Posted on 02/22/2013 6:59:14 AM PST by daniel1212
Yup. Just put aside the issue of ‘gay marriage’ and just looks at the general state of marriage over the last 60 years or so, and the effect it has had on society. Then ask yourself why the statists might like it that way.
Pope Leo XIII warned about the state usurping the role of faith as concerns marriage 130 years ago. If you would have told someone in 1980 that polygamy would be accepted before ‘gay marriage’ they would have thought you were whacked out of your gourd. It makes one wonder what the state will claim as marriage in another 130 years. Probably polymorous unions with your own sex changed animal clone hybrids, or something we can’t even imagine now.
Freegards
<While few pro homosexual writers concede that the Bible is contrary to same sex behavior, virtually all reject any Biblical censure of it. Author Robin Scroggs states, “Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today’s debate.”(Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress, l983) p. 127.) William M. Kent, a member of the committee assigned by United Methodists to study homosexuality, explicitly denied the inspiration of any anti-homosex passages in the Bible, and their application today. John Boswell stated, regarding the Bible, that "one must first relinquish the concept of a single book containing a uniform corpus of writings accepted as morally authoritative." (John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1980), 92) John Barton states that the Bible is "a big baggy compendium of a book, full of variety and inconsistency, sometimes mistaken on matters of fact and theology alike." (John Barton, "The Place of the Bible in Moral Debate," Theology 88 (May 1985), 206) Gary David Comstock, Protestant chaplain at Wesleyan University, termed it "dangerous" to fail to condemn the apostle Paul's condemnation of homosexual relations, and advocated removing such from the canon. (Gary David Comstock, Gay Theology Without Apology (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 1993), p. 43. http://www.albertmohler.com/article_read.php?cid7) Episcopalian professor L. William Countryman contends, “The gospel allows no rule against the following, in and of themselves: . .. bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts,” or “pornography.” (Dirt, Greed, and Sex (Fortress, 1988) Christine E. Gudorf flatly denies that the Bible is the primary authority for Christian ethics. (Balch, Homosexuality, Science, and the "plain Sense" of Scripture p. 121) Bishop (Ret.) John Shelby Spong denies all miracles, including the virgin conception and literal bodily resurrection of Christ, as well as the Divine inspiration of Scripture, and denies that there are any moral absolutes (Michael Bott and Jonathan Sarfati, "What’s Wrong With (Former) Bishop Spong?") and relegates the clear condemnation of homosexual relations in Romans 1 to being the product of the apostle Paul's “ill-informed, culturally biased prejudices.” (Spong, Living in Sin? A Bishop Rethinks Human Sexuality, 149-52)
Another among the minority of pro homosexuals who affirm that the Bible does condemn homosexual relations while seeking to reject such is Walter Wink, who states "I have long insisted that the issue is one of hermeneutics, and that efforts to twist the text to mean what it clearly does not say are deplorable. Simply put, the Bible is negative toward same-sex behavior, and there is no getting around it." And that "Paul wouldn't accept a loving homosexual relationship for a minute." However, he joins similar revisionists who disallow that the Bible offers a coherent sexual morality ''for today'', especially as regards homoeroticism, which teaching Wink terms “interpretative quicksand”. Instead, he joins others in asserting that people possess a right to sex that can supercede Biblical laws, and essentially proposes that sexual ethics are best determined by one's own subjective understanding of Christian love. (Walter Wink, "To hell with gays" and "the Bible and homosexuality") Daniel Helminiak's theory of ethics is similar, which Olliff and Hodges notes "is, at its very foundation, self-refuting. While he professes Christianity, he has adopted the autonomous man's position for the basis of his ethics." A Further Look at Pro-Homosexual Theology, Derrick K. Olliff and Dewey H. Hodges
Likewise, pro-homosexual author Daniel Via states, "that Scripture gives no explicit approval to same-sex intercourse. I maintain, however, that the absolute prohibition can be overridden, regardless of how many times it is stated, for there are good reasons to override it." (Dan Otto Via, Robert A. J. Gagnon, "Homosexuality and the Bible: two views," pp. 38,94) This requires the same type of discredited reasoning as Wink, and Via's opposing co-author Robert Gagnon responds by noting that Via is an absolutist about no absolutes," and while Scripture clearly manifests otherwise, by arguing that nothing is intrinsically immoral no sexual act can be categorically considered as immoral, including the consensual incestuous relationship of a man with his mother, which was so sinful that it required severe spiritual discipline. (1Cor. 5) (http://www.robgagnon.net/2VRejoinder.htm) (Homosexuality and the Bible: A Real Debate)
WHILE...
... few pro-thievery writers concede that the Bible is contrary to taking what is not yours, virtually all reject any Biblical censure of it.
Thus; by tossing out bits and peices here and there; one ends up with a swiss cheese replica that fails to control the impulses that drive humans.
And if a home or town refuses to welcome you or listen to you, leave that place and shake its dust off your feet.
I tell you the truth, on the Judgment Day it will be better for the towns of Sodom and Gomorrah than for the people of that town.
(I wonder what Jesus would say to those FReepers that reject His message and His servants today??)
Similar to one of the women in 1Kings 3:17-27, they would rather effectively destroy the authority of the Bible than allow it to be used to prove them wrong.
If you read the book of Revelation in the Bible, you'll see that it is.
Moral absolutes ping
I doubt God will let it go that far.
It would without his intervention, but then the collapse of society cannot be far behind.
“But what if you find 10 righteous???”
I suspect it was far more than simply being weak and indecisive. Please note what Peter tells us:
I was thinking about the difference in attitude of Abraham and Lot.
Abraham assisted the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah in retrieving their possessions (and helping Lot). But he wanted no reward from them. I suspect he treated them with dignity but that is where it ended. When he heard of God's plans he (essentially) prayed for them and pleaded with God to spare them. Abraham didn't understand the depths of their depravity the way God understood it.
Lot OTOH went to live with them. Lot looked around him and enjoyed the cushiness of his life and decided it was better than being out in the desert with Abraham. When told of what God was planning on doing, Lot pleaded with his future son-in-laws to leave. But by then Lot had lost credibility and they thought it was a joke. To think Lot was willing to give his daughters to such people to married should say something unlike Abraham who refuse to allow Isaac to marry those around and sent off for a wife for Isaac. The reason Lot's faith was weak was because he tormented his soul.
I'm not saying we should all become Puritans. But Christians today can make all sorts of excuses for the fleeting pleasures of this world. The contrasts of the lives of Abraham and Lot should be a warning to us. Abraham became the father of many nations. Lot became the father of the Ammonites and the Moabites.
Rapture = problem solved.
One should remember that LE officials must follow the law as directed by the system of courts. One should also remember the court systems make all final determinations of guilt and innocence. Strange times when LE officials are called jack booted thug while I do remember the hippies calling the police other names of similarity.
Excellent points.
Lot certainly is set in contrast to Abraham, and is an example of weak Christianity, and who has little salt and seemingly little weight of credibility (though even the apostles also mocked), but my point is that if Lot was so, then what about the present state in which you will find few constraining strangers or even brethren to lodge with them in a strange city at nigh (I have some experience), and risk his own for theirs, even if it indicated a lack of judgment. And have virgin daughters and other married ones in Sodom no less, despite his lack of judgment and apparent carnal reasoning in choosing it.
But as for Lot tormenting his righteous soul “he was” tormenting his soul as in being grieved by it (and we should be in American), by choosing to stay and care for strangers and keep sodomites out of his house.
But how many will move from America as iniquity abounds? Meanwhile, fornication abounds among “Christian” teens, and not just the world.
As for enjoying the cushiness of his life (what sitting in the gate presumes), how many believers are not seeking to be productive for the Lord today? How much money is wasted on entertainment and other things? How little goes toward the Lord’s work? Look at the stats http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.htm
Anyway, my point is certainty not to make excuses for the fleeting pleasures of this world, but that while Lot is presented as the worst kind of Christian, he looks good in some respects compare with the norm today.
No, it’s not inevitable, and rather than collaborating, we ought to continue to fight.
Vichy collaborated and capitulated to the Nazis. Why are we capitulating to the Gaystapo?
“you display a mentality like Hitler in his bunker in the waning days of WWII, in which he ordered his followers to believe that the war was not lost as bombs rained down from above.”
This is word for word what Petain told Churchill. Woe if he had taken his advice!
I contest the inevitability of homosexuality the way Malta contested the ‘inevitability’ of Nazi Germany. We must all stand and be counted.
Indeed we must stand be counted, and neither the blog or myself are advising abdicating or accommodation, but the US is not Malta, fighting as one against a determined foes, which the island of those who oppose homosexuality are, and shooting those who make plans on how to continue to resist without compromise is friendly fire.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.