Kirsten Powers gets it dangerously wrong on the Bible and homosexuality

t is wonderful to read the account of Kirsten Powers' conversion from atheism to Christianity. But that doesn't make her into a Bible scholar or theologian, and Powers has made some grave errors in her recent article on "Christianity's new look on gays."

She begins by asking the question, "Could there be a future where most American Christians support same-sex relationships?"

The obvious answer is: "Only if these Christians renounce the Word of God and the God of the Word."

But that is not how she answers her question. Instead, she writes: "If so, it will be due to the emergence of conservative Christians who say orthodox believers can support life-long, monogamous gay relationships without undermining their commitment to biblical authority."

This is a truly unfortunate statement, as riddled with self-contradictions as it with theological fallacies.

In short, the only way a professing Christian "can support life-long, monogamous gay relationships" is by ceasing to be a conservative Christian, ceasing to be an orthodox believer, and completely undermining their commitment to biblical authority.

Thanks for the clarification. I see what you're saying now, and can respond.

"I surmise that what the poster was saying was that if you "really couldn't care less” “what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes" then it means you could (sic) care less about some terrorist attacks being planned behind closed doors."

There's no telling what anyone could be plotting behind closed doors. So in order to prevent some unseen terrorist plot from being hatched, what do you recommend? Does that mean we should throw out the 4th Amendment, kick in everyone's doors who may be doing something suspicious? Should there be no privacy for anyone? That's the logical end to what you seem to be suggesting. That "I'll agree to anything as long as it stops terrorism" mentality is what got us the so-called "Patriot Act", and the NDAA.

Your statistics in the next three paragraphs are good...staggering, in fact. But think of how many people are killed while driving their private automobiles. Because so many more people are killed each year in auto accidents, should we do away with private cars, and force everyone to ride in public transportation?

How about doctors mistakes? They kill nearly 200K people each year, in the (government mandated) privacy of the doctor's office. Should we do away with the privacy a consenting adult is entitled to when getting medical care, just because the doctor might possibly somehow make a mistake that might somehow possibly maybe harm the patient?

You don't like it, I don't like it, and the majority of Americans don't like it, but homosexuality is legal. Homos are protected by the same 4th Amendment expectations of privacy as the rest of us. If they harm someone in the commission of their vile, disgusting acts, then they should be punished. But until and unless they do, it's none of our business what they do in private.

It's no different than someone eating or putting on makeup in their car. It's legal, but may not be the best idea in the world. However, if someone is hurt because the distracted driver hits them, then it becomes a criminal matter.

Should we ban food, radios, makeup, pets, little kids, cellphones, computers, maps, books, and everything else that could be a distraction in cars, just because they sometimes lead people to distraction? No. Should we forbid doctors from drinking alcohol, staying up past 10:00 on a work night, or doing anything else that might cloud their judgment, because they might make a mistake that could hurt someone? No. Should be ban consenting adults from doing whatever disgusting and immoral acts they choose, just because we don't like it and someone might get hurt? No. It's the downside of the 4th Amendment...you can't infringe on people's privacy just because you don't like what they're doing, or you think they might be up to no good.

OTOH, people like Jesse Dirkhising's parents, who put the boy into that situation, and the two homos who raped him to death, should have been executed, as painfully as possible, pure and simple. Then again, Jesse Dirkhising was just a boy, unable to give his consent, and unable to protect himself...that was his parents' responsibility.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

Actually, Kirsten Powers, while still quite attractive and youthful looking, is actually about 44 or 45 years old.

=================================

Actually, MOST Hollywood types are the poster children for cosmetic surgery, male and female. Hollyweird requires "perfect" and there AIN'T too many perfect "naturals" on this planet.

Tom Cruise was one. But even he is starting to show his age: crow's feet, bit of a sag around the chin and such.

Doesn't matter how "perfect" they are at 20, 30 or 45, the wrinkles do come for those of us who let nature take its course. Hollyweird types HAVE to have the "perfect" look or they will not ever become "Hollyweird types."

No, I was not suggesting that, but simply that what goes on in secret is not necessarily harmless. Once we understand it is a problem, then like known and real child abuse, then how to deal with it can be discussed. See below.

But think of how many people are killed while driving their private automobiles. Because so many more people are killed each year in auto accidents, should we do away with private cars, and force everyone to ride in public transportation?

No, as transportation is essential and serves much good, and the ratio of that versus harm is small. Sodomy is not, and civil rights pertain amoral aspects as race and nationality, not behavior. Though if a culture of a group or country is Muslims is shown to be characteristically contrary to the ethos of America, those persons may be refused admittance to this country. libs want to do away with even the perfunctory citizens oath.

How about doctors mistakes?

Ditto. And if patients had anything even close to 79% HIV rate i do not think you would even need laws, but behavior driven by lust and perverse desire is a different story. So far the analogies are not valid.

A better one would be sports, as the ratio of injury to participation is quite high, and as in gladiator fights, there is a point wherein it can becomes immoral. But thus the league rules and officials are in place to enable participation with a tolerable amount of injuries, but which are rarely fatal.

But you cannot place bedroom monitors among sodomites, and after 30 years they have manifested they are unable to regulate themselves overall. Even their "marriages" are typically redefined to allow promiscuity. Thus what can be done is to treat it like possessing and sharing child porn, arrestable and penalized if caught.

But even dealing with sodomy on the basis of the overall manifest evil that results from their typical practice is superficial. Behind the laws of every nation is a foundational system of values, which usually were codified in religion, and which is implicitly the case with America with its Constitution which testifies to a deeper foundational morality and wisdom.

And beyond what is manifest as the effects of a behavior is the wisdom of God, and is to be relied upon versus the ever morphing morality of social engineering.

It seems you are a libertarian, and i myself do not like to rely on the gov., yet only as souls are controlled from within by God and conscience do they need not be controlled from without by that entity to whom the just use of the sword of men is sanctioned.

However (going off on a tangent), as the people indirectly vote in those who interpret the Constitution and make laws, then as they become less Christian in mind, heart and will, and are seduced by the devil to seeks glory by perverting what God made, then the gov. itself with increasingly punish those who are on the Lord's side to varying degrees.

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.