Posted on 12/27/2013 7:54:53 PM PST by ReformationFan
As the Left foams at the mouth over Phil Robertson, the Christian man who described Almighty God's take on homosexuality and other gross sins, their fear is becoming more and more apparent. They seem gradually to be realizing that they are a pernicious minority that only thrives because they are bolstered by Obama's morally corrupt federal government; intellectually lightweight media, devoid of principles; and interestingly, a general decency of American people influenced by the nation's Judeo-Christian roots. The masses, however, are becoming increasingly fed up with the Left's imposition of a twisted worldview that does not comport with anything resembling America as it was founded, and they are voicing that sentiment by the thousands. So far, the pushback is with protests and petitions against amoral multi-million-dollar corporations, such as Cracker Barrel and A&E. Such benign acts of self-preservation will not continue indefinitely.
If it were not so pathetic, it would be laughable that some leftists actually think that they can dictate to those of us who oppose their worldview how we should say things that offend them. I refer here to the Fox News commentator Greta Van Susteren's question to former governor Sarah Palin on a recent "On the Record" show. She asked Palin if it would not have been better if Mr. Robertson had said what he said differently. That attitude, which is shared by others of Ms. Van Susteren's leftist cohorts on Fox and throughout the culture, is insufferably hubristic. We, who oppose their worldview, must now speak our opposition only in ways that they approve.
It is also interesting that those who oppose biblical Christianity (and a few who claim that they do not oppose it) have trotted out their list of affirmed homosexuals who proclaim Phil Robertson's right to "his opinion." To any but the scripturally ignorant, Robertson's statements are not "his opinion." He did not inspire the writing of the scriptures that condemn homosexuality; God did. In paraphrasing Scripture, Robertson did not compare homosexuality to bestiality; God did. Robertson's "opinion" is only that he chooses to accept God's directives. What homosexuals and the rest of the Left fail to comprehend is that their ultimate fight is with God, not believing Christians. We just happen to be visible objects to which wrath can be directed.
In a recent airing of the "Sean Hannity" show on Fox Cable News, Hannity hosted two Catholic priests and a female Fox religion commentator to discuss the Robertson issue. This show inadvertently shed light on the division in the Christian church between those who will follow God's directives and those who choose not to.
Of the two priests, one (also a Fox commentator) was clearly of a leftist bent. He tried to make the case that homosexuality is not sin if it is not acted upon. That twisted logic is employed by many proclaimed Christians grappling with how to accept homosexuality for personal reasons in light of God's condemnation of it. The second priest (obviously biblically directed) immediately followed with the biblical truth that the inclination to homosexuality itself is condemned by God. He compared the inclination to that of Hannity's lusting after a female, if he chose to do so. Pope Benedict XVI, who preceded the current Pontiff, described homosexuality as a "disordered orientation," allowing for the fact that the behavior can be "ordered" if the homosexual chooses to seek help, obviously from God and, if necessary, from medical professionals.
A moment of deafening silence ensued between the two priests, with a disapproving look from the leftist. He seemed perturbed at having been countered by the other priest. There was no nodding of the head in agreement. It turns out that the priest with the leftist view of Scripture has a homosexual sister in a "union" with another woman.
Frank Camp, a commentator posting at the Last Resistance blog site (12/23/2013), states that the latest strike by the Left against Christians (in the person of Phil Robertson) is a defining moment in time. He predicts, and I agree, that this moment is only one of many coming in the near future as the agenda of the Left becomes more and more hostile toward "average American values." He describes the current circumstances as what happens when Americans get angry and do something about it. As does Mr. Camp, I think there is a power embodied in righteously indignant anger that can take down any foe. That foe, in our time, comprises the Left (in all its manifestations, particularly its defiance against Almighty God); elitists, those in power and those claiming power that they do not deserve (such as Democrats, establishment Republicans, and the media – including the Fox News cadre of liberals and faux-conservatives); and other anti-God, anti-American forces that have long sought America's destruction from within. I truly hope that Phil Robertson has started a different movement, one that is not political but expressive of patriotic America saying "Enough."
Before this nation's founding, a group of pilgrims were able to escape the repression of the Church of England by seeking safe haven in a new territory. There are no more new worlds. There is nowhere else to run, and there will be no coming together in peaceful coexistence. The reason is that Christians are being required to do what we will not and cannot do – defy God for the sake of a corrupt, rotting culture. And not all Christians will passively bow to force.
This space called America cannot be concurrently occupied by the existing opposing worldviews. How this tragedy that is the destruction of America will play out remains to be seen, but I predict that it will not end peacefully.
You are equating the indiscriminate lust of a single person to that of a married person lusting after someone else, which is adulterous.
doesn't being a heterosexual mean that you automatically lust after women (and therefore sin)?
Not when one cleaves to one's wife. The Torah teaches one to seek a wife and remain loyal to her, only. It also teaches not to engage in homosexuality. Christ's point in that teaching of which I quoted only part was that to remain focused in one's mind on anything forbidden by Torah was equivalent to committing the sin, anger to murder, lust with adultery. The point is obvious, so you had to take it out of context to attack it, which is specious.
Is an alcoholic who never touches alcohol a sinner simply because he is an alcoholic?
By Christ's teaching, while the alcoholic remains craving in his mind he is in sin. It may not be as bad as committing the act, but it is damaging nevertheless, which is indisputable. To focus upon evil even when not committing it is not doing something positive for the glory of the Lord, which is 'falling short,' or 'missing the mark.' Those latter two metaphors are from the fact that "sin" is a Semitic archery term describing an arrow that misses its target. The thought is therefore sinful.
Yet when the sinner turns back to Him (the teshuva of Noach), G_d forgives, His atonement covers the sinner, and He cleanses the sin. That's the pattern taught in Genesis 6-9.
>>>The word “right” has been confused by this generation with the word “want”. <<<
“Right” used to mean something the government could not take from you. (Starting at least as far back as FDR) libs now take it to mean something the government must give you.
The conflation is easily recognized in the equation that is the "Four Freedoms."
Very simple question:
What do these biblical quotes have in common:
Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (NIV).
“Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”
“If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (NIV)
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” (NIV
The answer is that they all require an action to rise to the level of sin. Why, for example, did God not just leave it very simply at ‘nor homosexuals or thieves’? Why add the word offender? Why say men must ‘lie’ with other men or ‘commit’ indecent acts?
Rather than insult me, please educate me with a specific answer.
God chose the word ‘offender’ because...
God said ‘lie with’ because...
God said ‘commit acts’ because...
God DID NOT simply leave it at being a homosexual because...
It's so open-ended!
Anything could happen.
Fr Jonathon Morris would be the usual suspect priest with a faint lisp and the lesbian sister.
Fr Gerald Murray is the other.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-C5ZmKPlGE
I saw it, but yes the *article* seems to do disservice to catholic teaching.
With the exception of one semester our eldest spent in kindergarten, we've home schooled ours since day one. When I watch the kids of friends and family, I know we made the right choice.
The crimes you list are statutes, not determinants of sin, which is a broader distinction. They do not address covetousness, the original thought-crime on G_d's top ten list.
Strike three.
This Has all been predicted,Christ said he was persecuted,we. Christians are and will be persecuted as well.
There will be wars and rumors of wars,let not your heart be troubled,for all these things must come to pass,fear not,for I am with you always,even until the end of time
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.