Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Kevin McCullough :: Townhall.com Columnist
Why Christians Embrace 'Gay' Porn Stars
by Kevin McCullough
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Diabolical liberals are once again showing their disdain for homosexuals, and their lack of love for those who struggle with sexual sin. They are adverse to truth about sexual behavior. And when a sexual sinner is brave enough to say so, liberals become the most homophobic mouth foamers the universe has ever seen.

Take the case of Marine Cpl Matt Sanchez. (Also affectionately known as 'the other CPAC scandal'.)

Following his acceptance of the Jeanne Kirkpatrick Academic Freedom award he was "outed" by homosexual bloggers (bloggers who write about and engage in homosexual behavior) as being a "Gay Porn Star."

The reason so many of these homosexual bloggers knew this is simple. They are rabid consumers of homosexual pornography and have spent days, months, possibly years in front of their television screens acting out on the urges within them. They have been enslaved by the unforgiving voices that have told them since birth to act upon every sexual urge they have. The thought of personal sexual restraint is foreign to these bloggers. Thus they have near cataclysmic system failure when someone they believed was homosexual turns a corner in his life and leaves that filth behind.

Writing for Salon.com this week Sanchez spoke about his past and what being employed in the homosexual porn business did to his heart, mind, and life.

Porn reduces the mind and flattens the soul. I don't like it. That's not hypocrisy talking; that's just experience. I sometimes think of myself, ironically, as a progressive: I started off as a liberal but I progressed to conservatism. Part of that transformation is due to my time in the industry. How does a conservative trace his roots to such distasteful beginnings? I didn't like porn's liberalism. In porn, everything taboo is trivialized and everything trivial is magnified.

Being in the adult entertainment industry was sort of like being in a cult, and like all followers of a cult, I have a difficult time figuring out when I stopped believing in the party line. I can tell you, though, that by the time I finished my brief tour of the major studios, I was pretty disgusted with myself. It was an emotional low, and the people who surrounded me were like drug dealers interested only in being with the anesthetized in order not to shake off the stupor of being high.

It needs to be immediately understood that Sanchez committed two cardinal sins here.

The first is - he stopped having homosexual sex. The ability to "choose" one's actions particularly as it relates to which gender one has sex with is supposed to be unchangeable in the mind of liberals. The whole "made that way" argument tends to get decimated when someone like Sanchez simply decides that it is an empty, sad, and destructive life that brings him no joy.

The second is - he began to pursue truth. The maniacal hold on belief that liberals force upon their followers is not based on belief system of absolutes. So little can be trusted, verified, and believed. Sanchez saw it for the first time when he as a Marine reservist was smeared "baby-killer" on his college campus. After his successful and brave fight for free speech at Columbia University, and thus the recognition at CPAC, those who felt threatened by the change his life represents felt it necessary to drag up his pornographic past. He referenced as much in his op-ed.

Why did I become a conservative? Just look at what I left, and look at who is attacking me today. Let's face it: Those on the left who now attack me would be defending me if I had espoused liberal causes and spoken out against the Iraq war before I was outed as a pseudo celebrity. They'd be talking about publishing my memoir and putting me on a diversity ticket with Barack Obama. Instead, those who complain about wire-tapping reserve the right to pry into my private life and my past for political brownie points.

The discussion from cable airwaves on Keith Olbermann's show on MSNBC, to prominent left wing blogs like AMERICAblog operated by John Aravosis, sought to injure Sanchez for deeds committed over a dozen years ago but also to bludgeon conservatives - many of whom are faith-based, Bible-believing Christians for "allowing someone like that" to be honored for true bravery. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "'Xtreme' Radio and columnist based in New York. He blogs at www.muscleheadrevolution.com. His second book "The Kind Of MAN Every Man SHOULD Be" is in stores now.

Be the first to read Kevin McCullough's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

LIBERALS ARE NOT CRITICIZING HIM
LIBERALS ARE NOT CRITICIZING HIM for being gay, they are criticizing him and the Republican Party - the Gay Old Party - of being hypocrites. There are so many gays in this White House they should have their own parade.

If you are a young closeted attractive gay man, there are two great places to hook up with another gay man who can be discrete - one is at an evangelical church, the other is at a young Republicans meeting. I guess we can now add Congress and The White House to that list.

Will / ALL of Bible is inspired by God


[NOTE: NEW POST WITH LINK TO COMMENTARY REMOVED]


Hi again Will,

As mentioned in my previous post, the moderators here at TH removed both of my posts from Monday, presumably because I included a link to the website that contains the commentary I wanted to share (which may be against the rules, although I have posted the links to the KJV and parallel Bible websites before, so I am not sure).

In order to avoid posting a direct link to the commentary on the inspired nature of God’s Word, I worked backwards until I figured out the exact search phrase to use on the Google search engine to take you right to it.

If you will go to the Google search engine, and enter the following phrase (including quotation marks) in the Google search box, it will return only one result, the commentary on the inspired nature of God’s Word, written by brother David Pratte:

"Inspiration of the Bible: Do the Scriptures"
(include the quotation marks in order to narrow the search engine results to the single appropriate link. If you forget to use the quotation marks, it will be search result number two, a link titled “Bible Inspiration: Infallible, Inerrant, Verbally Inspired?”)



Please take the time to check the referenced scriptures, in order to satisfy yourself that the information presented is in harmony with the rest of God’s Word. This is important because the words of men are certainly not inspired; not Mr. Pratte’s and certainly not mine. The Word of God as contained in the Bible is inspired by God; anything men say about God’s Word must harmonize and reconcile with God’s Word, otherwise the words of men are in error.

Please do check the referenced scriptures in order to be confident that what is being taught and explained is consistent with the Word of God as found in the Bible.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to discuss all of these different issues. As is always the case, I have learned more about the various topics we are discussing myself, as a result of my research. I hope that this information will be useful to you, and that it will help you to come to a better understanding of the Word of God.

Please don’t hesitate to ask any questions you may have, I doubt anyone else is checking back on this Thread anymore, but I will continue to check back periodically over the next few days to see if you have any questions or concerns.

Thanks once again for the discussion, and best regards,

Scott


Will / Old & New Testament differences

[NOTE: NEW POST WITH LINK TO COMMENTARY REMOVED]


Hi Will,

I posted links to both commentaries on Monday, March 19th, but the moderators removed both posts. I can only guess that they did so because there may be a rule about posting links to outside websites. I have posted many links here on TH in the past however (to Wikipedia, various news articles, and the online Bible websites mentioned below), so I am not sure why these two posts were removed. Hopefully, I have found an acceptable way of conveying the same information without violating any rules here at TH.

There are two commentaries I intended to post, each addressing a separate issue raised in your questions, and both were written by brother David Pratte. I would have copied and pasted them here in their entirety, but Mr. Pratte’s website does not authorize me to do so. Instead, his website requests that I provide the link, so that anyone who is interested can go to his website and view the commentary directly. As mentioned above, TH apparently does not allow this, because they removed my two posts containing links from Monday.


Please note that what are sometimes referred to as both the “ceremonial laws” AND the “moral laws” under the Old Testament were done away with; ALL of the “Law of Moses” was nailed to the cross. The New Testament establishes a New Law.

The New Law does include 9 of the 10 laws that constituted the Ten Commandments (all except the Sabbath), but they are not a “carry-over”. The Old Law was entirely done away with. The following commentary explains this and more, in greater detail, thoroughly sourced and referenced with scripture.

Please go to the Google search engine, and copy & paste the following search expression (including quotation marks) into the Google search box, it will return only three results:


"Should we observe Old Testament laws of Moses"


The first search result is the intended commentary on the differences between the Old and New Testaments, written by brother David Pratte.


I think you will find this information very interesting, honestly presented, and very thoroughly sourced with Bible scripture.

As is always the case, please check Mr. Pratte’s scripture references against your own Bible, and see for yourself whether his reasoning and understanding is sound and that it harmonizes and reconciles with the rest of God’s Word on the subject.


Here are two excellent online Bible resources. I have posted links to both of them several times before on Townhall.com, so I don’t think there is any violation of TH rules for posting these particular links. The first is a King James Bible version website:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/


The second is a parallel Bible website, i.e., it shows scripture verses side by side from two different translations. The translations used for this particular parallel Bible website are the King James version and the American Standard version from 1901:

http://online-bible-study.net/parallel-bible/kjv-asv/


I urge you to utilize one of the online Bible websites above, or have your own Bible handy, so that you can check the referenced Scriptures for yourself.

If you find anything in either commentary (see my next post for a way to find the second commentary) that you think contradicts or is otherwise is not in harmony with God’s Word, please do let me know. There is no profit in being wrong in matters of religion, so if my understanding (or Mr. Pratte’s) is in conflict with other clear Bible scripture, please show me where the conflict exists, so that I can study the issue further and come to a better understanding of God’s Word.



I will follow up shortly with the exact search term to use on Google in order to find the commentary on the inspired nature of God’s Word as contained in the Bible.


Will / ALL of Bible is inspired by God


Here is the direct link to the commentary on the inspired nature of the Bible:

http://www.biblestudylessons.com/cgi-bin/gospel_way/bible_inspiration.php

Please take the time to check the referenced scriptures, in order to satisfy yourself that the information presented is in harmony with the rest of God’s Word. This is important because the words of men are certainly not inspired; not Mr. Pratte’s and certainly not mine. The Word of God as contained in the Bible is inspired by God; anything men say about God’s Word must harmonize and reconcile with God’s Word, otherwise the words of men are in error.

Please do check the referenced scriptures in order to be confident that what is being taught and explained is consistent with the Word of God as found in the Bible.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss all of these different issues. As is always the case, I have learned more about the various topics we are discussing myself, as a result of my research. I hope that this information will be useful to you, and that it will help you to come to a better understanding of the Word of God.

Please don’t hesitate to ask any questions you may have, I doubt anyone else is checking back on this Thread anymore, but I will continue to check back periodically over the next few days to see if you have any questions or concerns.

Thanks once again for the discussion, and best regards,

Scott


Will / Old & New Testament differences


Hi Will,

There are two commentaries I intend to post, each addressing a separate issue raised in your questions, and both were written by brother David Pratte. I would copy and paste them here in their entirety, but the website does not authorize me to do so. Instead, the website requests that I provide the link, so that anyone who is interested can go to the website and view the commentary directly.

I encourage you to do so, I think you will find this information very interesting, honestly presented, and thoroughly sourced with Bible scripture.

As is always the case, please check Mr. Pratte’s scripture references against your own Bible, and see for yourself whether his reasoning and understanding is sound and that it harmonizes and reconciles with the rest of God’s Word on the subject.


Here are two excellent online Bible resources. The first is a King James version website:

http://www.blueletterbible.org/


The second is a parallel Bible website, i.e., it shows scripture verses side by side from two different translations. The translations used for this particular parallel Bible website are the King James version and the American Standard version from 1901:

http://online-bible-study.net/parallel-bible/kjv-asv/


I urge you to utilize one of the online Bible websites above, or have your own Bible handy, so that you can check the referenced Scriptures for yourself.

If you find anything in either commentary that you think contradicts or is otherwise is not in harmony with God’s Word, please do let me know. There is no profit in being wrong in matters of religion, so if my understanding (or Mr. Pratte’s) is in conflict with other clear Bible scripture, please show me where the conflict exists, so that I can study the issue further and come to a better understanding of God’s Word.


Here is the link to the commentary explaining the differences between the Old and New Testaments. Please note that what are sometimes referred to as both the “ceremonial laws” AND the “moral laws” under the Old Testament were done away with; ALL of the “Law of Moses” was nailed to the cross. The New Testament establishes a New Law.

The New Law does include 9 of the 10 laws that constituted the Ten Commandments (all except the Sabbath), but they are not a “carry-over”. The Old Law was entirely done away with. The following commentary explains this and more, in greater detail, thoroughly sourced and referenced with scripture:

http://www.biblestudylessons.com/cgi-bin/gospel_way/old_law_today_1.php


I will follow up shortly with the link to a commentary on the inspired nature of God’s Word as contained in the Bible.


Will / Addressing your questions, cont.



Hi Will, please accept my apology for the delay in getting back to you.

My replies are lengthy, but the nature of your questions requires more explanation than would usually be accommodated in a forum of this kind. Since I suspect that very few people are checking this Thread any longer, it is my hope that we will be able to communicate here without anyone complaining about the length.

If you have the time and the interest, I certainly have the desire to explain God’s Word to the best of my ability, and I will definitely make the time to do so.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



will writes: “My point was this: When Leviticus or Deuteronomy or Exodus advocates (through these ancient "laws") such things as killing unruly children or killing your wife caught in adultery or condoning slavery..... Are these passages man-made? Or written by man but god-inspired? Or God's direct uneqivical word? (Don't switch around to the parts of the bible you like - keep to these controversial passages).”


Such punishments were allowed by God’s Law. According to God’s Law, such punishments were just. To my knowledge they were not mandatory (mercy being another option). I am not an expert on ancient Jewish history, but I strongly suspect that very few children were actually executed for being unruly. Similarly, not all adulterers were stoned to death.


Was Joseph going to stone Mary to death when he discovered that she was with child, or being a just man, did he determine to put her away (i.e., divorce) privately?

(Matthew 1:18-25) "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. [19] Then Joseph her husband, being a just [man], and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. [20] But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. [21] And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. [22] Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, [23] Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. [24] Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: [25] And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.”


Similarly, we have Jesus’ own example in John 8:1-11 where He says “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” (John 8:7b):

(John 8:1-11) "Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. [2] And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. [3] And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, [4] They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. [5] Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? [6] This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with [his] finger wrote on the ground, [as though he heard them not]. [7] So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. [8] And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. [9] And they which heard [it], being convicted by [their own] conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, [even] unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. [10] When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? [11] She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



will writes: “Are these passages man-made? Or written by man but god-inspired? Or God's direct uneqivical word? (Don't switch around to the parts of the bible you like - keep to these controversial passages).”


All of God’s Word is inspired by God, it is unequivocal, and it is not man-made. If any part of it is man-made and passed off as being inspired by God, then we can trust none of it; God’s Word is an all-or-nothing proposition (the kind of thing this world usually hates).

If we cannot be sure of His written Word, then we can be sure of nothing, and all hope is lost. If His Word contains untruth, then He necessarily failed to preserve the truth of His Word beyond the end of the earth as He promised to do; God did not fail, neither has He ever failed at anything.

The reality that you and I are discussing His Word, right here and right now, is testimony that His Word is alive and well. Many attack His Word, trying their best to pick His Word apart and destroy it. I am doing my best to contend earnestly for the faith (cf. Jude 1:3). We can be confident that this contest has been going on since His Word was first written down; you and I are continuing it, each dutifully playing his part.

In no way do I intend to “switch around to the parts of the bible you [I] like”. It is my strong desire to attack this subject head-on, and hopefully explain some related issues along the way. Please see my follow-up posts specifically dealing with the issues of inspiration, ceremonial vs. moral law, and the differences between the Old Testament and the New.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



will writes: “In today's society, if you kill wife or child for unruliness & adultery, it's a crime correct?”


Of course, but as I hope it will become clear in my following posts, there is a difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Mosaic Law (i.e., Law of Moses) applied to a specific people (the Jews) during a specific time, what is sometimes called the “Mosaic Age”, which was a kind of theocracy.

There are three dispensations generally recognized in the Bible:
1. Patriarchal (Genesis 3 through Exodus 20)
2. Mosaic (Exodus 20 through Acts 2)
3. The age of the Gospel or Christian era (Acts 2 through Judgment).

Regarding today’s society:

“And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.” (Mark 12:17, see also Matthew 22:21, Luke 20:25)

We are to obey the laws of whatever government we live under, unless a man-made law contradicts God’s Laws. There are no human laws that are higher than God’s Laws.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



will writes: “If we consider these ancient laws "man-made" & a product of the times, then the probibitions against homo-sex can logically hold the same weight as killing your spouse in today's society.”


Well sure, and if we consider the moon is made of cheese, all we need to do is figure out a way to get it here. Seriously, think about what you just said. “If we consider these ancient laws ‘man-made’ ”. They were not man-made. If we consider that the Allies didn’t win WWII, then we would all be speaking German right now, but that didn’t happen. Neither were the ancient laws man-made, so any conclusion drawn from such a false premise is similarly irrelevant to anything but a (albeit possibly interesting) theoretical or hypothetical discussion.

If you consider any part of God’s Word to be man-made and not inspired by God, then you have invalidated the whole thing. There are many in the world who disbelieve the whole Bible, but to believe some parts and not others is an untenable position. We cannot pick and choose.

The only parts of God’s Word that we do not follow are those parts for which God has determined that we no longer need to follow. Knowledge of the three dispensations, the differences between ceremonial and moral law, and the differences between the Old and New Testaments are required in order to properly understand these distinctions.

I realize it may sound complicated, but if properly taught, it can be explained so that anyone can understand with a little time and effort. An hour or two, including time for questions and answers, should be sufficient for a general understanding to be achieved.

How do you know if what you are being taught is “right”? The same way you determine whether any Bible teaching is correct; God is the Author of all scripture, His Word is truth, and truth does not contradict itself. Any teaching from God’s Book must reconcile with all other teaching on the same subject from God’s Book. If it does not, then we are in error in our understanding, and we must go back and figure out where our teaching departed from God’s Word.

A proper understanding of His Word will always demonstrate that His Word harmonizes and reconciles with everything else He has said on a given subject, and will not contradict anything else He has said on any other subject. I realize this sounds like an incredible, extraordinary claim. It is. It is sometimes referred to as “internal consistency”, and it is also one of the many evidences showing that what we refer to as the Word of God is just that, and not the word of man. No man-authored book, written down by 40 or more different men from vastly different backgrounds, across a span of some 1,600 years could possibly reconcile and harmonize with itself without contradiction or error, let alone successfully withstand the scrutiny of the entire world from the moment each part was written down.

We could hardly expect 40 different engineers who all went to the same college to write an instruction manual on how to put together a bicycle that would not contradict each other and contain discoverable error.

By comparison, the Word of God answers all of the questions that mankind has searched for from the beginning, but cannot answer for himself: Who we are, where we come from, where we’re going, and why. God managed to explain that without contradiction and without error, and He has managed to preserve His Word for all time, despite the best efforts of man to destroy it.

It may all seem impossible, certainly implausible, until we consider that we are talking about the same God who spoke the world into existence; the same God who created heaven and earth and everything in them; the same God who said “Let there be light”, and there was light; the same God who knows the end from the beginning; the same God who loved His creation, mankind, enough to have determined before time to sacrifice His only begotten Son in order that even the vilest and most hateful sinner could be returned to Him whole, if only the sinner would hear God’s Word, and obey.

When you consider all of that, when we put it into perspective, it is not longer so hard to understand that the Word of God, as contained in the book we call the Bible, is inerrant and infallible, and that God’s Word will still remain even after the heavens and the earth pass away:

Matthew 24:35 - “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”


Mark 13:31 - “Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.”


Luke 21:33 - “Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.”



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



will writes: “Scott: You would NOT want to live among the Jews 2 to 5 centuries BC & personally live these laws.”


What does what I want (or don’t want) have to do with anything at all?

Certainly I am “acclimated” to the times in which I live, just as people of any era are. I am blessed to live in a free country where I can worship without persecution (at least for the time-being). We have many modern (by 21st century standards) conveniences that I am accustomed to (internal combustion engine, air conditioners, washer & dryer, refrigerator, phones, computers, etc.).

We also have all of the expenses and problems that come with them. The grass frequently looks greener on the other side of the fence. I suspect that very few Jews from 2 to 5 centuries BC would choose to live in 2007AD if you showed them a week’s worth of American TV entertainment and news programming.

All of which entirely misses the point that regardless of what time era we live in, it does not matter whether we personally agree with or like God’s laws. God’s law is not formulated based on the results of polling data or popularity contests; it was designed to accomplish His will, not ours.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



will writes: “Some would fly in the face of common decency, others would shock & appall your modern sense of justice.”


Which ones fly in the face of common decency, and which ones appall and shock?

These generalized statements are always and immediately suspicious. If you have anything particular in mind, please demonstrate what you mean. Please define “common decency”, and then name some laws that would fly in the face of “common decency” so that we can determine whether your assertion has merit.

I am confident that my modern sense of justice, which is entirely based on Judeo-Christian values and ethics, all of which are founded in God’s Word as recorded in the Bible, is entirely consistent with the written Word of God to the best of my understanding. If you or anyone else can demonstrate where I am wrong, using the Bible, you would be a friend to me for doing so. My interest is in understanding the truth of God’s Word, as it is written.

Please provide examples of laws that would shock and appall my modern sense of justice, and we’ll see if such an assertion holds up to scrutiny.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Note: I will follow up with a few commentaries regarding your questions on ceremonial vs. moral laws, New vs. Old Testament, and the inspired nature of God’s Word as contained in the Bible.



popup / Re: Please Help Me



popop writes: “I AM NEITHER GAY NOR HETEROSEXUAL. I LOVE CORPSES AND TO SLEEP ON BED WITH MULTIPLE WOMEN AT A TIME. I ALSO LOVE ANIMALS. I RECENTLY SLEPT WITH ME PET. A BEAUTIFUL CAT. DO I HAVE ANY RIGHTS?”

Certainly. We are all free moral agents. We each have the right to ignore God and reject the salvation He offers.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



popop writes: “I AM VERY SURE I WAS BORN WITH MY SEXUAL PREFEENCES AND I DO NOT WANT TO BE HATED, DESPISED OR DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.”

The leader of the “Heaven’s Gate” cult, Marshall Applewhite, was very sure too. In fact, he was so sure, positive even, that he and his followers were going to be taken up into a spaceship (containing Jesus) that was hiding behind the Hale-Bopp comet, that he and thirty-eight (38) of his followers committed suicide at just the right time, in order to catch the spaceship as it flew by…

Being “sure” in our own heart of mind, without any evidence or substantiation, is to disregard the Word of God which instructs us (among many other things) to reason together (cf. Isaiah 1:18), to search the scriptures daily to make sure the things we are taught are true according to His Word (cf. Acts 17:11) and to “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

You may be “very sure”, but that does not necessarily make it so. Are you “sure enough” to drink the proverbial purple Kool-Aid? Marshall Applewhite was, and he was wrong. Dead wrong.

As for being hated, despised or discriminated against, I think it is reasonable to say that no one wants those things. The world’s intolerance for Christians is so pervasive that many people don’t even realize that it’s going on, every day, all over the world.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



popop writes: “I HAVE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE LIKE ME IN THE CLOSET BUT WE ARE TIRED OF COVERING UP…”


I have no doubt that there are millions of people living in sin; it is written that all men are sinners (Romans 3:23). Fighting against God’s Word and trying to “cover up” is indeed difficult and tiring:

(Acts 9:5) “And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: [it is] hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”

(Acts 26:14) “And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? [it is] hard for thee to kick against the pricks.”


What does "kick against the pricks" mean?


The following answer is provided by brother Don Martin, a preacher in the Lord’s church. I am confident that Mr. Martin’s analysis is consistent with God’s Word, but please check what Mr. Martin says (and anything I say) against the Word of God as found in the Bible for yourself. Neither my words nor Mr. Martin’s words are inspired, but the words contained in the Bible are inspired of God, and they are authoritative:


“The question is probable referring to Acts 9:5 or 26:14. Saul (later called Paul) had been persecuting Christians (Acts 9: 13,14). Even though Saul had been sincere, Saul was wrong (Acts 23:1, 26:9). Saul was acting according to the law of Moses, but this system had been abrogated (2 Corinthians 3). Hence, Saul had no authority for his actions.

A large percentage of people in the first century were tillers of the soil. Oxen were used to work the soil. The prick or goad was a necessary devise. The prick was usually a wooden shaft with a pointed spike (prick) at one end. The man working the ox would position the goad in such a way as to exert influence and control over the ox. You see, if the ox refused the command indicated by the farmer, the goad would be used to jab or prick the ox. Sometimes the ox would refuse this incentive by kicking out at the prick. As result, the prick would be driven deeper into the flesh of the rebellious animal. The more the animal rebelled, the more the animal suffered. Hence, the statement to Saul: "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." (Saul was rebelling against God.)

God possesses total authority (see Matthew 28:18). God therefore, has the right to "boss" man. God has given man commandments to be obeyed (1 John 5:3). However, man may elect to disobey God (Joshua 24:15). When man disobeys, however, man pays. "The way of transgressors is hard," wrote Solomon (Proverbs 13:20). God/man is analogous to the farmer/ox situation. When we disobey god, we hurt ourselves. When we continue to disobey and rebel, we are like the ox – driving the prick in deeper and deeper, hurting ourselves in rebelling against authority! Beloved, when will we learn? Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him (Hebrews 5:8,9).”



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



popop writes: “…OUR GENUINE AND INATE AND GOD-GIVEN SEXUAL PREFERENCES.”


You pretty much ended your own argument right there, by admitting that your sexual orientation for something other than God’s design is according to your own “preferences”. God gave us free will, and we can choose to exercise our free will to serve our own preferences, in disobedience to God’s Word.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



popop writes: “WE HAVE STARTED AN ORGANIZATION FOR THE PROMOTION OF ALTERNATIVE SEX LIFESTYLES. WE SHALL HOLD A MASSIVE SEX-RIDE PARADE IN SAN FRANSISCO AND WILL THAT BE AGAINST THE LAW?”


I don’t know, I’m sure it will depend on whether you have acquired the necessary permits and otherwise conduct yourselves in accordance with the laws governing that city.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



popop writes: “WE WERE BORN THAT WAY WITH A SEXUAL ORIENTATION DIFFERENT FROM HETEROSEXUALS AND GAY PEOPLE, WHO I GUESS ARE NORMAL AND CONVENTIONAL. BUT FOR US ARE BREAING THE LAW OR SOCIETY IS YET TO UNDESTAND WHAT DRIVES US?”


It has nothing to do with society “understanding” your behavior or anyone else’s. In the final analysis, there is the Word of God, and ultimately we are either for it, or again’ it.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



popop writes: “IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT CHOICES OR WHAT FEELS GOOD. IT'S NOT ABOUT WHAT WE CHOOSE, IT'S ABOUT WHAT WE ARE. WE LOVE THE WAY WE WERE BORN AND SOCIETY SHOULD HELP US TO BE OURSELVES OR GIVE US A BREAK.”


How is your position any different than that of a child molester or a rapist? He too can assert that it’s just “how he is”, that he “loves the way he was born” and that “society should help him or give him a break”. Why is the argument of the child molester or rapist any different than yours? I’m not saying that there is not a difference; I want you to tell me what the difference is. In doing so, you will help me to make my next point, should you choose to continue our discussion.



PLEASE HELP ME
I AM NEITHER GAY NOR HETEROSEXUAL. I LOVE CORPSES AND TO SLEEP ON BED WITH MULTIPLE WOMEN AT A TIME. I ALSO LOVE ANIMALS. I RECENTLY SLEPT WITH ME PET. A BEAUTIFUL CAT.
DO I HAVE ANY RIGHTS? I AM VERY SURE I WAS BORN WITH MY SEXUAL PREFEENCES AND I DO NOT WANT TO BE HATED, DESPISED OR DISCRIMINATED AGAINST.
I HAVE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE LIKE ME IN THE CLOSET BUT WE ARE TIRED OF COVERING UP OUR GENUINE AND INATE AND GOD-GIVEN SEXUAL PREFERENCES. WE HAVE STARTED AN ORGANIZATION FOR THE PROMOTION OF ALTERNATIVE SEX LIFESTYLES. WE SHALL HOLD A MASSIVE SEX-RIDE PARADE IN SAN FRANSISCO AND WILL THAT BE AGAINST THE LAW? WE WERE BORN THAT WAY WITH A SEXUAL ORIENTATION DIFFERENT FROM HETEROSEXUALS AND GAY PEOPLE, WHO I GUESS ARE NORMAL AND CONVENTIONAL. BUT FOR US ARE BREAING THE LAW OR SOCIETY IS YET TO UNDESTAND WHAT DRIVES US? IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT CHOICES OR WHAT FEELS GOOD. IT'S NOT ABOUT WHAT WE CHOOSE, IT'S ABOUT WHAT WE ARE. WE LOVE THE WAY WE WERE BORN AND SOCIETY SHOULD HELP US TO BE OURSELVES OR GIVE US A BREAK.

As For Matt Esq.
As for Matt Esq., who said:

"Constant attempts to project homosexuality onto every Christian by gays is hypocritical - homosexual projection has everything to do with homosexual guilt and hatred for the groups that hold fast to the proposition that homosexuality is sin. You can cite Ted Haggart all you want to- personally I think his acts were repulsive and a incredibly huge disservice to his congregation - but he's not the poster boy for heterosexual christians, despite all attempts by gay leftists to make that the case. At the other end of the spectrum is Jerry Falwell, who's comments about gays and 9-11 were far from the mainstream thinking by Christianity.

Ted Haggard was a hypocrite but hypocrisy is a sin, just as homosexuality is a sin. If Haggard chooses to continue his foray into homosexual relationships, then his sin is repetitive, he is not repentant and its up to God to judge him. Christians can also "judge" Haggard and have - they won't purchase his books, he's been tossed from his congregation, it will take years for him to rehab his reputation and get his life back in order. There are consequences for sin both in this life and the next- what those consequences are and who will suffer those consequences is something only God can determine. "

Here, here. And *so* well said Matt Esq. that we'd like to adopt you..

If you're not much younger, Matt Esq., you can be me and my Husband's kid brother.

If you're older, I have also offered to adopt General Pace into our family too..

I vote for General Pace for President, after my Husband (who actually can't because he wasn't born here ;^) )

Matt Esq., that makes you for Vice President.

Now how about some Muscleheads on the side, as cabinet members, for good measure?

We can all make a bonfire with a bunch of current newspapers..I understand The New York Times makes quite a brew ;^)And throw cookies at Chavez, on cable, by the light of the moon..

Mr. Pace is from Jersey too..

Too cool..

Now go into hiding McGreevy, O'Donnell, Sullivan, all you, an embarassment to politics, and writing, and entertainment..

Not to mention the Irish race..

(I know, because I am part Irish too..)

They must be the side that enjoys funerals. :-(


Ah ha..

Anyway..

Happy days..






I Had A Cousin, Named Keith..
I had a cousin named Keith.

He died in 1992, because he left New Jersey, and ran to New York, and lived a life he called "gay".

I have a cousin named Jason. Now Jason lives in NYC too.

Both were different people, but both beautiful men.

Before I became a Christian I used to speak as the unsaved do. I used to talk about how two men made a "nice couple", because I may have cared about them as friends, and didn't know what I know now, then.

Nothing on this Earth will get my cousin back, nor take away the barbarous way death took him.

So many times when I encounter the gay folks talking here, I am reminded of them.

But things are different, now that I've become a Christian. Keith was older, so it was harder to talk to him back then. (He was 11 years older than me, and my Dad's only God son). He fell into a bipolar depression the years he found out. it took the best of him.

I'm so down and so tired of the lies that people say about these people, and men.

The lies about how "happy" they are, when all they are doing is spinning out of control, and living a lie that is currently condoned by "gay" lawyers, and "gay" folks who are judges, and in entertainment. They are working so hard to silence the voice that's in them..

I have grown to have a feeling of disdain, because of the harsh bigotry we have suffered from the likes of these, we being Christians in America, these days.

We have another friend who got saved, and has lived his life personally fighting these sins. He is in Puerto Rico.

He is a sweet soul and a constant encouragement to us. He is a brother in Christ, regardless of his weaknesses, or how he may have failed.

Lately, we have been praying fervently for his deliverance. We are so concerned this "life" style will kill him, as it did our Keith, and my Husband's family childhood friend, James.

James and Keith both died as Christians. James got saved after he caught HIV Aids.

Keith got saved in a coma, after contracting HIV. (***Can't go into the details here, but he was saved, I promise I have strong reasons to believe).

Our other cousin, Jason, has not seen his own Father in over 15 years. The last time I saw my cousin Jason was the day I gave him a Bible, back in '92. Jason and James had Mothers who were dominant, and inordinately close to them, and who didn't treat their Dads with the most respect, but contempt. Divorce never helps things..

Our friend in Puerto Rico was molested too.

In my life and heart Christ, and my family, will always come first.

Because of Him, and them, I make sure to speak out, so others' loved ones will be more than just fond memories..


Show tunes
Good grief, you'd think McCollough dropped an album discussing the best of show tunes in here, as the homosexuals have um .. come out in force. I would assume some homosexual blogger, obsessed with McCollough ( some sort of attraction, since you know, you guys/gals seem very good at projecting weird attractions onto others) linked this post because I can't imagine the vast majority of the homosexuals here read Town Hall on a regular basis. Maybe if some of you would just come out and admit that you want the chance to turn McCollough gay and the thought turns you on, you'd feel better and be less shrill (again, I'm projecting- 20 homosexuals show up in a thread, by gay logic, you want to have sex with McCollough- any attempt to dissuade me from this motion will be met with the word "hater").

Homosexuality is a choice. If you choose to be homosexual, christians will tolerate it but not embrace it. If you ask a Christian if he/she approves of your lifestyle, you should be prepared for the answer and accept it, even if you don't agree (after all, you asked). If you're not ready to hear about it, then don't ask and don't act like a queen everytime you hear somebody say something negative about homosexuals (if I flew into a tantrum everytime a homosexual has claimed I'm gay b/c I'm against gay marriage or bashed Christianity because morality is for weak minded fools, I'd have a heart condition).

Constant attempts to project homosexuality onto every Christian by gays is hypocritical - homosexual projection has everything to do with homosexual guilt and hatred for the groups that hold fast to the proposition that homosexuality is sin. You can cite Ted Haggart all you want to- personally I think his acts were repulsive and a incredibly huge disservice to his congregation - but he's not the poster boy for heterosexual christians, despite all attempts by gay leftists to make that the case. At the other end of the spectrum is Jerry Falwell, who's comments about gays and 9-11 were far from the mainstream thinking by Christianity.

Ted Haggard was a hypocrite but hypocrisy is a sin, just as homosexuality is a sin. If Haggard chooses to continue his foray into homosexual relationships, then his sin is repetitive, he is not repentant and its up to God to judge him. Christians can also "judge" Haggard and have - they won't purchase his books, he's been tossed from his congregation, it will take years for him to rehab his reputation and get his life back in order. There are consequences for sin both in this life and the next- what those consequences are and who will suffer those consequences is something only God can determine.

Irony is, homosexuals want acceptance but the homosexuals on this board, for the most part, set the "cause" back everytime they open their mouths.

Will / I didn't forget
Hi Will,

I apologize for the delay. I doubt anyone else is checking this Thread at this point, but please do check back over the weekend. I have a family matter that needs my attention, and I may not have access to my computer for the necessary length of time to properly respond to your post for a few days.

I will post back here as soon as I am able, and again I apologize for the delay. Your questions are good ones, and I will do my best to give you a straight answer that you can check against the Bible yourself.

Best regards,

Scott

will / Re: Please check back tomorrow
Hi Will,

I will address your post tomorrow if at all possible. If you were checking in, I didn't want you to think I had forgotten or missed your post.

If you get this message, please check back tomorrow evening.

Best regards,

Scott

Jason / Can't give it up... Part II


Jason writes: “I'm just curious how you get to pick and choose which passages from the Bible you are going to keep and which ones you are going to decide you don't like or that "aren't relevant" anymore.”

This is an excellent question, one that we each should ask ourselves, and then give serious consideration to. As I stated previously, God is the Author of all scripture (2 Timothy 3:16). God is not the Author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33).


John 17:17, Psalms 119:128, 33:4 - God's word is truth. It is always right and can never be wrong. The truth will never contradict other truth.


Mark 3:24-25 - A house or kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. If the Bible contradicts itself, then God would be divided against Himself.


1 Corinthians 1:13 - The Corinthians were divided and confused. Was this because Jesus contradicted Himself and led them into confusion? No, Christ is not divided against Himself.


God's word is infallible, harmonious and unified. It cannot be wrong, and it cannot contradict itself.

If we find what appears to be a contradiction, that is the signal that we have not understood something properly, and more study is required. When the truth is properly understood, it will reconcile and harmonize with the rest of God’s Word on the subject; it will not contradict.

On the other hand, if people simply disagree with what the Bible says, then they have an argument with God, and it is the people who are wrong, not the Bible:

“God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.” (Romans 3:4)


I am well aware that some parts of the Bible appear to contradict other parts at first glance, but it should not come as a surprise if we understand that the New Testament replaces and supersedes the Old Testament. This in no way means that we should disregard or not value the Old Testament, it is also the inspired Word of God. This is not going to be a very good analogy, but trying to understand the New Testament without having at least some familiarity with the Old Testament is sort of like trying to understand a movie sequel without having seen the original or first movie.


The Old Law was a schoolmaster, pointing us to the coming of Christ:

"But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. [24] Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." (Galatians 3:23-24)


Christ fulfilled all of the prophecies in the Old Testament about the Messiah, proving that He was the Son of God. Christ nailed the Old Law to the cross, taking it away, and established a New Covenant:


“Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;” (Colossians 2:14)


“But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which [vail] is done away in Christ.” (2 Corinthains 3:14)


“And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. [16] For where a testament [is], there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. [17] For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. [18] Whereupon neither the first [testament] was dedicated without blood. [19] For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, [20] Saying, This [is] the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.” (Hebrews 9:15-20)


The New Testament was ratified in the blood of Christ; He was the perfect and sinless sacrifice, Whose blood was shed for the remission of sins of those who believe on Him:


"Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: [23] For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; [24] Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: [25] Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; [26] To declare, [I say], at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." (Romans 3:22-26)


"Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; [26] For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. [27] And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: [28] So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.” (Hebrews 9:25-28)



God was not making this up as He went along; His plan of salvation was determined before the creation of the world.

Of all the possible ways in which He could have accomplished His will, He created a plan of salvation which accomplished His purposes exactly, according to His desire (not ours). He chose to reveal His plan to mankind in different ways over time:

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, [2] Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;" (Hebrews 1:1-2)


Before Christ ascended to heaven, He promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide His apostles “into all truth”, bringing to remembrance “whatsoever I have said unto you” and teaching them “all things”.


“But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you”. (John 14:26, KJV)


“I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. [13] Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. [14] He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew [it] unto you.” (John 16:12-14, KJV)


God’s revelation to mankind was complete when John wrote down the inspired Word of God in the last book contained in the New Testament, the book of Revelation.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Jason writes: “The Bible says to do alot of things in alot of ways, most of which none of us do anymore.”


Please give me some specifics from the New Testament to go by, so I can understand what you mean. Under the Old Law, for example, the Jews were required to make blood sacrifices of animals. We don’t do that in the Christian era because Christ’s sacrifice was the perfect sacrifice, “once for all”:

"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once [for all]. [11] And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: [12] But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;" (Hebrews 10:10-12)


There are others things that we are commanded to do in the Christian era under the New Testament, and you are correct, many people do not do them; whether people do them or not has nothing to do with whether God expects us to do them.

If people choose not to do what God has commanded, that is between a man and his Maker, it is not an excuse for other men to follow suit. We will each be judged and held to account for our own actions, not the actions of others.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Jason writes: “There are many scholars who have read the passages in the Bible on homosexuality and found them not to speak to the committed, loving couples we know today - almost all the verses deal with male prostitution - in fact, the ancients didn't have words to describe the gay couples we have today.”


Who are these “many scholars”? What are their credentials? Do their conclusions withstand the scrutiny of objective research? Is it corroborated by other knowledgeable experts in the same field of study? How is it that someone who advocates on behalf of homosexuality “discovered” such a unique and convenient interpretation of the Scriptures? Is that coincidence, or honest “scholarship”?

Who are you going to believe, a “scholar” who tells you what you want to hear, or the plain and simple Word of God? You know full well that we can always find “somebody” to tell us whatever we want to hear. If you want to fool yourself, that is your right, but do it with full knowledge of your self-deception. As for spreading such deception to others publicly, am I not obligated to challenge it publicly?


As for the “ancients” not having “words to describe the gay couples we have today”, don’t sell “ancient” people short; they were regular people, just like you and me. Regardless, we can turn to the sure Word of God, and we can be sure that God understood exactly what mankind would do, from the moment of Creation until the end of the earth. There is nothing mankind does that surprises God:

“The thing that hath been, it [is that] which shall be; and that which is done [is] that which shall be done: and [there is] no new [thing] under the sun. [10] Is there [any] thing whereof it may be said, See, this [is] new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. [11] [There is] no remembrance of former [things]; neither shall there be [any] remembrance of [things] that are to come with [those] that shall come after.” (Ecclesiastes 1:9-11)



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



It is not my intent to frustrate you with my responses, Jason. It is my hope that you will begin to recognize that any dispute which exists is with God’s Word, not with me (or anyone else). It matters not at all what my opinion is, it is what God says that counts, because He is the One all of us will ultimately answer to. We can fool ourselves if we want to, and we can fool others too, but we do not fool God.

I am only able to respond to your points because God has already done all of the hard work. All that is required of me is the patience to search His Word and present it to the very best of my ability. I don’t know most of these Scriptures off the top of my head (certainly not yet, anyway), I have to look them up. It does take some time and effort, but it’s important, because the Word of God is powerful far beyond anything man can hope to do or say.


I cannot overemphasize how important it is to understand that what God says in His Book is what counts, not what men say or what we convince ourselves is true in contradiction to God’s Word. Our life on earth is as unimaginably short in comparison to eternity:

“Whereas ye know not what [shall be] on the morrow. For what [is] your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.” (James 4:14)


Salvation is offered to all men who will accept it, but we must accept it on His terms, not ours. We are all going to die one day, almost certainly sooner than we think, and few of us like to think very much about that reality. In a similar way, we may not want to think much about God’s Word, we may even want to dispute and disagree with it, but deep down, every one of us knows that the Word of God is true. The question is whether or not we will accept it.


I hope you will consider all of these things seriously. Please do not take my word for anything, but do as the Bereans did, and search the scriptures for yourself with an honest heart and an open mind:

"And when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go. [10] And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming [thither] went into the synagogue of the Jews. [11] These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. [12] Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.” (Acts 17:9-12)


Thank you for the opportunity to discuss these things Jason, may God bless you in your search for Him, that your heart may be softened and your eyes opened to the truth of His Word.


Jason / Can't give it up...


Jason writes: “Oh man, Scott - give it up!”

No can do. Life is too short, and eternity is too long to not give God my best effort. My knowledge and understanding of His Word is far from complete, but I am doing the best that I can to understand and follow the Word of God just as it is written. The Bible says we can understand it:

2 Timothy 3:15-17 - The Scriptures make us wise to salvation, profitably instructing us to all good works. How could this be possible if we cannot understand them?

Mark 7:14 - Jesus expected all the multitudes who heard Him to understand His teachings.

Acts 17:11 - The Scriptures give the average man a way to distinguish truth from error.

God revealed the inspired Word contained in the Bible to make His will known to His creation. If in His infinite wisdom He created a message that we cannot understand, then God has failed. God is perfect, and He doesn’t fail; He says we can understand His word if we apply ourselves, so therefore we can understand.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Jason writes: “There are so many things in the Bible - especially Leviticus that none of us do anymore - just how, pray tell, do you decide which parts you want to keep and which parts you want to dispense with???”


Authority, that’s how. That’s what practically all religious disagreement comes down to, legitimate Authority (or lack thereof). Who is your Authority in matters of God (i.e., the founder of your denomination, the Pope, your minister, your parents, etc., or the written Word of God)? I don’t keep any part that I have written Authority from God to dispense with. The Old Law, for example, or Moses’ allowance for divorce on grounds other than fornication (see Matthew 19:7-9). Moses allowed it, but Christ restored the original rule of marriage.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Jason writes: “Everyone seems to have different reasons for keeping or getting rid of different parts.”

Is that an acceptable reason to simply throw our hands in the air in exasperation, and join them in resignation? You have hit on an important point, there is a great deal of error in religious practice and doctrine. The way to eliminate error is to examine the Bible to first find if a doctrine or practice can even be found in the Bible, and then study further to make sure such a practice is not in conflict with other clear Bible scripture. If it is, that doctrine is in error, because the Bible does not contradict itself. All scripture is inspired by God, God is not the author of confusion, and being perfect, He does not contradict Himself.

I am certainly aware that a disingenuous person can pick out inconsequential differences in eyewitness accounts (for example) in order to show discrepancies, but there are no contradictions in doctrine or teaching. As I wrote previously, the Bible has been tested and scrutinized more severely than any book in history. It has been examined and studied by the most learned of men from every era; though many have tried, not once has the Bible been successfully discredited, on any count.

Have you discovered a legitimate error or credible contradiction that everyone else has missed? Much of the world hates God and hates that the Word of God convicts them of their sin. If a single credible error had ever been found in the Word of God, we would all certainly know about it; the world would shout it from every rooftop. Fortunately, we don’t have to worry about that, because the Scripture cannot be broken (cf. John 10:35)

If you are not willing to put the time and effort into trying to understand the Bible in such a way that it harmonizes and reconciles with itself, that is of course your choice, but that doesn’t make it right to pick and choose the parts you like and disregard the rest. If your goal is salvation in Christ, then you have to figure it out and do it His way.

If our goal is something else, then we are free to do something else, but eternity is such an incomprehensibly long time to regret being wrong. Eternity is so vast that we cannot really begin to comprehend it, so we often just ignore it. We all can relate to a hundred thousand dollars, we can “wrap our minds” around that number.

But who can really understand a trillion dollars? That is such a big number, we have no real basis for comparison; we can’t begin to relate to it. It’s kind of like that with the concept of eternity. It might help us to think of eternity as being a hundred thousand years, at least that’s a number we can comprehend. Then consider that a hundred thousand years is not even a blink of an eye compared to the reality of eternity. Eternity is without time (as we understand time); there is NO end.


No end to heaven.

No end to hell.


The choices we make determine our destiny. We can learn His Word and do our best to obey, or we can go our own way. But if we go our own way, we must also be aware that the choice was ours, and that we knew we would be held accountable to His Word:

"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. [49] For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. [50] And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." (John 12:48-50)


If we are very fortunate, we each might have 70 short years or so to figure this out:

“The days of our years [are] threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength [they be] fourscore years, yet [is] their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.” (Psalm 90:10)



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Jason writes: “As for Paul - if I read him correctly, he wanted everyone to abstain from marriage - he considered it a holier state if the person could stand it. So shouldn't we all aim for celibacy?”

Paul rightly observed that a man who remained single, if he was able to do so without committing sin (like fornication), could devote more of his time and effort to serving the Lord than a married man. This is because marriage carries with it serious responsibilities. Those responsibilities are time consuming, and we are all limited to the same 24 hours in a day.

HOWEVER, Paul most certainly was not contradicting God’s instruction to “multiply” and “be fruitful”. Paul was not instructing mankind to make himself extinct by forbidding procreation, and he was certainly not instructing mankind to commit the sin of fornication by having sexual relations outside of marriage.


There are many who are not able to bear celibacy. Did Paul not also say: "Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (1 Corinthians 7:2)?

Regarding the abstaining from marriage specifically, let’s examine what Paul says:

“But I speak this by permission, [and] not of commandment. [7] For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. [8] I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. [9] But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.” (1 Corinthians 7:6-9)


Paul says that he wishes all men could serve Christ as he does, but Paul recognizes that not all men have been given the ability to do so. He says that if they cannot abstain from sin (clearly referring to fornication here), that it is certainly much better to marry than to live in sin and lose one’s soul.


Please notice that the endorsement of marriage in this instance is in order to avoid the sin of fornication (i.e., sexual relations outside of marriage). This does NOT mean that men should marry men in order to avoid fornication. How do we know this for sure, without any doubt?

According to God’s Word, in the New Testament, sexual relations between members of the same sex are considered “vile affections”, “against nature” and “error” (Romans 1:26-27). Sexual relations between members of the same sex are called an “abomination” by God in the Old Testament (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) and God’s Word on this subject is re-affirmed in the New Testament (1 Timothy 1:9-10, Jude 1:7, 2 Peter 2:6, Romans 1:24-27).


Marriage is between one man and one woman, as instituted by God from the beginning in Genesis 2:24 (long before the Christian or New Testament era). Regarding sexual relations between members of the same sex, this same Paul to whom you referenced says the following:


(Romans 1:20-23) “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: [21] Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. [22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, [23] And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.”


Continuing:


(Romans 1:24-27) “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 recompence of their error which was meet.”


And the last verse of Romans chapter 1:


(Romans 1:32) “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.”


Kathy
Kathy - I think its important for you to realize that, just like gay bars, millions of gay people do not attend gay pride parades. There are millions of children being raised in loving and supportive gay homes as well - and these parents don't love their children any less than you do yours. Gay parents work and make sacrifices for their children just like you do, and of the ones I know, they teach their children values and morales as well. When I see degenerate straight people on TV I don't automatically assume that all straight people are like this, and we shouldn't do that about gay people either.

Scott and Muscat
Scott,

I'm just curious how you get to pick and choose which passages from the Bible you are going to keep and which ones you are going to decide you don't like or that "aren't relevant" anymore. The Bible says to do alot of things in alot of ways, most of which none of us do anymore. There are many scholars who have read the passages in the Bible on homosexuality and found them not to speak to the committed, loving couples we know today - almost all the verses deal with male prostitution - in fact, the ancients didn't have words to describe the gay couples we have today.

Muscat - regarding your comment about gay bars - you can go to any straight bar, many that are dark with loud music and find lost souls there as well. People don't seem to understand that the good and the bad that you find in the gay community can be found in the straight community as well - only to a greater degree because there are more straight people.

Take care

Muscat
Regarding your comments above Muscat - have you ever been to a dark straight bar with loud music - You're not going to see anything different there - for crying out loud - why is it that people can't see that bars, regardless of whether they are gay or straight are not places to find exceptionally happy people?

There are thousands if not millions of gay people that do not go to gay bars - or who go to gay bars maybe once a year or less - do you really think that is all they do??????? You've shown your true colors and they appear to be biased and short-sighted

Scott and Alex
Oh man, Scott - give it up! There are so many things in the Bible - especially Leviticus that none of us do anymore - just how, pray tell, do you decide which parts you want to keep and which parts you want to dispense with??? Everyone seems to have different reasons for keeping or getting rid of different parts.

As for Paul - if I read him correctly, he wanted everyone to abstain from marriage - he considered it a holier state if the person could stand it. So shouldn't we all aim for celibacy?

As for Alex and his tirade against homosexuality - all I have to ask is, is he serious? Does he thing homosexuals "diddled boys" - Why doesn't anyone understand that all homosexuals want is the freedom and the ability to marry someone that they love - in the same way that their straight brothers and sisters do. No one has the right to keep this from them - People do not have the right to take their personal beliefs and draft them into laws that prevent minorities from having the same rights as they do. As for me, I will recognize all homosexual ceremonies, and all gay couples that have made commitments are married in my eyes - and I will call it marriage.

Radical liberals, Alex? Have you not been paying attention to the news? It is not the radical liberals that seem to have a problem, but the radical religious right, who preach one thing, and then, like Ted Haggard, go around and do another - he's the best, but not the only, example. So much for the conservative Evangelical voice - they are just a bunch of hypocrites.

will / Part II


will writes: “I choose to think these passages (& the prohibition on gay sex) are not god-inspired.”

Okay, you are free to do that, but how can you reject parts of His Word and accept others without making a mockery of the whole thing? It all stands or falls together. It’s either all true, or none of it’s true.

If you choose to think Leviticus and any other passages condemning homosexuality and fornication are not inspired by God, then have you not gutted the Bible?


Paul said that “All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” (2 Timothy 3:16). You say that you choose to think that’s not true. Let’s see what happens when we go down that path.


If you don’t believe the words that Paul wrote down were the inspired Word of God and commandments of the Lord (Paul says otherwise, see 1 Corinthians 14:37), then you necessarily eliminate all of the following:

Galatians (Paul)
1 Thessalonians (Paul)
2 Thessalonians (Paul)
1 Corinthians (Paul)
2 Corinthians (Paul)
Romans (Paul)
Ephesians (Paul)
Philippians (Paul)
Colossians (Paul)
Philemon (Paul)
1 Timothy (Paul)
2 Timothy (Paul)
Titus (Paul)
Hebrews (generally attributed to Paul)


You have also thrown out God’s inspired Word as written down by Jude if you disregard Jude 1:7 mentioned previously: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”


That means the only books of the Bible you are left with are the four Gospels, Acts, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1-3 John and Revelation.


However, in order to be consistent, you must also reject any passage mentioning “fornication”, because “gay sex” is most certainly “fornication”.

So there goes:

the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:9)

the Gospel of John (John 8:41)

the book of Acts (Acts 15:20, Acts 15:29, Acts 21:5)

the book of Revelation (Revelation 2:14, Revelation 2:20, Revelation 2:21, Revelation 9:21, Revelation 14:8, Revelation 17:2, Revelation 17:4, Revelation 18:3, Revelation 18:9, Revelation 19:2)


The only books of the New Testament left that you are willing to consider as containing the inspired Word of God are:

Mark
Luke
James
1 & 2 Peter
1-3 John

But you have to get rid of the Gospel of Luke too, because Luke also wrote Acts, and Acts mentions “fornication” in 3 separate instances, and if Luke was not inspired by God then the Gospel of Luke has to go too. You also have to get rid of 1 John, 2 John and 3 John because they were written by the same John who wrote the Gospel of John and Revelation (Revelation mentions “fornication” 11 times in ten verses!), so that just leaves:

one Gospel (Mark)
James
1 & 2 Peter


What does James have to say about sin and the inspired Word of God, the ‘Law of Liberty’ (much of which you choose to think is not inspired)?

“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: [14] But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. [15] Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. (James 1:13-15)


"But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth [therein], he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. [26] If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion [is] vain." (James 1:25-26)


There goes poor James, I guess; what about Peter?

“And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned [them] with an overthrow, making [them] an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;” (2 Peter 2:6)

Looks like Peter affirmed the condemnation of the sodomites too. If Peter’s words cannot be trusted to be inspired by God in 2 Peter, then 1 Peter cannot be inspired either.


Looks like you’re down to Mark. Do you suppose anything is written in the book of Mark about the sin of fornication, the God ordained institution of marriage between a man and a woman, or the affirmation of the Old Testament passages about Sodom and Gomorrha?


“And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.” (Mark 6:11).


"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. [7] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; [8] And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh." (Mark 10:6-8)


"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, [22] Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: [23] All these evil things come from within, and defile the man." (Mark 7:21-23)


Alas, poor Mark is gone too.



There’s nothing left, Will. Not a single book of the New Testament is left, if you choose not to recognize that the inspired Word of God condemns ALL sins of the flesh.

Fornication is fornication; sin is sin.



I implore you to consider my earlier words:

Scott writes (previously): “I hope that your heart can be softened and your eyes opened to the truth; I am sure you know many souls who are in desperate need of hearing the truth from someone they know and trust. They might listen to you, because they will know that you have ‘been there’.”

Once again I pray that you will think seriously on these things,

Scott


will / Part I


will writes: “Thanks for being civil.”

You are welcome, and thank you for replying. There is no reason why two people with different views cannot engage in an honest discussion without being civil. In most instances, people who are able to make a compelling case while maintaining civility present a much more persuasive case. As for deconstructing your post, I apologize if that bothers you, I know that it does bother some people but that it not my intent.

I have learned that it is the most efficient way to directly address specific points in a discussion while maintaining the focus and context of the subject at hand. The longer the post, the more important it is to make it clear exactly what it is that one is responding to, and separating a post into small (or at least manageable) “quote segments” achieves that objective very well.

I could re-state your position in my own words, but that is extremely inefficient and runs the risk of putting words in your mouth that you may not have intended. Quoting someone is both quick and accurate, it preserves the essence of the conversation, and makes it easy to track the discussion for future reference.

If it will not cause you undo frustration, I would prefer to continue in that method. If it truly bothers you, please say so, and I will find another way to communicate.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



will writes: “I have a point to make. This is from Leviticus 25:44-46: ‘As for your male & female slaves whom you may have; you may buy male & female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who soujourn with you & their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness.’

Exodus 21:7: ‘When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do....’ (OK, I'm not going to type out the whole scripture, but you get the idea.)”

I think I get the idea, but I don't understand the point. Is your point that in the Old Testament God seems to condone slavery, and that slavery is wrong, so that “proves” that the Old Testament prohibitions against homosexuality are wrong too?

But if so, how do you make that leap of logic? By the same logic, is the Old Testament prohibition against murder not wrong too?



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



will writes: “We ALL KNOW there are passages in the Bible that are no longer relevant to Americans in 2007.”

I am not aware of any passage in the New Testament that is not relevant to the entire world, both in 2007 and beyond.

Also, while we are no longer under the Old Law / Old Testament, much of it also is extremely relevant today, and an understanding of the Old Testament makes the New Testament much easier to understand.

I would certainly argue that the old Law is extremely relevant insofar as our understanding of the scriptures is concerned, but of course we live in the Christian era, under the New Covenant; even so, the New Covenant did not do away with the prohibitions against fornication or homosexuality.


Fornication is an easily understandable word, and it applies to ALL people, gay and straight alike. The word “fornication” is found 32 times in 28 verses of the New Testament (KJV).


Jude makes a direct statement in the NT affirming the condemnation of the practices that were also punished under the Old Law regarding fornication and homosexuality: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” (Jude 1:7)


If there was any doubt left regarding homosexuality, which is a specific type of fornication, Paul settles the issue: “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: 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 recompence of their error which was meet.” (Romans 1:26-27)

As previously shown, Paul was an Apostle chosen personally by Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:1), Paul’s words were inspired by the Lord (1 Corinthians 14:37) and ALL scripture is inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16).


Unless one chooses to completely and totally disregard the Word of God as found in the Bible, I have yet to see anyone demonstrate with scripture that either fornication or homosexual behavior (which again is just one type of fornication) is not sinful.


Of course, if one is going to disregard the Word of God as found in the Bible, then anything goes; we can make up anything we like, but that has always been the case, hasn’t it?


“He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.” (John 12:48).



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



will writes: “Leviticus also tells me to stone my wife if she is caught in adultery. (It even specifies HOW).”

Yes indeed. Under the Old Law, that was a possible punishment. God knows the end from the beginning. He spoke the world into existence. He makes the rules. Under the Law of Moses, that punishment was authorized.

Christ, the Son of God, Who did the will of His Father, and through Whom God the Father would establish a better testament (cf. Hebrews 7:22), also asked that whosoever is without sin should throw the first stone, did He not?


I imagine you have probably heard the expression that the Old Testament is the New Testament in prophecy, and the New Testament is the Old Testament fulfilled (or words to that effect).

"But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. [24] Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith." (Galatians 3:23-24)


Stoning an adulterer to death may seem harsh in the social and political climate of today, but what of it? Is God subject to man’s whims, political correctness, sensibilities or sensitivities? Has He ever been? At any given point in time, man’s changing attitudes towards all sorts of things are all over the map.

Are His ways not higher than our ways? Are His thoughts not higher than our thoughts?



To Alex. Thank you
To Alex. Thank you
Well said.
Absolutely, agreed.

Liberals in the hen house
I find it amazing how many radical, liberal homosexuals read this website and take the time to post comments on them. One must wonder why, but then one can see that how they can, as in the public sector, easily derail a rational discussion into either defensiveness or emotional tirades without ever putting forth a cognitive argument. No wonder politicians, both liberal and conservative, love to have the flamers on there staff. Now I think I know were the term to "flame" someone came from on the old dial-up blogs and chats.
Homosexuality, along with most of humankind's sinful nature, has long been with us and will be long after we are all gone. Was not Eve disobedient, was not Caine murderous. Does the simple persistence of these acts make them right? No, it doesn't. Those who partake in the homosexual lifestyle know in the heart of hearts that they are embracing that which is not natural, as do all of us. Why else their campaign to raise their choice above that of others by tearing all the others down? Why their constant quest for approval? A thief at least has the temerity to realize what he does is wrong and act accordingly, by keeping to the shadows, at least until one of two things happens; 1)he is caught that is, then it is all excuses, "My momma didn't love me, my daddy was a drunk, I had to feed the kids, etc". Or as the homosexualist puts it, "I was born this way, thats why I had to diddle the little boys in my cub scout troop"; 2) He feels powerful enough to be above the law, like many politicians, past and present. It is option two, no pun intended, that the homosexualists find themselves in, having passed through number one some 20-30 years back. They got off from being punished with their excuses and now see themselves above all others and will force everyone to accept and even approve their malignant behavior, no matter what the body count, no matter the tole on our civilization.

The problem
The problem, Mr. McCullough is that pornography is destructive to the soul, while you seem to say it is only gay porn that is destructive to the soul, or that it is the Gay component that makes it empty and deplorable. By extension you seem to be saying the same is true about committed couples raising families, that gay porn is the equivalent of Gay people and/or Liberals in general. I must be misunderstanding your logic. I know for certain that socially sanctioned oppression is destructive to people's will and self esteem. It may be the Mr. Sanchez was not gay but simply looking to make "easy" money, I don't know Mr. Sanchez, never heard of him, and never watched his movies. Sex addiction is largely genderless, and pornography is addiction, Gay or Straight, and I noticed you didn't mention that. I applaud him for developing the self respect required to remove himself from such a toxic occupation, and I hope he finds an understanding partner (woman of course, or at least gender defined as woman) whom he can develop intimacy with, I think it will be difficult for him. We are all sinners, Mr. McCullough. The issue is that right wing conservatives tend to focus on homosexuality as THE great sin for political gain. I personally think it is the failure of stewardship over God's Earth and it's inhabitants, (how many species? dominion over land and animals) and the killing of innocents in an unjust war that is THE great sin(s). The bible and Jesus Christ explained that no sin is greater than any other. I am willing to accept that others have a different opinion and I am willing to be open minded enough to engage in conversation, not cryptic arguement, to come to a better understanding of other peoples' views (the definition of liberal). I don't believe in defamation as a way to get votes or attention and I don't go out in public and call people names for political gain. I find that behaviour offensive, just as I find that a closed mind is a waste of conciousness. I have found that the polarization and divisiveness of recent years has created a very dangerous precedent and that the views on both sides of the political fence have less and less relevence to anyone, while American taxpayers and the children of the (shrinking) middle class and poor are left holding an empty coffer and row of coffins. We are rapidly moving into an age of extreme cynicism, both toward national responsibility and human life much as the porn industry treats sexuality cynically. May your faith protect you from such a sin.

written in the Book of Life
I'm amazed at how so many conservatives are absolutely sure who's saved and who isn't, whose names are written in the Book of Life (look it up) and whose names are not. I guess conservatives were given the inside scoop by God Himself, which is what allows them to indulge their hatreds and spew venom at those they dislike. Self-righteousness is truly a prime conservative virtue. It's what gives you folks the right to hate and revile all who disagree with you. I used to think self-righteousness was not recommended by Christianity, but I now know I'm incorrect--it's taught by people like KMC and exemplified in most of his columns, and so it must be Christian. After all, who could be better Christians than conservatives?

Just One More Thing..For The Christians.
I wrote this reply to someone here earlier, but decided to post it now.

To unpoetaloco who wrote:

"Kevin McCullough doesn’t care if Sanchez was accepting money from closeted, probably God-fearing, married men or that he is still advertising for sex on gay websites in the present – as long as he blames liberals. In turn, Sanchez is more than happy to give people like McCullough what they want – just like he gave thousands of pay-for-sex clients and video customers what they wanted. Make no mistake, Sanchez is still prostituting himself. The only difference is Kevin McCullough is now his "manager." "

unpoetaloco, a truly crazy reply.

Why is it that Liberal replies to these kinds of stories always, invariably, have a Liberal answer that accuses, or asks to engage, the author of said column into various forms of perverted sex?

Is it not enough that Mr. Sanchez has done an AMAZINGLY BRAVE THING, which not only blesses himself, but OTHERS IN THE PROCESS, by giving them an answer that speaks to LIFE, not DEATH?

Must debased minds ALSO chime in, by accusing this columnist of the same wickedness just because he has the guts to say so?

Apparently, No, and Yes! Seems to be the sad reply today.

But unpoetaloco, your reply just takes the cake for bitter, and unapologetically hard-hearted, comebacks to this story. I can’t imagine how darkened a mind, or soul, must be to be so lost in a “life” style that is death, it looks like life to them.

God’s Word says such “life” styles can give one over to a debased mind, and that those who do this will follow “the Lie” about themselves, their lives, and those who engage in it. (Lie being that it is good, right “normal” preferred”).

Yet, to go on and speak SUCH VILE things about CHRISTIAN MEN and families, who MAKE IT THEIR BUSINESS to lead wholesome, and PURE, committed lives EVERY DAY, well, I hardly have words on how contemptuous that is to me.

Many of you writing here do come off as so far gone, and enjoying the fruits of death. Sorry to say, but because of what I see and hear from you, I more clearly understand God’s Word about the unredeemed as the walking “dead”, and His allusions to them burying their own.

Last but not least, QUIT your slandering and EVIL SPEAKING of Mr. McCullough, his family, and other Christian men and their families, and believers!

God takes it VERY SERIOUSLY when people slander, and HE IS in the business of dealing with those who are FALSE ACCUSERS.

Take heed that you stop this talk, and leave these people alone...That’s not a threat, that is a promise my friends...Because even one faithful person’s prayers are powerful to the Almighty, and yes, I am praying about you all today.

JOKE to you that that may be...

I happen to have heard KMC daily since 2003, and though I do not know him and his family, I KNOW that they have had numerous abuse, lies, and EVIL THREATS and slandering from MANY of you since his first day. This man is advocating the good and the pure, and regardless of his personal imperfections, it is BY FAR more than I have seen, or heard, any of you do...(Sincere good people of faith, excluded)..

He and his family, and crew, have done nothing but promote the good, and God’s Truth, and personal deliverance through Christ alone, and this is what you people do?!

I imagine his poor Mrs. KMC must suffer needless worry and fear, and she must be awfully caring about the things of God, to allow her Husband to take it on the chin everyday.

But what about all of you? Indeed, you have done your best to SLANDER God’s elect, and ask them to be pulled down into the mire in which you play.

You people know that KMC and his group are some of those who daily put their lives on the line, to send you God’s will, His Word and His truth, and THIS is how you treat them. No Kevin isn’t perfect, I am not, my family, nobody, which is not the point of a life in Christ, and His redemption...

I am reminded that this IS the blind type of crowd what would nail Christ to a tree...

Last, BUT NOT LEAST, LISTEN UP:

When you insult, and falsely accuse, and threaten, KMC and his loved ones, you do that to me and my family, because we are also children of God, and believe the SAME WAY he and his family do.

SO you’re not just offending the McCullough family today, you are truly in low regard WITH MANY OTHERS.

God included, with these antics...

You were warned...



"Gay" Is Not A Happy Word..
Much of the talk that has gone on here has been discussions about homosexuals, and (supposed) "hypocrisy" of Mr. McCullough, Christians, and about the porn industry.

I can no longer read long blind recitations about why and "how" it is somehow "normal" for homosexual
People to be “gay”.

In my life I have met quite a few “gay” fellows, and none of them were particularly “gay” (happy, the real meaning of the word).

I believe, with all my heart that many homosexuals today are true victims, not just of their own sins and ways, but of the media, and whole factions meant to use them as pawns in a social engineering agenda meant to be society’s undoing.

I am fairly young, but have seen the advent of Aids, and was around to see the changes perpetrated on society by the 1960’s Liberalism, and the “me” generation.

A long story short, all sex outside of God’s will and way is sinful and out of bounds.

Arguing night and day with one bent on going their own way, and justifying their sin life, by their own lies, will not change them anyway.

I have also lived to see a very close relative die a young and brutal death because of a homosexual’s ways.

The issue of whether or not homosexuals are human beings, or have other redeeming qualities is not the topic here.

The concern of whether or not the have “what it takes” to make other sound decisions isn’t either.

It is also not a topic as to whether or not gays can have feelings for the same sex, because much of their sin is a quest to meet with these types of yearnings and feelings.

They will be lied to, and told this is “who they are”, to justify such feelings.

As with all feelings, there are ones that lead to life and ones to death.

Indeed, we are all more than who and what society says, and our “feelings”.

Last, but not least, when all else fails we are reminded by the Liberals that Christians and Conservatives are: “judgmental; hypocritical phobics, who “hate” and that they are the real “bigots”.

We are also reminded, the same breath, that gays base their friendships on “love”.

But “love” is not what killed my cousin many years ago.

Real Love would do the one it loves no ill, and wish them only the highest, purest good and no wrong.

While none of us is perfect, the homosexual has been deceived.

Because the rouse is many pronged, and complicated, and it is late in the day in time for the world, only the truly blessed will see this.

Call them sodomites, and make the acts match the words. Call them homosexuals, and love them with God’s love in prayer to save them. But never call them friends of a Christian, unless God has touched them to change. Or unless their conscience has been revived, someway, by God’s grace.

Today's word "gay" is not a happy word, and it never was in that context, from what I could see..

Just a bunch of lost, sad, painfilled, lust laiden men, looking for help with a God vacuum.

But that is the plight of all unsaved..

will / Re: Just the way He made you...


I hope these words will be taken in the spirit in which they are intended, the spirit of truth and honest concern for the well-being of those who are in bondage to this particular sin.


will writes: “Once a "gay gene" is discovered (IF it is!) many Christians will have to re-define their prejudices....& realize gay people & straight people are all created in God's image.”

Has there ever been a single discovery of man that has made God’s Word of no effect? Is there anything we can discover that will invalidate God’s Word?

It has nothing whatsoever to do with prejudices; it matters not at all what mankind thinks. It is about what the Word of God says, in this case clearly and unambiguously. How do you propose to get around that fact on Judgment Day?

I am not judging you; I certainly have more than enough to answer for without adding that to the list. What I cannot understand is how anyone who considers himself a Christian can think they will not be judged by His Word, when it clearly says that we WILL be judged by His Word (John 12:48)



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



will writes: “For the record, God created gay pandas & gay penguins & gay doves (I am not kidding on this).”

For the record, God did not create “gay” anything; the observation that certain animals occasionally exhibit sexual behaviors toward members of the same sex is not in dispute, neither does it prove anything with regard to humans. As you mentioned above, we were created in God’s image; pandas and penguins and doves were not, neither are they required to obey His Word.

Come on Will, if you consider yourself a Christian then you must know these things already.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



will writes: “It's all part of his plan apparently…”

Fortunately, we don’t have to guess at his plan for our salvation, so there is no “apparently” necessary. He has told us what is sinful, He knows that we will commit sin, He sent His Son to die as the perfect sacrifice for our sins so that those who believe in Him could be reconciled to Him. Part of believing in Him is believing that what He says is true; another part is obedience to His Word. Simply believing that He is who He says He is isn’t enough; even devils believe, but they are not saved, are they?

“Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” (James 2:19)



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



will writes: “… & those prohibitions in Leviticus (the laws) are man-created & must be taken in context as they reflect the peculiarities of the times.”


According to Paul they were not man-created.


Was Paul not an Apostle of the Lord?

“Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)” (Galatians 1:1)


Were Paul’s words his own, or the commandments of the Lord?

“If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 14:37)


Did Paul say that any scripture was of men, or did he say that all scripture was of God?

“All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” (2 Timothy 3:16)


Did Paul not also write the following?

“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: 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 recompence of their error which was meet.” (Romans 1:26-27)


It does not matter what I think or what anyone else thinks; one who tries to justify sin has an argument with God, and that is an argument no one can win. You know what the Word of God says on this subject.


If a Christian has not repented of his sin, then just like anyone else, we stand condemned. I implore you to think seriously on this, it will do us no good to heed the words of those who just tell us what we want to hear, if what they tell us (or what we tell ourselves) is contrary to the Word of God.

“That we [henceforth] be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [and] cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;” (Ephesians 4:14)



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



will writes: “This will all work out eventually, though I'm not positive in our lifetimes, in America at least.”

It will indeed all work out, exactly according to God’s plan, a plan conceived before the foundations of the earth were laid. You write as though it is just a matter of time before all churches are conformed to the standards and values of the world, but Christians are not to be conformed to the world are they?

“And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” (Romans 12:2)



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



will writes: “It has worked out fairly well in the UK & nobody has a problem with the clergy performing gay civil unions.”

Has it worked out fairly well as far as GOD is concerned? Do you think God might have a “problem” with it, or are you only concerned with the approval of men?

Should we not be much more concerned about what God thinks, than what men think?

“And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28)


Is it not better to trust in God, rather than man?

“[It is] better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.” (Psalm 118:8)



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



will writes: “There were some problems in Canada (gay marriage legal in all provinces now) but they've worked out a system where clegy who are uncomfortable performing these unions can opt out.”

This is not some kind of game, Will. Any “system” of man that is “worked out” in opposition to the Word of God has no more practical effect than re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

I know the truth is hard, and I have no doubt that it is very difficult for those who (for whatever reason) engage in homosexual activity, but all things are possible in Christ. It doesn’t matter whether we always like what it says, but it does matter whether we believe it; and if we believe it, we better follow it.

Don’t sell yourself short; don’t exchange the truth for a lie in order to enjoy this sin for a brief season.

"Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time: [7] Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you. [8] Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: [9] Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.” (1 Peter 5:6-9)

I hope that your heart can be softened and your eyes opened to the truth; I am sure you know many souls who are in desperate need of hearing the truth from someone they know and trust. They might listen to you, because they will know that you have “been there”.

I pray that you will think seriously on these things,

Scott



The EX-GAY Myth
Common people,

Lest you forget the "I was Gay Now I Am Striaght" crowd in newsweek not to many years ago. The Ex-GAy founders of exodus falling in love and going on thier own Exodus.

The porn industry is not reliant on the homosexual. It is reliant on the heterosexual, straight male. Porn is a billion dollar business and if gays only make up a few percent of the population by right wing standards that means the few 1-2% must be one hell of a filthy rich group of homos.

Again anyone can have sex - it isnt that difficult if you are horny enough. Just talk to prisoners...

Equating homosexuality with just the sex act is like equating the heterosexual sex act only with the sex....no emotion, no love ...nada.

If you have devolved it to that i feel sorry for you

Good posts, Scott.
I actually went through and read them. I know it took you a while.

In a strange way, when I see posts by my fellow Christians (whom I don't even know), it helps to bolster my faith. I see the courage and the patience with which the occasional Christian writer leads people through a discussion of God's laws and His Character. It personifies His Ways. Exactly McCulloch's point of article.

Thanks for your effort. C

To sb..Real Answers For Callous People..
sb writes:

"Mrs. V The "Sunday Morning People" lyrics wasn't just in reference to the Haggards, but all so-called "christians". But to be honest and fair, I'm anti all religions. For 21 years, I tried southern baptist, evangelical, catholic and pentacostal, and I have to say that all ya'll are scary. It's fun to watch ya'll from a safe distance though, like on Springer. You have one group worshipping a grilled cheese sandwich, and condensation under a bridge that both looks like Mary Magdalane (sp?). You have one group that does tent revivals, handling snakes, speaking in tongues, screaming and running up and down the ailes like they're in flames. You have one group that comes bangin on my door every few months, who I have to chase off with a machete. You have the allegedly biggest group, now with these elaborate Megachurches with gyms, a mini mall, live bands and everything else. What's the next addition? A bar and dancing poles? A "backroom" action room for all those closeted gay yet anti-gay men? That's all too much for me, just stay the hell away, and I'll be happy without the lot of ya LOL Nutcases. And no, I'm not atheist either - they're just as lame IMO. Don't wanna hear it, see it, nothing."

sb, obviously you have a vastly limited experience, background, and understanding of TRUE Christians, their churches, and real Christianity.

I am sorry that Nancy Pelosi's daughter's productions seem to be the extent of "Christian" experience for you.

You are really offensive sb, calling us "nutcases". I suppose you would call your foolish, nasty, and unenlightened rant above, what?

The voice of real knowledge on the topic?
The voice of one who has made serious, or sincere, queries into the faith, the important things about it, and redemption's details?

I would encourage you to be more honest, and authentic, in your approach Mr "sb", if you are, indeed, looking for Christ/God and a real faith.

From what I can see of your writing above, your false judgments, and dishonest slandering of us, place you in the category of one who experiments with the things of God-as one who comes to it in a callous, or cavalier, way.

Having a redemptive experience in Christ is not a flighty affair Mr "sb", like a night out for sushi, or changing one's undies.

Nor is it a thing that is meant to be laughed at, or come to as if this life is about an entertainment experience.

People who come to conclusions as yours hardly ever come to understand that though.

Since deep questions of the faith, and a heart change, were never truly in the cards for them to begin with, they are generally satisfied with whatever unexamined life answers prominent Liberals can give them.

Barabbaberry / another perspective...


I apologize in advance for the length, but yours was a long post with many interesting points.

If I responded to only certain points and ignored others, I run the risk of being accused of implicitly agreeing with uncontested points, or having no valid argument against them, so it is safer to respond to a post more or less in its entirety. When the original post is long, it invariably makes for a long reply.

I have tried to clearly separate each point into short segments, in order to make it easier to follow and to read:



Barabbaberry writes: “To tell a gay person though that they can chose not to be gay is to tell them they have to make a choice that you as a straight person never would have to face-that of an entire life without a sexual dimension.”

How exactly do you know that? I mean, without projecting your own sexual identity onto others, drawing a hypothetical conclusion of equivalence, and then trying to understand them through your own filter of personal experience, a filter which you concede they do not share? Such a process could not be more subjective, could it? We make the same mistake when we try to project our American values (such as they are) onto terrorists. I am not comparing homosexuals to terrorists, I am talking about a common error that is often made when trying to understand something that is different from ourselves.

Furthermore, you position concedes the argument that the sexual orientation of homosexuals is genetically determined and therefore unchangeable, but that is an argument that is far from settled.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Barabbaberry writes: “For a person with a spouse-a person who has a sexual partner to tell another person that they cannot have ANY sexual partner that they would desire is completely arrogant.”

This position comes from viewing things through the prism of our own subjective experience, as opposed to the objective truth of God. But we’ll “run with it” for a moment to see where it leads.

Is it also arrogant for a person who only desires sex with a child that he cannot have ANY sexual partner? What about a person who only desires sex with an animal? Undoubtedly some would counter that neither a child nor an animal is capable of consent, and so both would be wrong. Fair enough, I agree, both ARE wrong, but how can the lack of mutual consent be the final and determining factor when it is not a determining factor in some other societies with which we otherwise have much in common?

It only took about two seconds on Google to find the following:


http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=19&story_id=30373

Dutch paedophiles set up political party
30 May 2006
“AMSTERDAM — Pro-paedophile activists have established a new political party in the Netherlands to campaign for the legalisation of sex between adults and children.
And from the same article:

“The NVD, which is being officially launched on Wednesday, will lobby for a reduction in the age of consent in the Netherlands from 16 to 12 and then phased out completely over time. "Forbidding makes children all the more curious," Van den Berg said.”

And from the same article:

“ 'Consensual' sex between humans and animals would remain legal, coupled with a prohibition on sexual abuse of animals.”



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Barabbaberry writes: “It is incredibly arrogant for one person to set limitations on the life of another when that person would not accept the same limitations on their own life.”

No one is preventing homosexuals of legal age from engaging in consensual sex in private, but there is no obligation on the part of society to condone or endorse such activity.

Besides that, your personal opinion of what may or may not be “arrogant” is immaterial: it has no bearing on the right or wrong of the basic argument, unless your objective is to demonstrate that both sides are in error. We can surely find people who forgo sexual activity before marriage, but for the sake of argument, let’s accept your premise, that both sides of the argument are in error (with one side being wrong because of “arrogance”). Does that make either side right? Would you endorse error on behalf of one party and justify your endorsement on the error of another party? Do two wrongs make a right?



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Barabbaberry writes: “When McCullough states that because he does not allow himself sexual relations outside his marriage that a homosexual should not allow themselves any sexual realtions at all he is not being honest, because the two are not the same thing. It is called sophistry, an argument through deception and clever trickery. Comparing apples to oranges and claiming you are comparing apples to apples is not honest.”

I certainly don’t speak for Mr. McCullough (and I am sure he neither wants nor needs me to defend him), but I strongly suspect that his position is scriptural and applies equally to homosexuals and heterosexuals alike, i.e., ANY sexual activity outside the bonds of marriage is fornication, and therefore sin. The wages of sin is death (eternal), unless one obeys the Gospel of Christ and repents of their sin. No one has to believe that, but it doesn’t change anything. Even if the whole world stands against the truth of God’s Word, the truth will not be bent to the will of man; the truth will stand.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Barabbaberry writes: “It is naive beyond belief that one would believe the declaration of a person that they submit to such limitations , especially if that person was young and had a head and groin full of hormonal steam.”

Naïve according to whose standards? According to the worldly standards exemplified (and certainly amplified) by Hollywood? I agree, that would be naïve. However, it is not naïve according to God’s standard, and His is the one that counts. He determines the standards we are judged by, not us (2 Corinthians 10:18, John 12:48). Is a “head and groin full of hormonal steam” an acceptable excuse to commit sin? Is any excuse acceptable to God?



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Barabbaberry writes: “The religious right has repeatedly set themselves up for charlatans and they will continue to do so.”

I was a social and economic conservative long before I became a Christian. I am not a member of any “religious right” organization, whatever that might be. The Word of God says what it says, we can either obey it or rebel against it, and that’s a choice every one of us makes (and as Geddy Lee once said, “if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice”).



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Barabbaberry writes: “But I am not talking about the argument to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples. This is an argument on what society should tolerate and how it should define the family. They are right in their stance on this iisue.”

By the standards you previously established, is it not similarly arrogant for you to say “They are right in their stance on this iisue”? Who are you to decide they are “right” on this issue but not on another issue? What is the source of your judgment about which is right and which is wrong? The only objective source of truth is the Word of God; the rest, ALL of it, is just the wisdom, speculations and opinions of men.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Barabbaberry writes: “I am talking about those that believe they can change people to be something they want them to be .”

I don’t know if any homosexual can change his (or her) behavior or not, like any habit, the ability to change depends on the individual. Sin is generally pleasurable during its commission, which is why most people will not cease committing sin unless they understand why it is wrong. Once they understand why it is wrong or bad for them, it is not always easy to change. Ask any smoker who has tried to quit and failed.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Barabbaberry writes: “They want them to not be homosexual because their religion and their world view declares it to be wrong.”

It is not a “world view”, it is the Word of God that declares homosexuality to be wrong; there’s no way of getting around it.

The same Word of God is equally applicable to heterosexuals who engage in sexual activity outside the bonds of marriage. Please see my previous posts (March, 11, 2007 7:01 PM and March, 11, 2007 10:03 PM) for details.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Barabbaberry writes: “They are at an impasse because they believe god is loving and merciful.”

There is no “impasse”, certainly not among churches who actually use the Word of God as contained in the Bible as their source of Authority. I don’t know what churches that are at an “impasse” are using as their source of authority, but if it’s not the Bible, then I understand why they are experiencing so many difficulties. God is indeed loving and merciful, but He is also righteous, and there will be a Judgment.

It’s not like this is a new debate. People have always wanted to do whatever they wanted to do, and they have always tried to either discredit the Word of God or twist the scriptures in order to justify their behavior. One problem with trying to justify our behavior by twisting the scriptures is that even if we succeed in winning the debate amongst men, we will not win that argument with God, so at best we will get away with our sin for the short time we are alive (practically the blink of an eye, compared to eternity). That is a foolish trade-off; it harms the individual participants, and it harms society when the demand for acceptance of sinful behavior (whatever that sinful behavior may be) is foisted on the public.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Barabbaberry writes: “They therefore MUST believe that homosexuals CHOOSE to be the way they are, if it was not voluntary than their god would be cruel to punish homosexuals for something they have no controll over.”

We don’t NEED to believe anything. You seem to presuppose that all Christians decide what they believe first, then try to shoehorn the Bible into their beliefs in order to make their pre-conceived beliefs fit. That may too often be the case, but that is not the proper approach, such an approach will only result in error. The proper approach is to read the Bible with an open mind and without pre-conceived notions, and just see what it actually says, making sure that our understanding does not contradict the Word of God in some other passage. Man has a tendency to make things much more complicated than they need to be.

You began with the false premise that God is loving and merciful but not righteous in His judgment. You then appear to have arrived at a false conclusion based on the “reverse engineering” of your false premise.

We can speculate about why homosexuals do what they do until the cows come home, but it won’t make a bit of difference, because it will still be wrong according to God’s Word, whatever the reasons man may come up with to justify the behavior.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Barabbaberry writes: “This inconsistency threatens to destroy their belief system, for the modern christian who's religion has been feminized , the belief that homosexuality is indeed inborn would shatter their belief in their religion.”

The inconsistency is a result of not following the Word of God. It happens all the time; churches have been falling into apostasy since the 1st century (see chapter 2 of Revelation as one example).

The “feminization” of Christianity by some churches is also the result of not following the Word of God. If any belief is to be shattered, let it be the errant belief that the wisdom of men is higher than the wisdom of God (cf. Isaiah 55:8-9), and then repent and return to the Word of God as the highest source of Authority. Or remain a member of an apostate church, in which case our worship is vain (cf. Matthew 15:7-10).



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Barabbaberry writes: “They will never accept this as fact.”

Especially if it is not a “fact” at all. Your position is based on an unsubstantiated assertion of “fact” which was arrived at via false premises. Why would anyone accept anything as “fact” when it is not, in actuality, a “fact”?



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Barabbaberry writes: “McCullough though gave evidence to this in one of his articles where he conceeded that if it was indeed inborn then homosexuals should be granted all the rightrs and protections they desire. This is nonsense because it does not recognize the consequences this would have for society.”

It would be better to quote Mr. McCullough’s words, and enough of them to understand the context, so that we could discuss them knowledgably. I have no way of knowing whether your characterization of Mr. McCullough’s position is accurate of not.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Barabbaberry writes: “Society should make laws regarding these matters ,which fall in the category of victimless crimes, and punish the transgressors.These laws should be made according to what the COSEQUENCES of these actions have on SOCIETY.”

What is the origin or source of your authority? 50 years ago, or 50 years from now, your opinion might be very different, and you might adjust your argument accordingly, based on ever changing human wisdom at any given point in time. That is a subjective and sliding scale of judgment. The Word of God is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow. It is right all the time, regardless of the “times” or the degree of political correctness to which a society finds itself in bondage.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Barabbaberry writes: “Todays christians are feminized and too soft.”

For whom do you speak, and on whose authority? You will not find those who do their best to follow His Word as it is written as “feminized and too soft”. This blanket characterization of all Christians is neither fair nor accurate. Yes, there are many who call themselves Christians but who have fallen away from God’s Word, but there are also many who take God at His Word and act accordingly.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Barabbaberry writes: “They do not have the strength to demand laws that safeguard society. In the case of homosexuals, they want to take the easy (?) road of changing them so they don't have make and enforce laws.”

There is no compulsion in Christianity. As much as we might like to, we can’t stop sin by making it illegal. It would be impossible to enforce, and it would only open Christians up to charges that they were legislating their beliefs on non-believers. Much better to engage in the animating contest of ideas in the arena of public discourse, where men and women of good will and good conscience can weigh the wisdom of God against the wisdom of men, and make their choices accordingly.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Barabbaberry writes: “The religious right believe they can bring about this change through prayer and faith.”

It would be helpful if you would define exactly to whom you are referring when you say “religious right”. You are attributing beliefs and practices throughout your comments which may or may not withstand scrutiny, but we cannot know for sure until you explain exactly who it is that you are referring to.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Barabbaberry writes: “They may look ridiculous to liberals but they also look equally if not more ridiculous to conservatives.”

Then are you not in good company with those liberals who think Christians look ridiculous?


“For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.” (Galatians 1:10)


“And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” (Romans 12:2)


"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before [it hated] you. [19] If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." (John 15:18-19)


"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. [19] For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. [20] Where [is] the wise? where [is] the scribe? where [is] the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? [21] For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." (1 Corinthians 1:18-21)



you're all so ghey...
Ghey Rule #3 For you to have any negative opinion about being ghey, (or if you disagree with anyone who is ghey) you must be ghey, and if you deny it, then you're definitely ghey because you are...get it? Of course not, because you're ghey.

Destruction
When this story first started breaking, I looked at one of the "progressive" blog sites and saw some of the comments the people there made about Matt Sanchez. I won't repeat the names he was called, because they're simply too disgusting--even if they would pass the naughty-word filter here, which they won't.

I don't presume to know how many porn films he did, or what his current behavior is. I think if he's really trying to turn his life around, folks ought to give him a chance.

But I can see quite clearly that as long as the Left is calling Matt Sanchez filthy names, they don't have to respond in any substantive way to his charge that there's an anti-military bias at Columbia University.

And these are the people who complain about "the politics of personal destruction."