Most Americans don't approve of homosexual marriage

[BigBadBrian]

The fairness doctrine
Cal Thomas


March 1, 2004


The argument most often heard in favor same-sex "marriage" is that it is the "fair" thing to do.

This is an interesting position, because having jettisoned one standard for marriage, those pushing for the inclusion of same-sex "marriage" now appeal to the public on the basis of another standard. But if there are to be no standards, or only "standards" that shift with the changing winds of culture (which then don't count as standards at all), on what basis are advocates of same-sex "marriage" appealing to the majority of us who, according to opinion polls, want to keep marriage for heterosexuals only?

Let's put it this way. If you tell me you do not believe in God and then say to me that I should brake for animals, or pay women equally, or help the poor, on what basis are you making such an appeal? If no standard for objective truth, law, wisdom, justice, charity, kindness, compassion and fidelity exists in the universe, then what you are asking me to accept is an idea that has taken hold in your head but that has all of the moral compulsion of a bowl of cereal. You are a sentimentalist, trying to persuade me to a point of view based on your feelings about the subject and not rooted in the fear of God or some other unchanging earthly standard.

The mayor of New Paltz, N.Y., Jason West, recently performed same-sex "marriages," saying it is the "moral" thing to do. Moral? According to whom? If only according to Mayor West, he is practicing moral relativism, not objective morality.

Thomas Jefferson did not speak of rights being endowed by the courts or vigilante mayors and judges who take the law into their own hands like a lynch mob in frontier America. He knew that for certain rights to have meaning, they must come from outside the reach of man. He also knew that in order to protect institutions essential to the preservation of the constitutional republic, it was necessary to create a system that would control human urges and appetites.

The idea of marriage did not originate in San Francisco or Massachusetts or even with the Founders. Like it or not, it came from the book of Genesis, where, after the fall of man, God said, "A man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24). Homosexuals may become "one flesh" in their own eyes but not in a biblical sense, no matter how many Scriptural heretics with degrees from seminaries that are mostly schools of unbelief are trotted out.

The problem is that too many people either no longer accept this historical view of marriage, or they don't wish to "impose" their view on others (for fear of being called a bigot), or they have a "live and let live" philosophy that has opened the door to virtually any and every experiment in social arrangement. If same-sex marriage is allowed, it is going to be nearly impossible to prohibit the sanctioning of any other kind of human "relationship" - from close relatives of different sexes who wish to marry (that has been outlawed because of biological and incest considerations) and polygamists to adult-child "marriage."

I recently asked Republican New York Gov. George Pataki if he favored same-sex marriage. He said he doesn't but thinks some accommodation could be made to homosexuals offering similar benefits. What about polygamy? He quickly rejected that, saying "it is against the law." The New Paltz mayor is violating the law, but New York's Attorney General won't stop him. If things that are illegal violate cultural trendiness, our new definition of "truth," they are simply permitted.

I don't know how you reverse such a trend. Political activism isn't working. Appeals to higher standards aren't successful, because same-sex "marriage" is evidence that the standards have already been abandoned. How does a nation that has tolerated about 40 million abortions suddenly acquire a moral sense about same-sex marriage?

Maybe those of us wishing to preserve marriage for heterosexuals, imperfect as we may be at it, ought to ask those pushing for its redefinition what they mean by their "fairness doctrine" and upon what it is based. At least we heterosexuals have a reference that is thousands of years old. What's theirs and how do we know it won't change tomorrow?

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Let's put it this way. If you tell me you do not believe in God and then say to me that I should brake for animals, or pay women equally, or help the poor, on what basis are you making such an appeal? If no standard for objective truth, law, wisdom, justice, charity, kindness, compassion and fidelity exists in the universe, then what you are asking me to accept is an idea that has taken hold in your head but that has all of the moral compulsion of a bowl of cereal. You are a sentimentalist, trying to persuade me to a point of view based on your feelings about the subject and not rooted in the fear of God or some other unchanging earthly standard.



Moronic.

The guy needs to read philosophy for idiots.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[ELVIS]

Philosophy has nothing to do with anything...

[FORD]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Moronic.

The guy needs to read philosophy for idiots.

Cheers!

:gulp:

Read it? He writes it!

[ELVIS]

"A man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24).


What part of that flies over a liberals head ??

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
"A man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24).


What part of that flies over a liberals head ??

Who was Adam's mother?

[ELVIS]

Nobody.. He had a crreator...

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Nobody.. He had a crreator...

Well, then, since he couldn't leave his parents, then he couldn't do what that verse commanded, therefore he and Eve can't get married. Guess he might as well go find Steve ;)

[Seshmeister]

I'm still trying to work out on what day God buried the dinosaur bones and more importantly why?:)

[FORD]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
I'm still trying to work out on what day God buried the dinosaur bones and more importantly why?:)

The dinosaurs died in the flood. There's no fucking way Noah could have fit a pair of brontasauruses on that boat!

[David Lee Rocks]

are we having a religous discussion?

[Seshmeister]

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/images/farside_ark.gif

I think the Noah story is the funniest of the lot to watch the bible literalists squirm through.

There are over 350 THOUSAND species of beetle alone.

Of course there is the water problem...



And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

Over the top of Mt. Everest then? The volume of water would have been astronomical. Millions of cubic miles. Where did it come from? Where did it go? The polar ice-caps are not big enough. The atmosphere does not contain millions of cubic miles of water.

Using a bit of armchair maths, we can roughly calculate how much water would have been needed to cover the planet to the top of Mt. Everest:

The radius of the Earth is approx. 6370km
The height of Everest above sea-level is approx. 8.8 km
Therefore, the volume of the Earth is approx. 1,082,696,932,000km³, or 1,080 billion cubic kilometers.
The volume of the earth to the height of Everest is 1,087,190,293,000km³
Subtracting the first volume from the second gives approx. 4,493,361,000, or four thousand, five hundred million cubic kilometers of water!
Also, this rain is supposed to have fallen within about 40 days. That means that there would have been about 220 metres of rainfall every day over the entire planet (8800/40 = 220)! A few centimetres in a day is considered to be extremely heavy rain.
( Note: volume of sphere = 4/3 pi r³, and I use the American billion of 1,000,000,000 here )

Many Ark-theorists claim that scale models of the Ark have been built according to the Biblical specifications, and found to be extremely sea-worthy in test-tanks. I hope that these tests also attempted to simulate the correct amount of rainfall by aiming several high-pressure fire-hoses directly at the model.

Assuming it was fresh water (as it rained) this would have severely diluted the oceans, causing devastation among the marine creatures. Ask anyone with a marine fish-tank just how sensitive reef-fish and corals are to changes in water conditions. Virtually all sea-life that could not stand brackish water would have been destroyed.

[David Lee Rocks]

I believe parts of the bible but some of it contradicts itself dosent it?

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by FORD
Well, then, since he couldn't leave his parents, then he couldn't do what that verse commanded, therefore he and Eve can't get married. Guess he might as well go find Steve ;)

Bearing children was Eve's curse for having sexual relations with the Serpent.(Satan)
They were mankinds first parents.
Eve also had a creator, God took the rib of Adam and created woman.
Now Adam's rib was not literally removed from him, this is a figure of speech meaning his DNA.

People, you will never find the Supernatural answer using Natural thinking.
God was Adam and Eve's Father and Mother, hence, The Creator...

They were husband and wife from the start.

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by David Lee Rocks
I believe parts of the bible but some of it contradicts itself dosent it?

No, it doesn't. the answeres are all there if you truly seek them with your heart and can put carnal thinking out of your mind.

Never lean to your own understanding.

[Cathedral]

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

The truth of the seduction in the garden, has been covered up, hidden by the cloak of the "fig" apron, and has been replaced with fairy tales about "apples" and "upright snakes". Satan has succeeded in deceiving those who read into taking the words which are written as literal "to the letter" instead of seeing the "truth" contained in that which is figurative and symbolic.
He tried that "trick" on Jesus Christ Himself, when he tempted Him in the wilderness by quoting (misquoting) the Word of God, implying the literal letter (read Mat. 4:1-11). Christ didn't "buy it" and neither should you.

[Seshmeister]

I still think fucking your siblings should be avoided as a general rule.

Enough of the ancient Jewish law anyway. I wearing two types of cloth today and ate shellfish at the weekend. Again.

I'm taking a big chance with the all knowing omnipotent god that fucked up so much he had to wipe out his first attempt at humanity.

Jesus never mentioned homosexuality so if it was good enough for him...

Cheers!

:gulp:

[FORD]

So, you're saying that Eve didn't eat an apple, but actually ate a banana?:blow:

And wouldn't that mean that Adam also ate the banana?

Which means that maybe Adam really did want "Steve" all along?

[Ally_Kat]

yeah, i was just going to ask, wasn't the whole childbearing brought on to us gals cuz Eve fucked up with the apple. We got children and you guys got the working the land part

[Seshmeister]

Eve was smart.

Would you rather sit about a cave all day scatching your ass and bitching about some girls fur with your pals anytime she went out OR spend all day tring to bring down a Mammoth with a small pointed stick?

[Rubnose]

Originally posted by David Lee Rocks
I believe parts of the bible but some of it contradicts itself dosent it?


I don't believe that rubbish either but I have to believe fact when I see it so...


http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/

Then again liberals don't believe fact either. Like FORD who thinks that Dean is still in the running and refuses to believe otherwise. so he keeps a loser as his signature and will defend doing so.

[Cathedral]

I give up, I wish you all well.
I am not a preacher, but if i share what i learn with you only to have it twisted into sick jokes it is clearly a waste of my time.

Just remember, there is a difference between reading the bible and studying it.
The answers are there if you want to find them....

I have come farther than ever in understanding the word of God and the only reason it took me 37 years to get the mindset is because the context of the scripture has been polluted by the man who is guided by Satan who has been very successful in distorting those things in which we need to seek salvation.

It is easier to discount it than it is to seek the truth and get what was promised to you over 2000 years ago.

God Bless!

[ELVIS]

Amen !!

You fools should listen to your brother Cat... He has found the truth!

The bible is the inspired word of God and the only word of God...

The promises of the Bible are real and I entend to see all of them fulfilled in my life. In fact, I'm living God's promises right now...
The fact that I'm sitting here sober, drug free and happy is a miracle in itself. No way could I have done it myself, nor would I have...

Jesus Christ reached down and picked me up and showed me the path of love and true happiness...


"The promises were made to be used--they were made to be used by God's children, by all who will believe them and appropriate them. They were not made to lay concealed in a gilt-edged Bible, but to be read, understood, and used. The fact is, the Bible is like a book of checks put into the hands of the needy, and we are to use them when we want anything: thus God has given promises to every class and description of persons; and these promises were given not to be hoarded up, but to be used--we are to draw liberally and freely upon the divine bounty for all the blessings that we need... If Christians will but understand and get the impression deeply imbedded in their own minds, that these promises are regarded by God as their inheritance, given them to be used by them under all the circumstances in which they find themselves placed, they would often much better understand the meaning of the apostle, when he says, 'whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises.'"

-from "The Promises of God" by Charles G. Finney



Only God could make the species.

It took the miraculous to produce the species.

"If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous."—*R.E.D. Clark, Victoria Institute 1943, p. 63.

The only acceptable explanation is Creation.



Wake up!
:elvis:

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Seshmeister


There are over 350 THOUSAND species of beetle alone.

[/B]

You may want to call a pest control service. I wouldn't stand for it in that new house of yours, especially after you moved it. ;) :p :D

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Seshmeister


Jesus never mentioned homosexuality so if it was good enough for him...



Are you coming out like FORD? What will the SM think?

[Cathedral]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Amen !!

You fools should listen to your brother Cat... He has found the truth!

The bible is the inspired word of God and the only word of God...

The promises of the Bible are real and I entend to see all of them fulfilled in my life. In fact, I'm living God's promises right now...
The fact that I'm sitting here sober, drug free and happy is a miracle in itself. No way could I have done it myself, nor would I have...

Jesus Christ reached down and picked me up and showed me the path of love and true happiness...


"The promises were made to be used--they were made to be used by God's children, by all who will believe them and appropriate them. They were not made to lay concealed in a gilt-edged Bible, but to be read, understood, and used. The fact is, the Bible is like a book of checks put into the hands of the needy, and we are to use them when we want anything: thus God has given promises to every class and description of persons; and these promises were given not to be hoarded up, but to be used--we are to draw liberally and freely upon the divine bounty for all the blessings that we need... If Christians will but understand and get the impression deeply imbedded in their own minds, that these promises are regarded by God as their inheritance, given them to be used by them under all the circumstances in which they find themselves placed, they would often much better understand the meaning of the apostle, when he says, 'whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises.'"

-from "The Promises of God" by Charles G. Finney



Only God could make the species.

It took the miraculous to produce the species.

"If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous."—*R.E.D. Clark, Victoria Institute 1943, p. 63.

The only acceptable explanation is Creation.



Wake up!
:elvis:

Amen, brother...............

[Dr. Love]

gah, Creation. The idea that *poof* there's a man.

Sorry, I just can't subscribe to that idea.

Anyway, back to the original point, I just had to read an interesting Federalist paper that talked about the tyranny of the majority, and why the Constitution had the power to protect other groups (minorities) from the majority because the majority didn't have the right to force their views on the minority.

I found it very relavent.

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by Dr. Love
gah, Creation. The idea that *poof* there's a man.

Sorry, I just can't subscribe to that idea.




So you evolved from what? An ape? And that ape evolved from.. umm... a fish... and ummm...

No dude...

The Bible talks about people like you...

"Some will not listen."

[Seshmeister]

Who needs 21st century fact and science when you have a book written by primative desert sheep herders.

[Seshmeister]

I can't believe you are using the evil of the internet when you could be carving out tablets of stone and sticking them outside DLR gigs...:)

[steve]

The majority of Americans didn't want interracial marriage in 1964 either. In fact, it was not until the 1970s that all U.S. states recognized interracial marriage.

Oh, and blah blah blah; the masses are always right (sarcasm) blah blah blah blah.

-s

[FORD]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Are you coming out like FORD? What will the SM think?

To paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld...

I've been "outed" and I wasn't even IN!! :rolleyes:

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by ELVIS


The promises of the Bible are real and I entend to see all of them fulfilled in my life. In fact, I'm living God's promises right now...
The fact that I'm sitting here sober, drug free and happy is a miracle in itself. No way could I have done it myself, nor would I have...

Jesus Christ reached down and picked me up and showed me the path of love and true happiness...


Thou art welcome, Gregory :)

Now please remember My teachings and try not to judge others. It is no secret that My words in the gospels and those of the saints and the prophets hath been translated many times and the different writings compiled by those who served their own agenda. Even in the days when I, the Messiah, walked the earth, the scribes and Pharisees had distorted the message of Moses and the prophets far from what Dad hath intended. And so it has been, even with My own words for the last 2000 years :(

[Dr. Love]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Who needs 21st century fact and science when you have a book written by primative desert sheep herders.

Exactly. I'm not saying that anything I believe is right, I'm saying that I can't take what people made up several thousand years ago without any proof as a correct hypothesis.

I'm not going to dissuade you from believing in Creationism, the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or whatever you want to believe in.

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by Dr. Love

I'm not going to dissuade you from believing in Creationism, the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or whatever you want to believe in.

Careful, Doctor... ye know, there ARE climates warmer than Texas ;)

As One who was present at the Creation, I can verify that indeed all things were made by Dad and Myself. The methods and details of which are not relevant to ye mortals. If you make it to Heaven, I will be happy to explain the entire process when you get here.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by ELVIS

Only God could make the species.

It took the miraculous to produce the species.

"If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous."—*R.E.D. Clark, Victoria Institute 1943, p. 63.

The only acceptable explanation is Creation.



depends on your definition of "creation," big E. what if i believe that God created the big bang for the reason of creating a universe in which humans would eventually evolve?

for me, it doesn't make much sense that God would give us intellects, but not want us to use them. we've clearly become more advanced, scientifically in many areas, like faster, smaller computers. more advanced lifesaving techniques. cleaner, more efficient cars.

what sense would it make then that our scientific understanding of the universe and evolution is getting progressivly worse?

nothing about evolution precludes God from being the ultimate, intentional architect/Creator. in fact, i personally think it STRENGTHENS the case. the universe is so perfectly set up. it could not have happened by accident, at random. there has to be a higher power at work.

[Seshmeister]

KB is correct.

I love how Elvis had to go back to 1943 for that quote...:)

[knuckleboner]

be thankful he didn't get one from one of the bishops or cardinals that excommunicated galileo;)

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
be thankful he didn't get one from one of the bishops or cardinals that excommunicated galileo;)

Ye hath no idea how close I was to sending down a plague of locusts when that happenned :mad:

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Dr. Love
Exactly. I'm not saying that anything I believe is right, I'm saying that I can't take what people made up several thousand years ago without any proof as a correct hypothesis.



So Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates were all full of shit then, right? :gulp:

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Dr. Love
gah, Creation. The idea that *poof* there's a man.

Sorry, I just can't subscribe to that idea.



What monkey did you evolve from then? :confused:

[Angel]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Who needs 21st century fact and science when you have a book written by primative desert sheep herders.


Thanks Sesh, I'll remember that one! :cheers:

[Dr. Love]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
So Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates were all full of shit then, right? :gulp:

I dunno, what do you think?

[Dr. Love]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
What monkey did you evolve from then? :confused:

Apparently one more advanced than the one you evolved from. ;)

[FORD]

Originally posted by Dr. Love
Apparently one more advanced than the one you evolved from. ;)

Well, if Planet of the Apes is any indication, Brian definitely descended from gorillas. Remember, they were the right wing warmonger types.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Dr. Love
Apparently one more advanced than the one you evolved from. ;)

You may have come from apes, but I came from Adam. :gulp:


FORD evolved from those big, fat baboons. :D

[John Ashcroft]

I think it's the same strain that Michael Moore came from...

[Dr. Love]

As my Dad used to disturbingly tell me, "Before you were Mommy's little baby, you were Daddy's little squirt."

[Switch84]

Originally posted by Cathedral
I give up, I wish you all well.
I am not a preacher, but if i share what i learn with you only to have it twisted into sick jokes it is clearly a waste of my time.

Just remember, there is a difference between reading the bible and studying it.
The answers are there if you want to find them....

I have come farther than ever in understanding the word of God and the only reason it took me 37 years to get the mindset is because the context of the scripture has been polluted by the man who is guided by Satan who has been very successful in distorting those things in which we need to seek salvation.

It is easier to discount it than it is to seek the truth and get what was promised to you over 2000 years ago.

God Bless!

:rolleyes: Hey, dude, you tried. For some reason, Christianity is now the faith to mock and attempt to discredit (this, too was foretold in the Bible.) Yet and still, after 9/11 we (as a country) were asked not to view Islam as a terrorist religion or persecute its believers. All of this insipid yapping about religious tolerance means nothing if followers of Jesus Christ are excluded.

[John Ashcroft]

You guys just need to take one of the various "Understanding Islam" courses offered at various public schools and colleges... It'll set you straight for sure.

[ELVIS]

Why would I want to understand Islam ??

[John Ashcroft]

Read Switch's post. Christianity is taboo in all public (and some private) places. Yet publicly funded entities like schools and colleges produced an influx of "understanding Islam" type courses immediately following 9/11. I wonder why the ACLU hasn't taken up the anti-Islam banner with as much enthusiasm as the anti-Christian banner? In fact, I don't believe they've taken it up at all. Could be wrong here, but don't think so.

[knuckleboner]

there's definitely Christianity courses in most colleges in the country.


Christianity's not really under attack. just certain instances.

some people see alabama supreme court chief justice moore's inability to get a monument to the 10 commandments in the courthouse as evidence that Chrisitianity is under fire.

as if some justice trying to get the koran into the courthouse wouldn't have drawn similar ire.

it wasn't that Christianity was under fire there. it was that it's not proper to put a monument to one particular religion in a U.S. courthouse, who's judicial system, as set up by the Constitutuion, is explicitly prohibited from promoting one religion.

what are other examples of Christianity under fire? no prayer in public schools? that's not an anti-Christian platform. it's just that the Christians are the only ones trying to organize structured prayers in the schools. if the muslim association wanted to lead the school in a 5-part prayer to mecca, they'd get the same treatment. but they don't. they just want to have the students pray individually. but some people think that means "yeah" to islam and "nay" to Christianity. i gurantee that any student is allowed to individually cross themselves before a test.



i definitely might've missed something. but i challenge someone to point out an instance when Christianity has been singled out and limited and other religions have been allowed to run free.

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by knuckleboner
...I definitely might've missed something. but i challenge someone to point out an instance when Christianity has been singled out and limited and other religions have been allowed to run free.

Well, ask and you shall receive my friend...

War on religion ... or just Christianity?

The Supreme Court is about to hear a challenge from a former divinity student who was denied a state scholarship because he wanted to study for ministry. The Court appears deeply divided over the case of Joshua Davey, who lost a state merit scholarship when he declared theology as his major.

The Supreme Court is split. At least four justices seem to agree that the state of Washington was within its rights to deny the money to Davey. The other four seemed, according to legal experts, to side with Davey. The swing vote is Sandra Day O'Connor, as is often the case.

The Davey case is critical, since the high court ruled last year that it is constitutional to allow parents to use public money to send their children to private religious schools. So, in this case, the question isn't whether the government can use public money to underwrite religious education. The Court has already decided it can.

What the Court has to decide now is whether or not, when the money is available, it is available equally.

The case began in 1999, when Davey qualified for a Promise Scholarship, a state-funded program for high-achieving students of modest means. The scholarship of about $3,000 never came through, because Davey decided to study for the ministry at Northwest College in Kirkland, Wash.

U.S. Solicitor General Olson told the Court that "the clear and unmistakable message is that religion and preparation for a career in the ministry is disfavored and discouraged." He added that "the person who wants to believe in God or wants to have a position of religious leadership is the one that's singled out for discriminatory treatment."

Justice O'Connor is apparently confused on the issue. She asked Davey's attorney: "How does this violate the student's right to free exercise of religion?" She went on, "Maybe it's more expensive to go to school, but why does that violate his free exercise of religion?"

It seems very obvious to me – and I never went to law school. Davey won the scholarship by the standards set up by the state. Once it was awarded, it was taken away for the single reason that he wanted to use it to study for the ministry. It is so clear that it makes me wonder if there is not a deeply ingrained bias against religion held by five members of the Supreme Court.

If the "free exercise of his religion" means he lost a scholarship – which he won fair and square – because he wants to use it to study for the ministry, then he is clearly being penalized for that particular choice. There is nothing in the Constitution that says a person should be penalized for choosing to study for the Christian ministry.

In fact, there is a clear pattern of precedent established by multiple Supreme Court decisions in past times that would favor such an individual choice. Schools like Harvard University and Princeton University were originally founded to prepare young men for Christian ministry. It is only in recent times that the U.S. government has developed such a bias against Christianity in particular.

Although the state argues that funding Davey's scholarship amounts to a government endorsement of religion, it isn't really "religion" the state is objecting to. It's Christianity. There is always plenty of federal money to promote Islam, Satanism, witchcraft or any other "religion."

Here is a case in point: In California, high-school students at the Byron Unified School District were forced to take a mandatory course in Islam. The course mandates that seventh-graders learn the tenets of Islam, study the important figures of the faith, wear an Arab type robe, adopt a Muslim name and stage their own jihad.

Nancy Castro, principal of the Intermediate-Excelsior School of Byron, claims the course "is not religion, but ancient culture and history. We do not endorse any religion – we just make students aware." All it takes is a reading of the course curriculum to confirm that Castro's denial is absolutely false.

The textbook used for the Islamic course, "Across The Centuries," is published by Houghton-Mifflin and has been adopted by the California school system.

This is a much more flagrant case of government endorsement of a religion than the issue of Davey using a scholarship he won to study for the ministry, wouldn't you say?

The real point is this: It isn't religion in general that is under fire in America. There are all kinds of religions that are untouchable. Government-funded schools allow students to study whatever religion they wish – just as long as it isn't Christianity.

The Bible predicts that in the "last days" the world will be very religious. In fact, all religions will merge into one and unite with a one-world government. Then this "unholy union" will go all out to wipe Christianity from the face of the Earth. We are in the "last days," and this scenario is rapidly developing.

The sad thing is, Christians are sitting back and doing nothing to stop it.

Link: here (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35950)

[John Ashcroft]

And here's a little salt for that open wound... :D

Warring with Christianity

When I was on "Hannity and Colmes" Monday night promoting my book, "Persecution," Alan Colmes took me to task for its subtitle: "How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity." "Are you saying liberals can't be Christians?" he asked.

I want to expand on my comments. I am not saying that liberals can't be Christians, nor is the purpose of my book to demonize liberals.

In the book I document in painstaking detail with abundant evidence how secularists and strict separationnists work at cross purposes with Christianity and Christian religious liberty. And it is undeniable that secularists and strict separationists are, by and large, political liberals.

Does that mean that liberals cannot be Christians? Of course not. I have many liberal friends who are Christians. But it does mean that political liberalism, in my view, is at war with Christianity in the sense I describe in my book. Why Christians would want to participate in that war is beyond me, but it is not my place to challenge the authenticity of anyone's profession of Christianity, irrespective of their political ideology.

But before leaving this particular point, I should call your attention to a column I read last week in the Religion Section of the Los Angeles Times by John H. Bunzel, a former member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and presently at the Hoover Institution.

My friend Alan Colmes might want to check out this article, because Mr. Bunzel said, "Millions of Americans do not believe in God. They do not invest moral authority in a transcendent source such as the Bible, or deal in absolutes of right and wrong, or divide the world into simplistic categories of good and evil. Such people, and I include myself among them, have tended to find themselves more comfortable in the Democratic Party than in the Republican Party, where a marked strain of Christian fundamentalism runs strong."

Indeed, most liberals I know support the extreme separationist principle. They seem to believe that there should be no mixture whatsoever of church and government, and even that Christians ought not to be so public with their faith. They are constantly berating conservative Christian politicians for openly professing their faith.

Generally speaking, political liberals also often support values that I believe are incompatible with the Judeo-Christian ethic. Their intense commitment to the separationist idea has the effect of suppressing Christian religious freedom.

The secularists or separationists (and you liberals know whether the shoe fits here), maintain that they advocate strict separation between church and state first because the framers designed our system that way, and second because it promotes our liberties. They are demonstrably wrong on both counts.

The framers did not craft a constitutional system separating church and state. They prohibited Congress from establishing a national church, such as the Church of England. They clearly did not forbid the government from all involvement with religion and particularly the Christian religion. On the very next day after the first Congress passed the First Amendment they set aside a national day of prayer and Thanksgiving.

Is it not safe for us to infer from those juxtaposed actions that they did not subscribe to the strict separationist principle? There are scores of other examples detailed in my book.

The predominantly liberal separationists are equally wrong in asserting that the separationist principle – to the extent they would strictly apply it – promotes religious liberty. For in case after case, their expansive and dishonest reading of the Establishment Clause to enforce a strict separation has the effect of suppressing religious liberties.

When school administrators tell little 5-year-old Kayla that she can't join hands with her classmates to thank Jesus over their snacks, they are not protecting us from religious tyranny by preventing the establishment of a state church; they are suppressing religious liberties. When they tell a high school gospel choir that it cannot sing at a church memorial event to honor the victims of 9-11, they are not safeguarding our religious liberties but smothering them.

If our self-professed separationists are truly motivated by the separationist principle, why don't they object when the government endorses values that are hostile to Christianity? Could it be their true motivation is a bias against Christian values?

So you liberals out there who say you champion religious freedom, please get a copy (http://www.shopnetdaily.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=1340) of my book and find out just how wrong you are. And those of you who are Christians, we'll graciously welcome you anytime to the "right" political side.

Link: here (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34814)

I'd go get a copy KB. ;)

[ELVIS]

That's the sad part. There has been a christian uprising going on for the last several years, but we're really not hearing from them, or us.

It's time to get a collective voice together to oppose alot of the liberal nonsense that we see on a daily basis...

I hope "The Passion" will prove to be the turning point this country needs...

[knuckleboner]

yeah, i remember reading about the divinity student. that's plain wrong. and my guess is, he'll win (justifiably) in the court system. if the state establishes a major in its college, difficult to then argue against allowing a scholarship student to take that major. although, it is an isolated incident.


as for the islam school stuff, yeah, that's a bit too far (though, not a direct attack on Christianity). but again, it's an isolated incident.

i'm sure we could find isolated incidents about how muslims or jews or buddahists or...have had an attack on their religions.

but it doesn't mean that any one of these religions is under unique attack.


as for the book...i tend to agree on the establishment of religion argument. it wasn't meant to be an outright exclusion of all things related to religion.

but i'm a little confused on his point here: (so yes, maybe i DO need to get a copy...)


our self-professed separationists are truly motivated by the separationist principle, why don't they object when the government endorses values that are hostile to Christianity? Could it be their true motivation is a bias against Christian values?

Christian values? uh...i don't think the self-professed separationists are promoting islamic or hindu values. he needs to be a little careful here. it is one thing to let religions do their own things. it's another when you start saying that the country, even the secular side, needs to start conforming to those particular religious values. (see the taliban;))

values in a secular (and since we DON'T require anyone to be a particular, or even any religion, we are secular) society should be based on whether or not those values are intrinsically good. many religious values ARE intrinsically good. some are a little more questionable (i.e.: not eating meat on fridays.)

[Jesus Christ]

Matthew 24

1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25 Behold, I have told you before.
26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.
45 Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?
46 Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing.
47 Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods.
48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;
49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;
50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,
51 And shall cut him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

[ELVIS]

Too bad you don't know what that means FORD...;)

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Too bad you don't know what that means FORD...;)

Take My Word for it, Gregory. He knoweth exactly what it means :)

[ELVIS]

Then he would not support abortion on any level, he would not support homosexuality, he would not hate George Bush, ect...

[Jesus Christ]

When did FORD say he supported abortion?

[ELVIS]

Oh, c'mon.. Ye knoweth the truth...

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Oh, c'mon.. Ye knoweth the truth...

I knoweth everything. And I AM the Truth :)

And FORD hath never said anything about favoring abortion, as he does not. Do not bear false witness, Gregory!

[ELVIS]

Foegive me lord if I am wrong.. but I believe FORD has defended abortion on some level, on these boards in the past...

[John Ashcroft]

No abortion, even in the 1st Trimester?

[ELVIS]

No! God grants every life a soul an the moment of conception.. thus his own child...

:elvis:

[Jesus Christ]

Originally posted by ELVIS
No! God grants every life a soul an the moment of conception.. thus his own child...

As My Dad said unto the prophet Jeremiah....

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

[ELVIS]

Yes I know lord...:)

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by ELVIS
No! God grants every life a soul an the moment of conception.. thus his own child...

:elvis:

Not you silly! The question's for Ford (or Jesus if he's speaking for Ford today).

[ELVIS]

~Ha!~

:elvis:

[knuckleboner]

nah, i think FORD's against abortion.

personally, i respect a woman's right to control her own body. that's the libertarian in me. but the bleeding heart in me wants to save EVERYBODY and in this issue, he wins out...

[FORD]

For the record, this is my view on abortion....

1) It's killing babies.

2) It won't go away by making it illegal.

3) Anyone who claims one of these statements is true and the other is false is a delusional hypocrite.

And that is exactly WHY I avoid abortion threads, and the topic in general, because of the overwhelming hypocrisy on BOTH sides of the issue.

[John Ashcroft]

Can we just abort the abortion proponents?

Would that be considered "late term"? If so, maybe I could have a change of heart...

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
For the record, this is my view on abortion....

1) It's killing babies.

2) It won't go away by making it illegal.



Sorry man.. I thought you had argued for abortion somewhere in the past...

I apologize if I'm wrong...

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by FORD
For the record, this is my view on abortion....

1) It's killing babies.

2) It won't go away by making it illegal.

3) Anyone who claims one of these statements is true and the other is false is a delusional hypocrite.

And that is exactly WHY I avoid abortion threads, and the topic in general, because of the overwhelming hypocrisy on BOTH sides of the issue.

So, under that logic murder should be legal as well. How's about theft? It's been illegal for oh, let's say forever, and yet it remains? It could even be argued that the problem's getting worse. Should stealing be legal so as to make it safer for the theives? After all, some of them get shot and die in the act! If the government had sanctioned theft zones, that were naturally regulated, theft would at least be safe... Maybe Martha Stewart or Ken Lay style theft. Yeah, that's pretty safe.

[ELVIS]

Maybe we should initiate theft clinics...

Ha!

Now I see how stupid FORD's post is...

[John Ashcroft]

Yep, teach them how to theive in the "safest way possible". What's John Kerry's position on this? I hear he's both for it and against it...

[Seshmeister]

Any woman that aborts a child is not a gene pool that we need.

We're not short of people.

I think they should be encouraged.

Cheers!

:gulp:

[ELVIS]

Abortion should be encouraged ??

[Seshmeister]

The crackwhores that abort today stop you or yours getting their house broken into, their car stolen or getting the shit kicked out of you at random in 15 years time.

Maybe God needs them back immediately for remedial class...?

The more the merrier...

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
Abortion should be encouraged ??

Barbara Bush certainly should have been.

[ELVIS]

What ??

[Seshmeister]

The bible has stuff about dashing babies against rocks but nothing on wearing a rubber...

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
The crackwhores that abort today stop you or yours getting their house broken into, their car stolen or getting the shit kicked out of you at random in 15 years time.

Maybe God needs them back immediately for remedial class...?

The more the merrier...

And Bush is the 2nd coming of Hitler??? :confused:

[FORD]

Originally posted by ELVIS
What ??

The only one of Barbara Bush's kids who is not a vile criminal scumbag is the one who died of leukemia in childhood. The world would be much better off without Junior, Jeb, Neil, and Marv.

So maybe George Sr should have done what Junior did in 1971, and had Bar neutered. As I said, I'm not a fan of abortion, but in this case, it would have served a much greater good for humanity.

Actually, go back a couple generations and abort Prescott Bush (ironically a big fan of abortion himself) and we could have prevented WWII and the JFK /RFK/MLK murders. Not to mention the Reagan presidency and that of Bush Jr and Sr..

I wonder if I could get Israeli government scientists to build me a time machine if I promised them I could prevent the Holocaust?

[Seshmeister]

I'm more laid back about it than your namesake JA...

“Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones” (Psalms 137:9)?

Why insist on prenatal killing when the post-natal killing options are so widespread? The Bible authorizes us to kill just about any child who becomes burdensome. According to Deuteronomy, if a child is unruly and disobedient, we not only have the option of killing him, but it is mandatory that he be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). The same is true for a child who speaks to us with foul language (Exodus 21:17). Or a child who hits us (Exodus 21:15).

I'm just talking about allowing riff raff to follow Darwinian rules and get rid of shitty people.

The god of the Old testament killed thousands on a whim. All I'm saying is shitty people who decide not to produce shitty offspring should be allowed to.

Any ban just ends up with a bottle of gin and coathanger anyway lessening their chance of living long enough for redemption,

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Seshmeister]

Of course we all know Leviticus et al are full of shit but it's the only argument we have against people who are born with the urge to stick their cocks in men so we better run with it...

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
The only one of Barbara Bush's kids who is not a vile criminal scumbag is the one who died of leukemia in childhood. The world would be much better off without Junior, Jeb, Neil, and Marv.

So maybe George Sr should have done what Junior did in 1971, and had Bar neutered. As I said, I'm not a fan of abortion, but in this case, it would have served a much greater good for humanity.

Actually, go back a couple generations and abort Prescott Bush (ironically a big fan of abortion himself) and we could have prevented WWII and the JFK /RFK/MLK murders. Not to mention the Reagan presidency and that of Bush Jr and Sr..

I wonder if I could get Israeli government scientists to build me a time machine if I promised them I could prevent the Holocaust?


This post is satanic...

[Seshmeister]

LOL!

Nah it's eccentric...:)

Blaming WWII on Prescott Bush is silly. A little support here or there didn't change anything.

Personally I blame God.

If he loved us any more goodness knows what he would come up with next...

Cheers!

:gulp:

[Satan]

Originally posted by ELVIS
This post is satanic...


No it isn't ! :mad:

I would have done much worse.

[Seshmeister]

Weak and pointless post.

You should grab the user name of tooth fairy before someone else grabs it FORD.

[rustoffa]

Originally posted by FORD
The only one of Barbara Bush's kids who is not a vile criminal scumbag is the one who died of leukemia in childhood. The world would be much better off without Junior, Jeb, Neil, and Marv.

So maybe George Sr should have done what Junior did in 1971, and had Bar neutered. As I said, I'm not a fan of abortion, but in this case, it would have served a much greater good for humanity.

Actually, go back a couple generations and abort Prescott Bush (ironically a big fan of abortion himself) and we could have prevented WWII and the JFK /RFK/MLK murders. Not to mention the Reagan presidency and that of Bush Jr and Sr..

I wonder if I could get Israeli government scientists to build me a time machine if I promised them I could prevent the Holocaust?
Breathe in,breathe out......long slow ones.Forget about that Che Guerra shirt.
:D

[John Ashcroft]

You're in rare form tonight Sesh, I'll give ya that...

I'm not gonna preach to ya, but life gets better when you let God in. And I'm not talking about religious "showmanship" while talking in tongues to impress the local congregation. That shit's human. I'm talking about a personal connection. The realization that you're no longer afraid of death because you realize there's so much more to "life" than what we make of it here. It's a liberating feeling. And I've got two kids and a fucking model wife (no shit, she's modeled many times. Not national, but she's still damn hot) to consider. I realize that as much as I love them, our time together is eternal and not bound by the 80 or so years we live on this earth. If I die, the best I can acheive is seeing a successful life built by my children, and meeting them again some day. I probably am doing a miserable job of explaining this, but it truly is liberating. To be unafraid of death even with children to raise. It's not an absolving of responsibility, it's the ultimate responsibility. Ensuring your children are prepared... Maybe someday you'll feel this. I can't make you. And please don't take this as some sort of condemnation. I literally loathe preachy hipicritical types. I'm just sharing a bit of where I'm at in life, sparked by your reference to God. Hell, I guess I don't know what I'm saying. I know that I find you clever, with a great future ahead of you (new child and all). I'd rather you be neutral than running away from any God. You can tell me to fuck off if you wish to as well (if I'm getting too personal for a message board. I don't for a second pretend to really know you.)

[Seshmeister]

If God had a big problem about homos I think he would have put it in the 10 Commandments or at the very least he would have had Jesus say it was not cool.

At the very least if you think you would like your neighbors car "Thou shalt not covet any thing that is thy neighbour's." then you are a worse sinner than the guy next door who hasn't even noticed it because he is too busy sucking his boyfriends cock...

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
LOL!

Nah it's eccentric...:)

Blaming WWII on Prescott Bush is silly. A little support here or there didn't change anything.

Personally I blame God.

If he loved us any more goodness knows what he would come up with next...

Cheers!

:gulp:

it's free will and mankind's choice that things are like this in the world, not God's.

[Satan]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
it's free will and mankind's choice that things are like this in the world, not God's.

At least you didn't blame it on the Devil :)

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
it's free will and mankind's choice that things are like this in the world, not God's.

Who voted for earthquakes?

[Dr. Love]

That... would be me. Sorry guys. :(

[John Ashcroft]

I did too. Was hoping it'd hit France. Sorry about that...

[ELVIS]

The Third Book of Moses, Called
Leviticus
20

The Penalties for Acts of Immorality
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.

3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.

4 And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not;

5 then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.

6 ¶ And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people.

7 Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God.

8 And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I am the LORD which sanctify you.

9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: Ex. 21.17 · Mt. 15.4 · Mk. 7.10 he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

10 ¶ And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Ex. 20.14 · Lev. 18.20 · Deut. 5.18

11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Lev. 18.8 · Deut. 22.30 ; 27.20

12 And if a man lie with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them. Lev. 18.15

13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Lev. 18.22

14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. Lev. 18.17 · Deut. 27.23

15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death; and ye shall slay the beast.

16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Ex. 22.19 · Lev. 18.23 · Deut. 27.21

17 ¶ And if a man shall take his sister, his father's daughter, or his mother's daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister's nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity. Lev. 18.9 · Deut. 27.22

18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people. Lev. 18.19

19 And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother's sister, nor of thy father's sister; for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity.

20 And if a man shall lie with his uncle's wife, he hath uncovered his uncle's nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless. Lev. 18.12-14

21 And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless. Lev. 18.16

22 ¶ Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spew you not out.

23 And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.

24 But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people.

25 Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean.

26 And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.

27 ¶ A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones; their blood shall be upon them.

[ELVIS]

1 Corinthians 6:9

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

[ELVIS]

Romans 1:26-27

1:25
For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
1:26
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
1:27
and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.


The remaining passage appears to be an unequivocal condemnation of homosexuality. While many modern revisionists simply disagree with Paul or discount his proscription as applying only to prostitution or pederasty, some have attempted to reinterpret the passage as tacit approval of homosexuality. The argument is that Paul portrays homosexual Acts as impure but carefully avoids the language of sin; he intends merely to distinguish a Gentile practice considered by Jews to be "unclean" in order to draw Jews (or "weaker brethren") into his subsequent explanation of the gospel. Careful investigation of the passage, however, shows this explanation to be untenable.

Paul's general purpose in the context (Rom 1:18-32) is to show the need for the gospel in the Gentile world. As a result of idolatry, God "gave them over" to all kinds of sinful behavior. The trifold structure of the passage is a rhetorical device to drive home the point: a general complaint (vv. 24-25), consideration of a specific vice (vv. 26-27), and a culminating list of various vices (vv. 28-32). The distinction between the second and third sections may follow another Greek-styled distinction of sins of passion and sins of the unfit mind.

Paul is accused of everything from extreme prejudice to repressed homosexual urges for choosing same-gender sex as his focus in verses 26-27. But the scarcity of other references and the use of impersonal, rhetorical language here suggests, on the contrary, considerable detachment. The choice of homosexuality in particular is due to Paul's need to find a visible sign of humankind's fundamental rejection of God's creation at the very core of personhood. The numerous allusions to the creation account in the passage suggest that creation theology was foremost in Paul's mind in forming the passage.


Taken from Baker's Evangelical Dictionary
of Biblical Theology

Homosexuality (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/bed.cgi?number=T348)

:elvis: