Posted on 06/17/2011 10:58:08 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Stated well and with love. Good for him.
You know one thing that gets me? If you say that recognition of homosexuality today will lead to something like bestiality tomorrow they will accuse you of the “slippery slope fallacy.” Yet what are they doing when they say that opposition to homosexuality is like jim crow? Aren’t they doing the “slippery slope” in reverse?
In the 70’s, who would have thought there was any hope for the SBC.
Well Done!
RE: Aren’t they doing the “slippery slope” in reverse?
There are two assumptions they make in their arguments:
1) Homosexuality is like skin color. Therefore if it is morally wrong to discriminate against people of different color, it is also morally wrong to discriminate against Homosexuality.
2) Because skin color is immutable, gayness is immutable also.
Both of the above premises are wrong IMHO.
RE: Good job, Brother Wright.
This is the right Wright Obama should have followed instead of the wrong Wright.
God bless you Mr. Wright, you truly are a courageous man. Thank you for standing up for the Gospel!!!
What G-d says is right is right; what G-d says is wrong is wrong.
Amen! to the remarks by Mr. Wright. Thanks for posting.
Mr. Wright stood properly, and charitably, and deserves to be commended for this.
Quite accurate. A good many conservative religious leaders spoke out against equality for black people in the 60s and before. They were wrong. There is nothing in the Bible that supports such doctrine, unlike (for instance) the practice of slavery, which is supported in the Bible, primarily though not exclusively in the OT. They were speaking out of their own beliefs and culture, putting it above the word of God.
Today, the other side is doing exactly the same thing. What they want, or believe, or feel is to be placed in importance above the word of God.
The SBC, which originally became a separate organization when it split off over the issue of slavery, is exactly right in this case.
1) Homosexuality is like skin color. Therefore if it is morally wrong to discriminate against people of different color, it is also morally wrong to discriminate against Homosexuality.
2) Because skin color is immutable, gayness is immutable also.
Both of the above premises are wrong IMHO.
Even if (and it's a big "if") they could some how prove #1, they are still people I cannot take seriously because they bring in the bisexuals and "transgenders". It's one thing to insist one is "born gay"; another to say one is born with a compulsion to have sex with both genders. And trannies are just crazy freaks who should be considered insane.
This is a dispute within Christian (Baptist) congregations and as such, the SBC has a sound basis to make a judgment based on scripture, which it has. I think the slant he used, that people engaging in non-marital sex with anyone, regardless of their gender, was a bit inventive but still faithful to scripture. Homosexual behavior simply cannot be condoned by Christians who claim to live by the teachings of the Bible. Homosexual advocates that wish to believe that 'gays' are 'born that way' are mistaken. Until they can submit scientific proof that a preference for a sex partner of the same gender is a biological fact and not simply a 'feeling' (proclivity) their argument is invalid, on both a scriptural and scientific basis.
Won’t do him any good. It’s not how you say it; it’s what you say. And to a certain portion of the populace his words were mean and hateful, bigoted and exclusive, right-winged and pea-brained.
In my experience, the slope slips only to the Left
Bears repeating!!
RE: It’s one thing to insist one is “born gay”; another to say one is born with a compulsion to have sex with both genders. And trannies are just crazy freaks who should be considered insane.
_______________________________________________________________________
And if we go down this road, why can’t we include paedophilia in the mix? Why then should NAMBLA be condemned for encouraging people to be their “natural” selves?
T’anks Jim— We are in agreement. IMO these reprobates are merely doing their fathers work and trying to hasten the great falling away the Scriptures say must come first. I find No credible Science — No credible interpretation of Scripture to support any claim a response is even called for. I have read the parting gift Judge V.Walker gave the “cause out in Cal. and have written Judge James Ware asking he revisit his opinion. The capability for a homosexual to make an impartial judgement is NOT the the same as the act of doing so.And Colin Powell and Alveda King who share with Judge Ware the DNA birthright of skin color have both said
skin color cannot be compared to sexual orientation.
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.