The fuss and furor is starting up again. No matter how many times
homosexual marriage is voted down in California, the true believers,
those politicizing sexuality, refuse to take "No" for reality. Now it's
going before the Supreme Court, and it doesn't matter. If the SCOTUS
affirms that homosexual marriage is a protected 'right', then that is
what we will have as the law of the land. We are a nation of Laws, and
obey even those which we think are wrong.
But...
If the
SCOTUS says no, if the Court rules that it is not a protected
right...that will not stop the political agitators one bit. They will go
on, crusading for their beliefs as if SCOTUS has no right to decide
such matters.
"Stay OUT of our Bedrooms, SCOTUS!" will be the strident screed of the day.
It's
really quite simple. Those sexual agitators who wish to make homosexual
marriage legal are not going to be swayed by law, reason or argument.
They are as fully invested in their being 'Right' as Hitler was about
the Aryans being human perfection. He could not be swayed by law, reason
or argument, either.
Bottom line: God is in charge, and what He
says is proper and right will ultimately be all that matters. When
Christ returns to set up His Kingdom, He will rule the nations with a
rod of iron, and this world will be a much better place.
10 comments:
As noted on Finer Dry Wit, I'm publishing this post on both. I'll do that from time to
time to ti...I'd better stop.
No matter how many whiners and true believers scream and cry...what God calls Good is Good, what God calls Sin is Sin. Sin is bad.
For one to be 'pro-God' means that that person is 'anti-everything else'. Happy Resurrection day.
Question: Do you believe idolatry is a sin? If so, do you believe the practice of "idolatrous" religions should be a crime or at least not rewarded by the government via tax exemptions? (This could Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy or Hinduism or Buddhism, etc).
What about divorce? No church "grants" or blesses a divorce, do they? Yet, it's legal. Should the reasons for a civil legal divorce have religious criteria? Should a divorce only be granted by a group of church elders?
BTW, I'm not sure the "Hitler" reference is appropriate. Gays aren't advocating genocide. Do you know who is? A Christian pastor: Pastor Worley of North Carolina who suggested that gays be put behind an electrified fence.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05/27/11908278-standing-ovation-greets-pastor-
charles-worley-who-made-anti-gay-statements?lite
Obviously, many Christians don't agree with this, but it's erroneous to suggest that fascism is a construct of the liberals.
"He will rule the nations with a rod of iron"
John Calvin tried that. He had other Christians tortured, expelled and burned alive when they dared voice disagreement. Not atheists ... Christians, including Michael Servetus and a number of Anabaptists.
Is fear the only form of motivation you believe "works"?
Hello James-nice to see you back again.
"Question: Do you believe idolatry is a sin?"
Yes-to keep it simple, everything and the whole world which is not of faith is sin. Sin will be published by God.
"If so, do you believe the practice of "idolatrous" religions should be a crime or at least not rewarded by the government via tax exemptions? (This could Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy or Hinduism or Buddhism, etc)."
Not even a little bit, friend; here in the United States we have freedom to worship or not worship God as we choose. As long as a religion does not bump up against the laws of the United States, I say let them practice whatever they want with no governmental interference.
Blowing up infidels is a tenet of Islam. Prayer on Fridays is a tenet of Islam. I have no problem with Muslims praying, but blowing up 'infidels'? That is against our
laws.
As for tax exemptions for religious organizations-if that is the law of the land, then it is fine. If the law changes so that religious organizations are no longer tax exempt-fine also. Actually, in a way I would prefer it, as the false Christians who are scamming money might crawl back under the rocks that they came from with no tax exemption.
James, you do realize that God has Christians in most other countries, right? My brothers and sister in Christ who live in Muslim countries are often put to death for their faith. If you tried to explain 'tax exemption' to them, they would stare at you as if you were nuts.
As for the Hitler reference-if it fits, it ships. My point was that the homosexual activists are like Hitler in that they and Hitler would never admit that they are wrong; they would each go to their death rather than move one quarter of an inch away from their agenda.
Capitulating to the homosexual activists makes as little sense as giving Hitler Poland to keep his ambitions in check.
"He will rule the nations with a rod of iron"
James, Christ will rule. Forget Calvin-you and I and everyone else in Creation will bend the knee to Jesus Christ, and I believe that His return will soon happen.
"Is fear the only form of motivation you believe "works"?"
Look at the sentence just above about Christ returning-I don't fear that, I embrace and look forward to that.
Fear is a great motivator in this world-if I don't work, I fear that I will starve and be homeless. That is great motivation.
The greater motivation is Love. God loves me, and tells me that I am safe with Him.
He didn't scare me out of hell and into Heaven, He loved me out of hell and gives me Heaven.
"My point was that the homosexual activists are like Hitler in that they and Hitler would never admit that they are wrong"
Neither do religious fundamentalists. Try asking your old friend Rand if he's ever been wrong on anything he pontificates about. As far as he's concerned, if you don't do or believe exactly as he does, it's probably because you're going to Hell ... or you're deluded and need to be informed. Frankly, I'm not sure I recall even you admitting you had made a mistake in your judgment regarding any topic of consideration. I'm not saying you haven't ... I just don't recall seeing it.
"Capitulating to the homosexual activists makes as little sense as giving Hitler Poland to keep his ambitions in check."
Again: your analogy is strained at best. You have Christian pastors (and some rabbis and imams) calling (in America!) for the execution of gays. If you want to trot out the Hitler analogy, don't you think it should be applied towards those who are calling for pogroms and genocide?
Fifty years ago many Americans inveighed against interracial marriage in the same terms now being recycled against same-sex marriage: it was unnatural, it was immoral, it was against God's law. I don't take the Bible as any kind of authority, but I do subscribe to the Great Commandment: Love one another. And, no, you don't get to redefine that as telling anyone who's different from you that they're going to hell.
"And, no, you don't get to redefine that as telling anyone who's different from you that they're going to hell."
Hi Lu-aren't you trying to redefine what I'm allowed to say? just kidding-I know what you meant.
Know what I mean. I don't decide who goes to hell. I wish everyone would be in Heaven.
But such wishing doesn't do any good-God set up the plan, and He decides who will be saved.
If I were truly a hateful person, I would say to a homosexual, "God loves you just as you are! You'll be safe in Heaven when you die!"...knowing that God said just the opposite in His Word.
Lu, your 'fifty years ago' comment is...a little off. 60 or so years ago the Democrats were still fighting against interracial marriage, diners and bus seats.
They were the party of 'keep the races segregated'. So the Americans inveighing against interracial marriage were your group, not mine.
Since you bring up race, let me be clear: the only segregation that truly matters is Christian vs non-Christian. I have brothers and sisters in Christ from all possible races, and we have more in common (despite skin color) than I do with my unsaved family. I personally don't care who marries whom, except the Bible says: Do not be unequally yoked, as in Christian and non Christian. But I have friends who are in that situation, and God's Grace is there for their lives just as it is for mine.
Good to see you both still commenting. Look for a new post soon where I will dazzle you with my brilliance. Or not.
"60 or so years ago the Democrats were still fighting against interracial marriage, diners and bus seats."
Let's be honest about this one: the majority of both parties opposed interracial marriage, and both had biblical reasons for doing so. The Southern Baptist Convention, comprised primarily of Biblical fundamentalists, was founded primarily as a means of promoting and continuing the racist American slave trade. Bob Jones University, an ultra-conservative school, denied entry to blacks until 1971. They banned interracial dating until ... get this ... 2000.
What was the reason behind all of this? Perhaps because it made people "uncomfortable"? I don't really know. It does seem clear that no party or religious ideology can claim the high ground on this one.
JABA-just as bad as? Again? The Republican Party came into being to end slavery. Democrats have a Long history of defending slavery. James, you've mentioned both Bob Jones and the Southern Baptists before-they get no credit for changing, but will be forever considered intolerant and racist because of former positions which they changed away from? Is that fair?
That would be like me saying that the Democratic Party is still pro-slavery, even though they have changed from that position.
Be fair, James-if the Dems get credit for changing, so should the Republicans and the Christian organizations that you mentioned.
Bob Jones denied entry to blacks until 1971?
"When segregation was outlawed by court order and by the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1965, a die-hard element resisted integration, led by Democratic governors Orval Faubus of Arkansas, Lester Maddox of Georgia, and especially George Wallace of Alabama. These populist governors appealed to a less-educated, blue-collar electorate that on economic grounds favored the Democratic Party, but opposed desegregation." from the wiki on Democratic party-civil rights history.
So, just six years before Bob Jones (just one school) allowed black students, leaders in the Democratic party were still fighting to keep the races segregated.
Lets see some outrage about that.
Since (making the standard assumptions for the sake of argument, and also again ignoring red herrings) I don't pretend to know the mind of God, I can hardly offer any such proof. But I believe that your standards are, shall we say, flexible. Do you know any divorced Christians?
Post a Comment