Raving Conservative: Ted Haggard

Sunday, November 05, 2006

Ted Haggard

This is a very difficult piece for me to write. I know Pastor Ted Haggard. I was a member of his church, New Life, in Colorado Springs for the last 2 years I lived there. I have spoken with him personally. I have shook his hand. I have hugged him. All on numerous occasions. My church belongs to the National Association of Evangelicals. This hits me very hard.

Today, Pastor Ted as he is known to his church confessed that the allegations of purchasing drugs and gay sex with a male prostitute are true. I had hoped that it was all a lie from a homosexual who hated Pastor Ted and what he stood for, as is often the case in situations like this, but it is not so this time. Pastor Ted has declared himself to be a deceiver and admitted his sin and betrayal of the church.

I have been perusing the articles written about Pastor Ted and looking over the comments people have been leaving behind for a few days now. Most of what I see are 2 extremes of wrongness. The first one that I shall address is the extreme of “So what?”

A get over it attitude is wrong in this case. Pastor Ted has been doing wrong for a long time now, and he has been living as a hypocrite. Words cannot express my personal disappointment in this. It is the deception more than the male prostitute and closeted homosexuality that bother me the most. For one to stand before men as a man of God and publicly fight against the very sin he was secretly engaged in is . . . painful.

People often fight the hardest against the evil that affects them the most. For Pastor Ted this was homosexuality. Unfortunately, now that his secret has been revealed much of his work has been destroyed. It will take a great deal of effort to repair the damage he has done.

On the plus side he has confessed his sin openly, admittedly, it was under duress, but he did. He has also been penitent, resigned his leadership positions in the church, and is working through his problems. What many people do not understand, or choose to ignore is that homosexuality is a sin problem. The good news about all of this is that Pastor Ted has been forced to face his sin, and is now seeking help. Now that he is seeking help he will finally overcome his lifelong struggle. By facing shame in this life he is being spared in the next. What greater proof is there of God’s mercy other than the death of Christ is there?

On the other extreme is the crowing, the bile, the hatred that is being spewed at Pastor Ted by . . . homosexuals and their allies. You would think that the homosexual community would be happy to have the chance to include one of their greatest foes as one of their own, that they might welcome him with open arms. This, as is typically the case, is not true at all. The mockery being heaped upon Pastor Ted by homosexuals is disgusting, beyond mere humor it s filled with hate and vengeance. The homosexual community is screaming about how Pastor Ted should be made an outcast for his hypocrisy and how he should be condemned by all men.

To mock another for the same evil you perform is the purest form of hypocrisy, and by their behavior the homosexual community is now guilty of the same hypocrisy they hate Pastor Ted for engaging in.

The people who are treating Pastor Ted with love and forgiveness are the Christians. Yes, some are infuriated by feelings of betrayal. But most are simply saddened and want nothing more than to see him get the help e needs. And he is getting it already. Members of the Christian community, mostly ones closest to Pastor Ted are giving him counsel, praying with him, and praying for him. He is being treated with love and being brought up out of his sin so that he can live a free life. He is being helped to a life that is free of the shame he has borne for so many years, and a life that is free of the deception he has been enslaved to for so very long. You want to know what it means to love a sinner? Look at how Christian leaders are treating Pastor Ted. His sin and betrayal are horrific, but he is not being excommunicated for it, he is being helped into the fullness of life and truth and into a right relationship with God.

This is in stark contrast to the godless and the homosexuals who appear to want to see Pastor Ted lynched. Words cannot express how very glad I am that they are being disappointed by the Christian community at large. To them I say, you have no idea about what it means to be a Christian.

I speak out against homosexuality a lot. I believe it is evil because the Bible calls it evil in both the Old and the New Testaments. It is beyond reasonable dispute that homosexuality is a sin, as is adultery and fornication, both of which I also make a habit of speaking against. Yet I, who have been accused of preaching hate just like everyone else who speaks out against homosexuality is accused of preaching hate, am not the one who is behaving hatefully toward Pastor Ted right now. It is the ones who have been accusing me of hate that are being the hateful ones right now, and they are foul hypocrites for it.

Homosexuals want to be accepted, but they behave hatefully toward closet and recovered homosexuals as well toward those who openly oppose the homosexual agenda. Christian want to have homosexuality recognized for what it is, a choice and an addiction, and prevent it from being legitimized as if it were skin color or gender, and we are kind and forgiving to homosexuals while opposing their sin.

If nothing else, Pastor Ted’s situation has enabled the world to see the stark difference between we Christians and the homosexual movement, and to understand that it is not we who are the hateful ones.

There is something to be admired in this though. One of the first things that came to my mind when this all got started was the situation that Jesse Jackson found himself in a few years ago. So let us compare the two situations and see who is the better man.

Both men were exposed as sexual sinners, Jesse Jackson committed adultery, Ted Haggard committed homosexual adultery. HOWEVER! Jesse Jackson denied, denied, denied, then accused the people who outed his behavior and made it well known of racism. Ted Haggard took responsibility for his actions (after a few days) and is seeking help and healing.

Jesse Jackson still calls himself Reverend and leads his numerous organizations, claiming to be a righteous man of God. Ted Haggard has resigned form all church leadership as the Bible commands. He is contrite and humbled, and acknowledges his sin in its entirety (hopefully).

Jesse Jackson screamed “Racist!”, but I have yet to hear Ted Haggard scream “Homophobe!”

One man is repentant for his sin and shall be saved by the mercy of God. The other is not and is in dire peril.

It took far more courage for Ted Haggard to do what he is doing than it takes to deny and accuse the way so many others have done and do to this day. I admire this courage and pray for God’s healing hand on Pastor Ted and his family, and I pray for wisdom and protection for the next leader of New Life Church and the National Association of Evangelicals.

All glory to God in His great love and mercy. All praise to God in His holy righteousness. May He keep and bless Pastor Ted Haggard, and bring him healing and grace eternal. Amen.

75 Comments:

After reading your post I feel like you misunderstand why homosexuals are upset over the Ted Haggard affair.

Since gay people believe that homosexuality is largely due to their biology, lumping it in together with adultery is neither fair nor intellectually honest.

Adultery involves deceit. Homosexuality as a state of being, does not. Adultery being wrong is something we can all agree on because it involves lying. No one thinks lying is okay - as a society, we all view deception as problematic because it hurts others. Pedophelia and Bestiality fall into this category as well - they involve a lack of consent, a forcing against the will of an animal or child. Homosexuality differs from all of these in that it doesn't hurt anyone involved. By and large, gay relationships like straight relationships are between consenting adults.

From this perspective. adultery and homosexuality can be likened from a Biblical standpoint because they are both sins, but they are otherwise incomparable.

This is always the problem I find when talking to Christians - you tend to see everything through a biblical filter, and can't/won't try and understand why others think differently.

You misunderstand why homosexuals are upset because you are unable to see it from their point of view. Many homosexuals would agree with you that they are upset by the situation with Ted Haggard, but all would conclude that you'd missed the point as to why.

J.

By Anonymous, at 4:37 PM
It is certainly regrettable that people have come to feel that much anger toward evangelical Christians.

I can't imagine where all that bile comes from. I mean, it's not like the right wing makes a habit out of demonizing homosexuals or calling them a threat to America or anything.

It's not like they're trying to force their particular beliefs on the whole country. Only liberals and gays do that.

By catastrophile, at 4:38 PM
I can't imagine the betrayal you must feel right now as you and your church family are dealing with all of this news about Ted Haggard. I was in a church once whose pastor left his wife and kids to hook up with a church member who left her husband and kids. It shook everyone in the church to the core, even while we continued to love the love them both.

But I do want you to know that not every homosexual is rejoicing over this. Just as it is all the time, about every matter, the ones who make the biggest noise get the most attention. There are those of us lesbians and gays who go about our quiet lives, just wanting what every other sane person wants... the love of friends and family, steady work, and a safe world.

Ted Haggard was in a position of power that allowed him to influence people to his way of believing. Because of this, he chose to influence people to believe that gay people do not have the same civil rights as other Americans. And during this time, he was enjoying the "benefits" of being gay (or at least bisexual) himself. THAT is the hypocrisy for which he is getting his comeuppance. Had he "come out" years ago before he launched his political initiatives to deny gays their rights, I'm sure the gay community would have embraced him. If you can't see the difference between the two attitudes, it's only because you are not allowing yourself to see it.

I believe the gay community will not "welcome" him anytime soon because, more than likely, he will continue to see homosexuality as a sin to be despised, a "dark and repulsive side" of his life. Of course, with that attitude, why would he be "welcomed." (And btw, it's not like we have meetings where we welcome new gays into the fold! :)

Anyway, as a follower of Jesus myself, I just wanted you to know that I do not rejoice in his fall. Here is a letter, in full, that I sent to him via his Web site. I have no idea if he will read it, but I hope that you will.

Hi Ted,

I don’t know if you’re even checking this email anymore, but I just want you to know, I am a Christian and a lesbian.

Part of me was glad that the exposure of your “other life” has come to the fore, even as painful as it is for you and your family and your church. I hope this revelation and this time gives you the freedom to find out who you REALLY are, and also find that God can love you and use you whether you are gay OR straight.

Another part of me feels so much sadness for you in your struggle. I know what it’s like to struggle with same sex attraction and believing, because of what you were taught, that God can’t love or use you. I am here to tell you that He can, and He will!!

I hope that whether you choose to pursue behaviors that are heterosexual or homosexual after this, you will discover that a large part of understanding God’s acceptance of people is our earning to accept others ourselves. As we practice love, we understand His love. As we practice peace, we understand His peace. As we practice acceptance, we understand His acceptance.

If you choose to “go straight,” I hope that you will not forget the painful struggle of gays within the Christian community will be evident in your continued walk with God. I hope that if you choose to “be gay,” that you will not rail against those who rail against you. I had to give that up a long time ago and just focus on my own walk in this world. It is only finding peace within your own heart, and letting God do the sorting out, that you will ever find His love and acceptance.

I will pray for you, your family, and your church during this difficult time that God’s highest and best will for all of you will come to pass.

God bless and keep you,
Cheryl Totty

By Anonymous, at 5:04 PM
the mocking? They learned it from your church. You people love to torture, you invented it. You love to kill, your bible says to take the rebellious son into the town square and stone him to death.

Unlike those of us around you, your kind is Santan, evil and scum.

By Anonymous, at 8:21 PM
The question that should be asked is why does the evangelical fundamental christian church foster an enviroment where men are so ashamed to deal geninuely with the battles in their hearts and they only finally do when they are put to the fire? We should be asking what about sexuality is the church missing that a man who loves the Lord can not find healing by community and scripture? Maybe because the evangelical church is not about genuine community or understanding the tension that scripture creates. When will us Christians, grapple that the mega-church mentality and power in numbers is not Biblical, but birthed out of a individualistic consumerism ideologies of our Country? When will white-privelge males realize that Jesus inner-circle were the marginalized, and the not powerful and superpowers of an empire, such as those as Haggard, Dobson etc...for the Kingdom of God is backwards then the kingdoms of earth..oh what a pity we live in a superpower.

By Anonymous, at 9:43 PM
Hi everyone.

First, the hatred and anger spewing forth is NOT towards "Christians" it is against Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, there is a difference. I take us back to the week leading up to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. They did not kill him because of his beliefs. The killed him because of WHO HE WAS/IS. Jesus Christ meets all of our sinful, shamful, selfish ways face to face and that is why we get so darned angry with HIM. Since He is not walking the planet these days, the only people we can crucify are those who claim to FOLLOW Christ. Guilt by association...

Secondly, I just wanted to make it clear that, as of 7:30am, MST, here in Denver, on Nov 6, Haggard has NOT actually confessed to "gay sex" as you stated in the top of your article. In fact, he has said that while SOME of the allegations are true, not ALL are true. A weak apology, granted - but for clarity sake, we need to be careful not to spread rumors or gossip - at least not until it becomes public! LOL... kidding, of course... but you hear what I am saying.

All of the above said - this was a great statement on the events and I would say I agree with almost everything you put forth in this article.

By Dan McGowan, at 5:38 AM
Anonomys,

"Since gay people believe that homosexuality is largely due to their biology, lumping it in together with adultery is neither fair nor intellectually honest."

The belief that Homosexuality is biological is scientifically unfounded, and all known indicators about homosexuality are actually psychological, therefore, the biology argument is intellectually dishonest.

"Adultery involves deceit. Homosexuality as a state of being, does not."

Deciet is not what makes these activities sinful. Remeber that ANY sex outside of heterosexual marriage is called evil throughout the Bible, and that includes unmarried straight sex.

"No one thinks lying is okay . . ."

YOu know this to be untrue. MAny people see lying as perfectly alright as long as it results in personal gain.

" . . you tend to see everything through a biblical filter . ."

Of course we do. Religion defines people, the only ones it does not define are the hyppocrites.

Catasrophile,

"It's not like they're trying to force their particular beliefs on the whole country."

Gotta love the sarcasm. But you should know that conservatives and Christians are simply trying to keep the new set of liberal values from being forced on the country. Our Values have been the norm since before this was an independent country.

Repack_Rider,

"Reverend Haggard's entire life revolved around praying in public"

Take it from someone who knows him better than you, this is not the case. His life, such as I know it, has revolved around prayer . . . period. It is why New Life Church built a massive prayer center for people to go andpray individually and in groups, and it is kept pretty busy I might add.

"It would have saved him an eternity of grief."

I have good news. Because his sin has been exposed and is being dealt with no he has the opportunity to get right with God in this life so that he does not have to be doomed in the next. In other words, he is spared an eternity of grief right now.

Cheryl,

Your kindness toward Pastor Ted is appreciated, but I am concerned about how you manage to reconcile your homosexuality with your Chrstianity since Jesus Christ declared that homosexuality is a sin.

Jack,

"... They learned it from your church. You people love to torture, you invented it. . ."

You obviously have no grasp or knowledge of history or Christianity. The ways you are wrong would fill an entire series of books. Let's just settle on this: Mockery, murder, sexual sin, and every other evil in the world exised long before Christianity, and even before Judaism. It was all invented by the godless and teh evil, and Christianity has been fighting against it ever since Christ walked the Earth.

Anonmys,

"The question that should be asked is why does the evangelical fundamental christian church foster an enviroment where men are so ashamed to deal geninuely with the battles in their hearts . . ."

The Church fosters an environment of love and forgiveness, but also rebukes sin as what it is, sin. Mankind is inherrently ashamed of sin, and it is only through repetition of sin that people stop being ashamed of it. Christians tend to have a better understanding of the nature of sin,and aret herefore more prone to ashamedness.

By Daniel Levesque, at 7:44 AM
Hello Daniel, I feel obliged to comment on this one:

I don't feel evil towards that Pastor guy at all. I feel sorry for him. Sorry that he had to hide who he truly is because of the attitudes that the people he cares about most would have when they found out about him. Attitudes like "I believe it is evil because the Bible calls it evil" and "...have homosexuality recognized for what it is, a choice and an addiction." Attitudes like this kept Pastor Ted in that scary closet because he couldn't reconcile his love for his church with his lust (love?) for men. It's not funny, not to be ridiculed and not evil. It's sad.

Gay people are quite rightly upset that a man who spewed hate towards them turned out to be one of them. Wouldn't you be annoyed too in that situation? He made it his job to try to prevent equality when all along he was doing the kind of things he spoke out against. As I said, I feel sorry for him and sorry for his family. I don't know why and if any gay people would want to see him 'lynched'. That's a media over-reaction because it makes for a good scandal.

It's not a choice. Would your pastor have chosen to do this and ruin his life? Of course not. That would be insane!

How is he shopwing courage and 'seeking help'? He was blackmailed and only confessed when he had no choice, and has quit his job. I suppose the church will stick him in one of those ridiculous 're-programming' places? It's the 21st century. Let people be ture to themselves and live happy lives.

I don't approve of married men visiting prostiitutes of any sex or sexuality and taking illegal drugs with them though.

I wish him well. I hope he gets his head sorted out.

Daniel, you're never going to get it. Your reply to Cheryl illustrates your need to think outside the box.

By DanProject76, at 12:58 PM
Daniel: "conservatives and Christians are simply trying to keep the new set of liberal values from being forced on the country."

Who's trying to force their values on others? Those who advocate their own right to marry, or those who want to tell other people they can't? Those who want the government out of their sex lives, or those who want the government in the sex lives of others?

Daniel: "Our Values have been the norm since before this was an independent country."

The values of this country have always included the ability to find and observe one's own faith, not have religious dogma imposed by the state. Socialized religion as the law of the land is exactly what the Pilgrims came here to get away from.

This is supposed to be a country where people are free to believe and worship as they see fit, not to forbid and condemn others. It's a very narrow definition of liberty that allows only the things you agree with.

By catastrophile, at 2:13 PM
I know what Catastrophile means...

It's all a bit Taliban-y...

Without the public executions.
:-)

By DanProject76, at 2:26 PM
Somebody posted this video which shows Haggard talking about homosexuality. However, what gets me about this is not what he says about homosexuality, it's the sort of off-handed (in this context) reference to how "we don't need to hold a General Assembly to decide what we believe" . . . a sort of jab at other denominations who are conflicted about how best to handle the reality of homosexuals in the church.

What he's saying, essentially, is "we know what God wants. We don't need to discuss it or reflect on it, we've decided what it means and that's the final word."

I find that completely contrary to everything my experience has taught me about faith and God. Beyond the most simple, fundamental law -- "love one another" -- nothing in the Law is so concrete that it's beyond discussion.

By catastrophile, at 4:09 PM
DP76,

"Attitudes like this kept Pastor Ted in that scary closet because he couldn't reconcile his love for his church with his lust (love?) for men."

What kept him closeted was his own overriding sense of guilt about his unnatural lust and the trap of being in a prominent position that restricted his ability to get help privately.

"Gay people are quite rightly upset that a man who spewed hate towards them turned out to be one of them."

Pator Ted never "spewed hate" as the homosexual community has been screaming for so long. By teaching strictly what the Bible says he simply spoke Biblical truth, and none of it is hateful or dishonest in any way. It has been my experience that is the homosexuals who spew hate. Allow me to give you a few a few words that have been thrown at me and others I know: "Bigot!" "Homophobe!" "Christian fuck!" "Small-minded asshole!" "I hate you!" "Why don't you just shut up die?" "Don't let me find you alone in a dark alley!" "How about I assrape you until you like it fucker?"

Very loving of those homosexuals, dontcha think?

"He made it his job to try to prevent equality when all along he was doing the kind of things he spoke out against"

This is an argument borne of the lie that homsexuality actually has something to do with rights and isn't an addiction and a willful behavior typically caused by trauma, neglect, and most frequently . . . a deep abiding hatred of the opposite sex, especially in the case of lesbianism. Before you say it, I already know full well that homosexuality is the only mental disorder ever to be delisted, but I also know that this was done under threat and duress and was done in spite of the continuing research into homosexuality that establishes beyond reasonable doubt that it is a treatable abnormal mental condition, and NOT a product of biology. I also know full well that there is ZERO evidence supporting the idea that homosexuality is biological, which elevates this particular view to the level of religious faith among those who believe biology is responsible for homosexuality.

"Would your pastor have chosen to do this and ruin his life?"

Does anyone choose to come under assault by the devil? Does anyone choose to be addicted to harmful substances or behaviors? The choice APtor Ted made was to fight his batle in private, have a family and a ministry, and keep his personal struggle secret. By doing this he allowed it to overcome him, as happens in every case I have encountered, and I am not just speaking of homosexuality here.

"I suppose the church will stick him in one of those ridiculous 're-programming' places?"

This is a ridiculous and highly ignorant statement for you to make. Pastor Ted has already voluntarily chosen to seek private help from people he trusts, specifically, Dr. Dobson, Reverend Prevo, and a few others. He is reconciling with his family. He is doing this because he wants to. The church has no "reprogramming place" as you call it, and if it did there would never be somone there who did not choose to go.

"Daniel, you're never going to get it. Your reply to Cheryl illustrates your need to think outside the box."

Wrong! Think outside the box all the time. What I don't do is think outside the Bible. I especially won't think outside the Bible in cases where my faith is concerned.

Catastrophile,

"Who's trying to force their values on others? Those who advocate their own right to marry, or those who want to tell other people they can't?"

Again, homosexuality has nothing to do with rights.

"The values of this country have always included the ability to find and observe one's own faith, not have religious dogma imposed by the state."

And yet, on no less than a dozen occasions, the U.S. Spreme Court declared Christianity to be the national religion. The first time this happened the court took 10 years to examine every founding document and the additional writings of all of the ofunders as well the conressional record and tradition before finaly making this call. It is the most carefully researched and considered Supreme Court decision of all time.

" . . . a sort of jab at other denominations who are conflicted about how best to handle the reality of homosexuals in the church."

Al I can say is the Bible makes it very clear what is and is not acceptable behavior according to our God. The general assemblies that are used to decide if something that has been declared a sin in the Bible is still sin are misguided because God does not change with the times. These aeemblies, while well meaning in the sense that they are trying to find ways to expand the ministry in an atttempt to bring more people to Christ, are also damnimg people by telling them that sin is okay so keep on doing it. This is not something to be treated offhand, but only because this kind of church activity is itself an abomination; evil beyond description. It violates the words of Christ when he commanded us to light and salt in the darkness of the world, not to be part of the darkness ourselves.

"Beyond the most simple, fundamental law -- "love one another" -- nothing in the Law is so concrete that it's beyond discussion."

Then you misunderstand the very first, and most important law: "The greatest commandment is to love the God with all of your mind, all of your heart, and all of your strength. The entirety of the law is summed up in this. The second is to love your neighbor as you love yourself." - Jesus Christ.

This very clearly puts God before men. "Those who love God obry Him." - Jesus Christ

This said, since God demands that He be put first, and makes it very clear that obedience is expected, and aslo makes it very clear that the unsaved shall never be allowed into His presence, is it loving, or hateful for a Christian to damn another by teaching that sin is perfectly alright? I would call it te most heinous form of hatred possible, with eternal punshment for those this hyppocrite deceived, and for hiself as well since Jesus made it very clear that there is an especially hot corner of Hell reserved for the hyppocrites.

By Daniel Levesque, at 8:41 AM
Daniel, I cannot debate this with you as you just play the God card with everyone on here. I don't know why you even allow comments and I am starting to believe that you are a spoof.

It's a case of two totally different worlds who have totally opposing views on everything from the beginning of time to the 21st century. All I can say to conclude this is that I feel sorry for any gay christians. It must be horrible to be taught by the people the love that you are sinful and wrong and can be 'made right.' I thought this idea had gone when we gave women the vote. It's a shame.

By DanProject76, at 11:21 AM
"And yet, on no less than a dozen occasions, the U.S. Supreme Court declared Christianity to be the national religion."

Which denomination? Yours? Is your interpretation of Christ's teaching the only one that counts?

Are we still to beat people to death with stones, then, or is it now acceptable to send adulterous women to the gas chamber?

Are the kosher laws still in effect? Are we still supposed to burn down our houses if there's mold in the vents?

You've said it now -- we are commanded to love God and love each other. All that other dreck, the checklist of rules and health codes that predate indoor plumbing, went out the window with the new Covenant. We don't need to beat the impure to death anymore.

You can believe with all your heart that your particular set of interpretations is the correct one . . . but you will find people who disagree in good faith with most of your positions, and believe in the same God you do. What makes your Christianity more valid than theirs, that yours should be enforced by law?

By catastrophile, at 3:08 PM
Is the word Catastrophile is looking for something like 'Arrogance'?

By DanProject76, at 10:06 PM
Much good stuff has been said here (by Catastrophe, Dan Project, Cheryl, et al) so I'll just address one comment:

Daniel said:
"Jesus Christ declared that homosexuality is a sin."

This is, as you know, a lie. Jesus never talked about homosexuality.

I'm supposing your response would be that "since Jesus is God and God wrote in Leviticus that 'men who lay with men should be stoned,' that this is what Jesus says, too."

As you know, folk like Cheryl and myself - Christians saved by God's grace who trust in Christ and who love the Bible - disagree with your interpretation of the Bible.

The fact is that the Bible only seems to address homosexuality 4-5 times, depending upon your translation. Nowhere does the Bible talk about committed gay relationships and call such love a sin.

Don't try to mislead. Jesus never said nothin' 'bout homosexuality. Bearing false witness, and all...

By Dan Trabue, at 5:17 AM
I lay with the same man every night but I don't like getting stoned. I prefer alcohol. In moderation of course.

By DanProject76, at 1:02 PM
In the words of St. Bob of Dylan, "everybody must get stoned..."

By Dan Trabue, at 2:18 PM
Dan T,

"Jesus never said nothin' 'bout homosexuality."

Then you are ignorant. Jesus did speak out against sexual sin, snd according to the Law of God sexual sin includes all of the following: Incest, Adultery, Beatiality, Fornication, Homosexuality, Pornography, Sexual relations with step-parents and step siblings, Sexual relations with with siblings not related to yourself but to each other, and Jesus made this even more restictive by declaring that marrying a divorcee who was divorced for reasons other than adultery from the other person or one who is abandoned by a spouse is also guilty of adultery. It is also important to note that whenever Jesus spoke of unnatural lusts He was speaking specifically about homosexuality. Anyone with even a half rate Biblical education understands that back in Jesus' day unnatural lusts was a term regarding homosexuality and beastiiality. So, as you can see by this, any claim that Jesus never spoke about homosexuality is simply false, and such claims are either made ignorantly, or are malicious lies. And when you tie all of this in to Jeses' own words when He declared "I did not come to end the Law, but to fulfill it" there is a potent argument against homosexuality as well as all other sexual sin.

If you want to believe that homosexuality is okay as long as people love each other according to God then you must find where Jesus wiped out that part of the Law by stating something like this: Homosexuality is okay as long as you love each other.

If you can produce something to that effect then your arument will be something more than a lie. And yes, all arguments as to the sanctity of homosexuality within Christianity are lies. Being told to love each other is not a command to have gay sex. Being told to love is not a command to justify and excuse sin. If you actually paid attention to the Bible you would see that excusing sin is a deception that leads to people to Hell and is actually the most heinous form of hatred there is: a hatred disgused as love. Yes Dan, I am aying that by claiming that homosexuality is okay according to the Cristian faith you are feeding a hateful lie that will send people to damnation, just like Satan wants. I, for one, will seek to bring people out of sin and into grace, and if I must rebuke sin in order to do so then that is the loving thing to do. Read your Bible, ALL of your Bible, and you will see this to be true.

Catastrophile,

"Which denomination? Yours? Is your interpretation of Christ's teaching the only one that counts?"

My demonitation did not exist when this was first declared. That aside, all denominations of Christianity are still Christianity. What these unrepealed Supreme Court rulings mean is that all the other non-Christians have no legal hold on our nation, but that even the government is free to honor Christianity, though not to force it uopn the population. I.E. The government can build monuments to Christianity, but it cannot force you to go to church and it cannot force you to engage in specific religious rituals against your will.

However, some are corrupted forms, and this is unfortunate. George Washington was an Anglican, but the American branch of the Anglican Church is nothing like it was back in his day. By succumbing to and legitimizing sin, as well as bbreaking from unarguably clear Biblical principles regarding who should be in Church leadership the American breanch of teh Anglican Church is showing itself to be corrupted. At the same it mus be pointed out that many demoniations display some form of corruption to one degree or another.

Beond that, I fail to see where the Bible needs to be interperated at all. It has been translated, accurately, into every language in the world. It is a very plain spoken document where what is direct and what is iimagery are very easy to distinguish, and where any confusion can easily be dispelled by simply going to the original Hebrew, Greek, and Latin it was written in, and the imagery is easy to understand once you know what the images symbolized in Hebrew society. The sea = man. The number 7 = perfection. And so on. The supposed need for "interperetation" is typically just a means of trying to make the Bible say what you want it to say. Such activity with ANY document is sheer folly. Just look at the mess the courts are making of a much shorter and even more direct document . . . the Constitution.

DP76,

"Daniel, I cannot debate this with you as you just play the God card with everyone on here."

As a Christian I look at everything through the lens of my faith, and my faith happens to center around God. Is that really such a hard concept for you to understand? I am uninterested in arguing about love and commitment when my God declares that kind of love to be an abomination. I am uninterested in so-0called gay rights because there is no such thing as gay right any more than are straight rights. Marriage has never been a right. It was invented by religion and has always been a religious institution. It was later adopted by governments in it's religious form. Regarding Gay marriage, there is no such thing because God does not recognize it. Feel free to take your demands for gay marriage rights to God if you want to, but you will find Him rather les receprive that judges are.

"It's a case of two totally different worlds who have totally opposing views on everything from the beginning of time to the 21st century."

This is so totally untrue . . . man has been around from the beginning of time, lol.

"Is the word Catastrophile is looking for something like 'Arrogance'?"

Is it arrogant to call the sky blue? is it arrogant to cal someone who steals a thief? There is a difference between assuredness and arrogance.

By Daniel Levesque, at 11:43 PM
Daniel (speaking for Jesus) said:

"It is also important to note that whenever Jesus spoke of unnatural lusts He was speaking specifically about homosexuality."

I'm sure Jesus thanks you for telling us what He was thinking.

Daniel also said:

"you must find where Jesus wiped out that part of the Law by stating something like this: Homosexuality is okay as long as you love each other."

I'd suggest that first you'd have to find a verse - any verse - that says specifically and definitively "homosexuality is a sin."

Yes, there are two or three places in the NT (depending upon translations) where "homosexuality" is listed amongst other sins. But the word is simply mistranslated. The actual word ("malakois," I believe) is literally translated, "soft."

As to OT law, are you saying that what was written in those exactly two places (Leviticus 18 and 20) about "Men who lay with men," is to be taken literally?

Even the "putting them to death" part?

I don't think you do think it is to be taken literally. Nor do I.

Careful, pride goeth before a fall.

By Dan Trabue, at 3:16 AM
"Regarding Gay marriage, there is no such thing because God does not recognize it."

Well, a lot of people do not recognise God. Love is visible and recognisable through real live human beings whereas God is a concept in a book that was written a long long time ago.

It's lazy and cowardly for the modern world to keep the God-Filter on so as to not make people think about stuff. I can cope with "I think it's disgusting because I would never want to kiss another man" but "God told me he doesn't like it" is like me saying "I don't like chocolate because The Easter Bunny told me it tastes bad."

Not meaning to mock you. It's just that you sound, to most rational people, a little bit like you're taking the easy route out of doing any analysis at all!

By DanProject76, at 5:22 AM
"Regarding Gay marriage, there is no such thing because God does not recognize it."

YOUR god may not, but MY God gloriously celebrates the union of two lovers.

Now, I realize you have the Bible on your side. After all, there are all those verses where God says "I hate gay marriage, I only recognize heterosexual marriages..."

Wait a second...God never says that in the Bible!

Huh. What do you know?

By Dan Trabue, at 5:26 AM
Dan T,

"As to OT law, are you saying that what was written in those exactly two places (Leviticus 18 and 20) about "Men who lay with men," is to be taken literally?"

Are you saying that the very same ste of passages that says not to commit incest and not to have sex with animals is wrong? When the Bible an act an abomination and a sin that means God does not approve of it.

"I'd suggest that first you'd have to find a verse - any verse - that says specifically and definitively "homosexuality is a sin."

You already named 2 of them in the Old Testament.

"I'm sure Jesus thanks you for telling us what He was thinking."

The fact when Jesus spoke about unnatural lusts he wa stalking about homosexuality and beastiality is not in disput by any reliable Biblical Scholar. Unlike you seem to have done, I, among many other people, have actually taken the time to learn what various terms and thier meanings. It wasn;t just Jesus who meant "homosexuality and beastiality" when He said "unnatural lusts", every Jew in the world at the time use dth term the same way.

"The actual word ("malakois," I believe) is literally translated, "soft."

And the word for "tank" in Navajo is literally translated "turtle". I am curious, do you also dispute that verses that say "Thou shalt not lay with a man as a woman" mean don't have homosexual sex? Come on Dan, learn your Bible, ALL of your Bible.

"YOUR god may not, but MY God gloriously celebrates the union of two lovers."

Then your god is Satan.

"Now, I realize you have the Bible on your side. After all, there are all those verses where God says "I hate gay marriage, I only recognize heterosexual marriages..."

Egad! You're right! God never said don't let homosexuals marry! He said that homosexual sin is such an abomination that it is a sin punishable by death under Old Testament Law! WOW! That is so totally an argument for God recognizing gay marriage! Catch the sarcasm yet?

The simple fact is that if God calls something sin HE does not offer path toward legitimacy. Homosexuality is not a sanctified act under any circumstances. Neither is beastiality. Niether is incest. Neither is any sexual activity outside of marriage. And incest is never legitimized even through marriage. Tell me Dan, are you ready to suport the right of brothers to marry their full sisters? How about the right of parents to mary their adult children? Are these unions sanctified simply because they love each other?

DP76,

"Not meaning to mock you. It's just that you sound, to most rational people, a little bit like you're taking the easy route out of doing any analysis at all!"

Not meaning to mock you, but most rational people I know believe in God while the Atheists make many wild, unfounded, and unprovable claims.

By Daniel Levesque, at 7:15 AM
Daniel: "Tell me Dan, are you ready to suport the right of brothers to marry their full sisters? How about the right of parents to mary their adult children?"

Oh do grow up.

By DanProject76, at 8:32 AM
"When the Bible an act an abomination and a sin that means God does not approve of it."

Oh, like eating shrimp? (Leviticus 11:10) God doesn't approve of that either, apparently. Are you going to rebuke shrimp-eaters?

God doesn't change, you know.

As to this:

"Then your god is Satan."

Be careful. It is the unforgiveable sin to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. If I'm worshiping God our savior, Jesus the Christ, and you are denying that God, that sounds dangerously close to blasphemy.

I'm just saying...

By Dan Trabue, at 9:48 AM
Daniel: "The government can build monuments to Christianity, but it cannot force you to go to church and it cannot force you to engage in specific religious rituals against your will."

But, apparently, it can intervene to prevent two consenting adults from entering into a legal contract on the grounds that your church doesn't approve.

Hypothetical question:

Do you support banning marriages performed by non-Christian authorities? Should Muslim and Jewish marriages, for example, not carry the same legal weight as those performed in churches you approve of?

Or perhaps the Abrahamic sects are allowed to have their marriages recognized, but not, say, Buddhist or Hindu? Those are idolatrous blasphemies, y'know. God will smite us if we honor those unholy marriages.

What about Unitarians? Ick.

Oh, and some weddings don't involve religious ceremonies at all. What about them?

By catastrophile, at 4:39 PM
DP76,

"Oh do grow up."

Undeniable fact: Incest and beatiality are are listed with homosexuality as sins. if you want to take homosexuality out of the middle of that and say its okay by God then you must take the whole lot of them.

Dan T,

"Oh, like eating shrimp? (Leviticus 11:10) God doesn't approve of that either, apparently. Are you going to rebuke shrimp-eaters?"

In regards to shrimp, Jesus sanctified all food when he declared "It is not what goes into a man's mouth that makes him unclean, but what comes out of it." This is expressly stated in teh New Testament, while there is no such statement regarding any of the sexual sins.

"Be careful. It is the unforgiveable sin to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. If I'm worshiping God our savior, Jesus the Christ, and you are denying that God, that sounds dangerously close to blasphemy."

The God of the Bible has never given His approval to sexual sin. All sexual immorality, which has been clearly defined as any sexual activity other than heterosexual sex within the bonds of mariage is sin. Sin seperates us from God. HE commands that we flee from it and that we expose it for what it is. on the other hand, Satan delights in perversion of all kinds. If your god "gloriously celebrates the union of two (homosexual, unmarried, sibling, adulterous) lovers" then your god is celbrating sin. If your god celebrates sin then your god is Satan, because God hates sin so much that He has declared that all sin is worthy of eternal punishment in the fires of Hell. This is quite the opposite of gloriously celebrating sin.

Remember, the words of Christ: "Even Satan come as an angel of light" Consider yourself duly informed when you stand before God and He rebukes you for your approval of sin that prevented people from coming out of sin to be saved.

As for me, I will not play russian rhoutlette with the souls of my fellow men. I will do the loving thing and do my best to guide them into rightnes with God ratherthan helping them to wallow in the filth of sin.

Catastrophile,

"But, apparently, it can intervene to prevent two consenting adults from entering into a legal contract on the grounds that your church doesn't approve."

Actually, if the national religion is Christianity as the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled, then they are most capable of making such legislation. And evenif it is not, there is no part of teh Constitution that guearantees the right to marry to anyone at all, so the government may still ban homsexual mariage if it pleases.

"Do you support banning marriages performed by non-Christian authorities?"

I support all heterosexual marriages that do not involve coersion. Before you say it, yes, although I am personally opposed to it, I would accept polygamy if it were done on the Biblical model on the grounds that there is precedent for it in my religion, though it is clearly demonstrated to be inferior to monogamy. Be aware the Biblical model is also a rather chauvanistic oe where ony the man canhave multiple wives and women cannot have multiple husbands. Since it is a discriminatory and unequal model of marriage it cannot be allowed under our Constitution anyway, so it is a moot poin to argue since any Constitutional form of polygamy would have me in a fit.

By Daniel Levesque, at 9:13 PM
"there is no part of the Constitution that guarantees the right to marry to anyone at all, so the government may still ban homsexual mariage if it pleases."

The Constitution doesn't create rights, Daniel, you know that. I question the government's right to discriminate over who it allows rights to based on some religious objection to those rights being granted.

I might shock you now: I support the right of a brother and sister to legally marry. Or three brothers. Or a mother and a daughter.

Do you follow me yet?

Marriage is not about sex.

Marriage as seen by the legal system is a thick stack of legal rights which are afforded to partners in a family setting. Traditions like a man taking in his brother's widow were not about a little extra nookie on the side, they were about stability and family.

I find it unconscionable and abhorrent to declare that these rights are only to be granted to non-related heterosexual couples. I find it preposterous that the government should be involved in defining what does or does not constitute a family, and especially the hypocrites that pass for our leaders. I think it degrades the institution of marriage to imply that only counts if it's capable of biological reproduction.

But most of all, I find it flagrantly unConstitutional to deny large swaths of the population the right to form such partnerships based on your own religious precepts.

. . .

Anyway, it appears that you distinguish between forcing people to participate in a church and forcing them to adhere to its strictures. I don't buy that. Obeying a faith's strictures is a part of worship, isn't it?

And presumably, you would not have a problem with a state-imposed ban on other types of marriage that your church doesn't recognize (Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish) -- even though you personally don't object to such marriages? I mean, if the government decided to do that, it would pass Constitutional muster in your opinion?

Am I reading your position correctly? How far is the government permitted to go to enforce "national religion" status?

Remember, this is not about personal approval, it's about how far the government is allowed to stick its nose into people's lives.

By catastrophile, at 11:57 PM
"And presumably, you would not have a problem with a state-imposed ban on other types of marriage that your church doesn't recognize"

And since Daniel is legislating HIS version of Christianity, I suppose if enough voters approve of killing "men who lay with men" because that is what the OT Law clearly states, he would support that, as well?

At least the lesbians would be safe...

By Dan Trabue, at 2:59 AM
"In regards to shrimp, Jesus sanctified all food"

So, you're saying that what was wrong in the OT - and not just wrong, but an ABOMINATION - can be actually okay? That either God changed or people's understanding of God changed?

Understand, I'm not challenging this notion, I agree that the NT teaches all food is acceptable - in direct contrast to what we understand the OT to teach.

And since we're on common ground on that issue - that either God can change or we can be wrong about what the OT seems to say - I'm suggesting that the Bible does not support the notion that gay marriage is a wrong.

Just the opposite.

I agree with you that the Bible teaches that sexual promiscuity is not a good thing. Further, despite your assertions to the contrary, Jesus says nothing about gay marriage or even about homosexuality.

Nothing.

If you wish, try to cite even a single verse to support your position. If you cite a verse that opposes sexual immorality, I'll agree with you. But sex in the context of marriage is not immorality.

Further, as I've already stated, the word that is translated "homosexual" in the two or three times it sometimes appears in the NT, is actually the word, "soft." It is a guess, a supposition, a hunch that have caused SOME translators to translate that as "homosexual," but in truth, we don't know. You don't know. I don't know.

What I DO know is the word actually means SOFT.

So, in summation:

1. we agree that we're sometimes wrong about what God says (that, or that God changes, and I myself don't think that to be true).
2. It is a truth that we're limited in our knowledge.
3. It is a truth that the ONLY time the word "homosexual" appears in the Bible, it is a mistranslation for the word Soft.
4. It is a truth that we - the translators, you, I or King James hisself - do not know what that word meant in context. Why "the soft" would be included in a list of sinners.
5. We agree that sexual immorality is a wrong.
6. It is a truth that gay marriage is nowhere condemned in the Bible.
7. It is a truth that Jesus no where condemns homosexuals.

And finally, it is a truth that saved Christians of goodwill can be in disagreement upon this topic and not have to condemn the other to hell.

By Dan Trabue, at 4:42 AM
Dan T,

"It is a truth that the ONLY time the word "homosexual" appears in the Bible, it is a mistranslation for the word Soft."

Oh really?

Now to bury your argument with scripture.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: 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."

Romans 1:21-27
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 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.

Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:13
"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."

Romans 1:24-32:
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

I could continue, but the point here is that homosexuality as a topic is spoken of steadily throughout the Bible. If you focus all of your attention on the word "homosexual" you are committing an error similar to this: Focusing on the word house when we also use the following ways to describe a house- home, abode, dwelling, chateu, place of residience, home of record. Or perhaps the following, which is a common error some historical revisionists make: Saying someone never spoke of God when he spoke of the following: Divine Providence, Almighty, the Creator, Heavenly Father, or any of the numerous other titles given to God.

For example, how anyone cold say "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." is not a direct Biblical condemnation of homosexuality is beyond the realm of sense and logic.

Anyway, feel free to ignore scrpiture if you want to. The Pharisees did the same thing, picking what they wanted to follow and ignoring the rest, and Jesus condemned them with some of the strongest words He ever used. Your own refual to acknowledge the whole scriture puts you in peril and puts those who listen to you in peril.

It is the argument of fools and the ignorant who claim the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. And any god who revels in activity contrary to the Bible, an activity also known as sin, is nothing more than a manifestation of Satan.

You talk about versions of Christianity, there is only one version,and that is the version, regardless of denomination, that teaches the Bible as truth and follows it. All else is deception and corruption, a Satanic attempt to destroy the Church by raising up false churches and confusing men as much as possible.

By Daniel Levesque, at 9:20 AM
"Now to bury your argument with scripture."

cites 5 passages... then says,

"I could continue, but the point here is that homosexuality as a topic is spoken of steadily throughout the Bible"

Actually, you can't continue. That (+/- 2 or 3 other verses) is THE ENTIRE biblical argument against homosexuality. It is verifiably NOT talked about throughout the whole Bible, although you'd think it was the way that many church folk treat the topic. To continue to make statements like your last one above is to bear false witness, which IS a sin.

And, as I stated and you validated, Jesus said nothing on it and, as I stated, the one passage you quoted that uses the word, "homosexual" does so as a mistranslation for the word, "soft."

I believe the Bible as truth. I am opposed to those who would attempt to use God's truth to beat sinners over the head with ideas that are marginally biblical or missing from the Bible at all.

Having said that, I'm not trying to win you over to my way of thinking. When I used to think like you did, no argument could have ever convinced me to think otherwise. It took God's Spirit opening up God' Word to me to do that.

All I'm trying to help you see is that Christians can disagree upon matters and still be Christians. The bitterness and bile that spews forth from so many towards brothers and sisters in Christ do much more harm than any flaming homosexuals could hope to do.

By Dan Trabue, at 12:20 PM
"a Satanic attempt to destroy the Church by raising up false churches and confusing men as much as possible."

Or maybe they just find themselves attracted to the same sex? Yes, it's really that simple!

Your God sounds like he would be a barrell of laughs at parties.

By DanProject76, at 1:19 PM
"but the point here is that homosexuality as a topic is spoken of steadily throughout the Bible."

Want proof that this is a lie? You've found an entire 5 passages that are often used against gays, that admittedly could be taken that way.

I challenge you to find five more that seem to talk about gays in a negative way.

Not about rape (as in Sodom and Gomorrah) which I agree is wrong. Nor about prostitution, which I agree is wrong.

I challenge you to find five more verses that talk about homosexuality and if you can't, then I challenge you to never repeat the lie again that homosexuality is talked about throughout the bible.

If you want to say, "the Bible is mostly quiet about homosexuality, but when it comes up a handful of places, it clearly says that homosexuality is wrong..." then say that. But if you can't find just five more, then clearly homosexuality is NOT "spoken of steadily throughout the Bible" and to repeat that would be a lie.

Note: I'm not calling you a liar. Before I studied the Bible on this topic, I too, thought homosexuality was condemned steadily through the Bible. It's just not true.

By Dan Trabue, at 1:53 PM
Since there aren't five other passages for you to drag up, allow me to ask another set of questions:

Do you recognize that some Christians think it is a sin to divorce?

Do you also recognize that some Christians think it is NOT a sin to divorce?

Do you think both groups are correct, or that one is right and one is wrong?

I'm going to assume for argument's sake that you'd probably say that both are not right. Either it is or it isn't a sin to divorce.

(And if divorce isn't a good "sin" for illustration purposes, choose another - going to R-rated movies, drinking alcohol, etc).

My point is that there are many sins out there that Christians will disagree as to whether or not they're a sin. Do you think any christians who get it wrong on a particular sin (ie, think divorce is not a sin when it actually is) are doomed to hell? That they are worshiping satan and not God?

I'm going to guess your answer again and say that you'd say, "No. It's not necessary (or even possible) that we be "right" on every sin. We're fallible humans, after all!"

Am I correct thus far?

If so, then my question to you is: What is it about the particular "sin" (as you see it) of homosexuality that I am not only wrong in my belief that it's not a sin, but also that I'm not even worshiping God because I disagree with you on its sin status?

By Dan Trabue, at 6:55 PM
Dan T,

"It is verifiably NOT talked about throughout the whole Bible . . ."

The whole Bible = Old and New Testaments. As I have shown, both the Old and New Testaments speak condemnation for homosexuality, frequently describing the behavior rather than naming it. If you are relly to deluded to understand these two simple concepts then you are in spiritual trouble because, as I recall, discernment is one of the spiritual gifts the saved recieve.

"I challenge you to find five more that seem to talk about gays in a negative way."

I challenge you to find ONE that says anything positive about homosexuality. You won't find it. Now, let's see . . . numerous passages condemning homosexuality, none at all sanctifying it, I wonder if a 2 year old could figure it out . . .

"Not about rape (as in Sodom and Gomorrah) which I agree is wrong."

As I recall, no one was actually raped according to what was recorded in the Bible. Also, as I recall, the angels that visited Lot and all the men of the city wante to rape were sent only AFTER God a had judged the city and determined to destroy it. Therefore, the threat to rape the angels had nothing at all to with God's decision.

"All I'm trying to help you see is that Christians can disagree upon matters and still be Christians."

Oh, I fully agree with you on that. However, you cannot pervert the Bible and be a Christian.

""homosexual" does so as a mistranslation for the word, "soft."

By your logic the majoriity of the Bble is mistranslated. If you look at the text in the King James and New King James Bibles you will see many words in italics, this is every word that does not directly translate from the original language to English. In both of these versions it reads "Nor the homosexuals nor the soddomites" and none of it is in italics. Argue all you want, but the original greek work that is being translated as homosexual is the word the Greeks used for homosexual. LIke I said before, each language has its peculiarities, like the word for Navajo word for "tank" directly translating as "turtle". It may say turtle, but when talking about military hardware they mean tank. Your argument therefore, is a deception that you have chosen to belive.

"Do you recognize that some Christians think it is a sin to divorce? . . . I'm going to assume for argument's sake that you'd probably say that both are not right. Either it is or it isn't a sin to divorce."

Dan, you expose your utter ignorance in this. Observe:

Matthew 5:31-32:
"It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery"

1 Corinthians 7:10-15
10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

15But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

Jesus spoke exactly of God's intention for marriage by the way. Observe this pasage and notice there is no mention of homosexual marriage being withiing God's plan for marriage. Remember that since all sex must be within marriage or it is sin then what God declares to be marriage is the only allowable form of sexuality. In this case, the exclusion of homosexual marriage from God's plan for marriage is as telling as if JEsus had said "Don't marry someone of the same sex!" It is also passages like this one that have me opposed to polygamy because in every instance the word "wife" is used instead of "wives" and "husband" is used instead of "husbands".

5"It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.'[a] 7'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,[b] 8and the two will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two, but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Now follow that with this verse from Corinthians. Note the words his and hers, husband and wife, and no references to homosexuality being included in marriage. Again, the fact that homosexuality is utterly left out of the description of marriage says that homosexual marriage is not in God's design.

1 Corinthians 7:1-5
1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Clearly, God considers divorce a Sin in most circumstances. To my knowledge the only Biblically allowable reasons for divorce are adultery and abandonment. However, if one must flee a marriage to avoid abuse I am personally fine with that as a means of survival. What God thinks of that is not stated in the Bible, so I am forced to conclude that He demands the abuser quit abusing (abuse IS a violation of Jesus' command to love our wives as He loves the Church, and it is also a violation of His command for women to obey their husbands) and the marriage be reconciled.

"My point is that there are many sins out there that Christians will disagree as to whether or not they're a sin. Do you think any christians who get it wrong on a particular sin (ie, think divorce is not a sin when it actually is) are doomed to hell? That they are worshiping satan and not God?"

This argument of yours has little bearing on why I said your gos is Satan. in regards to homosexuality you said: "YOUR god may not, but MY God gloriously celebrates the union of two lovers." This is the equivalent of saying the following regarding divorce: "YOUR God may not like divorce, but MY God Gloriously celebrates the disunion of holy matrimony." Areyou capable of seeing the difference between that and disagreement over how sinful divorce is? On one hand there is a group that says divorce is sin, on the other there is a group that divirce is permitted, but I see no group that says divorce is glorious and God absolutely loves it. This is because God HATES sin. Since God hates sin, any god who revels in sin is Satan. I fail to see how this concept can be so difficult for you to grasp.

This said, do you agree that:
1: God hates sin
2: Satan revels in sin
3: A supposed god who revels in sin must be Satan
4: Any person following a god who revels in sin is following Satan

By Daniel Levesque, at 8:39 AM
Daniel, let's not forget that you are technically an extremist.

This is why I can't deal with all the God and Jesus stuff. Sorry.

By DanProject76, at 9:23 AM
DP76,

Actually, technically, I am a fundamentalist. The guys running around with signs and screaming "Kill homosexuals! They deserve to be in Hell!" and engaging in other incitements to hatred and violence are extremists.

A fundamentalist follows his religion very strictly, in my case, as a Christian, that includes condeming all sin, but still loving the sinner. An extremists uses his religion to incite hatred and violence, that is, unless, as is the case with Islam, that religion demands hatred and violence. Those people are fendamentalists following an extreme religion.

By Daniel Levesque, at 10:05 AM
"To mock another for the same evil you perform is the purest form of hypocrisy"

So because I am gay, I must be snorting meth with prostitutes?

By Rick and Gary, at 10:11 AM
Good point last poster.

The religious dude did far worse things than I have ever done, while all the time comdemning me for having a loving safe boring married relationship with a man I love. I wasn't paying a male prostitute for gay sex on gay sex drugs. I am like so sinful.

By DanProject76, at 12:51 PM
Rick and Gary,

"So because I am gay, I must be snorting meth with prostitutes?"

What this has to do with pointing out that mocking other people for an evil you are personally committing I will never know. Since you obviously lack the intelligence to uderstand the statement I made allow me clarify it for you in termms you will understand.

You are a homosexual. So if you mock others for being homosexuals you are a hyppocrite.

If you do drugs and you deman others for doing drugs you are a hyppocrite.

If you visit prostitutes and you speak of the evils of prostitution you are a hyppocrite.

Engaging in one evil does not mean that you are by default engaging in the others and such a thing was never stated nor implied. Is there anything else that was beyond you limited comprehension that you need me to clarify for you?

DP76,

"The religious dude did far worse things than I have ever done . . ."

Let's axamine this for a second shall we?

1: You confess to being a homosexual. Therefore the two of you share in this sin.

2: The coommandment against adultery, when properly translated is a commandment aginsyt both adultery and fornication. It is also made clear in other pasages of the Bible that fornication is considered the same as adultery in the eyes of God. You have confessed to unmarried sex in the past. Therefore, you share the sin of adultery. What's more, you share the sin of homosexual adultery.

3: You say you have never done drugs. If by never done drugs you are including never: smoked pot, smoked tobbacco, drank alcohol to excess, or done any of the myriad of illegal drugs in the world then yu are inncoent of this. However, it must be noted that the Bible does not specifically ban drugs or alcohol, but rater warns about using intoxicating substances of any kind to the point of intoxication. So, if you have benan altered state due to any kind of drug that was done for recreational purposes then you share in this sin also. Classifying one drug as worse than another is an invention of man, not of God.

4: Have you ever told a lie in your life, even once? If so then you also share in the sin of deciet.

5: Have you ever spoken against something you secretly do? If so the you are also guilty of hyppocrisy.

So, before you get self-ritcheous and start calling yourself better than Pastor Ted, I suggest you take a more honest look at yourself first. We have ALL sinned, and we are ALL doomed. It is only the saving grace of Jesus Christ that saves us. The ony difference between those in heaven and those in Hell is faith, and even that is a gift. Obedience, in case you were wondering, follows faith. It does not preceede faith.

By Daniel Levesque, at 3:55 PM
"On one hand there is a group that says divorce is sin, on the other there is a group that divirce is permitted, but I see no group that says divorce is glorious..."]

I think you're missing my point. I'm asking you directly: Can I disagree with you about the status of a particular sin and still be a Christian? Or, does it depend upon the sin?

Conversely, what if YOU were wrong about a particular sin. Say that you go through all your life supposing that war is sometimes okay for Christians to participate in (even a good thing for Christians to take part in) and you get to heaven and find out you're wrong. Are you doomed to hell because you were wrong about that sin? Are you not a Christian if you're wrong about a sin?

And, if that's your position, what biblical basis do you have for such a position?

By Dan Trabue, at 5:04 PM
"However, you cannot pervert the Bible and be a Christian."

And, as a backup to your statement here, I would suggest that to say war is permissible for Christians is a perversion of the Bible. So, if you get to heaven and find out that you've been perverting the Bible all these years, are you doomed to hell? Yes or no?

Also, as to your inability to find any further verses to support your statement that homosexuality is denounced throughout the Bible, you went on to state:

"numerous passages condemning homosexuality, none at all sanctifying it"

Bearing false witness again, even after I've pointed out to you your error. Both "numerous" and "throughout the Bible" suggest many, many verses/passages. There are, instead, ONLY three possible ones and one or two others with a word which translators are unsure of.

So that you're not bearing false witness (that's one of the Ten Commandments, you know), would you stick to describing what you think about this issue as "the topic is rarely discussed in the Bible, but..." and say whatever you want from there.

By Dan Trabue, at 5:16 PM
Dan T,

"I think you're missing my point. I'm asking you directly: Can I disagree with you about the status of a particular sin and still be a Christian?"

And you missded mine. My point was that what individual people think does not matter. Only what the Bible actually says matters. In this I can say with full confidence that all Christians agree, and those who claim to be Christians and do not are themselves false.

"Bearing false witness again, even after I've pointed out to you your error. Both "numerous" and "throughout the Bible" suggest many, many verses/passages. There are, instead, ONLY three possible ones and one or two others with a word which translators are unsure of."

And again you are the one in error. By ignoring the fact that EVERY time the Bible speaks of homosexual relations in both the Old and New Testaments, and by ignoring the fact that every incidence of condoned sexual relations are within heterosexual marriage, and that every instance of marriage and every statement regarding marriage is strictly heterosexual, you are engaging in an active deception. The only reason I am not accusing you of bearing fale witness as you wantonly accuse me of doing is because your use of false witness is also misplaced. I am not surprised that I have to explain this to you considering your oft displayed ignorance. So, here it is: Bearing false witnes is an lie wherein you accuse someone of doing something that person did not do.

Actually, since you have now repeatedly accused me of bearing false witness, which I have demonstrably NOT done, I guess yuo ARE guilty if bearing false witness.

If you cannot accept that homosexuality is mentioned in negative terms in both the Old and New Testament that is not a lie on my Part, but a denial of the Word of God on your part. If you choose to ignore the fact that while homosexuality, whether named or simply described as an act, is not only condemned in every instance it is mentoned, then you are lying. Lying is a sin just so you know. If you choose to ignore the complete absence of anything in the Bible that actually counteracts the condemnations given to homosexuality, and try to justufy homosexuality by saying it not condemned enough, then you are engaged in deciet. If you ignore the exampls of right sexual relationships throughout the Bible the you do so either through through ignorance, lack of intelligence, of a desire to decieve. If you really want to believe that you know better than everyone and every organization who has ever translated the Bible to try to justify an act called "abomination" in the Bible, then you do so at your own peril.

As t your insistence that the greek word used for homosexuality was never used to describe homosexuals, in spite of ALLL historical evidence, allow me to toss a few English words used to name homosexuals that in no way literally translate to the word "homosexual": Lavendar (A shade of purple), Gay (happy), Queer (stranged or odd), Fruit (a particular plant product), Fairy (a mythical magical winged creature), Flamer (Slang, indicating the use of fire), Fag (a ciggarrette or a piece of firewood). By your logic then in about 2,000 years homosexuality will be viewed as far less discussed, written about, and whatnot due to the fact that many of the owrds used to describe homosexuality do not literally mean "one who has sexual relations with a member of the same sex". AGain, I suggest you take the time ot learn not just teh literal translations of any words you want to attack, but also how they were used and in what context they held additional meanings. The use of the word homosexual is a true and fully accurate translation despite your own half informed ignorance.

And since you have conveniently chosen to ignore this, I asume because it i an uncomfortable question for you to actually answer, I shall ask you again:

Do you agree that:
1: God hates sin
2: Satan revels in sin
3: A supposed god who revels in sin must be Satan
4: Any person following a god who revels in sin is following Satan

Lemme guess, you will never answer this because you fear the results of the answers you know you must give.

By Daniel Levesque, at 11:22 PM
Daniel I don't think you get our point as usual.

We are mocking the great holy man not because he had a gay extramarital affair with a male prostitute while taking illegal gay sex drugs. We are mocking him because he has built his profile around the fact that he extremely condemns these things. I don't care if he is gay. I care that he is an enormous hypocrite who thinks he can get away with his behaviour by saying his imaginary friend will help him.

I feel sorry for his wife though.

By DanProject76, at 2:14 AM
Do you agree that:
1: God hates sin

Yep.

2: Satan revels in sin

I probably don't think of satan in the terms that you do, but I'll answer in the affirmative here.

3: A supposed god who revels in sin must be Satan

Sure.

4: Any person following a god who revels in sin is following Satan

Sure.

It is also possible, of course, that a person is wrong about their god revelling in a particular sin. You, for instance, thinking that Jesus would support Christians warring, doesn't mean that Jesus does.

Therefore you're not necessarily worshiping a false god, but are simply wrong about the nature of God.

"In this I can say with full confidence that all Christians agree, and those who claim to be Christians and do not are themselves false."

So, according to your doctrine, any Christian who misinterprets any Bible passage(s) is not a Christian.

God have mercy on your sanctimonious soul. What a dreary and lonely place your afterlife will be.

By Dan Trabue, at 5:14 AM
Dan T,

"thinking that Jesus would support Christians warring, doesn't mean that Jesus does."

"Support" and "allow" are a far cry from "revel". My God absolutely does not "revel" in war, though he does "allow" Christians to partake. You claim your god "revels" in sexual immorality (homosexuality). Since it is repeatedly condemned in the Bible, and there are exactly 0 passages supporting homosexuality, then the god you claim "revels" in this act must by default be Satan. It's the most basic of logical processes. Now, unless you can pull something out of the Bible that explicitly condones homosexuality I highly suggest you end your support of this sin so that you do not lead yourself and others to condemnation. Having read the Bible in its entirety I know that any attempt to pull support for homosexuality out of it is futile. But feel free to try. Oh, by the way, yes, we ARE commanded to love homosexuals. We are commanded to love everyone as we love ourselves and our wives as Christ loves the Church. But this does not mean that we should condone their sin any more than we should condone a liar, a thief, or any other act of sin.

By Daniel Levesque, at 9:42 AM
"Now, unless you can pull something out of the Bible that explicitly condones homosexuality I highly suggest you end your support of this sin"

Gladly. As soon as you pull something out of the bible that says that, when Jesus commanded us to love our enemies, that he was saying it was okay to kill them and their children.

And it will have to be something in the NT, as Jesus reinterpreted the OT for us. Just as we can no longer make the claim that Thou Shalt Not Eat Shrimp because the NT has given us better instructions, you can't cite an OT example of killing when Jesus has said, "...but I say unto you to turn the other cheek...Love your enemies...overcome evil with good."

All of which are pretty self-evident in their opposition to killing to everyone except those on the Right.

By Dan Trabue, at 5:47 AM
Dan T,

"Gladly. As soon as you pull something out of the bible that says that, when Jesus commanded us to love our enemies, that he was saying it was okay to kill them and their children."

You are avoiding the question. The fact is that there is NOTHING anywhere in the Bible that overturns the commandment "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind. This is abomination." You cannot produce such a thing because it does not exist. Now, when Jesus commanded us to love our enemies he was talking to individuals, not nations. Where the Mosaic Law was given to a nation, Jesus spake "you have heard it said that you should love your neighbor but hate your enemies, but I say you must love your enemies for by doing so you are heaping burning coals upon their heads." This is slightly paraphrased for brevity. Jesus was speaking of individual conduct, just as He was when He commanded Christians to obey the law of the land as long as it is not in direct conflict with the Law of God. Nothing in this takes the authority to make war and execute criminals away from governments. Soldiers and executioners are part of the governemnt and fall under this authority which was given in the Old Testament and never repealed by Jesus. Also, do not forget th efollowing acts by some of the most revered men of the Old Testament, acting under the propmting of God:
1- David killed Goliath and made war on the Philistines.
2- Samson was granted the strength to collapse teh Phillistione temple on top of hundreds of men, women, and children.
3- Elija killed all of the priests of Baal.
4- God commanded the Hebrews to commit genocide against the Caannanites.
5- Gideon made war against the Midianites and was aided by God in the destruction of their army.
6- Surely you remember the numerous time God helped the Hebrews fight wars?
7- And who can forget the numeroustime s God used war to chastise the Jews and even went so far as to have them conquored and enslaved by Babylon, and later Rome.

The same God who sanctioned all of this,a nd in some cases commanded it, and who commanded the death penalty for a variety of crimes is still the same God today as he was back then. Nations still have the God given power to make war and execute criminals, and since Chrstians are called to obey our laws except where they are in direct conflict with God's laws, we must do our duty and fight if we are called to war by our country. However, even in war it is easy to see teh difference between a war fought with Biblkical principles f mercy and loving thy enemy and one that is not. Take the one in Iraq for example. The United States renders medical aid to enemy combatants on the battlefield, keeps POW's alive and in humane conditions, though still in prison,
and we avoid collateral damage whenever possible. When our soldiers violate these principles they are punished. The terrorists we are fighting have killed 100% of thier captured enemy combatants, have never rendered medical aid to the enemy, and specifically target noncombatants and kill them. Lovng thy enemy can even be practiced in war, and to a far greater extent than any other coutry I know of the U.S. acts on this principle.

By Daniel Levesque, at 9:23 PM
This whole post sums up why I judge people on whether they are good people and not because of what book they live their life by.

By DanProject76, at 12:59 PM
Dan T,

I'm still waiting. You have yet to Biblcaly rebut my assertions that God is not as opposed to war as you think, and I am waiting for you to give sound Biblicala justification for homosexuality.

Lemme guess, you are unable to do either one.

By Daniel Levesque, at 7:33 AM
No, it's more of a matter of we've already covered this.

You have yet to Biblcaly rebut my assertions that God is not as opposed to war as you think

I've said that, as Christians, OUR command is to love our enemies and overcome evil with good (that's from the Bible, by the way). I don't find how you can do that and kill your enemies and, further, I find that dropping bombs on innocent people - as modern warfare does - is an evil.

You can find biblical support for killing innocent people? I say that it is an evil.

You choose to define it some other way and that's between your god and you.

...and I am waiting for you to give sound Biblical justification for homosexuality.

1. There are five places in the Bible that you think condemn homosexuality. I don't.

2. I think the theme of relationships in the Bible (see Daniel and Jonathan, see Joseph and Mary, see Ruth and Naomi and Ruth and Boaz, see the frequently repeated condemnation of sexual behavior that is oppressive or unloving) is that we ought to live in loving relationships.

Therefore, I'm opposed to "loose" sexual activity - hetero- or homo- and supportive of committed loving relationships.

Those are my answers to your questions. You disagree. I understand that. As I disagree with you.

Now perhaps you can demonstrate why you think that those who disagree with you on a particular sin are not Christians? Or is it just this one particular "sin" of homosexuality that we have to agree with you in order to be saved?

I reject your legalism as unbiblical and ungodly. We are saved by God's grace alone, by accepting that grace and following in Jesus' (peaceful, loving) steps by God's grace.

Must I agree upon your position on smoking or drinking to get in to heaven? Or your position on R-rated or X-rated movies to get in to heaven? Must I agree with you that taxes are bad to get in to heaven, that dropping bombs is a good thing to get in to heaven?

How many hoops must one leap through in order to get in to heaven in your religion and where do you find any biblical support for that position?

Answer that, brother.

By Dan Trabue, at 10:45 PM
Dan T,

"I find that dropping bombs on innocent people - as modern warfare does - is an evil."

Agreed. And those terrorists specifically targeting civillians are so bad that we MUST stop them lest they continue to murder innocents. And do not forget the fact that innocents have always died in war. And do try to remember that we are not targeting innocents. However, there are numerous arguments to be made for the idea that when nations are at war the entire population of the opposing nation count as the enemy, but that is somethig for philosophers to argue about, and not a concept I agree with despite its historical application, including in the Bible.

Also, I suggest you study the parable of the minas. Remember that this parable is a picture of Jesus, and at the end He orders that His enemies be put to death.

All of this is beside the point. As I said, we as Christians are commanded to love our enemies, but Jesus never commanded nations not to make war. In fact, Jesus Himself said that Wars, among other tragedies, musthapen to prepare the world for His return. Crazy concept, huh?

"There are five places in the Bible that you think condemn homosexuality. I don't."

More than 5, but frequency is beside the point, there are numerous sins that are mentioned exactly once, and I find a single declaration of sin as valid as a thousand such declarations. Your argument seems to be that if something is not condemned often enough then it is acceptable. And you may want to ask yourself why male prostitutes are specifically condemned while female prostitutes are not.

"I think the theme of relationships in the Bible (see Daniel and Jonathan, see Joseph and Mary, see Ruth and Naomi and Ruth and Boaz, see the frequently repeated condemnation of sexual behavior that is oppressive or unloving) is that we ought to live in loving relationships.

Therefore, I'm opposed to "loose" sexual activity - hetero- or homo- and supportive of committed loving relationships."

I think that you are confusing "loving" relationships and "sexual" relationships. Are trying to suggest that the friendship between David and Jonathan or between Ruth and Naomi was sexual? Are you realy so oblivious to the many kinds of "love" that you think these friend and family relationships equal sex?

Incest is condemned less than homosexuality. In fact, I can only identify 2 places where each spefic form of incest is named as sin in the Bible. Do you take this to mean that incest is fine a long as it is loving and committed incest?

"Now perhaps you can demonstrate why you think that those who disagree with you on a particular sin are not Christians? Or is it just this one particular "sin" of homosexuality that we have to agree with you in order to be saved?"

It is not me that you must agree with. It is God whom you must obey.

And you are overlooking the factthat you declared that YOUR god "revels" in sinful sexual activity as long as it between people who love each other. The whole "love makes any sex okay" argument has been debunked for a very long time. Only marriage makes sex okay, and the only marriage God has sanctioned is heterosexual.

"I reject your legalism as unbiblical and ungodly."

And I reject the acceptance of sin as unbiblical and ungodly becaue Jesus rejected the acceptance of sin. There is a reason why every time He forgave someone He commanded them to "sin no more." And do try to recall that Jesus said "I did not come to do away with the law, but to fulfill it. I tell you that not one letter shall be stricken from the law." So any argument that various sins are acceptable now because Jesus forgives us is exactly opposite of what Jesus said.

You are also overlooking the fact Jesus told us that we can judge the state of a man's faith by the fruits of his life. If his life produces sin then his faith is false. If his faith produces ritcheousness then his faith is true. You say you reject legalism, as do I. However, the saved reject sin while the unsaved embrace it.

"We are saved by God's grace alone, by accepting that grace and following in Jesus' (peaceful, loving) steps by God's grace."

Is it the peaceful or the loving Jesus who beat and whipped the moneychangers? Is it the peaceful or the loving Jesus who gave the pharisees all of those tongue lashings? Is it the peaceful or the loving Jesus who said, through the parable of the minas, that He will have all of His enemies put to death when he returns as King? Is it the peaceful or the loving Jesus who will chain Satan in hell for all eternity? Is it the peaceful or the loving Jesus who will open the seventh seal and unleash armageddon on the world?

You forget that Jesus is far more than a peaceful and loving wimp. He is also the Ritcheous Judge. He is Holy Lamb. And He is fully God. And the one, most important and defining aspect of God is not love, or peace, or mercy, or grace. It is Holiness. In the Hebrew language the way emphasis was laid was to repeat a word. Many aspects of God are repeated, but only one is so important that it is repeaeted not once, but twice. In Revelations it tells of the throne of God, and it tells of the Seraphs who cast thier crowns at the feet of God and declare "Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord!"

Your focus on only one aspect of God is folly. If God were purely love there would be no wrath, no damnation, and no need for Christ in the first place. And the idea that Jesus is purely peaceful is contrary to the Bible.

"Must I agree upon your position on smoking or drinking to get in to heaven? Or your position on R-rated or X-rated movies to get in to heaven? Must I agree with you that taxes are bad to get in to heaven, that dropping bombs is a good thing to get in to heaven?"

Again, it is God who you must obey, not me that you must agree with.

"How many hoops must one leap through in order to get in to heaven in your religion and where do you find any biblical support for that position?"

Leap through this one:
Believe and obey. Be seperate from the world and let the ritchousness and love of God shine through your life. Monitor your fruits. If the fruits of your life produce that which is holy then you are probably on the right path. If the fruits of your life produce sin then you are probably on the wrong path. To know what is sin simply read yur Bible and take it at face value. The vast majority of what is written is simple and requires no interpretation. What does require interpretation is the imagery, which is held exclusively in prophesies and parables. Every person who teaches that what the Bible says quite plainly is not what it actually means is a false teacher and will be punished as such.

To avoid the typical folly of the love only crowd, I highly reccommend you pay attention to the nature and aspects of God as they are all presented.

Dan, when a man takes it upon himself to teach that sin is acceptable then the fruits of his life will be to produce more sin. This is the opposite of the fruits of ritchousness which produce less sin. If you ignore everything else I say at least take this to heart. I do not want to be called as a witness against you when we face judgement.

As to your constant agrument about war . .the Bible is full of war, and Christians had better be allowed to fight in wars or there won't be any of us fighting alongside Jesus when He is battling Satan's armies. Do try to remeber that Jesus Himself will be leading the final battle that permanently exiles Satan and his followers to eternity in Hell. I for one want to be fighting alongside Him. However, at the same time I respect the desire of some Christians to avoid fighting in wars. I myself went into medicine in the army because; while I am willing to fight for my country, it is far more palatable to me to heal people rather than kill them. But if I had been sent to war and the enemy was trying to kill me or my patients I would assuredly have fought the enemy will all my strength, and when it was over I would have rendered medical aid to the enemy alongside my countrymen. I take comfort in the face of war, a thing to avoided if at all possible, in the fact that my God has fought wars, and shall fight more wars before this world passes.

Tell me somthing. If you were faced with the following choice, which one do you think God would most approve of:

You encounter a man who is about o murder 20 people. You can stop him, but to do so you must kill him. Do you: 1- kill him and save 20 lives, or 2- let him kill 20 people.

In this case, I am convinced that the first choice is usually the right one. Not because God approves of killing, far from it, but because God values the lives of those 20 people so much that their murder cannot be allowed.

I think of war the same way, and if I am wrong then I will answer to God for my sin. But this is also why I am always concerned about the justification of a war. Freeing the oppressed, ending genocide, stopping murderers self defense, these are acceptable reason for war to me. Securing resources, border disputes, and personal greed are not justifiable reason to go ot war. There are others on each side, but this is just a sample of how I personally view war. War itself is acceptable, but not ALL wars are acceptable.

Oh yeah, and take note: God has commanded numerous wars be fought, and has declared the death penalty for certain crimes, and has entrusted these powers to governments. However, He has never once commanded a single person to take another memebr of the same sex as a lover. This alone is reason to say that your constant carping about war when you are confronted about homosexuality is pointless and serves as a distraction from the real issue: Homosexuality is not something God approves of, and you teaching people that He does is leading them to Hell, and it is placing the burden of false teacher on your own soul. Do not strive to teach, for teachers shall recieve the harshest judgements when they are wrong. Which is why I stick to the certinties. I do not run around saying that God approves of alcohol when I know full well He hates drunkeness, I do not tell people sex is okay as long you love each other even if you are not married, I do not attempt to loosen the rules God gave us in any way. No one has ever been damned for being too strict , but many have been damned for hyppocrisy, and many have been damned for disregarding God's Law. Remember the whole point of the Law is to damn us all so we MUST rely on Jesus to save us through His grace. But once saved we are called to obey. The surest sign of a hyppocrite is one who claims to be saved and lives in sin or teaches people that sin is okay. Remeber also that Jesus proclaimed the worst tortures of Hell for hyppocrites. For this reason I would rather be the ignorant damned than the well-informed hyppocrite. Both are damned, but the hyppocrite shall have it far worse in Hell.

By Daniel Levesque, at 12:34 AM
Dan said:
"How many hoops must one leap through in order to get in to heaven in your religion and where do you find any biblical support for that position?"

Daniel responded:
"Leap through this one:
Believe and obey. Be seperate from the world and let the ritchousness and love of God shine through your life. Monitor your fruits. If the fruits of your life produce that which is holy then you are probably on the right path."

Okay. I and my gay Christian friends do believe and obey. We ARE separate from the world and we DO let the righteousness and love of God shine through our lives.

Our lives produce the fruit of the spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

We've leaped through your hoops. Will you call us brothers and sisters now? If not, then what additional hoops are you wanting us to jump through?

By Dan Trabue, at 7:28 PM
Let me take a guess: Your answer to my comment ("I and my gay Christian friends do believe and obey.") will be, "Ahh! But you don't obey! You are saying that gay marriage is okay!"

If that is your response, I would point out that we are obeying that which we know to obey. We, being dedicated Christ-followers, have read the Bible and prayed and don't believe that homosexuality is a sin.

Your response, I'm guessing: "Well, you're wrong. It IS a sin."

My follow-up question would be, "But I disagree." and on and on we could go.

But the underlying question is, let's assume that you're right and that homosexuality IS a sin. Does that mean that there is NO ROOM in your christianity to be mistaken? Must we be correct on every single instance of what is and isn't a sin?

Are YOU always correct? You don't err in your judgement ever? You can't be wrong because you think that if one dies being wrong about a sin that they are doomed for eternity?

Is that what you think?

By Dan Trabue, at 7:34 PM
Dan T,

You are half right in your assessment of my resonse. Since homosexuality is verifiably and undisputably a sin, then the your fruits are producing sin. Also, every last one of the people you are encouraging in the homosexual lifestyle is actively engaging in homosexual sex more than likely, and since there is no such thing as homosexual marriage then they are all engaging in fornication/adultery, which, according to the Bible, are actually exactly the same thing. (Remember all those verses about staying chaste for the wife of your youth? Lemme guess, you interperet this to mean that fornicating is okay.)

Also, regarding "self-control",

My experience with homosexuals, and I have known more thanmost people, is that they do not excersize self-control as a rule. This may surprise you, but the average homosexual is almost 100% likely to cheat on his or her paartner, the average homosexual man actually has sex with 11 different men a year, women are more like 2-3, and this includes the married ones in the countries that allow it, which, by the way, is where these statistics come from. Domestic abuse among male homosexuals is higher than among heterosexuals. The majority of crimes committed against homosexuals are done by other homosexuals, with murder amond homosexual men outstripping any other group by percentage. The curent rate of STDs in the homosexual community is higher than any other in the world due to the lack of self-control homosexuals generally have. There is remarkably little self-control among the homosexual community. Also, if homosexuals were excersizing self-control they would not engage in homosexuality in the first place because it displeases God.

One thing I find fascinating is the way you are forced to deny whatthe Bible says outright in order to justify homosexuality. This also is sin.It is similar in effect to what this one retired Catholic priest does. He goes around telling people that what the Bible states quite clearly is not what it actually means. He even goes so far as to pervert the Ten Commandments in such a way as to excuse breaking them all. Finally, Jesus condmened false teachings, and He condemned false teachers. False teachings are the fruit of sin and not of ritcheousness, just so you know.

"We ARE separate from the world and we DO let the righteousness and love of God shine through our lives."

If you love people so much then quit encouraging them to live in sin so you quit helping them into Hell. Encouraging people to sin is not love, it is hate.

By Daniel Levesque, at 7:46 AM
Dan T,

"Are YOU always correct? You don't err in your judgement ever? You can't be wrong because you think that if one dies being wrong about a sin that they are doomed for eternity?"

The Bible is always correct. My opinion means nothing.

By Daniel Levesque, at 7:48 AM
"The Bible is always correct. My opinion means nothing."

Let's assume that this is correct. The Bible is always correct.

Therefore, when the Bible commands us to kill disrespectful children, it is correct, right?

No? You mean we have to use our judgement to realize that that particular phrase has to be interpreted by the context of the whole Bible and God's leadership?

Our fallible, faulty judgement?

Do you get my point: Even if the Bible is always correct and perfect, we still must use our imperfect judgement to interpret it. God is not fallible, but we are.

That means that I, in using my judgement and God-given reason, have found that God does not condemn gay marriage in the Bible. You, using your judgement, have determined the opposite.

Neither one of us is denying the validity of God's Word, but we are having a difference of opinion in interpreting it. Why? Well, because we're not perfect. We're prone to make errors in judgement. Even when we're striving earnestly to seek God's will.

My question remains: Do you think that everyone who gets any part of God's Word wrong as they earnestly strive to discern God's Word is hellbound?

Must we always be 100% correct, even in our fallible nature? And are you saying that you are 100% correct in your interpretation of God's Word everytime and that your salvation is dependent upon your genius?

By Dan Trabue, at 8:30 AM
Oh dear!

"the average homosexual is almost 100% likely to cheat on his or her paartner, the average homosexual man actually has sex with 11 different men a year, women are more like 2-3, and this includes the married ones in the countries that allow it, which, by the way, is where these statistics come from. Domestic abuse among male homosexuals is higher than among heterosexuals. The majority of crimes committed against homosexuals are done by other homosexuals, with murder amond homosexual men outstripping any other group by percentage."

Someone has been reading those Concened Witches For America. How evil and vile and wrong.

And how very 'Christian.'

I think this discussion proves the key to Bible reading is interpretation. You cannot take everything in a very old book literally or you end up living in a totally alien culture.

By DanProject76, at 11:40 AM
... and I still cannot get over how Daniel has forgiven the pastor who cheated on his wife with a male prostitute while taking gay sex drugs yet thinks that I am basically a great big sinner in my 6 year loving monogamous gay relationship.

It makes me laugh but it's all so wrong.

By DanProject76, at 11:42 AM
Dan T,

"Therefore, when the Bible commands us to kill disrespectful children, it is correct, right?"

Try reading the whole thing sometime. It says explicitly that death is a punishment reserved for disrespectful children who will not be corrected. It does not say that a child is to be put to death for a single instance. Interestingly, you do not bother to talk about how the Bible says homosexuals should be put to death, as should adulterers, murderers, and a whole host of other agregious criminals according to the Mosaic Law.

"Do you get my point: Even if the Bible is always correct and perfect, we still must use our imperfect judgement to interpret it."

Or we can just say the Bible means exactly what it says and run with that. Somehow, I find this path to be less perilous. By trying to reinterpert the Bible to suit personal ideals you pervert God's word. And as we have both agreed, perversion is the work of Satan.

"That means that I, in using my judgement and God-given reason, have found that God does not condemn gay marriage in the Bible. You, using your judgement, have determined the opposite."

Again, when the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin worthy of the death penalty I take it to mean that homosexual marriage is out too.

"Must we always be 100% correct, even in our fallible nature? And are you saying that you are 100% correct in your interpretation of God's Word everytime and that your salvation is dependent upon your genius?"

Nope. What I am saying is that God's word is always 100% correct . . . icluding the part that says that those who are saved will be given the ability to discern the truth of God's Word. Also the part that warns of many false teachers to come.

If it comforts you, the Bible also says that homosexuality will become increasingly common as the end times near. You know, that part that says men will forsake natural affections for each oter and that women will too . . you know, one of those passages you swear does not speak poorly of homosexuality. After all, it's just listed among a list of increasing evils that signal the end of the world and is called unnatual according to God's word. Of course, I'm sure that the Bible calin homosexuality unnatural is totally capable of being interpreted as "permissible" if you stretch the bible far enough and ignore little detail like "un" being in front of the word "natural", and ignore everything else the Bible says about Homosexuality and sexual sin in general.

DP76,

"Someone has been reading those Concened Witches For America. How evil and vile and wrong."

While I do read and even financially support Concerned Women For America from time time, I did not get those statistics from them. Those statistics come fromindependent researchers. YOu may not like the results, but they are true. Heck, I wouldn't like it if some scientific study said that it is almost a guarantee that my wife has cheated on me with an average of 8 men every year since we met. That would hurt. Fortunately, the incidence of infidelity in heterosexual marriage is far lower than it is among homosexual releationships of all kinds.

"I think this discussion proves the key to Bible reading is interpretation. You cannot take everything in a very old book literally or you end up living in a totally alien culture."

Interestingly, you are part right and part wrong on this one. You are wrong because teh Bible is not open to interpretation except for the prophesies, and those only because they are imagery rather than concrete statements such as the rest of the Bible is composed of. As for living in an alien culture as a result of living by the Bible . . . the Bible actually declares that to be the point. It says we are not to submit to worldly culture and influence, but to be a shining example of God's Word.

"and I still cannot get over how Daniel has forgiven the pastor who cheated on his wife with a male prostitute while taking gay sex drugs yet thinks that I am basically a great big sinner in my 6 year loving monogamous gay relationship."

Then you have no comprehension of the nature of forgiveness. Yes I forgive Pastor Ted depite the personal betrayal that I felt. I even forgive every way I have ever been slighted by you, and I do not have any hostility toward you for your lifestyle. Atthe same time, I have declared what Pastor Ted has done to be wrong, just as I declare what you do to be wrong. Neither is sin is more agregious to me because both sins are able to be wiped clean by the blood of Jesus Christ. If God can forgive then it is not my place to hold a grudge. All I can do is point out error in the effort to guide people along paths of ritcheousness and ultimately to the forgiving grace of Jesus.

You seem to have a warped view of Christians as being all condemnation and hellfire. It's an easy mistake to make when so many Christians are so very zealous in condemning sin while forgetting the forgiveness and grace side of the equation. Of course, being that you live a lifestyle that Christianity condemns it akes it even easier for you to have that warped view.

By Daniel Levesque, at 10:48 PM
"Or we can just say the Bible means exactly what it says and run with that."

I don't know if you're just not getting what I'm saying or if you're choosing to not get what I'm saying.

I AM "just saying that the Bible means exactly what it says," as are you. And we disagree on what it means.

Do you think that Christians "in good standing" ALWAYS agree upon what is and isn't a sin? We know for a fact that no two faiths agree upon every sin. I know for a fact that there's probably not even any two baptists who agree upon every sin.

You're calling for a system of salvation that is beyond humanity's reach.

Beyond your own reach.

So, see you in hell, I reckon, bub.

From across the chasm.

I'll choose not to believe in your unattainable system of salvation but rather throw my life upon God's sweet grace.

By Dan Trabue, at 11:05 AM
Dan T,

"I AM "just saying that the Bible means exactly what it says," as are you. And we disagree on what it means."

No, you are saying it doesn't say what it says and trying to make a case for a "modernized" interpretation of the Bible, which is absolute foolishness and utterly decietful.

"You're calling for a system of salvation that is beyond humanity's reach."

Incorrect, I am stating what it says in the Bible that all of us are completely doomed but for the saving grace of Jesus Christ. But I am also saying that Jesus commanded us not to live in sin and not to teach sin, aand those who do are, in all likelihood, unsaved. God convicts His own, and those whom He owns will be convicted of their sins. Those who are not His will recieve no such convition. At least, that's what it says in the BIble, but maybe you have some new age reinterpretation that twists that to mean sin all you want, it's all okay as long you ksay Jesus is Lord. Wait a minute . . . didn;t Jesus say something about how not everyone who "syas Lord Lord" shall be saved or some such thing? (The ignorance is feigned by the way.)

"I'll choose not to believe in your unattainable system of salvation but rather throw my life upon God's sweet grace."

Then obey Him already.

By Daniel Levesque, at 9:40 PM
Final thoughts:

Daniel, I do not haver a warped view of Christians. I know that you are an extremist version of normal Christians (i.e. Dan T) , just as those 'Gay Agenda' types who live and breathe their gayness and sleep with anything male that has a pulse are also extremists and in no way a true representation.

By DanProject76, at 11:38 AM
DP76,

"I know that you are an extremist version of normal Christians (i.e. Dan T) . . ."

You just proved your warped view again man. Dan T does represent the majority of Christians. He i representative of a few demoninations (about 5-6 out of something like 200) that have decided to diverge from the Bible on the issue of homosexuality. Denominations that agre with Dan T are:
Unitarians

Cosmopolitans (founded recently by homosexuals by the way)

The liberal side of the American Episcopal Church (the episcopal church itself has split over this issue)

And a few other minor denominations that I can't even remember their names.

All told these groups represent no more than 10% of Christianity, and all of this acceptance has hapened in the last 40 years. Prior to the homosexual activist moovement all of Christendom rejected homosexuality as, and I quote, "That evil which should not be named".

Be aware that the Cosmopolitan church and the unitarians are also generaly regarded an non-Christian fringe groups by the vast majority of Christians. Also, bear n mind that I am of an Evangelical mindset, and recent polls put put 60% of everyone in America as evangelicals, and just over 80% call themselves Christian. Ihe 80% include the fringe groups already mentoned as well as Jehova's Witnesses and Mormons.

Anyway, the whole point of this is to point that out what you are calling normal Christianity is actualy an outcast fringe, rejected for teachings that are leading people to eternal damnation in the guise of love and acceptance. Such deciet is characteristic of the Devil's hatred. It is far more loving to encourage people to lead a life that pleases God than to encourage them in sin that leads to eternal death.

I shall now point to Jesus as proof that I am right in this statement.

Jesus was known for spendin most of His time with the dregs of Hebrew society: Tax collectors, prostitutes, etc . . .
He said it was because the people whose lives were full of sin needed Him more than the ritcheous, and especially the self-ritcheous. This was not mere acceptance though. He never encouraged anyone to continue in their sin. Rather, in every instance, He told people to stop sinning, to repent, and be saved so that all the evils of their past could be wiped clean. He would then tell them to sin no more.

Compare thi sto Dan T who says the following:

"It's okay that you are sinning, Jesus loves you so much that as long as you believe you can live just the way you have been and you will be saved."

This is the opposite of what Jesus said, and is why people who espouse this kind of Christianity are rejected by the greater Christian community as heretics.

So, be careful when you call me an extremeist, because then you are 90% of all Christians extremists simply for followin the fundamental teaching of our faith. Like I said, I am a fundamentalist. I follow the Bible and do not try to reinterpret it to suit my own desires. This is easy for someone who does not agree with teh Bible to call extreme, but such people are incorrect ion their assessment. Extremeists are the wackos calling for the death of homosexuals, pagans, prostitutes, and other "sinners" in the name of God. Those people are extremists who are no better than the Muslim jihadis who are also calling for the death of infidels.

Sorry to dssapoint you, but your label of extremists is wildly misplaced.

By Daniel Levesque, at 10:30 AM
"Compare this to Dan T who says the following:

"It's okay that you are sinning, Jesus loves you so much that as long as you believe you can live just the way you have been and you will be saved."

If you want to quote me, I'm flattered. IF, however, you want to make up shit, put your own name to it, brother.

I neither said, nor intimated, that quote.

By Dan Trabue, at 7:38 PM
"but your label of extremists is wildly misplaced."

Extremists? As in those who blatantly lie, making up quotes to bear false witness against another Christian brother in order to try to prove a point?

By Dan Trabue, at 7:52 PM
Dan T,

"If you want to quote me, I'm flattered. IF, however, you want to make up shit, put your own name to it, brother."

That quote was a paraphrase. You have been defending the sin of homosexuality this whole discussion after all. I suppose I could have used all of your statements in favor of teh sin of homosexuality, but it is much briefer to present it the way I did.

If you feel slighted that I put your defense of homsexual sin in this fashion then I suggest you quit defending that sin. And you can quit your indignant claims of false witness. Your own words prove my statement to be completely true. This said, you accusations where you claim I am lying are bearing false witness. If you had not just spent this entire discussion, not to mention many previous discussions, claiming that God approves of homosexual sin and homosexuals should just keep right on living thier sinful lifestyles then my paraphrase would be a lie. However, since you have been doing exactly this, my paraphrase is completely true.

I must say that I find it amusing that you constantly accuse people who disagree with your personal, unbiblical version of Christianity of bearing false witness and misrepresentation.

You still have not presenteda single quote from Jesus that rescinds the part of teh Law of Moses that calls homosexuality an abomination that is punishable by death. His example with the woman caught in adultery is a strong argument no tto kill homosexuals, and one I heartily agree with, but ther es nothing sanctifying this sin. Fell free to try to prove me wrong, but since you can't I won't hold my breath. This said, homosexuality is a sin, and by supporting it the way you do you are telling people that is is perfectly okay for them to live sinful lives as long as they believe in Jesus. Hence you are effectivey sayng "It's okay that you are sinning, Jesus loves you so much that as long as you believe you can live just the way you have been and you will be saved."

Don't like it? Quit doing it.

By Daniel Levesque, at 11:02 PM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

By DanProject76, at 12:03 AM
(Did a typo before so deleted and re-posted this..)

For a happily married man, Daniel L is rather obsessed with gay sex.

How peculiar. All all of Ted's church a bit that way? :-)

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

And I admit I was trying to get a reaction when I used Dan T as a 'normal Christian' role model. He is just a logical human being who finds his own opinions and happens to be christian with a small c.

By DanProject76, at 12:05 AM
DP76,

"Dan T . . . happens to be christian with a small c."

Interesting that you catch that but he does not. I doubt he sees it that way though. He is convinced that his version of Christianity, which has taken it upon itself to promote a sinful lifestyle is both normal and correct, which it is neither.

By Daniel Levesque, at 12:40 AM
"I suppose I could have used all of your statements in favor of teh sin of homosexuality, but it is much briefer to present it the way I did."

I don't believe homosexuality to be a sin, DL. I disagree with you, just as many Christians disagree with many Christians about the nature of many sins.

Do you think attending R- and X-rated movies a sin? Many conservative Christians I know do.

Do you think divorce is a sin? Many conservative Christians I know do.

Do you think smoking and drinking and dancing to be sins? Many conservative Christians I know do.

The point is that sometimes in this big ol' fallen world, sometimes we disagree about sins.

In your religion, one has to be perfectly correct about sins (if I understand you correctly) to be saved. That is an addition to biblical theology that most conservatives I know would disagree with in theory (although in practice, they'd come closer to agreeing with you).

I'll ask you again NOT to bear false witness against me (and an apology would be in order), as we both KNOW that bearing false witness is a sin.

By Dan Trabue, at 3:22 AM
Dan T,

"Do you think attending R- and X-rated movies a sin?"

X-rated for sure. The Bible specifically tells us not to view porn. R-rated may be depending on the reason it was made R-rated. If it was made R-rated for violence then I see nothing in the Bible condemning viewing violence, especially in historically based movies such as "Braveheart" and "The Patriot", or "The Passion of the Christ". If it for language and/or sex then there is a strong argument in favor of attending that movie being a sin.

"Do you think divorce is a sin?"

I coud have sworn I already answered this one. Jesus declared divorce a sin except in the event of adultery or abandonment.

"Do you think smoking and drinking and dancing to be sins?"

I think intoxication is a sin. The Bible rails against intoxication in numerous passages.

"In your religion, one has to be perfectly correct about sins (if I understand you correctly) to be saved."

Actually, in my religion the Holy Spirit reveals what is and what is not sin to the saved so that we can avoid it. This isnlt exactly a difficult feat since God chastizes His followers when they sin. Unfortunately for the unsaved, they recieve no such chastizement as a rule because tey are not following God. This is all gleaned from a myriad of passages in the New Testament, including many statements Jesus Himself made. If you want to see it for yourself read your Bible. I shall not take teh speace here to put pages of printed material in this comment secton.

"I'll ask you again NOT to bear false witness against me (and an apology would be in order), as we both KNOW that bearing false witness is a sin."

It is a sin, but my witness here is not false. You said quite specifically that YOUR god revels in homosexual sex, The exact words were "YOUR god may not, but MY God gloriously celebrates the union of two lovers." and this was said specifically regarding homosexuality in this discussion. As I said before, the Bible gives numerous condemnations of homosexuality, but never once does it rescind any of them. You have not provided any evidence of the commandment "Thou shalt not lay with lay with mankind as with womankind" yet, nor will you ever. If this were the only place where homosexuality is referred to then it is enough to destroy any arument in favor of homosexuality, but since homosexuality is condemed in other passages as well then the evidence that homosexuality is a sin is even stronger. By teaching that homosexuality is not only not a sin, but glorious unto God you are perverting God's word (a sin), encouraging peopele to sin (a sin), and being a false teacher (a sin Jesus condemned as worthy of Hell being especially bad). By claiming that people who defend teh words of teh Bible are being false witnesses against teh word of God you yourself are bearing false witness. This said, you should be more careful in your arguments, assertions, and your attempts to use the Bible to intimidate people into not speaking out against sin. If you are not mor ecareful abou tteh nature of your assertins then you should at least be more careful about who you try to intimidate in this fashion. For example, your antibiblical arguments will never work against someone who knows the Bible far better than you are showing yourself to. Your claims of bearing false witness might work against someone who actually did such a thing, or against someone someone who does not understand the arguments being discussed here. Of course, the real reason yo keep making this claim is probably has more to with the fact that no one i going to read this entire discussion and gain an understanding of what is going on, rather, most people will simply see the last statement or 2. A common bit of phychologicl knowledge is that people generally remeber the first thing they read and the last thing thy read and forget the middle. So by atempting to make false charges of false witness being borne against you the very last statement people read you ae attempting to capitalize on this and give yourself the appearance of credibility that your arguments lack in their entirety.

Care to try again?

By Daniel Levesque, at 9:09 AM
Yes.

How about this:

Compare this to Daniel who says the following:

"It's okay that you are killing children, Jesus wants us to stop bad guys, no matter who gets in the way. If you gotta blow children's arms off in the process, so be it. We MUST stop evil people and kill anyone - even Jesus himself - who gets in the way!"

Is that an accurate paraphrasing of your position? Or am I bearing false witness against you?

We can agree, I think, that the Bible commands us not to bear false witness against others. You did so against me, even trying to confuse matters by saying "Dan says this:" and then putting "my" words that I never spoke in quotes.

That is a sin, Daniel.

You are so hung up on this handful of passages that you take to condemn homosexuality that you are willing to lie and slander a brother in Christ and obfuscate what the Holy Scriptures say in order to support your position.

Do you not understand how utterly wrong you are on this point?

If you want to disagree with someone, do so honestly. Don't lie about their position. Or, as Jesus said, "You hypocrite! Remove first the plank from your own eye before trying to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

By Dan Trabue, at 6:39 PM
Dan T,

" . . . Is that an accurate paraphrasing of your position? Or am I bearing false witness against you?"

Actually, that is in no way an accurate paraphrasing of anything I have evr said. I have always said that we must avoid the killing of innocents while we kill terrorists. THAT would be an accurate paraphrasing of my many statements on that subject.

"We can agree, I think, that the Bible commands us not to bear false witness against others. You did so against me, even trying to confuse matters by saying "Dan says this:" and then putting "my" words that I never spoke in quotes."

We are also commanded to shun sin, and you continually defend sin in your defense of homosexuality. SO by defending homosexuality you are defending sin. By telling people that it is okay to engage in homosexual behavior you are tellign that itis okay to live in sin and they will be forgiven despite the fact that every time Jesus forgave someone He told that person to "go and sin no more". My statement is entirely accurate because that is the position you have taken in regard to this sin.

"You are so hung up on this handful of passages that you take to condemn homosexuality that you are willing to lie and slander a brother in Christ and obfuscate what the Holy Scriptures say in order to support your position."

Incorrect. YOU are so hung up in perverting the Bible that you are willing to ignore or atempt to redifene what the Bible says in order to justify sin. You then accuse people who are true to the Word as it is recorded in the Bible of mangling it teh way you are. It's called projection just so you know.

"Do you not understand how utterly wrong you are on this point?"

The problem is that I am the one who is right here. You arethe one who has decided to redefine teh Bible. You have even gone so far as to suggest that because Jesus sanctified all food that He also somehow sanctified homosexuality, which takes an awful lot of imagination to concoct.

"If you want to disagree with someone, do so honestly. Don't lie about their position."

I have not lied. Homosexuality is a sin and you are telling people that God approves of them living in this sin. This is telling people that it is okay to sin because God will forgive them. The point of contention here isthat you have taken it upon yourself to redefine the Bible to allow homosexuality when it cldearly forbids it.

Oh yeah, name 5 places in the Bible where bearing false witness is condemned. The Ten Commandments is place number one and I can think of only 2 others off the top of my head. Also, try to find 5 passages that condemn using the Lord's name in Vain. Finallyy, find 5 that specifically condemn covetousness. These also give you a startin gpoin tof 1 in the Ten Commandments, so you only to find 4 more. The point, in case you are too thick to understand it, is that how frequently the Bible condemns an action is irrelevant, it only needs to condemn it once.

As for removing teh plank my own eye . . .I am not the one who is too blind to comprehend what the Bible clearly states about homosexuality. Unlike movies, dancing, and cigarettes, the Bible actually says something specific about homosexuality, and it says the same thing multiple times. So while movies, dancing, and cigarettes are debatable in honest terms, there is no honest debate supporting homosexuality. The fact is that you believe a lie and you are spreading tha lie. So stop it already.

By Daniel Levesque, at 11:18 PM

Raving Conservative

Sunday, November 05, 2006

Ted Haggard

75 Comments:

About

Contributors

Previous

Proud Member of the Alliance