Friday, August 06, 2010

The Homosexual Agenda is a Spiritual Problem

One homosexual judge overturned the votes of 7 million California voters! What could be more unfair, undemocratic, unconstitutional and outrageously biased against the state of California, biased against the majority of voters in our state, and radically disparaging against our Constitutional Republic than that?

Christian News Wire:

Chief Judge of Federal District Court in San Francisco Vaughn R. Walker Overturns Proposition 8
Contact: Karen England, Capitol Resource Institute, 916-212-5607

MEDIA ADVISORY, Aug. 4 /Christian Newswire/ -- Proposition 8, the 2008 California Constitutional amendment defining and recognizing marriage between a man and a woman, suffered a severe blow. Judge Walker ruled against the voters who approved Proposition 8 by 52 percent of the vote.

After California's Supreme Court overturned proposition 22, the statute approved by voters defining marriage, the voters took to the polls in reaction to the court's judicial activism.

"Today's ruling is indicative of an out-of-control judiciary willing to circumvent California's direct democracy by imposing their point of view," said Karen England Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute (CRI). "Family values are under constant assault now more then ever. CRI was instrumental in passing proposition 22 in 2000 and we fought to get proposition 8 on the ballot and subsequently in California's Constitution. We will continue to battle interest groups who wish to redefine one of our oldest institutions; the institution of marriage. We will continue to represent the 7 million Californians who took to the polls in favor of marriage."

The case will head to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a court popularly known for its left-of-center rulings.


Homosexuality isn't just a behavioral problem. It isn't just a "rights" problem. It isn't just a legal problem. It isn't just an emotional problem. It is a spiritual problem.

Even though the following essay was written years ago, Pastor DL Foster's Gay Christian Movement Watch: Gay Marriage - the Days of Noah Return post is one of the best I've ever read on the topic.

As you read the post at GCMWatch, you will notice a link between the "Days of Noah" and the "Days of Lot." This was an awesome discovery! Jesus himself likened the "signs of the times" of his return as being "as in the days of Lot" and "as in the days of Noah."

Excerpt:

Folger recounts how what we are seeing happen now before our very eyes is the beginning fulfillment of what Jesus said would happen before his return. Moreover, the people had sunken into such a perpetually degenerative moral condition these things were celebrated and viewed as normal.

As I wrote about in my book, “The Criminalization of Christianity,” Jeffrey Satinover, who holds an M.D. from Princeton and doctorates from Yale, MIT and Harvard, was on my radio program one day and I asked him about where we are in history. He explained that according to the “Babylonian Talmud” – the book of rabbis’ interpretation of the scriptures 1,000 years before Christ, there was only one time in history that reflects where we are right now. There was only one time in history, according to these writings, where men were given in marriage to men, and women given in marriage to women.

Want to venture a guess as to when? No, it wasn’t in Sodom and Gomorrah, although that was my guess. Homosexuality was rampant there, of course, but according to the Talmud, not homosexual “marriage.” What about ancient Greece? Rome? No. Babylon? No again. The one time in history when homosexual “marriage” was practiced was … during the days of Noah. And according to Satinover, that’s what the “Babylonian Talmud” attributes as the final straw that led to the Flood.


Folger’s article also contains astonishing commentary by Rabbi Aryeh Spero on what the Talmud reveals about homosexuality, state sanctioned homosexual weddings and the coming judgment of God.

25But first must He [Christ] suffer many things and be rejected by this generation. 26And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of Man:
27They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. 28“Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot: They ate, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they built; 29but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. 30“Even thus shall it be in the Day when the Son of Man is revealed.


Notice that Jesus compared Noah’s day to Sodom and Gomorrah and then linked it to the time of his return.

Because the inhabitants of the earth had become so evil, God anointed Noah to preach righteousness and repentance right up until the time the door of the ark closed shut. He preached the same message for over 100 years. This was the mercy of God in action, a window of opportunity to repent. Some listened at first, but then overcome by the sin around them, eventually ignored Noah. Noah was openly vilified, mocked and called a liar. Why? Because the people saw no rain and they did not want to believe their activities were wrong.


Read the entire essay HERE.


In June of 2008, I linked to Pastor Foster's post and wrote an essay here at Talk Wisdom:

The Days of Noah Are Here.


Hat Tips:

Christian News Wire

Gay Christian Movement Watch

49 comments:

Susan Smith said...

Homosexual behavior, thoughts and emotions are indeed part of one’s spiritual identity. The power of God delivered and healed me from more than 20 years of active homosexual behavior, more than 30 years of drunkenness as well as bi-polar disorder. I took lithium for 22 years!

The Word of God transformed my life and delivered me from the identity of a lesbian three years after my overt homosexual acts stopped. Believers know Jesus the Messiah is the answer to sin in their lives. The battle is the Lord’s (1 Samuel 17:47).

“By the law is the knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20). God’s law does not change, because the Lord does not change (Malachi 3:6).

Mankind may change manmade laws, but God never changes his laws. Shabbat Shalom Christine. This is written with love to you and all your readers in the world today. (ss)

stevex09 said...

As soon as the "judge" made his ruling on this I was completely disgusted. I couldn't help but wonder, just how much power do these unelected, appointed-for-life judges have? It took me a little while when this first happened to realize the guy was "gay". (of course that didn't influence his decision ... right?)

The examples you gave of this being indicative of the last days are very good. But we have the tendency to not think too much about it until something like this happens, but we can't forget that homosexual behavior wasn't the main sin at the time on Noah and at the time of Sodom's destruction.
As in Ezek. 16:49 ... "this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy."
America's leaders, political and spiritual have gone far and above the sins of of those ancient times, and I have the feeling that God isn't too happy with it.

Christinewjc said...

Dear Susan,

Your wisdom, knowledge, and transparency on this issue is always greatly appreciated. What follower of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, could share the truth on this better than someone who went through it herself?

Answer: No one.

The fact of your deliverance from all of these destructive behaviors gives hope to the lost - no matter what ailment they suffer from.

You wrote:

“By the law is the knowledge of sin” (Romans 3:20). God’s law does not change, because the Lord does not change (Malachi 3:6).

Mankind may change manmade laws, but God never changes his laws.


When this verdict came down, all I could think of was how "mankind's laws" made the sin of killing a child in the womb a "right." How awful!

The same thing is happening with the sin of homosexuality.

God never changes his laws!

Thank God for His mercy - withholding what we deserve - because of what His Son, Jesus Christ did redemptively at the cross of Calvary for our sakes.

The grace of God came down from heaven - giving us what we don't deserve - and that is salvation. It came at quite a price - the life of Jesus Christ. But praise God that Christ is risen and lives forevermore to make intercession for us!

God bless you this day, Susan, for sharing the truth of God during "such a time as this" in our world today. Readers will be blessed!

Christinewjc said...

Hi Steve,

Agreed. Homosexual behavior wasn't the only sin in Noah's or Lot's day. However, the writer (Jerry Cesario) of the following essay believes that it was "the last straw" in the Sodom and Gomorrah story.

The Times of the Signs #1 - The Days of Lot.

One comment (Written by: Kyrie Eleison) helps sum it up:


"All sin is sin, and we can't sacrifice that truth to appease those who want to justify it."

Susan Smith said...

Thank you, Christine.

You blessed me this day “for sharing the truth of God during ‘such a time as this’ in our world today.” Your blessing reminded me of a brainteaser.

Here is the riddle that I gave to my Prophets professor last semester along with a CD of my story:

“If a person sins because he does not speak up when he hears a public charge to testify regarding something he has seen or learned about, he will be held responsible” (Leviticus 5:1).

“For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place...and who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?” (Esther 4:14).

“A true Jew is one whose heart is right with God. And true circumcision is not a cutting of the body but a change of heart produced by God's Spirit. Whoever has that kind of change seeks praise from God, not from people” (Romans 2:29).

It is a privilege to call you my sister by the Blood of Jesus. I am thankful we met while I was living in Jerusalem. That makes our relationship very special to me. I love you! (ss)

Christinewjc said...

Susan! I just noticed your profile picture. What an awesome photo! You look wonderful! And, it looks like a very special place. Can you tell me about it?

GMpilot said...

What could be more unfair, undemocratic, unconstitutional and outrageously biased against the state of California, biased against the majority of voters in our state, and radically disparaging against our Constitutional Republic than reserving certain laws for "us" and not "them"?

Susan Smith is right. You agree with her. You even proclaim it proudly at the top of your sidebar: "God's Word Stands Forever!"

So (brace yourself, because you've heard this before)...why aren't you killing homosexuals, as God's Word demands?

You have said that Jesus changed all that. I asked you to show me where and when that was done. You never responded; I think it's because you can't. You have some literate contributors here, so maybe they will shut me up on this. If not, then you're all living your Christian lives less devotedly than, say, Fred Phelps.

Do you now legislate against your 'spiritual problems'? How well does that work?

Gary Baker said...

Hi GM,

"I think it's because you can't. You have some literate contributors here, so maybe they will shut me up on this. If not, then you're all living your Christian lives less devotedly than, say, Fred Phelps."

I doubt this will "shut you up" because you have demonstrated in the past that you are less interested in knowing the truth than bashing religious types, but here goes:

The law that you speak of was never given to gentiles as a matter of government. The Mosaic laws were issued to govern the Jews at a specific place: Their land of Israel. This land was to be an example to the rest of the world of the seriousness and consequences of sin, and to that end, they were to abstain from all forms of sin with correspondingly serious punishments.

Christ never commanded, nor did any of his apostles, people to set up a government with similar enforcements. He commanded each of us to be holy and to strive for holiness. To that end, it is perfectly correct for us to use lawful means to fight against evil. In America, that means it is perfectly correct to peacefully promote a better lifestyle through voting and peaceful protests. Some fringe elements of Christianity, like others, lose sight of the big picture and become so involved in God's hatred of sin that it spills beyond what he desires.

If you look objectively in the last several decades, you will find that secular types are much more active in promoting their "spiritual" agendas than conservative Christians, and they are not bound by legislation. They are increasingly imposing their will through the judiciary, a means that would horrify the country's founders and should horrify all Americans today.

stevex09 said...

Good morning Christine. You are correct in saying that homosexuality was the "straw that broke the camel's back".
I'd be delighted to answer GMpilot if that's okay.
It's elementary as to why we (Christians) don't kill homosexuals; but I'm not going to get off into the differing cultures, periods of time, etc. I'll only refer to this ... it (murder) is against the law of the land, which the Bible expressly commands to obey.

Christinewjc said...

GMpilot,

Your silly, already answered question will most likely be ignored by most Christians. I can't recall Susan Smith ever responding to you directly on this blog. Can't blame her. The Proverb of "answer not a fool according to his folly" comes to mind.

Susan Smith said...

Hi Christine,

That picture was taken in January 2003 at the Ein Avdat Canyon in Israel. Ein Avdat is in the Negev, a desert region south of Be'er Sheva. The water reflected the canyon mountains perfectly that morning. I am squatted on a ledge, and the drop would have been disastrous!

Ein Avdat is a national park, located south of Kibbutz Sede Boker. Sede Bonker was the home of Ben Gurion, the first prime minister of Israel. Shabbat Shalom! (ss)

GMpilot said...

Christine, I have never addressed Susan Smith directly on this blog. I have never felt it necessary to do so. She can respond if she wants to, of course, but in all her posts she has ever addressed only you. That's okay with me.

Since you're flinging Proverbs about, I might remind you there's also one about answering the fool lest he become wise in his own eyes...or don't you remember that verse? Clue: it's the very next one.

Both Mr. Baker and stevex09's posts require a more thoughtful response. I will try to give them one shortly.

Christinewjc said...

GMpilot wrote, "Both Mr. Baker and stevex09's posts require a more thoughtful response. I will try to give them one shortly."

I'm sure they can't wait...

GMpilot said...

Hi, Mr. Baker.
You said, "The law that you speak of was never given to gentiles as a matter of government. The Mosaic laws were issued to govern the Jews at a specific place: Their land of Israel."

For many centuries now, there have been attempts to impose Mosaic laws on other lands, including this one. If homosexuality was a capitol offense then, it's still one today. If this applied only to Jews, and only back then, it has no relevance here.

I agree 100% with your third paragraph. But those 'fringe elements of Christianity, like others, [who] lose sight of the big picture and become so involved in God's hatred of sin that it spills beyond what he desires' is exactly what's happened here.

My observation is that conservative Christians began to mobilize in '76, mostly behind Carter. He was a disappointment to them, so for the past 30 years CCs have sought their 'man on a white horse' to lead us where they believe we should go--all the while forgetting that they are not to put their trust in men. Am I wrong about that?

Is Judge Walker gay, as Christine claims? Is that relevant here? You cannot legislate the gay away. You can pray it away, but the results are mixed, at best. As far as I know, however, the command to kill them has not been revoked.

GMpilot said...

stevex09: "It's elementary as to why we (Christians) don't kill homosexuals; but I'm not going to get off into the differing cultures, periods of time, etc. I'll only refer to this ... it (murder) is against the law of the land, which the Bible expressly commands to obey."

I didn't need a Bible to show me that murder is wrong. Why did you? What time periods, cultures, etc. do you know of where murder was sanctioned, and approved by the local deity? Even the Thugs of India couldn't just kill whomever or whenever they chose.

There's good, legal reasons to legislate against murder. There really are none to legislate against gays, except that it makes you go 'ick'.

GMpilot said...

CJW: "I'm sure they can't wait..."

Christine, both Mr. Baker and stevex09 are all grown up now, and can speak for themselves.

I know you own this blog, but if you've chosen to speak for them, then you may as well shut off all comments and make this a true authoritarian soapbox.

Christinewjc said...

GMpilot,

What...I can't express an opinion about your statements?

"Both Mr. Baker and stevex09's posts require a more thoughtful response. I will try to give them one shortly."

You sure love to dish out the sarcasm, but apparently don't like it when it is used back at ya!

You're sooooooo entertaining GM! /sarc off

BTW, the judge is an admitted homosexual. Don't listen to the news much do you?

But as human nature goes - he couldn't possibly be biased on this issue. Nooooooo! Of course he wouldn't be a bit biased on a decision this important, now would he?

Nah...

Yeah right.

And, what's more there is a Constitutional right to kill unborn babies in the womb! Uh huh! It was hidden in there - all along, until it magically appeared and reared its ugly head in 1973. Yep...

And marriage has always been defined as the union of one man and one woman.

How did all those homosexuals from biblical times until now live without it?

Well...as far as "rights" are concerned, at least they are afforded the right to live - unlike innocent unborn babies who don't have a choice in the matter. The decision is being made for them.

Hmmmm...kinda like the decision about the marriage definition is being made by one homosexual man for all Californians - even those 7 million who voted to keep the definition as it has been for thousands of years.

Yeah. That's justice.

Gary Baker said...

GM,

"For many centuries now, there have been attempts to impose Mosaic laws on other lands, including this one. If homosexuality was a capitol offense then, it's still one today. If this applied only to Jews, and only back then, it has no relevance here."

Illogical on many different levels.

Your statement basically is that the definition of "a law" encompasses not only the criminal act but a set, required punishment. Wholly illogical. Any country that I can think of has a law against murder, but punishments vary according to circumstances, custom, etc., and yet all agree that murder is a crime. Similar statements apply to most other crime. Also, if you go back to the original verses of text, the proscription and the punishment are listed separately. I feel pretty safe in declaring that throughout legal history, it is the act that defines the crime, not the punishment. You are making a reach to justify slamming Christians, and not a very good one at that.

Additionally, despite your griping about "imposing" Mosaic law on different countries, there have been countless generations who have developed the laws independently, not because of fear or imposition, but because they recognize that the laws result in a stable and well organized society, at least in so much as people are capable of directing one. Atheist countries such as Russia decried religion and rejected the authority of God, but still maintained a system of law that mirrored (albeit despotically) the same laws, including execution and imprisonment of homosexuals.

Gary Baker said...

GM,

"[who] lose sight of the big picture and become so involved in God's hatred of sin that it spills beyond what he desires' is exactly what's happened here."

I'm not sure exactly what situation you are referring to in this statement. If you are speaking generally, homosexuals have never had a greater era of equal rights and protections than they enjoy in modern Christian countries. If you are talking specifically about the marriage debate, you are being irrational. To claim that there is some spillage of hatred required to deny that the institution of marriage, which has been defined throughout the major portion of history as the union of one man and one woman ignores the case and common law history of the ceremony. Yes, I realize that there were exceptions, particularly with regards to royalty and some religious groups. The main point still stands, however. It requires no animosity to maintain that marriage stands for what it has always stood for in most Western civilizations. To call this a denial of "basic rights" is dishonest, bordering on paranoid.

My understanding is that Judge Walker is gay. That is only relevant to the extent that it influenced his decision beyond the scope of the law. Regardless of what influenced him, his decision did far exceed the limits of the law with regards to the 10th Amendment, and defied case law and common law. This was judicial activism in the form of bench legislating. It should not have happened, and it should not stand.

Gary Baker said...

GM,

"I didn't need a Bible to show me that murder is wrong. Why did you?"

I have heard a similar version of this argument many times from atheists. The general line is that they don't need God to tell them right from wrong, implying that they already at least as good as Christians on their own. That's kind of hard to measure. Statistics show that atheists certainly are nowhere near as generous with their time and money as Christians. I believe as God says, that all people have a bent toward evil.


"What time periods, cultures, etc. do you know of where murder was sanctioned, and approved by the local deity? Even the Thugs of India couldn't just kill whomever or whenever they chose."

A lot of times they did, though, didn't they. That was the reason that Ghandi was assassinated wasn't it? He was trying to reduce violence? And despite Kevin's views, Muslims are routinely convinced to this day that they are doing God's will when they blow up innocent Jews, kill a woman for being raped, murder a daughter for converting to Christianity. These are things that have happened in the Middle East for centuries. Only now they are becoming a regular part of European culture and moving rapidly to America.

Why do people need the Bible to tell them murder is wrong? Ask Stalin, communist and atheist, who killed millions of his own people through torture, starvation, assassination. Same with Mao. Same with Castro. Same with every modern atheist country that wanted to make an earthly "worker's paradise" absent God. History shows your attempts to reason that people don't need God to be good false and self serving.

Gary Baker said...

GM,

"There's good, legal reasons to legislate against murder. There really are none to legislate against gays, except that it makes you go 'ick'."

You are proceeding from the assumption that they have been denied something that was a historical or fundamental right. They have never had the privilege of marriage under the American system, nor has marriage been defined to include homosexual unions. All that the voters of California and other states did was say they were not going to have a minority dictating the definitions of the country's institutions. That was hardly an act of genocide.

Gary Baker said...

GM,

"You cannot legislate the gay away."

This is true. You also cannot legislate "wrong" away. You cannot force acceptance by judicial fiat either. Even if you were to ignore the religious aspect, homosexuality and homosexual behavior have been considered wrong and perverse by the majority of the world throughout history. If you are arguing that law should not be used as a club to beat a minority with a traditional concept of good and evil, then it can be no more correct to use law to beat a majority to conform to what claims to be a more modern concept of good and evil. That appears to be what you are advocating.

In the final analysis, what the gay supporters are really after is not the right to marry (even if it were a "right", which it is not), but to be called morally correct. All of the other reasons they have given are just a smoke screen, and for that reason they will never be satisfied. No matter what happens, some people will always know that it is perverse. The gays will know this, as will the rest of society, and they will remain bitter.

Kevin said...

Hi Christine,
I would have hoped that someone like you who keeps talking about a constitutional democracy would understand the role that the judiciary has in this country. It has nothing to do with overturning the vote of 7 million. It has everything to do with determining whether the new law was constitutional. It doesn't matter if 99% of Americans voted for it. If it isn't constitutional, then it can't stand.

Besides, those lawyers who represented Prop. 8 should be fired. They made a horrible case.
By the way, that 'activist judege' was appointed by your beloved President Reagan!

Kevin said...

Hi Gary,
You said : "If you are speaking generally, homosexuals have never had a greater era of equal rights and protections than they enjoy in modern Christian countries." That may be true, but Christianity itself has little to do with gays and lesbians gaining their rights. Just ask the Catholics, or the Mormons, or the various Protestant churchs.

GMpilot said...

Mr. Baker:
Stalin, Mao, et al. did not murder their victims in the name of atheism. As you surmised, their 'god' was the state, as represented by themselves.
In a goodly number of those cases, the local religious orders fell in line behind the government rather than opposing it. I suppose that may be regarded as turning the other cheek, but was more likely just a method for institutional survival.

There have never been any truly 'atheist' states, just as there have never been any truly 'communist' ones (or 'Christian' ones, for that matter.)

As you may have noticed, the Bible has sometimes been used to sanction murder, as the Leviticus law demonstrates. Other religious texts do likewise. Since all claim to be the word of their deity, how can you say that such a book teaches one not to murder?

GMpilot said...

CJW: "BTW, the judge is an admitted homosexual. Don't listen to the news much do you?

But as human nature goes - he couldn't possibly be biased on this issue. Nooooooo! Of course he wouldn't be a bit biased on a decision this important, now would he?
Nah...
Yeah right."


Hmmm...yes, he is gay. Okay.
By your logic, any heterosexual would be 'a bit biased on a decision this important' too.
What makes sexuality different from any other personal characteristics judges have? Can a female judge rule on abortion issues? A black judge on civil rights? If you answer "no" you'd better be prepared to say why.

I understand that Judge Walker made his orientation clear to both parties before the trial, so that either party could use that as grounds to replace him. Neither did.
Only now, after the decision fell the 'wrong' way, do sources come forth about the judge's sexuality. I suspect that the public might never have known had Prop 8 been upheld.

Christinewjc said...

Been busy with family today, so I haven't been on this blog very much.

I cross-posted this blog post over at my Protect Biblical Marriage blog and thought that I would bring a comment thread from there over here.

Dan Trabue said...
What could be more unfair, undemocratic, unconstitutional and outrageously biased against the state of California, biased against the majority of voters in our state, and radically disparaging against our Constitutional Republic than that?

Plenty of things.

I keep hearing this sentiment expressed and I keep asking this question to people and I keep getting no responses. May I ask you and might you respond?

This IS HOW our system works. If a state passes a law or even an amendment that is contrary to the Constitution, and if that law is challenged and a judge agrees that the law is UN-Constitutional, then that judge has an obligation to overturn that law, ACCORDING TO OUR LAWS. It's called "Judicial review" and it's how our system works.

You do understand this, right?

For example, IF California passed a law - OR even if they amended their constitution - making it legal to hunt nuns, then THAT LAW WOULD BE CHALLENGED and, once challenged, a judge would rightly determine that this new law or amendment is contrary to human rights and our constitution and they would then overturn that law.

You are familiar with this idea, right? This seems right and good to you, in concept, right?

If not, check out judicial review here or here.

Thanks!

August 7, 2010 3:35 PM


Christinewjc said...
Man made laws are created and destroyed all the time. The difference here is what is right and what is wrong. In case you hadn't noticed, this blog holds and adheres to God's Word on the matter. And the Bible says that homosexual behavior is a sin. Making a sin into an unholy union of fraudulent "marriage" isn't a right. It is a perversion of the true meaning of the word marriage.

George W. Bush once said, "marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society." I agree with him.

There are also many homosexuals who do not want marriage to be re-defined. But we don't hear from them because their views are not "politically correct" according to the rabid far-left progressives who think they can re-define marriage - which was God's idea in the first place - into a perversion.

Recently, Rosie O'Donnell even admitted her (now failed) brief faux marriage to her former girlfriend Kelly was in reality, a political statement.

Those who would impose their own political will against a steadfast definition are twisting what God has created for His purposes - the union of one man and one woman in the holy institution of matrimony.

Dan - if the homosexuals got their way on Prop. 8 - would they have agreed if a conservative, heterosexual judge overturned their majority vote? Of course not! They would be as angry today as they were when Prop. 8 passed in 2008.

This is a political issue to those who fight in the homosexual agenda. Period. It doesn't have anything to do with "the right to marry." They just want to change the thousands of years of tradition that is defined as one man and one woman equals marriage.

Marriage is defined not by any state or government - but God Himself. Whether you want to admit it or not - that is your problem.

August 7, 2010 9:41 PM

(con't next comment)

Christinewjc said...

Christinewjc said...
Someone on another blog posted more of President Bush's statement:

Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

The act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342-67 and the Senate by a vote of 85-14.

Those congressional votes, and the passage of similar defense of marriage laws in 38 states, express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.

In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year.

In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California Family Code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California.

And here’s how he ended:

The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.

Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.

Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.’

August 7, 2010 9:51 PM


Dan Trabue said...
I'm sorry, I asked some specific questions and I didn't see the answers: You DO understand that this is how our system works, right?

Are you suggesting we undo our Constitution to make way for your vision of a religious-run gov't or what are you suggesting?

August 8, 2010 6:09 AM


Christinewjc said...
I'm sorry. I thought I was clear in my statement. The Constitution does not hold to a right for homosexuals to marry - similarly to the fact that it does not hold to the right to murder unborn children. Flawed men and women in black robes were responsible for that despicable decision back in 1973 - but it doesn't negate a higher law - that of God's Ten Commandments - thou shalt not murder. Homosexual behavior is a form of adultery. Therefore, it would also break one of the Ten Commandments as well as the sexual laws written in Leviticus. Man may desire to change laws, but God's laws and His Word never changes.

This case will inevitably reach the Supreme Court one day. Then it will be decided by 9 justices - not just one biased homosexual judge with leanings towards the homosexual agenda. I pray that the Supreme Court will uphold what God has created for the term and union described as marriage.

Even if the verdict comes down 5-4 in favor of re-defining marriage from the traditional definition of one man and one woman, it will NEVER make it right in God's eyes -according to His Word - the Bible.

All who make tragic laws like Roe v. Wade or a flawed law like re-defining marriage will one day have to answer to God for their evil actions and decisions.

August 8, 2010 6:57 AM

stevex09 said...

Good morning Christine. I hope you ane your family had a good weekend.
Yes ma'am, my reply to GMpilot could have been much more in depth; but what would have been the point? He commented back that I needed the Bible to tell me that murder was wrong which is not accurate. He missed my point entirely. I just figured to give a simple answer in the hopes of "comforting the feeble-minded".

Kevin said...

Hi Christine,
You stated: " It is a perversion of the true meaning of the word marriage."
Where exactly is the female part in the Trinity of Christianity? This has always bothered me. God has no wife. He has a Son, who has no wife either, and never had any children. If anyone even whispers that Jesus could have had sex with a woman there is a howl! The Holy Spirit is sometimes seen as more feminine, but certainly not as a spouse to either God or Christ. It seems strange to me that Christianity is so 'family' oriented, when the ultimate beginning is a male God with no wife, and a Son/God with no wife. Paul himself said that people should get married if they can't control their sexual urges. Is that why you are married? Why didn't the greatest of all the apostles never get married, and never wanted to marry?
Anyway, I don't want to argue about this with you, but I am curious what you think about the lack of the feminine in Christianity.

Gary Baker said...

Kevin,

"It doesn't matter if 99% of Americans voted for it. If it isn't constitutional, then it can't stand. "

Quite correct. However, under the 10th amendment, it was perfectly Constitutional and the judge's ruling was not.

GM,

"the Bible has sometimes been used to sanction murder,"

"Since all claim to be the word of their deity, how can you say that such a book teaches one not to murder?"

Through the explicit word: Thou shall not murder. The fact that people use particular texts to sanction murder is irrelevant. Evil people will always find some excuse to do what they want. As I mentioned before, the Levitical laws were for a specific people and place for those punishments to be applied for specific reasons. Reiterating what I said above, and as also supported by scripture, individuals have no God-given authority to apply those penalties or any penalties beyond their local laws. They do have the right to use the standards to declare what is good and evil.

"Stalin, Mao, et al. did not murder their victims in the name of atheism."

Quite, but that's hardly the point. You are constantly pointing out how religion contributes to violence. What you fail to acknowledge that absent Christianity violence and murder escalate. It's not like Mao and Stalin murdered all of those people alone either. They had plenty of people to help them, and that was aided by the fact that none of them had been taught that man was anything special. Under atheism, he is just another animal. In fact, applying Darwinism, as many atheist governments did, and even some "Progressive" governments with considerable Christian presence, it was better to reduce the population of "less desirable people."

Or more succinctly, the most blood-thirsty Christian government on record pales by comparison to the benevolence created by atheists. It doesn't matter whether they claim the state or not, they build countries of poverty, suffering, and murder. A pity you do not believe in God, because without him that would be the type of country you would live in. You owe him more thanks than you can give.

Gary Baker said...

GM,

"What makes sexuality different from any other personal characteristics judges have? Can a female judge rule on abortion issues? A black judge on civil rights? If you answer "no" you'd better be prepared to say why."

I'll take a stab at this one: The judge stands to receive a tangible (monetary) benefit from the outcome of his ruling. That gives him a conflict of interest. It doesn't necessarily mean that it did influence his ruling, but it gives an "appearance of impropriety" under many ethics statutes.

BTW - I'm confused. If the judge made his sexual orientation clear, then what makes you think the public would never know regardless of how the ruling went?

Kevin,

"Where exactly is the female part in the Trinity of Christianity?"

Why would their need to be one? Woman was created to "complete" man, and in effect, they complete each other. If God is already complete, then nothing else is needed.

At any rate, you are (again) showing your ignorance with regards to the scriptures: The church, the body of believers, is the bride of Christ. Indeed much of the directions that we are given with regards to families is to reflect this truth.

Gary Baker said...

Kevin,

"That may be true,"

May be? No, Kevin. Absolutely true, and if you had half of the historical knowledge you claim, you wouldn't even bother to challenge.

"but Christianity itself has little to do with gays and lesbians gaining their rights. Just ask the Catholics, or the Mormons, or the various Protestant churchs."

So you keep saying, and the fact that countries that stayed with other religions or were largely atheism continue in far harsher treatment of gays and all people shows you as the liar you are. And you might want to stay away from the Catholics, Mormons, and Protestants for quite a while. While there is no right to gay marriage (or any marriage for that matter), there is a right to freedom of religion and association, which Prop 8 opponents violated by invading their churches. I know that liberals really despise it when people actually get to vote, but you should learn tolerance.

Christinewjc said...

Thanks Steve. We did have a great weekend.

I don't blame you a bit for not answering GMpilot with a detailed comment. Over the years I have found that what I write in response often goes in "one ear and out the other." GMpilot is known for "missing the point." He keeps asking the same questions, even when they have already been answered in the past.

I have heard Christians ask skeptics - if there is no God, then where does the authority come from that we should not murder? Where does such law originate?

Christinewjc said...

Hi Gary,

As always, I appreciate your comments here. Thanks for bringing up the fact that the church (all Christians - not a building or particular denomination) is the Bride of Christ. In another comment thread, I encouraged Kevin to watch a video about it.

GMpilot said...

GB: I'll take a stab at this one: The judge stands to receive a tangible (monetary) benefit from the outcome of his ruling. That gives him a conflict of interest. It doesn't necessarily mean that it did influence his ruling, but it gives an "appearance of impropriety" under many ethics statutes.

Who would be the provider of this monetary benefit? His publisher? I've heard nothing of this, but I'll allow you my doubts. Just tell me who.

But you didn't actually answer the question. If a gay judge can't be expected to rule fairly on a 'gay law', then it follows that a woman judge would be similarly biased in regard to, say, sexual harassment rulings. Do you really believe that, and if not, why not?

Yes, you are confused.
I didn't say the public would never have known about Judge Walker's orientation; I said they might never have known. I say this because after the ruling was announced, the 'hidden facts' about him that I first heard were attributed to a right-wing source.

Kevin said...

Hi Gary,
Jeez, I keep forgetting you know ALL the answers!

I said: "That may be true" but again, you choose to ignore the rest of what I said (or maybe you can't understand it). How convenient.


You state: "I know that liberals really despise it when people actually get to vote, but you should learn tolerance." Being a liberal, I absolutely love to vote. So there goes one of your conservative beliefs. We don't need to talk about tolerance, since it is clear how tolerant you really are. But I will say that even though I love to vote, I am also aware of the part the judiciary plays. It is too bad that you don't understand that. The court system wasn't devised to be a rubber stamp to whatever Christian belief is popular at the time.


You state: "At any rate, you are (again) showing your ignorance with regards to the scriptures: The church, the body of believers, is the bride of Christ. Indeed much of the directions that we are given with regards to families is to reflect this truth." I already knew that, but how does it feel to be a bride to Jesus? Are you wearing white? All joking aside, how exactly does that idea of being a 'bride of Christ' fit into the real world? Do all Christian men consider themselves to be brides of the male Jesus?

I am a 'liar' and I should learn 'tolerance'? You are so, so predictable Gary. You spout the Conservative view so well. As I have stated many times before, you would do much better in your discussions with me to act as a decent human being. If you can't, maybe you should practice what you preach and turn the other cheek. Just because I don't write down everything I know about Christianity doesn't mean I am lying. Maybe the frustration of not being able to discuss things reasonably is getting to you. Besides, I was hoping to hear from Christine about this one: where is the feminine in the Trinity?

You state "..which Prop 8 opponents violated by invading their churches." Exactly how many churches were 'invaded'? You repeat this so many times, so I assume you have an exact count. And you probably don't realize this, but if private property is 'invaded' then that is what the court system is for. I'm sure the Mormons and the Catholics and the Protestants will not hesitate to use this system if they are truly invaded. Pretty easy solution, huh?

Christinewjc said...

Kevin,

I have attempted to post a link to a website that contains a sermon on "Marriage: The Image of God" and an outline there that might help you to see why your "where's the feminine part of God" question is not necessary. I have posted it twice here in the comment section and each time I come back here it is gone! I have no explanation for this other than my account is being sabotaged. Here is my third attempt:
Christinewjc has left a new comment on your post "The Homosexual Agenda is a Spiritual Problem":

FYI Everyone -

I don't know why this is happening, but some comments are not posting when I release them from the comment moderation box. Here is a copy of a comment that didn't post earlier. I retrieved it from my email notifications:

Christinewjc has left a new comment on your post "The Homosexual Agenda is a Spiritual Problem":

Kevin,

The marriage bond is not only about sex. I think that is where ideas about it get skewed. Sex was created by God for humans and was consecrated as good when enjoyed by one man and one woman in the bonds of holy matrimony It takes much more than just good sex to keep the bond of a husband and wife together.

1 Corinthians 13 describes what encompasses genuine love.

IMHO, The Godhead does not need anything so primitive as sex to demonstrate love. Jesus' sacrificial death was the greatest act in history - there is no greater love than for a man to lay down his life for his friends.

The love relationship between God the Father, God the Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit of God is about holiness and righteousness.

I once did a blog post about the comparison of the marriage bond between one man and one woman and the future Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Jesus Christ) (at the culmination of history) when all believers are united with Christ for eternity. When I have time, I will do a search for it and post the link.

Meanwhile, perhaps you might like to view one of the best sermons I have ever heard on this topic. It can be found here:

The Rock Church: Marriage: The Image of God by Pastor Miles McPherson

There is also a short outline at that link that may help answer your question.



Posted by Christinewjc to Talk Wisdom at August 9, 2010 12:49:00 PM PDT



Posted by Christinewjc to Talk Wisdom at August 9, 2010 8:47:00 PM PDT

Christinewjc said...

Kevin,

I have attempted to post a link to a website that contains a sermon on "Marriage: The Image of God" and an outline there that might help you to see why your "where's the feminine part of God" question is not necessary. I have posted it twice here in the comment section and each time I come back here it is gone! I have no explanation for this other than my account is being sabotaged. Here is my third attempt:
Christinewjc has left a new comment on your post "The Homosexual Agenda is a Spiritual Problem":

FYI Everyone -

I don't know why this is happening, but some comments are not posting when I release them from the comment moderation box. Here is a copy of a comment that didn't post earlier. I retrieved it from my email notifications:

Christinewjc has left a new comment on your post "The Homosexual Agenda is a Spiritual Problem":

Kevin,

The marriage bond is not only about sex. I think that is where ideas about it get skewed. Sex was created by God for humans and was consecrated as good when enjoyed by one man and one woman in the bonds of holy matrimony It takes much more than just good sex to keep the bond of a husband and wife together.

1 Corinthians 13 describes what encompasses genuine love.

IMHO, The Godhead does not need anything so primitive as sex to demonstrate love. Jesus' sacrificial death was the greatest act in history - there is no greater love than for a man to lay down his life for his friends.

The love relationship between God the Father, God the Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit of God is about holiness and righteousness.

I once did a blog post about the comparison of the marriage bond between one man and one woman and the future Marriage Supper of the Lamb (Jesus Christ) (at the culmination of history) when all believers are united with Christ for eternity. When I have time, I will do a search for it and post the link.

Meanwhile, perhaps you might like to view one of the best sermons I have ever heard on this topic. It can be found here:

The Rock Church: Marriage: The Image of God by Pastor Miles McPherson

There is also a short outline at that link that may help answer your question.



Posted by Christinewjc to Talk Wisdom at August 9, 2010 12:49:00 PM PDT



Posted by Christinewjc to Talk Wisdom at August 9, 2010 8:47:00 PM PDT

Christinewjc said...

I thought that Gary's brief explanation was good. However, here is the portion from the sermon's outline about man and woman becoming one:

Man and Woman in God's Image
God calls sex a one-flesh union, two people becoming one, a holy union. However, sex outside the context of marriage is not a holy union.Male and Female are distinct expressions of the Image of God.

Genesis 1:26-27 states, Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

God intentionally created us male and female for a marriage relationship. Genesis 2:18 states, Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.

God made mankind in His image. He separated them, and they will strive to become one again.

Genesis 2:21-23 states, So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Sex is a union of shameless one-ness between man and a woman. God calls sex a one-flesh union, two people becoming one, a holy union. However, sex outside the context of marriage is not a holy union.

The devil wants to see us have sex with as many people as we can, because that will scar us at the core of our beings. He wants to break our conscience down, wearing out our God conscience to the point where we have no idea of right or wrong anymore.

Biblical marriage promotes life, for the raising of children by mothers and fathers. Homosexual behavior reduces life. Why? No one can be born out of a homosexual relationship. Marriage is not a governmental issue. It is something the church is the custodian of.

Marriage is designed to be a lifelong commitment. It is clear among statistics that homosexual relationships are mainly about sex, this is attributed to the fact of the amount of sexual partners a homosexual person has a year, regardless of whether he is in a monogamous "marriage" relationship.

Kevin said...

Hi Christine,
I've been having trouble with posting as well. The sermon stated:
"Biblical marriage promotes life, for the raising of children by mothers and fathers. Homosexual behavior reduces life. Why? No one can be born out of a homosexual relationship. Marriage is not a governmental issue. It is something the church is the custodian of." By this reasoning old people getting married 'reduces life.' People who are unfortunately sterile but yet get married 'reduces life.' No one can be born out of these unions. And marriage is a governmental issue. If someone gets married in their church but does not file the paperwork with the government, they are not married.
I also find it interesting that this sermon is against gays and lesbians being in committed relationships, and it complains about them not being able to hold committed relationships! The person giving the sermon can't have both. It is like complaining that slaves were stupid but yet making laws to keep them from getting educated.

I noticed that Miles McPherson did not mention Paul's ideas on marriage and sex. I wonder why that was?

Oh well, it is sort of a moot point. Prop. 8 has been ruled unconstitutional and it is now up to the Appeals court and ultimately the Supreme Court to make that decision.

Gary Baker said...

GM,
“Who would be the provider of this monetary benefit? His publisher? I've heard nothing of this, but I'll allow you my doubts. Just tell me who.”
The taxpayers would be the provider of this benefit, if not directly then ultimately. Lawful marriage carries benefits such as social security survivor’s benefit’s provided at taxpayer expense. Therefore, a gay man who could not legally marry before would stand to have additional government benefits if the definition of marriage was expanded.
“But you didn't actually answer the question.”
I didn’t say they couldn’t be expected to rule fairly. I said that he had a conflict that provided an ethical problem. The reason that such ethical standards and laws exist is to prevent that appearance because it becomes impossible to know when or if the official is compromised.
Now, liberals definitely believe that people cannot rule fairly. That is why they make such a big deal about having minority representation on juries when a minority is the accused, minority representation in the Supreme Court, imposing voting districts that are “majority minority,” etc. Liberals absolutely do not trust people to be fair. I believe that they can, but the actions of a lot of liberals make it seem that they have no desire to do so.
“Yes, you are confused. I didn't say the public would never have known about Judge Walker's orientation; I said they might never have known. I say this because after the ruling was announced, the 'hidden facts' about him that I first heard were attributed to a right-wing source.”
Which really means that you were saying nothing of importance, and just trying to stir things up by adding the conditional “if.” If they might not have, then they might have, regardless of the “if” statement. Lots of smoke; no substance.

Gary Baker said...

Kevin,
“You state: "I know that liberals really despise it when people actually get to vote, but you should learn tolerance." Being a liberal, I absolutely love to vote. So there goes one of your conservative beliefs.”
Oh, I know liberals love it when they get to vote, because that means they get official validation for their agreement. They hate it when others get to vote. They hated people who voted against prop. 8, they hated when people voted to end discrimination in the University system (not that the system abided by the ruling). They absolutely despise it when non-liberals get to participate in democracy, and that’s the reason that the only way so many liberal policies get passed is by executive order and judicial fiat.
“The court system wasn't devised to be a rubber stamp to whatever Christian belief is popular at the time.”
No, it was formed to ensure that people’s rights under the Constitution were protected. This judge failed.


“I already knew that, but how does it feel to be a bride to Jesus?”
I tell you, Kevin, it feels awesome! How does it feel to be treated like bride of someone no better than you?
“All joking aside, how exactly does that idea of being a 'bride of Christ' fit into the real world? Do all Christian men consider themselves to be brides of the male Jesus?”
Probably not. It takes a while to mature to the point that you can appreciate boundless love.

“Exactly how many churches were 'invaded'?”
The information is readily available on the net. You can look it up as well as I.
“And you probably don't realize this, but if private property is 'invaded' then that is what the court system is for. I'm sure the Mormons and the Catholics and the Protestants will not hesitate to use this system if they are truly invaded. Pretty easy solution, huh?”
Oh yeah. And I suppose the next time a gay person gets shot, with or without the person knowing that the guy was gay, you will just say “Well, all the family has to do is go to court. That’s what they are there for!” What an idiotic statement.
Here’s an even easier solution: Liberals could start respecting the law. They could stop destroying property when they don’t like the outcomes of court cases, and they could refrain from trespass. That way, there wouldn’t be so much clutter in the court system. To my mind, this is an even better solution and allows people to deal with each other without going to court. Of course, I understand that, being a liberal, you don’t understand that.

Kevin said...

Hi Gary,
Sorry to burst your little conservative bubble:
You state: "They hated people who voted against prop. 8, they hated when people voted to end discrimination in the University system (not that the system abided by the ruling). They absolutely despise it when non-liberals get to participate in democracy, and that’s the reason that the only way so many liberal policies get passed is by executive order and judicial fiat."
No, no and no. I didn't like how people voted on Prop. 8, but that has nothing to do with not wanting them to vote at all. Nor did I hate the people who voted for Prop. 8. I don't hate Christine or Carlotta and I know that they voted for Prop. 8. You can place no's at the end of your other blanket statements as well. You have a real problem with making something black and white when it is really very grey.
Besides, do you even understand what the judiciary is for? Tossing Prop. 8 wasn't a 'judicial fiat.' It was a judge stating that Prop. 8 was unconstitutional. If the lawyers for Prop. 8 would have done their jobs better, it may not have come to this.

You state: "...What an idiotic statement." Funny how you shifted the topic away.

And I take it that you really don't know how many churches were 'invaded' or you do know and won't admit it. My guess is that there were not very many (and I have been searching the internet), but conservative news sources picked one (possibly the Mormon church?) and made it sound like the whole of Christianity was being invaded by those gays! You fell for it. Even if there were 100 churches that were 'invaded' it wouldn't matter--that is what the court is for. How many of them actually sued those gays for the 'invasion' of private property? You can look that up to, while you are looking up how many churches were 'invaded.'

Again, you like to think in black and white. A good example is that you say: "Liberals could start respecting the law." This makes it sound like all liberals disrespect the law and all conservatives are angels. Black and white? Only if you refuse to ignore reality.

Gary Baker said...

Hi Kevin,

Yes, yes, and yes!

"Tossing Prop. 8 wasn't a 'judicial fiat.'"

From "Concurring Opinions": A fiat is (besides an Italian car) an authoritative (and maybe, an arbitrary) order, one that translates automatically to action.

If a law is tossed out as unconstitutional, then that would stop the state from taking action. In this case, the order forces action, as in forcing localities to perform and recognize unions of homosexual. A judicial fiat - QED.

"And I take it that you really don't know how many churches were 'invaded' or you do know and won't admit it."

As a mediocre at best teacher told me, I don't spoon feed my students and I won't spoon feed you.

"My guess is that there were not very many (and I have been searching the internet),"

You know, when Matthew Shepherd was killed, no one was saying "That's what the court system was for." They were all saying what a terrible crime that was. And they were right. But then they went even further to say that it was the type of thing that happened all the time and national action was required, even though I have demonstrated that such occurrences are extremely rare.

In it's own way, this is even worse. While the Mathew Shepherd case was horrible, it was a crime against one person by unaffiliated individuals. This was a group of liberals, targeting a known community for the specific purpose of punishing them for their views and suppressing future votes. In short, this is terrorism in the service of tyranny. Nothing gray about that except in the fevered, tiny minds of liberals.

"This makes it sound like all liberals disrespect the law and all conservatives are angels."

No, I know that all conservatives are angels. But when we look at who is regularly violating the law, public peace, and ethics to further their political agenda, a certain "L" ideology keeps floating to the top.

BTW - I saw your responses with regards to educators. It's obvious that you either did not read any of Mr. Sowell, or you decided to completely disregard it without comment. Considering that liberal educators are generally lazy, dishonest, and unable to face facts, it's hard for me to determine which is more likely.

I'm beginning to think that you aren't really gay. I starting to think that without protected minority status, you couldn't even survive in a liberal education environment.

Kevin said...

Hi Gary,
You said: "As a mediocre at best teacher told me, I don't spoon feed my students and I won't spoon feed you." I get it--so what that means is that you don't really know. I did a search (more than one) and you know what I found? A story about a Mormon church. Just one. So next time you repeat that line, you can say: "A church was invaded..."

I noticed you ignored the question: "How many of them actually sued those gays for the 'invasion' of private property?" I guess we all know the answer to that one (except for you).

Notice how you took the subject away from the so-called invaded churches and began discussing Matthew Shepherd...


You also said: "I saw your responses with regards to educators. It's obvious that you either did not read any of Mr. Sowell." I am not sure why you are repeating this--I said that all I knew about Sowell was that he worked at the Hoover Institute. You really don't have to state the obvious, since, well, it is perfectly clear. However, you won't be able to say that too much longer, because the book as come in at my university. Now I will really see what Sowell as to say.

You state: "I'm beginning to think that you aren't really gay. I starting to think that without protected minority status, you couldn't even survive in a liberal education environment." You seem to equate my employment with my sexual orientation. Too funny! I see this belief as part of your obsession. Again, you can't get away from the sexual orientation part. Why are you so fixated on this topic? And I really think that you are spending too much time in the sun. It seems to be affecting your brain. Do you even have a clue what you are writing about? Here--let me answer that for you since you are having so many problems--no.

You certainly give me more of a reason to teach about religion. You are a great example of why our founding fathers decided to make sure that everyone had religious freedom. I shudder to think what this country would be like if it ever got into the control of a religious group who thinks in black and white.

Gary Baker said...

Kevin,

So, recapping based on liberal logic:

When you don't answer questions, it's because you don't "spoon feed." When conservatives don't give every detail, it's because they don't know.

"Notice how you took the subject away from the so-called invaded churches"

Notice how you keep trying to take the subject away from civil and legal rights violation and voter suppression and try to minimize the incident with side inquiries...

"I am not sure why you are repeating this--I said that all I knew about Sowell was that he worked at the Hoover Institute."

And yet you continue to comment on the matter before checking out the facts. I can see that you are a true disciple of George Orwell fiction, equating ignorance with strength.

"You seem to equate my employment with my sexual orientation."

Only to the point that you probably wouldn't be able to maintain it without the protected status that liberals assign to minorities.

"I shudder to think what this country would be like if it ever got into the control of a religious group who thinks in black and white."

So you instead put your faith in liberal secularists that can't seem to think at all.

Gary Baker said...

You know Christine, it's difficult to discern which is smaller: Liberal integrity or liberal memory. Kevin seems all upset that I called liberals on invading churches. His big gun is that "only one church" was invaded.

Now, let's go back a week or so. Kevin claims that he would fare as well in Alabama as an gay as he would in Iran. His evidence: One murder over the period of a decade that was probably related to sexual orientation. And then he gets huffy when I call it on him.

Unbelievable.

Christinewjc said...

If you ask me, both "Liberal integrity or liberal memory" are in very short supply these days.

Sometimes, it is just futile to argue with them. Even the liberals on Fox News can't admit when the hypocrisy of their ilk is on display, for all thinking Americans to see.

The fact that the homosexual agenda is not only a moral, political, behavioral, mental, and emotional problem - but also a spiritual problem - shows the depth of depravity of the unrepentant mind.

This comment thread began with Susan Smith's story of redemption from not only homosexual proclivities, but other problems as well. We never hear Kevin or GM say anything about that, do we? Of course not. Why? Because they are spiritually discerned and choose to ignore God's Word.

We Christians who are trying our best to warn them of the eternal consequences are hated, while the liberal "christians" who agree with their unrepented gay-behavior-affirming ideas are embraced. Little do they know just whom they are really embracing - and just whom they have allowed to indwell their hearts and take away their souls for all eternity.