sincerely believed homosexuality to be a sin and gay marriage to be a ridiculous concept AND YET, after serious Bible study and prayeful consideration, I no longer believe that to be the case at all.

I have to ask you in all honesty: Who is better suited to know how Dan believed and what led to his changed position - Dan or Ms Green? Do you really think that you know my mind better than I do?

So should you prayerfully study and consider what other sins are actually not sinful after all? What about adultery? Fornication? Lying? Stealing? Cheating? Pride?
I'll bet you could twist the Scriptures to support these traits as normal and healthy as well if you tried hard enough.


As I am sure you could, if you tried hard enough. After all, you probably have convinced yourself that the deliberate bombing of the men, women and children of Hiroshima was a good, Godly thing, right? One can support all manner of sin, if one tries hard enough.

In my case, I am not striving for anything beyond following God as best I can by God's grace. I suspect the same is true of you. I don't really think you are deliberately seeking to spit in God's face by your positions, but rather, you come to your wrong positions in sincere ignorance, influenced by how you were raised and your feelings on the matter. And I further believe that, horrible as it is to be wrong on matters of sin, that God's grace covers your mistakes, sister.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall said:

The Bible is clear that homosexual behavior is sinful, it doesn't in any way give any suggestion that there could be any form of it that is not sinful, and since it IS sinful, there logically would be no mention of "gay marriage", since there couldn't be any mention if it was clearly understood that the underlying behavior is sinful.

No, Marshall, the Bible is clear TO YOU, that homosexual behavior en toto is sinful. Other Christians have sincerely studied the Bible seeking God's will prayerfully and honestly, and they have come to another opinion. That being the case, the fact is that it's not at all clear to everyone.

Your position WAS clear to me before I prayerfully studied God's Word, seeking God's will. But not afterwards.

You do understand, don't you, that just because you think something, just because you say something, does not mean it is, in fact, true. YOU may think one way, but you are not able to speak for all people. You ain't a god, brother.

Ms.Green said...

Then, by YOUR reasoning, IF MS Green is not being convicted of her sin of opposing gay marriage or of supporting Christians killing people in war, and she gets to the judgement seat of Christ and God tells her that she was mistaken, THEN Ms Green is not saved. Is that your position?

No, Dan, that is not my position. If I am in sin and don't know it, God will convict me of it. If I harden my hard against the conviction, He will chasten me. If I still harden my heart and refuse to listen to the truth, He will take me out.

That is my (the Biblical) position.

On a side note - I was not responsible for bombing Hiroshima. Just wanted to set the record straight.

Dan Trabue said...

Okay, so if you die and find out that you were WRONG to oppose gay marriage and that your attitude was harmful and sinful, are you damned? Will that mean that you missed God's convicting voice and thereby are now doomed to hell?

What if you are wrong on even one sin, are you doomed?

Dan Trabue said...

Teresa said:

If nothing more than I am curious if anyone has a compellingly rational and consistant interpretation of the Bible.

I would like to offer, from at least SOME Christian's viewpoints, we fully recognize that there are passages that are difficult to reconcile with other passages. The Bible DOES say unambiguously that disrespectful children should be killed. And yet other passages let us know that it is wrong to kill children or the innocent. Which is it?

Some passages show God commanding Israel's armies to wipe out whole cities, including the male children - BUT that we should spare the young girls to be taken captive and made wives to the Israelites. Again, other passages suggest that such behavior is atrocious.

How DO we rightly divine what is right and what is not? How do we deal with contradictory (or at least seemingly contradictory) passages? Do we say that, in the past, God DID require Israel to kill disrespectful children, but NOW, God does NOT want us to do that? And if that's the case, on what grounds do we make that call? Does the Bible have Jesus saying, for instance, "IN the past, God required X, but NOW, God requires NOT X!"

No, not so much, usually. I mean, sometimes that's the case - there were certain foods that were forbidden in OT laws that the NT directly says, "Now, it's okay to eat those!," but that is more the exception than the rule.

In truth, we sometimes have to reason it out, what makes most sense. I strive to do so like this:

1. since I am a Christian, I read all the Bible and compare it to the words of Christ. If there is a seeming contradiction, between what the OT says and what Jesus says, I will go with what Jesus says.

2. I think we DO need to use our God-given reasoning ability. Some things are just obviously wrong. Killing innocent people, for instance. I don't need a passage from the Bible to tell me that is wrong. The Bible tells us that God's law is written on our hearts and we CAN know some basic decent human behavior.

So, since Jesus' teachings are fairly consistently about peacemaking and opposing violence - turn the other cheek, overcome evil with good, love your enemies (which is also an OT teaching), then I lean towards peaceable solutions. Maybe God did in the past order armies or governments to kill children, but I think - based upon 1. Jesus' teachings and 2. Basic human logic and decency - CLEARLY, we are not today to kill children.

3. Don't just look at single verses, but rather look at each verse in context of the whole Bible and within the context of times, as much as we are able. Keeping in mind that the cultures described in the Bible are in a different language and a wholly different time and culture - times and cultures that we can't fully understand.

These three primary criteria for reading the Bible are fairly constant in most Christian groups, I'd suggest, I'm not unique in using this approach. Is it wholly consistent? I don't see how it could be - it relies upon human interpretation and as we can see here, humans have different takes on passages, even when we're reading the same source. Bible study is not an objective science where we can measure each word for a perfect representation.

I'm okay with admitting that it is a subjective thing. Where I have a problem, then, is mainly when there are some who'd read the Bible who'd suggest that their's is the one and only way to read that passage or to interpret a topic, especially when a topic is not covered directly in the Bible.

And understand, I'm not saying that we can each have our own interpretation and that's okay - "we're all right." No, clearly, I think that Marshall and Teresa are mistaken in their interpretation and approach. I'm just saying that this will happen sometimes. Sometimes, they will be mistaken. Sometimes, I will be mistaken. Which is why I think grace is such a critical component of Christianity - not just God's grace towards us, but our grace towards one another.

Ms.Green said...

Okay, so if you die and find out that you were WRONG to oppose gay marriage and that your attitude was harmful and sinful, are you damned? Will that mean that you missed God's convicting voice and thereby are now doomed to hell?

I refer you to my previous post. I don't know how I could be any clearer.

Ms.Green said...

Teresa,

The Bible says that "God is not the author of confusion".

My offer stands if you decide later you want to explore in more detail.

Be blessed!

Dan Trabue said...

Your previous post is not orthodox Christianity, though. You DO know that, don't you?

You said:

If I am in sin and don't know it, God will convict me of it. If I harden my hard against the conviction, He will chasten me. If I still harden my heart and refuse to listen to the truth, He will take me out.

That is my (the Biblical) position.


You make the error in saying it is "THE Biblical position." You are absolutely correct in saying it is YOUR position.

Orthodox Christianity acknowledges our humanity, that we don't have perfect knowledge of all matters. Sometimes, believe it or not, Ms Green, YOU WILL BE WRONG and sometimes, you will not realize it. You will be wrong in ignorance.

Do you not recognize this in your own life? Are there no moments where, later on, you realized, "Oh! I was wrong in my position. Dang."?

If you can answer No, to that - ie, if you can say that you've never been accidentally wrong. You've always perfectly known what is right and what is not, then it's time for you to apply for God's position, for that is what you are saying.

Hebrews 10:26, 27 tells us:

If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries.

Deliberately. It requires a willful decision to choose the sin to separate us from God. But thanks be to Jesus, we are saved by God's grace. If we fail in ignorance, we are covered by God's grace.

I wonder what religious tradition you belong to, Ms Green. I'm not sure of any mainstream religions that believe you must have perfect knowledge of sin or that you somehow magically will have perfect knowledge of each and every sin. Perhaps some of the pentecostalists believe this? Assemblies of God?

Whatever, it is not a logically nor biblically sound position to hold for orthodox Christians.

From a simple logic point of view: IF you believe that humans are sinful, imperfect creatures AND you believe that they must have a perfect understanding of each and every sin in order to be saved, THEN you are saying that no one can be saved because we are an imperfect people. Your internal logic is lacking.

Ms.Green said...

I will repeat myself.

No, Dan, that is not my position. If I am in sin and don't know it, God will convict me of it. If I harden my hard against the conviction, He will chasten me. If I still harden my heart and refuse to listen to the truth, He will take me out.

That is my (the Biblical) position.

“As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.” Rev 3:10

“Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty:” Job 5:17

: My son, despise not the chastening of the LORD; neither be weary of his correction:: Prov 3:11

“And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby. “ Hebrews 12:5-11

“Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?” Romans 6:16

“If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.” I John 5:16

“To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” I Corinthians 5:5

Also, you are taking Hebrews 10:26 and 27 out of context. You need to include verse 25 as well.

“Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.” Hebrews 10:25-27

There are 3 views of this passage.

#1 – It is saying that one can lose one’s salvation for willful sin. However, since almost all sin is willful and deliberate, if that is all it took to lose our salvation, none of us could ever hope to keep our salvation

#2 It is referring to the sin unto death

#3 It is referring to Falsely professing Christians who abandon the faith and continue in their unrepentant sin

The phrase “sin willfully” is tied in to “forsaking the church”, and thus Christ, and thus – rejecting the faith. The Greek tense of the word indicates a continuous attitude of deliberate rejection of the faith – and thus the idea of a full and final rejection of Christ.

The phrase “The knowledge of the truth” is the knowledge of the Gospel. Jesus is the only and final sacrifice for sin. The phrase “there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins” simply means that if you reject the sacrifice of Christ for sin, there is no other sacrifice for sin.

I find it somewhat amusing that you can tell me that God chastening His children for their sin is unorthodox, but accepting homosexuality as normal and blessed by God is.

IF you believe that humans are sinful, imperfect creatures AND you believe that they must have a perfect understanding of each and every sin in order to be saved, THEN you are saying that no one can be saved because we are an imperfect people.

May I use a quote from one of your own posts?

"The way you can tell that I don't believe that is by the way I did not say that."

Ms.Green said...

I will let you have the last word Dan, because it is not in my best interest to continue this discussion with you because it is fruitless. We just disagree and are in two different camps and will most likely continue to be so.
Strife and contention are both sins, and I'm coming to the point of feeling contention.

Marshall, thanks for your patience in all this. Teresa, I'm sorry that you have to see arguing among people who claim to be Christians. It just proves that we're no different in most ways than any of the rest of the world.

Dan Trabue said...

Ms Green said:

May I use a quote from one of your own posts?

"The way you can tell that I don't believe that is by the way I did not say that."


Okay, let me try another tack on this (and if you don't want to respond, that's your prerogative - for my part, I am feeling no serious strife or contention towards you, I'm just trying to explain my position and understand yours, and that's okay with me)...

Let's assume you are correct: Supporting gay marriage is a sin (is that your position?) I have reached my position in support of gay marriage ONLY BY striving to seek God's will. It has been my one and only desire on this point to understand what God's desire would be on this point.

I have felt NO chastening (and if I had, that my only be a "feeling" anyway and I don't want to base my position upon feelings, but upon God's Word, right?) of my heart. As far as I know, I have only sought God's will on this topic.

If there WERE any chastening by God on my heart, I, in my imperfect humanity, missed it.

I am telling you as honestly as I can, I have felt no chastening of God on this point. So, if you are correct and I inadvertantly missed God's chastening, am I, in my ignorance, damned? IF that is the case, what hope is there for any of us, since any of might err as you think I have erred?

That sure seems to be what you're saying, but you're just not wanting to say it that way. But you can tell me if that is what you're saying.

As to this concern about having differences of opinion, I'm not sure what the problem is. We ALL have differences of opinion with others. There's no sin in disagreeing with others. There's no serious harm, even, in disagreeing with others. It's our condition. To be human is to have differences of opinion. Even on important matters. Peter and Paul and the early church regularly had differences of opinion, after all.

There is no harm in merely having differences of opinion and expressing those differences, it seems to me. The only harm comes when we can't do so relatively politely and in a spirit of love. Peter disagreeing with Paul was not a problem. They talked it out and came to some mutual agreement, if not total agreement.

The pharisees disagreeing with Jesus to the point of crucifying him, of slandering him and twisting his words, now THAT's a problem. It's all in the attitude, seems to me.

Teresa said...

Mrs. Green,

I read a lot of history. I don't find it shocking that Christians argue amongst themselves. I'm just happy when nobody dies. :-)

Thank you for your patient answering of my questions.

Teresa said...

Dan,

thank you for your insights as well.

Marshall Art said...

Teresa,

What am I? Chopped liver?

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

You spend a lot of time typing out the same old same old. All the while, you still refuse to acknowledge a simple fact: the Bible expressly forbids homosexual behavior, period, with no examples whatsoever anywhere that there is any form of it that is acceptable to God. None, nothing, zilch, nadam, absolutely nothing. This isn't opinion, it is fact. Absolute fact that you have never come close to overcoming in all discussions of this subject. You simply fall back on your FEELINGS that somehow, God communicated to YOU as He does to all pro-homosex-marriage proponents but no one else, that after thousands of years, everyone has missed something. You are taking part in an absolute heresy. You don't have to worry about whether or not you might be right or wrong on this subject, because you are without a doubt, 100% wrong. There is no mystery here. There is no confusion. There is no area of Scripture that makes this issue difficult for any honest person to fully understand. The Bible could not be more clear about what God says about the subject.

To take it from a slightly different angle, you are a liar. You are preaching lies about God's Will and the proof is in your inability to contradict plain English of Levitical law with anything else from anywhere in the Bible. You threaten the salvation of others who suffer under the urge to engage in this sinfulness by encouraging them with your false words regarding what God blesses.

In short, there is absolutely nothing that supports any notion that God would respond to deep prayer and meditation with something that can't be easily supported in Scripture, because we are to rely on Scripture to compare what we think with what is.

Marshall Art said...

Teresa,

Please don't be fooled by Dan or others like him. Among his tired strategems is to use other Levitical laws to confuse the issue. If you choose to take the time, there is a fairly comprehensive explanation on my very first post (in the comments section) regarding which Levitical laws might still apply, which don't and why. There are other sources for this information, but the salient point with the presentation at that first post is that I found it while researching such things as related to homosexuality. So it is totally relevant. Even if you should sadly come away believing that there is nothing wrong with two loving men marrying each other and having whatever it is they might call sex, you would hopefully know that they cannot use Scripture to support their position, at least not with silly points about putting to death misbehaving kids or people eating shellfish.

In addition, Dan likes to bring up stories from the OT to make his case that never do. One of his favorites are those stories that have to do with God sanctioning the total devastation of a town and all its inhabitants. He's especially enamored of one that speaks to God instructing them on the taking of female captives as wives, and then supposing that somehow reasonable people would take that to mean we're to do the same when we fight wars today. I truly doubt any average person would feel that's the case, but I can't vouch for the intelligence of the people with whom Dan routinely comes in contact.

I believe there are people who will consciously take parts of the Bible to twist into their own preferred meaning, knowing full well that they are lying. I believe there are others very similar who then convince themselves they've got it right, still knowing they are wrong. Dan is one of these and I continue to believe this until he can explain his position using Scripture to show where God changed his mind on what is acceptable sexual behavior for His people.

As fellow blogger Neil says in not so many words, every reference to homosexuality in the Bible is negative, that is, don't do it. Every mention of marriage or family mentions one man, one woman (in the NT---OT has multiple wives, but never same sex arrangements). There is nothing Dan can use, nor can anyone else, to support the notion that God would ever bless homosex marriages or unions. EVER. It's just the way it is.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall said:

the Bible expressly forbids homosexual behavior, period, with no examples whatsoever anywhere that there is any form of it that is acceptable to God.

I will say it one more time, just for giggles: I fully understand that THIS IS YOUR OPINION about what the Bible says. It is not everyone's opinion.

I am not lying, that is the absolute truth. Not everyone agrees with Marshall's opinion about what the Bible says and doesn't say. It is a fact.

I once DID believe what you believe about homosexuality, but yet another authentic fact is, AFTER studying the Bible seriously looking specifically at this topic, I came to another conclusion. It is a FACT that it was not my desire to - the notion of homosexuality made me physically ill back in the day. My feelings were "I would NEVER change my mind about homosexuality as I think it is wrong. Period!" Those were, IN FACT, my opinions and feelings at the time.

And - whether or not you agree or understand - it is yet another fact that my prayerful studies led me away from believing as you do.

NOT because I wanted to - I didn't.

NOT because I didn't study the Bible prayerfully - I did.

You are free to guess what you want about my motivations but I can tell you first hand that you are mistaken about me. Your hunches are wrong. You have your opinion about what the Bible says, but you are not God to tell me what I must believe. I disagree with your opinion, as do many sincere Christians.

Dan Trabue said...

I believe there are people who will consciously take parts of the Bible to twist into their own preferred meaning, knowing full well that they are lying.

And yet you believe this NOT because of any evidence. I have never knowingly lied to you or anyone else in these internets and you have nothing to prove that. RATHER, you are relying upon your FEELINGS, it would seem.

You are thinking, "Well, I know that I believe the Bible is definitely opposed to homosexuality. I also know that any REAL Christian would agree with me. Dan does not agree with me, therefore, he must be lying."

Something along those lines. You might extend it to, "Besides, I don't think the argument that he provides as to why he believes what he does is convincing, therefore, he must be lying."

But you do so based on nothing but your hunches.

Marshall Art said...

No hunches are necessary when "Thou shalt not..." is plainly visible in print. No hunches are necessary when there is nothing remotely close in definitive-ness to in any way contradict. I don't simply believe the Bible expressly forbids homosexuality in any form whatsoever, I KNOW it does as there is NOTHING that in any way overturns, "Thou shalt not..." I don't care how much you prayed over it. I don't care how much meditation you put into it. If you came away believing something so drastically and OBVIOUSLY opposite of Biblical teaching, it wasn't God that was whispering in your ear. This is similar to arguing over the color of the sky when one need only look up and see. Without express Scriptural evidence, you can only FEEL as if you believe the Bible tells you what you say it tells you. You've NEVER come close to providing anything of the kind. By this time, you should surely have something, but you never offer anything. NEVER. But that's OK, because there is NOTHING to offer. You simply deny and pretend your fantasy is true. Thus, up against such a dearth of evidence to support your position, one is left with only two possibilities: You are relying on mere feelings, despite your protests to the contrary, or you are lying or agreeing to accept a lie as truth. You should find a more educated spiritual advisor.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall said:

Thus, up against such a dearth of evidence to support your position, one is left with only two possibilities: You are relying on mere feelings, despite your protests to the contrary, or you are lying or agreeing to accept a lie as truth.

Seriously, Marshall, this is funny. Does it never cross your mind that someone may simply disagree with you? Isn't that the more logical explanation?

After all, you can't provide me for (what I consider) a good biblical or logical defense as to why you would support an action like bombing Hiroshima. By your logic, then, the ONLY possible explanations would be that:

1. You are lying, or
2. You are basing it solely upon your feelings ("I'm scared that bad guys will get me, therefore we must kill their children with nuclear bombs")

That's what you're saying. AND YET, isn't it more likely that you merely disagree with me?

Just because I find your explanations for holding such a position preposterous does not mean that I presume you to be a liar or basing your opinions on your feelings. You see, I fully understand that sometimes, some Christians will disagree with my wisdom. I am not a god. Everyone need not agree with me in order to be right.

Sometimes, people will sincerely seek God's will and come to a totally opposite opinion than I have. That's just life.

That you don't appear to realize this is just amazing. Wow.

Mark said...

Dan appears to assume no one but he has any gay friends. Perhaps that assumption is wrong, but just in case it isn't...

I have had many gay friends. I knew them well enough to see, without a doubt, that they were all--to a person---all-- completely, totally, obsessed with sex.

All had a one track mind, all they thought about, every minute, every hour, every day, was sex. If one tried to hold an innocent conversation with them, they would twist even the most innocuous statement into a statement packed with sexual innuendo.

There is no true love in a homosexual relationship. Only lust and sex. I believe most homosexuals confuse love with sex. That confusion has translated itself into our modern culture.

This is indicative of what their God is. Their God is sex. Sex is their God. God is love, this is true, But neither love nor lust is God. At least, it shouldn't be.

The very first commandment warns us to not have any other Gods before God. Homosexuals value their lifestyle above God. This is why they refuse to stop committing homosexual sex even after they are saved. They may be Christian. None of us are qualified to say they are not, but nevertheless, they are still in rebellion. Hence, they are sinful and homosexuality is sinful.

If homosexuals, and their willing apologists like Dan, were intellectually honest, they would have to admit they have made sex their God and relegated the One True God to at least second place in their lives, if not much further down the list.

In addition, another of God's commandments warns us against committing adultery, and any kind of sex outside of the confines of a traditional marriage is adultery.

At the very least, their tacit refusal to obey these two Commandments, among others, namely the second, third, and tenth, constitutes rebellion against God.

Wow! 5 of the ten commandments apply to the sin of homosexuality!

Homosexuality is not only deviant, it is rebellion against God. I submit homosexuals know this (how could they not?) but absolutely refuse to admit it, even to themselves.

By the way, arrogantly insisting that you know God's laws better than God does so you can justify your deviant lifestyle, or those of your deviant friends is itself rebellion against God.

Teresa said...

Marshall,

Oh, sorry, thank you too, of course. :-)

I must admit, I haven't come across a single bit of Biblical interpretation that seems like it would rope me in enough to be described as being 'fooled" by it.

It's fascinating to see the energy put into the arguments, the complexity and passion...but none of it really hangs together in a compelling way. Every approach seems to fall apart at some point.

I DO happen to think that it is fine and normal and healthy for gays to get married and love one another and raise children.

But it is easier for me than for some 'cause I don't have to try to fit it into the Bible somehow.

To me it's just an old book with some good parts and some not-so-good parts that people have the most interesting arguments about...

...I like the Psalms and the Parables the best. The Sermon on the Mount was good. Samson was cool, but not too bright. :-)

Marshall Art said...

Sam's lust got the best of him. Pretty much what has led our culture to this and many related discussions.

First of all, Teresa, I was referring to interpretations like Dan's that can fool. I don't think the Bible fools at all, though some parts may seem confusing on the surface.

I don't understand what you mean if you are saying my argument falls apart at some point. I guess it would depend on what point has provoked that response. Currently, in my back and forth with Dan, my argument CAN'T fall apart because it's really quite cut and dried. There is no Biblical support for homosex marriage because there is no support for the notion that there is one form of homosex behavior that is worthy of God's blessing. This is not an opinion, no matter what Dan feels is true. It is a fact. He wants to divert by raising the issue of Hiroshima. Won't work. The point is whether or not the Bible ever condones, sanctions, or "OKs" homosexual behavior of any kind that would lead to a anything that suggests God would bless any union based on that behavior. The answer is an unequivical "NO".

Now this post was supposed to be about the alleged rights of the homosexual vs the ratified rights of freedom of religious expression and freedom of association. In the context of that, Biblical justification for imaginary interpretations, are irrelevant. What the Bible says doesn't really enter into such a conflict. It's enough to know that one's expression of one's faith is inhibited by, and generally and ultimately meant to be inhibited by, the rights of 2% of the population. How will we deal with this if homosex marriage is ratified througout the nation? Why should this mythical right take precedence over well established rights? The examples of the post illustrate how that conflict is going thus far in other countries as well as our own. I find it troublesome that the conflict exists simply because of how a small segment of society chooses to pleasure themselves.

Thomas Sowell suggested they were on their most solid ground when they simply wanted to be left alone to enjoy their perversion. I'm totally down with that and was quite willing to believe it never happened because they stayed the hell out of the public eye. But that's not enough for them. They believe that because they want it, society is compelled and mandated to let them have it. Society is not.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

Stow your Hiroshima stuff for the reasons listed above. Totally irrelevant.

I am quite aware that we disagree on this issue. That's not the point either and it explains nothing. The point is that you have no legitimate reason to your beliefs other than your feelings because there is no legitimate support available. I cannot be wrong on the subject because all the available data supports my understanding. You've got nothing, you've never had anything, and until the Second Coming, you don't have any chance to get any (He won't provide it when He gets here). It's not a matter of interpretation because the Scripture is crystal clear and nothing overturns it later. It's a faithful retelling of what is there plainly for all to read. I simply don't care to consider those who read the same words and pretend they mean something they couldn't possibly.

Jim said...

I have had many gay friends. I knew them well enough to see, without a doubt, that they were all--to a person---all-- completely, totally, obsessed with sex.

You have weird and very unusual friends. I have a number of gay friends and a good number of gay associates in the business world. I have yet to know any of them who would fit the description contained in the above post.

To say the least, your observation is deluded or your conclusion is bigoted.

Dan Trabue said...

Oh, I have no doubt that Mark may know a handful of gay people and those five may well, indeed, be totally obsessed with sex. Heck, I know ten straight guys (easy!) who are totally obsessed with sex.

The only conclusion therefore possible? ALL straight folk are obsessed with sex! After all, if a sampling shows everyone in your sample being obsessed with sex, then the only logical conclusion one can reach is that ALL people in that same group must be that way.

That, or that Mark is hanging out at extravagant gay swing clubs too much.

Dan Trabue said...

So, I'll have to ask my deacon - a sweet little older Bible-reading, Baptist lesbian lady who has been with her partner for years and years - where all these sex-crazed gays are. Or perhaps one of my gay friends who have been faithfully married for years to their partners can tell me.

Or perhaps our "Auntie Jean" who has helped raise our children (who all adore her) about all the wild and crazy swingin' gays.

I suspect that if one is to expect and look for negative stereotypes, one can find them. It seems to me I recall that Mark ONLY knew welfare recipients who are black cadillac queens, too.

Dan Trabue said...

Or perhaps I should ask my gay friend who is a well-respect professor of religion at a leading college?

Or maybe my elderly gay friend who spends most of his time taking care of his dying mother, and in his spare time volunteers for hospice - maybe he knows?

Or perhaps I should ask my missionary lesbian friend who each year takes his some of his vacation days to go help the poor in third world nations, maybe she knows where to find these wild and crazy homosexuals? Better yet, Mark could ask her when he goes overseas to help the poor - something I'm sure you regularly do, right Mark? You've probably bumped into her on some of your mission trips to aid the least of these?

What? You never go on mission trips? What? You've never had a college class on religion? What? You never volunteer for hospice?

Oh, that's right, you're too busy hanging out with the swingers, I reckon...

Rant over.

Dan Trabue said...

On the positive side, this is Marshall's chance to put his money where his mouth is. Marshall claims to not be hateful of gays, just opposed to what he considers wrong behavior. Well, Mark has just committed some wrong behavior. We'll see how Marshall handles it.

Mark has just slandered ALL gay folk by making the ridiculous suggestion that ALL gay folk are promiscuous - that they all have "no true love" in their relationships. That "most homosexuals confuse love with sex." That "their God is sex." That "homosexuals value their lifestyle above God." That they and I "are not intellectually honest" because we won't "admit" that sex is our god.

Lie upon lie upon twisted truth upon misrepresentation upon lie.

This is yet another way of demonizing the Other - making ridiculous claims that all of "their type" are evil in one way or another. That is why the Germans could be convinced to go along with killing off Jews, gypsies, gay folk and their supporters - these people were not like us, they claimed, they're immoral, dirty, filthy. You hear lies like that enough, and some people start to believe it, or are at least hesitant to stand up to such lies.

How about it Marshall? Are you willing to stand up to Mark's lies and slander? His demonization of our fellow humans and sometimes brothers and sisters in Christ?

Teresa said...

Marshall,

That was what originally caused me to post, as I thought it would add to the conversation that the pastor I referanced was using his pulpit to preach that gay people were "brute beasts to be taken and destroyed"...not human, and irredeemable.

To me, it seems like his "religious freedom" is being used to incite violence against gay people. Similarly, the very popular book "The Pink Swatika" claimes that the Nazis were a gay movement, and that the modern gay rights movement ultimalty has a Nazi dictatorship as an agenda. It was written, if memory of the article I read serves me, by Pastor Lively. A man who dragged a lesbian photo-journalist by her hair down the isles of his mega-church, physically abusing her before his congragation.

When some Russian immigrants who were members of a sister church killed a young gay man, they were assisted in avoiding justice by members of their religious group. One of them successfully fled to Russia, and remains at large. One was apprehended. Of course, he paid for the crime of killing, but the people who put him up to it, gave him moral license to do it, encouraged him to reject the lower law of man for the higher law of God, the people that assisted his accomplace in evading capture...well, they are all free to do it again.

To me, these are the people who are being talked about with regards to hate speech against gay people...people who advocate violence and murder, maliciously lie about and defame whole populations to raise up violence against them and justify it...and actually perpetrate and encourage their followers to perpetrate crimes...help them evade capture...

...and use the Bible to justify it.

The angle that they are religious groups essentially nullifies enforcement efforts. Most people who incite people to lawlessness can be held accountable by law, but when it is cloaked in religion, it is invulnerable.

I think of it much like terrorists who hide in civillian populations. These guys are using you for cover.

'course, I'm not in favor of indescriminant bombings to get terrorists and ignore high civillian casualties.

I'm also not in favor of taking away religious protection to get a few bad religious folks...

...but it would make it a lot easier if the innocent religious folks would stop closing ranks around and protecting the bad guys.

To you it might just be bad theology...but to others it is a form of organized violence, and a very, very dangerous one at that.

I'm not qualified to judge theology, but the question of how far we allow people to go in organizing their efforts of violence against a minority of our population isn't one that should be left alone just because it is pollitically incorrect to call a crime a crime just because it is cloaked in religion.

Teresa said...

Just a little more context: Sometimes when I mention Lively, people say "Who's that guy? Ive never heard of him. You're just picking extreme examples."

In a way, that's a fair point. Moderates don't write for the Chalcedon Report and Lively has been a regular contributer (a publication founded by R.J. Rushdoony...who believed that it should be the law of the land for homosexuals to be stoned to death)

But Lively was the director of the California chapter of the AFA. He's not relegated to the fringes. His co-author of "The Pink Swastika", Ken Hutcherson (and co-founder of Lively's group Watchmen on the Walls) lead the charge against Microsoft a couple of years ago.

Lively's theology may be extreme and fringe, but his power, connections, and working relationships are not.

Also, his public statements to the press and such are quite moderate. For instance, he called the murder of Santander Singh "unfortunate"...but then I saw a YouTube video of him recounting the death to a laughing, cheering audience in Latvia. He also made (to be generous) several factual errors in relating the case which made the assailants look like the good guys and the victim look like he got what he deserved...then he demurred when the crowd got too blood thirsty...but he never in any way portrayed the actions of the assailants as wrong. He behaved as if the victim's death was the unfortunate result of his own tragic sin.

If he's not trying to play some sort of weird balancing act of keeping his followers hatred and fear boiling just at the point of panic and violence...then he's clueless and it's just dumb luck more people haven't been killed.

If you would like links, I can find them.

Mark said...

OK, Dan, let's assume, for the sake of argument that not all gays put sex before God.

Although I never said "all gays" are guilty of anything. I said all the gays I know are all the things I said they are. I defy you to prove me wrong.

But I notice you never dealt with the facts I brought up that they are breaking 5 of the 10 commandments by practicing their lifestyle choice.

But, be that as it may, Let's analyze some things, shall we? First of all, what defines a homosexual in the first place?

Having homosexual sex is what defines a homosexual. If they never have homosexual sex, they are still heterosexual for all intents and purposes. Just experiencing desires for the opposite sex doesn't make them homosexuals. Neither does them declaring themselves homosexual make them one.

Next, IF they are, as you have asserted, Christians, and have studied the Bible, they already know, before they consummate their homosexuality, that God condemns homosexuality, stating literally that a "man who lays with another man as he does with a woman is an abomination to God". How one can make anything else out of that statement requires a willing suspension of disbelief.

If they go ahead and have homosexual sex anyway, in spite of the direct literal admonition against it issued from God Himself, knowing they are committing a sin in the eyes of God, does that not constitute rebellion against God?

If one willingly and knowingly engages in an act of sin and rebellion against God, there has to be a reason, would you not agree?

What reason would that be?

The only reason that I can think of is that one doesn't care whether God has condemned that particular act or not. The act of sex is more important to him than God.

That means that person has put his act of disobedience above his God in order of importance. That is the worship of the sin over God, which is otherwise known as Idolatry, a violation of the 2nd Commandment. It is also a violation of the 1st Commandment, "Thou shalt not have any Gods before me."

Also, having homosexual sex cannot be accomplished within marriage, as God has repeatedly and pointedly made it crystal clear that marriage can only exist between man and woman. There is no provision for male/male or female/female marriage found anywhere in the Bible, nor is there any implications of such. Therefore, homosexual sex is a direct violation of the 7th commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery".

Finally, homosexual sex violates the 10th commandment, "Thou shalt not covet..." as desire for the same sex defines covetessness.

Homosexual sex is the only reason for having a "loving" (as in eros)relationship with a member of the same sex. Otherwise, it's just a friendship. I can love my brother, but I don't have sex with him. I can love my best friend without feeling any neccesity to have sex with him. It doesn't diminish the fact that I love some men (as in brotherly love)not to have sex with them. Contrarily, Men don't have to have homosexual sex with a friend to show love for him.

Any attempt by you, or any other so-called "homosexual rights" apologist to justify such deliberate rebellion against God is disengenous and intellectually dishonest.

Dan, you are in denial. I am done with you. Any argument you bring to the table is based on your denial of God's supreme sovreignty.

Oh, and a word of advice. Don't leave your children alone with Auntie Jean. Since homosexuals rely on their own definition of morality rather than Gods, your children may be in danger.

Marshall Art said...

Teresa,

I, too, am unfamiliar with the Lively dude you mentioned. Sounds like a real piece of work. Fret not. I have no problem confronting preachers who taint the Word with their own prejudices. As I continually say, the Bible isn't a mystery book. It's generally pretty easy to know when someone's BS-ing if one reads the Book objectively. I defy any preacher who speaks as these do to justify their ideas that we have the right or duty to kill homosexuals. They cannot do it. The guy in your linked video isn't doing it as he is reading into the piece meaning that isn't there, much like Dan and the people he enables do. I have as little patience for them as I do for Dan and the people he enables. Less so, since they are advocating physical harm on another human being.

I don't doubt that there are people who misread the Bible, or read into the Bible of that which doesn't exist, and do so on the right side of an issue. That is, the people you describe, as well as Fred Phelps, is on the right side of the issue, but it manifests in a way that is every bit as wrong as being on the other side of the issue. But their positions on homosexuality are as easily put to rest as those who support any expression of homosexuality as normal or good.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

It looks like Mark took care of things himself, as he was speaking in reference to the homosexuals he's known.

You, on the other hand, already believe lies and untruths about homosexuality, I wouldn't be surprised if most of the homosexuals you know are engage in numerous activities of which you have no first hand knowledge. They could tell you anything about themselves as homosexuals and you'd likely believe them without question.

But here's the larger point: it doesn't matter how "holy" these friends of yours appear to be. They are willfully engaging in behaviors they know is wrong Biblically, but have chosen to buy into all the cheap rationalizations they call, "prayerful consideration".

Anecdotal examples don't help either side, but since the both of you have begun, I'll add my own. The homosexual I knew best said before he died of AIDS, that of all the homosexuals he's met, and he lived within their "community" in Chicago, they all needed professional help. They were all nuts. There. We all know at least one homo. Big freakin' deal. Irrelevant info adding nothing to the conversation.

Dan Trabue said...

They are willfully engaging in behaviors they know is wrong Biblically, but have chosen to buy into all the cheap rationalizations they call, "prayerful consideration".

And you and Mark have chosen to buy into the mythology that you are gods who know better what motives and reasoning people have. You have bought into the blasphemy of calling unholy what God has called holy. You have striven to separate people from God and that is to your shame.

No matter. For neither death nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor anything above, nor anything below, nor anything else in all creation - not even the falsehoods and false claims of Mark and Marshall can separate us from the love of God that is ours in the Messiah Jesus, our Lord. Sorry. God wins. You lose.

Still, you can always repent - and if you believe as Ms Green believes, I reckon you better. For if you are wrong and refuse to repent (even if you don't know you're wrong), you're toast.

Fortunately for you, Ms Green is wrong on that front. God's grace is greater even than your ego.

Dan Trabue said...

And because you may not have understood, I'll spell it out one last time. You said:

But here's the larger point: it doesn't matter how "holy" these friends of yours appear to be. They are willfully engaging in behaviors they know is wrong Biblically

Here is the REAL larger point: It doesn't matter how "holy" you think you are. You and Mark are engaging in behaviors that are wrong Biblically. As to whether or not you KNOW that you are wrong, I couldn't say. It may be that you are engaging in such behavior in ignorance. That would be my guess.

But in truth, you are simply factually, observably, and in every other way wrong - my friends and I are NOT engaging in behaviors that we know to be wrong biblically. If we thought that were the case, we would not do so. And do you know why? Because, we are Christians. We are concerned about living aright and we are striving to do so to the best of our ability by God's grace.

You, on the other hand, already believe lies and untruths about homosexuality, I wouldn't be surprised if most of the homosexuals you know are engage in numerous activities of which you have no first hand knowledge.

And I wouldn't be surprised if you molested puppies. What of it?

This is what I'm getting at: You and Mark and your ilk way too often think that you can safely surmise all manner of evil about those you disagree with. You do so based only on your feelings of animosity towards gays and other groups you know very little about. You do not base it on actual knowledge, since you don't know my friends - whereas I DO know them. In the real world, most people recognize that IF you don't know anything at all about a person and IF someone else knows them quite well, THEN the person who knows them well is best suited to know what they think and do. Your arrogance is just insane.

Hear this and know it to be the real truth: My gay brothers and sisters at my church are SAINTS of God. They are holy servants of God. They are my beloved family and brothers and sisters in Christ, whom they name as their Lord and Savior and by whose grace they are saved and by whose power they live holy, glorious lives of love and grace.

Mark, I trust my children to their "Aunty Jean" implicitly and I'd certainly trust her over you.

Give me an honest answer: Between you and Aunty Jean, who is THE ONE AND ONLY one that WE KNOW to have acted negatively towards children? Have you not admitted as much on your blog - that you are/were a poor parent or am I mis-remembering?

And, if it is the case that you have been a poor father - by your own admission - how is it that you have the audacity to question the childcare skills of a woman about which you know nothing except for my testimony that she is a good person and beloved of children?

It is the arrogance and spitefulness of the comments of folk like Marshall and Mark that undermine Chrisitanity more than any possible sexual sin could possibly accomplish. "Blind guides, snakes, hypocrites!" Jesus might say.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I haven't participated in this thread, but it got real interesting real fast.

Compared to the quantity of Biblical references to the treatment of minorities, single mothers and their children, and even a preference for the form of religious devotion rather than a life lived in love and service to God, I would hardly consider a couple verses in Leviticus to be proof the Bible condemns anything. It does the same for any number of things we take for granted, so I would, in all honesty, set it aside.

I find Dan's fully justified rant at Mark's comments quite amusing, precisely because his response is based (a) on and in love; (b) on his own and his family's experience; (c) an understanding of God's grace and acceptance that is far larger than anything on display here. Mark, on the other hand, apparently knows the hearts and minds of his gay friends so thoroughly that he can, without equivocation, declare that "sex is their god".

As Dan notes, and I would add, I know many, many straight men and women for whom the same could be said. Yet, it is only the gay folk that get branded in such a way here.

Finally, may I just say that even if I believed the Bible clearly and unequivocally condemned homosexual activity, same-sex love, and considered same-sex marriage some kind of unforgivable sin, I would still support state-recognized same-sex unions, for any number of reasons, because marriage, in the end, is a legal agreement; it's place in the Bible is far more metaphorical and equivocal to serve as a model.

Anyway, those are my thoughts. Kudos to Dan for keeping his cool for so long, and for making it quite clear that Marshall, Mark, and Ms. Green, whoever she may be, are all a bunch of Bible-distorting idolaters, obsessed with what can even with the most lengthy stretching of the term be considered a peripheral issue in the Bible.

Jim said...

Having homosexual sex is what defines a homosexual. If they never have homosexual sex, they are still heterosexual for all intents and purposes. Just experiencing desires for the opposite sex doesn't make them homosexuals. Neither does them declaring themselves homosexual make them one.

huh? Are you joking? This is one of the lamest "definitions" I've ever heard. Let's see, if they stop having homosexual sex, then they are heterosexual? If they only have sex on weekends, are the straight during the week?

Mark said...

I'm only going to respond to one stupid statement by Dan. I am going to simply ignore the other stupid statements by him, Geoff, and Jim. Jim is just an idiot, and Geoff is an educated idiot. Geoff, in particular, has shown many times that he doesn't have an original thought in his brain. I no longer pay any attention to his deranged rants.

But this one by Dan was stupider than the rest and the reason I don't allow him to make such comments on my blog:

No, wait. I am going to address one stupid statement and one over-the-line rude, insulting statement: First, he said, "You have bought into the blasphemy of calling unholy what God has called holy."

You don't seriously believe something God has pronounced to be an abomination and coming from a reprobate mind is holy, do you? If you really believe that, you are obviously an idiot.

Second, You say, "Between you and Aunty Jean, who is THE ONE AND ONLY one that WE KNOW to have acted negatively towards children? Have you not admitted as much on your blog - that you are/were a poor parent or am I mis-remembering?"

What a stupid, asinine, over-the-top, insulting statement!

There is a huge difference between making typical parental mistakes in an honest effort to bring children up righteously and sexually abusing children.

And if you don't understand that difference, perhaps the local authorities in Louisville should be notified about you. If you are bringing your children up to believe Homos are normal and their sin is natural and blessed by God, and even "holy", you are a child abuser yourself.

You have come dangerously close to the edge, Dan. You're damn lucky I can't reach you. I don't want an apology from you, because it would not be sincere. I just want you to shut up. You're an Idiot.

Art, IMHO, you should really consider deleting such offensive and stupid comments.

Marshall Art said...

"And you and Mark have chosen to buy into the mythology that you are gods who know better what motives and reasoning people have."

Not in the least bit true. Never once have either one of us made any statements or acted in any way that could possibly suggest that either of us considers ourselves gods. A childish suggestion at best that would go well with holding your breath until you turn blue.

As to suggesting what motivations the sinners might have for their willful sinfulness, it is based on their actions and their lame justifications and rationalizations. Assumptions difficult to avoid result. Words to the contrary don't ring true at all.

"You have bought into the blasphemy of calling unholy what God has called holy."

You'd have to support this statement to not be considered a complete idiot. What is it that you think we are calling "unholy" what God has called "holy"? "Committed monogamous" homosex unions? There exists absolutely no Biblical support for this statement whatsoever. You are a heretic if you're trying to run that crap.

"You have striven to separate people from God and that is to your shame."

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this statement. It is too stupid to seek to perpetrate a lie like this. As I have consistently sought to remind you are the people you enable as to the sinfulness of homosex behavior, sinfulness by virtue of clear, concise Biblical teaching, I am indeed seeking to bring such lost souls back to God, as they have separated themselves by denying His plainly spoken Word on this issue.

"As to whether or not you KNOW that you are wrong, I couldn't say."

How can we be wrong by accurately repeating the plainly worded teachings of Scripture?

"my friends and I are NOT engaging in behaviors that we know to be wrong biblically."

I don't know exactly of what means of expression of their homosexuality your friends take, but if they engage in anything sexual between themselves, and/or if they preach that such unions are not contrary to God's plainly worded teaching and Will, then they are indeed wrong, which they are, if they indeed do engage in those actions. I can go on as long as you to proclaim once again that there is no Biblical support for your position whatsoever, and that's apparent by your inability to produce any.

Marshall Art said...

"...I would hardly consider a couple verses in Leviticus to be proof the Bible condemns anything."

And just how many verses are required for your obedience to God's Will? What part of "Thou shalt not..." do you find so troubling? You're not about to try that lame and totally and exhaustively explained "shellfish" crapola again, are you? I can only imagine what other mandates and teachings you "take for granted" and "put aside". Those mail order semenary courses you've taken don't put a whole lot of stock in "God as Lord", do they? You show further ignorance in the next paragraph by suggesting that somehow God's Grace means ignoring God's Will as one sees fit.

"Finally, may I just say that even if I believed the Bible clearly and unequivocally condemned homosexual activity..."

You should, because it does. You need to find a real semenary.

"...and considered same-sex marriage some kind of unforgivable sin..."

Who said anything about unforgivable? God forgives us of anything when we repent of it and turn to Him. This is what we hope and pray for our sadly misled homosex brothers and sisters. It is not this side of the issue that distorts Biblical truth in the least. You folks have that locked up as regards this issue. I find it total arrogance for one to assume they are high enough to decide which of God's commands are peripheral issues. And as regards this one, it would get less attention if those 2% who insist they need to get jiggy that way would stop trying to pervert our culture into following their crotch centered lead.

Dan Trabue said...

Ouch. Seems I've touched a sore spot with Mark.

To be honest, I know it was absolutely unfair and horribly unkind of me to bring out Mark's own admission of his poor parenting (and who among us parents don't feel that way sometimes). I probably should apologize.

But I was sort of hoping that doing so could help Mark realize that, IF it's wrong of me to point to his own admission of bad parenting, then it's exponentially wrong to point to someone YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW!! and suggest that they are probably molesting and/or abusing children!

For the record once again, my beloved "Auntie Jean," is a living Saint in every sense of the word. She spends every day at her job caring for the homeless and mentally ill, she is a deacon in our church devoted to ministering to families, she is a beloved baby sitter beyond reproach in every possible way, loved by children and adults alike. Can Mark make the same statement? How regularly does he minister to the least of these with such Christian grace?

She is a Christian saved by God's grace and following in Jesus' steps, she displays the fruit of the Spirit on a daily basis in her life.

And yes, she is a lesbian. Wholly devoted to and beloved by God.

Mark has never met this Saint, beloved of God, and yet has been gleefully willing to suggest all manner of evil about her and my church family and slander her name. And Mark feels as if HE's the one that has been wronged here, when I merely referenced what HE has said about himself.

Are Marshall and Mark the only ones who fail to recognize the bitter irony?

Dan Trabue said...

I do wonder what Mark means by this:

You have come dangerously close to the edge, Dan. You're damn lucky I can't reach you.

What edge is it I'm nearing?

And, I'm lucky you can't reach me? What's that supposed to mean?

Are you saying you want to hit me because I quoted your own words? Are you suggesting that referencing YOUR OWN comments about yourself is an action worthy of violence, but you can willy nilly make sexual assault against children! accusations against people you don't even know and that's okay because they're gay and that's all you need to know??

Again, I have to wonder, do you not understand the hypocrisy and irony of such a stance?

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Dan, they do not understand their own hypocrisy, their own blindness, their own idolatry. None of us do.

I find it so hilarious that Mark believes I have never had an original thought, because I have never claimed to do so. It's a bit like saying that he doesn't like me because it turns out I'm not a fighter pilot, because I never claimed to be so. As far as being an educated idiot, I will gleefully embrace that title, because education does not make one smart; it does, however, make one aware of how little one actually does know, so I am proud to call myself an educated idiot because the Universe, a place far larger than I can imagine, holds mysteries I shall never encounter, let alone understand.

On the other hand, I would like to ignore some of the more heated words here and respond to the way I framed the issue of Biblical support or the lack thereof for same-sex love. Specifically, I would ask if a consideration of the vast bulk of prophetic literature in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Psalms and Proverbs, the historical books of Samuel and Kings, compared to a couple verses in Leviticus which should be seen within interlocking contexts of pagan religious practices among those people living in Canaan as well as an abundant concern over fertility in a population with decentralized political and religious control might not add up to the conclusion that compared, say, to an overwhelming demand on the part of Judah's and Israel's LORD for justice in the land (rather than a scrupulous attention to the details of religious rites); for a social ethic of concern for minorities (the invocation one often reads "For were you not once strangers in Egypt?" serving as a reminder that the people were also once a persecuted minority in a foreign land); for a social ethic of concern and care for the most vulnerable members of society (the demand for justice and mercy and support for widows and orphans) even a generous reading of all the rules regarding sexual activity, from same-sex love to the practice of seclusion for women who are menstruating really don't matter all that much?

Indeed, as a professor of mine in seminary pointed out (in what was a "Duh!" moment for me), the lists of various laws and their penalties that appear at the end of Exodus and in Leviticus are most likely the result of various judicial proceedings. That is to say, they are a kind of statutory code for the people, and appear precisely because there were questions as to what was, and was not, a crime (as opposed to "sin", a loaded word unknown to the people writing these particular legal codes).

Moving to the NT, as was repeated in a Newsweek article on this subject, the Pauline injunction against sexual license should be seen, at least in contemporary terminology, in the context, once again, of Christian ethics over and against the common practices of Roman religious rites, which included Temple prostitution, and especially official dissipation on a grand scale among the then-reigning Emperors, Caligula and Nero. This does not necessarily take the sting out of the condemnation of a host of Paul's repeated injunctions against sexual promiscuity of all sorts; rather it places it in a wholly different light, forcing a contemporary reader to think about them less as absolute, eternal laws, than specific instructions to specific people living in a specific time and place.

Again, I offer these views as my own only (and, yes, Mark, I know they aren't original with me, and I do not care about that anyway). Yet, like Dan, this comes from a careful, and prayerful reading of the Bible as a living document, speaking out of various specific, and contingent, historical circumstances to us in this time and place. Seeking meaning in this way is far more difficult, but it is also far more respectful of the reality of the text.

As for how I could defend state-recognized same-sex unions even should I believe them to be a religious abomination, I can only say that we are talking about apples and oranges if we consider marriage as a legal contract and marriage as a religious rite. Considering the Biblical assumption of polygamy, the acceptance (at least in the Hebrew Scriptures) of concubinage, and the actual acts of various persons in the Bible in regard their relations with other members of their families (not to mention Jesus Socratic question, "Who is my mother? Who is my brother?"), I think the whole blather about "Biblical family values" is evidence not of careful study but a combination of Biblical illiteracy and an attempt at social control. Since we live in a free, secular society, I would prefer the simple response, "If you don't think gay marriage is right, don't have one," and leave the subject alone.

Teresa said...

Only related to the homosexuality issue in the lightest possible sense..

There's a fun group here in Minnesota called "You can Run but you Cannot hide" They sort of have a para-millitary rap-core raver combination image.

They preach in the schools about God hating homosexuality, against evolution, the pope is the anti-Christ etc.

Today when I went to the grocery store a couple of them were saying "Merry Christmas" to people. If you didn't respond in kind, or said something different, they would repeat it angerly.

Wasn't sure what to do. I like saying "Merry Christmas", but I don't like saying it when it is construed as a political statement supporting all sorts of things I disagree with. Also, Bill Donohue of the Catholic league just recently complained about people useing "christmas" when they don't mean "christmas"...

...and to top it off, this group teaches that the pope is the anti-Christ...so...

I just said "Happy Holidays". They didn't like that.

Oh well, can't please everyone, I guess.

The Salvation Army guy was happy when I said Merry Christmas to him, though.

Turned it into more of a curse than a greeting. Sad, but common now days.

Mark said...

Geoffrey says, "Blah Blah Blah Blah", and still makes no sense, and still cannot come up with any proof that God considers Homosexuals holy or blessed.

Also, I'm still waiting for the homosexual apologists here to explain away the direct willful violation of 5 of the ten commandments.

Dan, (sigh) I grow weary of repeating myself but you seem to have trouble grasping simple concepts. I didn't say Auntie Jean was molesting kids. I pointed out, that, as a homosexual, she has no sense of morality, thus, nothing is beyond her capabilities. If, like you, she decides to interpret God's word to mean whatever she wants it to mean, whether it actually is true or not, there is no boundary she won't cross. Thus, I suggested you shouldn't leave your kids alone with her. Best to err on the side of caution if you are dealing with someone who has no morals.

Lack of morality creates an "anything goes" mentality. That means, Dan, that if one believes it's OK to disobey God in sexual ways, that same one can justify any sort of sinful behavior.

If one can lie, one can steal. If one can steal, one can kill. If one can have sex before marriage, one can have sex outside marriage. If one can have sex outside marriage, one can have sex with the same sex. If one can have sex with the same sex, one can have sex with children. If one can have sex with children, one can have sex with animals. If one can have sex with animals, one can have sex with multiple animals and children in one big hedonistic orgy. And so on, and so on, and so on.

See? Everything is fair game to the moral relativist.

You, Dan and Geoffrey, are moral relativists.

Now. Let me make my meaning so clear even a dunderhead like you can understand it, Dan.

Yes, I mean if you were where I could reach you and you accused me of molestation, I would hit you. Probably with a sledgehammer.

You're damn right you hit a nerve.

Mark said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dan Trabue said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dan Trabue said...

Marshall, do you allow this sort of filth on your website? This is disgusting, the obscenities, slander and lies is contemptible and hardly Christian in nature.

As the Bible notes in Revelation, this sort of behavior makes God - and me - vomit.

Good day.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Mark, I will be blunt, and even use big words your genius IQ can grasp.

I do not know what God thinks about homosexual acts; nor do you. Furthermore, I do not care what God thinks about homosexual acts. I believe that God loves everyone exactly as they are, because that is the way God made them.

Is that enough freakin' "Blah, blah, blah" for you? What part of my (admittedly lengthy) point was missed? The fact that I considered the entire Bible? The fact that I treated the text with respect? The fact that I weighed the relative merits of something of little consequence (same-sex love) compared to thousands upon thousands of words imploring those who profess to believe in God to love others unconditionally, and to seek justice for all? You and your freakin' genius IQ should at least be able to grasp that much.

Once again, with feeling:

I do not care whether or not God likes or dislikes "homosexual acts", and I cannot for the life of think why anyone would spend so much time and emotional energy on something of so little consequence to the writers of the Bible. I believe the Bible says, "We love because God first loved us," and that love knows no boundaries of gender, of race, of religious profession, or even - believe it or not - act on our part. God's love is unconditional, and that is one word I take literally - without any condition whatsoever. God loves us no matter what. Period.

Everything all of you have written about what the Bible says or doesn't say about "homosex" is nothing more than gibberish. The only reason any of this matters is all of you are using the name of my God, my faith, and my Savior in a vain attempt to justify your own hatred and fear of those you neither know nor care to understand. You have raised up this weird fetish called "homosexual acts", called it a sin, and demanded we hate it in the name of the God of Love? I don't care who you are, that's just plain nuts.

OK. Rant over. Whether Mark either knows or cares what I said doesn't really matter. I made my point in as clear English prose as I could muster under the circumstances.

To be absolutely fair, I also know that God loves Mark, and Marshall, and Ms. Green, as much as God loves Dan, and Teresa, and me (yes, Mark, even me). That is what makes this entire discussion, and the larger social discussion kind of funny, in the end (despite the passion it arouses on all sides). God loves us all, anyway.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I didn't read down far enough to see Mark's unbelievably horrible comment to Dan.

You said, Mark, that all your gay friends were obsessed with sex? What the world are we to make of that comment of yours?

Good God, man, have some respect. Have some decency and courtesy.

We were all having a nice, heated discussion on the relative merits o various ways of viewing the Bible and what it may or may not say about same-sex love and marriage. Your comment, Mark, was perverse and disgusting, displaying an utter lack of consideration for Dan and his feelings, for the person of his beloved Aunt, and for any decent respect for the privacy of others.

Beyond the pale. Period.

By the way, Mark, I am not a moral relativist, because I would like to know, relative to what? Those two words, pushed together the way you do, mean nothing to me, so I deny your title, sir, because it, like so much else you write, is gobbledygook.

Marshall Art said...

Mark,

I removed your comment. It was well over the line. Better to back away from the keyboard should emotions run high.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey,

Just a few words for now, with more to come. Just too damn tired, but...


Your comments regarding what the writers of early books might possibly have been thinking at the time of doing so is nothing but speculation. If any of it was an accurate revelation, I doubt we'd never see anything in the text to support it. Yet even if I concede that possibility, it is not surprising to see God's Will align properly with what's best for us in the here and now (or there and then, as the case may be). All the parables have real world applications as well as spiritual. It's painfully obvious what ignoring God's will regarding human sexuality has wrought upon our culture. Thus, should God's disdain for a particular form of sex result in good things for society by abstaining from them, it makes perfect sense.

Minimizing the concern over this issue in light of the whole of Scripture and the many other issues to which it speaks is a subjective act on your part based on you own poor understanding. It is also a transparent attempt to turn away concern from this sin you no longer wish to consider sinful. But among all the many and various other issues beneath which you hold homosexuality in importance, how many others are being pushed so strongly by their participants and their enablers into our laws and customs? As in the Bible itself, where, you and Dan like to point out, there is little mention of homosexuality, there would be less here if that selfish 2% weren't being so demanding of the rest of us beyond any justification.

Now I must sleep. More to come. (I bet you can't wait!)

hashfanatic said...

I've been sucked into the viciousness that evil inspires, but, some of you are forgetting that words sometimes HURT.

Folks lash out in anger and frustration at one another, because that's the natural way.

But, as I believe it, we're not to be vortexed into that deadly maelstrom, because, as we've seen so many times before, the evil then sneaks in the back door, while no one knows....

My understanding is that the beef will not be with one another, but with "principalities and powers"...

So, check this out...

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/12/10/_pm_politics_prayer/

Faith-based groups may lose funding

President-elect Obama plans to expand the federal faith-based initiative established by President Bush, but with a big change -- no more hiring on the basis of faith. John Dimsdale reports on how faith-based organizations are reacting....


Now, if there are no "forces" at work, against the very concept of God and religion, from whom would such notions come from?

Can you suggest ways in which needy Americans might be seriously impacted, during a time of lack, by the demands of those out to destroy religion, destroy your right to access of spiritual development, to God Himself?

I think we are being propelled in a dangerous direction, by those who wish to extinguishing every flame of hope, over a dying nation.

Will we let them do so? Or obsess over the radicalized haters in our midst, just because they speak loudest, and know which of our buttons to push?

Think about it, please.

Mark said...

(sigh)Once again, O genius Geoffrey, you have totally missed the point. But you have one thing right:

You do not care whether or not God likes or dislikes "homosexual acts"

That's your whole problem. You don't care what God thinks. That's the point of my original comment. Homosexuals don't care what God thinks of homosexuality. That's why it, and they, and you, and Dan are wrong.

For the record, I have never, NEVER said God doesn't love homosexuals. I know He does. I've even said Christians should welcome homosexuals into their churches. How else will they encouraged to stop their sinful liful, abominable lifestyle?

But the Bible clearly says God hates Homosexuality.

None of you apologists have yet explained what part of "thou shalt not lay with a man as you would a woman, it is an abomination", God didn't really mean.

Neither do I hate homosexuals. In fact, I've never known a homosexual I didn't like personally as a friend.

But the fact remains, they are committing a sin when they have homosexual relations, regardless of whether we like them or not.

And yes, the graphic image provoked by my "obscene" comment is very disgusting, is it not?

I understand why Art would be offended by that imagry. I am, too.

But I don't know why you would be offended by it. After all, you both say God blesses that sort of behavior. So, if you are offended, how much more so is God offended?

But I'm done with both of you. Go worship your hedonistic concept of God and be damned.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

For someone who has a genius IQ, Mark, you are pretty dense.

a) Please, if you will, explain the distinction between being a gay or lesbian person, and "homosexual acts". The former is a simple reality for millions of people; the latter are things that even straight folks indulge in every once in a while, either out of boredom, curiosity, or whatever motivation. There is a gamut of sexual behaviors that all sorts of people engage in. Gay people have sex with those of the opposite gender; straight people have sex with those of the same gender. Your distinction ignores the reality that it isn't about "sex". It's about the kind of person an individual is attracted to. How is it possible that you can neither acknowledge that or understand it?

b) At least you read enough to finally get my point - I neither know nor care how God feels about "homosexual acts" (What an odd turn of phrase that is). I do care very much about the fact that a group of persons in the United States are currently denied the simple legal courtesy of having their relationships with those with whom they choose to share their lives recognized with the same privileges and obligations all others in society possess. Once again, even if I believed as you and Marshall did that it was "immoral", I would support the rights of same-sex couples to marry, because, in the end, all the objections to gay marriage come down to (please excuse the language) "I hate fags." That's all I and anyone else hears, and frankly, it has no place in our legal code. Give me more than "God doesn't like two men falling in love" as a reason, and I might just reconsider.

c) I was horrified by your comment not only by the disgusting content, which had no place here, or anywhere else; I was outraged at your lack of courtesy, respect, and any sense of what is and is not appropriate. We all get heated in these discussions, as we all know. Sometimes, we even get so angry we cross some line, either in our own minds or in terms of what is acceptable behavior for public discussions. Your comment was insulting to Dan, to his beloved Aunt, and betrayed, on your part, a near-obsession with the graphic details of the private life of someone, a real individual, about whom you know nothing other than what Dan told you (she's beloved, has helped raise his children, etc.). Rather than grant Dan a certain amount of deference - it is his Aunt, after all - you simply chose to go somewhere that was just wrong. Period. It illustrated, in graphic, disgusting detail, what I have felt for a long time (I love it when people provide examples) that there is this attraction/repulsion thing going on in re gays and lesbians. Since so much of right-wing rhetoric seems obsessed with the sexual details, rather than the legal and social aspects - which are the heart and crux of the matter - you demonstrated as clearly as could be that you are obsessed with the private doings of persons, and did it in a way that at once, rude, insulting, vile, socially inappropriate (I would love to sit and watch you at a cocktail party, man), and summed up everything I have always thought.

Before I get huffed at on one point, let me amplify one part of this comment. As a Christian, I care very much about all sorts of things the Bible says about all sorts of subjects. I read, I pray over what I read, I study what I read, I discuss what I read, and then I go back and read again. This does not mean, however, that I think either my interpretation of the Bible is the "only" one; it also does not mean, even if every other Christian, liberal, fundie, Catholic, Orthodox, whatever, accepted the same interpretation as I, that the interpretation in question should be a source for social policy in the US. We are a secular nation, a nation of laws. Our laws, sometimes, dovetail quite nicely with some person's understanding of the Bible. Sometimes, however, they don't yet the country seems to keep right on going, doing well, or badly as the case may be, regardless of whether or not some or another part of our legal code could be considered "Biblical". I have no problem with people basing their political convictions on their religious beliefs; why should I, as I do as well? On this issue, however, even if I granted all your Biblical arguments were correct, I am waiting for more. That's all.

Marshall Art said...

OK, where was I? Oh yeah...

"The only reason any of this matters is all of you are using the name of my God, my faith, and my Savior in a vain attempt to justify your own hatred and fear of those you neither know nor care to understand."

You wish, Geoffrey. That would make things easier for you, but it is indeed just a sorry hope on your part. And BTW, we aren't using the name of YOUR god, faith or savior (Barack?) for anything. We are using the words of the God of Abraham, Isaac, Moses, David, etc, who sent us Jesus Christ and told us that homosexual behavior is wrong. Glad I could clear that up for you. I really don't have any idea what YOUR god says.

I fail to see how anyone would still use the line "God loves us anyway" or its various alternatives, when God's love for sinners is not the issue. He certainly loves us all, likely loved Hitler, Gacy, Jim Jones, and any number of despots, thugs, murderers and rapists. But being loved doesn't guarantee salvation. So to say "God loves us all anyway" is just another distraction and totally off point.

Moving on to your last comments, obviously the distinction is that being a homosexual is feeling a desire or preference to another of the same sex, and homosexual acts constitute any sexual acts between two homosexuals. The former has feelings, the latter is acting on those feelings.

There is indeed a gamut of sexual behaviors that all sorts of people engage in. And no matter how you try to mislabel them, the notion that there is truth to the statement gives one pause. I find it pretty pathetic that there would be enough distinctively different behaviors that it warrants being characterized as a "gamut". Is that supposed to signify some kind of progress in the human condition, a source of pride, that mankind has developed "a gamut" of sexual behaviors?

I see plainly a species that has given up on the concept of "be holy because God is holy". That there can be "a gamut" of sexual behaviors is testament to that. Homosexuality is merely another manifestation of it. It is indeed about sex on a deeper level than you'd care to believe. But more than the attraction, and before the attraction is acted upon, there is the conscious desision to deny God's command. It's the same point at which the philanderer decides to deny God's command and act on his desire. Or at which the thief decides to deny God's command and snatch the goods. People have the desire first and then they sin. It's indeed about sex. It's about the sex of the person to which one is attracted. It's from among that pool of people one finds one's idea of the "right" person.

"...in the end, all the objections to gay marriage come down to (please excuse the language) "I hate fags.""

This is absolute crap and is unsupportable by anything here. But it means one of the following:

1-Geoffrey's out of ideas
2-Geoffrey's losing confidence in his position
3-Geoffrey isn't anymore concerned about what we've said than he is what God has said.
4-Geoffrey has no problem using flaming rhetoric to demonize people preaching the Word

"Since so much of right-wing rhetoric seems obsessed with the sexual details, rather than the legal and social aspects..."

This is incorrect. The fact of the matter is that the obsession some people have for homosexual gratification is what started all this nonsense that so threatens our culture, not only legally and socially, but spiritually as well. And the impact on our health care system needs to be included as well. These "saints" are responsible for 65% of new syphillis cases. 65% increase from 2% of the overall population. I guess all the really good ones are in Dan's congregation.

"...which are the heart and crux of the matter..."

No. The crux of the matter is why alter our laws and culture because of the lies run by 2% of the population.

"...you demonstrated as clearly as could be that you are obsessed with the private doings of persons..."

Once again, and pay close attention this time, it is they who are acting on obsession. They are making their demands based on how they enjoy themselves sexually. We merely oppose their agenda for imposing their perversion on our laws and social aspects. We oppose with clearly drawn out reasons from every angle.

I want to re-iterate that Scripturally there is no question as to interpretation. The behavior is forbidden with no allowances for any form of it. There is only the meaning that pro-homosex proponents have inflicted upon Scripture, meaning that doesn't exist but in their own desires, minds and their own produced versons of the Bible.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I shall be brief because it is late. The only one's acting out of obsession are people like you and Mark who simply cannot grasp that two people of the same gender might just love one another the same way you and your wife, or my wife and myself. It isn't obsession, Marshall. It's love.

Love is from God. As such, as far as I'm concerned, it is never wrong. The obsession with "homosexual acts" exists solely within the twisted minds of people who believe, for whatever reason, the sole purpose of being gay is to stand yp against God and be evil for evil's sake. Gay folks think about all sorts of things - their careers, the bills, traffic, whether to have another cup of coffee or be bold and hold off - and sometimes, yes, they think about sex, but it is no different than you or I thinking about the same thing; th eobject of these thoughts is just different. Yet, they are just as fleeting, and just as peripheral to the bulk of their identity as such thoughts are for you or me.

Anonymous said...

As a female, after reading Geoffrey's comments I wonder how his wife ever was drawn or attracted to him. He is such a mixed up mess that it boggles my mind as to how a normal female would fall in love with him. :-( mom2

Marshall Art said...

Well, Geoffrey, we can look at your last statement in two ways.

"...two people of the same gender might just love one another the same way you and your wife(sic)..."

1-To love physically, and
2-To love in a serving manner

1-God's OK with my wife and me having sex. He's not OK with Adam and Steve having sex. This is what the Bible clearly teaches.

2-If I serve my wife as God intends I should, causing or provoking or inviting my wife to sin would not be part of the equation. It can't be for then I would not really love my wife were I to do so. As homosexual behavior is clearly forbidden, a homosexual man can only love his "mate" platonically or else he invites the "spouse" to sin. Not very loving.

So. Though love is from God, one can only love in a manner that would parallel or humbly copy to the best of one's ability God's love. That love is not of a sexual nature. Indeed, sex is not love at all. Sex is sex. We attach the "love" emotion to this very selfish/self-gratifying act, but lust is not love. I once tried to search how may times the Greek word "eros" showed up in the New Testament, and I don't recall that it did. The point here is that when it is said that "God is love" or that "Love is from God", one would be hard pressed to show how sex is meant at all. So again, if a homosexual really and truly loved his partner (while claiming to be Christian), he would never engage in sexual activity with his partner because it would be sinful to do so.

But it doesn't really play out that way, does it? They don't deny themselves at all and yet they claim it's all about love. Nonsense. It's all about sex in a certain way of which they deny and ignore God's prohibition. Their obsession with their desire for sex with a person of the same gender is what has driven this whole business.

At this point in time, I think it's quite safe to say that most Christians, though sad to know it goes on, would be cool with the notion of butting out of the personal lives of homosexuals. It's no different than ministering to anyone in that the sinners have to make the decision to repent. But the issue is also a public one, a threat to the culture for all the many reasons that have been listed repeatedly and repeatedly ignored or dismissed as silly without a true counter argument. This particular session has turned to a religious discussion until the pro-homo elements failed to make ground, and then it turned into accusations of our character. There is no hatred for homosexuals, though I haven't met them all. I'm sure there are more than a couple that provoke hatred toward them and would even as eunichs. But there is strong negative emotions for what they're trying to do in and to this country, and what it will mean for the next generations if they get their way.

If this was fleeting and peripheral to their identities, they would not be so keen on forcing this issue on the rest of society, which has clearly and overwhelmingly opposed them. If they want the right to exist without abuse by others, I'm right there defending their lives. If they want to sue me for not recording their unholy unions, they can piss off. That's not hatred, that's fed up with their crap.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

First of all, Mom2, my wife was attracted to me because I'm funny, I'm handsome, I'm smart, and gosh darn it, people like me. Seriously. I charmed the socks, and eventually the pants, off her. I'm romantic, I cook, I help take care of our kids and pets. I even grocery shop. As far as being mixed up, well, yeah, but everyone is, so what?

You know, you Christians sure are fast and loose with the personal insults here. Man, I wonder if there is something in the Bible about that? Probably only a few verses here and there, though.

Oh, wait, yeah Jesus did say a whole lot about dealing with people who act in a hateful manner, and it seems that Mom2 needs to spend an hour or so extra in prayer today, to kind of make up for her little lapse.

As for Marshall's insistent use of "Adam and Steve" as well as his persistent insistence that he knows what God likes and doesn't like - I wish I had your pipeline to the Divine mind, dude - all I can say is one word.

Hogwash.

Love is from God. Love is never wrong. Period. Unless someone somewhere with more than a passing familiarity with the Bible - say, a Scripture scholar at a reputable seminary - can point specifically to a verse where it states, unequivocally that God doesn't like two men loving one another - not having sex (heaven forfend that two people who love one another have sex; Marshall, you of all people who once told me you thought sex was a highly selfish act should not approve of such things), but loving one another, complete with all the mushy-gushy stuff, the staring in to one another's eyes, etc., etc. - well I might just be willing to change my mind.

Since I've been studying the Bible for a month or so on this issue (that's a joke for our humor-deficient readers), I feel confident enough to say that no such verse exists, and no amount of torturous exegesis can make words mean things they don't enough to create one. Like Dan, I trust that God's love and grace and concern extend beyond anything we take as "normal" as to render that word utterly and completely meaningless.

So, while you go on discussing . . . whatever it is you are discussing, I think I have taken about all the abuse and rehashing of the same point over and over I can stand for one blog thread. Between Mark and Mom2, I'm gonna go find some atheists who at least have the courtesy to leave other's private lives and loves alone.

Anonymous said...

Geoffrey, you are the one talking about your wife and yourself. I'm just being honest with you. As for abuse of anyone, you took a post of mine waaaaaayyyyy out of context one time and then put up a whole new post blasting me, when you did not even know what you were talking about. I know that I have to pray daily and ask for forgiveness and wisdom, so your advice there will be taken. Hope you do the same. mom2

Al-Ozarka said...

"Would you deny the City of Berkley the freedom to follow their beliefs?" -Dan Trabue

Would you deny any individual the right to his/her beliefs, Danielsan? Would you FORCE an individual to rent to a group whose beliefs the individual does not condone?

Yes...yes you WOULD force them to. That's what MA's post was all about. A group of perverts FORCING normal folks to accept and "condone" its beliefs and actions.

You are such a freaking hypocrite!

Dan Trabue said...

Would you deny any individual the right to his/her beliefs, Danielsan? Would you FORCE an individual to rent to a group whose beliefs the individual does not condone?

As this is on topic, I'll address this question - despite its pugnacious tone.

So, the town of Ozarka wants to make it illegal for a landlord to refuse to rent to a black family because of their race. The majority of citizens of Ozarka find that notion un-American and immoral. So, the Ozarkans create a law criminalizing such behavior. They do so believing that such racism is contrary to the US Constitution's goal of the freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Do you oppose the citizens of Ozarka legislating their values this way? Is such a law a way of "FORCING" an individual to do what they don't want to do? I suppose it is. Still, the majority of Ozarkans think it the most constitutionally and morally-correct thing to do.

We have many individual liberties in this great nation of ours. BUT, we do not have the liberty of forcing everyone to agree with our prejudices and discriminatory practices as it affects others.

Do you think otherwise? Do you believe in the tyranny of the minority or the tyranny of the individual? Do you think the individual can operate in any manner whatsoever, as an expression of their individual liberty? Or, do you agree with the natural law argument that the right to swing your first ends sometime before you reach someone else's face?

"Forcing" others to rent without discriminating against human rights seems to fall in the category to me.

Marshall Art said...

Proving your hypocrisy, Dan. Everywhere the people have spoken, that is, allowed to render their opinion through a vote, they've overwhelmingly voted to protect traditional marriage. But with THESE populations, towns, cities, states, whatever, voting against your position, you then rely upon a couple of black robed activists to override WE THE PEOPLE, as you like to say.

Right now we are seeing a true tyranny of an infinitesimal minority, as they riot and whine and wet themselves over Prop 8. And the examples of the linked piece here shows how their tyranny is made manifest.

Dan Trabue said...

Proving your hypocrisy, Dan. Everywhere the people have spoken, that is, allowed to render their opinion through a vote, they've overwhelmingly voted to protect traditional marriage. But with THESE populations, towns, cities, states, whatever, voting against your position, you then rely upon a couple of black robed activists to override WE THE PEOPLE, as you like to say.

There are two competing interests, here.

1. The Will of the People. This ought to be respected but within limits. If the people of a village vote to enslave all the blue-eyes, the Will of the People ought not win the day.

2. The limits within the Will of the People ought to live is the Constitution of the US. The reason that the Will of the People does not have the final say in the matter of enslaving all the blue-eyes is because to allow that would be a violation of the Constitution.

3. The matter then, should be fairly easy to agree upon. We agree that the will of the people ought to hold sway. We also agree that there are limits to what the will of the majority of the people can and can't do.

4. The question then is: Does the matter of the unavailability of gay marriage and all the rights that pertain thereto conflict with the Constitution. And that is why judges are involved. I'll have to say that I'm no legal expert and so I can't answer that. My opinion is that it sure sounds like a fundamental Constitutional question to ME, but that is for others to decide I reckon.

So, no, there is no hypocrisy here, since I believe the same as you do - the Will of the people WITHIN the confines of the Constitution. IF it is the will of the people and gay marriage is NOT covered by the Constitution, then folk like me who disagree with gay marriage bans will have to work on changing the minds of people. IF it is the will of the people and yet gay marriage IS covered by the Constitution, then YOU will have to work on changing the mind of the people, if you are that concerned about it.

But, in truth, there is no hypocrisy in that position.

Dan Trabue said...

As to your assertion of an "infinitesimal minority," that is changing and it's not an "infinitesimal minority," just a minority.

According to a recent Newsweek poll, the number of gay marriage supporters is 39% and growing. With younger folk caring less and less about bans and, as the older opponents die off, that number who support gay marriage will only grow.

Fifty-five percent in this poll support legally sanctioned unions. That is the majority, so I would suppose that you would go along with the majority on this point, then Marshall?

Also, the majority of people in this poll are opposed to a federal ban on gay marriage (52% to 43%)

It would seem that at some point and probably relatively soon - most likely my lifetime - you will hold the minority position. Will you still be in favor of the Will of the majority of the People at that time, Marshall?

Dan Trabue said...

Not sure what happened in that first paragraph. It should have read:

As to your assertion of an "infinitesimal minority," that is wanting change, it's not an "infinitesimal minority," just a minority.

I'm sure you could have figured that out on your own, though...

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

At least we returned to the subject at hand!

Dan's points are valid. At the same time, I think there is also a certain honest uneasiness in the idea that a minority position, well-intentioned or not, does indeed interfere with the general understanding of what constitutes a good society. I am not saying that bigotry is part of a good society. I am saying that our experience with the Civil Rights era should make any liberal pause.

While it was easy to galvanize public opinion against southern segregation, it was far harder to do so against northern de facto segregation. It was easy to point to Bull Connor and say, "Yeah, he's a dyed-in-the-pillowcase bigot". It was another to point to the Mayors of major cities like Chicago and New York and declare the same thing (whether they were or not is really immaterial, since the men in question both presided over racist policies in their cities, which heightened the anger and frustration of African-Americans living in northern cities).

This is the reason why we need to make some important distinctions, I think. We need - and I do mean need - to move away from whether or not Dan, or I, or any other liberal, is OK with gay folk while Ozzie and Marshall and Mark and Eric might be less so. That is not the issue. At the end of the day, it is a question of law, governed by the Constitution that does indeed set limits on the rights both of individuals and groups. We have courts to adjudicate those limits. Arguments over whether God thinks gay sex is icky are, in the end, irrelevant to the public issue at question, even if they may lie at the heart, or perhaps part of the heart, of the issue for many, many people.

I also don't think the use of the word "right" both by opponents and supporters of gay marriage helps. Marriage is not a "right". It is nothing more or less than the state recognizing the legitimacy of a human relationship, allowing those who exist within this contract to have certain privileges regarding property and relations that those who are not married do not have. That's it, and that's all. When the Constitution banned primogeniture, the whole issue of the legal legitimacy or lack thereof for children disappeared, with the epithet "illegitimate" being a cultural appendix, meaningless except perhaps as a way to make those who have children outside of wedlock appear as also outside social acceptability.

That's how I understand the issue. Should the state recognize the relations between two individuals of the same gender, granting them the same contractual privileges and responsibilities as currently exist in legally recognized marriages between men and women? The whole issue of God's view of the matter just isn't on the table at this point. Anyone wanting to discuss the matter in these terms is welcome to do so; the rest will be devoutly ignored.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey said,

"I wish I had your pipeline to the Divine mind, dude.."

You do if you really have a Bible. I can't vouch for what the picture book versions say, but if you actually read one of the various commonly used translations, that should provide you with all you need to know of what "the Divine mind" requires. There's no mystery there. It's quite clear as we have been saying over and over. And what it says comes down to the following:

---100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the clearest and strongest possible terms.
---100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
---100% of the verses referencing parenting involve moms and dads with unique roles (or at least a set of male and female parents guiding the children).
---0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions."


Now you wanna make a play over the notion of two men loving one another, but not in a sexual way. This is rich. If the two men were loving each other as I love my best male friends, why should God oppose it? But if the two are filled with lust for each other, if they lust after each other, then obviously God WOULD be opposed as He is opposed to the behavior that lust provokes. This is true if it is true that Jesus says we must not even lust after another woman or be guilty of adultery. So, with that bit of obvious sorting out handled with ease, the question becomes, 'why would two men want to get married if they didn't have lustful designs upon each other?' For all the "marital benefits" allowed by law? I don't think so. It's all about sex, dude. It drives the whole deal and there's no arguing or drivel about "living their lives just as we do" crap that trumps it.

"...no amount of torturous exegesis can make words mean things they don't..."

But that's just what's required in order for you, Dan and the sorry people you enable to arrive at such conclusions about God blessing what He calls an abomination or detestable. And as for torturous exegesis, what can be more painful than being expected to buy into this bit of absolute crap:

"not having sex...but loving one another, complete with all the mushy-gushy stuff, the staring in to one another's eyes, etc., etc."

This is blatantly sexual, if not sex itself. You obviously went to the Slick Willie Clinton School of Semantic Evasion. Two men who are not keen on having sex with each other do not engage in mushy-gushy stuff. But I applaud your attempt to try another (albeit incredibly weak) angle.

"(heaven forfend that two people who love one another have sex; Marshall, you of all people who once told me you thought sex was a highly selfish act should not approve of such things)"

I never said a man and woman married to each other shouldn't engage is sex. I said that it is not a holy gift from God because it is a selfish act. People like you approve of attaching such superfluous and fantastical meaning to that which has none, but remove the true meaning there is.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

Thanks again for wasting my time with another worthless poll. First of all, it's freakin' Newsweek. They are pro-homo and fully support their agenda.
Second of all, they only polled 1006 people. But that doesn't even matter. Whatever the number of total supporters for the homo agenda, it's too high and a sorry statement of the moral decay of our society. You wish to point to the number of young supporting this abomination? This is a surprise with heretics within the Body of Christ easing the tracks taken by their secular counterparts. God removed from schools and daily public lives of children and I'm supposed to be surprised that more young are confused about right and wrong? What a freakin' revelation. Rather than kids seeing the world differently, as if more truth is available to them, their support is an indication that the secular worldview is indeed corrupting them. They are fed the lies regarding homosexuality and sorry excuses for Christians compound the corruption. Thus, as opposed to what Geoffrey thinks, your points are woefully INvalid.

Marshall Art said...

All right, Geoffrey. I demand a link to support this:

When the Constitution banned primogeniture, the whole issue of the legal legitimacy or lack thereof for children disappeared, with the epithet "illegitimate" being a cultural appendix, meaningless except perhaps as a way to make those who have children outside of wedlock appear as also outside social acceptability.

Where does the Const. ban "primogeniture", or even mention it and how the hell does it apply to this discussion. Illegitimate children, or "bastards" as they are called, being that the definition of the word means "illegitimate children", are a symbol of their parents sinfulness. They took heat from their own parents were then exposed as the adulterers or fornicators they were. It's still such a symbol except it has lost its punch since the secular and liberal moral relativists, like you, have created from whole cloth, Scripture that makes sex a wonderful holy gift from God. So now, people don't care if they marry or not before having kids. Perfect.

OK. I had to hit that first since it was so stupid. The rest ain't scorin' points, either.

How swell it is you had the chance to pretend the whole argument against the homo agenda rests on correct Biblical interpretation. If that were the case, you'd be off the hook for trying to pretend God would ever bless sinful behavior. You'd never have to address it. Unfortunately for you, and them, Biblical prohibitions are just one aspect of the argument. The fact is, there's not one aspect of their overall argument that has validity or is based on anything resembling truth. Chumps like you and Dan are supporters based on lies, and you eagerly accept the lies as truths. But worse, is that young people hear what liars say and believe the lies as well.

Anonymous said...

EDIT: The following written material is for humor. Humor that may not appeal to all, but humor nonetheless. If you are offended, tough; Sarah Palin never whined!

Marshall:

I've just wasted the past hour or so reading this entire thread just for kicks. I knew that I was in for an entertaining evening when I noticed that Dan was the first commenter on a thread that tallied 116 comments since last Friday. Speaking of Dan, is there anyone else concerned about the education people receive in Kentucky? I'm so worried that on our next trip to Nashville, me and the family will not stop for anything.
Nonetheless, the exchange that had me roaring with laughter - outside of Dan's logical fallicies from A to Z, was with Geoffrey and Mom2. Geoffrey's response to Mom2 was absolutely hilarious!
I decided to take a look at this matchup only in the way I can on a Friday night getting liquored up on Theraflu and Niquil. Let's give it a review, shall we?

First of all, Mom2, my wife was attracted to me because I'm funny,
We won't quibble. Advantage Geoff.

I'm handsome,
Dude! It appears that you may have overplayed your hand here judging from the looks of your avatar. However, we must remember, beauty is in the eye of the beholder! Push.

I'm smart,
Advantage Mom2! Please re-read youy prose in this thread alone.

and gosh darn it, people like me.
Not so fast Kemosabe, does the name Mark ring a bell? Advantage Mom2.


Seriously. I charmed the socks, and eventually the pants, off her.
Seriously?

I'm romantic, I cook, I help take care of our kids and pets.
Check, check, check, check; plus the hyphenated last name...hmmm. Dude, are you sure that you are not the wife?

I even grocery shop.
Yep, he's the wife.

As far as being mixed up, well, yeah, but everyone is, so what?
Again, seriously?

So, there you have it. It's so simple when you break things down scientifically. In a marital match up, the advantage goes Mom2! But hang in there, Geoffrey, that closet door is just a door knob turn away. Until next time I'm The Joseph reminding you the numbers, and Scripture never lie.

Humorously,
Joseph

Marshall Art said...

Hello, Joseph!

Mark said...

"Many a truth is said in jest." ~ William Shakespeare

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I pretend nothing, Marshall. The debate over same-sex marriage is only tangentially related to how people view the Bible. There are millions of non-Christians in America - Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, non-religious folk - who are on either side of the issue and do not rely on the Christian Bible for their views. This rather practical view of the matter, it seems to me, is important to consider.

The whole issue comes down to law - which relationships are going to be recognized by the state, bearing certain privileges that other relationships do not? Cohabitation is not recognized as on an equal footing with marriage, despite its prevalence and long history in the US. Currently, same-sex couples have to do all sorts of things, from drawing up long, specific legal documents - wills, powers of attorney, medical powers of attorney - to achieve the same ends that could be reached through marriage. Even then, these can be overridden in extreme circumstances.

I think the use of the word "marriage" is part of the problem. Weighted as it is with the weird mix of secular and sectarian meanings, it confuses as much as it clarifies. It should also be noted that there have been many in the gay rights community who, for the past decade, have insisted that marriage is a peripheral issue at best, and inconsequential, to the status of gays and lesbians and other sexual minorities in the US. Since it is perfectly legal to fire sexual minorities precisely because they are such in 38 states, it seems that many in the GLBT community find this socio-economic issue of greater importance than whether or not their private affairs are recognized by the state. Millions of Americans, gay and straight, live their whole lives without ever having their relationships blessed by the state or some religious institution, and live perfectly happy lives; ensuring the state protect an individuals employment against discrimination is of far greater importance to many GLBTs than whether or not it grant them marriage licenses.

As for the Constitution abolishing primogeniture, I was mistaken. Yes, Marshall, I not only make mistakes, I actually admit when I do so. However, if you go here - http://www.answers.com/topic/primogeniture - and scroll down to "US History Encyclopedia: Primogeniture", you will see that by the time of the Constitutional convention, most states had already abolished the common law practice, with Rhode Island being the last of the original 13 states to do so in 1798. So, while I was very wrong concerning the role of the Constitution, it should be clear that discarding primogeniture on a state by state basis accomplished the same result, and was based in the same (small "d") democratic spirit that inspired both the Revolution and the Constitution, rendering my main point - the whole issue of "legitimacy" - moot under US law, since it was no longer assumed under common law that one's property would pass to the first born, but it was now necessary to designate who would receive property.

I'm not even sure what any of this has to do with the issue at hand, except that I brought it up originally, you challenged me, and I went and discovered my error and corrected it.

Dan Trabue said...

Joseph humorously said:

Speaking of Dan, is there anyone else concerned about the education people receive in Kentucky?

And then humorously followed up with:

outside of Dan's logical fallicies

It IS funny when one complains about logical fallacies immediately after an attack on a person's supposed lack of education (an ad hominem attack, which is a logical error). What is even funnier is when that same person is too out of it to recognize the unintentional irony.

For those unschooled in logic:

An ad hominem argument (Latin: "argument to the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.

Score, Dan 1, Joseph 0.

funny.

Mark said...

The term "logical fallacies" is an oxymoron in Dan's case.

Dan's fallicies are not only fallacies, but illogical as well.

"Illogical fallicies" better fits Dan.

Dan, I ask again: What part of "Thou shalt not lie with a man as you would with a woman" did God not really mean?

I've noticed that neither you or Geoffrey cannot answer that simple question.

Mark said...

Oh, and that's not an attack on you. That's an attack on your illogical fallacies.

Dan Trabue said...

The idiot pervert speaks. But I don't address idiot perverts, it just encourages them.

Dan Trabue said...

However, I will note that if and when idiot perverts truly repent and strive to change their perverse ways, one can at least forgive their past disgusting behavior and move on and address their questions.

After all, one can hardly help being an idiot, but one chooses to be perverse and one can choose to repent of perversion.

hashfanatic said...

you're missing the key point, which is that it is really none of your BUSINESS, what motivates any american citizen to vote against same-sex marriage

for WHATEVER reason, that citizens OWNS THEIR VOTE, and, rather than interfering in their personal business, perhaps you might do well to reexamine your own strategies for suppressing the public will, with an eye toward a more civilized way forward, rather than the perpetual "my God, your God" dichotomy

Marshall Art said...

"The debate over same-sex marriage is only tangentially related to how people view the Bible."

Geoffrey,

The debate over same-sex marriage is directly related to how people view God. The sin itself is irrelevant. In this case, 2% of the population views their sin as something God must bless. In other cases, we might see X% of the population viewing their sin of cheating on their tax returns as a form of cheating they can justify. The arguments that the behavior can be acceptable if the participants do it in a certain manner, by trying to mimic marriage perhaps, cannot be made without subjective interpretations being used.

You then seem to imply that you value legality higher than morality. If you had an argument from morality, you wouldn't steer the conversation toward legality. Yet there is less standing in legality since the issue is related to examples that are apples to the homosexual orange.

I prefer to stick to morality, which as defined by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who sent us Jesus to be our Savior, and have that affect legality. The benefits to following Christain Biblical doctrine are without question. It's a no brainer. Giving less credence to Biblical directives regarding human sexuality has wrought terrible harm on our culture. Homosexuality, while never gaining any blessing througout all of Scripture, but only warnings against, is outside of those directives and actions having any hope of blessing. What scholarship is required to divine this obvious instruction?

"The whole issue comes down to law..."

I agree. It is there where the homosexual intolerance of the desires of most of the other 98% of the population is out in the open. It is clear that the activists wish to force their perversion into law through court decision, rather than through the proper channel of popular support. And it seems to me that if marriage wasn't a highly desired goal, they'd be focussing upon that which is. The fact is that they have those things you mentioned. An employer isn't so worried about what or who their employees are, only that they act in a manner that best reflects upon the employer, according to what the employer values. An employer might be worried about being forced to pay more insurance to cover concerns brought about by a behavior the employer finds sinful, OR offensive, OR any other reason. So, it should not be considered illegal to have a policy that might say, "We will not cover medical expenses for conditions brought about by motorcycle riding, skydiving, bungy jumping, or engaging in homosexual sexual activity." If it's not about sex, that shouldn't be objectionable. But more importantly, everyone would be covered in the same way. They are already covered for most human rights protections as is anyone else. They want more than legal considerations, they want moral justifications that true Bible believing Christians can't give them, and the Lord they worship has given no sign that He has either. But they have a better chance for legal considerations, and that means a clash of rights is inevitable.

Anonymous said...

Dan:

Good evening. Thank you for your response. I really have no inclination to debate over a piece that was clearly noted to be humor. Suffice it to say, I did not engage in an ad hominen argument. Poking fun at you and the state in which you reside is not an ad hominen attack. In an effort to be more sensitive of your "supposed lack of education" I will type my comments slowly.
Secondly, if it makes you feel better and smarter to have scored last night at my expense, I understand. Ordinarily, I tell those that celebrate and gloat after scoring to behave with class and to act like they have scored before. I will make an exception for you knowing that last night was the first time that you scored....EVER! Atta boy, I hope your 15seconds of fame was everything you thought it would be.

Dan, can we be honest? You clearly must have just discovered the term "argumentum ad hominem" (aka ad hominen attacks) and try to incorporate the term at any and every chance. This is just my humble hypothesis based upon 1) you asserting such incorrectly - as in my previous offering; and 2) maintaining distaste for such, you are not hesitant in hurling ad hominen attacks towards others - see "idiot pervert" posts above. Your moral preening and hypocrisy is truly nauseating. Less than 30 minutes and a few keystrokes after taking me to task for alleged ad hominen attacks, you have no qualm in hurling true ad hominen attacks towards Mark. What chutzpah?
Maybe now is a good time to remind you of a quote from Geoffrey:
“You know, you Christians sure are fast and loose with the personal insults here. Man, I wonder if there is something in the Bible about that”?
Rest easy Geoffrey, remember that Paul did not insult Barnabas when he disagreed with him. (Acts 15) One can disagree without being disagreeable.
Let us also entertain a few of your very own words from this very thread and how they may comport with the insults you just directed towards Mark:
With great freedom (such as we have in the US and such as we have in Christ) comes great responsibility.
In my case, I am not striving for anything beyond following God as best I can by God's grace.
Accusations against people you don't even know and that's okay…. Again, I have to wonder, do you not understand the hypocrisy and irony of such a stance?
Marshall, do you allow this sort of filth on your website? This is disgusting, the obscenities, slander and lies is contemptible and hardly Christian in nature.
As the Bible notes in Revelation, this sort of behavior makes God - and me - vomit.


Let us also do a little minor editing of a few of your statements from this very thread and how they may comport with the insults you just directed towards Mark:
It is the arrogance and spitefulness of the comments of folk like Dan that undermine Christianity more than any possible sexual sin could possibly accomplish. "Blind guides, snakes, hypocrites!" Jesus might say.
On the positive side, this is Marshall's chance to put his money where his mouth is. Marshall claims to not be hateful of gays, just opposed to what he considers wrong behavior. Well, Dan has just committed some wrong behavior. We'll see how Marshall handles it.
How about it Marshall? Are you willing to stand up to Dan's lies and slander? His demonization of our fellow human and brother in Christ?


In closing, perhaps you are the one that “ is too out of it to recognize the unintentional irony”. If not, you can always attribute it to the supposed lack of education in the Commonwealth of Kentucky!

Respectfully,
Joseph

Dan Trabue said...

Respectfully? If you want to prove you are striving for any respectful stance, then stop the hypocrisy and criticize all involved here. But you're not so good at that.

You don't like to hear when people disagree with the right reverend Joseph and so you turn blind eyes to the sins of your pals and put your fingers in your ears so you can't hear the comments of those who would dare disagree with you, Joseph - twisting people's words and positions and embracing slander as long as it's slander of someone you don't know - that's par for the course for you pharisees. It's no wonder you are siding with the pervert.

Your faith nauseates me in its whiny, preening hypocrisy. I've had about enough of your self-righteous gas. Fart in someone else's general direction, you white-washed tomb. Your gas smells sweet only to you and your cronies.

I suspect you wouldn't recognize Jesus if he rebuked you to your face.

Marty said...

I'm coming into this conversation rather late and don't have time to read each comment on this thread.

Sexual Orientation is a subject I rarely comment on and really don't care to get into discussions about.

But I found this article very interesting. And I do believe medical science will one day be able to prove whether a person is born gay or straight and why.

And this article made me cry at the cruelty of it and left me wondering why.

Marshall Art said...

"Savic's team has yet to confirm whether the differences in brain shape are responsible for sexual orientation, or are a consequence of it."

Marty,

The above is from the first link.
This is a salient point that is common in studies such as these. Once again, I've always felt that biology is not relevant in the overall discussion regarding homosexuality. The reason is that I believe whatever is discovered biologically would resemble similar findings for the biological causes of a variety of urges, desires and/or orientations. In short, behaviors. It is still a bad comparison to say that the homosexual is in the same boat as members of another race. It is still apples and oranges.

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

I read your second link. Here's "why":

The activists spend all their time trying to force their immorality into our laws and customs, when they could be spending their time working to have those situations described in the article changed. If they were to do that, they'd have more support that has nothing whatsoever to do with the faux-marriage that most people in this country still oppose for state sanctioning. But, if they worked on those areas over which even two old friends who are all that each other has left of their lives worry. There are unmarried heteros in the same situation. Unmarried old friends who have in their recent years depended on each other as biological siblings might. To frame it as a travesty foisted upon homosexuals is simply the wrong path to tread, since it comes across as just another ploy to gain their unholy ends.

Mark said...

Most previous "scientific" studies whose findings have claimed to prove homosexuality is genetic have later been proven tainted and manipulated by the homosexual "scientists" that conducted them.

One of the funniest was the one in which "scientists" artificially altered the genes of a fruit fly by placing the gene of a female fruit fly into a male fruit fly and declared it proved homosexuality is genetic, but in fact, it proved just the opposite. Homosexuality does not appear naturally in the genes of any creature. It only appears if altered artificially. Only by altering the genetic makeup could they create a homosexual fruit fly. Besides that, they cannot say they created a homosexual fruit fly, instead of simply changing it from a male to a female. Or vice versa. I don't remember which.

I have no doubt this latest study will be refuted, too.

Mark said...

OK. I admit the deleted comment I made was out of line.

But it proved one very important point:

By painting a graphic mental image of a perverse Homosexual act, you who claim homosexuality is normal, natural, and blessed by God, were disgusted and (at least, feigned) offended.

How can this be? If homosexuality is normal, natural, and a blessing from God, why does it disgust you? Does the mental picture I painted strike you as unseemly?

If you truly believed homosexuality is not disgusting or offensive to normal people, you wouldn't have acted so offended.

You are hypocrites.

And I am not the pervert. I don't have sex with other men. And I don't believe it's natural or normal to do so. And I certainly don't believe God approves. How does having traditional and Biblical morals make me a pervert?

Do you even understand the meaning of perversion? I don't call you a pervert, Dan. I just call you an idiot, which is how you will continue to appear to be as long as you continue to argue that homosexuality is normal and natural.

Now, if you engage is homosexual activity yourself, then you are a pervert. Do you? Is that why you are so adamant in your defense of perversion and deviancy?

Anonymous said...

Dan:

Thank you once again for your response. My greeting is sincere and respectful despite whatever skepticism you may have.
I irreverently and respectfully submitted my previous comments. I failed to realize that being respectful and maintaining a respectful stance entailed criticizing all involved. When was criticizing all parties involved a prerequisite for being respectful? Truth be told, I encounter a lot of people with opinions that I may disagree with, but I do not find it necessary to comment, criticize, or dwell upon at every turn. Please reference Romans 14. In fact, engaging or debating those that I disagree with I find stimulating from the standpoint of learning more about myself and of others. I disagree in the spirit of Proverbs 27:17 (As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. NIV) I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that I don't like to hear when people disagree with me. I do not believe that I have yet to articulate a position in this thread for someone to agree or disagree with. Please feel free to support your premise with facts.
I truly do not understand your hostility. The main point of quoting and paraphrasing your comments in my previous post was to point out how silly, ironic, hypocritical, etc. it is for you to engage in the very behavior that you denounce in others; nothing more, nothing less. If you wish for us to do as you say and not as you do, just say so! If the rules of engagement have changed, let it be known. (Heck, I would love to go all Ann Coulter on you!)
I did not twist your words or positions; nor did I slander. Please feel free to re-read what I and you wrote! I merely reminded you and others what your words and positions were. In doing so, I was not casting a blind eye to people that I know no better than I know you. In fact, I have been familiar with your writings far longer (years) than I have known of the host of this blog. Friday night was the first time that I have visited this blog, and the first that I have read anything by Mark, Mom2, and Geoffrey. Cronies? That’s news to me as well as them.
Lastly, it appears that my faith nauseates you in its whiny, preening hypocrisy. Interesting, how can that be? I do not recall sharing my faith with you. How can my faith nauseate you without you having any knowledge of it? Surely you can support your claim with evidence or facts? It is quite easy for some such as you to hurl insults and to question and ridicule people’s faith without facts or merit; yet maintain an arrogance that you are imitating Christ in word and deed.

Respectfully,
Joseph

Mark said...

Joseph,

I think it would behoove you to understand where Dan is coming from.

Although I'm not sure I know, myself, but my belief is that Dan doesn't really believe the things he says. He just likes to argue.

I mean, how can anyone truly be that stubbornly idiotic?

Dan Trabue said...

Joseph,

I assumed you were a preacher named Joseph with whom I have crossed paths before. That Joseph proved his intellectual light-weighted-ness and unwillingness to hear opposing opinions AND his hypocrisy by his actions. I now think that you must not be THAT Joseph.

If you are not the preacher Joe, then I apologize. My response towards you must seem incredibly overblown and I am sorry.

I've had a bad week here with the vulgar, obscene behavior of some who STILL don't appear to even understand how wrong and perverse their actions were/are. And then for you to step in with your comments which I assumed were coming from another hypocrite and I over-reacted.

Again, I am deeply sorry.

Dan Trabue said...

So, assuming that Joseph is not the fella who has behaved so badly himself in the past, let me return to his original post, if I may.

Joseph, your main concern seems to be that I was insulting ("the insults you just directed towards Mark").

I'll set aside the attacks on intelligence as merely unfunny jokes (and seriously, I appreciate good jokes, I'm a funny guy).

So, as to you concern about being insulting:

1. I have to wonder why you would isolate me only for your observations? Clearly, there have been negative comments made all around. My negative comments came only after multiple attacks upon myself and, mainly, upon my friends.

If you are truly concerned about attacks, why do you not address Mark's atrocious comments, which were much worse than mine (writing perverse fantasies, threatening violence, slander, name-calling)? Perhaps you can see how that sounds hypocritical, coming from my position? You seem to be criticizing only the speck in the eye of the guy on the perceived Left, leaving alone the logs in the eyes of those on the Right.

2. The "insults" I directed towards Mark were after HIS comments (A quick sampling: Mark threatened physical violence - "I mean if you were where I could reach you and you accused me of molestation, I would hit you. Probably with a sledgehammer." - and a clarification: I DID NOT accuse him of molestation, that was simply in his mind. He appears to see molestation and perversion everywhere and assumes that's what everyone he disagrees with is doing; Mark insulted - "dunderhead" "no morals"; Mark lied and slandered - "she has no sense of morality, thus, nothing is beyond her capabilities," "you are a child abuser yourself"; and Mark wrote down his fantasies of what my dear "Aunt Jean" might be doing that were of such a perverse nature that Marshall deleted them. Mark still fails to understand that what was offensive was not the act of love-making that he described, but rather his own fantasies that he wrote down about a real person he knows nothing about and who is not here to defend herself, not that she should from such obscenities - it would be no different than if I were to begin to write down what I think Mark and one of his multiple wives might be doing in their bedroom - THAT is what is disgusting, Mark's fantasies, not love).

So, yes, when Mark showed himself to be offensively idiotic and perverse in his writings here, I called him idiotic and perverse. That was merely naming his over-the-top misconduct.

I have to wonder why you would find me in the wrong for naming offensive behavior "offensive?" Where is the wrong in that?

And now, seeing as how this is all off-topic (although tangentially related), I'd suggest propriety would suggest we take this conversation elsewhere. If you are truly concerned about insulting behavior on my part (and have some sort of explanation why you'd pick on my speck and ignore other's beams), I invite you to bring it up to me in an email, which is easily acquired.

Sorry Marshall, for this tangent.

Al-Ozarka said...

"Dan Trabue":Synonymous with "hypocrite".

Marty said...

"The reason is that I believe whatever is discovered biologically would resemble similar findings for the biological causes of a variety of urges, desires and/or orientations. In short, behaviors. It is still a bad comparison to say that the homosexual is in the same boat as members of another race. It is still apples and oranges."

For one thing, I never compared sexual orientation with race. In fact, I don't recall having compared it to anything. As far as I'm concerned it stands on it's own. It is what it is.

But if it is as you say - a behavior - then we should be able to change it. Tell me Marshall, would it ever be possible for you to change your sexual orientation behavior?

"The activists spend all their time trying to force their immorality into our laws and customs, when they could be spending their time working to have those situations described in the article changed."

Well, for me, the immorality of that particular situation was the injustice of a family kept apart while one of them died. And that needs to be changed regardless of how you or I feel about the way they live their lives.

Marshall Art said...

"For one thing, I never compared sexual orientation with race."

That's true, Marty. You didn't. But the fact is that these types of studies are offered as reasons to treat this behavior as being on par with race or gender. Otherwise, why bother to continually put forth these studies? If it is within a discussion about how these unfortunates might be helped to overcome their malady, then that would be just fine. But that's never the case.

"...would it ever be possible for you to change your sexual orientation behavior?"

This challenge comes up a lot. But it begs the question, why would I try? My "orientation" is proper for my gender. It's what I'm supposed to be doing. It's normal for that average human being to have great concern for the welfare of his offspring, yet not all human beings do. Would you ask me to put myself in the shoes of someone who cares nothing for his kids? As it happens, I, like most married men, have not lost the desire for other attractive women. So I do in fact deny my "orientation" on a regular basis. (Not wanting to deal with the hassel of cheating helps a great deal, but lust still tempts.)

"Well, for me, the immorality of that particular situation was the injustice of a family kept apart while one of them died."

The protocols for visitation in hosptials, particularly in ICU situations, was established long before people like those depicted placed themselves outside the boundaries of those protocols. So the blame for any perceived injustice lays at their own feet. But I agree that the parameters for visitation should be altered for the sake of anyone who is outside the boundaries of a typical family. It should be up to the person suffering to decide who gets to visit him and who should be party to important decisions on behalf of that patient.

In the end, however, these sad tales are also highlighted to make victims of oppression out of the homosexuals depicted. These stories serve only to suck pity out of the common man, to encourage them to overcome any sense of traditional morality to accept the immorality of these relationships so as to support their drive for total state-sanctioned acceptance of their behavior. Indeed, they could certainly have found and example of the same "injustice" forced upon an unmarried heterosexual couple.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

Keep your shock in check. Your pose of sanctimony bores. I removed Mark's comment because it crossed the line, but I do not consider it "worse" than comments you've made such as "So if I said that Marshall Art molests puppies..." to make some wacky point. The imagery provoked by such comments is every bit as over the top. Is it more acceptable because it's in the hypothetical?All in all, I deferred to the fact that ladies are sometimes present.

For the record, I, too, see one who proudly proclaims their homosexuality as just dandy as one who has a problem with morality. This is neither lie nor slander, but an opinion based on thousands of years of traditional moral standards. Just because a percentage of confused people seek to change the meaning of morality, that doesn't make our words lies or slander unless we're speaking about something a bit more specific.

And because this behavior is indeed immoral, raising kids in an environment that says otherwise is indeed a form of child abuse. Surely Fagan was abusing kids by teaching them to be pickpockets. Teaching kids wrong is right is a form of abuse as it warps their worldview.

Dan Trabue said...

I do not consider it "worse" than comments you've made such as "So if I said that Marshall Art molests puppies..." to make some wacky point.

Yeah, it's a "wacky point" to use irony to point out that just because somebody says something, doesn't make it true.

And using intentional irony to make a point is "no worse" in your mind that physical threats of violence? Than obscene descriptions of other people's love life? Of lies and slander?

Really?

If so, I'd have to ask you on what basis you find irony or sarcasm to be equal to threats of violence, obscenities and lies? Oh, yeah, that's right. Jesus did say, "Thou shalt not use the irony. To sarcasm is to sin..."

[That would be an example of sarcasm to make a point.]

In truth, I know of no moral system that considers irony a sin, much less comparable to the filth that Mark has uttered here. Do you really want to stand by that charge?

Dan Trabue said...

I, too, see one who proudly proclaims their homosexuality as just dandy as one who has a problem with morality. This is neither lie nor slander... raising kids in an environment that says otherwise is indeed a form of child abuse.

Again, just because you say this does not make it reality. To say that "she has no sense of morality, thus, nothing is beyond her capabilities," "you are a child abuser yourself" - these ARE in fact out and out lies. It IS slander.

My friend DOES, in fact, have a sense of morality. I am NOT in fact a child abuser. Words have meanings and those words are factually, observably and in every other way blatant falsehoods, lies, twisted truths and slander.

Your stating otherwise does not change the facts in this case.

I could say, once again, that you molest puppies. Doesn't make it so.

Dan Trabue said...

Do I need to demonstrate that Mark (and possibly you) have lied and slandered? I believe it to be quite evident to any reasonable moral actor, but you don't seem to get it, so allow me.

Mark said: "she has no sense of morality, thus, nothing is beyond her capabilities" - All I have to do to demonstrate such a ridiculous absolute charge is false is to show that she DOES have a sense of morality.

My beloved one would NOT threaten who displeased her with violence. Why? Because doing so would be wrong. My friend would not publish on the internet vivid sexual fantasies about your love life. Why? Because she does not know you and doing so is wrong. She would not make false charges. Why? Because doing so is lying and slander and that is wrong, condemned in no uncertain terms by Jesus and throughout the Bible.

She demonstrably has a sense of morality and it is greater than Mark has demonstrated here.

Also, you and Mark stated that disagreeing with you about a sin and teaching our child to disagree with you is "a form of child abuse." Poppycock. I disagree with you on a number of sins. Does that mean that if you teach your children your opinion about certain behaviors you have become a child abuser?

It is patently ridiculous. And a falsehood and slander.

Dan Trabue said...

It seems to me that the problem with the way that you and Mark are approaching this, Marshall, is your myopic view of your own moral rectitude and the unrealistic belief in your inability to be mistaken.

You see, for most people, when we have a disagreement with a person over a subject, we merely believe they are mistaken. "You are wrong to believe X," we would say. However, their being mistaken about any given point in our minds merely means that they are mistaken about that point.

But for you all, that is not enough. Not only are my "Auntie Jean" and I mistaken about the moral righteousness of gay marriage, for instance, but we are incapable of understanding right and wrong in EVERY area. We have "no sense of morality, thus, nothing is beyond [our] capabilities."

So, wow. What do we do with such a person who has NO sense of morality, who might do anything? After all, if we might do ANYTHING, then we might eat babies, we might molest kittens, we might try to destroy the world! Such people MUST be dealt with, we can't merely disagree with such monsters, but we must STOP THEM!!

That seems to me to be the logical conclusion of the approach favored by Mark, you and others like you. Whereas, for most of us, we can disagree with someone on one point without assuming they are wholly amoral. It's the difference between reasoning adults and childish reasoning. There are no shades of gray with you - either you're right or you're an amoral monster.

But logic and experience clearly shows that we are all humans capable of being mistaken. And, while there may be some who engage in behavior knowing it to be wrong and doing it deliberately to be wrong and flout convention, most of us are striving towards the right and, when we're mistaken on one point, well, that does not mean that we have NO sense of morality, but merely mistaken on one point.

And this is why so many of us are concerned with folk like you and Mark and the way and degree with which you disagree. Your language and reasoning ("they have no sense of morality") can be dangerous, when carried to their logical ends, which all too often happens.

Can't you just disagree on a point without demonizing the other as amoral monsters capable of anything?

Anonymous said...

Dan said,
It seems to me that the problem with the way that you and Mark are approaching this, Marshall, is your myopic view of your own moral rectitude and the unrealistic belief in your inability to be mistaken.

Just put your name in the place of you and Mark there and then I will be able to read your full comment sometime. Dan, Dan remove that plank. mom2

Marty said...

"My "orientation" is proper for my gender. It's what I'm supposed to be doing."

Oh Marshall you crack me up.

"As it happens, I, like most married men, have not lost the desire for other attractive women. So I do in fact deny my "orientation" on a regular basis."

Oh Marshall you're not denying your "orientation". If you were you would remain celibate. You're not fooling me. You couldn't change your "orientation" even if you wanted to. You're only denying lust and promiscuity.

"In the end, however, these sad tales are also highlighted to make victims of oppression out of the homosexuals depicted."

I don't see it as oppression. And victims....well...you are only a victim if you allow yourself to be one. For me it is a social justice issue. And being the good United Methodist Woman that I am and also the Social Justice Chair in my church, it is a responsibility I take seriously to bring these issues to light.

Marshall Art said...

I'm glad I bring you joy, Marty. It makes it all worthwhile.

My point was that to have me imagine giving up or changing my orientation is a pointless one seeing as how there would be no reason to do so. And the ease of such change, or lack thereof, is inconsequential to the classification of sinful behavior. How would YOU know how difficult it might be for a heterosexual to deny himself his urges? I may always be a thief at heart, but I don't have to steal, or even plan to do so. It won't change my tendency to take what isn't mine, I just have to "not steal".

If your sad tale is only one of social injustice, then obviously there is a victim of that being oppressed by that injustice. But again, they've created their own situation by insisting on living according to their lusts, rather than by what is clearly right and wrong.

Dan Trabue said...

Just put your name in the place of you and Mark there and then I will be able to read your full comment sometime. Dan, Dan remove that plank.

The difference being that I readily admit that I could be wrong. There is no such admission on the part of Marshall or Mark. Or you, mom2. Just stubborn insistence that you must attack those with whom you disagree.

Try engaging in conversation as an equal rather than preaching hypocritically as a moral master. It goes a lot further towards helping us understand one another.

So how about it mom2? You want to engage in conversation? Tell me, then, if you understand that it IS indeed slander and a demonstrable lie to suggest (ridiculously) that just because someone disagrees with your position on, say, gay marriage, that they must have no morals at all? That they are capable of anything? Do you understand the hypocrisy of such a statement?

If not, what IS your position? Do you think that all people who disagree with you on a given sin have, therefore, no morals at all and are capable of anything?

Or, are there only SOME sins that others can disagree with you about that are indications that they have no morals at all? If that's what you think, which sins are those that one must be in perfect agreement with you upon? And, on what basis do you say that your opinion must be agreed with or the Other has demonstrated that they have no morals whatsoever?

Do you realize that this is a wholly unbiblical position to take? OR, do you have some biblical bases for suggesting those who disagree with you therefore have no morals?

Are you here merely to snipe or would you like to discuss human rights and how we decide which rights are human rights?

Marshall Art said...

Danny, Danny, Danny,

How you can go on. Irony is not the issue. Using offensive language or imagery is. So the context in which you are making mention of "molesting" animals of any kind, need not be as descriptive as Mark's words, but is equally offensive to some as you should know being the arbiter of all that's well and good. So no, I have no problem with irony at all. Nice try.

BTW, upon further review, I submit that it is quite likely that Jesus would denounce sarcasm as unnecessary mockery intended to belittle the other guy. How unChristian!

"Again, just because you say this does not make it reality."

I don't just "say" these things, I repeat clearly revealed Biblical concepts and doctrine. Just because you and those you enable deny these facts doesn't mean they aren't still in effect.

Now as you've gotten yourself all huffy again, you should take a pill and realize that within the context of this discussion, regarding the subject matter herein, as concerning human sexuality, you and your "Auntie" are clearly lacking a proper sense of morality. This is no lie or slander, but a statement of fact based on clearly expressed Biblical concepts. Thus, to place kids in an environment where should the subject ever come up, would yield a corrupted teaching on the subject, to say it is a level of child abuse is also not lying or slander based on those same clearly expressed Biblical teachings.

The problem with the way Mark and I are approaching this is that we are debating a fellow with a corrupted view of Biblical teaching who while being unable to defend his beliefs through the use of Scripture, must accuse his opponents with charges that are repeatedly shown to be false, but only hurtful to his feelings and those he enables.

So it has come down to being mean, I guess, and darn it we should just try to be nicer, lest people believe we are encouraging death and dismemberment to those loving unfortunates, the homosexual community. Nonsense and another ploy to soften the opposition while carrying on with your corrupted beliefs. Being nice is wasted on those who do not consider niceness in their own views of their opponents. Plain talk, hurtful or not, if far nicer in the most beneficial sense of the word. Though you continue to distort such plain talk (Geoffrey insists it's hate when that's an unsupportable charge), it's far easier to defend than ambiguous alternatives weighed to avoid hurting feelings.

Dan Trabue said...

I submit that it is quite likely that Jesus would denounce sarcasm as unnecessary mockery intended to belittle the other guy. How unChristian!

1. The point was to make a point, not to belittle.

2. Jesus used sarcasm, I'd posit. And I would not be the first to suggest this. You think the Jesus who said, "Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry?" (Matthew 12:3) to a bunch of biblical scholars, or, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" - you think this Jesus did not engage in sarcasm?

As to your ridiculous claim that your lies are not lies, you're simply wrong.

Again, to be clear, the charge was we "no morals at all and are capable of anything," including child abuse and molestation and the other heated depravities that exist mostly in Mark's fevered perverted brain.

I have demonstrated that we do, in fact, have morals. Our position on gay marriage IS a moral position. Our position against the sort of indecency that Mark has engaged in IS a moral position. Our refusal to threaten violence when someone displeases us IS a moral position. Clearly we have morals aplenty.

Now, you COULD make the case that we are mistaken in our moral position on gay marriage, that we are wrong to be opposed to Mark's sort of perverse indencencies, that we are wrong to not engage in violent threats. But that is not the same as saying we have "no morals" and that we "are capable of anything." That is not the same as saying we are child abusers.

Argue, if you wish, that we are mistaken on a point or on several points and we can have that discussion. BUT, make the charge that we have no morals and that we are child abusers and you have only served to show you are an idiot who does not know how to hold a reasonable, logical adult conversation.

Mark said...

Dan, the Obtuse, says, "The difference being that I readily admit that I could be wrong."

That's the funniest thing you've said in a long time, Dan.

Be that as it may, Dan, you used terms like obscenity and disgusting and perverted to describe the mental picture I drew of the very act that defines homosexuality, yet, you say God calls those same acts holy and blessed.

Well, which is it? holy and blessed, or obscene, disgusting, and perverted? You can't have it both ways, Danny boy.

And while you're trying to decide which side of the fence you really reside, why don't you produce the Biblical passages that prove God thinks homosexuality is holy and blessed.

This, by the way, is the fourth time I've asked you to prove your point Biblically. You haven't answered yet. Could it be there are no such Biblical passages?

You know, you are continually demanding we present citation that suppoorts our views, but apparently you don't feel bound by the same rules.

C'mon, Dan, I grow weary of this argument. Either produce citation from the Bible or give up. In other words, put up or shut up.

Geoffrey, you can play, too.

Mark said...

Are you not aware, Dan, that what you say God says is holy and blessed, you are calling a perversion?

What do you think God thinks of you for that?

Marty said...

"How would YOU know how difficult it might be for a heterosexual to deny himself his urges?"

Is that a man thing?

I can't relate.

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

Not necessarily. There are promiscuous women, ya know.

Marty said...

"This, by the way, is the fourth time I've asked you to prove your point Biblically. You haven't answered yet. Could it be there are no such Biblical passages?"

I know this was asked of Dan but I don't mind answering it.

There just might be a Biblical passage...

About 15 years ago my church was reading through the Bible using Faith Comes By Hearing Series. My daughter was reading faithfully, but me, well, I got bored with it after a little while and slacked off. One day, while at work, I got a frantic phone call from my then teenaged daughter - "Mom, oh...my... God - Mom - Jonathan and David were gay - really Mom, you gotta read this!"

And so it began for the two of us. Reading and discussing. We both came to the same conclusion. It seemed pretty clear to us, through scripture, that David and Jonathan did have a "thing" going on and that it also appeared that Johnathan, at least, was totally gay.

Much of the story alluded to this but the clincher for us was Saul's angry outburst - "Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse [David] to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?"

Saul was livid, pretty much calling his son a pervert, and then going on to offer his eldest daughter to David as a wife.

My husband refused to read it or discuss it. A macho man thing I suppose.

Anyway you don't have to agree with this, but it seemed clear enough to my daughter and me.

Mark said...

Marty, you need to read the entire story to put it into context. Also, you need to understand the King James version was written in 17th century English, and thus, a little harder for us modern English speakers to comprehend. You might try reading the passage in today's English. This is what I found:

Saul's anger flared up at Jonathan and he said to him, "You son of a perverse and rebellious woman! Don't I know that you have sided with the son of Jesse to your own shame and to the shame of the mother who bore you? ~ 1 Samuel 20:30

Now, clearly, Saul wasn't referring to Jonathon as perverse, but rather, Jonathon's mother.

Furthermore, if being gay were really normal and natural, blessed and holy, as Dan posits, and, if David and Jonathon were indeed gay lovers, (By the way, this is a favorite argument of gay activists) why would Saul, or anyone else, call it perverse?

Keep in mind Saul was insane with jealosy against David by this time, and was out to kill him. In fact, Saul already tried to kill David a couple of times before this incident took place. And, reading further, Saul had offered his eldest daughter to David, and then gave another of his daughters to David two chapters before this exchange.

David married Sauls daughter, by the way, which is further evidence he wasn't gay.

David and Jonathon were just very good friends, not lovers. Just as I might have very good male friends, but I don't have sex with them.

But, even if David and Jonathon were gay lovers, that doesn't prove God approves of homosexuality. It would only prove homosexuality existed in Biblical times, a fact that none of us ever disputed.

David was also a murderer, yet he was called, in the Bible, "a man after God's own heart". Do you think God gives approval to murder because David committed one?

Of course not. By the same token God gives no approval to homosexuality.

Marty said...

Well comfort yourself as you will Mark. But I stand by my interpretation.

David was, with all his "sinfulness" - murderer and possible gay relationship - still a man after God's own heart.

That's the point of all this Mark. He was still very dear to God, regardless of his many "sins".

Some have suggested that Ruth and Naomi, Jesus and John, had sexual relationships. I disagreee with that. For me that is quite a stretch. But David and Jonathan - not so much.

Dan Trabue said...

Although I have no further use for the Perverse One, I did address the question about Leviticus at my blog, if anyone is interested.

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

Needless to say, I don't agree with your David/Jonathan interpretation either, and I've heard some great explanations that address your misconception. I just wish I had them handy for linking.

In any case, even if we concede that David was a flaming fag, I don't believe we have evidence that God in any way allowed or blessed David's sinfulness. So the notion that God loved Him anyway is not in question. The issue is the sinfulness of the behavior and whether or not God treats any form, manifestation or expression of such lust as an act worthy of His blessing. He doesn't. The question then becomes, can a person be saved while engaging willfully in prohibited behaviors. In other words, a conscious decision to reject God's command concerning that behavior. I can't see how anyone can believe that since it is clearly rebellion against God, and/or, creation of a false God in order to proclaim one is within God's Will whilst engaging in said prohibited behavior. There's simply too much information available that teaches a CORRECT lesson on the subject for one to truthfully claim they are sincerely ignorant of the truth.

Dan Trabue said...

There's simply too much information available that teaches a CORRECT lesson on the subject for one to truthfully claim they are sincerely ignorant of the truth.

So, it is not in any way possible, in Marshall's view, that someone could - in good faith - come to a conclusion different than the one Marshall has come to on this point? Fortunately - and this is the last time I'll point this out here - Marshall ain't God and we don't have to answer to Marshall.

IF we make an honest mistake in interpreting these 4-5 verses in the whole Bible, then God's grace covers our mistake. Just as God's grace covers Marshall's mistaken arrogance and many other mistakes. Unlike Marshall, God does not expect perfect understanding on our part.

Marty said...

"The question then becomes, can a person be saved while engaging willfully in prohibited behaviors. In other words, a conscious decision to reject God's command concerning that behavior."

Apparently so Marshall. There sure are a lot of people running around claiming to be saved that have divorced and remarried, which is prohibited and considered adultery.

Can they be saved or not?

As I recall Jesus said "you who are without sin cast the first stone".

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

First of all, I believe it depends on the reason for the divorce. But secondly, and more importantly, one divorces once and not as a chronic behavior. Even Liz Taylor was limited in her divorcing to, I think, three dozen times. But that's neither here nor there. Pointing to another sin does not in any way give one leave to engage in their preferred sin. The issue here is homosex behavior. Should one engage in an episode or two, that would be one thing. But there is the assumption that two allegedly monogamous, loving, etc, etc homosex couple are engaging in homosex behavior with regularity, otherwise, they're just roommates. But it is, however, similar to one engaging in repeated adulterous affairs. Neither gains God's blessing.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

"So, it is not in any way possible, in Marshall's view, that someone could - in good faith - come to a conclusion different than the one Marshall has come to on this point?"

No. Not possible in the least. I'll explain yet again in just a moment, but first, it must be recognized, that it wasn't me who came to this conclusion, but I did in fact learn myself by simple study of the Bible as well as through the words and explanations of Biblical scholars who weren't out to help find permission. The conclusion existed well before I did. I merely learned it as did all those who ignore it or deny it.

And therein is my explanation. This stuff is easy to understand and all those sorry individuals who have tried to create for themselves permission, all who have sought to create something they could call "God's Blessing", all of these people know the truth and merely deny or ignore it. All of their sad attempts to argue away what they know to be true has been expertly and exhaustively refuted, rebutted and restated to the point where no one with the least sense of honesty could listen to those sad arguments and not know they are lacking and hiding the aforementioned denials. I have absolutely no doubt, that should any evidence, either Scripturally or biologically, have been discovered that could be definitive or compelling, we'd be hearing of it until we puke. None's been offered, none's forthcoming.

If there are any people who are "honestly" mistaken about this issue, it is because they haven't seriously exposed themselves to the truth, or taken any serious steps to find and understand it. For that, it is my opinion that they are ducking the issue in order to avoid learning that which they already know intrinsically.

Marty said...

According to the Scriptures remarriage after divorce IS considered adultery. No matter why the divorce occured. It's the remarriage that is prohibited, not the divorce. So if one continues in that remarriage aren't they committing an adulterous affair over and over again?

You seem to have one set of standards for heterosexuals and another for homosexuals.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall said:

This stuff is easy to understand and all those sorry individuals who have tried to create for themselves permission, all who have sought to create something they could call "God's Blessing", all of these people know the truth and merely deny or ignore it.

This is demonstrably false. As I have noted repeatedly, I WAS like you. I thought that homosexuality was a sin, period. Gay marriage was a ridiculous concept. I thought the Bible was clearly opposed to such an idea.

I had no desire to change my opinion and would have told you point blank that although I was willing to listen to the other point of view, I WOULD NOT be changing my opinion. The Bible was WAY too clear I thought.

And yet, when I looked closer and studied the matter more closely, I was compelled to change my mind. Not because I had a desire to "create permission" for anything. Not because I was uninformed or had not studied it. Just the opposite: It was when I prayerfully studied the matter more closely that I was compelled to change my mind - against my will, even.

So, it is demonstrably false by my own witness that I "know the truth" (what you think is the truth) and choose to deny it. I have embraced what I believe to be the truth.

You are mistaken on this point. I COULD be wrong - we all could be wrong on any given point - but I and my fellow Christians are not DELIBERATELY wrong. Rather, we are seeking God's will with all our hearts and strength and this is where that has led us.

And now you know the truth. Let it set you free, brother.

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

Read it again. There is one reason why divorce might be permissable. But once again, it really doesn't matter for two pertinent reasons.

1. The topic is homosexuality and how the imagined rights of the homosexual match up against the fully stated and Constitutionally recognized rights of free religious expression and association.

2. I don't know that any adulterers are forming a plan to codify adulterous behavior and force the general public to accept it as normal, natural and equal to tradtional marriage.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

Very nice. But we go around and around yet again. Your "prayerful" consideration is worthless if it contradicts Biblical teaching, which it clearly does. No amount of said consideration has value in a discussion of how one comes to say that black is now white. You have nothing Biblical to support your position, so you are merely "feeling" that you are right. You have "a hunch" that God might bless a sin for which He has clearly shown distaste. Thus, you have disproven nothing about what you know to be true but now deny. When this debate between us began, you could have gotten away for a time by saying that you were compelled by prayerful study. But when it comes time to explain how that occurred, what tracts of Scripture pushed you involuntarily to oppose God's Will on the subject, you fall woefully short of anything remotely resembling supportive Biblical evidence.

At your blog, you stated that you read the Oliff and Hodges piece a second time and found it lacking, yet, you said nothing as to where you found fault. This has been fairly typcial and similar comments were made about Rob't Gagnon. Still, no arguments were made regarding in what manner any of these scholars could have been mistaken. Thus, I maintain that the argument of the homosex community and their enablers regarding Biblical teaching on the subject is lost totally, but the combatants have yet to admit their defeat. They are very much like the black knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail who won't accept defeat after having all four limbs removed.

Marshall Art said...

I may have made comments that would better reflect what I read at another blog on the subject, but the sentiments are the same as those found at Dan's.

Dan Trabue said...

Marshall said:

But we go around and around yet again. Your "prayerful" consideration is worthless if it contradicts Biblical teaching, which it clearly does.

What part of "TO YOU" are you failing to understand. I don't think it contradicts biblical teaching at all. And I think YOUR position is contrary to good biblical reasoning, to boot.

And so, the TRUTH remains that you are WRONG factually when you say that "these people know the truth and merely deny or ignore it." It is factually NOT the case that we think you're right and we're denying it or ignoring it. We've heard your case and reject it as lacking in good moral, biblical reasoning.

No matter how many times you say, "no you haven't," it won't change the facts.

You have nothing Biblical to support your position, so you are merely "feeling" that you are right.

No, we have discussed this over at my blog: We BOTH use our reasoning to arrive at our conclusions. I think your reasoning is terribly faulty and you think the same about mine. But in neither case is it about "feelings." OR, if anyone is relying upon feelings, it is you, since MY feelings on the matter were contravened by the facts as I understand them. I had to turn away from my feelings to reach my position.

So, once again, no matter how many times you say, "did not," your position that I'm relying upon feelings is as demonstrably false as your suggestion that we "know" that you're right and we deny it or ignore it.

You ain't god of me.

Marty said...

Thanks for the conversation Marshall. I don't take part in discussions on homosexuality much for obvious reasons, but you've been quite civil to me and I appreciate that.

The Bible has been used throughout history to support various prohibitions and to beat people over the head. Passages have been used to support slavery and the subjugation of women. In our time it's sexual orientation, but that is changing and there is nothing you can do to stop it. God is a God of grace and mercy which He extends to all, no exceptions.

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

"The Bible has been used throughout history to support various prohibitions and to beat people over the head."

This is true, but it's not the case here. The fact is that the Bible is being used incorrectly to support this sinful practice as somehow OK, when all related verses are without a doubt opposed. This is not a matter of deep interpretation, it is crystal clear. There is nothing that can honestly be used to contradict this. People like Dan HAVE to deny these points in order to have any hope of justifying their blatantly false belief that God would ever bless what He has already condemned. He has nothing but his "prayerful considerations", which is Dan-speak for "feelings". He's been asked numerous times to provide whatever verses he thinks overturns God's earlier mandate. He's brought nothing. At all.

It is a tough topic on which to debate. It crosses lines to easily making the debated difficult to get through. For example, this post began as a lament on the obvious difficulties that would occurr in society were this behavior given the state sanctioning the homosex activists demand. It has since become a theological discussion. Even within the context of theological discussion, Dan, as well as others, will bring up examples from Scripture that have either been soundly refuted and correctly explained, or are simply not in anyway relevant to the discussion. If you haven't already, I invite you to look at my very first post, the same one to which I directed Dan, and see if it makes any sense to you. If nothing else, you would at least see how definitively the issue has been addressed and understand why the chasm exists. I maintain that Scripture and it's logical and obvious interpretations support my belief on the issue, and Dan has yet to provide anything that one could even use to consider an alternative point of view. Prayerful considerations are meaningless considering our inability to negotiate the spiritual world. Who knows who it is that Dan thinks is our Lord convincing him that this sin is not sinful. I know it ain't the Almighty.

Marty said...

Just to let you know I read your fist post.

Nothing there I didn't know already.

And nothing there to change my mind.

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

Perhaps you would like to offer something that counters any of what Oliff and Hodges had to say on the subject? I mean, what could there be in that piece, or in any study like it, that leaves you unconvinced of their explanation? Or are you, like Dan and so many others, just denying what is there or ignoring it in favor of your preferred view. Keep in mind that these two have really gone through a logical step by step in explaining the issue. Where have they gone wrong?

Dan Trabue said...

Okay...

Marshall, I’ve not addressed your Holy writ (ie, Olliff/Hodges) because there is so much wrong there it is hard to know where to begin.

The authors (Olliff/Hodges) begin by making this claim about the “opponent” (Helminiak) who is arguing in favor of gay marriage:

For example, he also said in both his lecture and in his book that he does not believe in one of the main doctrines taught in Scripture, i.e., sola Scriptura. When Scripture speaks it is the same as God speaking, and Scripture provides a complete revelation of all God wants us to know about Him.

1. One can believe in the inerrant Word of God (which is much broader than the Bible alone, but rather every Word out of God’s mouth as well as Jesus, who is proclaimed to be the Word in John 1) and not believe in Sola Scriptura
2. “Scripture provides a complete revelation of all God wants to know about Him”? Says who? Show me the verse and chapter. It ain’t there.
3. “Main doctrines taught in Scriptures???” In fact, Sola Scriptura is an extrabiblical concept, not found within the pages of the Bible. It is a common religious tradition, but not a biblical one. One might find a few verses on which to hang some SS thinking, but whatever you may call it, it certainly is not one of the main doctrines taught in the Bible. Does any serious theologian ever make such a claim?

And we could go off on a whole discussion about SS and this O/H’s views and Helminiak’s views on how to consider weigh scripture and wade through it. But when they begin by making such broad and unsupported statements, that is a warning sign right there. And you can see, how just addressing this one point would require perhaps a page or two of rebuttal and clarification.

From there, they go on to make red herring arguments, strawmen errors and outright goofs. Over and over they make claims about Helminiak that he has simply not made. Rather, they reinterpret Helminiak to have said something other than what he said and then say, “See? How awful that he believes that!!” – when Helminiak never said he believed that.

I can see how you like these guys, they argue in the same way as you do. They insert words and opinions into Helminiak’s mouth presumably because they know better than Helminiak what he thinks. They, too, have a god-complex, it appears.

And, on top of that, they lack clarity, they ramble. They say in 1000 words what could be said in ten; as if by throwing more words at their poor positions, they can make them appear weightier.

And ALL of this is before they even get started on the discussion on homosexuality and the Bible.

Can you understand why folk may be reluctant to try to wade through all of this poor biblical reasoning just to satisfy you?

For a sampling of their ridiculous, ignorant and downright stupid arguments…

If we may develop our own a fortiori argument, we know that heterosexual rape is quite sinful. Yet it would clearly be a lesser evil when compared to the wickedness of homosexual rape.

Oh really? We know this? We CLEARLY know this?? How do we know this?

They, like you, make statements about what is “clear” as if it were the end of the conversation. “Well, since the Bible clearly and obviously condemns all of homosexuality, then those who embrace are clearly and obviously choosing deliberately to reject God’s Will!!” uh, no. Just because you and these folk think something is clear, does not make it so.

Leviticus 18:22; 20:13
These passages clearly specify that homosexual acts merited the death penalty under the Mosaic law.

Here, they beg the question: They DO “clearly” specify that homosexual acts are bad? Isn’t that what we’re striving to discern? They’re arguing like this:
“The Bible says that homosexuality is bad. It is clearly there, so therefore it is bad. How do we know it is clearly condemned in the bible? Because it is there, and it is bad. Clearly so.”
Offering their opinion that the Bible “clearly” condemns all homosexuality as evidence that the Bible condemns all homosexuality is circular reasoning. They do the same thing here:

This, however, would only have force if one considered actions which undermine the family structure to be a "light" matter.

…arguing their opinion that homosexual behavior undermines the family structure and therefore, it is obviously sinful because it undermines the family structure, therefore, it is obviously sinful… and so on.

Now, look at the length of this post. And I have only scratched the surface of addressing the problems with their lengthy bad arguments.

If they were offering something more substantive than strawman, ad hominem, red herring type attacks and fallacies, I might be willing to wade through it and deal with it. But why would I waste time on such poor reasoning?

Marty said...

"Perhaps you would like to offer something that counters any of what Oliff and Hodges had to say on the subject?"

No, not at this time.

I am hoping to attend a Bible Study at the end of January taught by Dr. John C. Holbert. This study will take a look at the Scripture passages that are sometimes understood to address homosexuality and the church.

"By looking at these passages in light of their original context, we can begin to gain a new understanding as to how these passages relate to our world today, our church, and our own understanding of who God is and who we are called to be as children of God."

Dr. Holbert is a member of the Perkins faculty since 1979 and serves as the Lois Craddock Perkins Professor of Homiletics. He earned his Ph.D. from Southern Methodist University in 1975, his M.Div. from Perkins School of Theology in 1971, and his B.A. from Grinnell College in 1968. Dr. Holbert’s teaching specialties include Hebrew Bible, literature, and preaching.

Perhaps if I am able to attend that study I will be in a better position to counter your arguments. But by that time, this discussion will be over.

Marshall Art said...

Always hoping to be as accurate as possible, I Googled "sola Scriptura" and found this and again find that Dan is a bit off in his understanding of what he has read. The Bible as ultimate authority is indeed something I would say most Biblical scholars concede, which is what the term implies, if not definitively means. If Helminiak, like yourself, does not believe in the Bible's authority, then it's easy to understand how all the goofy nonsense supporting the pro-homosex position can come about. But for you to then dismiss the rest based primarily on the authors' opinion of sola Scriptura only shows that you don't have a serious desire to understand Scripture at all, and that also supports my opinion that you base your position on "feelings".

"1. One can believe in the inerrant Word of God (which is much broader than the Bible alone,"

What the hell is this supposed to mean? What Words of God to you have that are not found in the Bible? How can you make the world understand that you have such a direct and chummy relationship with the Almighty that precludes anything we might read in Scripture?

"2. “Scripture provides a complete revelation of all God wants to know about Him”? Says who? Show me the verse and chapter. It ain’t there."

Aside from you personal tea parties with our Lord, there is no other source that provides ANY revelation regarding God's nature or Will for us. Chapter and verse is hardly required to know this, and the lack of chapter and verse should not be an excuse to pretend you know something not supported by Scripture. Have you another source that reveals from the Lord anything not revealed in Scripture? Anything at all not related to your "prayerful considerations"?

O/H did not wallow in unsupported statements. The piece copied and pasted was a response to Helminiak's response to them. If you are unfamiliar with it, that's fine. But unless you can confirm you've made yourself expert on every utterance of Helminiak, I don't think you should make such unsupported statements.

"From there, they go on to make red herring arguments, strawmen errors and outright goofs."

Like what? Do you mean this:

"For a sampling of their ridiculous, ignorant and downright stupid arguments…

If we may develop our own a fortiori argument, we know that heterosexual rape is quite sinful. Yet it would clearly be a lesser evil when compared to the wickedness of homosexual rape.

Oh really? We know this? We CLEARLY know this?? How do we know this?"


It's simple. If rape is bad, then for a man to rape a woman means one sin (aside from the planning and such---I'm speaking only to the commissin of the act). If a man rapes a man, he has both assaulted another and had sex with a man. Two sins. Now, that's not something upon which I would hang my hat, but neither do O/H. Perhaps you just can't respond to any of the meat and instead satisfy yourself with the grissle. I don't blame you. It's far easier.

"Just because you and these folk think something is clear, does not make it so."

Might not be clear to someone who can't read or is blind, but for the rest of humanity, it's crystal. The only segment left is those that ignore and deny. That would include you. You wish to continue making this ludicrous statement, but the fact is that nothing could be more clear than "Thou shalt not..." You simply (like a child spoiling his dinner with cookies rather than cake because Mom didn't say "cookies") pretend you have a loophole in which to squeeze your desire to placate the whims of the sexually confused.

"They DO “clearly” specify that homosexual acts are bad?"

You're an idiot. Are you now saying that because the Bible doesn't use the words, "this is bad" that we are out of line to suggest it is? The Bible clearly frames the act in negative terms, whether you Book says "abomination" or "detestable". Which of these suggest the action is just fine? So there is NO circular reasoning here. There is simply, "The Bible says it's wrong. Period. End of discussion." And it condemns ALL homosexual behavior because there is nowhere where it says or suggests otherwise. No prayerful consideration can conjure up what does not exist.

The next quoted snippet is one for which I have no comment since I know not the context from which you ripped it. But you follow it with, "And I have only scratched the surface of addressing the problems with their lengthy bad arguments."

No. You've only scratched your ass. You haven't come close to addressing the substance of the O/H piece but have only knocked about the least significant. I'm not surprised at all. It's way too solid for you to risk what little credibility you have on this issue.

"But why would I waste time on such poor reasoning?"

Because it is NOT poor reasoning and you haven't the tools to persuade otherwise. All it takes is Scriptural evidence. So it's better to pretend the reasoning of these two is poor. Saves you the embarassment and humiliation.

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

"But by that time, this discussion will be over."

Perhaps on this thread, but another will likely take its place in the future. Such distortions of Biblical teaching will always generate discussion, even should the homosex activists win their goal of stifling Christian teaching.

So, in the event you are able to attend this lecture and study, I would indeed be interested in what the gentleman has to say.

Dan Trabue said...

sigh. I give up. You post a source that is obfuscatory, fallacy-ridden and obtuse and defend it with fallacy-ridden and obtuse defenses. You repeat false claim after false claim. It takes too long to wade through all your fallacies, slander and misrepresentations, Marshall.

Believe it or not, it comes down to this: We disagree with you. We ARE seeking God's will and we believe that you have missed it. It is possible that we are wrong, but we believe that it is much more likely that you are wrong. In any case, we are Christians seeking God's will. Worst case scenario: We are mistaken and will have to rely upon God's grace.

Fortunately, that's what God's grace is for. We have not decided upon our position lightly. I and nearly all my Christian community were once where you were and only came to our position based upon prayer, Bible study and our God-given logic. Our emotions and traditions argued that we ought to believe as you believe. But logic and God's Word led us to another conclusion.

If we have made a mistake, God forgive us. If you have made a mistake, I'm sure you'll ask for forgiveness, too.

Fortunately, God is much more grace-full than you have shown yourself to be.

Marty said...

"So, in the event you are able to attend this lecture and study, I would indeed be interested in what the gentleman has to say."

I did a little research on Dr. Holbert and found this. He wrote Chapter 4.

I want very much to attend, but my life is not always my own these days. And should I be asked to keep my grandbaby that day, while Mom and Dad get out for a while, you can betcha that grandma won't pass up that chance, no way, Bible Study or not.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

"You post a source that is obfuscatory, fallacy-ridden and obtuse and defend it with fallacy-ridden and obtuse defenses."

Such as? It always comes back to this. I get that you don't agree with the source I provided. I get that you think it's obfuscatory, fallacy-ridden and obtuse. I get that you believe it's all crap. Try taking the next step and actually explaining where those lies are and why you think they're wrong. Show where you have anything close to Scriptural support for perpetuating this heresy. I present an opinion to support my position, and you think you can get away with critiques with no explanation?

"You repeat false claim after false claim."

I call 'em like I see 'em. You simply refuse to make a case why I'm wrong. I show you why I don't act on "hunches", but you can't show why you're not going on "feelings".

"It takes too long to wade through all your fallacies, slander and misrepresentations, Marshall."

Considering how long most of your comments are, I have no pity. But really, this is just another dodge. You got nuthin. The rest of your last is just the usual filler, the "Time Out!" you call when you hit this particular point, the one where you must defend yourself. You never really have.

Finally, I have not lacked grace in my demeanor, especially considering my opponent. Perhaps its a result of being in such a graceless position.

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

Say no more. The missus is chompin to be a granny.

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

I just read chapter four. I think it would be better to just pretend you're looking after the grandchild, even if you're not. This guy is just rehashing the same old stuff that has been thoroughly rebuffed by guys like Oliff & Hodge, from my first post, or Rob't Gagnon, another scholar that the homosex activists and enablers dismiss without actually rebutting their points, much less with Scriptural support.

He also begins his little chapter by assuming he, or anyone else, can know what the early Hebrews could have conceived regarding human sexuality. This is both a great leap as well as irrelevant. That they might lack a doctorate in sexual studies has nothing to do with the Will of God. I wouldn't waste my time with the guy based on this chapter.

Here's how it's gone for me in my pursuit of the best possible undersstanding of this issue: I read one side, and then I read the other (or hear or seek out or view on TV or whatever) and then I get a sense of how the back and forth goes until it's quite clear that one side has stopped the volley. The pro-truth side, which is what I'm on, has had the last word on every angle thrown at them by the pro-homosex side, which is the side I think you're on. The pro-homosex side now has to come up with some way to show that any of the pro-truth side's rebuttals are wrong. It's been a long wait, too. Biblically speaking, they're done. There's nothing left without some new parchment pulled from a hole in the ground in the Middle East showing some new revelations. Don't hold your breath.

Marty said...

"I just read chapter four. I think it would be better to just pretend you're looking after the grandchild, even if you're not."

LOL. I thought that too until I read a few of the other chapters. I'd like to give the guy an ear. See what he has to say.

"The pro-truth side, which is what I'm on"

Well you are convinced. That's for sure.

"has had the last word on every angle thrown at them by the pro-homosex side, which is the side I think you're on."

If I am on any side here Marshall, I hope it is on the side of Grace.

Dan Trabue said...

Tell you what Marshall: You post what you think these fella's best point is and I'll address that point.

I've already given examples of their fallacies, I don't want to repeat myself.

As to your position: I'm still waiting for something substantive as to why we should throw away "and kill 'em" as being a moral wrong (even though it is a command from God) and why we should keep "if a man lies with a man is wrong" AND assume that "man lying with a man" means any and all homosexuality.

As I understand your position, it is the same as mine: We reject "and so kill 'em" as immoral because logically and intuitively we know it is wrong to kill people because they are gay. And I agree. But that is not a biblical reason.

You reject my logic-based answer (again, repeating lie after lie that it is emotion-based even though I HAVE NEVER ONCE made an emotion-based argument in support of gay marriage is just another example of the fallacies that these two bozos engage in repeatedly) about why I support gay marriage, but you think it's okay to embrace a logic-based answer as to the "kill 'em" half of the verse.

I see no reason why we can embrace logic and moral-reasoning as a basis for the second half of that passage but not for the first half.

Marshall Art said...

Marty,

"Well you are convinced. That's for sure."

Pretty much. At least until something substantive comes along to give me pause. Still waiting.

"If I am on any side here Marshall, I hope it is on the side of Grace."

As do we all. But when speaking on a specific issue, such sentiments seem a bit distracting to me. Let's all assume it's a given and not bring it up anymore.

Marshall Art said...

Dan,

"I've already given examples of their fallacies,"

When? Where? Could you provide a link to this?

"As to your position: I'm still waiting for something substantive as to why we should throw away "and kill 'em" as being a moral wrong..."

Asked and answered ad nauseum. Pay attention this time. Putting someone to death, or sacrificing animals, for sins in the OT is a form of atonement replaced by the perfect sacrifice, the death of Christ. Belief and acceptance of Christ as our Savior removes our requirement for further sacrifices. This belief is our atonement, should we repent of our sinful ways and accept Jesus. But the Crucifixion did not alter, nor did anything in Christ's ministry, what constitutues sinful behavior. So for all those behaviors for which death or sacrifice was an atonement, those behaviors are still sinful and unholy and to be avoided.

So our positions on why "and so kill 'em" is no longer practiced is nowhere near the same. It is not wrong to "kill" people because they are "gay", it is wrong to murder anyone for any reason. We don't punish them for being homosexual because it isn't our God mandated job to do so anymore. (And by the way, I would guess that even in OT times, you or I couldn't just punish anyone with death without going through "channels". Today's channels are all civil law and our laws don't place homosexual behavior as a capital crime.)

More later.