Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Sexually Inclusive Christians" Celebrate Victories, Push for More
Institute on Religion and Democracy ^ | Mark Tooley

Posted on 08/30/2003 5:48:16 PM PDT by xzins

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 361-378 next last
To: pram
If you had done any reading on Santorum's statement and what he subsequently said (I can' believe you haven't) you would know that he - and others who agree with him - do not want police banging on doors to see what people are doing in the privacy of their houses.

I read everything Santorum was saying. He was contradicting himself all over the map.

The case he was commenting on was one where police entered the bedroom of consenting adults and arrested them for sodomy.
To say he supports those laws without the ability of police to enforce them is incoherant.

201 posted on 08/31/2003 6:10:36 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: pram
I can't understand why you insist that Santorum's statement - and the many Americans who agree with him - want to have police on a "seach and destroy" mission against behavior which is practiced in secrecy. This is a straw man argument.

It's not a straw man argument at all, but precisely what the case was about that Santorum was commenting on.

The police enter the bedroom of consenting adults and arrested them for sodomy.
Santorum's response supported the rights of states to keep things like adultery and sodomy illegal.

There is absolutely no point in his argument if these laws cannot be enforced.

The whole purpose of anti-sodomy laws is to keep such behavior out of the mainstream, out of the public view. That way fewer people will be seduced into it, and if such sodomy practitioners try their skills in, say, public bathrooms they can then be arrested. Why don't you see this? Why are you so attracted to the idea of sodomy and/or same sex acts being protected?

Go back and read my posts again. I addressed Santorum's position that adultery and sodomy etc should be illegal.

Do you believe the police should be able to bust down the bedroom doors of consenting adults and arrest them for adultery?
How about if we start stoning homosexuals and shooting women in the head on the sidewalks for unfaithfulness, like the Taliban?
That's the kind of country you want to live in?

And please don't give me these alternate purposes for making these behaviors illegal, that have nothing to do with actually enforcing the law. That is not what laws are for.

202 posted on 08/31/2003 6:26:44 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
Quite a bit more than many who call themselves Calvinists and ignore Scriptural doctrine which Calvin didn't master.

From 196: Many legalistic Calvinists get the cart before the horse, believing that if man believes in Christ through faith in Him, that this usurps God's Soverignty.

You demonstrated with crystal clarity in this statement that you haven't the foggiest idea what Calvinists actually believe. I believe Warmoose sufficiently addressed the point.

203 posted on 08/31/2003 6:27:23 PM PDT by Frumanchu (mene mene tekel upharsin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: gogeo
Not true, Jorge...his comments were aimed at the anticipated Supreme Court ruling. It was speculated that, much as Roe V Wade was decided upon a "constitutional right to privacy," anti-sodomy laws could be overturned on the same basis. He correctly said that if anti-sodomy laws could be overturned on the basis of a "privacy right," then no law limiting sexual activity could pass constitutional muster. That includes pedophilia, polygamy, incest, and animal sex.

This is not the same as supporting anti-sodomy laws. Justice Thomas said that while he did not support anti-sodomy laws and considered them to be "stupid," he could find no basis for declaring them unconstitutional.

Please. Everybody's read these arguments 100 times.

And I'm not saying there is no merit to them. I am merely addressing the obvious and practicle implications of his arguments.

There is no need to hide them behind all these entangled and convoluted complications.

204 posted on 08/31/2003 6:57:45 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: gogeo
Not true, Jorge...his comments were aimed at the anticipated Supreme Court ruling. It was speculated that, much as Roe V Wade was decided upon a "constitutional right to privacy," anti-sodomy laws could be overturned on the same basis. He correctly said that if anti-sodomy laws could be overturned on the basis of a "privacy right," then no law limiting sexual activity could pass constitutional muster. That includes pedophilia, polygamy, incest, and animal sex.

This is not the same as supporting anti-sodomy laws. Justice Thomas said that while he did not support anti-sodomy laws and considered them to be "stupid," he could find no basis for declaring them unconstitutional.

Please. Everybody's read these arguments 100 times.

And I'm not saying there is no merit to them. I am merely addressing the obvious and practicle implications of his arguments.

There is no need to hide them behind all these entangled and convoluted complications.

205 posted on 08/31/2003 6:58:03 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: gogeo
Not true, Jorge...his comments were aimed at the anticipated Supreme Court ruling. It was speculated that, much as Roe V Wade was decided upon a "constitutional right to privacy," anti-sodomy laws could be overturned on the same basis. He correctly said that if anti-sodomy laws could be overturned on the basis of a "privacy right," then no law limiting sexual activity could pass constitutional muster. That includes pedophilia, polygamy, incest, and animal sex.

This is not the same as supporting anti-sodomy laws. Justice Thomas said that while he did not support anti-sodomy laws and considered them to be "stupid," he could find no basis for declaring them unconstitutional.

Please. Everybody's read these arguments 100 times.

And I'm not saying there is no merit to them. I am merely addressing the obvious and practicle implications of his arguments.

There is no need to hide them behind all these entangled and convoluted complications.

206 posted on 08/31/2003 6:58:36 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Dr Warmoose
"..man's will is bound to sin and death. .."

Perhaps you may want to study about the Son of God and the work He performed. Because of His work, when we have have faith in Him, we may have a relationship with God, not by our work, but by the Holy Spirit. Man's will, when now returned to righteousness is provided numerous assets as a member of His royal family.

To deny man who is faithful in Christ that royalty, is arrogant in the face of God's gift.

207 posted on 08/31/2003 7:27:19 PM PDT by Cvengr (0:^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Dr Warmoose
"How many that God chooses do not come to salvation?

Jesus Christ chose Judas. Do you claim the Son isn't one with the Father?

208 posted on 08/31/2003 7:29:51 PM PDT by Cvengr (0:^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Dr Warmoose
All the things you mention of a man not yet saved or fallen again in sin, even though once a believer, is indeed true, except that man still has the ability to choose. That Common grace enables him to choose to accept and believe in Christ and have faith in Him.

The man who has faith in Christ is blessed and has the ability by Divine decree to choose without undue influence.

This also sets an example for the angelic domain to observe the justice in His immutable decisions upon the fallen angelic state in the past.
209 posted on 08/31/2003 7:36:33 PM PDT by Cvengr (0:^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Dr Warmoose
"..then if anyone goes to Hell on account of sin then God is demanding double payment for sin..."

Now you are beginning to reason well. No man will ever go to Hell or eternal damnation because of sin (Disobedience to His Will)(other than the rejection of God Himself in the Holy Spirit).

The penalty of sin is death, or in the Hebrew a state of separation.

If we sin, spiritually we are separated from the Holy Spirit or not in fellowship with Him. If we have never believed, then we are already dead or separated spiritually from Him because of Adam's death from the fall in the Garden.

When Christ died on the Cross, being a perfect man, body, soul and spirit, He had a perfect Spirit which could be sacrificed to make atonement for the original sin.

There are other issues regarding the body and soul, but in regards to the God breathed spirit, only upon Christ's sacrifice was it possible for a living righteous spirit to re-enter man. Given by God, the Holy Spirit, when we have faith in Him, we have not done anything which would require God to be inconsistent if He chose to enter us.

Now by remaining Soveriegn and immutable, just and righteous, the spiritual sin has been atoned and He may again breath that new life into us.

That new life is not unrighteous. Man, now who has faith in Jesus Christ, God the Son and His saving work, has now performed something nonmeritoriously, not a work deserving a wage, but a simple belief, a faith in Christ, which the Holy Spirit may now use to perform an effective salvation within us.

Good which we perform while in fellowship with Him, now may count towards divine righteousness. Without that fellowship, our good works are nothing but filthy rags.

The universal position that all of man's works are unrighteous fails to give credit to the work of Christ and the efficacious grace of the Holy Spirit.

210 posted on 08/31/2003 7:56:45 PM PDT by Cvengr (0:^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: xzins
bump
211 posted on 08/31/2003 7:58:31 PM PDT by foreverfree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr Warmoose
Thank you very much. I appreciate your explanation. Would you mind expanding just a tad on this sentence:

Jesus Christ is nothing more than a Plush Toy Genie Jesus to the saved, and through the teachings of Dispensational Premillennialism (Pessimillennialism coined by others) Jesus Christ ironically "loves" the reprobate through remarkably profound violence and destruction.

Would that be "Rapture" stuff?

212 posted on 08/31/2003 8:16:23 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]

To: xzins
LOL! They scare me a lot.
213 posted on 08/31/2003 8:27:33 PM PDT by CARepubGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
The case he was commenting on was one where police entered the bedroom of consenting adults and arrested them for sodomy.

The Lawrence case was a set-up. Three homosexuals lived in the apartment. One made a false 911 call that the other two were assaulting each other, I can't remember if he also lied that there was a gun. Then the other two committed sodomy with the door unlocked and open so the police would come in and see, arrest them, and they could take the case to court. In fact, the threesome had even tried the same set-up several times before - false 911 call, sodomy so the police would see, etc, but the cops never came at the right moment before.

To say he supports those laws without the ability of police to enforce them is incoherant.

Of course police would enforce them, but police can't even go into peoples' houses for drug use or any offenses with warrants and all kinds of legal red tape. What makes you think that police would conduct house-to-house searches for in-the-act sodomy??? All the law would do (if it meant anything) would be to keep sodomy private.

214 posted on 08/31/2003 8:29:09 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: xzins
“The Holy Ghost can break loose in an atmosphere of injustice and give us more justice in three weeks than many years!” Flunder enthused.

Funny, I can just picture some homosexual philosophers arguing such a point in Sodom and Gommorah just before the fire and hailstorm.

215 posted on 08/31/2003 8:33:18 PM PDT by Cvengr (0:^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jorge
Do you believe the police should be able to bust down the bedroom doors of consenting adults and arrest them for adultery?

No. But I also don't believe that the direction our culture is going - the moral relativism slippery slide, with ANY KIND OF SEXUAL DEVIANCY AND IMMORALITY glorified, normalized, accepted, and shoved down everyone's throats including schoolchildren is going to lead to anything except 1. first anarchy, and 2. then tyranny.

How about if we start stoning homosexuals and shooting women in the head on the sidewalks for unfaithfulness, like the Taliban?

I think you need to investigate your own mind and heart, because your comments are seriously irrational.

That's the kind of country you want to live in?

All I can say is straw man.

216 posted on 08/31/2003 8:35:42 PM PDT by First Amendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 202 | View Replies]

To: Dr Warmoose
I don't really have time to engage you on this right now. I'm leaving for Army Basic, Fort Knox, KY. Hooah! I'm pretty sure they don't allow much in the way of internet access. Suffice to say, I believe you missed the spirit of my post. What I meant was, the caricature that I painted of Calvinism as being antinomian was a fallacious argument. Of course, I don't believe that myself. I think that a Calvinist can be just as righteous as an Arminian. Trust me, we agree on more than you might possibly think. I'm not the stereotypical Arminian. God Bless.
217 posted on 08/31/2003 8:41:05 PM PDT by streetpreacher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Only the "beginning" of the end. We ain't seen nothing yet.
218 posted on 08/31/2003 8:45:24 PM PDT by F.J. Mitchell (Our enemies within are very slick, but slime is always treacherously slick, isn't it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dr Warmoose
NO>

Would you deny that giving food to a starving person is doing good ?

Do you think Jesus was telling us that no one can do good when he told of the Good Samaritan ?

Do you mean to tell us that God made man without the capacity to do good, and then was displeased with His creation when man did not do that which man could not ?

Do you really believe God created man unable to do good so that He would have a reason to sacrifice His Son on the cross ?

I say again, God created man(and woman) with free choice ;and that means each may choose good or evil, may choose to obey or disobey,and will be judged on his own choices.

Would you also care to discuss the problems caused by the Western tradition of stating the commandment "thou shall not kill" when killing in self-and national defense is ordered by God elsewhere ? I think much anguish might have been avoided were the commandment stated as "thou shall not murder", which is consistent with the rest of the Bible.

219 posted on 08/31/2003 10:02:38 PM PDT by hoosierham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: pram
Jorge"How about if we start stoning homosexuals and shooting women in the head on the sidewalks for unfaithfulness, like the Taliban?"

pram; I think you need to investigate your own mind and heart, because your comments are seriously irrational.

You need to investigate reality, because the fact is these things DO occur under some authoritarian religious theocracies.

Jorge "That's the kind of country you want to live in?"

pram; All I can say is straw man.

All I can say is you obviously can't answer questions directly.

The fact is the great majority of people in this country agree with me, and don't want to live in the kind of world I described above.
We don't want religious zealots letting lose the sex police on the rest of Americans.

220 posted on 08/31/2003 10:28:00 PM PDT by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 361-378 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson