William Tell and Chick-fil-A

An overwhelming number of chicken sandwiches were served on Wednesday as vast numbers of Americans from all over the country turned out to support Chick-fil-A, under fire for its CEO taking the highly controversial and shocking position that people of the same sex can’t marry each other.  Could that be a catalyst for a popular revolt against gay marriage?

Richard Fernandez observes that “Great fires start from small sparks, as often happens when there is enough dry tinder on the ground.”  He points out that the Arab Spring started with the harassment of a street vendor, that the public got behind the American revolution when the British raised the tax on tea.  He then brings up a great story about what precipitated the Swiss rising up to throw off the Hapsburg empire:

The legend as told by Tschudi (ca. 1570) goes as follows: “William Tell, who originally came from Bürglen, was known as a strong man and an expert shot with the crossbow. In his time, the Habsburg emperors of Austria were seeking to dominate Uri. Albrecht (or Hermann) Gessler, the newly appointed Austrian Vogt of Altdorf, raised a pole in the village’s central square, hung his hat on top of it, and demanded that all the townsfolk bow before the hat. On 18 November 1307, Tell visited Altdorf with his young son and passed by the hat, publicly refusing to bow to it, and so was arrested. Gessler — intrigued by Tell’s famed marksmanship, yet resentful of his defiance — devised a cruel punishment: Tell and his son would be executed, but he could redeem his life by shooting an apple off the head of his son, Walter, in a single attempt. Tell split the apple with a bolt from his crossbow.”

And the rest, as they say, is history. What is remarkable about Gessler’s Hat is that it was about anything except the hat. It’s very insignificance as an object of forced respect showed that it was all about arbitrary domination. Gessler had made his hat holy, as Caligula had made his horse a consul, and everyone was expected to acknowledge it. Thus it was above all about power, made all the more manifest by its exercise in the most capricious and petty ways, for most any king can command a respect for his person. But only a tyrant can demand the veneration of his underwear.

Rahm Emanuel’s insistence that Chick-fil-A bow to the icon of gay marriage had that effect, at least upon some. Chick-fil-A is not about gay marriage or Christianity at all, any more than the incident of William Tell was about a hat. It’s about power. It is morphing into an overt test of whether the cultural elite can have its way. The problem with National Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day is that it constitutes an act of open defiance by manifesting all too publicly the contempt that a fairly large segment of the population has for shibboleths of political correctness.

via Belmont Club » The Chicken Disses the Hat.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Tom Hering

    Am I the only one who’s noticed that this heroic uprising of the American people, this valiant stand against oppressive government and political correctness, doesn’t involve danger or sacrifice on anyone’s part? It involves going out to lunch and stuffing one’s face. I mean, William stinkin’ Tell? The Boston Tea Party? The Arab Spring? Seriously?

  • Tom Hering

    Am I the only one who’s noticed that this heroic uprising of the American people, this valiant stand against oppressive government and political correctness, doesn’t involve danger or sacrifice on anyone’s part? It involves going out to lunch and stuffing one’s face. I mean, William stinkin’ Tell? The Boston Tea Party? The Arab Spring? Seriously?

  • Marie

    No, you aren’t the only one who has noticed, Tom. That is something that struck an immediate cord with me.

  • Marie

    No, you aren’t the only one who has noticed, Tom. That is something that struck an immediate cord with me.

  • Michael B.

    @Tom Hering

    +1000

    “Am I the only one who’s noticed that this heroic uprising of the American people, this valiant stand against oppressive government and political correctness, doesn’t involve danger or sacrifice on anyone’s part? It involves going out to lunch and stuffing one’s face. I mean, William stinkin’ Tell? The Boston Tea Party? The Arab Spring? Seriously?”

    This phenomenon was also noted during the protests against the Iraq war. Some journalists were quick to tell their readers that “don’t suppose these anti-Iraq-war protests were the like the ones of your fathers during the Vietnam war”. If a protest feels artificial, it’s probably because it is. It’s not to say there has to be violence, but business cannot continue as normal. The protestors don’t even so much as block traffic.

  • Michael B.

    @Tom Hering

    +1000

    “Am I the only one who’s noticed that this heroic uprising of the American people, this valiant stand against oppressive government and political correctness, doesn’t involve danger or sacrifice on anyone’s part? It involves going out to lunch and stuffing one’s face. I mean, William stinkin’ Tell? The Boston Tea Party? The Arab Spring? Seriously?”

    This phenomenon was also noted during the protests against the Iraq war. Some journalists were quick to tell their readers that “don’t suppose these anti-Iraq-war protests were the like the ones of your fathers during the Vietnam war”. If a protest feels artificial, it’s probably because it is. It’s not to say there has to be violence, but business cannot continue as normal. The protestors don’t even so much as block traffic.

  • formerly just steve

    You make a fair point, Tom. But I doubt the folks who went out to support Chik-fil-A had any illusion they were doing anything heroic–despite the rhetoric being tossed around by journalists, writers, bloggers, and others whose job it is to make mountains out of molehills. That being said, I wouldn’t say that a deep fried chicken sandwich and a side of fries followed up with an ice dream cone is completely without danger.

  • formerly just steve

    You make a fair point, Tom. But I doubt the folks who went out to support Chik-fil-A had any illusion they were doing anything heroic–despite the rhetoric being tossed around by journalists, writers, bloggers, and others whose job it is to make mountains out of molehills. That being said, I wouldn’t say that a deep fried chicken sandwich and a side of fries followed up with an ice dream cone is completely without danger.

  • formerly just steve

    You really only get 1, Michael. I’m afraid you’re now 999 in debt.

  • formerly just steve

    You really only get 1, Michael. I’m afraid you’re now 999 in debt.

  • Tom Hering

    Honestly, the show of support for Dan Cathy is fine as far as it goes. But let’s not make it out to be something more than it is. You can count the number of bad-guy politicians involved without running out of fingers. On one hand.

    … I wouldn’t say that a deep fried chicken sandwich and a side of fries followed up with an ice dream cone is completely without danger.

    :-D

  • Tom Hering

    Honestly, the show of support for Dan Cathy is fine as far as it goes. But let’s not make it out to be something more than it is. You can count the number of bad-guy politicians involved without running out of fingers. On one hand.

    … I wouldn’t say that a deep fried chicken sandwich and a side of fries followed up with an ice dream cone is completely without danger.

    :-D

  • Joe

    My biggest fear is that this is going to make Dan Cathey into some kind of quasi-official spokes person for Christianity. And, while I support his right to support whatever charities he thinks are worth supporting and to state his beliefs; I don’t want him speaking for me nor do I want his views conflated with orthodoxy.

    I don’t mean to suggest that he is wrong on whether same-sex sex is sinful. It is, but I am not sure I agree with him on how society and/or gov’t should respond.

  • Joe

    My biggest fear is that this is going to make Dan Cathey into some kind of quasi-official spokes person for Christianity. And, while I support his right to support whatever charities he thinks are worth supporting and to state his beliefs; I don’t want him speaking for me nor do I want his views conflated with orthodoxy.

    I don’t mean to suggest that he is wrong on whether same-sex sex is sinful. It is, but I am not sure I agree with him on how society and/or gov’t should respond.

  • Joetta Witkowski

    Perhaps we have missed the point. Danger is perhaps not the necessary ingredient in a valid protest. After all, the Boston Tea Party involved little physical danger (and the owners were reimbursed for the damage), yet it was one of the major catalysts for a rather significant event – the American Revolution.

  • Joetta Witkowski

    Perhaps we have missed the point. Danger is perhaps not the necessary ingredient in a valid protest. After all, the Boston Tea Party involved little physical danger (and the owners were reimbursed for the damage), yet it was one of the major catalysts for a rather significant event – the American Revolution.

  • Jack Brooks

    If the people involved ever claimed this was a brave thing to do, your criticism would be valid. But this was never anything but a statement, either of support for free speech, or of traditional marriage, or of anti-government-bullying. In fact, it would require some sort of act of force — to create the sort of situation that would lead to “brave” actions. Or at least losing your job (for which you could probably turn right around and get a tidy sum through an unlawful-termination lawsuit).

    But events have a way of building. The Boston tea party was preceded by all sorts of more benign forms of complaint.

  • Jack Brooks

    If the people involved ever claimed this was a brave thing to do, your criticism would be valid. But this was never anything but a statement, either of support for free speech, or of traditional marriage, or of anti-government-bullying. In fact, it would require some sort of act of force — to create the sort of situation that would lead to “brave” actions. Or at least losing your job (for which you could probably turn right around and get a tidy sum through an unlawful-termination lawsuit).

    But events have a way of building. The Boston tea party was preceded by all sorts of more benign forms of complaint.

  • SKPeterson

    Is this an easy protest? Yes, and so are the proposed counter-protests. Basically, they are great exercises in smugness dressed up in a veneer of self-righteousness. Do I eat at Chik-Fil-A? Yes. Will I continue to do so? Yes. Do I eat there often? No. Maybe I’ll make an extra trip that I would have devoted toward going to Bojangles instead. I don’t know. However, I don’t like Starbucks giving all sorts of money to pro-gay causes, so I’m boycotting them. This is really, really difficult for me. Not. I don’t really like Starbucks and find their coffee to be overpriced and not a good value. I boycott Starbucks consistently because I don’t really care for their product. Same for Apple. Same for any sort of GM, Ford or Chrysler product. I boycott and discriminate almost every day. Sometimes I choose Taco Bell by discriminating against McDonald’s, Subway, Burger King, Captain D’s, Hardees and every other fast food place around. Sometimes I turn the tables on Taco Bell and I eat somewhere else. Oh! the humanity!

  • SKPeterson

    Is this an easy protest? Yes, and so are the proposed counter-protests. Basically, they are great exercises in smugness dressed up in a veneer of self-righteousness. Do I eat at Chik-Fil-A? Yes. Will I continue to do so? Yes. Do I eat there often? No. Maybe I’ll make an extra trip that I would have devoted toward going to Bojangles instead. I don’t know. However, I don’t like Starbucks giving all sorts of money to pro-gay causes, so I’m boycotting them. This is really, really difficult for me. Not. I don’t really like Starbucks and find their coffee to be overpriced and not a good value. I boycott Starbucks consistently because I don’t really care for their product. Same for Apple. Same for any sort of GM, Ford or Chrysler product. I boycott and discriminate almost every day. Sometimes I choose Taco Bell by discriminating against McDonald’s, Subway, Burger King, Captain D’s, Hardees and every other fast food place around. Sometimes I turn the tables on Taco Bell and I eat somewhere else. Oh! the humanity!

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Tom @1,
    Just because such a stand did not involve life or limb does not necessarily rule out the significance of such a stand.

    It is one thing to become a martyr as a result of taking a stand; it is quite another to take a stand simply for the sake of seeking martyrdom.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Tom @1,
    Just because such a stand did not involve life or limb does not necessarily rule out the significance of such a stand.

    It is one thing to become a martyr as a result of taking a stand; it is quite another to take a stand simply for the sake of seeking martyrdom.

  • Stephen

    Tom @ 1,

    Right on! What utter nonsense!!! Let’s trivialize real revolution with Americans eating fast food as a sign of their freedom from tyranny. Meanwhile, the corporation makes off like a bandit, the idea of what a hero is is further degraded to the point of absurdity, and our kids get fatter.

    Doesn’t anyone feel manipulated here?

  • Stephen

    Tom @ 1,

    Right on! What utter nonsense!!! Let’s trivialize real revolution with Americans eating fast food as a sign of their freedom from tyranny. Meanwhile, the corporation makes off like a bandit, the idea of what a hero is is further degraded to the point of absurdity, and our kids get fatter.

    Doesn’t anyone feel manipulated here?

  • SKPeterson
  • SKPeterson
  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    OK, not a huge danger, but given the left’s treatment of Chick-Fil-A–some publicly rejoicing at the death of their VP of PR–it was predicted that masses of people eating in support of the company would have been matched by masses of people protesting the company. Had that happened, that could have gotten rather ugly.

    But I guess the SEIU couldn’t fuel their purple buses to get the rent-a-mob there, so I guess the worst fear the “buy-cotters” actually faced was cholesterol and fat. :^)

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    OK, not a huge danger, but given the left’s treatment of Chick-Fil-A–some publicly rejoicing at the death of their VP of PR–it was predicted that masses of people eating in support of the company would have been matched by masses of people protesting the company. Had that happened, that could have gotten rather ugly.

    But I guess the SEIU couldn’t fuel their purple buses to get the rent-a-mob there, so I guess the worst fear the “buy-cotters” actually faced was cholesterol and fat. :^)

  • CRB

    While it is certainly a just cause for Christians to defend marriage according to the Bible, I wonder if the folks who defend “gay marriage” will be open to the words of Scripture as those same Christians share law and gospel with them? That would be well pleasing to the Lord, would it not?

  • CRB

    While it is certainly a just cause for Christians to defend marriage according to the Bible, I wonder if the folks who defend “gay marriage” will be open to the words of Scripture as those same Christians share law and gospel with them? That would be well pleasing to the Lord, would it not?

  • rlewer

    So far there is no heroic danger in voting either, but it is still significant.

    Interesting how the main stream media has now played down the story and the outpouring of support for the evil Christians.

  • rlewer

    So far there is no heroic danger in voting either, but it is still significant.

    Interesting how the main stream media has now played down the story and the outpouring of support for the evil Christians.

  • AStev

    “Great fires start from small sparks, as often happens when there is enough dry tinder on the ground.”

    Indeed. But often, small fires burn up the dry tinder, so that there is none to start a great fire.

  • AStev

    “Great fires start from small sparks, as often happens when there is enough dry tinder on the ground.”

    Indeed. But often, small fires burn up the dry tinder, so that there is none to start a great fire.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    It’s not so disconcerting that the “main stream” media doesn’t report anything objectively any more.

    We have Facebook and Twitter, after all.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    It’s not so disconcerting that the “main stream” media doesn’t report anything objectively any more.

    We have Facebook and Twitter, after all.

  • Stephen

    To think of it another way, if this gentleman’s company gave millions to a charity which wanted to create a federal law to allow for the stoning of disobedient children who curse their parents because that is the “biblical definition” of parental discipline (and it is by the same measure), would you run out and buy his junk food?

  • Stephen

    To think of it another way, if this gentleman’s company gave millions to a charity which wanted to create a federal law to allow for the stoning of disobedient children who curse their parents because that is the “biblical definition” of parental discipline (and it is by the same measure), would you run out and buy his junk food?

  • Roderick Jackson

    No revolt will happen. We resist the public square (homeschools, anyone?), stay in safe hotels, enjoy our “Friends” on social media, and relax in our walled-in living rooms. We think visiting a Chic-Fil-A is a form of protest. (It is, but only if you visited one in a hostile geographic area like MA, Northern CA, Chicago, etc.)

    William Tell was willing to lose his comforts and risk life. We are not.

  • Roderick Jackson

    No revolt will happen. We resist the public square (homeschools, anyone?), stay in safe hotels, enjoy our “Friends” on social media, and relax in our walled-in living rooms. We think visiting a Chic-Fil-A is a form of protest. (It is, but only if you visited one in a hostile geographic area like MA, Northern CA, Chicago, etc.)

    William Tell was willing to lose his comforts and risk life. We are not.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Stephen @ 19
    Wow…that took idiocy to a whole new level. Congratulations.

    You might want to do some stretching exercises next time before posting a comment that reaches so far to make some kind of connection to reality. I wouldn’t want you to pull a hamstring or throw out your back.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Stephen @ 19
    Wow…that took idiocy to a whole new level. Congratulations.

    You might want to do some stretching exercises next time before posting a comment that reaches so far to make some kind of connection to reality. I wouldn’t want you to pull a hamstring or throw out your back.

  • http://www.matthewcochran.net/blog Matt Cochran

    “Let’s not make it more than it is”

    Let’s not deceptively make it less than it is by pretending it’s being overblown and then denouncing the pretend overblowing.

    This was a proportional response to the problem. Far from being irrelevant, we wouldn’t even need the more legendary acts of protest if people were actually consistent about these day-to-day needs. In our pride, we think excellence in vocation is performing some grand act of virtue. In reality, it’s no less about simply doing the day-to-day necessities well. This simple act of protest was done well, and I am thankful for that.

  • http://www.matthewcochran.net/blog Matt Cochran

    “Let’s not make it more than it is”

    Let’s not deceptively make it less than it is by pretending it’s being overblown and then denouncing the pretend overblowing.

    This was a proportional response to the problem. Far from being irrelevant, we wouldn’t even need the more legendary acts of protest if people were actually consistent about these day-to-day needs. In our pride, we think excellence in vocation is performing some grand act of virtue. In reality, it’s no less about simply doing the day-to-day necessities well. This simple act of protest was done well, and I am thankful for that.

  • Pete

    What Steve @21 said to Stephen @19. Perhaps another stoning of Stephen is in order.

  • Pete

    What Steve @21 said to Stephen @19. Perhaps another stoning of Stephen is in order.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Matt Cochran @ 22
    Exactly….

    Blowhard politicians spouted off and people made an appropriate response. What would happen if the State acted in a manner that was physically threatening? I don’t know. I hope I don’t have to find out – but there’s no reason to belittle or demean an appropriate response that people made to dumb politicians.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Matt Cochran @ 22
    Exactly….

    Blowhard politicians spouted off and people made an appropriate response. What would happen if the State acted in a manner that was physically threatening? I don’t know. I hope I don’t have to find out – but there’s no reason to belittle or demean an appropriate response that people made to dumb politicians.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    The best part of the post I linked to was the William Tell story, much of which I had forgotten. Here is “the rest of the story” from Wikipedia (which is also the source of what the original author quotes):

    “But Gessler noticed that Tell had removed two crossbow bolts from his quiver, not one. Before releasing Tell, he asked why. Tell replied that if he had killed his son, he would have used the second bolt on Gessler himself. Gessler was angered, and had Tell bound. He was brought to Gessler’s ship to be taken to his castle at Küssnacht to spend his newly won life in a dungeon. But, as a storm broke on Lake Lucerne, the soldiers were afraid that their boat would founder, and unbound Tell to steer with all his famed strength. Tell made use of the opportunity to escape, leaping from the boat at the rocky site now known as the Tellsplatte (“Tell’s slab”) and memorialized by the Tellskapelle.
    The Hohle Gasse between Immensee and Küssnacht

    Tell ran cross-country to Küssnacht. As Gessler arrived, Tell assassinated him with the second crossbow bolt along a stretch of the road cut through the rock between Immensee and Küssnacht, now known as the Hohle Gasse. Tell’s blow for liberty sparked a rebellion, in which he played a leading part. That fed the impetus for the nascent Swiss Confederation. He fought again against Austria in the 1315 Battle of Morgarten. Tschudi also has an account of Tell’s death in 1354, according to which he was killed trying to save a child from drowning in the Schächenbach river in Uri.”

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    The best part of the post I linked to was the William Tell story, much of which I had forgotten. Here is “the rest of the story” from Wikipedia (which is also the source of what the original author quotes):

    “But Gessler noticed that Tell had removed two crossbow bolts from his quiver, not one. Before releasing Tell, he asked why. Tell replied that if he had killed his son, he would have used the second bolt on Gessler himself. Gessler was angered, and had Tell bound. He was brought to Gessler’s ship to be taken to his castle at Küssnacht to spend his newly won life in a dungeon. But, as a storm broke on Lake Lucerne, the soldiers were afraid that their boat would founder, and unbound Tell to steer with all his famed strength. Tell made use of the opportunity to escape, leaping from the boat at the rocky site now known as the Tellsplatte (“Tell’s slab”) and memorialized by the Tellskapelle.
    The Hohle Gasse between Immensee and Küssnacht

    Tell ran cross-country to Küssnacht. As Gessler arrived, Tell assassinated him with the second crossbow bolt along a stretch of the road cut through the rock between Immensee and Küssnacht, now known as the Hohle Gasse. Tell’s blow for liberty sparked a rebellion, in which he played a leading part. That fed the impetus for the nascent Swiss Confederation. He fought again against Austria in the 1315 Battle of Morgarten. Tschudi also has an account of Tell’s death in 1354, according to which he was killed trying to save a child from drowning in the Schächenbach river in Uri.”

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Also, I think a lot of you are missing the point. I would hope that any protests would not be “dangerous”; that is, involve violence, armed insurgency, and people on either side getting killed. The value of this kind of protest is that it is utterly peaceful, lawful, and (yes) easy.

    And the point is not that eating or not eating a chicken sandwich is that big a deal, any more than Gessler’s hat on a stick was a big deal. It is simply that very large numbers of people–though Americans are usually not boat rockers–chose to defy what has been defined as the new mainstream position. Which may well, perhaps, show up in other more important areas, such as voting.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Also, I think a lot of you are missing the point. I would hope that any protests would not be “dangerous”; that is, involve violence, armed insurgency, and people on either side getting killed. The value of this kind of protest is that it is utterly peaceful, lawful, and (yes) easy.

    And the point is not that eating or not eating a chicken sandwich is that big a deal, any more than Gessler’s hat on a stick was a big deal. It is simply that very large numbers of people–though Americans are usually not boat rockers–chose to defy what has been defined as the new mainstream position. Which may well, perhaps, show up in other more important areas, such as voting.

  • Stephen

    Steve @ 21

    You could at least tell me what you think is idiotic about what I posted. How is it so categorically different?

    My point (and I do have one) is to look at it another way. That is difficult to do when it is set up to be either/or. Where did the real free thinkers go?

    As I understand it, what is at issue in boycotting the restaurants stems from their support of limiting gays equal access and protection under the law. Chick-fil-a, for its part, will take their money, treat them nice, but at the same time would like to curtail their freedoms elsewhere based PRIMARILY on their religious beliefs, and not based on constitutionality, etc. Whether you agree or not with one side or the other isn’t really the issue. The issue, it seems to me, is to what degree should “biblical principles” be used to create laws in a democracy. Notice I said “to what degree” and not “whether or not” they should. Liberals say “not at all.” Conservatives say “some” but not how much. How much is where the rubber hits the road. A little bit or a lot?

    So, if they are so biblical in practice, what about all the other biblical mandates at which we “shake our fists?” Shall I be allowed to beat the living crap out of child because the bible says “spare the rod spoil the child?” And furthermore, should I be admired for giving my money to an organization that wants to make such discipline allowable by law? It is a matter of using ones resources to inflict a bias upon others by means of the law. I realize that could be flipped around the other way, but in one case, one party wants to limit freedoms while the other wants to expand them. Are there other terms on which those things should be considered rather than so called “biblical” principles. I think so, things like degrees of harm and access to services, etc., but all we have here is one man’s bigotry being touted by the right as his right to . . . be a bigot and use his resources to further his bigotry with the force of law.

    Stone away. You can call me an idiot for no good reason if that makes you feel superior. Glad to help out. I think this will all come back and hit people who’ve been drawn into this silliness when the tables are turned. And then they’ll all feel like suckers.

  • Stephen

    Steve @ 21

    You could at least tell me what you think is idiotic about what I posted. How is it so categorically different?

    My point (and I do have one) is to look at it another way. That is difficult to do when it is set up to be either/or. Where did the real free thinkers go?

    As I understand it, what is at issue in boycotting the restaurants stems from their support of limiting gays equal access and protection under the law. Chick-fil-a, for its part, will take their money, treat them nice, but at the same time would like to curtail their freedoms elsewhere based PRIMARILY on their religious beliefs, and not based on constitutionality, etc. Whether you agree or not with one side or the other isn’t really the issue. The issue, it seems to me, is to what degree should “biblical principles” be used to create laws in a democracy. Notice I said “to what degree” and not “whether or not” they should. Liberals say “not at all.” Conservatives say “some” but not how much. How much is where the rubber hits the road. A little bit or a lot?

    So, if they are so biblical in practice, what about all the other biblical mandates at which we “shake our fists?” Shall I be allowed to beat the living crap out of child because the bible says “spare the rod spoil the child?” And furthermore, should I be admired for giving my money to an organization that wants to make such discipline allowable by law? It is a matter of using ones resources to inflict a bias upon others by means of the law. I realize that could be flipped around the other way, but in one case, one party wants to limit freedoms while the other wants to expand them. Are there other terms on which those things should be considered rather than so called “biblical” principles. I think so, things like degrees of harm and access to services, etc., but all we have here is one man’s bigotry being touted by the right as his right to . . . be a bigot and use his resources to further his bigotry with the force of law.

    Stone away. You can call me an idiot for no good reason if that makes you feel superior. Glad to help out. I think this will all come back and hit people who’ve been drawn into this silliness when the tables are turned. And then they’ll all feel like suckers.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Stephen:

    Are you still beating your wife?

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Stephen:

    Are you still beating your wife?

  • The Jones

    When scorn is heaped on a Christian for saying things that are undeniably in inextricably Christian, I think it is our duty to stand with and associate with other Christians in this scorn and not be ashamed of them. I see this modeled in 2 Timothy 1:8.

    When associating with Christians happens to coincide with standing up for the First Amendment, then sweet! Take advantage of that while you can. Christians in the past used to have to stand up for the gospel by opposing the law. Right now, we have the luxury of standing up for the gospel while simultaneously voicing our support for the law.

    So what if this particular rebellion happens to be easy (and delicious)? Sure there is just as much support as there is scorn for this particular issue. But so what? Does that mean you look down on those who publicly and intentionally associate with the Christian view on marriage? Just like the parable of the talents, he who is faithful in little will be faithful in much. Do we really think that Christians should be silent and not stand up for any Christian tennants until it’s illegal and REAL persecution comes? I guess that’s the only time it really _counts_.

    While there is no vice in not noticing or not participating in this particular statement, Christians shouldn’t be afraid of being associated with all of the gospel, even the unpopular parts like sexuality and marriage. And whenever associating with certain parts of the gospel happens to coincide with chicken sandwiches and the First Amendment, then what more could we ask for?

  • The Jones

    When scorn is heaped on a Christian for saying things that are undeniably in inextricably Christian, I think it is our duty to stand with and associate with other Christians in this scorn and not be ashamed of them. I see this modeled in 2 Timothy 1:8.

    When associating with Christians happens to coincide with standing up for the First Amendment, then sweet! Take advantage of that while you can. Christians in the past used to have to stand up for the gospel by opposing the law. Right now, we have the luxury of standing up for the gospel while simultaneously voicing our support for the law.

    So what if this particular rebellion happens to be easy (and delicious)? Sure there is just as much support as there is scorn for this particular issue. But so what? Does that mean you look down on those who publicly and intentionally associate with the Christian view on marriage? Just like the parable of the talents, he who is faithful in little will be faithful in much. Do we really think that Christians should be silent and not stand up for any Christian tennants until it’s illegal and REAL persecution comes? I guess that’s the only time it really _counts_.

    While there is no vice in not noticing or not participating in this particular statement, Christians shouldn’t be afraid of being associated with all of the gospel, even the unpopular parts like sexuality and marriage. And whenever associating with certain parts of the gospel happens to coincide with chicken sandwiches and the First Amendment, then what more could we ask for?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Veith, you said (@26):

    It is simply that very large numbers of people–though Americans are usually not boat rockers–chose to defy what has been defined as the new mainstream position.

    Except that it is the conservative contention that this isn’t the “mainstream position” at all, and as such, nobody “defied” anything. Right-wingers did exactly what they had been doing, only more so. And Americans continued to not rock the boat.

    The only way in which right-wingers could consider this fast-food-eating action rebellious in any sense would be to concede that the mainstream position is significantly in favor of same-sex marriage.

    But instead, what we get is people saying that “The majority of Americans (Real ‘Mericans, at least) are opposed to same-sex marriage, as can be seen by populist democratic efforts in the states, and I’m with the majority on this one, so I’ll eat at a fast-foodery that I already ate at occasionally, and whose overt Christian-ish ethics I already appreciated, in order to demonstrate that I’m part of the majority.”

    “A catalyst for a popular revolt against gay marriage”? Hardly.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Veith, you said (@26):

    It is simply that very large numbers of people–though Americans are usually not boat rockers–chose to defy what has been defined as the new mainstream position.

    Except that it is the conservative contention that this isn’t the “mainstream position” at all, and as such, nobody “defied” anything. Right-wingers did exactly what they had been doing, only more so. And Americans continued to not rock the boat.

    The only way in which right-wingers could consider this fast-food-eating action rebellious in any sense would be to concede that the mainstream position is significantly in favor of same-sex marriage.

    But instead, what we get is people saying that “The majority of Americans (Real ‘Mericans, at least) are opposed to same-sex marriage, as can be seen by populist democratic efforts in the states, and I’m with the majority on this one, so I’ll eat at a fast-foodery that I already ate at occasionally, and whose overt Christian-ish ethics I already appreciated, in order to demonstrate that I’m part of the majority.”

    “A catalyst for a popular revolt against gay marriage”? Hardly.

  • Stephen

    The Jones @ 29,

    While there is no vice in not noticing or not participating in this particular statement, Christians shouldn’t be afraid of being associated with all of the gospel, even the unpopular parts like sexuality and marriage. And whenever associating with certain parts of the gospel happens to coincide with chicken sandwiches and the First Amendment, then what more could we ask for?

    Except that his hasn’t got anything to do with the gospel, which is that Christ died for you and me. Sexuality is not “part” of that message at all. Your morality, mine, and everyone else’s is only about LAW and it will perish along with any and all “Christian tennants,” none of which merit eternal life.

  • Stephen

    The Jones @ 29,

    While there is no vice in not noticing or not participating in this particular statement, Christians shouldn’t be afraid of being associated with all of the gospel, even the unpopular parts like sexuality and marriage. And whenever associating with certain parts of the gospel happens to coincide with chicken sandwiches and the First Amendment, then what more could we ask for?

    Except that his hasn’t got anything to do with the gospel, which is that Christ died for you and me. Sexuality is not “part” of that message at all. Your morality, mine, and everyone else’s is only about LAW and it will perish along with any and all “Christian tennants,” none of which merit eternal life.

  • Steve Billingsley

    “My point (and I do have one) is to look at it another way. That is difficult to do when it is set up to be either/or. Where did the real free thinkers go.”

    It helps when the other way that is being looked at has some relation to reality.

    But that was a good rant. I have to give credit where credit is due.

  • Steve Billingsley

    “My point (and I do have one) is to look at it another way. That is difficult to do when it is set up to be either/or. Where did the real free thinkers go.”

    It helps when the other way that is being looked at has some relation to reality.

    But that was a good rant. I have to give credit where credit is due.

  • Stephen

    Steve @ 32

    It will be fun to watch when a Muslim(or Mormon!) special interest group wants to legalize some offensive bits of Sharia Law (or the Book of Mormon) and the redneck Christians get together with the feminists to try and stop them.

  • Stephen

    Steve @ 32

    It will be fun to watch when a Muslim(or Mormon!) special interest group wants to legalize some offensive bits of Sharia Law (or the Book of Mormon) and the redneck Christians get together with the feminists to try and stop them.

  • Tom Hering

    This has absolutely nothing to do with the Gospel. Not as Lutherans understand the Gospel, anyways. It doesn’t even involve anything distinctly Christian. Mormons and Muslims are opposed to same-sex marriage too. So much, then, for the idea that Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day expressed a clear Christian message. (Unfortunately, many non-Christians will believe it did.)

  • Tom Hering

    This has absolutely nothing to do with the Gospel. Not as Lutherans understand the Gospel, anyways. It doesn’t even involve anything distinctly Christian. Mormons and Muslims are opposed to same-sex marriage too. So much, then, for the idea that Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day expressed a clear Christian message. (Unfortunately, many non-Christians will believe it did.)

  • Stephen

    Bravo Tom @ 34!

    And many also think we are headed for things like this at the hands of Christians:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19068490

    Whose to say different? History? Not a pretty picture of “Christian” behavior.

  • Stephen

    Bravo Tom @ 34!

    And many also think we are headed for things like this at the hands of Christians:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19068490

    Whose to say different? History? Not a pretty picture of “Christian” behavior.

  • The Jones

    Tom @34,

    While I do not have a problem with a narrow or wide definition of the word “gospel” (I am using it as shorthand for the entire Bible), I don’t think any Christian doctrinal group, Lutheran or otherwise, thinks that Jesus died for our sins so that we can go about our merry way. He died to make us holy, and our lives will infect our lives to reflect God in every way. That’s inevitably going to involve sexuality and marriage.

    The Bible does have something to say about sexuality and marriage, and we shouldn’t be afraid of repeating that, and we shouldn’t be ashamed of someone who is being scorned for repeating that. And plus, the chicken is delicious.

    And you’re right, non-Christians also jumped on board. But so what? The Bible has lots of commands that non-Christians agree with. That doesn’t negate the fact that the Bible says it.

  • The Jones

    Tom @34,

    While I do not have a problem with a narrow or wide definition of the word “gospel” (I am using it as shorthand for the entire Bible), I don’t think any Christian doctrinal group, Lutheran or otherwise, thinks that Jesus died for our sins so that we can go about our merry way. He died to make us holy, and our lives will infect our lives to reflect God in every way. That’s inevitably going to involve sexuality and marriage.

    The Bible does have something to say about sexuality and marriage, and we shouldn’t be afraid of repeating that, and we shouldn’t be ashamed of someone who is being scorned for repeating that. And plus, the chicken is delicious.

    And you’re right, non-Christians also jumped on board. But so what? The Bible has lots of commands that non-Christians agree with. That doesn’t negate the fact that the Bible says it.

  • Med Student

    I think probably one of the main effects of Chik-fil-A appreciation day was merely to reinforce the notion that many non-Christians already have of Christianity: that Christianity = moralism, not that Christianity = Christ dying for sinners. (Now I realize that this is pretty much a rehash of what Tom wrote at 34. Oh well).

  • Med Student

    I think probably one of the main effects of Chik-fil-A appreciation day was merely to reinforce the notion that many non-Christians already have of Christianity: that Christianity = moralism, not that Christianity = Christ dying for sinners. (Now I realize that this is pretty much a rehash of what Tom wrote at 34. Oh well).

  • http://www.matthewcochran.net/blog Matt Cochran

    tODD, bullies aren’t always majorities, but it is still good and right to resist them. This is particularly true when their tactic is to lie and claim that the mainstream position is actually a radical extremist position that can’t be tolerated in civil society (Dr. Veith’s “what has been defined as the new mainstream position”).

    Bullies are funny things. It’s not exactly “rebellion” to defy them because they don’t have any real power. At the same time, a refusal to defy them actually grants them the power they claim to have, and so defiance is still rebellious in a sense. Likewise, submitting to the bully is the path of least resistance (which is why they still exist). Since defying them takes one outside that path, it can quite appropriately be called “rocking the boat.”

  • http://www.matthewcochran.net/blog Matt Cochran

    tODD, bullies aren’t always majorities, but it is still good and right to resist them. This is particularly true when their tactic is to lie and claim that the mainstream position is actually a radical extremist position that can’t be tolerated in civil society (Dr. Veith’s “what has been defined as the new mainstream position”).

    Bullies are funny things. It’s not exactly “rebellion” to defy them because they don’t have any real power. At the same time, a refusal to defy them actually grants them the power they claim to have, and so defiance is still rebellious in a sense. Likewise, submitting to the bully is the path of least resistance (which is why they still exist). Since defying them takes one outside that path, it can quite appropriately be called “rocking the boat.”

  • Steve Billingsley

    Stephen,

    Really….get a grip. What does the story linked have to do with “Christian” behavior?

    Upcoming legislation of Shariah or Mormon law opposed by redneck Christians and feminists? I was concerned about you pulling a hamstring or throwing out your back. Now I am a bit more concerned for you mental health.

    Take a breath…think some happy thoughts…drink a beer…..something.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Stephen,

    Really….get a grip. What does the story linked have to do with “Christian” behavior?

    Upcoming legislation of Shariah or Mormon law opposed by redneck Christians and feminists? I was concerned about you pulling a hamstring or throwing out your back. Now I am a bit more concerned for you mental health.

    Take a breath…think some happy thoughts…drink a beer…..something.

  • The Jones

    Stephen @31,

    That comment works for your response, too.

    However, I do have a question. How do you separate the message of Christ dying for our sins from the message of “If anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, and the new is here!”? Do Lutherans (or anybody else) really see the saving work of Jesus as something distinctly or substantively different from living for Christ and not for the desires of our flesh?

  • The Jones

    Stephen @31,

    That comment works for your response, too.

    However, I do have a question. How do you separate the message of Christ dying for our sins from the message of “If anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, and the new is here!”? Do Lutherans (or anybody else) really see the saving work of Jesus as something distinctly or substantively different from living for Christ and not for the desires of our flesh?

  • Grace

    Los Angeles Times

    Chick-fil-A ‘kiss’ day marred by ‘Tastes like hate’ graffiti

    August 3, 2012

    On a day that some gay-rights activists are planning a “National Same-Sex Kiss Day,” a Chick-fil-A in Torrance was vandalized overnight with hateful graffiti.</b.

    Chick-fil-A employees were greeted Fridays morning with the words “Tastes like hate” scrawled in large black lettering mimicking the chain’s advertising across the back wall of the restaurant at 182nd Street and Hawthorne Boulevard in Torrance.

    ANOTHER EXCERPT:

    Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has also weighed in on the Chick-fil-A debate, noting that Los Angeles has a “vibrant” LGBT community.

    “I’m proud to support them as we call on Chick-fil-A’s leadership to reconsider their position and join the growing majority of Americans who support marriage equality,” Villaraigosa said. “In Los Angeles and in America, love and liberty will always triumph.”

    READ THE REST: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/chick-fil-a-kiss-hate-graffiti-vandalized.html

    NOTE: Those here in California voted against same-sex-marriage (PROP 8). There is NO growing support for homosexual marriage.

    What is shown by Chick-fil-A’ they honor God. Last Wednesday’s turnout is a testament as to how we believe in California.

  • Grace

    Los Angeles Times

    Chick-fil-A ‘kiss’ day marred by ‘Tastes like hate’ graffiti

    August 3, 2012

    On a day that some gay-rights activists are planning a “National Same-Sex Kiss Day,” a Chick-fil-A in Torrance was vandalized overnight with hateful graffiti.</b.

    Chick-fil-A employees were greeted Fridays morning with the words “Tastes like hate” scrawled in large black lettering mimicking the chain’s advertising across the back wall of the restaurant at 182nd Street and Hawthorne Boulevard in Torrance.

    ANOTHER EXCERPT:

    Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has also weighed in on the Chick-fil-A debate, noting that Los Angeles has a “vibrant” LGBT community.

    “I’m proud to support them as we call on Chick-fil-A’s leadership to reconsider their position and join the growing majority of Americans who support marriage equality,” Villaraigosa said. “In Los Angeles and in America, love and liberty will always triumph.”

    READ THE REST: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/08/chick-fil-a-kiss-hate-graffiti-vandalized.html

    NOTE: Those here in California voted against same-sex-marriage (PROP 8). There is NO growing support for homosexual marriage.

    What is shown by Chick-fil-A’ they honor God. Last Wednesday’s turnout is a testament as to how we believe in California.

  • Stephen

    Steve @39

    You really should get out of your demographic a little more. The link is to make the point that these kinds of things become equated with all religion and are why people adamantly oppose using it to define the laws of our country.

    Thanks for being so condescending yet again. Too difficult? Okay, let me go at it another way.

    It’s okay to have a religious belief determine what the laws should be, and so we should all get on board with that, is that it? What exactly are people supporting by handing over their money? Freedom of conscience? Not exactly. Freedom of conscience for some I suppose. Now this guy has that much more money to throw at his pet cause which is nothing more or less than an imposition of his personal morality on others. That is not liberty and justice for all. The law is there, at least in part, to protect all of us from this sort of imposition.

    Do I agree with all the other stuff flying around it like licensing the restaurants in Chicago and such? No. In that instance, the left is just as screwed up. That’s what you get in a culture war and it too is stupid. But it’s no different in kind than someone else using the force of law to inflict their sense of righteousness. And I also don’t agree that it is hate speech to call it bigotry when anyone wants to impose their values via the law on others when those values have to do with limiting the freedoms of others and/or prohibiting them from full participation in this society. If gays were harming people, it would be different. But they’re not.

    If someone could explain to me how homosexual marriage actually harms “traditional” marriage, or how it will harm society rather than benefits it, I’d listen. But all the arguments hinge on a perceived notion of “biblical” morality which means exactly zero theologically as far as I can tell. There’s just morality, yours and mine, and the degree to which it helps us live together in peace. In other words, it is a shared thing. And when one’s ability to act according to their conscience and live their life in peace and freedom is infringed by law we cannot have that situation.

    Well, I suppose that is all too ranty for you. Give me a break Steve and stop acting like a smug Texas redneck. You are above that.

    Oh, by the way, I don’t drink, eat meat or fast food, or beat my wife. Not that it matters, but I’m sure that puts me on one side of an imaginary fence.

  • Stephen

    Steve @39

    You really should get out of your demographic a little more. The link is to make the point that these kinds of things become equated with all religion and are why people adamantly oppose using it to define the laws of our country.

    Thanks for being so condescending yet again. Too difficult? Okay, let me go at it another way.

    It’s okay to have a religious belief determine what the laws should be, and so we should all get on board with that, is that it? What exactly are people supporting by handing over their money? Freedom of conscience? Not exactly. Freedom of conscience for some I suppose. Now this guy has that much more money to throw at his pet cause which is nothing more or less than an imposition of his personal morality on others. That is not liberty and justice for all. The law is there, at least in part, to protect all of us from this sort of imposition.

    Do I agree with all the other stuff flying around it like licensing the restaurants in Chicago and such? No. In that instance, the left is just as screwed up. That’s what you get in a culture war and it too is stupid. But it’s no different in kind than someone else using the force of law to inflict their sense of righteousness. And I also don’t agree that it is hate speech to call it bigotry when anyone wants to impose their values via the law on others when those values have to do with limiting the freedoms of others and/or prohibiting them from full participation in this society. If gays were harming people, it would be different. But they’re not.

    If someone could explain to me how homosexual marriage actually harms “traditional” marriage, or how it will harm society rather than benefits it, I’d listen. But all the arguments hinge on a perceived notion of “biblical” morality which means exactly zero theologically as far as I can tell. There’s just morality, yours and mine, and the degree to which it helps us live together in peace. In other words, it is a shared thing. And when one’s ability to act according to their conscience and live their life in peace and freedom is infringed by law we cannot have that situation.

    Well, I suppose that is all too ranty for you. Give me a break Steve and stop acting like a smug Texas redneck. You are above that.

    Oh, by the way, I don’t drink, eat meat or fast food, or beat my wife. Not that it matters, but I’m sure that puts me on one side of an imaginary fence.

  • Stephen

    The Jones @ 40

    Do Lutherans (or anybody else) really see the saving work of Jesus as something distinctly or substantively different from living for Christ and not for the desires of our flesh?

    The simple answer is that one is gospel (work of Jesus) and the other is law (living for Christ). The first is what God has done for us which is our salvation, the second is illustrated in Romans 7 by Paul himself as he describes what it is like to live in this world even after one is saved. I cannot gaze into myself and see the new creation. Neither can I examine my own works and see that here I am new and there I am old. All of that can only be grasped through invisible faith alone in Christ alone. It is gift and promise and nothing I do.

  • Stephen

    The Jones @ 40

    Do Lutherans (or anybody else) really see the saving work of Jesus as something distinctly or substantively different from living for Christ and not for the desires of our flesh?

    The simple answer is that one is gospel (work of Jesus) and the other is law (living for Christ). The first is what God has done for us which is our salvation, the second is illustrated in Romans 7 by Paul himself as he describes what it is like to live in this world even after one is saved. I cannot gaze into myself and see the new creation. Neither can I examine my own works and see that here I am new and there I am old. All of that can only be grasped through invisible faith alone in Christ alone. It is gift and promise and nothing I do.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Remember, folks, when the Culture War says “Jump!”, you ask, “How high?”

    It doesn’t matter how silly its requests may be. Trust that the Culture War knows what it’s doing. The Culture War has a plan. And if that plan involves your eating at a fast-food restaurant after waiting in line for an hour and a half behind several dozen other people, you don’t ask why, you only ask if you’ve got enough gas to idle your car for that long. Your culture needs you.

    Meanwhile, I find the insistence on indirectness here rather baffling. This whole kerfuffle exploded, for some reason, over the fact that Chick-fil-A gave money to the Family Research Council ($1000 in 2010 — ooh! Big money!) and Exodus International (again, $1000, I believe, per year), as well as other, less controversial (or at least less well-known) groups.

    But did anyone suggest organizing fund-raising drives for those groups? No (hey, I don’t blame you; I think they’re nutty, too). What they suggested was that you go out and eat fast food. Something most of you were going to do, anyhow. And how much of the, what, $10 (tops) you spent there on your meal will get funneled into WinShape, and then on to the FRC?

    You wanna make a real stand (even if it’s a goofy one)? Write a $1000 check to Tony Perkins, et al. You can give just as much as the entirety of the Chick-fil-A corporation(‘s philanthropic arm) did! You can take every bit as much a stand as did Moneybags Cathy!

    But instead, you ate at a fast-food restaurant. Like you do several times a week.

    Remind me again why that’s brave/rebellious/impactful/something that needs to be on the front page of every newspaper/etc.?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Remember, folks, when the Culture War says “Jump!”, you ask, “How high?”

    It doesn’t matter how silly its requests may be. Trust that the Culture War knows what it’s doing. The Culture War has a plan. And if that plan involves your eating at a fast-food restaurant after waiting in line for an hour and a half behind several dozen other people, you don’t ask why, you only ask if you’ve got enough gas to idle your car for that long. Your culture needs you.

    Meanwhile, I find the insistence on indirectness here rather baffling. This whole kerfuffle exploded, for some reason, over the fact that Chick-fil-A gave money to the Family Research Council ($1000 in 2010 — ooh! Big money!) and Exodus International (again, $1000, I believe, per year), as well as other, less controversial (or at least less well-known) groups.

    But did anyone suggest organizing fund-raising drives for those groups? No (hey, I don’t blame you; I think they’re nutty, too). What they suggested was that you go out and eat fast food. Something most of you were going to do, anyhow. And how much of the, what, $10 (tops) you spent there on your meal will get funneled into WinShape, and then on to the FRC?

    You wanna make a real stand (even if it’s a goofy one)? Write a $1000 check to Tony Perkins, et al. You can give just as much as the entirety of the Chick-fil-A corporation(‘s philanthropic arm) did! You can take every bit as much a stand as did Moneybags Cathy!

    But instead, you ate at a fast-food restaurant. Like you do several times a week.

    Remind me again why that’s brave/rebellious/impactful/something that needs to be on the front page of every newspaper/etc.?

  • Steve Billingsley

    “You really should get out of your demographic a little more.”

    And who exactly is being condescending?

    I keep pushing back on you because you aren’t making any sort of coherent point. If you want to comment on a post to make some sort of argument, it helps if you actually make an argument. The article that you linked to referred to the murder of a daughter by parents in an Muslim-influenced “honor killing”. Note that the BBC studiously avoided mentioning the specific religion involved. That story has zero relevance to the Chick-Fil-A brouhaha (which, by the way, I think is seriously overblown). I don’t think the Chick-Fil-A protest/buycott/chicken festival (whatever you want to call it) is really properly about gay marriage or religious liberty and I haven’t commented as such. I think that if Dan Cathy’s comments would have condemned by some media pundit/celebrity spokesperson/gay marriage advocate this whole thing would have added up to nothing. It was only when the mayors of 3 large American cities felt the need to bloviate about whether Chick-Fil-A belonged in their cities that this thing blew up into an actual event. The large turnout at Chick-Fil-A outlets around the country did have a fair amount of anti-gay-marriage sentiment involved (though not nearly as much as one might think) but more than anything else this was just a simple demonstration of a long American tradition of sticking one’s middle finger up at blowhard politicians who open their mouth and display their ignorance for all to see. If Rick Perry would have decided it was his prerogative to slam Starbucks for it’s support of same-sex partner benefits, I would have lined up to get coffee and I am sure the lines would have been around the block.

    I don’t think that this was some sort of courageous stand for the Christian faith – I think it was disgust at our political and cultural “elites” and yes, it was easy and more than a little fun.

    By the way, I am from Texas – I have a red neck (I am fair in complexion and I am probably out in the sun too much) and I am proud of it. And I still think you need to chill out. Maybe a beer and a tasty Chick-Fil-A sandwich would do you good.
    (Shariah/Mormon law against the redneck/feminist alliance? Sounds like an episode of South Park)

  • Steve Billingsley

    “You really should get out of your demographic a little more.”

    And who exactly is being condescending?

    I keep pushing back on you because you aren’t making any sort of coherent point. If you want to comment on a post to make some sort of argument, it helps if you actually make an argument. The article that you linked to referred to the murder of a daughter by parents in an Muslim-influenced “honor killing”. Note that the BBC studiously avoided mentioning the specific religion involved. That story has zero relevance to the Chick-Fil-A brouhaha (which, by the way, I think is seriously overblown). I don’t think the Chick-Fil-A protest/buycott/chicken festival (whatever you want to call it) is really properly about gay marriage or religious liberty and I haven’t commented as such. I think that if Dan Cathy’s comments would have condemned by some media pundit/celebrity spokesperson/gay marriage advocate this whole thing would have added up to nothing. It was only when the mayors of 3 large American cities felt the need to bloviate about whether Chick-Fil-A belonged in their cities that this thing blew up into an actual event. The large turnout at Chick-Fil-A outlets around the country did have a fair amount of anti-gay-marriage sentiment involved (though not nearly as much as one might think) but more than anything else this was just a simple demonstration of a long American tradition of sticking one’s middle finger up at blowhard politicians who open their mouth and display their ignorance for all to see. If Rick Perry would have decided it was his prerogative to slam Starbucks for it’s support of same-sex partner benefits, I would have lined up to get coffee and I am sure the lines would have been around the block.

    I don’t think that this was some sort of courageous stand for the Christian faith – I think it was disgust at our political and cultural “elites” and yes, it was easy and more than a little fun.

    By the way, I am from Texas – I have a red neck (I am fair in complexion and I am probably out in the sun too much) and I am proud of it. And I still think you need to chill out. Maybe a beer and a tasty Chick-Fil-A sandwich would do you good.
    (Shariah/Mormon law against the redneck/feminist alliance? Sounds like an episode of South Park)

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Stephen @ 31,

    You are pushing Antinomianism, sir, plain and simple, and it is sin against God. Law and Gospel are to be separate, but that does NOT give license to jettison the law.

    It is one thing to say “The law does not save.” It is quite another to say “The law is irrelevant.” By your logic, Lutherans (and Christians in general) should not make a stand for any cause at all because it’s “just law.”

    We are not permitted to continue in sin that grace may abound, and giving consent to a movement that spits in the eye of God is hardly what I would call Christian.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Stephen @ 31,

    You are pushing Antinomianism, sir, plain and simple, and it is sin against God. Law and Gospel are to be separate, but that does NOT give license to jettison the law.

    It is one thing to say “The law does not save.” It is quite another to say “The law is irrelevant.” By your logic, Lutherans (and Christians in general) should not make a stand for any cause at all because it’s “just law.”

    We are not permitted to continue in sin that grace may abound, and giving consent to a movement that spits in the eye of God is hardly what I would call Christian.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    The Jones (@40) asked,

    How do you separate the message of Christ dying for our sins from the message of “If anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, and the new is here!”?

    I’m confused. How do we separate them? I don’t consider them separate at all. They’re the same thing. I suspect that you consider the latter to be some sort of urging from the Law, as if it read, “If anyone is a Christian, he really should try to stop sinning.” But that’s not what it says. It says that, in Christ, we are, quite simply, new creations. Period. That is to say, we are saved. We are counted as holy, for Christ’s sake. It doesn’t say anything about our own attempts at following the law. I mean, read the next line: “All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ.” God made this new creation, it is not of our own work.

    Do Lutherans (or anybody else) really see the saving work of Jesus as something distinctly or substantively different from living for Christ and not for the desires of our flesh?

    Um, yeah. Hell yeah! You’d better hope so! My “living for Christ” is worthless. It keeps not happening, as much as I try, and even when it appears to, it’s riddled with selfishness and other sins. It’s ineffective, and it’s pathetic in the extreme. Are you really trying to compare that (or, heaven help you, equate that) with Jesus’ saving work?

    That doesn’t take away the Law or its demands. They are still there. They still tell me (and you) exactly what I said above: that I am not (and you are not) living for Christ, that my (and your) flesh still desires what is contrary to holiness.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    The Jones (@40) asked,

    How do you separate the message of Christ dying for our sins from the message of “If anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, and the new is here!”?

    I’m confused. How do we separate them? I don’t consider them separate at all. They’re the same thing. I suspect that you consider the latter to be some sort of urging from the Law, as if it read, “If anyone is a Christian, he really should try to stop sinning.” But that’s not what it says. It says that, in Christ, we are, quite simply, new creations. Period. That is to say, we are saved. We are counted as holy, for Christ’s sake. It doesn’t say anything about our own attempts at following the law. I mean, read the next line: “All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ.” God made this new creation, it is not of our own work.

    Do Lutherans (or anybody else) really see the saving work of Jesus as something distinctly or substantively different from living for Christ and not for the desires of our flesh?

    Um, yeah. Hell yeah! You’d better hope so! My “living for Christ” is worthless. It keeps not happening, as much as I try, and even when it appears to, it’s riddled with selfishness and other sins. It’s ineffective, and it’s pathetic in the extreme. Are you really trying to compare that (or, heaven help you, equate that) with Jesus’ saving work?

    That doesn’t take away the Law or its demands. They are still there. They still tell me (and you) exactly what I said above: that I am not (and you are not) living for Christ, that my (and your) flesh still desires what is contrary to holiness.

  • Grace

    Stephen @ 31

    “Except that his hasn’t got anything to do with the gospel, which is that Christ died for you and me. Sexuality is not “part” of that message at all. Your morality, mine, and everyone else’s is only about LAW and it will perish along with any and all “Christian tennants,” none of which merit eternal life.”

    In the case of homosexuals (the blog is about the latest Chick-fil-A, kiss in) those who purposely choose to live with same sex, engage in homosexual activities, even though they claim to be Believers, will not inherit Eternal life, they will perish. They are given over to a REPROBATE mind (Romans 1).

    Homosexuals are prone to believe that those who know they were created to love, marry and bear children with the opposite sex are unable to understand the homosexual perversion. Their right.

    The reason homosexuals are right in this respect is because they are wrong in thinking homosexual behavior is in-born, it’s not, it’s an outgrowth of denying what God has set down, from the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve as…… a man and a woman. Its simple, but at the same time, has no roots in the pattern of homosexual thinking, which is rooted in that which is, as Paul wrote a REPROBATE MIND. All that is discarded as so much trash, … WHY?

    One cannot continue in sin without a willful desire for whatever is the long awaited outcome. The homosexual desires that of their own sex – why? The “WHY” isn’t important, the reason is simple, they aren’t interested in God’s provision for sinful man – that is repentance of sin, turning from sin, and seeking Christ. It’s all about them, their “instant gratification” – which never ends, it becomes a “gratification” at any cost – which includes family, disease, and heartbreak.

    Homosexuals are not hopeless, they are lost in lust, but they can be brought back to a fruitful life through Christ. Without Christ, they will continue on the same road, with all the stomping about, parades, flip remarks, and the disease which follows them throughout their lives.

    We as Believers can and should be in prayer regarding those who are homosexual.

  • Grace

    Stephen @ 31

    “Except that his hasn’t got anything to do with the gospel, which is that Christ died for you and me. Sexuality is not “part” of that message at all. Your morality, mine, and everyone else’s is only about LAW and it will perish along with any and all “Christian tennants,” none of which merit eternal life.”

    In the case of homosexuals (the blog is about the latest Chick-fil-A, kiss in) those who purposely choose to live with same sex, engage in homosexual activities, even though they claim to be Believers, will not inherit Eternal life, they will perish. They are given over to a REPROBATE mind (Romans 1).

    Homosexuals are prone to believe that those who know they were created to love, marry and bear children with the opposite sex are unable to understand the homosexual perversion. Their right.

    The reason homosexuals are right in this respect is because they are wrong in thinking homosexual behavior is in-born, it’s not, it’s an outgrowth of denying what God has set down, from the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve as…… a man and a woman. Its simple, but at the same time, has no roots in the pattern of homosexual thinking, which is rooted in that which is, as Paul wrote a REPROBATE MIND. All that is discarded as so much trash, … WHY?

    One cannot continue in sin without a willful desire for whatever is the long awaited outcome. The homosexual desires that of their own sex – why? The “WHY” isn’t important, the reason is simple, they aren’t interested in God’s provision for sinful man – that is repentance of sin, turning from sin, and seeking Christ. It’s all about them, their “instant gratification” – which never ends, it becomes a “gratification” at any cost – which includes family, disease, and heartbreak.

    Homosexuals are not hopeless, they are lost in lust, but they can be brought back to a fruitful life through Christ. Without Christ, they will continue on the same road, with all the stomping about, parades, flip remarks, and the disease which follows them throughout their lives.

    We as Believers can and should be in prayer regarding those who are homosexual.

  • Another Mike

    Now here is a thought, with announced kissing day at CFAs occurring today, has anyone decided to preach the Gospel to all of the kissing day participants at the local CFAs? If there was ever an opportunity to present the Good News of what Christ did for us, there it is.

  • Another Mike

    Now here is a thought, with announced kissing day at CFAs occurring today, has anyone decided to preach the Gospel to all of the kissing day participants at the local CFAs? If there was ever an opportunity to present the Good News of what Christ did for us, there it is.

  • Grace

    Another Mike @ 49

    Have you gone to Chick-fil-A and preached the Gospel?

  • Grace

    Another Mike @ 49

    Have you gone to Chick-fil-A and preached the Gospel?

  • Joe

    tODD — I agree with much of your critique of the claim that somehow the chicken eaters just surround the enemy at Yorktown. But I would not agree that it was a meaningless act. It was in essence a *$&%*^#$ contest. The pro-gay marriage groups threatened a boycott and the anti-gay marriage groups said we’ll crush your boycott with a buycott. So, its merit/value was simply to show the boycotters that boycotting is not going to be successful. Beyond that I don’t see much of anything.

  • Joe

    tODD — I agree with much of your critique of the claim that somehow the chicken eaters just surround the enemy at Yorktown. But I would not agree that it was a meaningless act. It was in essence a *$&%*^#$ contest. The pro-gay marriage groups threatened a boycott and the anti-gay marriage groups said we’ll crush your boycott with a buycott. So, its merit/value was simply to show the boycotters that boycotting is not going to be successful. Beyond that I don’t see much of anything.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Stephen, the problem with your assertion about people using the force of law to “inflict their sense of righteousness” is that it isn’t the supporters of Traditional Marriage that are doing it. It is, in fact, the homosexual advocates that are trying to inflict their non-traditional views upon society through whatever means possible.

    > …explain to me how homosexual marriage actually harms
    > “traditional” marriage,…

    It dilutes the meaning of the word “marriage” by forcing it to refer to something other than what it traditionally means. Look, you can take a broccoli floret, and use the force of law to make people consider it a citrus fruit, but that doesn’t make it one. It just makes the meaning of the term “citrus” less meaningful, and nobody is going to think very much of being forced to include broccoli in a citrus salad, except maybe the broccoli bullies. Forcing people to use a certain word to refer to something doesn’t change the essence of that thing, nor of the thing that the word formerly referred to. Forcing people to officially call a homosexual union a “marriage” amounts to nothing more than Orwellian language engineering.

    > … or how it will harm society rather than benefit it,

    Are you familiar with the loss of liberty experience by people who disagree with the notion of same-sex “marriage?” Like, for instance here in New Mexico, a photographer was hauled before a kangaroo court (and convicted) because she dared to decline a job to photograph a same sex “commitment” ceremony, never mind the fact that New Mexico doesn’t even have such a thing as same-sex marriage, or even domestic partnership. Loss of liberty is harmful to society, and especially so when there is no legitimate public interest in the limitation.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Stephen, the problem with your assertion about people using the force of law to “inflict their sense of righteousness” is that it isn’t the supporters of Traditional Marriage that are doing it. It is, in fact, the homosexual advocates that are trying to inflict their non-traditional views upon society through whatever means possible.

    > …explain to me how homosexual marriage actually harms
    > “traditional” marriage,…

    It dilutes the meaning of the word “marriage” by forcing it to refer to something other than what it traditionally means. Look, you can take a broccoli floret, and use the force of law to make people consider it a citrus fruit, but that doesn’t make it one. It just makes the meaning of the term “citrus” less meaningful, and nobody is going to think very much of being forced to include broccoli in a citrus salad, except maybe the broccoli bullies. Forcing people to use a certain word to refer to something doesn’t change the essence of that thing, nor of the thing that the word formerly referred to. Forcing people to officially call a homosexual union a “marriage” amounts to nothing more than Orwellian language engineering.

    > … or how it will harm society rather than benefit it,

    Are you familiar with the loss of liberty experience by people who disagree with the notion of same-sex “marriage?” Like, for instance here in New Mexico, a photographer was hauled before a kangaroo court (and convicted) because she dared to decline a job to photograph a same sex “commitment” ceremony, never mind the fact that New Mexico doesn’t even have such a thing as same-sex marriage, or even domestic partnership. Loss of liberty is harmful to society, and especially so when there is no legitimate public interest in the limitation.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Mike Westfall @ 52
    That’s not fair – you are using facts and argument.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Mike Westfall @ 52
    That’s not fair – you are using facts and argument.

  • Grace

    Joe,

    It’s been a WIN WIN – just as it was when we, in California voted against same-sex-marriage (PROP 8) and WON.

    The black-out on most news media is obvious, they don’t want to spread the news that homosexual marriage is NOT popular, and the majority don’t want anything to do with it.

    Obama began his Support for Same Sex Marriage – it was not met with approval.

    Homosexual sex has brought a great amount of disease (HIV/AIDS) to this country, and other STD’S that cannot be cured.

  • Grace

    Joe,

    It’s been a WIN WIN – just as it was when we, in California voted against same-sex-marriage (PROP 8) and WON.

    The black-out on most news media is obvious, they don’t want to spread the news that homosexual marriage is NOT popular, and the majority don’t want anything to do with it.

    Obama began his Support for Same Sex Marriage – it was not met with approval.

    Homosexual sex has brought a great amount of disease (HIV/AIDS) to this country, and other STD’S that cannot be cured.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Joe at #51: I don’t think the Appreciation Day was a response to threatened boycotts by pro-gay groups so much as it was a response to the stupid threats of certain government officials to deny business permits on account of someone’s religious beliefs.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Joe at #51: I don’t think the Appreciation Day was a response to threatened boycotts by pro-gay groups so much as it was a response to the stupid threats of certain government officials to deny business permits on account of someone’s religious beliefs.

  • Another Mike

    Hi Grace @ 48 and 50,
    The short answer is no. I am physically unable to do so at this time.

  • Another Mike

    Hi Grace @ 48 and 50,
    The short answer is no. I am physically unable to do so at this time.

  • Grace

    Another Mike @56

    I’m sorry to hear you have physical problems, that isn’t easy.

  • Grace

    Another Mike @56

    I’m sorry to hear you have physical problems, that isn’t easy.

  • Stephen

    Steve @ 45

    Well there you go. No one likes to be insulted. If I did that, I apologize. Thanks for actually saying something of content this time. I started out with an extreme example exactly because I think this Appreciation Day thing is a whole lot of nothing and has absolutely nothing to do with being Christian (or not). If it is, as you say, about giving the finger to politicians, then I’d probably agree. But I haven’t heard that as the overriding concern here.

    My point about the link was to say that this kind of thing is exactly what people outside the church (some who have been pushed out, like gays) view as what is dangerous about any and all religion – extremism and violence meted out to those who do not follow the rules. I was following on Tom’s comment. I guess I thought I made that clear. It was to ask the question of what exactly was it that people thought they were supporting, that religion should determine the law of the land? And if so, what does that open the door to?

    Anyway, thanks for a real response. And I’m from Texas too. I thought you might have remembered that. And I’m also a fair skinned Saxon. And I have an inner redneck believe it or not. It is all a question of degrees perhaps. But I can’t do beer anymore. I get headaches.

  • Stephen

    Steve @ 45

    Well there you go. No one likes to be insulted. If I did that, I apologize. Thanks for actually saying something of content this time. I started out with an extreme example exactly because I think this Appreciation Day thing is a whole lot of nothing and has absolutely nothing to do with being Christian (or not). If it is, as you say, about giving the finger to politicians, then I’d probably agree. But I haven’t heard that as the overriding concern here.

    My point about the link was to say that this kind of thing is exactly what people outside the church (some who have been pushed out, like gays) view as what is dangerous about any and all religion – extremism and violence meted out to those who do not follow the rules. I was following on Tom’s comment. I guess I thought I made that clear. It was to ask the question of what exactly was it that people thought they were supporting, that religion should determine the law of the land? And if so, what does that open the door to?

    Anyway, thanks for a real response. And I’m from Texas too. I thought you might have remembered that. And I’m also a fair skinned Saxon. And I have an inner redneck believe it or not. It is all a question of degrees perhaps. But I can’t do beer anymore. I get headaches.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Religion does play a role in determining the law of the land. The penal and civil codes of Texas, for example – actually quote Mosaic law. The question is what is the proper role and what is the proper relationship between the 2. When it comes to countries that impose something like Sharia law – I think most people in America would agree that sort of relationship is improper.

    I do think the article Professor Veith quotes is a bit ridiculous – but I just think your example was extreme and illogical.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Religion does play a role in determining the law of the land. The penal and civil codes of Texas, for example – actually quote Mosaic law. The question is what is the proper role and what is the proper relationship between the 2. When it comes to countries that impose something like Sharia law – I think most people in America would agree that sort of relationship is improper.

    I do think the article Professor Veith quotes is a bit ridiculous – but I just think your example was extreme and illogical.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace asked Another Mike (@50):

    Have you gone to Chick-fil-A and preached the Gospel?

    Well, Grace, if your “gospel” looks anything like what you said (@48), to Stephen, it’s probably best for everyone’s sake that you stay home. Because your “gospel” seeks to tell people that they cannot be saved if they sin; but rather, that, if they turn and do good works, then things are not “hopeless”. You can stuff that “gospel”.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace asked Another Mike (@50):

    Have you gone to Chick-fil-A and preached the Gospel?

    Well, Grace, if your “gospel” looks anything like what you said (@48), to Stephen, it’s probably best for everyone’s sake that you stay home. Because your “gospel” seeks to tell people that they cannot be saved if they sin; but rather, that, if they turn and do good works, then things are not “hopeless”. You can stuff that “gospel”.

  • Stephen

    Mike @ 52

    What besides the gender of the people involved in a marriage is included in the definition of marriage? That would help. Besides gender issues, in what way does this dilution happen. Does it have to do with gender only? Are there things gays cannot commit to that heterosexuals can? I realize that biologically they cannot procreate, but they can and do have children. And in what way do the commitments of gays dilute the institution? Will heterosexuals stop getting married and having kids?

    And as for the photographer in New Mexico, did he photograph other weddings, ceremonies and such? A Bar Mitzvah perhaps? In what way were his business actions not discriminatory? That’s an interesting test case, and I’m not even sure I can form an opinion with the information you’ve offered. Do they have kangaroo courts in New Mexico? I’m being snarky of course, but c’mon. The story you tell is obviously biased if only because of the language you use. Maybe you could give me a link.

    Oh, and I stopped beating my wife a long time ago.

  • Stephen

    Mike @ 52

    What besides the gender of the people involved in a marriage is included in the definition of marriage? That would help. Besides gender issues, in what way does this dilution happen. Does it have to do with gender only? Are there things gays cannot commit to that heterosexuals can? I realize that biologically they cannot procreate, but they can and do have children. And in what way do the commitments of gays dilute the institution? Will heterosexuals stop getting married and having kids?

    And as for the photographer in New Mexico, did he photograph other weddings, ceremonies and such? A Bar Mitzvah perhaps? In what way were his business actions not discriminatory? That’s an interesting test case, and I’m not even sure I can form an opinion with the information you’ve offered. Do they have kangaroo courts in New Mexico? I’m being snarky of course, but c’mon. The story you tell is obviously biased if only because of the language you use. Maybe you could give me a link.

    Oh, and I stopped beating my wife a long time ago.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Joe (@51), first a point of order. I honestly don’t know what “*$&%*^#$” stands for. Is it a gerund that starts with P? Throw me a bone here.

    Anyhow, on to your assertion:

    The pro-gay marriage groups threatened a boycott and the anti-gay marriage groups said we’ll crush your boycott with a buycott.

    Then Mike said (@55):

    I don’t think the Appreciation Day was a response to threatened boycotts by pro-gay groups so much as it was a response to the stupid threats of certain government officials to deny business permits…

    I think this demonstrates sufficiently that there wasn’t an obvious point to the “appreciation day”, or that, if there was, nobody seems to be able to agree on what it was. Congratulations, right-wingers, you’re now as organized as a left-wing protest march.

    Yeah, it seems to me that you’re both reading into the action what you personally believe it should have been about. The whole thing is a right-wing Culture-War Rorschach test. Maybe someone else thought it was a big middle finger to PETA?

    If it was about government overstep, it was a little late, don’t you think? Most of the foolish political blowhards had already dialed back their invective, or even been shamed by fellow blowhards from the same political perspective.

    If it was a show of economic power, then I kind of have to laugh at those who would also claim they’re some kind of persecuted minority. It would also be an oh-so-American form of slacktivism, in which the threat of an ongoing boycott is met with … one day of purchasing. Sort of like those email forwards that suggest you not buy gas for one day in response to seasonal rises in fuel prices. Yeah, that’ll work.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Joe (@51), first a point of order. I honestly don’t know what “*$&%*^#$” stands for. Is it a gerund that starts with P? Throw me a bone here.

    Anyhow, on to your assertion:

    The pro-gay marriage groups threatened a boycott and the anti-gay marriage groups said we’ll crush your boycott with a buycott.

    Then Mike said (@55):

    I don’t think the Appreciation Day was a response to threatened boycotts by pro-gay groups so much as it was a response to the stupid threats of certain government officials to deny business permits…

    I think this demonstrates sufficiently that there wasn’t an obvious point to the “appreciation day”, or that, if there was, nobody seems to be able to agree on what it was. Congratulations, right-wingers, you’re now as organized as a left-wing protest march.

    Yeah, it seems to me that you’re both reading into the action what you personally believe it should have been about. The whole thing is a right-wing Culture-War Rorschach test. Maybe someone else thought it was a big middle finger to PETA?

    If it was about government overstep, it was a little late, don’t you think? Most of the foolish political blowhards had already dialed back their invective, or even been shamed by fellow blowhards from the same political perspective.

    If it was a show of economic power, then I kind of have to laugh at those who would also claim they’re some kind of persecuted minority. It would also be an oh-so-American form of slacktivism, in which the threat of an ongoing boycott is met with … one day of purchasing. Sort of like those email forwards that suggest you not buy gas for one day in response to seasonal rises in fuel prices. Yeah, that’ll work.

  • Stephen

    Steve @ 59

    I don’t disagree. I think the law is written in the minds of everyone, so we pretty much can’t help but be influenced by the Law of God. But the question is, to what degree and in which situations we can carry our religious beliefs (more overtly and consciously you might say) into the creation of laws. The situation in Texas does not automatically mean it is a good idea. An “is” is not an “ought” as they say.

  • Stephen

    Steve @ 59

    I don’t disagree. I think the law is written in the minds of everyone, so we pretty much can’t help but be influenced by the Law of God. But the question is, to what degree and in which situations we can carry our religious beliefs (more overtly and consciously you might say) into the creation of laws. The situation in Texas does not automatically mean it is a good idea. An “is” is not an “ought” as they say.

  • Stephen

    J. Dean @ 46

    It is one thing to say “The law does not save.” It is quite another to say “The law is irrelevant.” By your logic, Lutherans (and Christians in general) should not make a stand for any cause at all because it’s “just law.”

    Why did you put that stuff in quotations. I didn’t say the law was irrelevant or “just law.” Go back and read what I wrote. You didn’t understand it. Or read what tODD wrote on this. I am in full agreement with him.

  • Stephen

    J. Dean @ 46

    It is one thing to say “The law does not save.” It is quite another to say “The law is irrelevant.” By your logic, Lutherans (and Christians in general) should not make a stand for any cause at all because it’s “just law.”

    Why did you put that stuff in quotations. I didn’t say the law was irrelevant or “just law.” Go back and read what I wrote. You didn’t understand it. Or read what tODD wrote on this. I am in full agreement with him.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@54), I love how you’re still able to affect a “pity us, the poor persecuted people” posture even after claiming that you’re in the “majority” position here, noting victories in popular democratic initiatives.

    Yes, the “black-out on most news media is obvious” … as long as you don’t actually read them, that is. Otherwise, you’d see all the stories, the many, many stories. But reading them would prick a hole in your Persecution Balloon! So “media black-out” it is!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@54), I love how you’re still able to affect a “pity us, the poor persecuted people” posture even after claiming that you’re in the “majority” position here, noting victories in popular democratic initiatives.

    Yes, the “black-out on most news media is obvious” … as long as you don’t actually read them, that is. Otherwise, you’d see all the stories, the many, many stories. But reading them would prick a hole in your Persecution Balloon! So “media black-out” it is!

  • Grace

    No, you cannot continue to sin willfully after you Believe in Christ as Savior. To know HIM, repent, means you turn from your sin.

    In the case of same-sex-marriage, it is willful, it defies what God makes clear in HIS Word. Romans 1 is clearly defines homosexual behavior, and the outcome. God gives them over to a reprobate mind.

    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 shameful, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was fitting.

    28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not proper;

    29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

    30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

    31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

    32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they who commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
    Romans 1

    It appears that many have been given over to a “reprobate mind” that is why they see nothing wrong, any longer in homosexual behavior.

    A REPROBATE MIND is a mind void of conscience, it has been seared and no longer looks at evil, as evil………but goes along as in verse 28 “And even as they did not like to retain GOD in their knowledge, GOD gave them over to a REPROBATE MIND.

  • Grace

    No, you cannot continue to sin willfully after you Believe in Christ as Savior. To know HIM, repent, means you turn from your sin.

    In the case of same-sex-marriage, it is willful, it defies what God makes clear in HIS Word. Romans 1 is clearly defines homosexual behavior, and the outcome. God gives them over to a reprobate mind.

    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 shameful, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was fitting.

    28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not proper;

    29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

    30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

    31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

    32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they who commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
    Romans 1

    It appears that many have been given over to a “reprobate mind” that is why they see nothing wrong, any longer in homosexual behavior.

    A REPROBATE MIND is a mind void of conscience, it has been seared and no longer looks at evil, as evil………but goes along as in verse 28 “And even as they did not like to retain GOD in their knowledge, GOD gave them over to a REPROBATE MIND.

  • Grace

    tODD – 65

    You can drop the “persecution” drivel, it doesn’t work.

  • Grace

    tODD – 65

    You can drop the “persecution” drivel, it doesn’t work.

  • Grace

    Stephen @58

    “My point about the link was to say that this kind of thing is exactly what people outside the church (some who have been pushed out, like gays) view as what is dangerous about any and all religion”

    Homosexuals aren’t pushed out of churches, they exit, when they can’t get the pastors, leaders to accept their homosexuality as normal, or, more importantly Biblical. Or, they don’t make known their lifestyle, deceitfully hiding how they live – which in that case, are removed from any leadership position.

    Homosexuals are welcomed to attend church, but they are not allowed to teach, preach, or hold any office, or leadership within the church – nor are they allowed to become members. That is not defined as being “pushed out” – homosexuals often want to make their ‘own rules, when they come to a church. They know very well, that their sexual sin prohibits them from all the ‘above mentioned. It’s a divisive move on their part, which they are aware of, before they ever start attending churches who have strong beliefs, according to the Bible regarding homosexuality.

    It isn’t “dangerous” as you would like us to believe, it’s set down in the Bible as sin. There are other churches, which are liberal that will accept most anything, even homosexual pastors, those with same sex partners.

  • Grace

    Stephen @58

    “My point about the link was to say that this kind of thing is exactly what people outside the church (some who have been pushed out, like gays) view as what is dangerous about any and all religion”

    Homosexuals aren’t pushed out of churches, they exit, when they can’t get the pastors, leaders to accept their homosexuality as normal, or, more importantly Biblical. Or, they don’t make known their lifestyle, deceitfully hiding how they live – which in that case, are removed from any leadership position.

    Homosexuals are welcomed to attend church, but they are not allowed to teach, preach, or hold any office, or leadership within the church – nor are they allowed to become members. That is not defined as being “pushed out” – homosexuals often want to make their ‘own rules, when they come to a church. They know very well, that their sexual sin prohibits them from all the ‘above mentioned. It’s a divisive move on their part, which they are aware of, before they ever start attending churches who have strong beliefs, according to the Bible regarding homosexuality.

    It isn’t “dangerous” as you would like us to believe, it’s set down in the Bible as sin. There are other churches, which are liberal that will accept most anything, even homosexual pastors, those with same sex partners.

  • Pingback: Power & Open Defiance : Principal’s Page

  • Pingback: Power & Open Defiance : Principal’s Page

  • Jonathan

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19064703

    Syrian Christians are having a difficult time and are fearing the worst. Kind of puts the righteousness of gorging on fast food in perspective.

  • Jonathan

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19064703

    Syrian Christians are having a difficult time and are fearing the worst. Kind of puts the righteousness of gorging on fast food in perspective.

  • Grace

    Jonathan @69

    What happens around the world, and in some Muslim countries, to Christians, is heartbreaking. Their lives must be more than difficult, something we have not faced here in America.

    But that doesn’t mean that we should not stand our ground, when a business owner is castagated for his beliefs, and supports such causes, which have brought such scorn from the homosexual, liberal community.

    People are going to eat, if they choose to pick one restaurant over another to make a statement, that is their choice. They would have gone to a restaurant anyway, especially if they work.

    Commenting as you did: “Kind of puts the righteousness of gorging on fast food in perspective.” – - is not fair, nor is it righteous. Did you eat yesterday, or today? Think about it.

  • Grace

    Jonathan @69

    What happens around the world, and in some Muslim countries, to Christians, is heartbreaking. Their lives must be more than difficult, something we have not faced here in America.

    But that doesn’t mean that we should not stand our ground, when a business owner is castagated for his beliefs, and supports such causes, which have brought such scorn from the homosexual, liberal community.

    People are going to eat, if they choose to pick one restaurant over another to make a statement, that is their choice. They would have gone to a restaurant anyway, especially if they work.

    Commenting as you did: “Kind of puts the righteousness of gorging on fast food in perspective.” – - is not fair, nor is it righteous. Did you eat yesterday, or today? Think about it.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@66):

    No, you cannot continue to sin willfully after you Believe in Christ as Savior.

    Then you’re lost, Grace. We’ve all seen you sin willfully here, on this blog. God only knows what willful sins you commit in secret! Are you telling us that you don’t believe in Christ as your savior? Or are you going to lie to us and tell us you don’t sin willfully?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@66):

    No, you cannot continue to sin willfully after you Believe in Christ as Savior.

    Then you’re lost, Grace. We’ve all seen you sin willfully here, on this blog. God only knows what willful sins you commit in secret! Are you telling us that you don’t believe in Christ as your savior? Or are you going to lie to us and tell us you don’t sin willfully?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@67), you can drop the “media black-out” hogwash. It’s clearly false.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@67), you can drop the “media black-out” hogwash. It’s clearly false.

  • Grace

    tODD @71

    You’re fixated on every word I say. What a pity!

    We all sin, sometimes unknowingly – such as a thought that isn’t of God, or a deed.

    What I was expressing was; willful sin, that is thought out, and then carried to fruition. That isn’t too hard for you or anyone else to understand, no matter how much you would like to ignore “willful sin” –

    Willful sinful lifestyles aren’t hard to figure out. The problem is, those who want to live in the pig pen, can, and do. HIV/AIDS would not exist in this country, as it does today, if homosexuality were not the main cause of such a dreaded disease. Those who know/knew the risks took them, and still believe that homosexuality isn’t a sin. It’s their life, and their loss!

  • Grace

    tODD @71

    You’re fixated on every word I say. What a pity!

    We all sin, sometimes unknowingly – such as a thought that isn’t of God, or a deed.

    What I was expressing was; willful sin, that is thought out, and then carried to fruition. That isn’t too hard for you or anyone else to understand, no matter how much you would like to ignore “willful sin” –

    Willful sinful lifestyles aren’t hard to figure out. The problem is, those who want to live in the pig pen, can, and do. HIV/AIDS would not exist in this country, as it does today, if homosexuality were not the main cause of such a dreaded disease. Those who know/knew the risks took them, and still believe that homosexuality isn’t a sin. It’s their life, and their loss!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@73), you’re the only person I’ve ever known who’s complained that someone is paying attention to what they’re saying.

    If, as you say, “we all sin, sometimes unknowingly”, then it’s necessarily true that we also all sometimes sin knowingly — which is to say, willfully. I agree. There’s plenty of proof on this blog that both you and I continue to sin willfully, even though we’re Christians.

    The problem is that you said that “you cannot continue to sin willfully after you Believe in Christ as Savior”. Again, you and I clearly do just that, suggesting one of two things: (1) neither you nor I are saved, or (2) you’re going to deny what is obvious and claim, in spite of the evidence, that you somehow don’t sin willfully.

    So which is it, Grace? Are you going to admit you continually sin willfully, or are you going to deny that Jesus has forgiven your sins?

    I’m not the one here that “would like to ignore willful sin”, Grace. I admit freely to my own willful sins. Though I am a Christian, such sins are yet with me. Can you admit the same? All I see you talking about is others’ sins. That usually means you’re trying to ignore your own, even if the rest of us are confronted with them repeatedly.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@73), you’re the only person I’ve ever known who’s complained that someone is paying attention to what they’re saying.

    If, as you say, “we all sin, sometimes unknowingly”, then it’s necessarily true that we also all sometimes sin knowingly — which is to say, willfully. I agree. There’s plenty of proof on this blog that both you and I continue to sin willfully, even though we’re Christians.

    The problem is that you said that “you cannot continue to sin willfully after you Believe in Christ as Savior”. Again, you and I clearly do just that, suggesting one of two things: (1) neither you nor I are saved, or (2) you’re going to deny what is obvious and claim, in spite of the evidence, that you somehow don’t sin willfully.

    So which is it, Grace? Are you going to admit you continually sin willfully, or are you going to deny that Jesus has forgiven your sins?

    I’m not the one here that “would like to ignore willful sin”, Grace. I admit freely to my own willful sins. Though I am a Christian, such sins are yet with me. Can you admit the same? All I see you talking about is others’ sins. That usually means you’re trying to ignore your own, even if the rest of us are confronted with them repeatedly.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    > What besides the gender of the people involved in a marriage is
    > included in the definition of marriage?

    That’s just it. Gender. And it’s a natural institution, pre-existing governments. The male-female complementarity of the relationship (which leads to natural families) is what makes it a marriage.

    It’s like a plug & socket relationship for distribution of electricity to appliances. Or like a client-server relationship for computerized data retrieval systems. Or like a consumer-producer relationship for commerce. Or like any number of other complementary relationships. It’s the complementary male-female relationship that “marriage” refers to, and always has. Well, until the present push to make it mean something else.

    You can duct-tape two lamp cords together, but to insist that that is the same as a plug-socket relationship would be silly, and that kind of relationship would never lead to producing light without providing some special accommodation to the system.

    Sure, children can be adopted into an artificially made family, but that is a special accommodation that takes the force of law to accomplish. It doesn’t happen naturally.

    The government’s interest in the complementary male-female marriage relationship is that those kind of relationships produce families, and the government has a legitimate interest in the stability of families.

    But what would be the government’s legitimate interest in homosexual “marriages?”

    In the case of the photographer, they had agreed to photograph a “wedding”, but then that turned out to be a a non-wedding “commitment ceremony.” The photographer declined the job, with the explanation that they only do traditional weddings. The customer then filed a complaint with the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission, which ruled (at the regulatory “kangaroo court” level) against the business, then also lost at the state appeals court level. I suppose the case is headed for a federal appeals court now. It’s an interesting case, and if you want, you can find out more about it by googling “elane photography.”

    > Oh, and I stopped beating my wife a long time ago.
    Then we have something in common!

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    > What besides the gender of the people involved in a marriage is
    > included in the definition of marriage?

    That’s just it. Gender. And it’s a natural institution, pre-existing governments. The male-female complementarity of the relationship (which leads to natural families) is what makes it a marriage.

    It’s like a plug & socket relationship for distribution of electricity to appliances. Or like a client-server relationship for computerized data retrieval systems. Or like a consumer-producer relationship for commerce. Or like any number of other complementary relationships. It’s the complementary male-female relationship that “marriage” refers to, and always has. Well, until the present push to make it mean something else.

    You can duct-tape two lamp cords together, but to insist that that is the same as a plug-socket relationship would be silly, and that kind of relationship would never lead to producing light without providing some special accommodation to the system.

    Sure, children can be adopted into an artificially made family, but that is a special accommodation that takes the force of law to accomplish. It doesn’t happen naturally.

    The government’s interest in the complementary male-female marriage relationship is that those kind of relationships produce families, and the government has a legitimate interest in the stability of families.

    But what would be the government’s legitimate interest in homosexual “marriages?”

    In the case of the photographer, they had agreed to photograph a “wedding”, but then that turned out to be a a non-wedding “commitment ceremony.” The photographer declined the job, with the explanation that they only do traditional weddings. The customer then filed a complaint with the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission, which ruled (at the regulatory “kangaroo court” level) against the business, then also lost at the state appeals court level. I suppose the case is headed for a federal appeals court now. It’s an interesting case, and if you want, you can find out more about it by googling “elane photography.”

    > Oh, and I stopped beating my wife a long time ago.
    Then we have something in common!

  • reg

    Grace,
    your media blackout comment reminds me of this great quote from our premiere comedic actors:
    Larry Fine: Oooh I can’t see I can’t see.
    Moe Howard: WHAT’S THE MATTER?
    Larry Fine: I’ve got my eyes closed.

  • reg

    Grace,
    your media blackout comment reminds me of this great quote from our premiere comedic actors:
    Larry Fine: Oooh I can’t see I can’t see.
    Moe Howard: WHAT’S THE MATTER?
    Larry Fine: I’ve got my eyes closed.

  • SKPeterson

    Grace @ 73 – Where Todd is arguing from is Romans. Particularly the extended discourse in 6, 7 and 8. Paul says, “So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.”
    (Romans 7:21-25 ESV)

    The thing is that section is written in the present tense. Paul is not speaking of who he was as Saul the sinner, but to his condition as both Saul the Jewish Pharisee and sinner and Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles, called by Christ and still a sinner, though now saved by Christ.

  • SKPeterson

    Grace @ 73 – Where Todd is arguing from is Romans. Particularly the extended discourse in 6, 7 and 8. Paul says, “So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.”
    (Romans 7:21-25 ESV)

    The thing is that section is written in the present tense. Paul is not speaking of who he was as Saul the sinner, but to his condition as both Saul the Jewish Pharisee and sinner and Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles, called by Christ and still a sinner, though now saved by Christ.

  • Grace

    Reg @76

    You mean the article I posted from The Weekly Standard – “Mainstream Media Blacks Out Chick-fil-A Story?”

    YOU WROTE: “your media blackout comment”

    It wasn’t MY comment, or MY story. I didn’t write it, I POSTED IT. :lol: you’ve mixed yourself up again.

    Here it is, just so you can read it for yourself, or maybe you can share it with your husband, maybe he would like it as well.

    98 Grace August 2, 2012 at 8:30 pm

    The Weekly Standard
    Mainstream Media Blacks Out Chick-fil-A Story?

    Aug 2, 2012 • By MICHAEL WARREN

    “Wednesday was Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, and Americans flocked to the fast food restaurant in response to criticism of COO Dan Cathy’s opposition to same-sex marriage (as well as threats from the mayors of some major cities). The photos of long lines and traffic jams reveal the extent of the restaurant’s support–for some it’s about traditional values and for others it’s about freedom of religious exercise and speech in the face of government intimidation. There are even rumors that Chick-fil-A set a new world record for sales in a single day, though the company has yet to release any sales numbers.

    But you wouldn’t know anything about the national phenomenon by reading the front pages of most of the country’s leading newspapers. There’s no mention of Chick-fil-A on the front pages of ……………..

    READ THE REST: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mainstream-media-blacks-out-chick-fil-story_649234.html

    I WONDER WHY!

    Here is the LINK: ENJOY
    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/01/eat-mor-chikin-day/#comment-158872

  • Grace

    Reg @76

    You mean the article I posted from The Weekly Standard – “Mainstream Media Blacks Out Chick-fil-A Story?”

    YOU WROTE: “your media blackout comment”

    It wasn’t MY comment, or MY story. I didn’t write it, I POSTED IT. :lol: you’ve mixed yourself up again.

    Here it is, just so you can read it for yourself, or maybe you can share it with your husband, maybe he would like it as well.

    98 Grace August 2, 2012 at 8:30 pm

    The Weekly Standard
    Mainstream Media Blacks Out Chick-fil-A Story?

    Aug 2, 2012 • By MICHAEL WARREN

    “Wednesday was Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day, and Americans flocked to the fast food restaurant in response to criticism of COO Dan Cathy’s opposition to same-sex marriage (as well as threats from the mayors of some major cities). The photos of long lines and traffic jams reveal the extent of the restaurant’s support–for some it’s about traditional values and for others it’s about freedom of religious exercise and speech in the face of government intimidation. There are even rumors that Chick-fil-A set a new world record for sales in a single day, though the company has yet to release any sales numbers.

    But you wouldn’t know anything about the national phenomenon by reading the front pages of most of the country’s leading newspapers. There’s no mention of Chick-fil-A on the front pages of ……………..

    READ THE REST: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mainstream-media-blacks-out-chick-fil-story_649234.html

    I WONDER WHY!

    Here is the LINK: ENJOY
    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/01/eat-mor-chikin-day/#comment-158872

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@78), yes, the point is that you posted that story about the farcical would-be “media black-out”. Don’t try to disown it now.

    But wait, there’s more! You also said (@54):

    The black-out on most news media is obvious, they don’t want to spread the news that homosexual marriage is NOT popular, and the majority don’t want anything to do with it.

    Yes, that really is YOUR comment. You wrote it, you POSTED IT. :lol:

    But maybe you’d like to argue that you didn’t write it willfully? :lol: :lol: :lol:

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@78), yes, the point is that you posted that story about the farcical would-be “media black-out”. Don’t try to disown it now.

    But wait, there’s more! You also said (@54):

    The black-out on most news media is obvious, they don’t want to spread the news that homosexual marriage is NOT popular, and the majority don’t want anything to do with it.

    Yes, that really is YOUR comment. You wrote it, you POSTED IT. :lol:

    But maybe you’d like to argue that you didn’t write it willfully? :lol: :lol: :lol:

  • Grace

    SKPeterson @77

    YOU WROTE: “Where Todd is arguing from is Romans.”

    It doesn’t matter what he’s arguing or why. I doubt that individual knows what he means, let alone your being able to decipher his lost efforts. The reason I say this is: The distortion he made of John 6.

    Below is my post with his distortion below, LINK included:

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/07/31/the-case-for-early-marriage-2/#comment-158844

    124 Grace August 2, 2012 at 4:04 pm

    tODD,

    After the misrepresentation of HOLY Scripture, you gave yesterday @60
    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/01/eat-mor-chikin-day/

    tODD @60

    “Remember:
    “Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat Chick-fil-A sandwiches and drink peach milkshakes, you have no life in you. Whoever eats Chick-fil-A sandwiches and drinks peach milkshakes has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For Chick-fil-A sandwiches are real food and peach milkshakes are real drink. Whoever eats Chick-fil-A sandwiches and drinks peach milkshakes remains in me, and I in him.”

    Don’t expect me to take serious, anything you question, ask or state. My post, giving Scripture to prove how “deceitfully” you used the Bible:

    Grace @83
    1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
    2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.
    2 Corinthians 4

    This is but one example of how you twist- even the Bible.
    Over and over again, you twist my words, conjure up ideas and thoughts I don’t state, just to make a point you don’t have.
    Your bait doesn’t work.

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/07/31/the-case-for-early-marriage-2/#comment-158844

  • Grace

    SKPeterson @77

    YOU WROTE: “Where Todd is arguing from is Romans.”

    It doesn’t matter what he’s arguing or why. I doubt that individual knows what he means, let alone your being able to decipher his lost efforts. The reason I say this is: The distortion he made of John 6.

    Below is my post with his distortion below, LINK included:

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/07/31/the-case-for-early-marriage-2/#comment-158844

    124 Grace August 2, 2012 at 4:04 pm

    tODD,

    After the misrepresentation of HOLY Scripture, you gave yesterday @60
    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/01/eat-mor-chikin-day/

    tODD @60

    “Remember:
    “Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat Chick-fil-A sandwiches and drink peach milkshakes, you have no life in you. Whoever eats Chick-fil-A sandwiches and drinks peach milkshakes has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For Chick-fil-A sandwiches are real food and peach milkshakes are real drink. Whoever eats Chick-fil-A sandwiches and drinks peach milkshakes remains in me, and I in him.”

    Don’t expect me to take serious, anything you question, ask or state. My post, giving Scripture to prove how “deceitfully” you used the Bible:

    Grace @83
    1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
    2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.
    2 Corinthians 4

    This is but one example of how you twist- even the Bible.
    Over and over again, you twist my words, conjure up ideas and thoughts I don’t state, just to make a point you don’t have.
    Your bait doesn’t work.

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/07/31/the-case-for-early-marriage-2/#comment-158844

  • Grace

    @ 77 SKPeterson

    “Where Todd is arguing from is Romans.”

    It doesn’t matter what he’s arguing or why. I doubt that individual knows what he means, let alone your being able to decipher his lost efforts. The reason I say this is: The distortion he made of John 6.

    Below is my post with his distortion below, LINK included:

    124 Grace August 2, 2012 at 4:04 pm

    tODD,

    After the misrepresentation of HOLY Scripture, you gave yesterday @60

    tODD @60
    “Remember:
    “Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat Chick-fil-A sandwiches and drink peach milkshakes, you have no life in you. Whoever eats Chick-fil-A sandwiches and drinks peach milkshakes has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For Chick-fil-A sandwiches are real food and peach milkshakes are real drink. Whoever eats Chick-fil-A sandwiches and drinks peach milkshakes remains in me, and I in him.”

    Don’t expect me to take serious, anything you question, ask or state. My post, giving Scripture to prove how “deceitfully” you used the Bible:

    Grace @83
    1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
    2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.
    2 Corinthians 4

    This is but one example of how you twist- even the Bible.
    Over and over again, you twist my words, conjure up ideas and thoughts I don’t state, just to make a point you don’t have.
    Your bait doesn’t work.

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/07/31/the-case-for-early-marriage-2/#comment-158844

  • Grace

    @ 77 SKPeterson

    “Where Todd is arguing from is Romans.”

    It doesn’t matter what he’s arguing or why. I doubt that individual knows what he means, let alone your being able to decipher his lost efforts. The reason I say this is: The distortion he made of John 6.

    Below is my post with his distortion below, LINK included:

    124 Grace August 2, 2012 at 4:04 pm

    tODD,

    After the misrepresentation of HOLY Scripture, you gave yesterday @60

    tODD @60
    “Remember:
    “Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat Chick-fil-A sandwiches and drink peach milkshakes, you have no life in you. Whoever eats Chick-fil-A sandwiches and drinks peach milkshakes has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For Chick-fil-A sandwiches are real food and peach milkshakes are real drink. Whoever eats Chick-fil-A sandwiches and drinks peach milkshakes remains in me, and I in him.”

    Don’t expect me to take serious, anything you question, ask or state. My post, giving Scripture to prove how “deceitfully” you used the Bible:

    Grace @83
    1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
    2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.
    2 Corinthians 4

    This is but one example of how you twist- even the Bible.
    Over and over again, you twist my words, conjure up ideas and thoughts I don’t state, just to make a point you don’t have.
    Your bait doesn’t work.

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/07/31/the-case-for-early-marriage-2/#comment-158844

  • Grace

    I posted the article, and then commented – give it a rest :razz:

  • Grace

    I posted the article, and then commented – give it a rest :razz:

  • Stephen

    Mike @ 75

    Yes, men and women will pair off and have babies. But that is not marriage and it isn’t necessarily even a family. Plenty of evidence of that in our society. Marriage is a social institution that protects relationships. That’s why they are staged in front of communities. St. Paul recognized this when he said that it was better to marry then to burn. It’s so that people’s lusts do not threaten the relationships of others. As far as a legitimate gov’t interest in homosexual marriage, pretty much the same – to protect the sovereignty of such relationships for the sake of peace. That is why we encourage people to get married. It’s good for them, their neighbor, and the kids.

    You wouldn’t tell a good Christian couple that their family of adopted children is artificial, would you? Likewise, you would not tell a couple who were married and had little or no intention of having kids that their marriage is therefore not really a marriage and serves no real purpose, would you? Or a couple who can’t have children and decide not to adopt for whatever reason, what about them? How are these situations not a the dilution you speak of that must be avoided using legislation? To play off your analogies, you can gerry rig a lot of things so they work quite well and get the job done. Not perfect, but useful.

    Marriage used to mean many wives. That too is biblical. When that custom diminished over time did marriage become something else? Yes. Monogamy. Should we then say marriage was diluted, if so, why don’t we find another word? And when women became free to choose a partner rather than traded as chattle as they were in the bible, was marriage diluted further? Should we call what we have now something else too since it does not resemble that version? The kind of mutual male/female relationships we have now are NOWHERE in the bible. The order of the day was subjugation. Or when kings used it to acquire land and possessions – diluted, illegitimate, what? Should we return to some of those models so that we get it right, maybe remove women’s suffrage, expect to pay dowries and hope like heck for sons?

    And as for the photographer, maybe she got the shaft. I don’t know. We certainly do not always execute judgements in this or any country perfectly. But then was she not denying services to someone that she would offer to someone else? Like I said, had she ever photographed ceremonies other than “traditional” marriages? It’s not clear. Maybe this was a “fed up” moment for a gay couple and they used it to make a point. Maybe the photographer was tricked. Do you really have kangaroo courts in New Mexico? That sounds unconstitutional. I hope that isn’t really the case.

  • Stephen

    Mike @ 75

    Yes, men and women will pair off and have babies. But that is not marriage and it isn’t necessarily even a family. Plenty of evidence of that in our society. Marriage is a social institution that protects relationships. That’s why they are staged in front of communities. St. Paul recognized this when he said that it was better to marry then to burn. It’s so that people’s lusts do not threaten the relationships of others. As far as a legitimate gov’t interest in homosexual marriage, pretty much the same – to protect the sovereignty of such relationships for the sake of peace. That is why we encourage people to get married. It’s good for them, their neighbor, and the kids.

    You wouldn’t tell a good Christian couple that their family of adopted children is artificial, would you? Likewise, you would not tell a couple who were married and had little or no intention of having kids that their marriage is therefore not really a marriage and serves no real purpose, would you? Or a couple who can’t have children and decide not to adopt for whatever reason, what about them? How are these situations not a the dilution you speak of that must be avoided using legislation? To play off your analogies, you can gerry rig a lot of things so they work quite well and get the job done. Not perfect, but useful.

    Marriage used to mean many wives. That too is biblical. When that custom diminished over time did marriage become something else? Yes. Monogamy. Should we then say marriage was diluted, if so, why don’t we find another word? And when women became free to choose a partner rather than traded as chattle as they were in the bible, was marriage diluted further? Should we call what we have now something else too since it does not resemble that version? The kind of mutual male/female relationships we have now are NOWHERE in the bible. The order of the day was subjugation. Or when kings used it to acquire land and possessions – diluted, illegitimate, what? Should we return to some of those models so that we get it right, maybe remove women’s suffrage, expect to pay dowries and hope like heck for sons?

    And as for the photographer, maybe she got the shaft. I don’t know. We certainly do not always execute judgements in this or any country perfectly. But then was she not denying services to someone that she would offer to someone else? Like I said, had she ever photographed ceremonies other than “traditional” marriages? It’s not clear. Maybe this was a “fed up” moment for a gay couple and they used it to make a point. Maybe the photographer was tricked. Do you really have kangaroo courts in New Mexico? That sounds unconstitutional. I hope that isn’t really the case.

  • Grace

    Stephen @ 83

    If the above is your argument for homosexual marriage, OR for those who are in business, to extend services to homosexuals, without prior knowledge, (I’m not sure it is) it’s the weakest most unconvincing gibberish I’ve read in a long time. Deceiving others, under a hidden agenda doesn’t deserve respect.

    Trying to tie loose ends together with all the cogent remarks Mike made, make sense, it’s a fraud from the beginning, it doesn’t fit.

    I don’t care what business one is in, be it catering, flowers, photography, and music, those who’s services the same sex couple want to use, deserve to know they aren’t a male/female couple. People have a right not to service those who’s beliefs are diametrically opposed with people in business who are Christians.

    If homosexuals are so very talented, I would think they could find someone within their homosexual community to cater, photograph, etc., their counterfeit shin-dig. But alas, that isn’t the case, it’s so much more entertaining to watch Christians TRY and disassociate themselves from the situation. That’s part of their shtick.

  • Grace

    Stephen @ 83

    If the above is your argument for homosexual marriage, OR for those who are in business, to extend services to homosexuals, without prior knowledge, (I’m not sure it is) it’s the weakest most unconvincing gibberish I’ve read in a long time. Deceiving others, under a hidden agenda doesn’t deserve respect.

    Trying to tie loose ends together with all the cogent remarks Mike made, make sense, it’s a fraud from the beginning, it doesn’t fit.

    I don’t care what business one is in, be it catering, flowers, photography, and music, those who’s services the same sex couple want to use, deserve to know they aren’t a male/female couple. People have a right not to service those who’s beliefs are diametrically opposed with people in business who are Christians.

    If homosexuals are so very talented, I would think they could find someone within their homosexual community to cater, photograph, etc., their counterfeit shin-dig. But alas, that isn’t the case, it’s so much more entertaining to watch Christians TRY and disassociate themselves from the situation. That’s part of their shtick.

  • fws

    mike @ 75

    (1) so have we all accepted the government’s redefinition of marriage now?

    marriage license=married!
    no marriage license=?

    Would someone tell me where that definition of marriage is to be found in the bible?

    (2) If chik-a-fil had wanted to contribute to a movement to really save marriage, as in

    to make divorce illegal or
    to outlaw remarriages, or …
    to make divorced couples continue to live together so that the children are raised with both birth parents.

    where would someone send that donation please?

    But remember: denying a couple of fags a marriage license is going to save marriage (insert shrill voice here) ! and… to not do that… will mean the very end of marriage (insert shrill voice here!!!

    Since when are christians allowed to lie like that? “save marriage!”. Really now. Is anyone really serious when they say that?

  • fws

    mike @ 75

    (1) so have we all accepted the government’s redefinition of marriage now?

    marriage license=married!
    no marriage license=?

    Would someone tell me where that definition of marriage is to be found in the bible?

    (2) If chik-a-fil had wanted to contribute to a movement to really save marriage, as in

    to make divorce illegal or
    to outlaw remarriages, or …
    to make divorced couples continue to live together so that the children are raised with both birth parents.

    where would someone send that donation please?

    But remember: denying a couple of fags a marriage license is going to save marriage (insert shrill voice here) ! and… to not do that… will mean the very end of marriage (insert shrill voice here!!!

    Since when are christians allowed to lie like that? “save marriage!”. Really now. Is anyone really serious when they say that?

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    FWS:

    Marriage License = Government recognizes the marriage as one in which it has a valid interest.

    No Marriage License = Government declines to take an interest.

    There is no government redefinition of “marriage” by the issuance of licenses.

    The rest of your comment regarding “saving marriage” seemed incoherent to me.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    FWS:

    Marriage License = Government recognizes the marriage as one in which it has a valid interest.

    No Marriage License = Government declines to take an interest.

    There is no government redefinition of “marriage” by the issuance of licenses.

    The rest of your comment regarding “saving marriage” seemed incoherent to me.

  • fws

    mike @ 86

    1) really? what other kind of licensing that the government issues would parallel what you are saying about marriage licenses and so prove your point mike?

    2) my point is that there are organizations like the “national Organization to save marriage”. How is it that they propose to “save marriage”? by denying marriage licenses to homos.

    That is a lie. Everyone knows it’s a lie.

  • fws

    mike @ 86

    1) really? what other kind of licensing that the government issues would parallel what you are saying about marriage licenses and so prove your point mike?

    2) my point is that there are organizations like the “national Organization to save marriage”. How is it that they propose to “save marriage”? by denying marriage licenses to homos.

    That is a lie. Everyone knows it’s a lie.

  • Grace

    “2) my point is that there are organizations like the “national Organization to save marriage”. How is it that they propose to “save marriage”? by denying marriage licenses to homos.

    Because marriage isn’t about same sex homosexuals getting married, for what? They don’t believe what the Bible states in (Romans 1) They have spread disease (HIV/AIDS STD’s) that cannot be cured and cost untold billions of dollars, to the American people and insurance companies, just to sleep with a man to man experience, many times, spreading a dreadful disease.

    Marriage isn’t the answer. The answer is abstinence.

  • Grace

    “2) my point is that there are organizations like the “national Organization to save marriage”. How is it that they propose to “save marriage”? by denying marriage licenses to homos.

    Because marriage isn’t about same sex homosexuals getting married, for what? They don’t believe what the Bible states in (Romans 1) They have spread disease (HIV/AIDS STD’s) that cannot be cured and cost untold billions of dollars, to the American people and insurance companies, just to sleep with a man to man experience, many times, spreading a dreadful disease.

    Marriage isn’t the answer. The answer is abstinence.

  • fws

    grace @ 88

    my point is that there are organizations like the “national Organization to save marriage”. they propose to do this by denying gays a marriage license.

    It is simply a lie to say that denying gays a marriage license is the salvation of heterosexual marriage.

  • fws

    grace @ 88

    my point is that there are organizations like the “national Organization to save marriage”. they propose to do this by denying gays a marriage license.

    It is simply a lie to say that denying gays a marriage license is the salvation of heterosexual marriage.

  • Patrick Kyle

    Brave protest? No. No one claimed it was. More like the giant collective ‘finger’ to the politically correct who shout ‘Hater’ whenever anyone voices an opinion not agreeing with the currently accepted tenets of political correctness. A lot of these ‘groups’ have over played their hand and have worn out their welcome with John and Jane Average, and what we are starting to see more of is their annoyance with and rejection of extreme versions of political correctness.

  • Patrick Kyle

    Brave protest? No. No one claimed it was. More like the giant collective ‘finger’ to the politically correct who shout ‘Hater’ whenever anyone voices an opinion not agreeing with the currently accepted tenets of political correctness. A lot of these ‘groups’ have over played their hand and have worn out their welcome with John and Jane Average, and what we are starting to see more of is their annoyance with and rejection of extreme versions of political correctness.

  • fws

    pat kyle @90

    Yeah, that sounds about right.
    this was the collective finger of those C students who resent those who work to earn better than a C .

    Then John and Jane C student self justify their lazy thinking with name calling such as the labels elistists and extremists.

    I get that. Great analysis Pat.

  • fws

    pat kyle @90

    Yeah, that sounds about right.
    this was the collective finger of those C students who resent those who work to earn better than a C .

    Then John and Jane C student self justify their lazy thinking with name calling such as the labels elistists and extremists.

    I get that. Great analysis Pat.

  • fws

    there are lots of gays who work at chik-a-fil. Their days must be sort of interesting lately. They must not be feeling much like that group with an agenda.

    Grace would describe all those gay teens working there who are the sons and daughters of proud parents this way:

    They are all reprobates, abandoned by their God whom God has turned over to sexually lusting and whom no longer have any conscience or moral compass at all.

    She is by no means alone.
    This does in fact sound more than a little hateful in terms of prejudgement to me.

    I am so grateful to be Lutheran.

  • fws

    there are lots of gays who work at chik-a-fil. Their days must be sort of interesting lately. They must not be feeling much like that group with an agenda.

    Grace would describe all those gay teens working there who are the sons and daughters of proud parents this way:

    They are all reprobates, abandoned by their God whom God has turned over to sexually lusting and whom no longer have any conscience or moral compass at all.

    She is by no means alone.
    This does in fact sound more than a little hateful in terms of prejudgement to me.

    I am so grateful to be Lutheran.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    1) It is what it is, regardless of whether there are parallels elsewhere on the universe.

    2) From my point of view, it’s not about saving marriage. Traditional, heterosexual marriage isn’t really under threat, as far as I can see. I don’t foresee anyone being persecuted for being (heterosexually) married. So, you have a point about organizations that are dedicated to “saving marriage.”

    What is under threat though, is liberty. The liberty to regard one kind of relationship as different from another kind. The liberty to say that broccoli is something other than a citrus fruit. The intolerant, bigoted, liberty-hating homo-fascists want to throw people in jail if they don’t affirm and behave as if there are 5 lights instead of only the 4 that are actually there. 5 is not the same as 4, even if you pass a law decreeing that it it is, and throw people in jail who persist in distinguishing them from each other.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    1) It is what it is, regardless of whether there are parallels elsewhere on the universe.

    2) From my point of view, it’s not about saving marriage. Traditional, heterosexual marriage isn’t really under threat, as far as I can see. I don’t foresee anyone being persecuted for being (heterosexually) married. So, you have a point about organizations that are dedicated to “saving marriage.”

    What is under threat though, is liberty. The liberty to regard one kind of relationship as different from another kind. The liberty to say that broccoli is something other than a citrus fruit. The intolerant, bigoted, liberty-hating homo-fascists want to throw people in jail if they don’t affirm and behave as if there are 5 lights instead of only the 4 that are actually there. 5 is not the same as 4, even if you pass a law decreeing that it it is, and throw people in jail who persist in distinguishing them from each other.

  • Grace

    fws @ 92

    Expresses himself this way, but points thus to me, as though he now, reads minds (mine) and hearts:

    “Grace would describe all those gay teens working there who are the sons and daughters of proud parents this way:

    ☀ “They are all reprobates, abandoned by their God whom God has turned over to sexually lusting and whom no longer have any conscience or moral compass at all.”

    All dishonest each and every word, meant to discredit who I am or what I believe. It’s a mockery, but all said is in VAIN, as are all the comments against those who believe in the Bible and not in the words of man made books and law.

  • Grace

    fws @ 92

    Expresses himself this way, but points thus to me, as though he now, reads minds (mine) and hearts:

    “Grace would describe all those gay teens working there who are the sons and daughters of proud parents this way:

    ☀ “They are all reprobates, abandoned by their God whom God has turned over to sexually lusting and whom no longer have any conscience or moral compass at all.”

    All dishonest each and every word, meant to discredit who I am or what I believe. It’s a mockery, but all said is in VAIN, as are all the comments against those who believe in the Bible and not in the words of man made books and law.

  • Grace

    Children who are born and raised by immoral parents are not “reprobates” they are victims. They are not abandoned by God whatsoever. That’s a lie. They are raised by parents who do not believe the Word of God, but that doesn’t make the children of such so called parents “reprobate” that’s ignorant.

  • Grace

    Children who are born and raised by immoral parents are not “reprobates” they are victims. They are not abandoned by God whatsoever. That’s a lie. They are raised by parents who do not believe the Word of God, but that doesn’t make the children of such so called parents “reprobate” that’s ignorant.

  • Grace

    It’s disgusting that those who don’t agree and SPECULATE upon how God would look upon a child who is brought up by parents who don’t believe the Bible as God’s inerrant Word are abandoned and reprobates.

    It’s not the childs fault the parents are not Believers, pagans or heathen. They will make their own choices.

  • Grace

    It’s disgusting that those who don’t agree and SPECULATE upon how God would look upon a child who is brought up by parents who don’t believe the Bible as God’s inerrant Word are abandoned and reprobates.

    It’s not the childs fault the parents are not Believers, pagans or heathen. They will make their own choices.

  • Stephen

    Mike,

    How is what you suggest as a violation of liberty different in kind to those who would deny black people the status of full humanity (some still do) and justified that same belief religiously using scripture (and still do)? Was the notion of as human being diluted when Civil Rights legislation was passed? The only difference between then and now is that people have learned, to a greater or lesser degree, to accept African Americans as equals over time. Those who are left that still do not believe it are a fringe element. But that wasn’t so just 50 or 60 years ago. In some areas, it was mainstream to think in such a way. A hundred and fifty years ago it was essentially doctrine among white people, even the ones who fought to free the slaves (oh yeah, it was about states rights).

  • Stephen

    Mike,

    How is what you suggest as a violation of liberty different in kind to those who would deny black people the status of full humanity (some still do) and justified that same belief religiously using scripture (and still do)? Was the notion of as human being diluted when Civil Rights legislation was passed? The only difference between then and now is that people have learned, to a greater or lesser degree, to accept African Americans as equals over time. Those who are left that still do not believe it are a fringe element. But that wasn’t so just 50 or 60 years ago. In some areas, it was mainstream to think in such a way. A hundred and fifty years ago it was essentially doctrine among white people, even the ones who fought to free the slaves (oh yeah, it was about states rights).

  • Stephen

    Mike,

    When a Muslim comes to this country they must accept a new definition of marriage – that women are free citizens and not the property of a husband. They have a choice in the matter. Whether they take it or not doesn’t matter. That is the state of things here. The fact that women have a choice at all means that we have already redefined marriage in this country. Returning to “biblical” marriage would mean returning to women being owned by their husbands.

    So, have we diluted things or not?

  • Stephen

    Mike,

    When a Muslim comes to this country they must accept a new definition of marriage – that women are free citizens and not the property of a husband. They have a choice in the matter. Whether they take it or not doesn’t matter. That is the state of things here. The fact that women have a choice at all means that we have already redefined marriage in this country. Returning to “biblical” marriage would mean returning to women being owned by their husbands.

    So, have we diluted things or not?

  • fws

    Grace @ 94

    Meet Grace @ 66.
    Tell us why what you said there does not apply to the young teens who are gay and working at chik-a-fil.
    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/03/william-tell-and-chick-fil-a/#comment-159017
    You say stuff and then denie you said it.

  • fws

    Grace @ 94

    Meet Grace @ 66.
    Tell us why what you said there does not apply to the young teens who are gay and working at chik-a-fil.
    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/03/william-tell-and-chick-fil-a/#comment-159017
    You say stuff and then denie you said it.

  • Mary

    “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” Eph 5:31.
    Is this the definition of marriage?
    Scripture teaches that Christ is the head of the church, and the bridegroom. And the church is the body, the bride. He uses marriage to teach us about His relationship to us. He says this is a profound mystery.
    When we change the definition do we change the relationship?

  • Mary

    “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” Eph 5:31.
    Is this the definition of marriage?
    Scripture teaches that Christ is the head of the church, and the bridegroom. And the church is the body, the bride. He uses marriage to teach us about His relationship to us. He says this is a profound mystery.
    When we change the definition do we change the relationship?

  • fws

    mike @ 93

    MIKE 1) It is what it is, regardless of whether there are parallels elsewhere on the universe.

    FRANK : You are framing this as a point of Civil Law rather than cosmic law. You agree that your legal/constitution opinion is utterly unique and unprecidented then. Ok. I agree!

    MIKE 2) From my point of view, it’s not about saving marriage. Traditional, heterosexual marriage isn’t really under threat, as far as I can see. I don’t foresee anyone being persecuted for being (heterosexually) married. So, you have a point about organizations that are dedicated to “saving marriage.”

    FRANK: So where is the outrage about the dishonesty in this and in emotionally manipulating the religious in this way, such as NOM does , making millions of dollars. Public morality is under threat.

    MIKE What is under threat though, is liberty. The liberty to regard one kind of relationship as different from another kind. The liberty to say that broccoli is something other than a citrus fruit. The intolerant, bigoted, liberty-hating homo-fascists want to throw people in jail if they don’t affirm and behave as if there are 5 lights instead of only the 4 that are actually there. 5 is not the same as 4, even if you pass a law decreeing that it it is, and throw people in jail who persist in distinguishing them from each other.

    FRANK: Even after affirmative action, many years after, pastors and others are STILL fully able to call black folks monkeys and that they are under the curse of cain, and to believe that they are somehow lesserly human and so not entitled to be treated identically, under the law.
    Mike: There are jewish attorneys who defend neonazis rights to say whatever they want and there are black attorneys who would defend the right to say the above. If I were an attorney, I would defend your right to believe and propagate the idea that jello is brocolli if you wished it to be.

    You wish to say that the act of issuing a marriage licence to a couple of homos will utterly redefine what marriage is. Marriage between a man and a woman will no longer be the same. Holy Webster and all. Meanings of words can’t have various meanings or change in meaning. And if a dictionary meaning changes it threatens the very id of what the word is describing. I think that is just silly. I think that is a sort of odd proposition, but I would defend your right to believe that. Actually, I think that is a dangerous proposition for those for whom words really matter.

  • fws

    mike @ 93

    MIKE 1) It is what it is, regardless of whether there are parallels elsewhere on the universe.

    FRANK : You are framing this as a point of Civil Law rather than cosmic law. You agree that your legal/constitution opinion is utterly unique and unprecidented then. Ok. I agree!

    MIKE 2) From my point of view, it’s not about saving marriage. Traditional, heterosexual marriage isn’t really under threat, as far as I can see. I don’t foresee anyone being persecuted for being (heterosexually) married. So, you have a point about organizations that are dedicated to “saving marriage.”

    FRANK: So where is the outrage about the dishonesty in this and in emotionally manipulating the religious in this way, such as NOM does , making millions of dollars. Public morality is under threat.

    MIKE What is under threat though, is liberty. The liberty to regard one kind of relationship as different from another kind. The liberty to say that broccoli is something other than a citrus fruit. The intolerant, bigoted, liberty-hating homo-fascists want to throw people in jail if they don’t affirm and behave as if there are 5 lights instead of only the 4 that are actually there. 5 is not the same as 4, even if you pass a law decreeing that it it is, and throw people in jail who persist in distinguishing them from each other.

    FRANK: Even after affirmative action, many years after, pastors and others are STILL fully able to call black folks monkeys and that they are under the curse of cain, and to believe that they are somehow lesserly human and so not entitled to be treated identically, under the law.
    Mike: There are jewish attorneys who defend neonazis rights to say whatever they want and there are black attorneys who would defend the right to say the above. If I were an attorney, I would defend your right to believe and propagate the idea that jello is brocolli if you wished it to be.

    You wish to say that the act of issuing a marriage licence to a couple of homos will utterly redefine what marriage is. Marriage between a man and a woman will no longer be the same. Holy Webster and all. Meanings of words can’t have various meanings or change in meaning. And if a dictionary meaning changes it threatens the very id of what the word is describing. I think that is just silly. I think that is a sort of odd proposition, but I would defend your right to believe that. Actually, I think that is a dangerous proposition for those for whom words really matter.

  • fws

    mike @ 93

    There ARE countries who will put person to death for believing in the 3 and 1 Holy Trinity.

    I suggest that your line of thinking, enforced as a point of Law, will get us close to those other countries far faster than what I propose.

  • fws

    mike @ 93

    There ARE countries who will put person to death for believing in the 3 and 1 Holy Trinity.

    I suggest that your line of thinking, enforced as a point of Law, will get us close to those other countries far faster than what I propose.

  • fws

    Mary @ 100

    MARY: For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” Eph 5:31.
    Is this the definition of marriage?

    FRANK: No. Men have a one-flesh-union with prostitutes St Paul says. Therefore the one flesh union is not the definition of marriage.

    The definition of marriage, for Lutherans, is found in the Large Catechism 4th commandment. There we read that the marriage is God’s sanctioning of the carnal earthly government of the household. It is Law.

    The Gospel is often used to illustrate the Law of God. That does not make Law into Gospel.

    See my next response please.

    MARY: Scripture teaches that Christ is the head of the church, and the bridegroom. And the church is the body, the bride. He uses marriage to teach us about His relationship to us. He says this is a profound mystery.

    FRANK: Turn that around Mary. God uses his relationship to us, which is ALONE in Christ, alone, apart from marriage or anything we can see or are able to do, to teach us about the Law . In that case the Law is about our duties in marriage. You turned this upside down Mary.

    MARY: When we change the definition do we change the relationship?

    FRANK: Brilliant. You have arrived at the real heart of this matter! The Lutheran answer is NO! Only the Works of Christ , alone, are what are able to change our relationship with God and escape his just judgement over our marital sinning and other sinning. Alone. You must be Roman Catholic or Evangelical Mary. I would understand how you would not believe this. I suggest that you are missing the very heart of what the Bible wishes to tell you in this Mary.

  • fws

    Mary @ 100

    MARY: For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” Eph 5:31.
    Is this the definition of marriage?

    FRANK: No. Men have a one-flesh-union with prostitutes St Paul says. Therefore the one flesh union is not the definition of marriage.

    The definition of marriage, for Lutherans, is found in the Large Catechism 4th commandment. There we read that the marriage is God’s sanctioning of the carnal earthly government of the household. It is Law.

    The Gospel is often used to illustrate the Law of God. That does not make Law into Gospel.

    See my next response please.

    MARY: Scripture teaches that Christ is the head of the church, and the bridegroom. And the church is the body, the bride. He uses marriage to teach us about His relationship to us. He says this is a profound mystery.

    FRANK: Turn that around Mary. God uses his relationship to us, which is ALONE in Christ, alone, apart from marriage or anything we can see or are able to do, to teach us about the Law . In that case the Law is about our duties in marriage. You turned this upside down Mary.

    MARY: When we change the definition do we change the relationship?

    FRANK: Brilliant. You have arrived at the real heart of this matter! The Lutheran answer is NO! Only the Works of Christ , alone, are what are able to change our relationship with God and escape his just judgement over our marital sinning and other sinning. Alone. You must be Roman Catholic or Evangelical Mary. I would understand how you would not believe this. I suggest that you are missing the very heart of what the Bible wishes to tell you in this Mary.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Stephen @97,

    Laws in general are limitations on liberty. Laws limit the murderer’s liberty to murder, the rapist’s liberty to rape, the thug’s liberty to beat you up and take your lunch money, etc. I don’t disagree that limitations on liberty aren’t always a bad thing. I’m not claiming that liberty, in and of itself, is the very highest ideal of personal existence.

    But there is a difference between forcing people to recognize Blacks as human, and forcing people to recognize same-sex unions as marriages.

    I don’t believe that Civil Rights legislation redefines or dilutes the notion of humanity. It does remove the liberty to apply irrelevant and truly bigoted “no true Scotsman” restrictions on what constitutes a human being. I’ve no problem with that kind of limitation of liberty.

    Forcing people to recognize a same-sex union as if it were the same thing as a marriage is a different matter though. Why should the government declare by fiat and enforce the notion that broccoli is a citrus fruit? What interest would the government have in doing so?

    Another distinction between the two types of discrimination is the type of the object being discriminated against. In the former, it is a Human Being that is being discriminated against. In the latter, it is a relationship between Human Beings that is being discriminated against.

    Regarding you next comment @98:
    I think you are conflating Human Rights (of women) with essential attributes of marriage.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Stephen @97,

    Laws in general are limitations on liberty. Laws limit the murderer’s liberty to murder, the rapist’s liberty to rape, the thug’s liberty to beat you up and take your lunch money, etc. I don’t disagree that limitations on liberty aren’t always a bad thing. I’m not claiming that liberty, in and of itself, is the very highest ideal of personal existence.

    But there is a difference between forcing people to recognize Blacks as human, and forcing people to recognize same-sex unions as marriages.

    I don’t believe that Civil Rights legislation redefines or dilutes the notion of humanity. It does remove the liberty to apply irrelevant and truly bigoted “no true Scotsman” restrictions on what constitutes a human being. I’ve no problem with that kind of limitation of liberty.

    Forcing people to recognize a same-sex union as if it were the same thing as a marriage is a different matter though. Why should the government declare by fiat and enforce the notion that broccoli is a citrus fruit? What interest would the government have in doing so?

    Another distinction between the two types of discrimination is the type of the object being discriminated against. In the former, it is a Human Being that is being discriminated against. In the latter, it is a relationship between Human Beings that is being discriminated against.

    Regarding you next comment @98:
    I think you are conflating Human Rights (of women) with essential attributes of marriage.

  • http://www.dregstudios.com Brandt Hardin

    If companies are people and people vote with dollars then the destination of the restaurant’s donations are open for public debate. It very well should be an issue as to where peoples’ hard-earned money goes after the chicken goes down their gullet. This issue has made our little feathered friend the modern martyr as Chick-fil-A laughs all the way to the bank. Watch the poultry be nailed to the cross and pierced by the spear of destiny at the hands of those devious cows on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/08/holy-rollin-poultry-on-cross-chick-fil.html

  • http://www.dregstudios.com Brandt Hardin

    If companies are people and people vote with dollars then the destination of the restaurant’s donations are open for public debate. It very well should be an issue as to where peoples’ hard-earned money goes after the chicken goes down their gullet. This issue has made our little feathered friend the modern martyr as Chick-fil-A laughs all the way to the bank. Watch the poultry be nailed to the cross and pierced by the spear of destiny at the hands of those devious cows on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/08/holy-rollin-poultry-on-cross-chick-fil.html

  • fws

    mike @ 104

    “Error has no rights”
    That is the Roman Catholic position Mike.
    It is the attitude that fueled the 30 years war.
    This ushered in the Enlightenment and social tolerance of error.

    Your analogy is brilliant.

    Some want to define brocoli as citrus fruit.
    Let them.
    What harm is there in that?
    Why make a Law to prohibit it?
    Constitutional Amendment to prohibit it!!!???
    You. have. got. to. be. kidding.

    The government giving non Lutheran Churches equal status under the Law, redefining the very name of God to exclude the Triune one in no way forces you to accept this all as valid. Deism is satanic. this casual redefinition is far more serious than defining marriage as whether one has a marriage license or not.

    Further this: There is a true social cost to allowing equal status to mormons , muslims etc. It truly does teach children and others that there is no difference between religions. That is the message sent. Does the government have a moral interest in this great evil? yes . and no.

    I would oppose Laws that would change this social tolerance of error.

    What you propose by force of Law will come back to bite us christians in the ass when we are increasingly unpopular and marginalized.

  • fws

    mike @ 104

    “Error has no rights”
    That is the Roman Catholic position Mike.
    It is the attitude that fueled the 30 years war.
    This ushered in the Enlightenment and social tolerance of error.

    Your analogy is brilliant.

    Some want to define brocoli as citrus fruit.
    Let them.
    What harm is there in that?
    Why make a Law to prohibit it?
    Constitutional Amendment to prohibit it!!!???
    You. have. got. to. be. kidding.

    The government giving non Lutheran Churches equal status under the Law, redefining the very name of God to exclude the Triune one in no way forces you to accept this all as valid. Deism is satanic. this casual redefinition is far more serious than defining marriage as whether one has a marriage license or not.

    Further this: There is a true social cost to allowing equal status to mormons , muslims etc. It truly does teach children and others that there is no difference between religions. That is the message sent. Does the government have a moral interest in this great evil? yes . and no.

    I would oppose Laws that would change this social tolerance of error.

    What you propose by force of Law will come back to bite us christians in the ass when we are increasingly unpopular and marginalized.

  • reg

    And so it goes, whenever the subject of gay marriage comes up Grace goes all moralist and pharisee legalist, others go antinomian and deny any legitimate religious basis for political opinions and in FWS’s case he denies that what the Bible calls sin is sin and hides behind much verbiage to seek to justify himself…….It gets tired and is a rut-especially between Grace and FWS multiple verbose postings. Can’t we agree that the Bible calls a sin is a sin, that as Christian’s though we are saved and sanctified solely by grace, we should strive as led by the spirit to conform to Christ, in gratitude, not as a means of salvation or eternal reward, and that in our western/US democracy the issue of secular gay marriage is a difficult one for us sojourners and aliens, since various sets of presuppositions collide there.

  • reg

    And so it goes, whenever the subject of gay marriage comes up Grace goes all moralist and pharisee legalist, others go antinomian and deny any legitimate religious basis for political opinions and in FWS’s case he denies that what the Bible calls sin is sin and hides behind much verbiage to seek to justify himself…….It gets tired and is a rut-especially between Grace and FWS multiple verbose postings. Can’t we agree that the Bible calls a sin is a sin, that as Christian’s though we are saved and sanctified solely by grace, we should strive as led by the spirit to conform to Christ, in gratitude, not as a means of salvation or eternal reward, and that in our western/US democracy the issue of secular gay marriage is a difficult one for us sojourners and aliens, since various sets of presuppositions collide there.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Frank @101:
    I agree that the hyperbole surrounding this issue is unfortunate.

    > You wish to say that the act of issuing a marriage licence to a
    > couple of homos will utterly redefine what marriage is.

    It redefines the word “marriage,” not the essence of what marriage is. It would conflate what we used to know as marriage with something else.

    It would be like issuing a fishing license for the purpose of trapping raccoons. Wouldn’t change the essence of what fishing is, but it would conflate it with raccoon trapping.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Frank @101:
    I agree that the hyperbole surrounding this issue is unfortunate.

    > You wish to say that the act of issuing a marriage licence to a
    > couple of homos will utterly redefine what marriage is.

    It redefines the word “marriage,” not the essence of what marriage is. It would conflate what we used to know as marriage with something else.

    It would be like issuing a fishing license for the purpose of trapping raccoons. Wouldn’t change the essence of what fishing is, but it would conflate it with raccoon trapping.

  • fws

    mike @ 104

    limit the murderer’s liberty to murder, the rapist’s liberty to rape, the thug’s liberty to beat you up and take your lunch money, etc. I don’t disagree that limitations on liberty aren’t always a bad thing.

    Limiting two men or womens ability to limit their options and thus place more order in their lives in relation to society with the social contract called a marriage licence. Gays asking for licensed marriages are to ask for a restriction of liberty and not an expansion of it Mike!

    I suggest that gays wanting to bind themselves up in a marriage “licence”, is precisely the Divine Law of God driving their consciences to seek this discipline and restriction of liberty. Seeking a marriage licence promotes licentiousness exactly how?

    But there is a difference between forcing people to recognize Blacks as human, and forcing people to recognize same-sex unions as marriages.

    No. No one can force anyone to recognize blacks or gays as equally human. The Law is powerless to change thoughts and hearts. If someone want to hate blacks or gays and say as much then let them.

    But the Law can and should enforce exactly this:
    equal treatment under the law.

    So now tell me: how are laws that demand equal treatment for blacks under the law different from laws demanding equal treatment for homosexuals?
    Example mike: I am a homosexual. Why should I not be allowed to bind myself with a marriage license rather than be forced to live in unlicensed licentiousness. What message does that send to a young 15 year old gay or lesbian full of hormones.

    Our confessions say that this strategy and doctrine will almost always result in this:

    Augsburg Confessions, art XXIII:

    This fact is simply self-evident and beyond argument:

    many have confessed that no good, honest, chaste life, no Christian, sincere, upright conduct has resulted from the attempt at sexual self control by enforced celebacy.

    Instead what results is a horrible, fearful unrest and torment of conscience has been felt by many until the end.

    These words apply to all humans, black, white, gay, heterosexual equally.

    Why would they not?

  • fws

    mike @ 104

    limit the murderer’s liberty to murder, the rapist’s liberty to rape, the thug’s liberty to beat you up and take your lunch money, etc. I don’t disagree that limitations on liberty aren’t always a bad thing.

    Limiting two men or womens ability to limit their options and thus place more order in their lives in relation to society with the social contract called a marriage licence. Gays asking for licensed marriages are to ask for a restriction of liberty and not an expansion of it Mike!

    I suggest that gays wanting to bind themselves up in a marriage “licence”, is precisely the Divine Law of God driving their consciences to seek this discipline and restriction of liberty. Seeking a marriage licence promotes licentiousness exactly how?

    But there is a difference between forcing people to recognize Blacks as human, and forcing people to recognize same-sex unions as marriages.

    No. No one can force anyone to recognize blacks or gays as equally human. The Law is powerless to change thoughts and hearts. If someone want to hate blacks or gays and say as much then let them.

    But the Law can and should enforce exactly this:
    equal treatment under the law.

    So now tell me: how are laws that demand equal treatment for blacks under the law different from laws demanding equal treatment for homosexuals?
    Example mike: I am a homosexual. Why should I not be allowed to bind myself with a marriage license rather than be forced to live in unlicensed licentiousness. What message does that send to a young 15 year old gay or lesbian full of hormones.

    Our confessions say that this strategy and doctrine will almost always result in this:

    Augsburg Confessions, art XXIII:

    This fact is simply self-evident and beyond argument:

    many have confessed that no good, honest, chaste life, no Christian, sincere, upright conduct has resulted from the attempt at sexual self control by enforced celebacy.

    Instead what results is a horrible, fearful unrest and torment of conscience has been felt by many until the end.

    These words apply to all humans, black, white, gay, heterosexual equally.

    Why would they not?

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Brandt #105:

    From your blog: “Christian groups are raising the masses to defend the restaurant’s right to Hate.”

    I see you are just yet another 8th Commandment violating liberal/progressive agitator who redefines words in order to conflate issues. You are an intolerant, bigoted hater.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Brandt #105:

    From your blog: “Christian groups are raising the masses to defend the restaurant’s right to Hate.”

    I see you are just yet another 8th Commandment violating liberal/progressive agitator who redefines words in order to conflate issues. You are an intolerant, bigoted hater.

  • fws

    mike @ 108

    It would be like issuing a fishing license for the purpose of trapping raccoons. Wouldn’t change the essence of what fishing is, but it would conflate it with raccoon trapping.

    Excellent example.

    The government could call fishing licenses “hunting licenses” or vica versa. Why not? What harm would be done is always THE legitimate question isnt it for those who love true freedom vs licentiousness? It is still licensing (aka restraint) vs licentiousness.

    Licensing a gay relationship is even more. It is a self-chosen, self-imposed form of self restraint. it is the entering into a very socially limiting contract. it is the precise opposite of licentiousness. By definition.

    And you would not get all cosmic and metaphysical and biblical about this governmental shift in definitions now would you? or push for a constitutional amendment prohibiting such a governmental move would you? You would find that absurd. killing a fly with a bazooka.

  • fws

    mike @ 108

    It would be like issuing a fishing license for the purpose of trapping raccoons. Wouldn’t change the essence of what fishing is, but it would conflate it with raccoon trapping.

    Excellent example.

    The government could call fishing licenses “hunting licenses” or vica versa. Why not? What harm would be done is always THE legitimate question isnt it for those who love true freedom vs licentiousness? It is still licensing (aka restraint) vs licentiousness.

    Licensing a gay relationship is even more. It is a self-chosen, self-imposed form of self restraint. it is the entering into a very socially limiting contract. it is the precise opposite of licentiousness. By definition.

    And you would not get all cosmic and metaphysical and biblical about this governmental shift in definitions now would you? or push for a constitutional amendment prohibiting such a governmental move would you? You would find that absurd. killing a fly with a bazooka.

  • fws

    reg @ 107

    And so it goes, whenever the subject of gay marriage comes up Grace goes all moralist and pharisee legalist, others go antinomian and deny any legitimate religious basis for political opinions and in FWS’s case he denies that what the Bible calls sin is sin and hides behind much verbiage to seek to justify himself…….

    careful buddy, or I will remove your honorary status as a closet Lutheran! Reg. You have a different definition than Lutherans do of what the words “sin” and “Law ” are.

    You need to start there to understand the difference between you and rome on one side, and the Lutherans on the other. You here agree with Rome.

    Let me ask you this:
    What is the opposite of original sin?
    What was it that was the Image of God?
    Was the Image of God completely lost in the fall or merely damaged?
    Was Original Innocence conformity to the Law of God?
    Was it goodness (as opposed to evil?

    So what did the original righeousness of Adam consist of before the fall? after the fall? How is that different from what our own Robe of Righteousness consists of Reg?

    “That which is not of faith is sin”.

    Suggested meaning:
    The opposite of original sin was not Adamic goodness or conformity to the Law.
    The lost Image of God was not conformity to God’s Design (aka Law).

    Adam was righteous, before God, both before and after the fall in exactly the same way is what I am suggesting.

    Eternally so, I suggest this eternally true, before and after the fall:
    the righteousness of all mankind MUST consist of our works being hidden within the Works of Another.

    Yes God demands the second table law be kept on earth Reg. If gays or others take sex that is not theirs and misuse others in their bodies God WILL punish that reg. We do not disagree. Sin is sin. There is not a separate definition of sexual sinning for Gays. therefore I suggest that the definition of sexual self control must also be identical. Why? gays are identically human .

  • fws

    reg @ 107

    And so it goes, whenever the subject of gay marriage comes up Grace goes all moralist and pharisee legalist, others go antinomian and deny any legitimate religious basis for political opinions and in FWS’s case he denies that what the Bible calls sin is sin and hides behind much verbiage to seek to justify himself…….

    careful buddy, or I will remove your honorary status as a closet Lutheran! Reg. You have a different definition than Lutherans do of what the words “sin” and “Law ” are.

    You need to start there to understand the difference between you and rome on one side, and the Lutherans on the other. You here agree with Rome.

    Let me ask you this:
    What is the opposite of original sin?
    What was it that was the Image of God?
    Was the Image of God completely lost in the fall or merely damaged?
    Was Original Innocence conformity to the Law of God?
    Was it goodness (as opposed to evil?

    So what did the original righeousness of Adam consist of before the fall? after the fall? How is that different from what our own Robe of Righteousness consists of Reg?

    “That which is not of faith is sin”.

    Suggested meaning:
    The opposite of original sin was not Adamic goodness or conformity to the Law.
    The lost Image of God was not conformity to God’s Design (aka Law).

    Adam was righteous, before God, both before and after the fall in exactly the same way is what I am suggesting.

    Eternally so, I suggest this eternally true, before and after the fall:
    the righteousness of all mankind MUST consist of our works being hidden within the Works of Another.

    Yes God demands the second table law be kept on earth Reg. If gays or others take sex that is not theirs and misuse others in their bodies God WILL punish that reg. We do not disagree. Sin is sin. There is not a separate definition of sexual sinning for Gays. therefore I suggest that the definition of sexual self control must also be identical. Why? gays are identically human .

  • fws

    mike @110

    I suppose that the artists would defend those groups right to express hate for another group.
    I know that I would.

    The watching world lands on the opinion that christians hate gays. why is that?
    there is no rational reason to oppose a couple fags wanting to self restrict their own liberty with a marriage license.
    To the point of pushing for constitutional amendments!
    So they assume it must be simply biggotry.
    This is not entirely irrational.

    And chick-fil-a loudly presents itself as christian by definition.
    They dont represent Lutherans.

    But how would this artist know the difference between this baptism and Lutheranism from reading our blog?

  • fws

    mike @110

    I suppose that the artists would defend those groups right to express hate for another group.
    I know that I would.

    The watching world lands on the opinion that christians hate gays. why is that?
    there is no rational reason to oppose a couple fags wanting to self restrict their own liberty with a marriage license.
    To the point of pushing for constitutional amendments!
    So they assume it must be simply biggotry.
    This is not entirely irrational.

    And chick-fil-a loudly presents itself as christian by definition.
    They dont represent Lutherans.

    But how would this artist know the difference between this baptism and Lutheranism from reading our blog?

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    > Gays asking for licensed marriages are to ask for a
    > restriction of liberty and not an expansion of it Mike!

    That is correct Frank. Especially since (in most states) Gays already have “Domestic Partnerships” that give them essentially the same rights and responsibilities as married couples. Yes, gays have their hunting license, but they want it to be called a fishing license.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    > Gays asking for licensed marriages are to ask for a
    > restriction of liberty and not an expansion of it Mike!

    That is correct Frank. Especially since (in most states) Gays already have “Domestic Partnerships” that give them essentially the same rights and responsibilities as married couples. Yes, gays have their hunting license, but they want it to be called a fishing license.

  • Patrick Kyle

    fws@90
    Frank, I detect more than a hint of sarcasm in your answer to me.

    However, I am not sure what you are saying. Please clarify…

  • Patrick Kyle

    fws@90
    Frank, I detect more than a hint of sarcasm in your answer to me.

    However, I am not sure what you are saying. Please clarify…

  • fws

    pat @ 115

    Hi pat! I need to come back to LA later this year and pay you all a visit! It has been way too long dear brother.

    Clarification:

    John and Jane C Student. Giant Collective hand gesture that says “f**k you. Towards those whom tire them with their “exagerations.” As your post says.

    So they get busy! They wait in a long line for a chicken sandwich and a glass of hateraide.
    Only john and jane C student would have “annoyance” at those “extreme” persons who think that constitutional amendments, judicial recalls, referendums and all that money and energy spent are not…. um…. extreme.

    And this blizzard of activity is …For what?
    It must be something extreme-ly important right?

    it is this: It is to keep marriage licenses out of the hands of a couple of fags who want to voluntarily restrict their licentiousness with a legally binding license/contract.

    Why does that matter?
    This:
    because nothing short of that will be the salvation of marriage. The existence of marriage is at stake!
    This is what NOM says. “Save marriage!” Their name says it in fact. “Make sure that kids are raised with BOTH birth parents by not giving fags a marriage license!”

    Huh?
    Nevermind divorce and serial polygamy we call re-”marriage.”
    No. The REAL threat to marriage, as ANY John and Jane C student will insistently tell you is… the fags!

    Only a C student could not see through a really stupid lie. Preventing a couple of fags from having a marriage licence will NOT save marriage.

    Whew!

    There are lots of young teen Gay youth working at Chick-fil-a . Imagine what their days have been filled with lately:

    “I am so glad you are standing up to the evil homosexual agenda (“homosexual” here evoking the mental/visual imagery of rom 1:28-31 and lev 18 and the sodom and gomorrah story) “….

    … a customer tells them. Smilingly.

    Yup John and Jane C students spreading God’s Goodness and Mercy to others with that collective giant finger to those young gay teens that work at chick-fil-a. Ah. and oh yeah…. like me, they are part of some “group” that is pushing a subversive agenda. “they”. “them”.

    That is really it. They are us. our sons and daughters. Most of us just try to keep our heads down and try to survive and be happy like everyone else.

    If we are blest enough to be in church, we are told that family relationships are the most awesomely rewarding blessing that someone can have in life.

    these gay teens who work at chick-fil-a have the Divine Law written in their reason and conscience. It is the Divine Law that pushes them towards structure and self-restriction such as a monogamous pairing off and away from hedonism. And we are to want for them the same goodness and mercy we receive for our own UNdeserving scumbag sinful selves.

    mercy is the opposite of the Justice we deserve. True real mercy and love cannot happen without justice. But the point is mercy ratther than the self chosen worship of obedience and sacrifice thinking this will make someone right with their God.

  • fws

    pat @ 115

    Hi pat! I need to come back to LA later this year and pay you all a visit! It has been way too long dear brother.

    Clarification:

    John and Jane C Student. Giant Collective hand gesture that says “f**k you. Towards those whom tire them with their “exagerations.” As your post says.

    So they get busy! They wait in a long line for a chicken sandwich and a glass of hateraide.
    Only john and jane C student would have “annoyance” at those “extreme” persons who think that constitutional amendments, judicial recalls, referendums and all that money and energy spent are not…. um…. extreme.

    And this blizzard of activity is …For what?
    It must be something extreme-ly important right?

    it is this: It is to keep marriage licenses out of the hands of a couple of fags who want to voluntarily restrict their licentiousness with a legally binding license/contract.

    Why does that matter?
    This:
    because nothing short of that will be the salvation of marriage. The existence of marriage is at stake!
    This is what NOM says. “Save marriage!” Their name says it in fact. “Make sure that kids are raised with BOTH birth parents by not giving fags a marriage license!”

    Huh?
    Nevermind divorce and serial polygamy we call re-”marriage.”
    No. The REAL threat to marriage, as ANY John and Jane C student will insistently tell you is… the fags!

    Only a C student could not see through a really stupid lie. Preventing a couple of fags from having a marriage licence will NOT save marriage.

    Whew!

    There are lots of young teen Gay youth working at Chick-fil-a . Imagine what their days have been filled with lately:

    “I am so glad you are standing up to the evil homosexual agenda (“homosexual” here evoking the mental/visual imagery of rom 1:28-31 and lev 18 and the sodom and gomorrah story) “….

    … a customer tells them. Smilingly.

    Yup John and Jane C students spreading God’s Goodness and Mercy to others with that collective giant finger to those young gay teens that work at chick-fil-a. Ah. and oh yeah…. like me, they are part of some “group” that is pushing a subversive agenda. “they”. “them”.

    That is really it. They are us. our sons and daughters. Most of us just try to keep our heads down and try to survive and be happy like everyone else.

    If we are blest enough to be in church, we are told that family relationships are the most awesomely rewarding blessing that someone can have in life.

    these gay teens who work at chick-fil-a have the Divine Law written in their reason and conscience. It is the Divine Law that pushes them towards structure and self-restriction such as a monogamous pairing off and away from hedonism. And we are to want for them the same goodness and mercy we receive for our own UNdeserving scumbag sinful selves.

    mercy is the opposite of the Justice we deserve. True real mercy and love cannot happen without justice. But the point is mercy ratther than the self chosen worship of obedience and sacrifice thinking this will make someone right with their God.

  • fws

    Pat @ 115

    You , of all men, should know what it feels like to receive mercy rather than what you really deserve.
    And you know that about me as well.

    We would be wrong to have our debt cancelled and than turn and exact the same debt from other debters rather than give to them the same mercy we have received.

    This is not to abolish even one tiny jot and titel of the Divine Law. It is rather to fulfill that very Divine Law.
    And this fulfilling is carnal righeousness that pertains, alone, to this earthly existence.
    It will perish with it, along with all who trust in such righteousness to be right with God.

    Jesus to the Pharisees:
    “Go and find what it means ‘I would have mercy rather than sacrifice’”.

    In it’s context, how is it that you exegete that passage Pat?
    I read it in the context of 1 cor 6.
    “ALL things are Lawful. What is useful to my neighbor?”

    There are three kinds of righteousness in Scriptures:

    1) carnal righteousness, worked by God, for the carnal needs of neighbor. Virtue. Aristotle. Law. Mortification. Goodness and Mercy done to neighbor are the visible evidence this is being done.
    This is Mortification + Love.

    2) as far from 1) as heaven is from earth is the Righteousness that is found , alone in invisible faith, in the Works of Another, and the hiding of all that is in 1) in this Righeousness.
    This is Faith that creates Love as Light from Sun.
    It is faith. Alone.

    3) This is a “righteousness” that severs mortification from love.
    It trys to say that mortification, obedience, sacrifice (gay celebacy and no marriage) are necessary to be right with God. it calls this Gospel.
    OR it says that no mortification is necessary and…. spiritualizes love and offers it up to God to get right with him. (eg inclusiveness of Gays is Gospel and Mercy and not merely mercy). it calls this Gospel.

    which kind of righteousness is being demanded of Gays and offered to them as the path to restoration of the Image of God Pat?

  • fws

    Pat @ 115

    You , of all men, should know what it feels like to receive mercy rather than what you really deserve.
    And you know that about me as well.

    We would be wrong to have our debt cancelled and than turn and exact the same debt from other debters rather than give to them the same mercy we have received.

    This is not to abolish even one tiny jot and titel of the Divine Law. It is rather to fulfill that very Divine Law.
    And this fulfilling is carnal righeousness that pertains, alone, to this earthly existence.
    It will perish with it, along with all who trust in such righteousness to be right with God.

    Jesus to the Pharisees:
    “Go and find what it means ‘I would have mercy rather than sacrifice’”.

    In it’s context, how is it that you exegete that passage Pat?
    I read it in the context of 1 cor 6.
    “ALL things are Lawful. What is useful to my neighbor?”

    There are three kinds of righteousness in Scriptures:

    1) carnal righteousness, worked by God, for the carnal needs of neighbor. Virtue. Aristotle. Law. Mortification. Goodness and Mercy done to neighbor are the visible evidence this is being done.
    This is Mortification + Love.

    2) as far from 1) as heaven is from earth is the Righteousness that is found , alone in invisible faith, in the Works of Another, and the hiding of all that is in 1) in this Righeousness.
    This is Faith that creates Love as Light from Sun.
    It is faith. Alone.

    3) This is a “righteousness” that severs mortification from love.
    It trys to say that mortification, obedience, sacrifice (gay celebacy and no marriage) are necessary to be right with God. it calls this Gospel.
    OR it says that no mortification is necessary and…. spiritualizes love and offers it up to God to get right with him. (eg inclusiveness of Gays is Gospel and Mercy and not merely mercy). it calls this Gospel.

    which kind of righteousness is being demanded of Gays and offered to them as the path to restoration of the Image of God Pat?

  • fws

    mike @ 114

    splendid.

    separate but equal.

    We know how that all worked out as a viable legal doctrine.

  • fws

    mike @ 114

    splendid.

    separate but equal.

    We know how that all worked out as a viable legal doctrine.

  • Grace

    WELL, well, well – they didn’t show up, :lol:

    Chicken lips are scarce
    Great gay kiss-off lays a gigantic egg

    August 4, 2012
    Andrea Peyser

    “This was billed as the greatest protest since Occupy Wall Street. Thousands of scantily clad gay men and lesbians said they’d lock lips in a coast-to-coast red-hot make-out session.

    They were to blast anti-gay-marriage comments made by Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy. But gays preferred staying home to watch “The Real Housewives of New Jersey.”

    Tumbleweeds could have rolled through the Paramus Park Mall in New Jersey yesterday as a symbol for the lack of stamina in the national kissing campaign.

    From Georgia to California, protests drew yawns, not saliva.

    Even in Atlanta, the home of Chick-fil-A, only two dozen kissers showed up. And there was a similar lack of necking in Chicago, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and San Francisco.”

    READ THE REST: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/chicken_lips_are_scarce_YjYD7gxNbcBd4WhzBWcJgN#ixzz22Zml90Lf

    Gigantic eggs everywhere!

  • Grace

    WELL, well, well – they didn’t show up, :lol:

    Chicken lips are scarce
    Great gay kiss-off lays a gigantic egg

    August 4, 2012
    Andrea Peyser

    “This was billed as the greatest protest since Occupy Wall Street. Thousands of scantily clad gay men and lesbians said they’d lock lips in a coast-to-coast red-hot make-out session.

    They were to blast anti-gay-marriage comments made by Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy. But gays preferred staying home to watch “The Real Housewives of New Jersey.”

    Tumbleweeds could have rolled through the Paramus Park Mall in New Jersey yesterday as a symbol for the lack of stamina in the national kissing campaign.

    From Georgia to California, protests drew yawns, not saliva.

    Even in Atlanta, the home of Chick-fil-A, only two dozen kissers showed up. And there was a similar lack of necking in Chicago, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and San Francisco.”

    READ THE REST: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/chicken_lips_are_scarce_YjYD7gxNbcBd4WhzBWcJgN#ixzz22Zml90Lf

    Gigantic eggs everywhere!

  • Grace

    The article above @119 is from:
    THE NEW YORK POST

  • Grace

    The article above @119 is from:
    THE NEW YORK POST

  • reg

    Grace,
    unrelated to this topic, I am amazed at the sources you like to quote from….. Lets see, the NY Post, Glen Beck’s the Blaze, the weekly standard . . . nothing but the best for you.

  • reg

    Grace,
    unrelated to this topic, I am amazed at the sources you like to quote from….. Lets see, the NY Post, Glen Beck’s the Blaze, the weekly standard . . . nothing but the best for you.

  • Grace

    Oh reg, that’s because the liberal media won’t cover it. It’s a sad commentary on the main stream media when it comes to reporting Christian values and issues.

    It’s that BLACK OUT they pulled, very telling!

  • Grace

    Oh reg, that’s because the liberal media won’t cover it. It’s a sad commentary on the main stream media when it comes to reporting Christian values and issues.

    It’s that BLACK OUT they pulled, very telling!

  • Grace

    The obvious massive attendance on Wednesday, at Chick-fil-A, is evidence as to the stand the majority of Americans have against homosexual marriage.

    Lack of attendance yesterday for the “kiss in” flopped. Perhaps this has given the homosexuals a better understanding of how the majority view their lifestyle, and its consequences. Maybe for the first time they felt shame.

    The Gay Parades have been their long awaited moments to flaunt themselves. After Wednesday’s massive turnouts, throughout the United States, proved a point that could not be made in the past, even when we voted down same sex marriage in California (PROP 8)

    I think they finally GOT IT!

  • Grace

    The obvious massive attendance on Wednesday, at Chick-fil-A, is evidence as to the stand the majority of Americans have against homosexual marriage.

    Lack of attendance yesterday for the “kiss in” flopped. Perhaps this has given the homosexuals a better understanding of how the majority view their lifestyle, and its consequences. Maybe for the first time they felt shame.

    The Gay Parades have been their long awaited moments to flaunt themselves. After Wednesday’s massive turnouts, throughout the United States, proved a point that could not be made in the past, even when we voted down same sex marriage in California (PROP 8)

    I think they finally GOT IT!

  • Tom Hering

    Maybe the kiss-in was poorly attended because the majority of gays thought the whole Chick-fil-A thing (both boycott and buycott) was extremely silly. (They’re probably better than most folks at picking their battles carefully, because they’ve had to be. Especially in their day-to-day lives.) Maybe, too, they – like most other folks – didn’t like to see government punishing free speech. Even if that speech was against them. But why credit them with being sensible? It kind of ruins the fun of demonizing them.

  • Tom Hering

    Maybe the kiss-in was poorly attended because the majority of gays thought the whole Chick-fil-A thing (both boycott and buycott) was extremely silly. (They’re probably better than most folks at picking their battles carefully, because they’ve had to be. Especially in their day-to-day lives.) Maybe, too, they – like most other folks – didn’t like to see government punishing free speech. Even if that speech was against them. But why credit them with being sensible? It kind of ruins the fun of demonizing them.

  • fws

    Tom @ 124

    Those were my own thoughts.
    They were all probably over at Starbucks, which the National Organization to Save Marriage is boycotting, along with General Mills.

    They would be recognized because they are dressed in tasteful black designer wear, and have their gay agendas all open with pen in hand and brows furrowed . Plotting. Plotting. Plotting.

    They are in constant communication with the young teen highschoolers working at chick-fil-a by text messages.

    All have their consciences seared (Grace-speak for destroyed) and they are busy clipping coupons out of the sunday paper because they thought they heard “rebate” when , in fact, it was “reprobate ” that was being shouted by the John and Jane C students idling their huge SUVs in the long line to get their chicken sandwiches and thus raise a giant middle finger in the direct of Starbuck Coffee houses everywhere.

  • fws

    Tom @ 124

    Those were my own thoughts.
    They were all probably over at Starbucks, which the National Organization to Save Marriage is boycotting, along with General Mills.

    They would be recognized because they are dressed in tasteful black designer wear, and have their gay agendas all open with pen in hand and brows furrowed . Plotting. Plotting. Plotting.

    They are in constant communication with the young teen highschoolers working at chick-fil-a by text messages.

    All have their consciences seared (Grace-speak for destroyed) and they are busy clipping coupons out of the sunday paper because they thought they heard “rebate” when , in fact, it was “reprobate ” that was being shouted by the John and Jane C students idling their huge SUVs in the long line to get their chicken sandwiches and thus raise a giant middle finger in the direct of Starbuck Coffee houses everywhere.

  • fws

    mike @ 114

    Gays asking for licensed marriages are to ask for a
    > restriction of liberty and not an expansion of it Mike!

    That is correct Frank. Especially since (in most states) Gays already have “Domestic Partnerships” that give them essentially the same rights and responsibilities as married couples. Yes, gays have their hunting license, but they want it to be called a fishing license.

    So it seems that you agree that the drive to deny gays a marriage license is really intended to separate gays out and separate them from the rest of society , rather than integrate them, socialize them, and thus bind them to society and thus restrict their old adams.

    the idea seems to do all possible to marginalize them and keep gays on the fringe of society . Specifically it is to bar and exclude them from the very institutions that we all say are the very bedrock and foundation for all civilized societies and are essential for the peace, wellbeing, order, and decency of society.

    This seems like a very very bad strategy to achieve more and better social order and limit the raging of Old Adam.

    Even pagans know better. “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. ” We should do all we can to bind up those we disagree with, especially where there is religious disagreement, to the norms , strictures and structures of society.

    Freedom? Meh. What use is that? it is overrated.

    Mike it seems sort of like orwellian double speak to say that freedom is promoted by passing a constitutional amendment to prevent gay marriages. The american constitution was designed to limit the power of government. it was not created to contrarily enumerate the rights of the citizens.

    I am sort of surprised how you describe and define the word “freedom”. No one should advocate for preventing people from saying whatever hateful and biggoted thing that comes into their mind. Most of us would defend , as a right, the ability to do so. You are defining freedom as the power of the majority to dictate to a minority they disagree with. I find that problematic. at many many levels.

  • fws

    mike @ 114

    Gays asking for licensed marriages are to ask for a
    > restriction of liberty and not an expansion of it Mike!

    That is correct Frank. Especially since (in most states) Gays already have “Domestic Partnerships” that give them essentially the same rights and responsibilities as married couples. Yes, gays have their hunting license, but they want it to be called a fishing license.

    So it seems that you agree that the drive to deny gays a marriage license is really intended to separate gays out and separate them from the rest of society , rather than integrate them, socialize them, and thus bind them to society and thus restrict their old adams.

    the idea seems to do all possible to marginalize them and keep gays on the fringe of society . Specifically it is to bar and exclude them from the very institutions that we all say are the very bedrock and foundation for all civilized societies and are essential for the peace, wellbeing, order, and decency of society.

    This seems like a very very bad strategy to achieve more and better social order and limit the raging of Old Adam.

    Even pagans know better. “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. ” We should do all we can to bind up those we disagree with, especially where there is religious disagreement, to the norms , strictures and structures of society.

    Freedom? Meh. What use is that? it is overrated.

    Mike it seems sort of like orwellian double speak to say that freedom is promoted by passing a constitutional amendment to prevent gay marriages. The american constitution was designed to limit the power of government. it was not created to contrarily enumerate the rights of the citizens.

    I am sort of surprised how you describe and define the word “freedom”. No one should advocate for preventing people from saying whatever hateful and biggoted thing that comes into their mind. Most of us would defend , as a right, the ability to do so. You are defining freedom as the power of the majority to dictate to a minority they disagree with. I find that problematic. at many many levels.

  • fws

    Grace

    try the huffington post, the washington post and other liberal rags. that is where I first read bout the chick-fil-a boycott. your talk of a blackout is nonesense.

    what you hear is a collective yawn from the homos. It really doesnt matter to them.

  • fws

    Grace

    try the huffington post, the washington post and other liberal rags. that is where I first read bout the chick-fil-a boycott. your talk of a blackout is nonesense.

    what you hear is a collective yawn from the homos. It really doesnt matter to them.

  • Grace

    Nay – it was a complete embarrassment. Homosexuals were all set to make a big deal out kissing at Chick-fil-A, UNTIL they saw the massive crowds on Wednesday. As the enormous turnout, multiplied, they knew they were out numbered, to the extend that, it proved how many American’s see their lifestyle as wrong. They can do whatever they like, but they aren’t going to get the vote for homosexual marriages. Obama tried to push it and failed, he was ridiculed, not only in this country, but abroad.

    No “middle finger” (only a certain segment of society would make up that slur) In their mind, you can only fight a cause and the straight population if you demonize that which is wholesome.

    “So it seems that you agree that the drive to deny gays a marriage license is really intended to separate gays out and separate them from the rest of society , rather than integrate them, socialize them, and thus bind them to society and thus restrict their old adams.

    They are “separate” as it is, they aren’t welcome in many areas of society, nor will they ever be.

    There is no reason to “integrate” that which is willfully sinning, and then trying to make it legal, bringing with it, one of the worst diseases, which can be avoided, HIV/AIDS. No, the majority of Americans want no part of it, nor do they want to “integrate” such a lifestyle into their own lives. You don’t “socialize” sin, making it more agreeable/palatable for homosexuals. They “restrict” themselves!

  • Grace

    Nay – it was a complete embarrassment. Homosexuals were all set to make a big deal out kissing at Chick-fil-A, UNTIL they saw the massive crowds on Wednesday. As the enormous turnout, multiplied, they knew they were out numbered, to the extend that, it proved how many American’s see their lifestyle as wrong. They can do whatever they like, but they aren’t going to get the vote for homosexual marriages. Obama tried to push it and failed, he was ridiculed, not only in this country, but abroad.

    No “middle finger” (only a certain segment of society would make up that slur) In their mind, you can only fight a cause and the straight population if you demonize that which is wholesome.

    “So it seems that you agree that the drive to deny gays a marriage license is really intended to separate gays out and separate them from the rest of society , rather than integrate them, socialize them, and thus bind them to society and thus restrict their old adams.

    They are “separate” as it is, they aren’t welcome in many areas of society, nor will they ever be.

    There is no reason to “integrate” that which is willfully sinning, and then trying to make it legal, bringing with it, one of the worst diseases, which can be avoided, HIV/AIDS. No, the majority of Americans want no part of it, nor do they want to “integrate” such a lifestyle into their own lives. You don’t “socialize” sin, making it more agreeable/palatable for homosexuals. They “restrict” themselves!

  • Grace

    The Black OUT began when the numbers on Wednesday grew to one of the biggest shows of agreement against same sex marriage.

    The Black OUT, then was further infused as yesterday’s show was nearly a NO SHOW by the homosexuals. Guess, they didn’t want the pictures taken after all!

  • Grace

    The Black OUT began when the numbers on Wednesday grew to one of the biggest shows of agreement against same sex marriage.

    The Black OUT, then was further infused as yesterday’s show was nearly a NO SHOW by the homosexuals. Guess, they didn’t want the pictures taken after all!

  • reg

    Grace,
    Back to the old canard, uh? “that’s because the liberal media won’t cover it. I.” Just try googling Chick-fil-A under news and see if you also don’t come up with thousands of stories on both the protesters buying sandwiches a couple of days ago and the poorly attended counter protest- and surprise! they are primarily form mainstream papers and news organizations who you say are imposing a black out. Nothing like a sense of contrived victim-hood to feel good about yourself. But sometimes facts are stubborn things and get in the way of your perpetual preference of truthiness over truth.

  • reg

    Grace,
    Back to the old canard, uh? “that’s because the liberal media won’t cover it. I.” Just try googling Chick-fil-A under news and see if you also don’t come up with thousands of stories on both the protesters buying sandwiches a couple of days ago and the poorly attended counter protest- and surprise! they are primarily form mainstream papers and news organizations who you say are imposing a black out. Nothing like a sense of contrived victim-hood to feel good about yourself. But sometimes facts are stubborn things and get in the way of your perpetual preference of truthiness over truth.

  • reg

    ps-there are none so blind as those who will not to see.

  • reg

    ps-there are none so blind as those who will not to see.

  • Grace

    reg,

    Ah, all hopes dashed for yesterdays fiasco.

  • Grace

    reg,

    Ah, all hopes dashed for yesterdays fiasco.

  • Grace

    Reg, then get some glasses. I think Costco could help, they have Optometrists on duty all day. :lol:

  • Grace

    Reg, then get some glasses. I think Costco could help, they have Optometrists on duty all day. :lol:

  • reg

    Grace,
    I am not criticizing you because I am an advocate of gay marriage, I am not. I am criticizing you because you are so unbelievably facile and knee-jerk in substituting opinion for fact and slogan for truth in your comments. Wait, perhaps you are a follower of the ancient goddess of truthiness, Veritas-not. ;-)

  • reg

    Grace,
    I am not criticizing you because I am an advocate of gay marriage, I am not. I am criticizing you because you are so unbelievably facile and knee-jerk in substituting opinion for fact and slogan for truth in your comments. Wait, perhaps you are a follower of the ancient goddess of truthiness, Veritas-not. ;-)

  • Grace

    reg,

    That’s one fabricated story you slopped together! :roll:

  • Grace

    reg,

    That’s one fabricated story you slopped together! :roll:

  • Tom Hering

    Grace, do you have any evidence for your claim that gays were so intimidated by the turnout on Wednesday that they went running back to their closets to hide? Or are you just making up your own facts – again?

  • Tom Hering

    Grace, do you have any evidence for your claim that gays were so intimidated by the turnout on Wednesday that they went running back to their closets to hide? Or are you just making up your own facts – again?

  • Grace

    Tom,

    The homosexuals were very keen to a “kiss in” yesterday, that was BEFORE and UNTIL THEY SAW, the masses standing in line for up to and hour and half on Wednesday.

    It would mean very simply, that they couldn’t compete with a standout majority of American’s across the country showing support AGAINST SAME SEX MARRIAGE. Rather than embarrass themselves further, they stayed home and pouted.

  • Grace

    Tom,

    The homosexuals were very keen to a “kiss in” yesterday, that was BEFORE and UNTIL THEY SAW, the masses standing in line for up to and hour and half on Wednesday.

    It would mean very simply, that they couldn’t compete with a standout majority of American’s across the country showing support AGAINST SAME SEX MARRIAGE. Rather than embarrass themselves further, they stayed home and pouted.

  • Tom Hering

    The homosexuals were very keen to a “kiss in” yesterday, that was BEFORE and UNTIL THEY SAW, the masses standing in line for up to and hour and half on Wednesday.

    Again, with little hope you’ll provide any, I ask you what’s your evidence for this claim?

  • Tom Hering

    The homosexuals were very keen to a “kiss in” yesterday, that was BEFORE and UNTIL THEY SAW, the masses standing in line for up to and hour and half on Wednesday.

    Again, with little hope you’ll provide any, I ask you what’s your evidence for this claim?

  • Grace

    Tom,

    I’m telling you what people believe after Wednesday and yesterday (Friday) both events, one was a huge success, followed by one that was SUPPOSED to be a very BIG SHOW, but flopped and failed. If you don’t agree, who cares, the numbers from both days speak for themselves.

    Same sex marriage is dangerous for our children and grandchildren, just for starters.

    IF, homosexuals could finagle some way to get homosexual marriages, they would be able to teach in public schools, without any interference their lifestyle, and indoctrinate children as to their beliefs, because the counterfeit marriages would be legal. Strong Bible Believing Christians are aware of the consequences of such a law, they are not ignorant of the outcome.

  • Grace

    Tom,

    I’m telling you what people believe after Wednesday and yesterday (Friday) both events, one was a huge success, followed by one that was SUPPOSED to be a very BIG SHOW, but flopped and failed. If you don’t agree, who cares, the numbers from both days speak for themselves.

    Same sex marriage is dangerous for our children and grandchildren, just for starters.

    IF, homosexuals could finagle some way to get homosexual marriages, they would be able to teach in public schools, without any interference their lifestyle, and indoctrinate children as to their beliefs, because the counterfeit marriages would be legal. Strong Bible Believing Christians are aware of the consequences of such a law, they are not ignorant of the outcome.

  • Grace

    CHECK IT OUT!

    Dangers of Same-Sex Marriage for Children

  • Grace

    CHECK IT OUT!

    Dangers of Same-Sex Marriage for Children

  • Patrick Kyle

    Frank, What does all that have to do with one man voicing his support for traditional marriage? He didn’t even reference gay marriage and so now he’s labelled a ‘hater.’ It is now framed as an ‘epic battle’ to ‘save marriage’ ( by those given to that kind of thing) because he was publicly branded a bigot and hatemonger by those ‘trying to save’ gay marriage. His initial comments that started this whole thing were actually very mild, gently affirming traditional marriage. So what? Everyone knows that the majority of Christians see it that way.
    A faction of those who affirm gay marriage blew this thing up into a national thing and now, somehow, the reaction is the fault of Christians everywhere and is indicative of ‘hate’ and bigotry.

    Has it really come down to this? Do you really believe everyone not in favor of gay marriage is a hater or at best an ignorant dumb ass?
    ( As a disclaimer, I really don’t care one way or another if they legalize gay marriage. It is not my business. However I am concerned that if it is legalized it will eventually become a bloody club used to litigate against churches and beat into submission churches that refuse to support it.)

  • Patrick Kyle

    Frank, What does all that have to do with one man voicing his support for traditional marriage? He didn’t even reference gay marriage and so now he’s labelled a ‘hater.’ It is now framed as an ‘epic battle’ to ‘save marriage’ ( by those given to that kind of thing) because he was publicly branded a bigot and hatemonger by those ‘trying to save’ gay marriage. His initial comments that started this whole thing were actually very mild, gently affirming traditional marriage. So what? Everyone knows that the majority of Christians see it that way.
    A faction of those who affirm gay marriage blew this thing up into a national thing and now, somehow, the reaction is the fault of Christians everywhere and is indicative of ‘hate’ and bigotry.

    Has it really come down to this? Do you really believe everyone not in favor of gay marriage is a hater or at best an ignorant dumb ass?
    ( As a disclaimer, I really don’t care one way or another if they legalize gay marriage. It is not my business. However I am concerned that if it is legalized it will eventually become a bloody club used to litigate against churches and beat into submission churches that refuse to support it.)

  • kerner

    I was wondering why this post had expanded to 140 comments. I should have known.

  • kerner

    I was wondering why this post had expanded to 140 comments. I should have known.

  • fws

    Pat @ 141

    PAT: Do you really believe everyone not in favor of gay marriage is a hater or at best an ignorant dumb ass?

    FRANK: Not everyone.
    Note I don’t cast people into groups. You did that.
    You and I are in the SAME group and we can disagree on this.
    I agreed with your assessment of those lined up for a Chick-fil-a.
    This is where you said it has come to Pat.

    You characterized them as John and Jane C. Student. They are there to raise a giant middle finger in annoyance at those monolithic “groups” (represented by the gay teen highschoolers working at Chick-fil-a?) who are extreme.

    Extreme how? Those “groups” think it is “extreme” to spend millions of dollars on referendums, judicial recalls, and constitutional amendments (!!) over this issue.
    And then have the unmittigated gall to say that this will save marriage and have more kids grow up with both birth parents.

    And they frost that cake by saying that embedding this in the constitution is to guarantee a “freedom”. !!

    Pat I predict that this will end up for churchs in the same way that affirmative action ended up for Bob Jones University. It was that flap, not roe v wade, that was the start of the culture wars.

    How did that all end up for Bob Jones University (and southern churches insisting on racial segregation)?

    That is how this will end up for the LCMS and your church. Google ” Bob Jones University racial segregation and government” and you will get a good feel for how things are going to go down on this issue as well.

  • fws

    Pat @ 141

    PAT: Do you really believe everyone not in favor of gay marriage is a hater or at best an ignorant dumb ass?

    FRANK: Not everyone.
    Note I don’t cast people into groups. You did that.
    You and I are in the SAME group and we can disagree on this.
    I agreed with your assessment of those lined up for a Chick-fil-a.
    This is where you said it has come to Pat.

    You characterized them as John and Jane C. Student. They are there to raise a giant middle finger in annoyance at those monolithic “groups” (represented by the gay teen highschoolers working at Chick-fil-a?) who are extreme.

    Extreme how? Those “groups” think it is “extreme” to spend millions of dollars on referendums, judicial recalls, and constitutional amendments (!!) over this issue.
    And then have the unmittigated gall to say that this will save marriage and have more kids grow up with both birth parents.

    And they frost that cake by saying that embedding this in the constitution is to guarantee a “freedom”. !!

    Pat I predict that this will end up for churchs in the same way that affirmative action ended up for Bob Jones University. It was that flap, not roe v wade, that was the start of the culture wars.

    How did that all end up for Bob Jones University (and southern churches insisting on racial segregation)?

    That is how this will end up for the LCMS and your church. Google ” Bob Jones University racial segregation and government” and you will get a good feel for how things are going to go down on this issue as well.

  • fws

    pat @ 141

    Curiously, I am not certain that it was good for the government to prohibit restaurants and hotels from refusing to serve blacks and today for gays or even employing them. Is Bob Jones University’s position about bigotry or ignorance? I don’t know. Let them do as they will I say. You might disagree with me there.
    I am appalled at govt officials threatening to ban Chick-fil-a from their cities. Things cut both ways it seems.
    I would be happy to let God deal out the consequences for such a lack of goodness, mercy and charity in the area of private property and use thereof.

    H0wever: To enshrine separate but equal treatment or simply unequal treatment in federal or state constitutions deeply troubles me. This will come back to bite churches in the ass when we are increasingly less tolerated as the minority we will always be.

    I am on the National Organization to SAVE Marriage mailing list as well as their partner organization, the Roman Catholic Thomist based Ruth Institute mailing list.

    They take the position of your John and Jane C. Student.
    They have blown up Cathy’s modest statement as well Pat.
    Meanwhile, the only chick-fil-a in new hampshire is sponsoring the gay pride festival! Go figure.

  • fws

    pat @ 141

    Curiously, I am not certain that it was good for the government to prohibit restaurants and hotels from refusing to serve blacks and today for gays or even employing them. Is Bob Jones University’s position about bigotry or ignorance? I don’t know. Let them do as they will I say. You might disagree with me there.
    I am appalled at govt officials threatening to ban Chick-fil-a from their cities. Things cut both ways it seems.
    I would be happy to let God deal out the consequences for such a lack of goodness, mercy and charity in the area of private property and use thereof.

    H0wever: To enshrine separate but equal treatment or simply unequal treatment in federal or state constitutions deeply troubles me. This will come back to bite churches in the ass when we are increasingly less tolerated as the minority we will always be.

    I am on the National Organization to SAVE Marriage mailing list as well as their partner organization, the Roman Catholic Thomist based Ruth Institute mailing list.

    They take the position of your John and Jane C. Student.
    They have blown up Cathy’s modest statement as well Pat.
    Meanwhile, the only chick-fil-a in new hampshire is sponsoring the gay pride festival! Go figure.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    FWS (@125):

    They would be recognized because they are dressed in tasteful black designer wear, and have their gay agendas all open with pen in hand and brows furrowed . Plotting. Plotting. Plotting.

    Okay, that made me laugh. But FWS, you know as well as I do that they’re very good at keeping their agendas hidden! They like to wrap them in copies of the New Yorker, I hear. You can tell if they’re only pretending to read the New Yorker if they start laughing and say it was because of the comics. Don’t be fooled — no one laughs at those. They’re laughing at their diabolical plan to convert your children.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    FWS (@125):

    They would be recognized because they are dressed in tasteful black designer wear, and have their gay agendas all open with pen in hand and brows furrowed . Plotting. Plotting. Plotting.

    Okay, that made me laugh. But FWS, you know as well as I do that they’re very good at keeping their agendas hidden! They like to wrap them in copies of the New Yorker, I hear. You can tell if they’re only pretending to read the New Yorker if they start laughing and say it was because of the comics. Don’t be fooled — no one laughs at those. They’re laughing at their diabolical plan to convert your children.

  • fws

    Todd @ 145

    I would never admit to reading the New Yorker Todd. Such things are not to be discusses in mixed company. (if you know what I mean he says ominously).

    The word is “recruit” not “convert” children by the way. When they came by with their clipboards to get me to sign up, I chose the toaster oven as my premium. To this day I regret that.
    I should have chosen the blender. But I was young and inexperienced.

    Oh. And in starbucks we get to have our agendas open now that they are being boycotted by NOM in order to save marriage and civilization.

  • fws

    Todd @ 145

    I would never admit to reading the New Yorker Todd. Such things are not to be discusses in mixed company. (if you know what I mean he says ominously).

    The word is “recruit” not “convert” children by the way. When they came by with their clipboards to get me to sign up, I chose the toaster oven as my premium. To this day I regret that.
    I should have chosen the blender. But I was young and inexperienced.

    Oh. And in starbucks we get to have our agendas open now that they are being boycotted by NOM in order to save marriage and civilization.

  • helen

    “IF, homosexuals could finagle some way to get homosexual marriages, they would be able to teach in public schools, without any interference their lifestyle, and indoctrinate children as to their beliefs, because the counterfeit marriages would be legal. Strong Bible Believing Christians are aware of the consequences of such a law, they are not ignorant of the outcome.”

    SIECUS, the organization that pushed for and published for “sex education in the public schools” was primarily a gay group. They’ve been in your public schools for 50 years or more. What rock have you been under!?

  • helen

    “IF, homosexuals could finagle some way to get homosexual marriages, they would be able to teach in public schools, without any interference their lifestyle, and indoctrinate children as to their beliefs, because the counterfeit marriages would be legal. Strong Bible Believing Christians are aware of the consequences of such a law, they are not ignorant of the outcome.”

    SIECUS, the organization that pushed for and published for “sex education in the public schools” was primarily a gay group. They’ve been in your public schools for 50 years or more. What rock have you been under!?

  • fws

    helen @ 147

    Where are you getting your information that SECUS is, or was, “primarily a gay group”. I am not finding that in how they describe themselves and their mission.

    http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=493&parentID=472

  • fws

    helen @ 147

    Where are you getting your information that SECUS is, or was, “primarily a gay group”. I am not finding that in how they describe themselves and their mission.

    http://www.siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=493&parentID=472

  • Patrick Kyle

    Frank@143,

    You said, “Extreme how? Those “groups” think it is “extreme” to spend millions of dollars on referendums, judicial recalls, and constitutional amendments (!!) over this issue.”

    The legislative attempt to expand the definition of marriage was in itself the first extreme act in the chain of extreme acts. This overturns millenia of social mores and jurisprudence on the subject. It was kicked off with millions of dollars spent on getting various propositions on the ballot, and making sure that the message got out in the right channels. There have been referendums, recalls, and boycotts by both sides. Tens or hundreds of millions has been spent by both sides. So your effort to paint those that oppose gay marriage as extreme falls flat in my view because by your own definition both sides are ‘extreme.’ An extreme reaction in answer to an extreme provocation.

    Secondly, I don’t buy the idea that defining marriage in the traditional way is discriminatory. There are gays in every level of business, military, education, the church, entertainment wealth or poverty. They are far more represented in every level of society than African Americans or Hispanics. This can be seen publicly and is true in my personal experience as well. Further more, domestic partner laws are making it easier for both homosexual couples and heterosexual couples ( who opt out of traditional marriage) to provide insurance for their partners, and to pass on their estate to their partner in case of death. The company I work for recognizes domestic partners for purposes of health benefits and company discounts. So laws and policies are changing to accommodate a variety of lifestyles.

    If I was gay and wanted to be married, I would find a minister who would do it, and just get it done. I would avail myself and my partner of any and all laws and policies that protected our domestic partner relationship, and go live my life trying to uphold my marriage in an honorable way as best I could. If enough gays did this, in twenty years or so it would be such an accepted fact that the laws would quietly change without all this fighting and posturing.

  • Patrick Kyle

    Frank@143,

    You said, “Extreme how? Those “groups” think it is “extreme” to spend millions of dollars on referendums, judicial recalls, and constitutional amendments (!!) over this issue.”

    The legislative attempt to expand the definition of marriage was in itself the first extreme act in the chain of extreme acts. This overturns millenia of social mores and jurisprudence on the subject. It was kicked off with millions of dollars spent on getting various propositions on the ballot, and making sure that the message got out in the right channels. There have been referendums, recalls, and boycotts by both sides. Tens or hundreds of millions has been spent by both sides. So your effort to paint those that oppose gay marriage as extreme falls flat in my view because by your own definition both sides are ‘extreme.’ An extreme reaction in answer to an extreme provocation.

    Secondly, I don’t buy the idea that defining marriage in the traditional way is discriminatory. There are gays in every level of business, military, education, the church, entertainment wealth or poverty. They are far more represented in every level of society than African Americans or Hispanics. This can be seen publicly and is true in my personal experience as well. Further more, domestic partner laws are making it easier for both homosexual couples and heterosexual couples ( who opt out of traditional marriage) to provide insurance for their partners, and to pass on their estate to their partner in case of death. The company I work for recognizes domestic partners for purposes of health benefits and company discounts. So laws and policies are changing to accommodate a variety of lifestyles.

    If I was gay and wanted to be married, I would find a minister who would do it, and just get it done. I would avail myself and my partner of any and all laws and policies that protected our domestic partner relationship, and go live my life trying to uphold my marriage in an honorable way as best I could. If enough gays did this, in twenty years or so it would be such an accepted fact that the laws would quietly change without all this fighting and posturing.

  • Grace

    Helen @147

    Interesting that you brought up SIECUS and Mary Calderone

    “Twenty years from 1972 and the same arguments are beginning to roll in concerning pedophilia. The same sex researchers (Dr. John Money/Johns Hopkins University, Dr. John DeCecco/Editor, Journal on Homosexuality - Dr. Mary Calderon/SIECUS) are saying that pedophilia is not necessarily damaging, so long as force is not used. PAIDIKA, Journal of Pedophilia, 4/91 stated, “If I were to see the case of a boy aged 10 or 11 who’s intensely, erotically attracted toward a man in his 20s or 30s, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual, then I would not call it pathological in any way.” 10 of the 24 members of PAIDIKA’s editorial board are also on the board of JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY. Bill Andriette, Editor of the NAMBLA Bulletin (North American Man-Boy Love Association) said, “If you look at the variation of sexuality of one individual and one culture, between different cultures, you see that the range of forms of sexual expression is just too varied to simply divvy up the map by saying “gay & straight”.

    http://clifylq.livejournal.com/84359.html

    Another very interesting point!

    “Mary Steichen Calderone (July 1, 1904 – October 24, 1998) was a physician and a public health advocate for sexual education. She served as president and co-founder of the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) from 1954 to 1982. She was also the medical director for Planned Parenthood. She wrote many publications advocating open dialogue and access to information at all ages. Her most notable feat was overturning the American Medical Association policy against the dissemination of birth control information to patients.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Calderone

  • Grace

    Helen @147

    Interesting that you brought up SIECUS and Mary Calderone

    “Twenty years from 1972 and the same arguments are beginning to roll in concerning pedophilia. The same sex researchers (Dr. John Money/Johns Hopkins University, Dr. John DeCecco/Editor, Journal on Homosexuality - Dr. Mary Calderon/SIECUS) are saying that pedophilia is not necessarily damaging, so long as force is not used. PAIDIKA, Journal of Pedophilia, 4/91 stated, “If I were to see the case of a boy aged 10 or 11 who’s intensely, erotically attracted toward a man in his 20s or 30s, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual, then I would not call it pathological in any way.” 10 of the 24 members of PAIDIKA’s editorial board are also on the board of JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY. Bill Andriette, Editor of the NAMBLA Bulletin (North American Man-Boy Love Association) said, “If you look at the variation of sexuality of one individual and one culture, between different cultures, you see that the range of forms of sexual expression is just too varied to simply divvy up the map by saying “gay & straight”.

    http://clifylq.livejournal.com/84359.html

    Another very interesting point!

    “Mary Steichen Calderone (July 1, 1904 – October 24, 1998) was a physician and a public health advocate for sexual education. She served as president and co-founder of the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) from 1954 to 1982. She was also the medical director for Planned Parenthood. She wrote many publications advocating open dialogue and access to information at all ages. Her most notable feat was overturning the American Medical Association policy against the dissemination of birth control information to patients.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Calderone

  • fws

    Pat @ 149

    Yes. Extreme. Worse.
    If a group needs to resort to lies and antirepublican methods to gain their way, what does that say?

    Denying gays a marriage license will be the salvation of traditional marriage. “save traditional marriage” they say. That’s a lie.
    Denying gays a marriage license will mean that more children will be raised with both birth parents. That’s a lie.
    Denying gays a marriage license is about maintaining liberty. Another lie.
    Driving to have constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Radical. American constitutions have always been to limit government, not to enumerate the rights of the populace.
    Majority Rule in referendums to determine such things. Un-republican.
    There seems to be a lack of equal intensity as to divorce etc. Milenial traditional standard . Overthrown. Less or more of a threat to traditional marriage Pat? Why this distorted focus?

    And finally this: We are talking about the governmental definition of marriage. License? married. No license? not married. THIS re-definition has not existed for millenia Pat.

  • fws

    Pat @ 149

    Yes. Extreme. Worse.
    If a group needs to resort to lies and antirepublican methods to gain their way, what does that say?

    Denying gays a marriage license will be the salvation of traditional marriage. “save traditional marriage” they say. That’s a lie.
    Denying gays a marriage license will mean that more children will be raised with both birth parents. That’s a lie.
    Denying gays a marriage license is about maintaining liberty. Another lie.
    Driving to have constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Radical. American constitutions have always been to limit government, not to enumerate the rights of the populace.
    Majority Rule in referendums to determine such things. Un-republican.
    There seems to be a lack of equal intensity as to divorce etc. Milenial traditional standard . Overthrown. Less or more of a threat to traditional marriage Pat? Why this distorted focus?

    And finally this: We are talking about the governmental definition of marriage. License? married. No license? not married. THIS re-definition has not existed for millenia Pat.

  • Grace

    Partrick @ 149

    YOU WROTE: “If I was gay and wanted to be married, I would find a minister who would do it, and just get it done. I would avail myself and my partner of any and all laws and policies that protected our domestic partner relationship, and go live my life trying to uphold my marriage in an honorable way as best I could. If enough gays did this, in twenty years or so it would be such an accepted fact that the laws would quietly change without all this fighting and posturing.

    Don’t bet on it. Everyone would KNOW that the homosexualis counterfeit marriage was a sham, it always was, and will be.

  • Grace

    Partrick @ 149

    YOU WROTE: “If I was gay and wanted to be married, I would find a minister who would do it, and just get it done. I would avail myself and my partner of any and all laws and policies that protected our domestic partner relationship, and go live my life trying to uphold my marriage in an honorable way as best I could. If enough gays did this, in twenty years or so it would be such an accepted fact that the laws would quietly change without all this fighting and posturing.

    Don’t bet on it. Everyone would KNOW that the homosexualis counterfeit marriage was a sham, it always was, and will be.

  • fws

    Pat @ 149

    The very saddest part of all this though Pat, is that many Lutherans are now embracing the Thomist Scholastic Natural Law theories that formed the argument against our Augustana and which the Apology categorically rejects. Why?
    To protect the church from the gay hoardes clamoring to live out their baptism within the church.

    We LCMS Lutherans will sell our very birthright for such a mess of pottage.

  • fws

    Pat @ 149

    The very saddest part of all this though Pat, is that many Lutherans are now embracing the Thomist Scholastic Natural Law theories that formed the argument against our Augustana and which the Apology categorically rejects. Why?
    To protect the church from the gay hoardes clamoring to live out their baptism within the church.

    We LCMS Lutherans will sell our very birthright for such a mess of pottage.

  • Grace

    Same sex marriage is dangerous for children. We have already observed “transgender” “homosexual lifestyles” taught in our public schools. If homosexuals were given the right to marry, then they would also be entitled to educate our children that homosexuality isn’t work. LYING to children about a sinful lifestyle, that not only is against most peoples morals, but is disease ridden HIV/AIDS and STD’s that cannot be cured

    Dangers of Same-Sex Marriage for Children

  • Grace

    Same sex marriage is dangerous for children. We have already observed “transgender” “homosexual lifestyles” taught in our public schools. If homosexuals were given the right to marry, then they would also be entitled to educate our children that homosexuality isn’t work. LYING to children about a sinful lifestyle, that not only is against most peoples morals, but is disease ridden HIV/AIDS and STD’s that cannot be cured

    Dangers of Same-Sex Marriage for Children

  • Fws

    Pat @149

    Remarriage after divorce was also forbidden by the church, as part of the definition of marriage being indessolvable.

    Many are grateful for the fact that the mercy has been done of changing that practice. Was that “extreme” merely because it was the overturn of an ancient rule and defintion?

    explain to me how this is different Pat.

  • Fws

    Pat @149

    Remarriage after divorce was also forbidden by the church, as part of the definition of marriage being indessolvable.

    Many are grateful for the fact that the mercy has been done of changing that practice. Was that “extreme” merely because it was the overturn of an ancient rule and defintion?

    explain to me how this is different Pat.

  • Fws

    Pat @ 149

    So you are in favor of domestic partnership laws ? why or why not?

  • Fws

    Pat @ 149

    So you are in favor of domestic partnership laws ? why or why not?

  • Grace

    Divorce is not forbidden in the Word of God, if adultery has been committed, that is the only sin that gives one the right to remarry. It has nothing to do with homosexuality, or same sex marriage.

  • Grace

    Divorce is not forbidden in the Word of God, if adultery has been committed, that is the only sin that gives one the right to remarry. It has nothing to do with homosexuality, or same sex marriage.

  • Patrick Kyle

    Grace@152

    “Don’t bet on it. Everyone would KNOW that the homosexualis counterfeit marriage was a sham, it always was, and will be.”

    You are quite the optimist.

  • Patrick Kyle

    Grace@152

    “Don’t bet on it. Everyone would KNOW that the homosexualis counterfeit marriage was a sham, it always was, and will be.”

    You are quite the optimist.

  • Grace

    Patrick @158

    Even IF, homosexual marriage is made legal across this country, without a majority vote from it’s citizens, homosexual marriage will be looked down upon as immoral, and sinful. It will garner no respect from strong Christian Believers.

    There will always be immoral people, they will fight for their right to make laws which impose their lifestyles and beliefs on the rest of us – just as same sex marriage would, if it became law. Our children within the public school would be affected in the most negative sinful way.

    See Romans 1.

  • Grace

    Patrick @158

    Even IF, homosexual marriage is made legal across this country, without a majority vote from it’s citizens, homosexual marriage will be looked down upon as immoral, and sinful. It will garner no respect from strong Christian Believers.

    There will always be immoral people, they will fight for their right to make laws which impose their lifestyles and beliefs on the rest of us – just as same sex marriage would, if it became law. Our children within the public school would be affected in the most negative sinful way.

    See Romans 1.

  • Grace

    Below is a very insightful video. I all of you watch it.

    The Problem with Same-Sex Marriage

    “The Problem with Same-Sex “Marriage” is a documentary that shows in heartbreaking detail what happens when marriage is redefined. We follow the stories of David and Tonia Parker and Robb and Robin…”

  • Grace

    Below is a very insightful video. I all of you watch it.

    The Problem with Same-Sex Marriage

    “The Problem with Same-Sex “Marriage” is a documentary that shows in heartbreaking detail what happens when marriage is redefined. We follow the stories of David and Tonia Parker and Robb and Robin…”

  • Grace

    Learn more about SIECUS and Dr. Mary Calderone.

    History of
    Comprehensive Sexuality Education

    Miriam Grossman, M.D. explains:

    “SIECUS was founded by Dr. Mary Calderone, the former medical director of Planned Parenthood, with seed money from Hugh Hefner, the man who founded Playboy magazine. Like Kinsey, Mary believed there was an urgent need to break from traditional views of sexuality. Sex-ed had too much negativity–too much focus on unwanted pregnancy and diseases. The real problem, she insisted, was that society is puritanical and repressed. There were too many “no’s” in sex-ed.

    Her approach in SIECUS would be based on “yeses.” Proper sex-ed would teach children that from the day they are born they are sexual beings and that the expression of their sexuality is positive, natural and healthy. In a book written for parents, the founder of SIECUS said, “Children are sexual and think sexual thoughts and do sexual things.”1

    Referring to Kinsey’s fraudulent research, Calderone stated that professionals who study children have affirmed the strong sexuality of the newborn. Kinsey conducted research with pedophiles and other unseemly characters.”

    http://www.stopsexualizingchildren.org/ssc/history.cfm

  • Grace

    Learn more about SIECUS and Dr. Mary Calderone.

    History of
    Comprehensive Sexuality Education

    Miriam Grossman, M.D. explains:

    “SIECUS was founded by Dr. Mary Calderone, the former medical director of Planned Parenthood, with seed money from Hugh Hefner, the man who founded Playboy magazine. Like Kinsey, Mary believed there was an urgent need to break from traditional views of sexuality. Sex-ed had too much negativity–too much focus on unwanted pregnancy and diseases. The real problem, she insisted, was that society is puritanical and repressed. There were too many “no’s” in sex-ed.

    Her approach in SIECUS would be based on “yeses.” Proper sex-ed would teach children that from the day they are born they are sexual beings and that the expression of their sexuality is positive, natural and healthy. In a book written for parents, the founder of SIECUS said, “Children are sexual and think sexual thoughts and do sexual things.”1

    Referring to Kinsey’s fraudulent research, Calderone stated that professionals who study children have affirmed the strong sexuality of the newborn. Kinsey conducted research with pedophiles and other unseemly characters.”

    http://www.stopsexualizingchildren.org/ssc/history.cfm

  • helen

    I had an extensive file on SIECUS back in the early 60′s when it invaded our town.
    It wasn’t known for truthfulness then either. At one open meeting its proponents claimed that the local LCMS day school was using their materials. Fortunately, the Principal of our day school was present with me to refute that lie.
    [His presence quite surprised the folks on the dais and they didn't like it much.]

    Unfortunately I have moved at least five times, (and you know that “three moves equal a fire”).
    You’ll have to trust that I am more reliable than SIECUS (which isn’t setting the bar very high).
    At least concede that there is no profit here for me, whereas they were making a profit and drumming up business in the high schools for promiscuity (followed by abortion, when necessary, according to their own films).
    Those were not supposed to be shown to parents, only teenagers, BTW.
    But my Catholic pediatrician was on the school board….

  • helen

    I had an extensive file on SIECUS back in the early 60′s when it invaded our town.
    It wasn’t known for truthfulness then either. At one open meeting its proponents claimed that the local LCMS day school was using their materials. Fortunately, the Principal of our day school was present with me to refute that lie.
    [His presence quite surprised the folks on the dais and they didn't like it much.]

    Unfortunately I have moved at least five times, (and you know that “three moves equal a fire”).
    You’ll have to trust that I am more reliable than SIECUS (which isn’t setting the bar very high).
    At least concede that there is no profit here for me, whereas they were making a profit and drumming up business in the high schools for promiscuity (followed by abortion, when necessary, according to their own films).
    Those were not supposed to be shown to parents, only teenagers, BTW.
    But my Catholic pediatrician was on the school board….

  • helen

    My Catholic pediatrician was on the school board after we put him there.
    That, and a lawsuit (for lack of truthfulness again) set the program back 10 years in that town.

  • helen

    My Catholic pediatrician was on the school board after we put him there.
    That, and a lawsuit (for lack of truthfulness again) set the program back 10 years in that town.

  • fws

    helen

    I trust you. first hand stuff.
    that is really appalling.

  • fws

    helen

    I trust you. first hand stuff.
    that is really appalling.

  • Grace

    Helen

    Anyone who knows what SIECUS, understands their tactics.

  • Grace

    Helen

    Anyone who knows what SIECUS, understands their tactics.

  • S. P.

    Fws @ 111

    “Licensing a gay relationship is even more. It is a self-chosen, self-imposed form of self restraint. it is the entering into a very socially limiting contract. it is the precise opposite of licentiousness. By definition.”

    You don’t seem to have thought this through. “License” is hardly the opposite of “licentiousness.” It’s different, I suppose, it’s less extreme, but it isn’t the opposite. The opposite of a license for homosexual behavior would be laws forbidding it.

    Anyway, there are two ways the government can license homosexual behavior. One is to give people who request it an explicit license, a document, to do it, the other is just to allow anybody to do it without special permission. I think the latter is preferable. For one thing, it doesn’t discriminate by allowing some people to do it and forbidding others, the other is that it, so to speak, keeps government “out of the bedroom.” Government regulation of people’s sex lives was well and good in European confessional states prior to the 20th century, but in 21st century America it cannot be made to work and wouldn’t be done on Lutheran principles. This isn’t northern Germany or Scandanavia and this isn’t the 1700s.

    The other thing is that you are naive and frankly peculiar to think that if homosexuals had explicit licenses they would be better able to “limit” their behavior or that societal pressures would regulate their behavior. Societal pressures are very powerful and have the potential to regulate behavior but in this case nothing of the sort would happen, although there will be more social pressure for other people to accept and not be “judgmental” about homosexuals’ behavior. It is more likely that married men would gradually act more like “gay” men but I don’t think that would happen either, mainly because it’s already happened and in the future I think the trend for young people will simply be to forego marriage altogether and the few who still want to get married will be the ones with more traditional values.

  • S. P.

    Fws @ 111

    “Licensing a gay relationship is even more. It is a self-chosen, self-imposed form of self restraint. it is the entering into a very socially limiting contract. it is the precise opposite of licentiousness. By definition.”

    You don’t seem to have thought this through. “License” is hardly the opposite of “licentiousness.” It’s different, I suppose, it’s less extreme, but it isn’t the opposite. The opposite of a license for homosexual behavior would be laws forbidding it.

    Anyway, there are two ways the government can license homosexual behavior. One is to give people who request it an explicit license, a document, to do it, the other is just to allow anybody to do it without special permission. I think the latter is preferable. For one thing, it doesn’t discriminate by allowing some people to do it and forbidding others, the other is that it, so to speak, keeps government “out of the bedroom.” Government regulation of people’s sex lives was well and good in European confessional states prior to the 20th century, but in 21st century America it cannot be made to work and wouldn’t be done on Lutheran principles. This isn’t northern Germany or Scandanavia and this isn’t the 1700s.

    The other thing is that you are naive and frankly peculiar to think that if homosexuals had explicit licenses they would be better able to “limit” their behavior or that societal pressures would regulate their behavior. Societal pressures are very powerful and have the potential to regulate behavior but in this case nothing of the sort would happen, although there will be more social pressure for other people to accept and not be “judgmental” about homosexuals’ behavior. It is more likely that married men would gradually act more like “gay” men but I don’t think that would happen either, mainly because it’s already happened and in the future I think the trend for young people will simply be to forego marriage altogether and the few who still want to get married will be the ones with more traditional values.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    S.P. (@166), you said:

    You are naive and frankly peculiar to think that if homosexuals had explicit licenses they would be better able to “limit” their behavior or that societal pressures would regulate their behavior. Societal pressures are very powerful and have the potential to regulate behavior but in this case nothing of the sort would happen…

    Wait, why would nothing happen “in this case”? You’re just asserting that by fiat?

    Anyhow, would you likewise agree that it would be naive to think that the explicit licenses that we currently give out to heterosexuals limit their behavior or that societal pressures would regulate their behavior? Because that’s pretty much the idea behind marriage. Are you saying marriage doesn’t work?

    In that case, we should do away with it for all parties involved. But on the other hand, if it does work for heterosexuals (albeit imperfectly; no one is arguing otherwise), why wouldn’t it likewise work for homosexuals?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    S.P. (@166), you said:

    You are naive and frankly peculiar to think that if homosexuals had explicit licenses they would be better able to “limit” their behavior or that societal pressures would regulate their behavior. Societal pressures are very powerful and have the potential to regulate behavior but in this case nothing of the sort would happen…

    Wait, why would nothing happen “in this case”? You’re just asserting that by fiat?

    Anyhow, would you likewise agree that it would be naive to think that the explicit licenses that we currently give out to heterosexuals limit their behavior or that societal pressures would regulate their behavior? Because that’s pretty much the idea behind marriage. Are you saying marriage doesn’t work?

    In that case, we should do away with it for all parties involved. But on the other hand, if it does work for heterosexuals (albeit imperfectly; no one is arguing otherwise), why wouldn’t it likewise work for homosexuals?

  • Grace

    “In that case, we should do away with it for all parties involved. But on the other hand, if it does work for heterosexuals (albeit imperfectly; no one is arguing otherwise), why wouldn’t it likewise work for homosexuals?”

    Wrong plumbing. It’s like having 2 hot faucets or two 2 cold faucets in the same basin. :lol: it’s a joke, it doesn’t work!

    Plumbing is very important, some fits and some is a misfit. Homosexuality can easily be compared to a bad plumbing job.

  • Grace

    “In that case, we should do away with it for all parties involved. But on the other hand, if it does work for heterosexuals (albeit imperfectly; no one is arguing otherwise), why wouldn’t it likewise work for homosexuals?”

    Wrong plumbing. It’s like having 2 hot faucets or two 2 cold faucets in the same basin. :lol: it’s a joke, it doesn’t work!

    Plumbing is very important, some fits and some is a misfit. Homosexuality can easily be compared to a bad plumbing job.

  • Grace

    Regarding 168;

    “Wrong plumbing. It’s like having 2 hot faucets or two 2 cold faucets in the same basin. it’s a joke, it doesn’t work!”

    SHOULD HAVE READ “Wrong plumbing. It’s like having 2 hot faucets in one basin, and 2 cold faucets in another basin. :lol: It’s a joke, it doesn’t work!

  • Grace

    Regarding 168;

    “Wrong plumbing. It’s like having 2 hot faucets or two 2 cold faucets in the same basin. it’s a joke, it doesn’t work!”

    SHOULD HAVE READ “Wrong plumbing. It’s like having 2 hot faucets in one basin, and 2 cold faucets in another basin. :lol: It’s a joke, it doesn’t work!

  • S. P.

    tODD

    Because there is nothing in giving homosexuals licenses that would change society in the direction of limiting the behavior of homosexuals. The only pressure for change would be in the direction of accepting homosexual behavior, since some homosexual partners will have marriage licenses and “weddings” and wedding photos to show to their friends and acquaintances, etc.

    “would you likewise agree that it would be naive to think that the explicit licenses that we currently give out to heterosexuals limit their behavior or that societal pressures would regulate their behavior?”

    Well, I don’t know what the intended force of your “likewise” is, but of course I agree with you that it would be naive to think that.

    “Because that’s pretty much the idea behind marriage.”

    What are you saying is the idea behind marriage? That it is something that people cannot normally do and they have to get a license from the government to do it? Or that marriage tames behavior both through the vow, the marriage itself and through societal pressures that married couples are subject to?

    If it’s the former I would certainly disagree, if it’s the latter I think that I would agree with you that those behavioral controls are important ideas behind marriage. Children need to be reared by upper-case-”S” Saints but their parents rarely are that kind of “Saint.” Domesticating us, moderating our behavior must be one of the main reasons God gave us the institution of marriage as well as some other things like certain hormones and strange instincts to sacrifice our own lives for our offspring.

    “…wouldn’t it likewise work for homosexuals?”

    Wouldn’t what work?

    Marriage?

    Or “Gay Marriage?”

    The former has worked for some, but of course homosexuals have a lot of issues that make it much more difficult.

    The latter is rather pointless as far as I can tell, unless the point behind it is to give people a way to try to make their homosexual friends feel more “accepted” by oohing and aahing over their wedding photos and stuff.

    As I said, society isn’t going to pressure homosexuals to modify their just because they have licenses or because they call themselves “married” to people of the same sex and framkly I doubt that very many homosexuals want that. I guess if I had the desire for society to control my actions more than it does I’d understand that desire in others and be less skeptical.

    As for any vows or promises they make not much good is likely to come of it, it seems to me. Maybe their vows are likely to do about as much good for them as those infamous Hollywood marriage vows often seem to do. There is no doubt that for those homosexual grooms and grooms or brides and brides whose vows even implicitly include a promise to sodomize each other there is no way anything good can come of it. Promising to harm somebody is not a loving vow it is a wicked plot.

  • S. P.

    tODD

    Because there is nothing in giving homosexuals licenses that would change society in the direction of limiting the behavior of homosexuals. The only pressure for change would be in the direction of accepting homosexual behavior, since some homosexual partners will have marriage licenses and “weddings” and wedding photos to show to their friends and acquaintances, etc.

    “would you likewise agree that it would be naive to think that the explicit licenses that we currently give out to heterosexuals limit their behavior or that societal pressures would regulate their behavior?”

    Well, I don’t know what the intended force of your “likewise” is, but of course I agree with you that it would be naive to think that.

    “Because that’s pretty much the idea behind marriage.”

    What are you saying is the idea behind marriage? That it is something that people cannot normally do and they have to get a license from the government to do it? Or that marriage tames behavior both through the vow, the marriage itself and through societal pressures that married couples are subject to?

    If it’s the former I would certainly disagree, if it’s the latter I think that I would agree with you that those behavioral controls are important ideas behind marriage. Children need to be reared by upper-case-”S” Saints but their parents rarely are that kind of “Saint.” Domesticating us, moderating our behavior must be one of the main reasons God gave us the institution of marriage as well as some other things like certain hormones and strange instincts to sacrifice our own lives for our offspring.

    “…wouldn’t it likewise work for homosexuals?”

    Wouldn’t what work?

    Marriage?

    Or “Gay Marriage?”

    The former has worked for some, but of course homosexuals have a lot of issues that make it much more difficult.

    The latter is rather pointless as far as I can tell, unless the point behind it is to give people a way to try to make their homosexual friends feel more “accepted” by oohing and aahing over their wedding photos and stuff.

    As I said, society isn’t going to pressure homosexuals to modify their just because they have licenses or because they call themselves “married” to people of the same sex and framkly I doubt that very many homosexuals want that. I guess if I had the desire for society to control my actions more than it does I’d understand that desire in others and be less skeptical.

    As for any vows or promises they make not much good is likely to come of it, it seems to me. Maybe their vows are likely to do about as much good for them as those infamous Hollywood marriage vows often seem to do. There is no doubt that for those homosexual grooms and grooms or brides and brides whose vows even implicitly include a promise to sodomize each other there is no way anything good can come of it. Promising to harm somebody is not a loving vow it is a wicked plot.

  • Dick Peters

    And then Jesus came upon his disciples and said, “Brethren, regarding the rumor that I am to be a human sacrifice for the sins of humankind. May I asketh, who in the g*****n hell came up with that Neanderthal b******t!!!!!? What are we, living in the f*****g Stone Age!!? Blood sacrifice!!!!!? Art thou all f*****g insane!!!?

    Listen, brethren, as I tell you something of utmost importance. Stop with the blood sacrifice b******t. It’s a ridiculous, disgusting, sickening, vile, wicked, evil, irrational bunch of Cro-Magnon donkey s**t. And it makes us all look like a bunch of ignorant, deranged lunatics. For f***s sake, stop it!”–Jesus Christ, the Thinking Man’s Gospel.

  • Dick Peters

    And then Jesus came upon his disciples and said, “Brethren, regarding the rumor that I am to be a human sacrifice for the sins of humankind. May I asketh, who in the g*****n hell came up with that Neanderthal b******t!!!!!? What are we, living in the f*****g Stone Age!!? Blood sacrifice!!!!!? Art thou all f*****g insane!!!?

    Listen, brethren, as I tell you something of utmost importance. Stop with the blood sacrifice b******t. It’s a ridiculous, disgusting, sickening, vile, wicked, evil, irrational bunch of Cro-Magnon donkey s**t. And it makes us all look like a bunch of ignorant, deranged lunatics. For f***s sake, stop it!”–Jesus Christ, the Thinking Man’s Gospel.

  • John C

    Congratulations Grace, well done, you appear to be heterosexual — the result of some fortuitous alignment of genes and hormones or even the intervention of God — one of many winners of Life’s lottery in the US.
    Being able to cast the first stone gives you an advantage in the culture wars but whatever the Bible says, I don’t think God cares.
    The Bible is not without error.

  • John C

    Congratulations Grace, well done, you appear to be heterosexual — the result of some fortuitous alignment of genes and hormones or even the intervention of God — one of many winners of Life’s lottery in the US.
    Being able to cast the first stone gives you an advantage in the culture wars but whatever the Bible says, I don’t think God cares.
    The Bible is not without error.

  • Tom Hering

    “Dick Peters” @ 171, you’ve violated the rules. No one 13 or younger is allowed to post without their parents’ permission.

  • Tom Hering

    “Dick Peters” @ 171, you’ve violated the rules. No one 13 or younger is allowed to post without their parents’ permission.

  • fws

    S.P.

    A Marriage license wraps a structure around a pair of people in exactly the same way as any civil contract binds two parties.
    It is self imposed like all contracts.
    It has commitments that are legally enforcable.

    There are many hetersexuals who flee such a contract, and what is it we assume their motives are in such a case? They want to avoid being “tied down”. When someone is begging to be tied down in this way what does that mean?

    Lutherans believe that the Divine Law of God is written in the mind of all humans. Gays are humans. This Divine Law drives us towards structure and self restraint. If we don’t obey this Divine Law God sends us punishments until we learn better.

    This is why older men tend to be more welcoming of marriage and other such structure and discipline imposed upon them than younger ones.

    The fact that the issuance of a marriage license is more than just a license, it is a social contract entered into that is legally binding and enforcable between the two parties and also society at large makes it more than just fawning over photos. But it is that too. It also exerts a social presure on people. That too is a form of Divine Law.

    The other day I heard one gay man express his undying “love” to another. The other said this : “fine, let’s go down to the justice of the peace and get married if you are serious!” Women have been doing the same thing forever haven’t they? Why? For the same reasons. I happen to know the couple. Trust me. It is putting some discipline into their situation. That is always a good thing.

  • fws

    S.P.

    A Marriage license wraps a structure around a pair of people in exactly the same way as any civil contract binds two parties.
    It is self imposed like all contracts.
    It has commitments that are legally enforcable.

    There are many hetersexuals who flee such a contract, and what is it we assume their motives are in such a case? They want to avoid being “tied down”. When someone is begging to be tied down in this way what does that mean?

    Lutherans believe that the Divine Law of God is written in the mind of all humans. Gays are humans. This Divine Law drives us towards structure and self restraint. If we don’t obey this Divine Law God sends us punishments until we learn better.

    This is why older men tend to be more welcoming of marriage and other such structure and discipline imposed upon them than younger ones.

    The fact that the issuance of a marriage license is more than just a license, it is a social contract entered into that is legally binding and enforcable between the two parties and also society at large makes it more than just fawning over photos. But it is that too. It also exerts a social presure on people. That too is a form of Divine Law.

    The other day I heard one gay man express his undying “love” to another. The other said this : “fine, let’s go down to the justice of the peace and get married if you are serious!” Women have been doing the same thing forever haven’t they? Why? For the same reasons. I happen to know the couple. Trust me. It is putting some discipline into their situation. That is always a good thing.

  • fws

    S.P. @ 174

    You seem to be arguing for doing away with marriage licenses and the government’s involvement in marriage saying this is useless.

  • fws

    S.P. @ 174

    You seem to be arguing for doing away with marriage licenses and the government’s involvement in marriage saying this is useless.

  • fws

    SP @ 174

    I would argue, and I can speak for all other Lutherans here, that marriage should be taken out of the hands of the church.

    We all believe that marriage, by definition and essence, is the God sanctioned rulership of a man and wife over their entire household. (Large Catechism 4th commandment)

    http://bookofconcord.org/lc-3-tencommandments.php#para103

    We also believe that your being married protects other marriages from you. How? It provides a lawful and self restricting sexual outlet for you, so you are less likely to chase after some other married person. Of course love and respect have to be added here for that plan to work. (LC 6th commandment.)

    I agree with Grace that the plumbing is just not the same actually.
    That could be an argument to wrap more structure around homosexuality and not less.

    Homosexuality I do think is an infirmity. Infermities often need require more discipline and self control. Diabetics and others need to restrict their diet, and that is for a common good and not only their own. Stroke victims need to relearn stuff like walking and talking that others can simply take for granted.

    Gays have learned, in some very, very hard ways that promiscuity and the notion that there are no Laws just brings pain and suffering. Society is partially to blame by insisting that homosexuality is , by definition, a state of lawlessness. That has never been true. It is an unscriptural notion. Romans 2:15 contradicts this notion.

    So my advice to a 15 year old who can’t keep it in his pants is to encourage him to try to do so. And if he can’t, I urge him to bind himself to someone in something that looks like civil marriage. My advice would be the same to ANY 15 year old. Gay or heterosexual. Why would it not be? What other practical solution to what sin does to sex is there? None. That is what the Lutheran Confessions tell us. (Augsburg Confession, art XXIII). This is true unless one wants to exclude gays from being really human.

  • fws

    SP @ 174

    I would argue, and I can speak for all other Lutherans here, that marriage should be taken out of the hands of the church.

    We all believe that marriage, by definition and essence, is the God sanctioned rulership of a man and wife over their entire household. (Large Catechism 4th commandment)

    http://bookofconcord.org/lc-3-tencommandments.php#para103

    We also believe that your being married protects other marriages from you. How? It provides a lawful and self restricting sexual outlet for you, so you are less likely to chase after some other married person. Of course love and respect have to be added here for that plan to work. (LC 6th commandment.)

    I agree with Grace that the plumbing is just not the same actually.
    That could be an argument to wrap more structure around homosexuality and not less.

    Homosexuality I do think is an infirmity. Infermities often need require more discipline and self control. Diabetics and others need to restrict their diet, and that is for a common good and not only their own. Stroke victims need to relearn stuff like walking and talking that others can simply take for granted.

    Gays have learned, in some very, very hard ways that promiscuity and the notion that there are no Laws just brings pain and suffering. Society is partially to blame by insisting that homosexuality is , by definition, a state of lawlessness. That has never been true. It is an unscriptural notion. Romans 2:15 contradicts this notion.

    So my advice to a 15 year old who can’t keep it in his pants is to encourage him to try to do so. And if he can’t, I urge him to bind himself to someone in something that looks like civil marriage. My advice would be the same to ANY 15 year old. Gay or heterosexual. Why would it not be? What other practical solution to what sin does to sex is there? None. That is what the Lutheran Confessions tell us. (Augsburg Confession, art XXIII). This is true unless one wants to exclude gays from being really human.

  • fws

    John C @ 172

    “Being able to cast the first stone gives you an advantage in the culture wars but whatever the Bible says, I don’t think God cares.
    The Bible is not without error.”

    John C: What a cosmically depressing thought: “There IS a God and he just doesn’t care.” God cares. My proof is that he sent his only Son to become human and literally bind himself to our fallen human condition with all it’s suffering. We christians oddly believe that our God was a man of sorrow and was intimately acquainted with grief. I find that extremely comforting as a gay man, and as a Lutheran christian John C.

    And that Man Jesus, who claimed to be the Creator of the Universe, said that the Scriptures cannot be broken. Maybe what you aren’t seeing is that the Bible is not a rulebook or owner’s manual as Grace would have it, but every single letter is simply and only a testimony that is about that Jesus who was a man of sorrow, and acquainted with grief. What other religion do you know of that would describe their God as “humble”. That is the God I love, trust , and .,… Whom I fear John C. Yes. Fear. My God is the biggest MoFo in the Universe. Bigger than the Universe. And he is a man who knows my sorrow and suffering. And he is MY MoFo. If I fear God, I don’t need to fear anyone or anything else John C. And I am dead certain, only in looking at a dead Jew hanging on an instrument of capital punishment, that that God is mine.

    It’s a wierd idea. Why should God care? He really shouldn’t. But what a wonderful thing to be certain that he does care. And that he cares about ME. Personally.

    John C. Question: Were you baptized? If the answer is yes, you too should have that same certainty that I have that God has sought you out and has made you his and that you can trust that as a fact. I don’t know any of the particulars of your life do I? But if that one particular happened, I can be certain about what I just said. So can you be. Trust in that John C.

  • fws

    John C @ 172

    “Being able to cast the first stone gives you an advantage in the culture wars but whatever the Bible says, I don’t think God cares.
    The Bible is not without error.”

    John C: What a cosmically depressing thought: “There IS a God and he just doesn’t care.” God cares. My proof is that he sent his only Son to become human and literally bind himself to our fallen human condition with all it’s suffering. We christians oddly believe that our God was a man of sorrow and was intimately acquainted with grief. I find that extremely comforting as a gay man, and as a Lutheran christian John C.

    And that Man Jesus, who claimed to be the Creator of the Universe, said that the Scriptures cannot be broken. Maybe what you aren’t seeing is that the Bible is not a rulebook or owner’s manual as Grace would have it, but every single letter is simply and only a testimony that is about that Jesus who was a man of sorrow, and acquainted with grief. What other religion do you know of that would describe their God as “humble”. That is the God I love, trust , and .,… Whom I fear John C. Yes. Fear. My God is the biggest MoFo in the Universe. Bigger than the Universe. And he is a man who knows my sorrow and suffering. And he is MY MoFo. If I fear God, I don’t need to fear anyone or anything else John C. And I am dead certain, only in looking at a dead Jew hanging on an instrument of capital punishment, that that God is mine.

    It’s a wierd idea. Why should God care? He really shouldn’t. But what a wonderful thing to be certain that he does care. And that he cares about ME. Personally.

    John C. Question: Were you baptized? If the answer is yes, you too should have that same certainty that I have that God has sought you out and has made you his and that you can trust that as a fact. I don’t know any of the particulars of your life do I? But if that one particular happened, I can be certain about what I just said. So can you be. Trust in that John C.

  • Tom Hering

    Frank, thanks for the beautiful post @ 177. It reminded me that our God grieved, and Himself experienced a terrible death. He became one of us, to share in the worst that we experience, and to know what we suffer. For personal reasons, I really needed to remember that right now. Thanks again.

  • Tom Hering

    Frank, thanks for the beautiful post @ 177. It reminded me that our God grieved, and Himself experienced a terrible death. He became one of us, to share in the worst that we experience, and to know what we suffer. For personal reasons, I really needed to remember that right now. Thanks again.

  • John C

    I don’t think God cares whether you are gay or not, fws.
    I do not think He would condemn you for it or regard it as a sin. He could not be so cruel could He?

  • John C

    I don’t think God cares whether you are gay or not, fws.
    I do not think He would condemn you for it or regard it as a sin. He could not be so cruel could He?

  • fws

    Tom @ 178

    That’s what we are here for right? You have comforted me too at times when I really needed it too dear brother. Thanks for letting me know.

    John C @ 179

    If you have been following this blog, apparently the other Lutherans here don’t seem to care too much about that either in the way you mean.

    I know what you mean John. As in condemn. Reject.

    What I mean was this John. I am certain, in Christ, in my baptism that God cares about me. And I am certain that he cares about me by name. Personally.

    Imagine a being far far larger than the Universe and who created it and cares even about a sparrow falling, cares about …. me. And I am a gay man John C. So he cares about me in all of that as well.
    And I need all that caring John C. I can be certain of that because I was baptized.

    Were you baptized John C? If you were then that is the proof God has given you that you are not just some faceless speck to him. I am telling you what the Lutheran Church has to say about you John C. And notice that I don’t need to know one blessed thing about whether or not you are gay to tell you that with all certainty!

    I do not think He would condemn you for it or regard it as a sin. He could not be so cruel could He?

    You are asking the wrong question John C!

    http://www.esvbible.org/John+9/

    You are asking the question of the disciples and the Pharisees.

    Their focus was on the legal exercise of assigning the blame for sin. This is what we do isn’t it?
    The Law always and only condemns and accuses.
    We flee that judgement and think of God as a cruel tyrant who demands what is impossible to do.
    If Exodus really worked (and it does not) as gay-be-gone, I would find that the Law is STILL accusing me John C.

    So read the story John C. Insert the word “gay” for the word “blind”. Imagine that Baptism is the cure for being gay. Because it is (hint: I am still gay, so cure here means what it means in John 9, which is for that blind man to see something beyond what his eyes could see) .

    John C. I would invite you to see that same Jesus that seeks to cure you even though you could not see him. He uses very ordinary and mundane means to do this. not mud and spit. In this case ordinary tap water that He personally applied to you before you were able to see him.

    John C. Your question is irrelivant is what I am saying. It misses the entire point. The point is a Person and seeing that Person and believing in him. Everything else is just a minor detail. Cure? from what? Why would that really matter. God’s will be glorified in Jesus in whatever situation you find yourself in dear John C.

  • fws

    Tom @ 178

    That’s what we are here for right? You have comforted me too at times when I really needed it too dear brother. Thanks for letting me know.

    John C @ 179

    If you have been following this blog, apparently the other Lutherans here don’t seem to care too much about that either in the way you mean.

    I know what you mean John. As in condemn. Reject.

    What I mean was this John. I am certain, in Christ, in my baptism that God cares about me. And I am certain that he cares about me by name. Personally.

    Imagine a being far far larger than the Universe and who created it and cares even about a sparrow falling, cares about …. me. And I am a gay man John C. So he cares about me in all of that as well.
    And I need all that caring John C. I can be certain of that because I was baptized.

    Were you baptized John C? If you were then that is the proof God has given you that you are not just some faceless speck to him. I am telling you what the Lutheran Church has to say about you John C. And notice that I don’t need to know one blessed thing about whether or not you are gay to tell you that with all certainty!

    I do not think He would condemn you for it or regard it as a sin. He could not be so cruel could He?

    You are asking the wrong question John C!

    http://www.esvbible.org/John+9/

    You are asking the question of the disciples and the Pharisees.

    Their focus was on the legal exercise of assigning the blame for sin. This is what we do isn’t it?
    The Law always and only condemns and accuses.
    We flee that judgement and think of God as a cruel tyrant who demands what is impossible to do.
    If Exodus really worked (and it does not) as gay-be-gone, I would find that the Law is STILL accusing me John C.

    So read the story John C. Insert the word “gay” for the word “blind”. Imagine that Baptism is the cure for being gay. Because it is (hint: I am still gay, so cure here means what it means in John 9, which is for that blind man to see something beyond what his eyes could see) .

    John C. I would invite you to see that same Jesus that seeks to cure you even though you could not see him. He uses very ordinary and mundane means to do this. not mud and spit. In this case ordinary tap water that He personally applied to you before you were able to see him.

    John C. Your question is irrelivant is what I am saying. It misses the entire point. The point is a Person and seeing that Person and believing in him. Everything else is just a minor detail. Cure? from what? Why would that really matter. God’s will be glorified in Jesus in whatever situation you find yourself in dear John C.

  • fws

    John C @ 179

    And yes, john, by all means… instead of reading “pharisee” in john 9, read “the church”. And where you see the parents being afraid of “the church”, think of them being in a small town and being terrified of what the neighborhood, and their own church would think, and afraid of being cast out.

    And you can think of the church/pharisees casting out the gay/blind man for exactly the same reason churches cast out gays all the time.

    But a real Lutheran church could never do that.
    But sometimes, unfortunately, we do just that. We are sinners too.
    We are the pharisees. To not confess this is to be a liar.
    This is God’s judgement of us. We don’t flee it. We confess it John.

    There is no need to flee God’s judgement of our sin John. We have Jesus. our Baptism tell us that. God made a promise to me, by name, right in my baptism John. I am a liar. Ok. He can’t be!

    We simply instead are terrified at that sin that we see in pharisaical selves and we wish to flee it and be done with it. Sin is a terrible thing.

    And so you see me here on this blog. And you see how the other Lutherans here consider me knowing that I am a gay man.
    And you will see that at times I say rude things to Grace or others. And at times others do the same to me. Ok.

    We trust Jesus for that. ALL that. And yes John. He cares about me, and me includes the fact that I am gay.
    Ok. And the point of all that is what?
    Jesus. Alone. And trust in him that God does not condemn us.

  • fws

    John C @ 179

    And yes, john, by all means… instead of reading “pharisee” in john 9, read “the church”. And where you see the parents being afraid of “the church”, think of them being in a small town and being terrified of what the neighborhood, and their own church would think, and afraid of being cast out.

    And you can think of the church/pharisees casting out the gay/blind man for exactly the same reason churches cast out gays all the time.

    But a real Lutheran church could never do that.
    But sometimes, unfortunately, we do just that. We are sinners too.
    We are the pharisees. To not confess this is to be a liar.
    This is God’s judgement of us. We don’t flee it. We confess it John.

    There is no need to flee God’s judgement of our sin John. We have Jesus. our Baptism tell us that. God made a promise to me, by name, right in my baptism John. I am a liar. Ok. He can’t be!

    We simply instead are terrified at that sin that we see in pharisaical selves and we wish to flee it and be done with it. Sin is a terrible thing.

    And so you see me here on this blog. And you see how the other Lutherans here consider me knowing that I am a gay man.
    And you will see that at times I say rude things to Grace or others. And at times others do the same to me. Ok.

    We trust Jesus for that. ALL that. And yes John. He cares about me, and me includes the fact that I am gay.
    Ok. And the point of all that is what?
    Jesus. Alone. And trust in him that God does not condemn us.

  • fws

    john c @ 179

    I don’t think God cares whether you are gay or not, fws.
    I do not think He would condemn you for it or regard it as a sin. He could not be so cruel could He?

    This is a really, really stupid thought John C.

    Jesus has appeared in the Cosmic Court and plead my case.

    God has declared me “Not Guilty!” “Dismissed!”

    And my response is to…. um…. dissect exactly what it is that I am NOT guilty of? Why would I need to revisit that and attempt to reopen and plead that case?

    That would be pretty crazy wouldn’t it be?

    Here is the deal John: I still have to live with others here on earth. And I am not always (actually usually not) a very nice person. If you could read my mind….

    So I need to control my behavior towards others. Not only that, I am also required, by God to be NICE to other people. I am required to do things to please them. Imagine that. And that irks me. But if I chose to not treat others this way, God will punish me until I chose otherwise. But that is about God making me be good.

    “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin” is what the bible says.
    That means, precisely, that the opposite of sin is not to be good.
    The opposite of sin is faith, alone, in Christ. Alone. alone. alone.

    See what I am saying. Now go back and read john 9. Everyone is running around trying to assign sin and make sin about goodness.
    And the Opposite of sin is right before their eyes.
    And they are blind to seeing it!

  • fws

    john c @ 179

    I don’t think God cares whether you are gay or not, fws.
    I do not think He would condemn you for it or regard it as a sin. He could not be so cruel could He?

    This is a really, really stupid thought John C.

    Jesus has appeared in the Cosmic Court and plead my case.

    God has declared me “Not Guilty!” “Dismissed!”

    And my response is to…. um…. dissect exactly what it is that I am NOT guilty of? Why would I need to revisit that and attempt to reopen and plead that case?

    That would be pretty crazy wouldn’t it be?

    Here is the deal John: I still have to live with others here on earth. And I am not always (actually usually not) a very nice person. If you could read my mind….

    So I need to control my behavior towards others. Not only that, I am also required, by God to be NICE to other people. I am required to do things to please them. Imagine that. And that irks me. But if I chose to not treat others this way, God will punish me until I chose otherwise. But that is about God making me be good.

    “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin” is what the bible says.
    That means, precisely, that the opposite of sin is not to be good.
    The opposite of sin is faith, alone, in Christ. Alone. alone. alone.

    See what I am saying. Now go back and read john 9. Everyone is running around trying to assign sin and make sin about goodness.
    And the Opposite of sin is right before their eyes.
    And they are blind to seeing it!

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “A Marriage license wraps a structure around a pair of people in exactly the same way as any civil contract binds two parties.
    It is self imposed like all contracts.
    It has commitments that are legally enforcable.”

    Nope. None of that is true. Of course we are talking about state laws so the state laws where you live might define words in a peculiar way. A license gives you permission to do something which you otherwise may not do. There are (at least) two ways a government may license a thing. One is to simply do nothing to forbid it, the other is to grant special permission to a someone in particular, which is what is usually meant when we use the noun “license.”

    “There are many hetersexuals who flee such a contract…”

    I think I have an idea about what you think you mean by “such a contract” but I won’t assume and won’t reply to what you said. Your thinking is very confused on these matters. I cannot help but suspect that you want your thinking to remain confused, that you fear clarity.

    “Lutherans believe that the Divine Law of God is written in the mind of all humans…”

    Some Lutherans apparently believe that the Divine Law of God is written in their own assertions, which is convenient for them when they want to defy the teachings of Luther, the Book of Concord, the Bible, and the universal beliefs and practices of mankind until this very specific place and time to assert a revolutionary New Thing.

    “This Divine Law drives us towards structure and self restraint. If we don’t obey this Divine Law God sends us punishments until we learn better.”

    Or, more likely, we don’t obey and still fail to obey right up to the end of our lives. Are the people you think have succeeded in obeying divine law really succeeding or is it more likely they are deceiving themselves do you think?

    “The fact that the issuance of a marriage license is more than just a license, it is a social contract…”

    Not exactly. It is related to a contract but it is not a contract. It is a license.

    “Trust me. It is putting some discipline into their situation. That is always a good thing.”

    I don’t trust you and it isn’t. Words are cheap and so are sentiments. If someone loves somebody else he will treat him in a loving way., which will include not committing sodomy with him and certainly not making a contract to commit sodomy.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “A Marriage license wraps a structure around a pair of people in exactly the same way as any civil contract binds two parties.
    It is self imposed like all contracts.
    It has commitments that are legally enforcable.”

    Nope. None of that is true. Of course we are talking about state laws so the state laws where you live might define words in a peculiar way. A license gives you permission to do something which you otherwise may not do. There are (at least) two ways a government may license a thing. One is to simply do nothing to forbid it, the other is to grant special permission to a someone in particular, which is what is usually meant when we use the noun “license.”

    “There are many hetersexuals who flee such a contract…”

    I think I have an idea about what you think you mean by “such a contract” but I won’t assume and won’t reply to what you said. Your thinking is very confused on these matters. I cannot help but suspect that you want your thinking to remain confused, that you fear clarity.

    “Lutherans believe that the Divine Law of God is written in the mind of all humans…”

    Some Lutherans apparently believe that the Divine Law of God is written in their own assertions, which is convenient for them when they want to defy the teachings of Luther, the Book of Concord, the Bible, and the universal beliefs and practices of mankind until this very specific place and time to assert a revolutionary New Thing.

    “This Divine Law drives us towards structure and self restraint. If we don’t obey this Divine Law God sends us punishments until we learn better.”

    Or, more likely, we don’t obey and still fail to obey right up to the end of our lives. Are the people you think have succeeded in obeying divine law really succeeding or is it more likely they are deceiving themselves do you think?

    “The fact that the issuance of a marriage license is more than just a license, it is a social contract…”

    Not exactly. It is related to a contract but it is not a contract. It is a license.

    “Trust me. It is putting some discipline into their situation. That is always a good thing.”

    I don’t trust you and it isn’t. Words are cheap and so are sentiments. If someone loves somebody else he will treat him in a loving way., which will include not committing sodomy with him and certainly not making a contract to commit sodomy.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “You seem to be (1) arguing for doing away with marriage licenses and (2) the government’s involvement in marriage (3) saying this is ["these are" I think you mean] useless.”

    1. No, I’m not right now, but perhaps I will some other time.
    2. Certainly not. The government cannot avoid “being involved.”in marriage, to be vague about it.
    3. No. They are useful, not useless, although in the case of your first question I might argue that something else would be just as useful but not nominally totalitarian. I won’t make my argument, but I’ll give you a hint by suggesting that while granting a license does initiate a useful bureaucratic process of officially registering a marriage, something else, a “registration form”, could do the same thing without presuming to “license” something that a man and woman have a right to do. When a judge allows minors or first cousins to marry when it’s normally legal that ruling is truly a license.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “You seem to be (1) arguing for doing away with marriage licenses and (2) the government’s involvement in marriage (3) saying this is ["these are" I think you mean] useless.”

    1. No, I’m not right now, but perhaps I will some other time.
    2. Certainly not. The government cannot avoid “being involved.”in marriage, to be vague about it.
    3. No. They are useful, not useless, although in the case of your first question I might argue that something else would be just as useful but not nominally totalitarian. I won’t make my argument, but I’ll give you a hint by suggesting that while granting a license does initiate a useful bureaucratic process of officially registering a marriage, something else, a “registration form”, could do the same thing without presuming to “license” something that a man and woman have a right to do. When a judge allows minors or first cousins to marry when it’s normally legal that ruling is truly a license.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Well, sure. The marriage license is just a license to get married. The issuance of a marriage license doesn’t mean that the licensees are actually married, yet.

    You’re not on the airplane, just because you’ve been issued a boarding pass.

    The marriage itself is where the contract comes in.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Well, sure. The marriage license is just a license to get married. The issuance of a marriage license doesn’t mean that the licensees are actually married, yet.

    You’re not on the airplane, just because you’ve been issued a boarding pass.

    The marriage itself is where the contract comes in.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “I would argue, and I can speak for all other Lutherans here, that marriage should be taken out of the hands of the church.”

    It is not possible that you can speak for all Lutherans (I’m thinking in particular of the ones whose thinking on the subject is clearer than yours) by the use of so vague a metaphor as “should be taken out of the hands of the church.”

    I acknowledge that there is a precise point behind the cloud, though.

    “We all believe that marriage, by definition and essence, is the God sanctioned rulership of a man and wife over their entire household. ”

    I suggest you not use “we”, but it’s good that thou believest it. I was afraid that thou believed that a marriage was the God-sanctioned rulership of a man and husband or a woman and wife over who knows what unwholesome things.

    “That could be an argument to wrap more structure around homosexuality and not less.”

    It should be an argument to trust in God’s promises, since one’s own vile actions will only condemn one, then, out of gratitude for God’s mercy and loving kindness, to flee wickedness and act with love towards God and your fellow man. The life of a homosexual is certainly “disordered”, as the Roman Catholics say, in a way that is most painfully obvious. How fortunate they are (in a sense), since it’s that much easier to avoid the error of trusting in their own good works to save them. How tragic that so many of them are now throwing away such an gracious opportunity by trying to convince themselves that good is evil and evil is good.

    “Homosexuality I do think is an infirmity. ”

    If you are a homosexual I am sorry for you that you think that. It is enabling you to avoid facing unpleasant truths that you need to face. If you are not a homosexual you should stop being so condescending.

    “Gays have learned, in some very, very hard ways that promiscuity and the notion that there are no Laws just brings pain and suffering. ”

    It is a tragic fact of life that we often have to learn the hard way even though the easy way is readily available to us.

    “Society is partially to blame by insisting that homosexuality is , by definition, a state of lawlessness. That has never been true. It is an unscriptural notion. Romans 2:15 contradicts this notion.”

    Maybe it depends on what you mean by “a state of lawlessness.” I’m pretty sure that society does not insist that homosexuals are sociopaths without a conscience, the notion which would contradict Romans 2:15.

    “So my advice to a 15 year old who can’t keep it in his pants is…”

    I’m fairly certain I can speak for at least some other Lutherans here when I say I hope you avoid circumstances where you are giving advice on such sensitive matters to 15 year-old young men.

    “This is true unless one wants to exclude gays from being really human.”

    Surely you want to redefine marriage to include incest, bestiality, master-slave relationships, pairings between living people and corpses, masturbation, etc. since you cannot want to exclude people who are into those perversions “from being really human.”

    “Really human” people sometimes do horrible things. All we have to do is acknowledge that, we don’t have to redefine those horrible things away by calling them “marriage” to save their humanity.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “I would argue, and I can speak for all other Lutherans here, that marriage should be taken out of the hands of the church.”

    It is not possible that you can speak for all Lutherans (I’m thinking in particular of the ones whose thinking on the subject is clearer than yours) by the use of so vague a metaphor as “should be taken out of the hands of the church.”

    I acknowledge that there is a precise point behind the cloud, though.

    “We all believe that marriage, by definition and essence, is the God sanctioned rulership of a man and wife over their entire household. ”

    I suggest you not use “we”, but it’s good that thou believest it. I was afraid that thou believed that a marriage was the God-sanctioned rulership of a man and husband or a woman and wife over who knows what unwholesome things.

    “That could be an argument to wrap more structure around homosexuality and not less.”

    It should be an argument to trust in God’s promises, since one’s own vile actions will only condemn one, then, out of gratitude for God’s mercy and loving kindness, to flee wickedness and act with love towards God and your fellow man. The life of a homosexual is certainly “disordered”, as the Roman Catholics say, in a way that is most painfully obvious. How fortunate they are (in a sense), since it’s that much easier to avoid the error of trusting in their own good works to save them. How tragic that so many of them are now throwing away such an gracious opportunity by trying to convince themselves that good is evil and evil is good.

    “Homosexuality I do think is an infirmity. ”

    If you are a homosexual I am sorry for you that you think that. It is enabling you to avoid facing unpleasant truths that you need to face. If you are not a homosexual you should stop being so condescending.

    “Gays have learned, in some very, very hard ways that promiscuity and the notion that there are no Laws just brings pain and suffering. ”

    It is a tragic fact of life that we often have to learn the hard way even though the easy way is readily available to us.

    “Society is partially to blame by insisting that homosexuality is , by definition, a state of lawlessness. That has never been true. It is an unscriptural notion. Romans 2:15 contradicts this notion.”

    Maybe it depends on what you mean by “a state of lawlessness.” I’m pretty sure that society does not insist that homosexuals are sociopaths without a conscience, the notion which would contradict Romans 2:15.

    “So my advice to a 15 year old who can’t keep it in his pants is…”

    I’m fairly certain I can speak for at least some other Lutherans here when I say I hope you avoid circumstances where you are giving advice on such sensitive matters to 15 year-old young men.

    “This is true unless one wants to exclude gays from being really human.”

    Surely you want to redefine marriage to include incest, bestiality, master-slave relationships, pairings between living people and corpses, masturbation, etc. since you cannot want to exclude people who are into those perversions “from being really human.”

    “Really human” people sometimes do horrible things. All we have to do is acknowledge that, we don’t have to redefine those horrible things away by calling them “marriage” to save their humanity.

  • fws

    mike and sp at 185 & 186

    a marriage license does indeed function exactly as a contract. how does it not. I suggest sp that you are the one confused here. Do some googling on some legal site.

    mike: its true that a marriage is not defined as possessing that piece of paper called a marriage license. but for civil and legal purposes that IS the definition, and nothing more or less than that.
    Words may have more than one meaning and a variety of contexts.

  • fws

    mike and sp at 185 & 186

    a marriage license does indeed function exactly as a contract. how does it not. I suggest sp that you are the one confused here. Do some googling on some legal site.

    mike: its true that a marriage is not defined as possessing that piece of paper called a marriage license. but for civil and legal purposes that IS the definition, and nothing more or less than that.
    Words may have more than one meaning and a variety of contexts.

  • Patrick Kyle

    DP @171.

    There is only one problem. The Scriptures explicitly teach the blood atonement. You can deny them and make up your own gospel (which it appears you have done) or you can deal with the text, like most people here try to do.

  • Patrick Kyle

    DP @171.

    There is only one problem. The Scriptures explicitly teach the blood atonement. You can deny them and make up your own gospel (which it appears you have done) or you can deal with the text, like most people here try to do.

  • fws

    sp @ 186

    “It is not possible that you can speak for all Lutherans ”

    Well. Yes it is. Whenever I quote, accurately, from the Book of Concord, I can indeed declare that I do speak for all Lutherans. We are that united.
    Of course, there is always the very real possibility that I am misquoting the Book of Concord or taking something out of context. You would need to read that book to see if that is so. This is really easy to do. I have provided the link to the online version of that Book you will notice just so you are able to do that! Here is the link again in case you missed it:

    Check this out SP

    http://www.b0okofconcord.org

  • fws

    sp @ 186

    “It is not possible that you can speak for all Lutherans ”

    Well. Yes it is. Whenever I quote, accurately, from the Book of Concord, I can indeed declare that I do speak for all Lutherans. We are that united.
    Of course, there is always the very real possibility that I am misquoting the Book of Concord or taking something out of context. You would need to read that book to see if that is so. This is really easy to do. I have provided the link to the online version of that Book you will notice just so you are able to do that! Here is the link again in case you missed it:

    Check this out SP

    http://www.b0okofconcord.org

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    I don’t know about where you live, but every where I’ve ever been, there is no marriage until a JP or an MG signs off the certificate and returns it to the appropriate authorities. License in hand doesn’t mean married.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    I don’t know about where you live, but every where I’ve ever been, there is no marriage until a JP or an MG signs off the certificate and returns it to the appropriate authorities. License in hand doesn’t mean married.

  • Fws

    Mike @ 190

    Ah got ya Mike. I stand corrected there. Good catch.

  • Fws

    Mike @ 190

    Ah got ya Mike. I stand corrected there. Good catch.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “a marriage license does indeed function exactly as a contract. how does it not. ”

    Apparently where you are from, the “marriage license” is defined in an unusual way. Ordinarily, a marriage license is not a contract but just what it says, a license to get married. Of course marriage itself is a contract everywhere.

    “Whenever I quote, accurately, from the Book of Concord, I can indeed declare that I do speak for all Lutherans.”

    Except yourself, for example, and all those other Lutherans who say that women can marry women and men can carry men, since you have a different understanding of what marriage is. Or are you saying that you and those other Lutherans who mistakenly think that marriage is “gay” are not Lutheran?

    I wouldn’t say that, but I do know that you are wrong and confused. It does outrage me that there are Pastors who think as you do. They are duty-bound to find a new vocation.

    Thank you but I actually have a book of concord “app” on my iPad. I trust that your quote is accurate, so I don’t need to look it up. Since the quote contradicts your notion that two people of the same sex can “marry” each other, I don’t understand what you think you will prove to me by having me look it up to check that you quoted accurately.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “a marriage license does indeed function exactly as a contract. how does it not. ”

    Apparently where you are from, the “marriage license” is defined in an unusual way. Ordinarily, a marriage license is not a contract but just what it says, a license to get married. Of course marriage itself is a contract everywhere.

    “Whenever I quote, accurately, from the Book of Concord, I can indeed declare that I do speak for all Lutherans.”

    Except yourself, for example, and all those other Lutherans who say that women can marry women and men can carry men, since you have a different understanding of what marriage is. Or are you saying that you and those other Lutherans who mistakenly think that marriage is “gay” are not Lutheran?

    I wouldn’t say that, but I do know that you are wrong and confused. It does outrage me that there are Pastors who think as you do. They are duty-bound to find a new vocation.

    Thank you but I actually have a book of concord “app” on my iPad. I trust that your quote is accurate, so I don’t need to look it up. Since the quote contradicts your notion that two people of the same sex can “marry” each other, I don’t understand what you think you will prove to me by having me look it up to check that you quoted accurately.

  • fws

    sp @ 192

    “women can marry women and men can carry men, since you have a different understanding of what marriage is. ”

    Again. My understanding of what marriage is is this:

    Marriage , in it’s essence, is the God sanctioned rule of a man and wife over their entire household. It is a form of government in exactly the same sense that church and state are governments. (LC 4th commandent paraphrased).

    Marriage protects other marriages by giving each person his own portion of sex so the person is less likely to chase after someone elses spouse. Of course love and respect are needed for this to work. Marriage is the ONLY feasable and Biblical form of sexual self control.
    Celebacy doesn’t work and almost always comes to a tragic end. (LC 6th commandment. Augsburg Confession XXIII)

    This is what all Lutherans believe. Here I can speak for all Lutherans.

    Whatever else I wrote is my own private opinion. I agree that something that approximates marriage as close as possible for homosexuals is not the same as male/female marriage. But I would not deny an artificial leg to someone missing a leg. An artificial leg is not as good. Ok. But it sorta gets the job that legs are designed to do done. Even with homosexuals, alot of the benefits of marriage still can be had. Lots of Lutherans differ with me on this. And the difference is not as to the definition of marriage.

    Lots of your comments about mastubation and beastiality and such are pretty far out, so I wont bother to respond to those comments.

  • fws

    sp @ 192

    “women can marry women and men can carry men, since you have a different understanding of what marriage is. ”

    Again. My understanding of what marriage is is this:

    Marriage , in it’s essence, is the God sanctioned rule of a man and wife over their entire household. It is a form of government in exactly the same sense that church and state are governments. (LC 4th commandent paraphrased).

    Marriage protects other marriages by giving each person his own portion of sex so the person is less likely to chase after someone elses spouse. Of course love and respect are needed for this to work. Marriage is the ONLY feasable and Biblical form of sexual self control.
    Celebacy doesn’t work and almost always comes to a tragic end. (LC 6th commandment. Augsburg Confession XXIII)

    This is what all Lutherans believe. Here I can speak for all Lutherans.

    Whatever else I wrote is my own private opinion. I agree that something that approximates marriage as close as possible for homosexuals is not the same as male/female marriage. But I would not deny an artificial leg to someone missing a leg. An artificial leg is not as good. Ok. But it sorta gets the job that legs are designed to do done. Even with homosexuals, alot of the benefits of marriage still can be had. Lots of Lutherans differ with me on this. And the difference is not as to the definition of marriage.

    Lots of your comments about mastubation and beastiality and such are pretty far out, so I wont bother to respond to those comments.

  • fws

    sp @ 192

    Yes you are correct about the marriage licence. It is an element essential to having a legally binding marriage contract. The marriage contract functions much like a partnership agreement or other such contract legally. yes there needs to be a ceremony to complete the contract. Mike pointed that out earlier didnt he?

    And this is no where part of the biblical essence and definition of marriage. I summarized the biblical definition when I summarized the large catechism. And your point here is what exactly?

  • fws

    sp @ 192

    Yes you are correct about the marriage licence. It is an element essential to having a legally binding marriage contract. The marriage contract functions much like a partnership agreement or other such contract legally. yes there needs to be a ceremony to complete the contract. Mike pointed that out earlier didnt he?

    And this is no where part of the biblical essence and definition of marriage. I summarized the biblical definition when I summarized the large catechism. And your point here is what exactly?

  • Grace

    This is a pitiful attempt on this blog, onthe part of homosexuals to use marriage, as a fighting zone for their lifestyle, fraught and characterized by disease -

    Watching this display, among those who believe they are Christians, when making it clear they believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry separates them from true Believers. It makes no difference what denomination they are involved with, they deceive themselves, and mock HOLY Scripture. It’s nothing but a sham.

    No marriage license will make your sin HOLY, nor will it excuse you of your stubborn desires, and give you Eternal life.

    All the arguments, books, play on words makes no sense, they are VOID of understanding.

    This particular thread has PROVEN how depraved one can become, when seeking lust. As the Scriptures state:

    12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

    13 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.

    16 Do not err, my beloved brethren. James 1

    If you can still UNDERSTAND, take note. How does one know when their last night on earth might be this one.

  • Grace

    This is a pitiful attempt on this blog, onthe part of homosexuals to use marriage, as a fighting zone for their lifestyle, fraught and characterized by disease -

    Watching this display, among those who believe they are Christians, when making it clear they believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry separates them from true Believers. It makes no difference what denomination they are involved with, they deceive themselves, and mock HOLY Scripture. It’s nothing but a sham.

    No marriage license will make your sin HOLY, nor will it excuse you of your stubborn desires, and give you Eternal life.

    All the arguments, books, play on words makes no sense, they are VOID of understanding.

    This particular thread has PROVEN how depraved one can become, when seeking lust. As the Scriptures state:

    12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

    13 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.

    16 Do not err, my beloved brethren. James 1

    If you can still UNDERSTAND, take note. How does one know when their last night on earth might be this one.

  • fws

    grace @ 195

    so some gays are pushing for marriage because they want to be promiscuous? really.

  • fws

    grace @ 195

    so some gays are pushing for marriage because they want to be promiscuous? really.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “It is an element essential to having a legally binding marriage contract.”

    Actually that’s not correct. I am not sure why you are focusing on marriage licenses, per se. Their original purpose, if memory serves, was to prevent marriages that some state government didn’t approve of, and the idea caught on and was adopted by other states, as so often happens. In contemporary times (that is, late 20th and early 21st century or thereabouts) when states no longer restrict marriage except for the marriage of minors or close relatives, a license practically speaking is nothing but a convenient way to have an official record, a sort of “registration form” in affect though nominally and essentially still a legal license (which is why I call it “nominally” totalitarian).

    The license is neither a marriage contract nor is it an element of a marriage contract. A marriage contract is not anything like a specific written contract drawn up by a lawyer and signed by the bride and groom. Instead, the terms of the marriage contract are specified by statutes and are the same for every married couple (within the particular state that the couple resides in).

    “The marriage contract functions much like a partnership agreement or other such contract legally.”

    No, that’s not really correct either. The marriage contract is substantially different than other contracts. It is quite unique.

    “yes there needs to be a ceremony to complete the contract.”

    I don’t think that is true everywhere and always.

    “And your point here is what exactly?”

    My point where? I am responding to fws@194 which was written by you and only contains your points.

    Oh, and Fws@196

    “so some gays are pushing for marriage because they want to be promiscuous? really.”

    Grace did not assert that in the comment to which you refer. Perhaps she implied it in a very subtle (and not strictly logical) way, let’s see if she confirms or denies the implication.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “It is an element essential to having a legally binding marriage contract.”

    Actually that’s not correct. I am not sure why you are focusing on marriage licenses, per se. Their original purpose, if memory serves, was to prevent marriages that some state government didn’t approve of, and the idea caught on and was adopted by other states, as so often happens. In contemporary times (that is, late 20th and early 21st century or thereabouts) when states no longer restrict marriage except for the marriage of minors or close relatives, a license practically speaking is nothing but a convenient way to have an official record, a sort of “registration form” in affect though nominally and essentially still a legal license (which is why I call it “nominally” totalitarian).

    The license is neither a marriage contract nor is it an element of a marriage contract. A marriage contract is not anything like a specific written contract drawn up by a lawyer and signed by the bride and groom. Instead, the terms of the marriage contract are specified by statutes and are the same for every married couple (within the particular state that the couple resides in).

    “The marriage contract functions much like a partnership agreement or other such contract legally.”

    No, that’s not really correct either. The marriage contract is substantially different than other contracts. It is quite unique.

    “yes there needs to be a ceremony to complete the contract.”

    I don’t think that is true everywhere and always.

    “And your point here is what exactly?”

    My point where? I am responding to fws@194 which was written by you and only contains your points.

    Oh, and Fws@196

    “so some gays are pushing for marriage because they want to be promiscuous? really.”

    Grace did not assert that in the comment to which you refer. Perhaps she implied it in a very subtle (and not strictly logical) way, let’s see if she confirms or denies the implication.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@195) said:

    Watching this display, among those who believe they are Christians, when making it clear they believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry separates them from true Believers.

    Actually, Grace, what makes someone a Christian, what makes them a “true believer”, is that they have faith in Christ alone as their savior from sin.

    Based on that, I am much less worried about FWS’s salvation than I am yours. He may (and here I’m not offering my opinion, but just conceding for the sake of argument) be wrong about homosexuality, he may be wrong about marriage, but he freely and openly confesses both his own sinfulness and Christ as his savior from that sin.

    You, on the other hand, frequently appear to espouse a works righteousness in which anyone who sins “willfully” cannot be saved, or in which opinions on gay marriage disqualify one from salvation. Among many other problematic stances. Is your faith in Christ, Grace, or is it in your works? Are you saved by Jesus’ death on the cross, or by your correct opinion on marriage? I couldn’t honestly answer those questions about you. What testimony do you think that gives to others?

    You’re not alone, though. The Pharisees also thought they had the “true believer” thing all worked out, and they sneered at all the “sinners” — the same ones that Jesus said were entering the kingdom of God ahead of the self-righteous priests and elders.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@195) said:

    Watching this display, among those who believe they are Christians, when making it clear they believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry separates them from true Believers.

    Actually, Grace, what makes someone a Christian, what makes them a “true believer”, is that they have faith in Christ alone as their savior from sin.

    Based on that, I am much less worried about FWS’s salvation than I am yours. He may (and here I’m not offering my opinion, but just conceding for the sake of argument) be wrong about homosexuality, he may be wrong about marriage, but he freely and openly confesses both his own sinfulness and Christ as his savior from that sin.

    You, on the other hand, frequently appear to espouse a works righteousness in which anyone who sins “willfully” cannot be saved, or in which opinions on gay marriage disqualify one from salvation. Among many other problematic stances. Is your faith in Christ, Grace, or is it in your works? Are you saved by Jesus’ death on the cross, or by your correct opinion on marriage? I couldn’t honestly answer those questions about you. What testimony do you think that gives to others?

    You’re not alone, though. The Pharisees also thought they had the “true believer” thing all worked out, and they sneered at all the “sinners” — the same ones that Jesus said were entering the kingdom of God ahead of the self-righteous priests and elders.

  • S. P.

    Fws@193

    “Again. My understanding of what marriage is is this:…Marriage , in it’s essence, is the God sanctioned rule of a man and wife over their entire household…”

    I see. In that case I completely misunderstood you. I thought you were defending the idea that marriage can be “gay.”

    “Marriage is the ONLY feasable and Biblical form of sexual self control.”

    Are you stating that as something you believe to be true? Because in that case what you are saying implies that the “God sanctioned rule of a man and wife over their entire household…” etc. is “the ONLY feasable and Biblical form of sexual self control.” So if you go on to say something that contradicts that you are contradicting yourself

    “Even with homosexuals, alot of the benefits of marriage still can be had. ” I suppose all of them can be had, since homosexuals can get married. I cannot say that I think it’s a good idea though. Perhaps a homosexual man could marry a homosexual woman, being totally up-front and frank with each other, and can be relatively happy, or at least more happy than they would be single. I have to say, I’m skeptical.

    I am certain that you are wrong that “gay marriage” will give any of the benefits of marriage to homosexuals. It will give them something many of them perceive as a benefit heterosexuals have because of marriage and homosexuals where there isn’t “gay marriage” that is, social acceptance for their lifestyles.

    It is a social acceptance won through dishonest manipulation and a degree of force, though, and it is a social acceptance that will fail to make them happy, just as social indifference failed to make them happy, social tolerance failed to make them happy, legalization failed to make them happy, and decriminalization failed to make them happy. What many homosexuals fail to see is that other people are not the problem, and compelling other people and society and laws to change is not the solution.

    “Lots of your comments about mastubation and beastiality and such are pretty far out…”

    Thank you! I thought so. Showing what happens when we apply the principle consistently I thought was the easiest way to show that it cannot be true that binding “himself to someone in something that looks like civil marriage” is a practical solution to what sin does to sex for a person who has a sexual drive perverted from the normal kind that leads people to want to get married. In the biblical sense.

  • S. P.

    Fws@193

    “Again. My understanding of what marriage is is this:…Marriage , in it’s essence, is the God sanctioned rule of a man and wife over their entire household…”

    I see. In that case I completely misunderstood you. I thought you were defending the idea that marriage can be “gay.”

    “Marriage is the ONLY feasable and Biblical form of sexual self control.”

    Are you stating that as something you believe to be true? Because in that case what you are saying implies that the “God sanctioned rule of a man and wife over their entire household…” etc. is “the ONLY feasable and Biblical form of sexual self control.” So if you go on to say something that contradicts that you are contradicting yourself

    “Even with homosexuals, alot of the benefits of marriage still can be had. ” I suppose all of them can be had, since homosexuals can get married. I cannot say that I think it’s a good idea though. Perhaps a homosexual man could marry a homosexual woman, being totally up-front and frank with each other, and can be relatively happy, or at least more happy than they would be single. I have to say, I’m skeptical.

    I am certain that you are wrong that “gay marriage” will give any of the benefits of marriage to homosexuals. It will give them something many of them perceive as a benefit heterosexuals have because of marriage and homosexuals where there isn’t “gay marriage” that is, social acceptance for their lifestyles.

    It is a social acceptance won through dishonest manipulation and a degree of force, though, and it is a social acceptance that will fail to make them happy, just as social indifference failed to make them happy, social tolerance failed to make them happy, legalization failed to make them happy, and decriminalization failed to make them happy. What many homosexuals fail to see is that other people are not the problem, and compelling other people and society and laws to change is not the solution.

    “Lots of your comments about mastubation and beastiality and such are pretty far out…”

    Thank you! I thought so. Showing what happens when we apply the principle consistently I thought was the easiest way to show that it cannot be true that binding “himself to someone in something that looks like civil marriage” is a practical solution to what sin does to sex for a person who has a sexual drive perverted from the normal kind that leads people to want to get married. In the biblical sense.

  • Grace

    tODD @ 198

    “He may (and here I’m not offering my opinion, but just conceding for the sake of argument) be wrong about homosexuality, he may be wrong about marriage, but he freely and openly confesses both his own sinfulness and Christ as his savior from that sin.”>

    No, that’s no true – “I do not believe that homosexuality, per se, is a sin.“ was stated back in February of this year.” fws @ 37 on February 20, 2012 http://www.geneveith.com/2012/02/16/thoughts-on-homosexuality-not-being-genetic/#comment-142493

    That cnnot be found no where in the Bible.

  • Grace

    tODD @ 198

    “He may (and here I’m not offering my opinion, but just conceding for the sake of argument) be wrong about homosexuality, he may be wrong about marriage, but he freely and openly confesses both his own sinfulness and Christ as his savior from that sin.”>

    No, that’s no true – “I do not believe that homosexuality, per se, is a sin.“ was stated back in February of this year.” fws @ 37 on February 20, 2012 http://www.geneveith.com/2012/02/16/thoughts-on-homosexuality-not-being-genetic/#comment-142493

    That cnnot be found no where in the Bible.

  • Fws

    Sp @ 199

    Whatever the original intent and purpose of a marriage license was, there can be no legally binding marriage contract without one. So by definition it is an “essential” part.
    you are conflating.

    one thing that is certain:
    Marriage is,totally , about the carnal fleshly righteousness that will perish with the earth. It is pure law. It’s purpose is , alone, to make earthly life better.

  • Fws

    Sp @ 199

    Whatever the original intent and purpose of a marriage license was, there can be no legally binding marriage contract without one. So by definition it is an “essential” part.
    you are conflating.

    one thing that is certain:
    Marriage is,totally , about the carnal fleshly righteousness that will perish with the earth. It is pure law. It’s purpose is , alone, to make earthly life better.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@200), you are gravely mistaken. FWS has very clearly confessed his own sinfulness, as well as his faith in Christ as his savior from that sin. If you insist on claiming otherwise, then know that you are a liar.

    You would seek to deny FWS his salvation based on this one statement of his. Never mind that he has repeatedly (with more patience than you could possibly deserve) attempted to explain what it means (which is not what you think it means), not that it has ever once gotten through your thick skull — and that is almost certainly how you like it.

    No, here we again see your satanic works righteousness, in which an opinion on homosexuality is what saves or damns.

    Are you saved because of your correct position on homosexuality, Grace? Are you saved because you (erroneously) believe you don’t sin willfully? You may think so — you certainly seem to say so — but these are but lies from Satan.

    As usual, the Pharisees of this world are put to shame by the sinners. The sinners look to God for their salvation, and will not be disappointed, while the Pharisees look only to their own pathetic righteousness.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@200), you are gravely mistaken. FWS has very clearly confessed his own sinfulness, as well as his faith in Christ as his savior from that sin. If you insist on claiming otherwise, then know that you are a liar.

    You would seek to deny FWS his salvation based on this one statement of his. Never mind that he has repeatedly (with more patience than you could possibly deserve) attempted to explain what it means (which is not what you think it means), not that it has ever once gotten through your thick skull — and that is almost certainly how you like it.

    No, here we again see your satanic works righteousness, in which an opinion on homosexuality is what saves or damns.

    Are you saved because of your correct position on homosexuality, Grace? Are you saved because you (erroneously) believe you don’t sin willfully? You may think so — you certainly seem to say so — but these are but lies from Satan.

    As usual, the Pharisees of this world are put to shame by the sinners. The sinners look to God for their salvation, and will not be disappointed, while the Pharisees look only to their own pathetic righteousness.

  • Grace

    fws @ 196

    “so some gays are pushing for marriage because they want to be promiscuous? really.”

    No, that isn’t what I wrote. Homosexuals are promiscous for the most part, that’s how and why they have become infected with HIV/AIDS, and a vast number of STDs, some of which there is no cure. Marriage doesn’t have anything to do with it.

  • Grace

    fws @ 196

    “so some gays are pushing for marriage because they want to be promiscuous? really.”

    No, that isn’t what I wrote. Homosexuals are promiscous for the most part, that’s how and why they have become infected with HIV/AIDS, and a vast number of STDs, some of which there is no cure. Marriage doesn’t have anything to do with it.

  • Grace

    Christ told the woman caught in adultery. “sin no more”

    She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
    John 8:11

    We aren’t to continue sinning.

  • Grace

    Christ told the woman caught in adultery. “sin no more”

    She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
    John 8:11

    We aren’t to continue sinning.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “there can be no legally binding marriage contract without one.”

    Actually, that’s not true. There are many instances of legally binding marriage contracts where no license was ever obtained.

    “So by definition it is an ‘essential’ part.”

    No, it is certainly not a part of the contract, either essentially or as part of the definition of a marriage contract. Sometimes it is a precondition to be able to get married, which would make it (at those times and in those places) a precondition to being able to the contract.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “there can be no legally binding marriage contract without one.”

    Actually, that’s not true. There are many instances of legally binding marriage contracts where no license was ever obtained.

    “So by definition it is an ‘essential’ part.”

    No, it is certainly not a part of the contract, either essentially or as part of the definition of a marriage contract. Sometimes it is a precondition to be able to get married, which would make it (at those times and in those places) a precondition to being able to the contract.

  • S. P.

    Sorry, I meant: “Sometimes it is a precondition to be able to get married, which would make it (at those times and in those places) a precondition to entering the contract.”

  • S. P.

    Sorry, I meant: “Sometimes it is a precondition to be able to get married, which would make it (at those times and in those places) a precondition to entering the contract.”

  • Grace

    Ephesians 5 is one of the most obvious WARNINGS to BELIEVERS……….this book was written by Paul, and he is making it clear to BELIEVERS that they could not go back into sin, . . . “let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;” verse 3. . .

    Paul names all the sins in verses 3 and 4. Then in verse 5, Paul makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR . . . “For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. . . .

    In verse FIVE (5) it is clear that going back into sin will result in those who do will not have an inheritance in the kingdom of CHRIST and of GOD.

    1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;

    2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

    3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;

    4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.

    5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

    6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

    7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them.

    8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:

  • Grace

    Ephesians 5 is one of the most obvious WARNINGS to BELIEVERS……….this book was written by Paul, and he is making it clear to BELIEVERS that they could not go back into sin, . . . “let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;” verse 3. . .

    Paul names all the sins in verses 3 and 4. Then in verse 5, Paul makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR . . . “For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. . . .

    In verse FIVE (5) it is clear that going back into sin will result in those who do will not have an inheritance in the kingdom of CHRIST and of GOD.

    1 Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children;

    2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

    3 But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;

    4 Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.

    5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

    6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

    7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them.

    8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:

  • Tom Hering

    Grace, you quoted Ephesians 5:3, “But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints.” Yet you’ve spoken of homosexuality more than once on this blog – you’ve sinned by naming it dozens of times.

    No forgiveness for you, unless you repent, and never again name you-know-what.

  • Tom Hering

    Grace, you quoted Ephesians 5:3, “But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints.” Yet you’ve spoken of homosexuality more than once on this blog – you’ve sinned by naming it dozens of times.

    No forgiveness for you, unless you repent, and never again name you-know-what.

  • Grace

    Tom @208

    uncleanness Strong’s Greek Dictionary

    akatharsia – ak-ath-ar-see’-ah

    impurity (the quality), physically or morally: -uncleanness.

  • Grace

    Tom @208

    uncleanness Strong’s Greek Dictionary

    akatharsia – ak-ath-ar-see’-ah

    impurity (the quality), physically or morally: -uncleanness.

  • Tom Hering

    Sorry Grace, but you can’t wiggle out of this by turning to dictionarys and other books written by men. You’ve named something the Scripture specifically told you not to name, and unless you repent, and never do it again, you’re lost forever.

  • Tom Hering

    Sorry Grace, but you can’t wiggle out of this by turning to dictionarys and other books written by men. You’ve named something the Scripture specifically told you not to name, and unless you repent, and never do it again, you’re lost forever.

  • Grace

    Tom, the Hebrew word “uncleanness” is defined the way I posted it.

    Homosexuals have a tough time accepting their lifestyle as sin, no matter what Romans 1 states clearly, or the word “uncleanness”.

  • Grace

    Tom, the Hebrew word “uncleanness” is defined the way I posted it.

    Homosexuals have a tough time accepting their lifestyle as sin, no matter what Romans 1 states clearly, or the word “uncleanness”.

  • Tom Hering

    Grace, I’m telling you again that you’re lost forever unless you change your ways and obey the Scripture perfectly. You can keep trying to get out of the trouble you’re in by babbling about Greek and Hebrew words, but GOD IS NOT MOCKED.

  • Tom Hering

    Grace, I’m telling you again that you’re lost forever unless you change your ways and obey the Scripture perfectly. You can keep trying to get out of the trouble you’re in by babbling about Greek and Hebrew words, but GOD IS NOT MOCKED.

  • Grace

    You can’t stand the Greek meaning of the word, so you believe I should repent for giving it to you? Not going to happen.

  • Grace

    You can’t stand the Greek meaning of the word, so you believe I should repent for giving it to you? Not going to happen.

  • Grace

    1 Corinthians 6:9 – 11 Versions

    International Standard Version
    You know that wicked people will not inherit the kingdom of God, don’t you? Stop deceiving yourselves! Sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals,

    New American Standard Bible
    Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

    GOD’S WORD Translation
    Don’t you know that wicked people won’t inherit the kingdom of God? Stop deceiving yourselves! People who continue to commit sexual sins, who worship false gods, those who commit adultery, homosexuals,

    King James Bible
    Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

    American King James Version
    Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

    American Standard Version
    Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,

    Darby Bible Translation
    Do ye not know that unrighteous persons shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men,

    English Revised Version
    Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,

    Webster’s Bible Translation
    Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

    World English Bible
    Or don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals,

    Young’s Literal Translation
    have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites

  • Grace

    1 Corinthians 6:9 – 11 Versions

    International Standard Version
    You know that wicked people will not inherit the kingdom of God, don’t you? Stop deceiving yourselves! Sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals,

    New American Standard Bible
    Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

    GOD’S WORD Translation
    Don’t you know that wicked people won’t inherit the kingdom of God? Stop deceiving yourselves! People who continue to commit sexual sins, who worship false gods, those who commit adultery, homosexuals,

    King James Bible
    Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

    American King James Version
    Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

    American Standard Version
    Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,

    Darby Bible Translation
    Do ye not know that unrighteous persons shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men,

    English Revised Version
    Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men,

    Webster’s Bible Translation
    Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

    World English Bible
    Or don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals,

    Young’s Literal Translation
    have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@204):

    We aren’t to continue sinning.

    Indeed. That is what the Law tells us.

    But what is so troubling is that you seem to think that you’ve pulled this off, that you, somehow, have stopped sinning.

    In which case, I invite you to keep reading your Bible. Because you do sin, Grace. You continually sin, and you do so willfully. Anyone who reads your comments has seen evidence of your sin. Even on this thread. If you think you succeeded in no sinning, you’re the only one so deluded. God, certainly, is not deceived by such self-righteousness.

    If you claim to be without sin, you deceive yourself and the truth is not in you, Grace. But if you confess your sins, God is faithful and just and will forgive you your sins and purify you from all unrighteousness.

    FWS, and many others — including me — confess their sinful state. You? I’m not so sure. You almost always dodge the question. Which has me thinking that you’ve deceived yourself and the truth is not in you.

    So answer the question, Grace: do you continue sinning? Do you continue sinning willfully? If you answer “no” to either of those, you’re a liar; why should anyone listen to you?

    You know what the Law says. But I don’t think you grasp the fullness of what the Law demands. And I’m quite worried that you also don’t know what the Gospel says, either. But then, your words here make me think you don’t need the Gospel. Because, it would seem, you stopped sinning.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@204):

    We aren’t to continue sinning.

    Indeed. That is what the Law tells us.

    But what is so troubling is that you seem to think that you’ve pulled this off, that you, somehow, have stopped sinning.

    In which case, I invite you to keep reading your Bible. Because you do sin, Grace. You continually sin, and you do so willfully. Anyone who reads your comments has seen evidence of your sin. Even on this thread. If you think you succeeded in no sinning, you’re the only one so deluded. God, certainly, is not deceived by such self-righteousness.

    If you claim to be without sin, you deceive yourself and the truth is not in you, Grace. But if you confess your sins, God is faithful and just and will forgive you your sins and purify you from all unrighteousness.

    FWS, and many others — including me — confess their sinful state. You? I’m not so sure. You almost always dodge the question. Which has me thinking that you’ve deceived yourself and the truth is not in you.

    So answer the question, Grace: do you continue sinning? Do you continue sinning willfully? If you answer “no” to either of those, you’re a liar; why should anyone listen to you?

    You know what the Law says. But I don’t think you grasp the fullness of what the Law demands. And I’m quite worried that you also don’t know what the Gospel says, either. But then, your words here make me think you don’t need the Gospel. Because, it would seem, you stopped sinning.

  • Tom Hering

    If the Bible wants to name something, it’s God’s right to do so. But He’s told YOU not to name it. If you want to remain BLIND to His command, so you can go on sinning in the same way, that’s fine with me. I’ve warned you, and that’s all I can do.

  • Tom Hering

    If the Bible wants to name something, it’s God’s right to do so. But He’s told YOU not to name it. If you want to remain BLIND to His command, so you can go on sinning in the same way, that’s fine with me. I’ve warned you, and that’s all I can do.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    As usual, Grace has all the time in the world when it comes to pointing out the sins of homosexuals, but when you ask her about her own sins, she just disappears.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    As usual, Grace has all the time in the world when it comes to pointing out the sins of homosexuals, but when you ask her about her own sins, she just disappears.

  • Tom Hering

    I suspect she’s busy putting together a long response that proves (A) she doesn’t sin in any way that condemns her and (B) others here are false Christians (mostly gays and Lutherans).

  • Tom Hering

    I suspect she’s busy putting together a long response that proves (A) she doesn’t sin in any way that condemns her and (B) others here are false Christians (mostly gays and Lutherans).

  • Grace

    tODD

    “As usual, Grace has all the time in the world when it comes to pointing out the sins of homosexuals, but when you ask her about her own sins, she just disappears.”

    The problem with you toDD, you forgot what the subject is on this thread, it’s homosexuality, same sex marriage and Chick-fil-A. Staying on subject is difficult as well. Your favorite game is to bait and switch the conversation, personalize it, in order to deflect the subject. It doesn’t work, you need to stay focused.

    If homosexuality is personal to you, then you might have a problem with people saying it’s sinful, that’s usually the complaint. If you know it’s sinful, why bother defending it?

  • Grace

    tODD

    “As usual, Grace has all the time in the world when it comes to pointing out the sins of homosexuals, but when you ask her about her own sins, she just disappears.”

    The problem with you toDD, you forgot what the subject is on this thread, it’s homosexuality, same sex marriage and Chick-fil-A. Staying on subject is difficult as well. Your favorite game is to bait and switch the conversation, personalize it, in order to deflect the subject. It doesn’t work, you need to stay focused.

    If homosexuality is personal to you, then you might have a problem with people saying it’s sinful, that’s usually the complaint. If you know it’s sinful, why bother defending it?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Oh, look. Grace (@219) totally dodged. Punted. Avoided the question. Shall I act surprised?

    You know as well as I do that you’ve gone off-topic numerous times, in this thread alone. We can all read, Grace. You’re only using the “staying on subject” thing to dodge the questions asked of you. Which you always do.

    You want to talk about other people’s sins because it distracts you from your own sinfulness. About which you are in denial. And if you deny your own sinfulness, then you also deny Christ as your savior.

    I’m sure the Pharisees were also offended when they were told the “sinners” were entering the kingdom of God ahead of them.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Oh, look. Grace (@219) totally dodged. Punted. Avoided the question. Shall I act surprised?

    You know as well as I do that you’ve gone off-topic numerous times, in this thread alone. We can all read, Grace. You’re only using the “staying on subject” thing to dodge the questions asked of you. Which you always do.

    You want to talk about other people’s sins because it distracts you from your own sinfulness. About which you are in denial. And if you deny your own sinfulness, then you also deny Christ as your savior.

    I’m sure the Pharisees were also offended when they were told the “sinners” were entering the kingdom of God ahead of them.

  • Grace

    LOL – - – - POOR toDD – :razz:

  • Grace

    LOL – - – - POOR toDD – :razz:

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@221), keep dodging (with a reply that in no way manages to stay on-topic, no less; hypocrite).

    If you claim to be without sin, you deceive yourself and the truth is not in you, Grace. But if you confess your sins, God is faithful and just and will forgive you your sins and purify you from all unrighteousness.

    Unfortunately, it’s fairly clear which part of that applies to you, Grace.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@221), keep dodging (with a reply that in no way manages to stay on-topic, no less; hypocrite).

    If you claim to be without sin, you deceive yourself and the truth is not in you, Grace. But if you confess your sins, God is faithful and just and will forgive you your sins and purify you from all unrighteousness.

    Unfortunately, it’s fairly clear which part of that applies to you, Grace.

  • Grace

    toDD,

    I have never claimed to be without sin, not once.

    What you’re trying to accomplish is to dismiss homosexuality as a sin, and step around it – that is whats so obvious. The thread is about homosexual marriage, homosexuals in general and Chick-fi-A, but you can’t cope with the material or the Scripture that condemns homosexuality! That is what has gotten you into a knot!

    I don’t have a lot of time to waste, you might have nothing else to do, but I do. I was very busy yesterday with two very important appointments, I am busy today as well, all your whining won’t change a thing.

  • Grace

    toDD,

    I have never claimed to be without sin, not once.

    What you’re trying to accomplish is to dismiss homosexuality as a sin, and step around it – that is whats so obvious. The thread is about homosexual marriage, homosexuals in general and Chick-fi-A, but you can’t cope with the material or the Scripture that condemns homosexuality! That is what has gotten you into a knot!

    I don’t have a lot of time to waste, you might have nothing else to do, but I do. I was very busy yesterday with two very important appointments, I am busy today as well, all your whining won’t change a thing.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@223):

    I have never claimed to be without sin, not once.

    Congratulations, Grace! That’s almost a reply to the questions I actually asked you (and have been asking you, and getting dodges from you, since the comment numbers were in the 70s): Do you continue sinning? Do you continue sinning willfully? But I have a pretty good guess what your (non-)answers will be, as predictable as you are.

    Anyhow, there’s a clear incongruity to your claiming that you are not “without sin”, and yet also stating (@66) that “you cannot continue to sin willfully after you Believe in Christ as Savior.” Which is why I asked the specific questions I did. Apparently, you somehow believe that you are “with sin”, yet do not sin willfully.

    Which is completely unbiblical. Here is a Biblical assessment of the life of a Christian:

    I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.

    Might want to look into that. Anyhow, you said:

    What you’re trying to accomplish is to dismiss homosexuality as a sin…

    Not at all. I don’t think I’ve actually said anything about homosexuality, either way. What I’m trying to accomplish is to (A) understand your theology is regarding sin, and (B) defend a Christian brother against your Satanic attacks on his faith.

    The thread is about homosexual marriage, homosexuals in general and Chick-fi-A, but you can’t cope with the material or the Scripture that condemns homosexuality!

    I don’t know if you’ve noticed, Einstein, but I’m replying to statements made directly by you on this thread. If I’m off-topic, then everything I’m replying to (written by you) was off-topic. To say nothing of the many off-topic comments you’ve made that I didn’t reply to (SIECUS, divorce, definitions of Greek words, etc.)

    I don’t have a lot of time to waste…

    Said the woman who has written fifty-six comments on this thread alone! Please, Grace, you’ve written three times as many comments as I have here. Who do you think you’re fooling? If you added up all the time you’ve spent on this blog complaining that you “don’t have a lot of time” for engaging in dialog … you actually could have engaged in some constructive dialog!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace said (@223):

    I have never claimed to be without sin, not once.

    Congratulations, Grace! That’s almost a reply to the questions I actually asked you (and have been asking you, and getting dodges from you, since the comment numbers were in the 70s): Do you continue sinning? Do you continue sinning willfully? But I have a pretty good guess what your (non-)answers will be, as predictable as you are.

    Anyhow, there’s a clear incongruity to your claiming that you are not “without sin”, and yet also stating (@66) that “you cannot continue to sin willfully after you Believe in Christ as Savior.” Which is why I asked the specific questions I did. Apparently, you somehow believe that you are “with sin”, yet do not sin willfully.

    Which is completely unbiblical. Here is a Biblical assessment of the life of a Christian:

    I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.

    Might want to look into that. Anyhow, you said:

    What you’re trying to accomplish is to dismiss homosexuality as a sin…

    Not at all. I don’t think I’ve actually said anything about homosexuality, either way. What I’m trying to accomplish is to (A) understand your theology is regarding sin, and (B) defend a Christian brother against your Satanic attacks on his faith.

    The thread is about homosexual marriage, homosexuals in general and Chick-fi-A, but you can’t cope with the material or the Scripture that condemns homosexuality!

    I don’t know if you’ve noticed, Einstein, but I’m replying to statements made directly by you on this thread. If I’m off-topic, then everything I’m replying to (written by you) was off-topic. To say nothing of the many off-topic comments you’ve made that I didn’t reply to (SIECUS, divorce, definitions of Greek words, etc.)

    I don’t have a lot of time to waste…

    Said the woman who has written fifty-six comments on this thread alone! Please, Grace, you’ve written three times as many comments as I have here. Who do you think you’re fooling? If you added up all the time you’ve spent on this blog complaining that you “don’t have a lot of time” for engaging in dialog … you actually could have engaged in some constructive dialog!

  • Grace

    tODD,

    Is homosexuality a sin? If not why?

    Let’s get back on track, as to what the thread is about, not your meanderings about others.

  • Grace

    tODD,

    Is homosexuality a sin? If not why?

    Let’s get back on track, as to what the thread is about, not your meanderings about others.

  • Grace

    How many on this thread believe homosexuality is a sin? If not why? It’s a fair question, right on topic. It’s about time people say what they believe about homosexuality, and STOP hiding.

    So lets hear from all you good folks out there, Lutheran or otherwise.

  • Grace

    How many on this thread believe homosexuality is a sin? If not why? It’s a fair question, right on topic. It’s about time people say what they believe about homosexuality, and STOP hiding.

    So lets hear from all you good folks out there, Lutheran or otherwise.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@225), I will answer your question after you first answer the questions I have now asked you many times now: Do you continue sinning? Do you continue sinning willfully?

    Remember, I am asking these in direct response to comments you have left on this thread (@66, 73, 195, 204, 223).

    Please don’t make some pitiful excuse to dodge the questions once again because you’re going to pretend you suddenly care about a vigorous adherence to some farcically rigid notion of pertinence, in spite of the all-over-the-place topics in your own comments on this thread (to say nothing of other threads).

    Will you, finally, for once, answer my questions? Or will you, once again, dodge?

    And what do you think it says about your own testimony if you can’t even answer these basic, basic questions about your faith?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@225), I will answer your question after you first answer the questions I have now asked you many times now: Do you continue sinning? Do you continue sinning willfully?

    Remember, I am asking these in direct response to comments you have left on this thread (@66, 73, 195, 204, 223).

    Please don’t make some pitiful excuse to dodge the questions once again because you’re going to pretend you suddenly care about a vigorous adherence to some farcically rigid notion of pertinence, in spite of the all-over-the-place topics in your own comments on this thread (to say nothing of other threads).

    Will you, finally, for once, answer my questions? Or will you, once again, dodge?

    And what do you think it says about your own testimony if you can’t even answer these basic, basic questions about your faith?

  • Grace

    tODD,

    Your are off course – After your RE-WORDED edition of John 8, a distorted rendition of God’s Word, your testimony and credibility are very much questioned.

    Either you can answer the question, or you have chosen to ONCE AGAIN hide yourself.

    – - Your Misrepresentation of HOLY Scripture, given at @60

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/01/eat-mor-chikin-day/

    tODD @60

    “Remember:
    “Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat Chick-fil-A sandwiches and drink peach milkshakes, you have no life in you. Whoever eats Chick-fil-A sandwiches and drinks peach milkshakes has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For Chick-fil-A sandwiches are real food and peach milkshakes are real drink. Whoever eats Chick-fil-A sandwiches and drinks peach milkshakes remains in me, and I in him.”
    Don’t expect me to take serious, anything you question, ask or state. My post, giving Scripture to prove how “deceitfully” you used the Bible:

    Grace @83

    1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
    2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.
    2 Corinthians 4
    This is but one example of how you twist- even the Bible.
    Over and over again, you twist my words, conjure up ideas and thoughts I don’t state, just to make a point you don’t have.
    Your bait doesn’t work.”

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/07/31/the-case-for-early-marriage-2/#comment-158844

    – - – - As I asked in post 225

    tODD

    Is homosexuality a sin? If not why?

    Let’s get back on track, as to what the thread is about, not your meanderings about others.

    - – - – As I asked in post 226

    “How many on this thread believe homosexuality is a sin? If not why? It’s a fair question, right on topic. It’s about time people say what they believe about homosexuality, and STOP hiding.

    So lets hear from all you good folks out there, Lutheran or otherwise.”

    That means you tODD – it’s time you stood up for whatever you believe, and that means: Is homosexuality a sin? no comparison, no play games…. What is your answer?

  • Grace

    tODD,

    Your are off course – After your RE-WORDED edition of John 8, a distorted rendition of God’s Word, your testimony and credibility are very much questioned.

    Either you can answer the question, or you have chosen to ONCE AGAIN hide yourself.

    – - Your Misrepresentation of HOLY Scripture, given at @60

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/08/01/eat-mor-chikin-day/

    tODD @60

    “Remember:
    “Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat Chick-fil-A sandwiches and drink peach milkshakes, you have no life in you. Whoever eats Chick-fil-A sandwiches and drinks peach milkshakes has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For Chick-fil-A sandwiches are real food and peach milkshakes are real drink. Whoever eats Chick-fil-A sandwiches and drinks peach milkshakes remains in me, and I in him.”
    Don’t expect me to take serious, anything you question, ask or state. My post, giving Scripture to prove how “deceitfully” you used the Bible:

    Grace @83

    1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not;
    2 But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God.
    2 Corinthians 4
    This is but one example of how you twist- even the Bible.
    Over and over again, you twist my words, conjure up ideas and thoughts I don’t state, just to make a point you don’t have.
    Your bait doesn’t work.”

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/07/31/the-case-for-early-marriage-2/#comment-158844

    – - – - As I asked in post 225

    tODD

    Is homosexuality a sin? If not why?

    Let’s get back on track, as to what the thread is about, not your meanderings about others.

    - – - – As I asked in post 226

    “How many on this thread believe homosexuality is a sin? If not why? It’s a fair question, right on topic. It’s about time people say what they believe about homosexuality, and STOP hiding.

    So lets hear from all you good folks out there, Lutheran or otherwise.”

    That means you tODD – it’s time you stood up for whatever you believe, and that means: Is homosexuality a sin? no comparison, no play games…. What is your answer?

  • Tom Hering

    Well, it seems Grace has decided to launch her own little Inquisition here. She started @ 200 by misrepresenting fws’s views – a misrepresentation she’s made before, and has been corrected on more than once. Then @ 226, she wanted everyone on Cranach to either stand with her, or confess their heresy and perversion – which they’ve been hiding (!). Finally @ 228, she falsely accused tODD of using Scripture deceitfully, and questioned his standing as a Christian.

    Grace, you’re a hoot. I can’t stop laughing.

  • Tom Hering

    Well, it seems Grace has decided to launch her own little Inquisition here. She started @ 200 by misrepresenting fws’s views – a misrepresentation she’s made before, and has been corrected on more than once. Then @ 226, she wanted everyone on Cranach to either stand with her, or confess their heresy and perversion – which they’ve been hiding (!). Finally @ 228, she falsely accused tODD of using Scripture deceitfully, and questioned his standing as a Christian.

    Grace, you’re a hoot. I can’t stop laughing.

  • fws

    Grace @ 228

    My answer, and I can speak for all Lutherans here is this?

    Gays, since they are human, sin against God daily in thought, word and deed. This fully includes sexually sinning. This sinning is not just in what is done. It includes what God demands of all and is neglected to be done. It includes not doing for others, sexually, the fatherly sexual goodness and mercy that is his eternal will.

    It is important to note that we fail to keep God’s Law here only by avoiding sex. He demands that we care for the sexual needs of our neighbor as well. God demands that we refrain from hurting or harming our neighbor in his body sexually and in other ways as well. He also demands that we help and befriend and care for and about the sexual needs of our neighbor as well and so do our duty towards others by action and not innaction.

    If we refuse to learn t0 actively seek to do all of this joyfully and willingly, then God will punish us until we learn to do sexual goodness and mercy towards others.

    All men fail to do this goodness and mercy Grace. You fail to do this. And God condemns you for this. He judges you.

    How is it Grace that you will deal with his judgement of you? Where in scripture does he judge that you are as bad, sexually, as any homosexual? Romans 2:1.

    Grace… do you repent, personally , of your sexual sinning depicted in Romans 1 that condemns you in romans 2:1?

  • fws

    Grace @ 228

    My answer, and I can speak for all Lutherans here is this?

    Gays, since they are human, sin against God daily in thought, word and deed. This fully includes sexually sinning. This sinning is not just in what is done. It includes what God demands of all and is neglected to be done. It includes not doing for others, sexually, the fatherly sexual goodness and mercy that is his eternal will.

    It is important to note that we fail to keep God’s Law here only by avoiding sex. He demands that we care for the sexual needs of our neighbor as well. God demands that we refrain from hurting or harming our neighbor in his body sexually and in other ways as well. He also demands that we help and befriend and care for and about the sexual needs of our neighbor as well and so do our duty towards others by action and not innaction.

    If we refuse to learn t0 actively seek to do all of this joyfully and willingly, then God will punish us until we learn to do sexual goodness and mercy towards others.

    All men fail to do this goodness and mercy Grace. You fail to do this. And God condemns you for this. He judges you.

    How is it Grace that you will deal with his judgement of you? Where in scripture does he judge that you are as bad, sexually, as any homosexual? Romans 2:1.

    Grace… do you repent, personally , of your sexual sinning depicted in Romans 1 that condemns you in romans 2:1?

  • Grace

    No fws, you don’t speak for all of anyone. The statement you made below back in February is contrary to basic Lutheran doctrine.

    fws,
    The following was posted by you:
    Posted fws @ 37 on February 20, 2012 – –
    On Thoughts on homosexuality not being genetic

    “I do not believe that homosexuality, per se, is a sin.”

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/02/16/thoughts-on-homosexuality-not-being-genetic/#comment-142493

  • Grace

    No fws, you don’t speak for all of anyone. The statement you made below back in February is contrary to basic Lutheran doctrine.

    fws,
    The following was posted by you:
    Posted fws @ 37 on February 20, 2012 – –
    On Thoughts on homosexuality not being genetic

    “I do not believe that homosexuality, per se, is a sin.”

    http://www.geneveith.com/2012/02/16/thoughts-on-homosexuality-not-being-genetic/#comment-142493

  • Grace

    ⚫ Is there another area within the Lutheran denomination that stands with the ELCA, or who believe that homosexuality is not a sin?

    ELCA NEWS SERVICE
    August 21, 2009

    ELCA Assembly Opens Ministry to Partnered Gay and Lesbian Lutherans
    09-CWA-34-CA

    MINNEAPOLIS (ELCA) – The 2009 Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) voted today to open the ministry of the church to gay and lesbian pastors and other professional workers living in committed relationships.

    http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Three-Expressions/Churchwide-Organization/Communication-Services/News/Releases.aspx?a=4253

  • Grace

    ⚫ Is there another area within the Lutheran denomination that stands with the ELCA, or who believe that homosexuality is not a sin?

    ELCA NEWS SERVICE
    August 21, 2009

    ELCA Assembly Opens Ministry to Partnered Gay and Lesbian Lutherans
    09-CWA-34-CA

    MINNEAPOLIS (ELCA) – The 2009 Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) voted today to open the ministry of the church to gay and lesbian pastors and other professional workers living in committed relationships.

    http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Three-Expressions/Churchwide-Organization/Communication-Services/News/Releases.aspx?a=4253

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@228), yet another dodge. Am I surprised? I am not.

    I told you that I would answer your subsequent question after you had answered the questions I have asked you repeatedly. But you will not. You cannot answer simple questions about your faith. A fine Christian example, you are.

    What else can be learned from this but that you are in no way serious about conversation? This is made all the clearer by your habit of collecting comments that people have made and then referring to them, completely out of context, over and over, as if they were some kind of repellent? You’ve done that now for FWS and me, and it’s stupid.

    It’s stupid not least because you’ve shown no ability to comprehend what the comments actually meant, nor any interest to learn as much. You are clearly intent on amassing statements with which you can simply say, “This conversation is over, because you once said this one thing I don’t understand or care to understand.)

    You are, in short, looking for excuses not to think.

    I suppose in your Bible, Peter exhorts you to “never be prepared to give an answer”. (Oh look! Another comment from me which you can willfully misunderstand and pretend to get offended by. Just in case you needed another one.)

    You are an annoying gadfly, and nothing more. You add nothing to the conversation on this blog, because you cannot engage in conversation. All you do is rant in poorly typed, oddly bolded sentences.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Grace (@228), yet another dodge. Am I surprised? I am not.

    I told you that I would answer your subsequent question after you had answered the questions I have asked you repeatedly. But you will not. You cannot answer simple questions about your faith. A fine Christian example, you are.

    What else can be learned from this but that you are in no way serious about conversation? This is made all the clearer by your habit of collecting comments that people have made and then referring to them, completely out of context, over and over, as if they were some kind of repellent? You’ve done that now for FWS and me, and it’s stupid.

    It’s stupid not least because you’ve shown no ability to comprehend what the comments actually meant, nor any interest to learn as much. You are clearly intent on amassing statements with which you can simply say, “This conversation is over, because you once said this one thing I don’t understand or care to understand.)

    You are, in short, looking for excuses not to think.

    I suppose in your Bible, Peter exhorts you to “never be prepared to give an answer”. (Oh look! Another comment from me which you can willfully misunderstand and pretend to get offended by. Just in case you needed another one.)

    You are an annoying gadfly, and nothing more. You add nothing to the conversation on this blog, because you cannot engage in conversation. All you do is rant in poorly typed, oddly bolded sentences.

  • Grace

    tODD, your ceaseless prodding is boring!

  • Grace

    tODD, your ceaseless prodding is boring!

  • S. P.

    Does anyone here know the real identity of FWS? If you do, should you be taking action?

    FWS@230

    Holy cow! Now you have totally creeped me out and you definitely don’t speak for all the Lutherans here. That kind of thinking, acted upon, is going to land you in divorce court or prison, depending on what you mean by “fatherly,” and rightfully so. If you are taking a fatherly interest in caring for the sexual needs of your neighbors, especially if you think it’s up to you to act as God’s instrument by punishing them until they learn to do sexual goodness and mercy towards others, you will sooner or later get caught and you will get what you deserve.

    You have no business caring for the sexual needs of anyone but your wife, and if you aren’t married–you control yourself! You seriously need help and to the extent you’ve acted out you need to confess to your wife and/or turn yourself in.

  • S. P.

    Does anyone here know the real identity of FWS? If you do, should you be taking action?

    FWS@230

    Holy cow! Now you have totally creeped me out and you definitely don’t speak for all the Lutherans here. That kind of thinking, acted upon, is going to land you in divorce court or prison, depending on what you mean by “fatherly,” and rightfully so. If you are taking a fatherly interest in caring for the sexual needs of your neighbors, especially if you think it’s up to you to act as God’s instrument by punishing them until they learn to do sexual goodness and mercy towards others, you will sooner or later get caught and you will get what you deserve.

    You have no business caring for the sexual needs of anyone but your wife, and if you aren’t married–you control yourself! You seriously need help and to the extent you’ve acted out you need to confess to your wife and/or turn yourself in.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    SP, not only did you completely misunderstand FWS’s comment, but your pseudo-vigilantism is galling.

    I know his identity, where he lives, and what he does for a living. And that he is a fine Christian gentlemen, much better than I am, although I’m sure he will protest. We might not agree on everything, but who does??

    A number of us are friends in other social Media outlets as well.

    Maybe we should ask – who are you?

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    SP, not only did you completely misunderstand FWS’s comment, but your pseudo-vigilantism is galling.

    I know his identity, where he lives, and what he does for a living. And that he is a fine Christian gentlemen, much better than I am, although I’m sure he will protest. We might not agree on everything, but who does??

    A number of us are friends in other social Media outlets as well.

    Maybe we should ask – who are you?

  • fws

    sp @ 235

    All we have SP, we hold in trust.
    All we have God intends for us to put to use to provide the Fatherly goodness and mercy of God to others.

    Biblical righeousness is mortification + love for neighbor.
    Mortification is the biblical word for the Aristotelian self virtues. Self control, self restraint, etc.

    Thinking that mortification or self control counts as righeousness by istelf SP then you are wrong. It is also wrong to separate love from self control and call that righeousness. The two go hand in hand.

    You are creeped out because you are reading what you think into what I have written.
    Who said anything about attending to the sexual needs of others in ways that are unuseful to others in a way that is adulterous or unchaste (I cor 6) ? Your own (filth) mind supplied that didnt it We all have room to repent here SP dont we?

    Gods eternal will is for us to use our sex and our sexuality to provide for the sexual needs of others in a proper and chaste way. One purpose of marriage (1 cor 7 ) is to give each person their own ration of sex so that they are not coveting someone elses spouse. And so St Paul has commanded ALL men to be married. WHy Celebacy doesnt work. short of a miracle from God. Miracles are rare and not to be demanded of God.

    Therefore this is true:

    Jacob, abraham and the polygamous Old Testament patriarchs having lots of sex with multiple wives and concubines, were more holy in their sexuality than 1000 monks and nuns doing the idolatrous and ungodly sacrifice of celebacy.

    Why? It was Abraham’s faith that was counted to him for righteousness.

    In contrast, the roman catholic nuns and monks and priests are practicing celebacy as a self chosen form of worship that is an idolatry and stench in the nostrils of God.

  • fws

    sp @ 235

    All we have SP, we hold in trust.
    All we have God intends for us to put to use to provide the Fatherly goodness and mercy of God to others.

    Biblical righeousness is mortification + love for neighbor.
    Mortification is the biblical word for the Aristotelian self virtues. Self control, self restraint, etc.

    Thinking that mortification or self control counts as righeousness by istelf SP then you are wrong. It is also wrong to separate love from self control and call that righeousness. The two go hand in hand.

    You are creeped out because you are reading what you think into what I have written.
    Who said anything about attending to the sexual needs of others in ways that are unuseful to others in a way that is adulterous or unchaste (I cor 6) ? Your own (filth) mind supplied that didnt it We all have room to repent here SP dont we?

    Gods eternal will is for us to use our sex and our sexuality to provide for the sexual needs of others in a proper and chaste way. One purpose of marriage (1 cor 7 ) is to give each person their own ration of sex so that they are not coveting someone elses spouse. And so St Paul has commanded ALL men to be married. WHy Celebacy doesnt work. short of a miracle from God. Miracles are rare and not to be demanded of God.

    Therefore this is true:

    Jacob, abraham and the polygamous Old Testament patriarchs having lots of sex with multiple wives and concubines, were more holy in their sexuality than 1000 monks and nuns doing the idolatrous and ungodly sacrifice of celebacy.

    Why? It was Abraham’s faith that was counted to him for righteousness.

    In contrast, the roman catholic nuns and monks and priests are practicing celebacy as a self chosen form of worship that is an idolatry and stench in the nostrils of God.

  • Grace

    S. P. @235 – in regards to fws post @230

    I was shocked to read it also. But it appears no one else thinks so. Of course KK @236, makes the excuse“SP, not only did you completely misunderstand FWS’s comment, but your pseudo-vigilantism is galling.”

    “pseudo-vigilantism is galling.” ? No it isn’t, much to the contrary, but that is how many characterize their disaproval of any moral standard.

    The remark by fws below is shocking!!!!

    fws #230“It is important to note that we fail to keep God’s Law here only by avoiding sex. He demands that we care for the sexual needs of our neighbor as well. God demands that we refrain from hurting or harming our neighbor in his body sexually and in other ways as well. He also demands that we help and befriend and care for and about the sexual needs of our neighbor as well and so do our duty towards others by action and not innaction.

    OUTRAGEOUS!

  • Grace

    S. P. @235 – in regards to fws post @230

    I was shocked to read it also. But it appears no one else thinks so. Of course KK @236, makes the excuse“SP, not only did you completely misunderstand FWS’s comment, but your pseudo-vigilantism is galling.”

    “pseudo-vigilantism is galling.” ? No it isn’t, much to the contrary, but that is how many characterize their disaproval of any moral standard.

    The remark by fws below is shocking!!!!

    fws #230“It is important to note that we fail to keep God’s Law here only by avoiding sex. He demands that we care for the sexual needs of our neighbor as well. God demands that we refrain from hurting or harming our neighbor in his body sexually and in other ways as well. He also demands that we help and befriend and care for and about the sexual needs of our neighbor as well and so do our duty towards others by action and not innaction.

    OUTRAGEOUS!

  • fws

    sp @ 235

    The fact is this? You would want the Old Testament patrarchs booted out of your church and dealt with wouldn’t you?!
    If they showed up in your church with your wives you would have a cow.

    That is something you might want to think about just a bit SP.

  • fws

    sp @ 235

    The fact is this? You would want the Old Testament patrarchs booted out of your church and dealt with wouldn’t you?!
    If they showed up in your church with your wives you would have a cow.

    That is something you might want to think about just a bit SP.

  • S. P.

    Klasie@236

    No, you shouldn’t, and I wasn’t asking anyone to tell me who FWS is. I don’t think you took my question literally enough. It meant quite literally what it asked, except that I didn’t necessarily want an answer, I just wanted anyone who might know the answer to take notice.

  • S. P.

    Klasie@236

    No, you shouldn’t, and I wasn’t asking anyone to tell me who FWS is. I don’t think you took my question literally enough. It meant quite literally what it asked, except that I didn’t necessarily want an answer, I just wanted anyone who might know the answer to take notice.

  • fws

    sp @ 235

    I was thinking of Colosians SP. The context of this passage, as well as Corinthians, as well as St James, is that ALL our good works, including all things sexual, are not about rendering Obedience to God. It is Christ , alone , who can do that. All our sexuality is to be aimed at serving the needs of others. If one reads the context around the passage below, that is what should become apparent.
    Attempts at celebacy as being an obedience God demands fully qualifies as the “self chosen worship” described below.

    How is it we identify works done as a form of self chosen worship? St James tells us: they are useless to our neighbor. Their intent is to render that obedience to God that Christ alone can render.

    If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations—“Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.
    (Colossians 2:20-23 ESV)

    .

  • fws

    sp @ 235

    I was thinking of Colosians SP. The context of this passage, as well as Corinthians, as well as St James, is that ALL our good works, including all things sexual, are not about rendering Obedience to God. It is Christ , alone , who can do that. All our sexuality is to be aimed at serving the needs of others. If one reads the context around the passage below, that is what should become apparent.
    Attempts at celebacy as being an obedience God demands fully qualifies as the “self chosen worship” described below.

    How is it we identify works done as a form of self chosen worship? St James tells us: they are useless to our neighbor. Their intent is to render that obedience to God that Christ alone can render.

    If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations—“Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.
    (Colossians 2:20-23 ESV)

    .

  • fws

    grace @ sp

    what, exactly, offends you in what i said?
    it is the truth.

    Self-restraint, sexually or otherwise, severed from the intent of self preparation to serve the needs of others, is idolatry. Always.
    This especially includes sexuality.

  • fws

    grace @ sp

    what, exactly, offends you in what i said?
    it is the truth.

    Self-restraint, sexually or otherwise, severed from the intent of self preparation to serve the needs of others, is idolatry. Always.
    This especially includes sexuality.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Oh hey, everyone. Grace (@238) was “shocked”. Shocked, I tell you! Grace has found yet another reason to express offense and outrage on this blog.

    I’m telling you all this because it’s news. Surely you’ve never seen Grace express outrage with that many exclamation marks, with so much bolded text, have you?

    It is equally news that Grace has yet again failed to understand something that she has read. Oh, we know your pat, blustery reply, Grace: you did get it, you’ll claim. Somehow, it’s everyone else’s fault when you are repeatedly told that you misunderstand. Of course.

    I’d ask you why you bother commenting on this blog, Grace, but then, we all know that you don’t know how to answer questions.

    Oh, and save yourself the bother of composing a semi-literate screed, would you? I already know what it’s going to say. Thanks.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Oh hey, everyone. Grace (@238) was “shocked”. Shocked, I tell you! Grace has found yet another reason to express offense and outrage on this blog.

    I’m telling you all this because it’s news. Surely you’ve never seen Grace express outrage with that many exclamation marks, with so much bolded text, have you?

    It is equally news that Grace has yet again failed to understand something that she has read. Oh, we know your pat, blustery reply, Grace: you did get it, you’ll claim. Somehow, it’s everyone else’s fault when you are repeatedly told that you misunderstand. Of course.

    I’d ask you why you bother commenting on this blog, Grace, but then, we all know that you don’t know how to answer questions.

    Oh, and save yourself the bother of composing a semi-literate screed, would you? I already know what it’s going to say. Thanks.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “Who said anything about attending to the sexual needs of others in ways that are unuseful to others in a way that is adulterous or unchaste…”

    There are no ways in which you should be attending to the sexual needs of others besides your wife. If you are doing that now in any way even if you think that way not to be adulterous nor unchaste, I encourage you to consider giving up the idea that it’s OK. No one will think less of you for changing your mind and it is a good thing to do. Re-evaluating your decisions and choices demonstrates great intelligence, wisdom, and character.

    “Gods eternal will is for us to use our sex and our sexuality to provide for the sexual needs of others in a proper and chaste way. ”

    I am sure that you arrived at that conclusion honestly. I urge you to consider that you may be mistaken, that as wise and well-meaning as you are, you may have made an honest mistake. No one can condemn you for an honest mistake.

    This is very important: If any of the people you are properly and chastely attending to the sexual needs of are much younger than you, it is very important that you stop. Be kind and loving about it, but stop. I know they may be wounded because of a lack of a father figure in their childhood, and I understand how hard that is, but you personally cannot be a father figure to them. You need to let that go and let someone else do that. If any of those people whom you are properly and chastely attending to the sexual needs of are under eighteen, please tell your pastor everything that you have done, including every detail that you can think of even if it doesn’t seem important to you, and ask for advice on what to do about it.

    I’m sure you know that we all have different needs and come from a unique place. That being the case, it is OK for some people to follow a line of thought that would be very dangerous for others. I am thinking of this in particular:

    “Jacob, abraham and the polygamous Old Testament patriarchs having lots of sex with multiple wives and concubines, were more holy in their sexuality than 1000 monks and nuns doing the idolatrous and ungodly sacrifice of celebacy.”

    I don’t know whether that’s true or not but let’s just say it is. Now consider this: Even if that is a true statement, it may be something that you are better off just leaving alone, and not pursuing. Be patient. Our time on this earth is short and in the next life we will be wise and knowing like the gods. We will all be greater philosophers than Aristotle and Plato. For now I encourage you to leave it alone. You can be happy even if you just not think too much about things like that. I am not saying that sex is an objectively bad thing to think about–God forbid! It’s just that sometimes what’s good for one person might not be good for another person.

    “roman catholic nuns and monks and priests …”

    I understand and sympathize with you but I encourage you not to think about those people or draw conclusions about them until and unless you get to know some of them. You may be right, they may stink to high heaven, but just say a prayer for them, something general about about their well being that doesn’t have anything to do with sex, and let it go.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “Who said anything about attending to the sexual needs of others in ways that are unuseful to others in a way that is adulterous or unchaste…”

    There are no ways in which you should be attending to the sexual needs of others besides your wife. If you are doing that now in any way even if you think that way not to be adulterous nor unchaste, I encourage you to consider giving up the idea that it’s OK. No one will think less of you for changing your mind and it is a good thing to do. Re-evaluating your decisions and choices demonstrates great intelligence, wisdom, and character.

    “Gods eternal will is for us to use our sex and our sexuality to provide for the sexual needs of others in a proper and chaste way. ”

    I am sure that you arrived at that conclusion honestly. I urge you to consider that you may be mistaken, that as wise and well-meaning as you are, you may have made an honest mistake. No one can condemn you for an honest mistake.

    This is very important: If any of the people you are properly and chastely attending to the sexual needs of are much younger than you, it is very important that you stop. Be kind and loving about it, but stop. I know they may be wounded because of a lack of a father figure in their childhood, and I understand how hard that is, but you personally cannot be a father figure to them. You need to let that go and let someone else do that. If any of those people whom you are properly and chastely attending to the sexual needs of are under eighteen, please tell your pastor everything that you have done, including every detail that you can think of even if it doesn’t seem important to you, and ask for advice on what to do about it.

    I’m sure you know that we all have different needs and come from a unique place. That being the case, it is OK for some people to follow a line of thought that would be very dangerous for others. I am thinking of this in particular:

    “Jacob, abraham and the polygamous Old Testament patriarchs having lots of sex with multiple wives and concubines, were more holy in their sexuality than 1000 monks and nuns doing the idolatrous and ungodly sacrifice of celebacy.”

    I don’t know whether that’s true or not but let’s just say it is. Now consider this: Even if that is a true statement, it may be something that you are better off just leaving alone, and not pursuing. Be patient. Our time on this earth is short and in the next life we will be wise and knowing like the gods. We will all be greater philosophers than Aristotle and Plato. For now I encourage you to leave it alone. You can be happy even if you just not think too much about things like that. I am not saying that sex is an objectively bad thing to think about–God forbid! It’s just that sometimes what’s good for one person might not be good for another person.

    “roman catholic nuns and monks and priests …”

    I understand and sympathize with you but I encourage you not to think about those people or draw conclusions about them until and unless you get to know some of them. You may be right, they may stink to high heaven, but just say a prayer for them, something general about about their well being that doesn’t have anything to do with sex, and let it go.

  • Grace

    S. P. @243

    Read the post listed below at 471. The comment by fws, will give you a better idea of what’s going on.

    471 fws March 31, 2011 at 4:48 pm

    http://www.geneveith.com/2011/03/23/nominal-christians/#comment-112029

  • Grace

    S. P. @243

    Read the post listed below at 471. The comment by fws, will give you a better idea of what’s going on.

    471 fws March 31, 2011 at 4:48 pm

    http://www.geneveith.com/2011/03/23/nominal-christians/#comment-112029

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “All our sexuality is to be aimed at serving the needs of others. ”

    My brother, I am not telling you that sexuality is bad. You know that all of us are unique and different. Consider that your sexuality, specifically, may not be aimed at serving the needs of others. I see that you are just reasoning from your beliefs and the bible, but there are times when we must just say. “that is not for me, that is for someone else.” you don’t have to be everything for everybody. This is something that you would be better off letting go of, and your loved ones would be better off for it too.

    There are many ways you can worship God. You are no longer a teenager or a young man, and you don’t have to worry that by letting go, you are “attempting celibacy” or any of those monkish or R.C. things. You are just letting go, you are no longer demanding of yourself that you be everything to everybody. You don’t have to do that anymore; God isn’t demanding it of you and you don’t have to demand it of yourself.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “All our sexuality is to be aimed at serving the needs of others. ”

    My brother, I am not telling you that sexuality is bad. You know that all of us are unique and different. Consider that your sexuality, specifically, may not be aimed at serving the needs of others. I see that you are just reasoning from your beliefs and the bible, but there are times when we must just say. “that is not for me, that is for someone else.” you don’t have to be everything for everybody. This is something that you would be better off letting go of, and your loved ones would be better off for it too.

    There are many ways you can worship God. You are no longer a teenager or a young man, and you don’t have to worry that by letting go, you are “attempting celibacy” or any of those monkish or R.C. things. You are just letting go, you are no longer demanding of yourself that you be everything to everybody. You don’t have to do that anymore; God isn’t demanding it of you and you don’t have to demand it of yourself.

  • fws

    sp @ 246

    You quote me. And then you read into what I wrote all sorts of things that are simply not there.

    I really, really, hope that you do not deal with persons face to face in this way.

    In your other posts you mention beastiality and other such things in a very prurient and salacious context, like invoking the word “sodomy” in connection with an entire class of persons that you demonstrate that you know utterly nothing about by using such a word here. What you write is so immodest I won’t address it further. It must be incredibly insulting to some of the readers of this blog, many of whom do not comment or comment rarely.

    You have my permission to read all I have written in ONLY the following context:

    http://www.bookofconcord.org/lc-3-tencommandments.php#para199

    http://www.bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article23

    I would like to hope that you would honor my request. But.. it’s a free country….

  • fws

    sp @ 246

    You quote me. And then you read into what I wrote all sorts of things that are simply not there.

    I really, really, hope that you do not deal with persons face to face in this way.

    In your other posts you mention beastiality and other such things in a very prurient and salacious context, like invoking the word “sodomy” in connection with an entire class of persons that you demonstrate that you know utterly nothing about by using such a word here. What you write is so immodest I won’t address it further. It must be incredibly insulting to some of the readers of this blog, many of whom do not comment or comment rarely.

    You have my permission to read all I have written in ONLY the following context:

    http://www.bookofconcord.org/lc-3-tencommandments.php#para199

    http://www.bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article23

    I would like to hope that you would honor my request. But.. it’s a free country….

  • fws

    grace @ 245

    Errata:

    the part that starts with “So am I a MSM?” and all that follows, was meant to be placed in quotes. It was intended to describe how I heard those men describe, in various ways, their personal experience.

    I agree that that is not so obvious from what is written but that is the intent.

  • fws

    grace @ 245

    Errata:

    the part that starts with “So am I a MSM?” and all that follows, was meant to be placed in quotes. It was intended to describe how I heard those men describe, in various ways, their personal experience.

    I agree that that is not so obvious from what is written but that is the intent.

  • fws

    sp @ 246

    I am reading and typing from a small screen on a smartphone with a slooooooow internet connection traveling out of town. So forgive the slow responses.

    Grace wants to tell you that I am a gay man , and I am. And I follow, very carefully, what is written in those Confessions that I linked to and I encourage others to do likewise.

    Do I believe that homosexuality, per se, is sinful? no. No more than being single is sinful, per se. Yet St Paul clearly commands ALL men to be married doesn’t he?

  • fws

    sp @ 246

    I am reading and typing from a small screen on a smartphone with a slooooooow internet connection traveling out of town. So forgive the slow responses.

    Grace wants to tell you that I am a gay man , and I am. And I follow, very carefully, what is written in those Confessions that I linked to and I encourage others to do likewise.

    Do I believe that homosexuality, per se, is sinful? no. No more than being single is sinful, per se. Yet St Paul clearly commands ALL men to be married doesn’t he?

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “In your other posts you mention beastiality and other such things in a very prurient and salacious context…”

    I was making a point that I hope you understood, that we should tell people who do those things that they cannot bind themselves to the thing, person, or activity they are sexually oriented toward and telling them that they cannot so bind themselves is definitely NOT making them less than human. I used the terms, but I did not use them salaciously and I did not talk about what the terms mean.

    I don’t understand what you meant by telling me what of yours I had permission to read. I am really not interested in finding things you wrote and reading them. I know that you did not write the large catechism or the Augsburg Confession, and I feel quite confident that you aren’t trying to tell me you wrote those things.

    I guess it doesn’t matter. We can agree to disagree. Having opinions and talking about them is different than acting, however, and I cannot believe that you don’t understand why some of the things you have begun lately to say are very alarming and raise red flags.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “In your other posts you mention beastiality and other such things in a very prurient and salacious context…”

    I was making a point that I hope you understood, that we should tell people who do those things that they cannot bind themselves to the thing, person, or activity they are sexually oriented toward and telling them that they cannot so bind themselves is definitely NOT making them less than human. I used the terms, but I did not use them salaciously and I did not talk about what the terms mean.

    I don’t understand what you meant by telling me what of yours I had permission to read. I am really not interested in finding things you wrote and reading them. I know that you did not write the large catechism or the Augsburg Confession, and I feel quite confident that you aren’t trying to tell me you wrote those things.

    I guess it doesn’t matter. We can agree to disagree. Having opinions and talking about them is different than acting, however, and I cannot believe that you don’t understand why some of the things you have begun lately to say are very alarming and raise red flags.

  • Grace

    Now we have a sock! I bet no one knew, or even gave it a thought, LOL.

    Sock-puppetry, amounts to being vague, and coy, they always slip up, it never fails. What it does is this; it makes the argument they wanted to make, even more pathetic, than it was before. This is a pitiful attempt to play a double, according to academic standards.

  • Grace

    Now we have a sock! I bet no one knew, or even gave it a thought, LOL.

    Sock-puppetry, amounts to being vague, and coy, they always slip up, it never fails. What it does is this; it makes the argument they wanted to make, even more pathetic, than it was before. This is a pitiful attempt to play a double, according to academic standards.

  • Dust

    Grace….by “sock puppet” you mean:

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sock+puppet

    Will you name names (fws and sp? say it isn’t so!)…and how did you break their cover, w/out giving yours away :)

    Cheers!

  • Dust

    Grace….by “sock puppet” you mean:

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sock+puppet

    Will you name names (fws and sp? say it isn’t so!)…and how did you break their cover, w/out giving yours away :)

    Cheers!

  • fws

    sp @ 250

    I was making a point that I hope you understood, that we should tell people who do those things that they cannot bind themselves to the thing, person, or activity

    Fair enough. We should not bind ourself to any thing in that sense, including marriage and virtue. They are all carnal righeousness that are about our death and mortification. Faith alone hides all those things in the Works of Another when dealing with God.

    My point , that alarmed you SP , is a simple one. The religious (cf Col 2) say dont taste , dont touch and make morality about self restraint. Paul points out that this is worthless and futile even in trying to maintain sexual self control doesn’t he?

    So where do such persons go wrong? This: Biblical righeousness in our Old Adam is always Mortification PLUS acts of love towards neighbor. The religious uncouple the two and claim that righteousness is either mortification alone , or unrestrained love alone. Both these are wrong.

    They miss that the entire point of self restraint is to be equipped to DO service to neighbor. Therefore sexual righeousness is more than sexual self control. Yet at the same time, sexual righeousness cannot exist without self control. Self control is only useful to others and so God pleasing when it has us evidentially channelling our sexuality and aim to serve others with our sexuality.

    As to the Augsburg Confession and Catechisms. No I did not write them. Nor did I write the Apostles Creed or Nicean Creed. SP: If you read those writings, those are what I confess to be my own personal confession of faith. What in that do you not understand? And if something I write is contrary to what those writings say, they I would quickly retract.

    Those other writings confess the truth of Holy Scripture in a way that is far more sure and certain than I am able to do. So I humbly bow to and defer to those expositions of Holy Scriptures as my very own. Whatever I have written here or elsewhere that is in disagreement I disavow.

  • fws

    sp @ 250

    I was making a point that I hope you understood, that we should tell people who do those things that they cannot bind themselves to the thing, person, or activity

    Fair enough. We should not bind ourself to any thing in that sense, including marriage and virtue. They are all carnal righeousness that are about our death and mortification. Faith alone hides all those things in the Works of Another when dealing with God.

    My point , that alarmed you SP , is a simple one. The religious (cf Col 2) say dont taste , dont touch and make morality about self restraint. Paul points out that this is worthless and futile even in trying to maintain sexual self control doesn’t he?

    So where do such persons go wrong? This: Biblical righeousness in our Old Adam is always Mortification PLUS acts of love towards neighbor. The religious uncouple the two and claim that righteousness is either mortification alone , or unrestrained love alone. Both these are wrong.

    They miss that the entire point of self restraint is to be equipped to DO service to neighbor. Therefore sexual righeousness is more than sexual self control. Yet at the same time, sexual righeousness cannot exist without self control. Self control is only useful to others and so God pleasing when it has us evidentially channelling our sexuality and aim to serve others with our sexuality.

    As to the Augsburg Confession and Catechisms. No I did not write them. Nor did I write the Apostles Creed or Nicean Creed. SP: If you read those writings, those are what I confess to be my own personal confession of faith. What in that do you not understand? And if something I write is contrary to what those writings say, they I would quickly retract.

    Those other writings confess the truth of Holy Scripture in a way that is far more sure and certain than I am able to do. So I humbly bow to and defer to those expositions of Holy Scriptures as my very own. Whatever I have written here or elsewhere that is in disagreement I disavow.

  • fws

    sp @ 186

    Surely you want to redefine marriage to include incest, bestiality, master-slave relationships, pairings between living people and corpses, masturbation, etc. since you cannot want to exclude people who are into those perversions “from being really human.”…we don’t have to redefine those horrible things away by calling them “marriage” to save their humanity.

    I would encourage you to not class gay relationships with such things. This would hit the ears of a gay man like someone classing your relationship to your wife or mother with prostitution and rape. All involve a relationship based upon heterosexual sex right? This is what I meant by salacious and immodest SP. Yes, I assume you had honorable intentions lumping things together in such a way. Still…..

    The problem is that such talk is not to ever engage gays, but rather refer to them as “they” or “them”. Similarly, I don’t engage mormons, buddists, muslims, calvinists, and roman catholics, etc by throwing them into the same class with groups they would also shun. What would be the point of such a way of speaking? What is the aim of such talk?

    my email is fwsonnek@gmail.com . I live in Brazil. Feel free to continue by email or come down and have a cold brasilian beer with me SP.

  • fws

    sp @ 186

    Surely you want to redefine marriage to include incest, bestiality, master-slave relationships, pairings between living people and corpses, masturbation, etc. since you cannot want to exclude people who are into those perversions “from being really human.”…we don’t have to redefine those horrible things away by calling them “marriage” to save their humanity.

    I would encourage you to not class gay relationships with such things. This would hit the ears of a gay man like someone classing your relationship to your wife or mother with prostitution and rape. All involve a relationship based upon heterosexual sex right? This is what I meant by salacious and immodest SP. Yes, I assume you had honorable intentions lumping things together in such a way. Still…..

    The problem is that such talk is not to ever engage gays, but rather refer to them as “they” or “them”. Similarly, I don’t engage mormons, buddists, muslims, calvinists, and roman catholics, etc by throwing them into the same class with groups they would also shun. What would be the point of such a way of speaking? What is the aim of such talk?

    my email is fwsonnek@gmail.com . I live in Brazil. Feel free to continue by email or come down and have a cold brasilian beer with me SP.

  • S. P.

    Dust

    “Will you name names (fws and sp? say it isn’t so!)”

    I am impressed by yours and Grace’s detective work. You got me.
    ;-)

  • S. P.

    Dust

    “Will you name names (fws and sp? say it isn’t so!)”

    I am impressed by yours and Grace’s detective work. You got me.
    ;-)

  • S. P.

    Fws:

    “I would encourage you to not class gay relationships with such things. ”

    It’s necessary to do so to refute the erroneous and stupid idea of yours that people who do those things need to have fake “marriages” or they will be transformed into something “not really human.”

    All humans are fully and really human. It doesn’t matter what kind of kinky stuff they are involved in.

  • S. P.

    Fws:

    “I would encourage you to not class gay relationships with such things. ”

    It’s necessary to do so to refute the erroneous and stupid idea of yours that people who do those things need to have fake “marriages” or they will be transformed into something “not really human.”

    All humans are fully and really human. It doesn’t matter what kind of kinky stuff they are involved in.

  • Dust

    S.P…..it’s not my detective work, it’s Grace’s but she didn’t identify the sock or the puppet or whatever….was just taking a wild goose guess, and came up a sock short…apparently ;)

    cheers!

  • Dust

    S.P…..it’s not my detective work, it’s Grace’s but she didn’t identify the sock or the puppet or whatever….was just taking a wild goose guess, and came up a sock short…apparently ;)

    cheers!

  • S. P.

    Fws

    Objective reality and the facts of life allow someone not to classify marriage with prostitution and rape.

    Only subjective feelings allow someone not to classify his sexual perversion of choice with other perversions, as “Perversion.”

  • S. P.

    Fws

    Objective reality and the facts of life allow someone not to classify marriage with prostitution and rape.

    Only subjective feelings allow someone not to classify his sexual perversion of choice with other perversions, as “Perversion.”

  • Grace

    Hi Dust,

    Haven’t seen you posting much.

    Regarding the socks, LOL, we will see ;)

  • Grace

    Hi Dust,

    Haven’t seen you posting much.

    Regarding the socks, LOL, we will see ;)

  • S. P.

    Grace,

    “…we will see”

    Maybe, but if you just tell us we won’t have to wait.

  • S. P.

    Grace,

    “…we will see”

    Maybe, but if you just tell us we won’t have to wait.

  • S. P.

    I’m hoping Grace saw my reference to upper Midwestern Scandinavians and concluded that I’m Lars Walker. I would not at all be insulted by somebody thinking I can write as well as he does.

  • S. P.

    I’m hoping Grace saw my reference to upper Midwestern Scandinavians and concluded that I’m Lars Walker. I would not at all be insulted by somebody thinking I can write as well as he does.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    S.P. (@260) said to Grace,

    Maybe, but if you just tell us we won’t have to wait.

    Ha ha ha. You’re new here, aren’t you?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    S.P. (@260) said to Grace,

    Maybe, but if you just tell us we won’t have to wait.

    Ha ha ha. You’re new here, aren’t you?

  • Dust

    S.P. Grace may have her suspicions, but can’t actually prove anything (unless she is half of the pair? ha!)

    However, the web master here (tODD helps out often….quite convenient, eh?) has access to the best info to most likely “know” which commentators make up the pair of sock puppets.

    They have most, if not all, of the IP address attached to each comment and can match them up, like a pair of socks, and out them, for some badly needed fresh air!

    It has happened in the past, but never to one of their own, darn it! Perhaps this time will be different, if they’ll just take a deep look into their sole :)

    cheers!

  • Dust

    S.P. Grace may have her suspicions, but can’t actually prove anything (unless she is half of the pair? ha!)

    However, the web master here (tODD helps out often….quite convenient, eh?) has access to the best info to most likely “know” which commentators make up the pair of sock puppets.

    They have most, if not all, of the IP address attached to each comment and can match them up, like a pair of socks, and out them, for some badly needed fresh air!

    It has happened in the past, but never to one of their own, darn it! Perhaps this time will be different, if they’ll just take a deep look into their sole :)

    cheers!

  • Grace

    Dust, you’re a clever one, you are. We shall see how the foot prints trudge down the thread/threads.

  • Grace

    Dust, you’re a clever one, you are. We shall see how the foot prints trudge down the thread/threads.

  • fws

    sp @ 258

    I prefer the objective reality declared by St Isaiah in the Word of God that informs us that all you are able to see and do is a gross and condemning perversion of what God wills you, your life, and your actions to be.

    Isaiah says that all your righteousness is the moral equivalent of a used tampon SP. Fact. And Isaiah is speaking of the righeous good works of believers there.

    Our perversion SP is so very profound that we can know it , objectively, only from the Word of God. The depth of your and my own depravity cannot be sufficiently perceived objectively.

    So let’s both confess that we are both guilty of more perversion than that described in Romans 1 shall we? Romans 2:1 commands us to do that.

    So we should be terrifed at all that shouldnt we SP? and then , rather than compare our own perversion to that of others, we learn to hide our perversity that is all we are able to see and do, inside of the Works of Another.

    This is really what we are talking about in all our back and forth. Sin. The opposite of sin is not goodness. “That which is not of faith is sin.”

    There is no cure for sin SP. There is only a hiding of that sin in the Works of Another until we die and our Old Adam is no more clinging to us.

    Should we whitewash our outward sepulcher for the sake of our neighbor sexually and in all other ways? Of course we should. God will punish us if we dont do that. But this is a white wash. it is about death. There is no Life in anything we are able to do here on earth.

  • fws

    sp @ 258

    I prefer the objective reality declared by St Isaiah in the Word of God that informs us that all you are able to see and do is a gross and condemning perversion of what God wills you, your life, and your actions to be.

    Isaiah says that all your righteousness is the moral equivalent of a used tampon SP. Fact. And Isaiah is speaking of the righeous good works of believers there.

    Our perversion SP is so very profound that we can know it , objectively, only from the Word of God. The depth of your and my own depravity cannot be sufficiently perceived objectively.

    So let’s both confess that we are both guilty of more perversion than that described in Romans 1 shall we? Romans 2:1 commands us to do that.

    So we should be terrifed at all that shouldnt we SP? and then , rather than compare our own perversion to that of others, we learn to hide our perversity that is all we are able to see and do, inside of the Works of Another.

    This is really what we are talking about in all our back and forth. Sin. The opposite of sin is not goodness. “That which is not of faith is sin.”

    There is no cure for sin SP. There is only a hiding of that sin in the Works of Another until we die and our Old Adam is no more clinging to us.

    Should we whitewash our outward sepulcher for the sake of our neighbor sexually and in all other ways? Of course we should. God will punish us if we dont do that. But this is a white wash. it is about death. There is no Life in anything we are able to do here on earth.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “rather than compare our own perversion to that of others”

    You did not compare “your own perversion to that of others” you compared homosexuality, a sexual perversion, to marriage, which is nothing like a sexual perversion.

    If you are trying to imply that marriage is a perversion you are being too absurd to be taken seriously, and no one should be offended. We should just feel sorry for you that you are so degraded to want to do such a thing.

    If you are not trying to imply that marriage is a perversion your comments are pointless in regards to the idea that there is anything comparable in calling homosexuality a perversion vs. calling marriage a perversion.

    Objectively, homosexuality is a sexual perversion and marriage is nothing like a sexual perversion. If your subjective feelings are hurt by that objective fact only says that in this issue you should put your feelings aside and think rationally and objectively.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “rather than compare our own perversion to that of others”

    You did not compare “your own perversion to that of others” you compared homosexuality, a sexual perversion, to marriage, which is nothing like a sexual perversion.

    If you are trying to imply that marriage is a perversion you are being too absurd to be taken seriously, and no one should be offended. We should just feel sorry for you that you are so degraded to want to do such a thing.

    If you are not trying to imply that marriage is a perversion your comments are pointless in regards to the idea that there is anything comparable in calling homosexuality a perversion vs. calling marriage a perversion.

    Objectively, homosexuality is a sexual perversion and marriage is nothing like a sexual perversion. If your subjective feelings are hurt by that objective fact only says that in this issue you should put your feelings aside and think rationally and objectively.

  • fws

    sp @ 266

    If your subjective feelings are hurt by that objective fact only says that in this issue you should put your feelings aside and think rationally and objectively.

    St Isaiah says that all your righteousness, even as a believer, is the moral equivalent of a used tampon. ALL you can see and do SP is a perversion of God’s order and intention. What part of ALL is it that you don’t understand.

    What you, personally do with your marriage and your sexuality IS a hideous and heinous perversion SP. God’s judgement upon how you use marriage and your sexuality is eternal death. Rom 2:1 says that about you. Personally. Your perverted use of God’s merciful gifts of marriage and sexuality is at least as bad as anal sex SP. Again romans 2:1 . How else can that verse be read?

    Deal with that as a fact revealed by God’s Word to you. Rather than flee God’s Judgement, accept it and run to hide all your perversion in the Works of Another. There is no cure for your perversion SP. There is only hiding it in the Works of Another. (col 2).

    Further: The definition of sin is not to decide, based upon reasonable objectivity what is natural or unnatural.
    This notion is contrary to Holy Scripture.

    Flee to the refuge God has provided to you in the wounds of Christ SP who took all your perversion upon himself . Have you been baptized SP?

    “That which is not of faith is sin.”

  • fws

    sp @ 266

    If your subjective feelings are hurt by that objective fact only says that in this issue you should put your feelings aside and think rationally and objectively.

    St Isaiah says that all your righteousness, even as a believer, is the moral equivalent of a used tampon. ALL you can see and do SP is a perversion of God’s order and intention. What part of ALL is it that you don’t understand.

    What you, personally do with your marriage and your sexuality IS a hideous and heinous perversion SP. God’s judgement upon how you use marriage and your sexuality is eternal death. Rom 2:1 says that about you. Personally. Your perverted use of God’s merciful gifts of marriage and sexuality is at least as bad as anal sex SP. Again romans 2:1 . How else can that verse be read?

    Deal with that as a fact revealed by God’s Word to you. Rather than flee God’s Judgement, accept it and run to hide all your perversion in the Works of Another. There is no cure for your perversion SP. There is only hiding it in the Works of Another. (col 2).

    Further: The definition of sin is not to decide, based upon reasonable objectivity what is natural or unnatural.
    This notion is contrary to Holy Scripture.

    Flee to the refuge God has provided to you in the wounds of Christ SP who took all your perversion upon himself . Have you been baptized SP?

    “That which is not of faith is sin.”

  • Grace

    Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
    Hebrews 13:4

  • Grace

    Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.
    Hebrews 13:4

  • fws

    Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. Heb 13:4 esv

    You don’t do this Grace as God would have you do it. Neither does SP. Neither do I. Neither does anyone. Have you repented of your sin here Grace?
    What is it that the Bible says about your heart and what comes out of it? Do you believe what the Bible says about your heart?

  • fws

    Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. Heb 13:4 esv

    You don’t do this Grace as God would have you do it. Neither does SP. Neither do I. Neither does anyone. Have you repented of your sin here Grace?
    What is it that the Bible says about your heart and what comes out of it? Do you believe what the Bible says about your heart?

  • fws

    sp @ 266

    ” ALL that is not of faith, is sin.”

    The opposite of sin is not UNperversion or goodness.
    The opposite of sin, is, alone, faith in Christ alone.

    Faith in the Works of Another was the Robe of Righteousness of Adam before the fall, after the fall, in the resurrection and is also our Robe of Righeousness. Alone.

    Have you been baptized SP?

  • fws

    sp @ 266

    ” ALL that is not of faith, is sin.”

    The opposite of sin is not UNperversion or goodness.
    The opposite of sin, is, alone, faith in Christ alone.

    Faith in the Works of Another was the Robe of Righteousness of Adam before the fall, after the fall, in the resurrection and is also our Robe of Righeousness. Alone.

    Have you been baptized SP?

  • Grace

    7 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.

    8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities

    Jude 1

    Satan knew that God ALMIGHTY was all powerful, but he wanted to be like God. Often times man knows the Scripture, understands it, but perverts it to suit is own fleshly desires. In so doing, he tries to pervert Believers, by what he considers clever words, to subvert the Gospel to fit a sinful lifestyle, or any sin that satisfies him.

    6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

    7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

    8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

    9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

    1 John 3

  • Grace

    7 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.

    8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities

    Jude 1

    Satan knew that God ALMIGHTY was all powerful, but he wanted to be like God. Often times man knows the Scripture, understands it, but perverts it to suit is own fleshly desires. In so doing, he tries to pervert Believers, by what he considers clever words, to subvert the Gospel to fit a sinful lifestyle, or any sin that satisfies him.

    6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

    7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

    8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

    9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

    1 John 3

  • fws

    Grace @ 271

    Do you still sin Grace?

    you feel you are less deserving of God’s wrath and judgement than Sodom and Gomorrah? How so?

    Satan can quote scriptures. His children do the same. Believers in Christ confess their sins. Do you confess your sins Grace?

  • fws

    Grace @ 271

    Do you still sin Grace?

    you feel you are less deserving of God’s wrath and judgement than Sodom and Gomorrah? How so?

    Satan can quote scriptures. His children do the same. Believers in Christ confess their sins. Do you confess your sins Grace?

  • Grace

    fws @ 269

    Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. Heb 13:4 esv

    “You don’t do this Grace as God would have you do it. Neither does SP. Neither do I. Neither does anyone. Have you repented of your sin here Grace?
    What is it that the Bible says about your heart and what comes out of it? Do you believe what the Bible says about your heart?”

    Our marriage bed is not defiled, nor do you have the right to say it is, you lie, you know not the truth.

    You can only speak for yourself, no one else. You can believe forever, that homosexuality isn’t a sin, that too is a lie, but you buy into it. Trying to bring others into your own chicken coup doesn’t work, it’s yours.

  • Grace

    fws @ 269

    Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. Heb 13:4 esv

    “You don’t do this Grace as God would have you do it. Neither does SP. Neither do I. Neither does anyone. Have you repented of your sin here Grace?
    What is it that the Bible says about your heart and what comes out of it? Do you believe what the Bible says about your heart?”

    Our marriage bed is not defiled, nor do you have the right to say it is, you lie, you know not the truth.

    You can only speak for yourself, no one else. You can believe forever, that homosexuality isn’t a sin, that too is a lie, but you buy into it. Trying to bring others into your own chicken coup doesn’t work, it’s yours.

  • Grace

    Do you ever stop whining about your chosen lifestyle, the fact most people find it repugnant and sinful, just as the Bible states.

    Sodom and Gomorrha were destroyed for their homosexual behavior. Yet you try and convince everyone that it isn’t sinful. That’s straight from the pit.

  • Grace

    Do you ever stop whining about your chosen lifestyle, the fact most people find it repugnant and sinful, just as the Bible states.

    Sodom and Gomorrha were destroyed for their homosexual behavior. Yet you try and convince everyone that it isn’t sinful. That’s straight from the pit.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    FWS (@272), surely you know by now that Grace is incapable of admitting to her sinful nature. Even though her murderous heart is on display for all to see right here. She calls you a liar, but the Bible calls anyone in denial like she is a liar. I’d go with God’s Word on this one.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    FWS (@272), surely you know by now that Grace is incapable of admitting to her sinful nature. Even though her murderous heart is on display for all to see right here. She calls you a liar, but the Bible calls anyone in denial like she is a liar. I’d go with God’s Word on this one.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Also, Grace, please stop making false hyperlinks in your comments. Thanks.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Also, Grace, please stop making false hyperlinks in your comments. Thanks.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “all your righteousness, even as a believer…”

    The institution of marriage is not “my righteousness.” Now I think you are intentionally being an idiot, a sort of clown. Marriage is not mine, I did not create marriage, God created it.

    “What you, personally do with your marriage and your sexuality IS a hideous and heinous perversion SP”

    But marriage itself is not a sexual perversion. Marriage, and the marital act, is that which perversions pervert sex from. Homosexuality is a perversion.

    “Your perverted use of God’s merciful gifts of marriage and sexuality is at least as bad as anal sex SP.”

    “At least as bad ” you say. You are entirely ruling out “less bad” but leave open the possibility that the normal marital act is WORSE than a disgusting unmentionable perverted act.

    What led you to think that way? Not repentance, surely. Something contrary to repentance, I conclude.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “all your righteousness, even as a believer…”

    The institution of marriage is not “my righteousness.” Now I think you are intentionally being an idiot, a sort of clown. Marriage is not mine, I did not create marriage, God created it.

    “What you, personally do with your marriage and your sexuality IS a hideous and heinous perversion SP”

    But marriage itself is not a sexual perversion. Marriage, and the marital act, is that which perversions pervert sex from. Homosexuality is a perversion.

    “Your perverted use of God’s merciful gifts of marriage and sexuality is at least as bad as anal sex SP.”

    “At least as bad ” you say. You are entirely ruling out “less bad” but leave open the possibility that the normal marital act is WORSE than a disgusting unmentionable perverted act.

    What led you to think that way? Not repentance, surely. Something contrary to repentance, I conclude.

  • fws

    SP @ 277

    You are focussed upon what things are or are not perversions.
    God’s Word says that ALL you are able to do is a perversion SP.

    And God’s Word says that you are eternally condemned because all you are able to do in thought, word and deed is, definitionally, perverted, whether you manage to correctly classify what is or is not a perversion.

    So your point is that those who aren’t as able as you to make correct lists of what is perverted and what is not are differently condemned to hell as you are , apart from Christ, how exactly?

    Of what benefit is that ability SP?
    Have you been baptized SP?

  • fws

    SP @ 277

    You are focussed upon what things are or are not perversions.
    God’s Word says that ALL you are able to do is a perversion SP.

    And God’s Word says that you are eternally condemned because all you are able to do in thought, word and deed is, definitionally, perverted, whether you manage to correctly classify what is or is not a perversion.

    So your point is that those who aren’t as able as you to make correct lists of what is perverted and what is not are differently condemned to hell as you are , apart from Christ, how exactly?

    Of what benefit is that ability SP?
    Have you been baptized SP?

  • fws

    SP @ 277

    A gay christian who simply confesses that ALL he is able to do is completely a perversion contrary to God’s Will and hides all that in Christ in faith.
    “Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner!”
    This man is blameless in the eyes of God.

    SP confesses what about his perversity? You are saying that what you are able to do in marriage and sexually is not a perversion?

    So your being able to better distinguish perverted things vs non perverted things with reason and objectivity is better than that gay sinner who confesses that ALL he is able to do is a perversion trusting God’s Judgement of him give you what advantage exactly SP?

  • fws

    SP @ 277

    A gay christian who simply confesses that ALL he is able to do is completely a perversion contrary to God’s Will and hides all that in Christ in faith.
    “Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner!”
    This man is blameless in the eyes of God.

    SP confesses what about his perversity? You are saying that what you are able to do in marriage and sexually is not a perversion?

    So your being able to better distinguish perverted things vs non perverted things with reason and objectivity is better than that gay sinner who confesses that ALL he is able to do is a perversion trusting God’s Judgement of him give you what advantage exactly SP?

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “You are focussed upon what things are or are not perversions…”

    I try to talk about one thing at a time. Call that “focusing” or not, it’s a good thing to do. It promotes clarity and prevents confusion.

    “God’s Word says that ALL you are able to do is a perversion…”

    Perhaps. I will do a search on the words “perverse” etc. and see where and in what translations they are found, etc. And in what senses they are used.

    However, the bible certainly does not say that I, personally “do” or “did” the institution of marriage nor the perversion of homosexuality. I am only a half-century old. I did not exist before 1960. The institution of marriage and the perversion of homosexuality existed long before 1960, therefore it is not possible that I “did” either of them. You are avoiding clarity. Nobody reading this besides you believes that I personally created marriage or homosexuality. Frankly, I don’t think you believe it either.

    “So your point is that those who aren’t as able as you to make correct lists of what is perverted and what is not are differently condemned to hell as you are , apart from Christ, how exactly?”

    I have no idea what you are talking about. Obviously you are talking about somebody’s point other than mine.

    “Of what benefit is that ability SP?”

    Which ability? The ability to distinguish truth from falsehood? It helps us not lie to ourselves and avoid facing the truth about ourselves quite so much, for one thing.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “You are focussed upon what things are or are not perversions…”

    I try to talk about one thing at a time. Call that “focusing” or not, it’s a good thing to do. It promotes clarity and prevents confusion.

    “God’s Word says that ALL you are able to do is a perversion…”

    Perhaps. I will do a search on the words “perverse” etc. and see where and in what translations they are found, etc. And in what senses they are used.

    However, the bible certainly does not say that I, personally “do” or “did” the institution of marriage nor the perversion of homosexuality. I am only a half-century old. I did not exist before 1960. The institution of marriage and the perversion of homosexuality existed long before 1960, therefore it is not possible that I “did” either of them. You are avoiding clarity. Nobody reading this besides you believes that I personally created marriage or homosexuality. Frankly, I don’t think you believe it either.

    “So your point is that those who aren’t as able as you to make correct lists of what is perverted and what is not are differently condemned to hell as you are , apart from Christ, how exactly?”

    I have no idea what you are talking about. Obviously you are talking about somebody’s point other than mine.

    “Of what benefit is that ability SP?”

    Which ability? The ability to distinguish truth from falsehood? It helps us not lie to ourselves and avoid facing the truth about ourselves quite so much, for one thing.

  • S. P.

    FWS

    Here’s a better and more pertinent answer: the ability to distinguish truth from falsehood helped me to not let you get away with lying to people by telling them that homosexuality is not a sexual perversion.

    Also, the ability to distinguish truth and falsehood helped other people recognize that you were being absurd and nonsensical when you tried to claim that the institution of marriage is itself a sexual perversion (for pete’s sake, what sexual practice would it be a perversion of if that were true??? You better not answer that, you would only be damaging yourself by being impiously obscene. )

  • S. P.

    FWS

    Here’s a better and more pertinent answer: the ability to distinguish truth from falsehood helped me to not let you get away with lying to people by telling them that homosexuality is not a sexual perversion.

    Also, the ability to distinguish truth and falsehood helped other people recognize that you were being absurd and nonsensical when you tried to claim that the institution of marriage is itself a sexual perversion (for pete’s sake, what sexual practice would it be a perversion of if that were true??? You better not answer that, you would only be damaging yourself by being impiously obscene. )

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    S.P., I don’t know why FWS isn’t coming out and saying it, but you’re kind of terrible at reading comprehension.

    I don’t know if you’re doing it on purpose, in an attempt to look brave while battling straw men, or if you’re really just not getting what FWS is saying.

    As but one example of this, why don’t you tell me in what comment exactly (quote the relevant sentences, please) FWS “tried to claim that the institution of marriage is itself a sexual perversion” (@281).

    I really don’t know why FWS is humoring you. It’s probably that he’s a much nicer guy than I am. Ah well.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    S.P., I don’t know why FWS isn’t coming out and saying it, but you’re kind of terrible at reading comprehension.

    I don’t know if you’re doing it on purpose, in an attempt to look brave while battling straw men, or if you’re really just not getting what FWS is saying.

    As but one example of this, why don’t you tell me in what comment exactly (quote the relevant sentences, please) FWS “tried to claim that the institution of marriage is itself a sexual perversion” (@281).

    I really don’t know why FWS is humoring you. It’s probably that he’s a much nicer guy than I am. Ah well.

  • S. P.

    FWs

    “A gay christian who simply confesses that ALL he is able to do is completely a perversion…”

    Is evading the truth by using that “ALL” to avoid admitting a specific thing that is a perversion. Worse, he uses that “ALL” to insult God by saying that marriage, a marvelous gift from God to us, is a perversion.

  • S. P.

    FWs

    “A gay christian who simply confesses that ALL he is able to do is completely a perversion…”

    Is evading the truth by using that “ALL” to avoid admitting a specific thing that is a perversion. Worse, he uses that “ALL” to insult God by saying that marriage, a marvelous gift from God to us, is a perversion.

  • S. P.

    tODD

    “or if you’re really just not getting what FWS is saying.”

    Oh, I’m getting what he is saying. Let me explain it to you:

    He didn’t like my calling homosexuality a perversion, so he responded by saying marriage itself is a perversion. When he realized that it was a mistake to say that, he attempted and is still attempting to make it appear as if we were not talking about homosexuality itself and marriage itself but my personal works and his, pretending that I claimed to be righteous or I claimed that I do not sin sexually or sin in my marriage or some other such nonsense. It’s a smokescreen.

    I refused and still refuse to let him get away with it. I assumed he wasn’t fooling anybody. Apparently he fooled you.

    “As but one example of this, why don’t you tell me in what comment exactly (quote the relevant sentences, please) FWS “tried to claim that the institution of marriage is itself a sexual perversion”

    Sure. I said @258 which as you can see and which as FWS can see and did see is not about me personally nor him personally but about marriage itself and homosexuality itself–a comparison of the two things.

    His responses to @258 (after the first one) have been to pretend that I was talking about completely different things, as if if I was telling him that I did not sin sexually, or that I self-righteously claimed that nothing I do in my marital life is sinful, or some other such nonsense.

    I refused and refuse to let him get away with that. My @258, as you can see, is about marriage itself and homosexuality itself. Everything I’ve said since then is about marriage itself and homosexuality itself. If he wants to pretend I am talking about my own self-righteousness or whatever other smokescreens he wants to dream up he can do that, but I will not let him get away with it. To you it seems like he’s being a nice guy when he does that, to me it does not seem nice at all but I respect your different perspective.

  • S. P.

    tODD

    “or if you’re really just not getting what FWS is saying.”

    Oh, I’m getting what he is saying. Let me explain it to you:

    He didn’t like my calling homosexuality a perversion, so he responded by saying marriage itself is a perversion. When he realized that it was a mistake to say that, he attempted and is still attempting to make it appear as if we were not talking about homosexuality itself and marriage itself but my personal works and his, pretending that I claimed to be righteous or I claimed that I do not sin sexually or sin in my marriage or some other such nonsense. It’s a smokescreen.

    I refused and still refuse to let him get away with it. I assumed he wasn’t fooling anybody. Apparently he fooled you.

    “As but one example of this, why don’t you tell me in what comment exactly (quote the relevant sentences, please) FWS “tried to claim that the institution of marriage is itself a sexual perversion”

    Sure. I said @258 which as you can see and which as FWS can see and did see is not about me personally nor him personally but about marriage itself and homosexuality itself–a comparison of the two things.

    His responses to @258 (after the first one) have been to pretend that I was talking about completely different things, as if if I was telling him that I did not sin sexually, or that I self-righteously claimed that nothing I do in my marital life is sinful, or some other such nonsense.

    I refused and refuse to let him get away with that. My @258, as you can see, is about marriage itself and homosexuality itself. Everything I’ve said since then is about marriage itself and homosexuality itself. If he wants to pretend I am talking about my own self-righteousness or whatever other smokescreens he wants to dream up he can do that, but I will not let him get away with it. To you it seems like he’s being a nice guy when he does that, to me it does not seem nice at all but I respect your different perspective.

  • Grace

    S. P. @ 283

    YOU WROTE: “Is evading the truth by using that “ALL” to avoid admitting a specific thing that is a perversion. Worse, he uses that “ALL” to insult God by saying that marriage, a marvelous gift from God to us, is a perversion.”

    Marriage in not a “perversion” but it is to those who believe that homosexuality, and its sexual “perversion,” IS – in essence they want to bring everyone down to their level.

    As for tODD, don’t concern yourself with “reading comprehension” he doesn’t know the difference ;)

  • Grace

    S. P. @ 283

    YOU WROTE: “Is evading the truth by using that “ALL” to avoid admitting a specific thing that is a perversion. Worse, he uses that “ALL” to insult God by saying that marriage, a marvelous gift from God to us, is a perversion.”

    Marriage in not a “perversion” but it is to those who believe that homosexuality, and its sexual “perversion,” IS – in essence they want to bring everyone down to their level.

    As for tODD, don’t concern yourself with “reading comprehension” he doesn’t know the difference ;)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Hi Grace (@285), still dodging my questions? I thought you were supposed to be busy or something, and didn’t have the time to comment here.

    Anyhow, I’m trying to have a real conversation here (one in which people reply to other people’s questions), so maybe you could go back to playing Detective Agency with Dust or whatever? Thanks.

    Oh, and, as usual, no need to reply. I know what you’ll say.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Hi Grace (@285), still dodging my questions? I thought you were supposed to be busy or something, and didn’t have the time to comment here.

    Anyhow, I’m trying to have a real conversation here (one in which people reply to other people’s questions), so maybe you could go back to playing Detective Agency with Dust or whatever? Thanks.

    Oh, and, as usual, no need to reply. I know what you’ll say.

  • S. P.

    FWS

    tODD says that you are NOT disagreeing with me when I repeatedly deny that marriage itself is a perversion. ¿Is tODD right? it sure seems to me that you are disagreeing with me.

  • S. P.

    FWS

    tODD says that you are NOT disagreeing with me when I repeatedly deny that marriage itself is a perversion. ¿Is tODD right? it sure seems to me that you are disagreeing with me.

  • Grace

    S. P. @287

    Marriage is NOT a perversion, but it could very well be misconstrued as being thus, when a homosexual needs to make excuses for homosexuality.

  • Grace

    S. P. @287

    Marriage is NOT a perversion, but it could very well be misconstrued as being thus, when a homosexual needs to make excuses for homosexuality.

  • S. P.

    Btw, the intensive “itself” doesn’t really mean anything.

    “marriage” = “marriage itself”
    They mean the same thing.

    The intensive pronoun used in this way does not actually semantically modify the noun it points back to. All it is is a pragmatic signal that “I really am talking about what I am talking about.” It will be unnecessary if we just assume that people mean what they are saying.

  • S. P.

    Btw, the intensive “itself” doesn’t really mean anything.

    “marriage” = “marriage itself”
    They mean the same thing.

    The intensive pronoun used in this way does not actually semantically modify the noun it points back to. All it is is a pragmatic signal that “I really am talking about what I am talking about.” It will be unnecessary if we just assume that people mean what they are saying.

  • S. P.

    Grace, I think you must be right about that.

  • S. P.

    Grace, I think you must be right about that.

  • Grace

    S. P.

    Here is another WHOPPER!

    These are comments made that CONTRADICT what fws states, or more importantly BELIEVES!

    455 Rick Ritchie March 31, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    fws, #181: “I say the confessions and not the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life why?”

    fws, #449: “I believe that the Holy Scriptures are the sole norm and rule for faith and life. They are far, far above the Lutheran Confessions by the way.”

    http://www.geneveith.com/2011/03/23/nominal-christians/#comment-111994

    Which one did fws believe, or does he play to an audience? Is it the HOLY Scriptures or the Confessions? He doesn’t know. He goes back and forth, trying to keep a step up on what he believes, but doesn’t believe.

  • Grace

    S. P.

    Here is another WHOPPER!

    These are comments made that CONTRADICT what fws states, or more importantly BELIEVES!

    455 Rick Ritchie March 31, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    fws, #181: “I say the confessions and not the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life why?”

    fws, #449: “I believe that the Holy Scriptures are the sole norm and rule for faith and life. They are far, far above the Lutheran Confessions by the way.”

    http://www.geneveith.com/2011/03/23/nominal-christians/#comment-111994

    Which one did fws believe, or does he play to an audience? Is it the HOLY Scriptures or the Confessions? He doesn’t know. He goes back and forth, trying to keep a step up on what he believes, but doesn’t believe.

  • S. P.

    Grace,
    He wasn’t contradicting himself, he just wasn’t making himself very clear, and you took the quote from 181 out of context.

  • S. P.

    Grace,
    He wasn’t contradicting himself, he just wasn’t making himself very clear, and you took the quote from 181 out of context.

  • Grace

    S P @ 292

    YOU WROTE: “He wasn’t contradicting himself, he just wasn’t making himself very clear, and you took the quote from 181 out of context.”

    No, I did not – here is the quote:

    I say the confessions and not the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life why? Because it is in our Confessions that you will nail down all the broad issues such as what the Image of God alone consists of, and then also the definition of key words like “natural law” “ordinance of God” “concupiscence” ” mortal sin” original sin” “original righeousness” “Veil of Moses” “sanctification” “mortification” “law” “gospel” “third [lutheran!] use”, “Justification” “infused justification” “sacramental” “in, with and under” “grace” “ex opere operato” “historical faith” “movements of the heart” “the Law that peculiarly deals with ‘movements of the heart’, namely the Decalog” “love” “Good Works” “sacrifice” etc etc. “

    There is no WHY to it, it was a statement which fws made. The EXCUSE it typical, typical of fws and his cutting the edges off, circling around to make a point he never had. It’s a middle school, excuse for the truth, or what he truly believes.

    The B of C does not, nor ever has been the rule, the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, anyone who FORGETS this important fact has perverted the Scriptures to meet whatever beliefs, standards they hold ⚊ but it isn’t God’s Word, it’s their’s or those to whom they put their trust ⚊ not God’s.

  • Grace

    S P @ 292

    YOU WROTE: “He wasn’t contradicting himself, he just wasn’t making himself very clear, and you took the quote from 181 out of context.”

    No, I did not – here is the quote:

    I say the confessions and not the Holy Scriptures that are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life why? Because it is in our Confessions that you will nail down all the broad issues such as what the Image of God alone consists of, and then also the definition of key words like “natural law” “ordinance of God” “concupiscence” ” mortal sin” original sin” “original righeousness” “Veil of Moses” “sanctification” “mortification” “law” “gospel” “third [lutheran!] use”, “Justification” “infused justification” “sacramental” “in, with and under” “grace” “ex opere operato” “historical faith” “movements of the heart” “the Law that peculiarly deals with ‘movements of the heart’, namely the Decalog” “love” “Good Works” “sacrifice” etc etc. “

    There is no WHY to it, it was a statement which fws made. The EXCUSE it typical, typical of fws and his cutting the edges off, circling around to make a point he never had. It’s a middle school, excuse for the truth, or what he truly believes.

    The B of C does not, nor ever has been the rule, the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, anyone who FORGETS this important fact has perverted the Scriptures to meet whatever beliefs, standards they hold ⚊ but it isn’t God’s Word, it’s their’s or those to whom they put their trust ⚊ not God’s.

  • S. P.

    Grace,

    The clarifying context is that which came before the part you put in bold type, not that which came after it. If you go back and re-read it, and you are sufficiently intelligent to see that FWS carelessly left out some punctuation and also to see how fws was referring back to his demand in the previous sentence, you will see that he must have meant:
    “I say that you will have to use the confessions to make your point and not the Holy Scriptures (which are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life). Why do I say that? Because it is in our confessions….”

    I will not assume you are able to understand all that however. You’ll have to prove it to me if you want me to believe it.

  • S. P.

    Grace,

    The clarifying context is that which came before the part you put in bold type, not that which came after it. If you go back and re-read it, and you are sufficiently intelligent to see that FWS carelessly left out some punctuation and also to see how fws was referring back to his demand in the previous sentence, you will see that he must have meant:
    “I say that you will have to use the confessions to make your point and not the Holy Scriptures (which are the sole rule and norm for our faith and our life). Why do I say that? Because it is in our confessions….”

    I will not assume you are able to understand all that however. You’ll have to prove it to me if you want me to believe it.

  • fws

    sp @ 280

    I try to talk about one thing at a time. Call that “focusing” or not, it’s a good thing to do. It promotes clarity and prevents confusion.

    The distinction perversion/not perversion/natural law is Aristotle and not Holy Scripture. You are discussing carnal and philosophica righeousness. Romans 8 flesh. It will perish.
    Let’s do St Paul and Christ: Distinguish sin vs Righeousness before God.

    SP @ 283 Marriage is ALL and ONLY about the death of the Flesh. It is ALL Law. The Law always and only accuses and kills us. The eternal consequences of everything you can see and are able to do in your married life SP is eternal death. It is a blessing that will help you avoid punishment and have a long and happy life sanctioned by God. But it will end with this life. The life of a virtuous homosexual has the same blessings and eternal consequences.

    SP @ 287 Todd did exegesis. You are doing eisegesis. Todd has good reading comprehension skills. He had no problem understanding what I said.

    SP @ 289

    “itself” as in “marriage itself” merely is to say the think itself, apart from it’s use. Money, sex, food, material goods, baptism, the Blessed Sacrament, Doctrine, faith, goodness all “in and of themselves” are neither good nor evil. To the extent that these things are done comprehended in God’s Word they will become mercy to men. Mercy is the opposite of what we deserve for what we do.

    Again SP: ALL you can see and are able to do is a perversion and stench in the nostrils of a Holy God. ALL you can see and are able to do is the moral equivalent of a used Tampon according to St Isaiah.

    You can endlessly distinguish aristotelian virtue in what is perversion or not, what is natural or what is not, and still not arrive at the ONLY distinction that matters to your God:

    What is YOUR sin, and what is God’s judgement over you sin?

    I want to discuss this. You wish to discuss Aristotelian and philosophical distinctions which all will perish eternally. You seek to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titannic by doing this I am suggesting dear SP.

    Grace: SP is correct in his reading of what I say about the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. I have said the same thing to you many times. You lack charity toward others here Grace.

  • fws

    sp @ 280

    I try to talk about one thing at a time. Call that “focusing” or not, it’s a good thing to do. It promotes clarity and prevents confusion.

    The distinction perversion/not perversion/natural law is Aristotle and not Holy Scripture. You are discussing carnal and philosophica righeousness. Romans 8 flesh. It will perish.
    Let’s do St Paul and Christ: Distinguish sin vs Righeousness before God.

    SP @ 283 Marriage is ALL and ONLY about the death of the Flesh. It is ALL Law. The Law always and only accuses and kills us. The eternal consequences of everything you can see and are able to do in your married life SP is eternal death. It is a blessing that will help you avoid punishment and have a long and happy life sanctioned by God. But it will end with this life. The life of a virtuous homosexual has the same blessings and eternal consequences.

    SP @ 287 Todd did exegesis. You are doing eisegesis. Todd has good reading comprehension skills. He had no problem understanding what I said.

    SP @ 289

    “itself” as in “marriage itself” merely is to say the think itself, apart from it’s use. Money, sex, food, material goods, baptism, the Blessed Sacrament, Doctrine, faith, goodness all “in and of themselves” are neither good nor evil. To the extent that these things are done comprehended in God’s Word they will become mercy to men. Mercy is the opposite of what we deserve for what we do.

    Again SP: ALL you can see and are able to do is a perversion and stench in the nostrils of a Holy God. ALL you can see and are able to do is the moral equivalent of a used Tampon according to St Isaiah.

    You can endlessly distinguish aristotelian virtue in what is perversion or not, what is natural or what is not, and still not arrive at the ONLY distinction that matters to your God:

    What is YOUR sin, and what is God’s judgement over you sin?

    I want to discuss this. You wish to discuss Aristotelian and philosophical distinctions which all will perish eternally. You seek to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titannic by doing this I am suggesting dear SP.

    Grace: SP is correct in his reading of what I say about the Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. I have said the same thing to you many times. You lack charity toward others here Grace.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “The distinction perversion/not perversion/natural law is Aristotle and not Holy Scripture. ”

    You should make up your mind. Until now you have been repeatedly saying “perversion” IS Holy Scripture.

    “You are discussing carnal and philosophica righeousness. ”

    No. I have not. You actually have been pretending that I am saying something completely different than I am saying.

    I say this:

    “Marriage is not a perversion”

    And, in order to pretend that you are being responsive while carefully avoiding really confronting what I’ve said, you dishonestly respond to me as if I’d said this:

    “What S.P. is able to do in marriage and sexually is not a perversion”

    “It is a blessing that will help you avoid punishment and have a long and happy life sanctioned by God. ”

    Make up your mind. You have been saying it’s a perversion, now you are saying it’s a blessing.

    “The life of a virtuous homosexual…”

    You are being dishonest again and twisting what I said to avoid confronting what I said:

    I said “Homosexuality is a perversion.”

    I did not say “The life of a viruous homosexual is a perversion.”

    You make up things, attribute them to me, and you act as if you are responding to me but really respond to the things you made up. While doing this, instead of doing it in a loving way, a way that builds me up and gives me the benefit of the doubt while minimimizing yourself, you do it in an aggressive hateful way that puts me down and builds yourself up.

    Your childish and desperate manipulation seemed transparent to me. I assumed that you could not be getting away with it, that any intelligent person reading this would see right through it. I was wrong. You hoodwinked tODD. He completely misunderstood, and said that it was I who was misunderstanding you. Congratulations. You are good at what you are doing. Aren’t you pleased with yourself?

    “Todd did exegesis.”

    I have no idea what you are talking about. When did he exegete and about what? Why do you feel you need to be telling me this? tODD and I have not had a discussion about the Bible or any other subject. What did Grace tell you my alias is?

    “itself” as in “marriage itself” merely is to say the think itself, apart from it’s use.

    That’s incorrect. I used “itself” simply to signal to you that I meant what I was saying, and not all of those other things that you made up.

    Specifically, when I said:

    “Marriage itself is a perversion” I was trying to tell you that in saying:

    “Marriage is a perversion” I meant:

    1. “Marriage is a perversion”

    Rather than

    2. “What S.P. is able to do in marriage and sexually is not a perversion”

    Or to put it differntly, #1 is what I said and meant, #2 is something you made up, that I did not say. You dishonestly pretended that I had said #2 in order to build yourself up and put me down.

    “Money, sex, food, material goods, baptism, the Blessed Sacrament, Doctrine, faith, goodness all “in and of themselves” are neither good nor evil. ”

    No, you are completely misconstruing what I meant when I used the word “itself.” In the English language, “itself,” when not used simply as a reflexive pronoun, is an intensifier.

    “ALL you can see and are able to do is a perversion and stench in the nostrils of a Holy God. ”

    Nonsense. What if I saw Jesus?

    “You can endlessly distinguish aristotelian virtue in what is perversion or not, what is natural or what is not, and…”

    I would ráther not. Why don’t you do that? Just don’t do it in a way that pretends to be talking to me. Make up your own “sock puppet.”

    “[1] I want to discuss this. [2] You wish to discuss Aristotelian and philosophical distinctions which all will perish eternally….”

    1. You want to discuss what?

    2. You are not telling the truth. I never told you that I wished to discuss those things.

    Here’s what happened. You implied that marriage is a perversion. I insisted that marriage is not a perversion. Then you repeatedly responded to me as if I had said something else.

    You want desparately not to agree with me that “marriage is certainly not a perversion” but you don’t want to say that it is a perversion because you don’t like how people reading this might think of you if you say such a thing. So you invent a whole bunch of other things that have complex subjects including the word “marriage” and ending with the predicate “is a perversion.” You feel that you are being clever and sophisticated when you do this.

    It’s not working with me at least. You are exposing yourself. I think you must enjoy exposing yourself from time to time, on your own terms, in ways that you choose, as long as you are under control. I’m sure you enjoy being the center of attention. But right now you are unintentionally revealing things about yourself that you would not wish to reveal. You are transparent as glass.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “The distinction perversion/not perversion/natural law is Aristotle and not Holy Scripture. ”

    You should make up your mind. Until now you have been repeatedly saying “perversion” IS Holy Scripture.

    “You are discussing carnal and philosophica righeousness. ”

    No. I have not. You actually have been pretending that I am saying something completely different than I am saying.

    I say this:

    “Marriage is not a perversion”

    And, in order to pretend that you are being responsive while carefully avoiding really confronting what I’ve said, you dishonestly respond to me as if I’d said this:

    “What S.P. is able to do in marriage and sexually is not a perversion”

    “It is a blessing that will help you avoid punishment and have a long and happy life sanctioned by God. ”

    Make up your mind. You have been saying it’s a perversion, now you are saying it’s a blessing.

    “The life of a virtuous homosexual…”

    You are being dishonest again and twisting what I said to avoid confronting what I said:

    I said “Homosexuality is a perversion.”

    I did not say “The life of a viruous homosexual is a perversion.”

    You make up things, attribute them to me, and you act as if you are responding to me but really respond to the things you made up. While doing this, instead of doing it in a loving way, a way that builds me up and gives me the benefit of the doubt while minimimizing yourself, you do it in an aggressive hateful way that puts me down and builds yourself up.

    Your childish and desperate manipulation seemed transparent to me. I assumed that you could not be getting away with it, that any intelligent person reading this would see right through it. I was wrong. You hoodwinked tODD. He completely misunderstood, and said that it was I who was misunderstanding you. Congratulations. You are good at what you are doing. Aren’t you pleased with yourself?

    “Todd did exegesis.”

    I have no idea what you are talking about. When did he exegete and about what? Why do you feel you need to be telling me this? tODD and I have not had a discussion about the Bible or any other subject. What did Grace tell you my alias is?

    “itself” as in “marriage itself” merely is to say the think itself, apart from it’s use.

    That’s incorrect. I used “itself” simply to signal to you that I meant what I was saying, and not all of those other things that you made up.

    Specifically, when I said:

    “Marriage itself is a perversion” I was trying to tell you that in saying:

    “Marriage is a perversion” I meant:

    1. “Marriage is a perversion”

    Rather than

    2. “What S.P. is able to do in marriage and sexually is not a perversion”

    Or to put it differntly, #1 is what I said and meant, #2 is something you made up, that I did not say. You dishonestly pretended that I had said #2 in order to build yourself up and put me down.

    “Money, sex, food, material goods, baptism, the Blessed Sacrament, Doctrine, faith, goodness all “in and of themselves” are neither good nor evil. ”

    No, you are completely misconstruing what I meant when I used the word “itself.” In the English language, “itself,” when not used simply as a reflexive pronoun, is an intensifier.

    “ALL you can see and are able to do is a perversion and stench in the nostrils of a Holy God. ”

    Nonsense. What if I saw Jesus?

    “You can endlessly distinguish aristotelian virtue in what is perversion or not, what is natural or what is not, and…”

    I would ráther not. Why don’t you do that? Just don’t do it in a way that pretends to be talking to me. Make up your own “sock puppet.”

    “[1] I want to discuss this. [2] You wish to discuss Aristotelian and philosophical distinctions which all will perish eternally….”

    1. You want to discuss what?

    2. You are not telling the truth. I never told you that I wished to discuss those things.

    Here’s what happened. You implied that marriage is a perversion. I insisted that marriage is not a perversion. Then you repeatedly responded to me as if I had said something else.

    You want desparately not to agree with me that “marriage is certainly not a perversion” but you don’t want to say that it is a perversion because you don’t like how people reading this might think of you if you say such a thing. So you invent a whole bunch of other things that have complex subjects including the word “marriage” and ending with the predicate “is a perversion.” You feel that you are being clever and sophisticated when you do this.

    It’s not working with me at least. You are exposing yourself. I think you must enjoy exposing yourself from time to time, on your own terms, in ways that you choose, as long as you are under control. I’m sure you enjoy being the center of attention. But right now you are unintentionally revealing things about yourself that you would not wish to reveal. You are transparent as glass.

  • fws

    sp @ 287

    So your question was rhetorical?
    I took it as a serious question and so did Todd.

    I never said that marriage was a perversion. Quote. Me.

    I said that that discussion of what is or is not perversion or is or is not natural is a question that is a fleshly carnal question that is about what will perish. Col ch 2. You want to talk about things that will be used up and will perish with the earth. Marriage is such a thing. It is a gift of God that is romans 8 flesh that will perish SP. There is no Life there anymore than there is Life in anything a homo can do or avoid doing.

    Biblical fact: ALL you can see and are able to do is a perversion SP.
    You dont want to discuss that? Why not? What is it that romans 2 vs 1 says to you?

    SP? what constructive thing do you hope to produce from our discussion? determine what is or is not classified as perversion? To what goal? Wouldnt it be better to place our gaze on things above that will not perish?

  • fws

    sp @ 287

    So your question was rhetorical?
    I took it as a serious question and so did Todd.

    I never said that marriage was a perversion. Quote. Me.

    I said that that discussion of what is or is not perversion or is or is not natural is a question that is a fleshly carnal question that is about what will perish. Col ch 2. You want to talk about things that will be used up and will perish with the earth. Marriage is such a thing. It is a gift of God that is romans 8 flesh that will perish SP. There is no Life there anymore than there is Life in anything a homo can do or avoid doing.

    Biblical fact: ALL you can see and are able to do is a perversion SP.
    You dont want to discuss that? Why not? What is it that romans 2 vs 1 says to you?

    SP? what constructive thing do you hope to produce from our discussion? determine what is or is not classified as perversion? To what goal? Wouldnt it be better to place our gaze on things above that will not perish?

  • fws

    sp @ 296

    I strive to be as transparent as glass. That was a nice compliment SP. We should all strive to be that.

    All sin is at the door. Meaning that God will expose it in time. So it is good to confess our sins to one another in a modest way.

    Where am I drawing attention to my own self here SP?
    I keep wanting to talk about sin and the cure for sin that is alone in Christ. It matters alot.

    And you? What end point or useful purpose do you bring to our discussion ?
    If I am straying from that, then I wish to not do so.

  • fws

    sp @ 296

    I strive to be as transparent as glass. That was a nice compliment SP. We should all strive to be that.

    All sin is at the door. Meaning that God will expose it in time. So it is good to confess our sins to one another in a modest way.

    Where am I drawing attention to my own self here SP?
    I keep wanting to talk about sin and the cure for sin that is alone in Christ. It matters alot.

    And you? What end point or useful purpose do you bring to our discussion ?
    If I am straying from that, then I wish to not do so.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “So your question was rhetorical?”

    Probably not. I do not know to which question you are referring.

    “I never said that marriage was a perversion. Quote. Me.”

    That’s right. This is what happened:

    1. You implied that marriage is a perversion, comparing it to homosexuality which I had just a called a perversion.

    2. I insisted that marriage is not a perversion.

    3. You response was to tell me that I am wrong, and you began to argue at me.

    4. At the same time, you kept creating straw men that were not saying “marriage is not a perversion” but different propositions with the same predicate but a different subject, complex ones that contained the word “marriage” but did not mean, simply “marriage.” You dishonestly acted as though those straw men propositions were what I was asserting.

    Arguing at me when I say “marriage is not a perversion” is not logically the same thing as asserting that “marriage is a perversion” but pragmatically it implies that, unless you make it clear that you do not mean that. Pretending that the person you are talking at is saying something radically different than he is really saying is not merely dishonest but pointless. Most people can not be expected to understand why anyone would do such a thing. In fact when I thought about it, I became more favorably impressed by tODD’s not understanding what’s going on here. He is intelligent but he probably cannot understand what would motivate someone to do what you are doing. I assume his motivations when it comes to dialog are more matter-of-fact, sensible, and wholesome than yours.

    “You want to talk about things that will be used up and…”

    Nope. I want to make sure that if you imply or seem to imply Something so devilish and wicked as “marriage is a perversion” that the truth is stated plainly and clearly. It is remarkable to me how desperately you sometimes seem to avoid clarity.

    “ALL you can see and are able to do is a perversion SP.
    You dont want to discuss that?”

    Not really. I’ll refute it if you like:

    Assuming your proposition is general and not especially a description of me and how my eyesight is different than everyone else’s:
    Everything Jesus’s original disciples could see was a perversion. (Your proposition).
    Jesus’s original disciples could see Jesus. (An undisputed historical fact).
    Therefore, Jesus is a perversion.

    The conclusion is absurd, so your proposition is false.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “So your question was rhetorical?”

    Probably not. I do not know to which question you are referring.

    “I never said that marriage was a perversion. Quote. Me.”

    That’s right. This is what happened:

    1. You implied that marriage is a perversion, comparing it to homosexuality which I had just a called a perversion.

    2. I insisted that marriage is not a perversion.

    3. You response was to tell me that I am wrong, and you began to argue at me.

    4. At the same time, you kept creating straw men that were not saying “marriage is not a perversion” but different propositions with the same predicate but a different subject, complex ones that contained the word “marriage” but did not mean, simply “marriage.” You dishonestly acted as though those straw men propositions were what I was asserting.

    Arguing at me when I say “marriage is not a perversion” is not logically the same thing as asserting that “marriage is a perversion” but pragmatically it implies that, unless you make it clear that you do not mean that. Pretending that the person you are talking at is saying something radically different than he is really saying is not merely dishonest but pointless. Most people can not be expected to understand why anyone would do such a thing. In fact when I thought about it, I became more favorably impressed by tODD’s not understanding what’s going on here. He is intelligent but he probably cannot understand what would motivate someone to do what you are doing. I assume his motivations when it comes to dialog are more matter-of-fact, sensible, and wholesome than yours.

    “You want to talk about things that will be used up and…”

    Nope. I want to make sure that if you imply or seem to imply Something so devilish and wicked as “marriage is a perversion” that the truth is stated plainly and clearly. It is remarkable to me how desperately you sometimes seem to avoid clarity.

    “ALL you can see and are able to do is a perversion SP.
    You dont want to discuss that?”

    Not really. I’ll refute it if you like:

    Assuming your proposition is general and not especially a description of me and how my eyesight is different than everyone else’s:
    Everything Jesus’s original disciples could see was a perversion. (Your proposition).
    Jesus’s original disciples could see Jesus. (An undisputed historical fact).
    Therefore, Jesus is a perversion.

    The conclusion is absurd, so your proposition is false.

  • S. P.

    “what constructive thing do you hope to produce from our discussion? ”

    No constructive thing (from discussion). It takes two to tango and it is becoming ever more obvious to me that you would rather distort and put up smokescreens than talk with clarity about and I assume think clearly about, many of the very topics you often want to discuss here. Dialog won’t work when you do that.

    Not letting you get away with certain destructive kinds of things is constructive, in a way. I hope it would at least occasionally help others to see what you are doing, to not be fooled by your large vocabulary and complex sentences. It might help you to be more honest with yourself. I hope it doesn’t just make you craftier.

    It occurs to me that you must think that I am angry at you. Let me clear something up. I’m annoyed at you but I was more annoyed at tODD. He seems pretty bright. I became very frustrated once I found out that it is not necessarily the case that intelligent people would see what you are doing and not be fooled by you and not take you seriously. I had assumed otherwise. I am very frustrated and annoyed that in order to defend myself from the charge that I misunderstood you I had to say negative things about you personally. I did not want to do that. I feel that I’ve been manipulated into that.

  • S. P.

    “what constructive thing do you hope to produce from our discussion? ”

    No constructive thing (from discussion). It takes two to tango and it is becoming ever more obvious to me that you would rather distort and put up smokescreens than talk with clarity about and I assume think clearly about, many of the very topics you often want to discuss here. Dialog won’t work when you do that.

    Not letting you get away with certain destructive kinds of things is constructive, in a way. I hope it would at least occasionally help others to see what you are doing, to not be fooled by your large vocabulary and complex sentences. It might help you to be more honest with yourself. I hope it doesn’t just make you craftier.

    It occurs to me that you must think that I am angry at you. Let me clear something up. I’m annoyed at you but I was more annoyed at tODD. He seems pretty bright. I became very frustrated once I found out that it is not necessarily the case that intelligent people would see what you are doing and not be fooled by you and not take you seriously. I had assumed otherwise. I am very frustrated and annoyed that in order to defend myself from the charge that I misunderstood you I had to say negative things about you personally. I did not want to do that. I feel that I’ve been manipulated into that.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    S.P., please leave me out of it. I really don’t want to continue this conversation with you. You continue to misconstrue — seemingly willingly, at this point — what FWS has written. I can see that’s going nowhere. I don’t care if you think I’m intelligent or hoodwinked. Have a nice weekend.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    S.P., please leave me out of it. I really don’t want to continue this conversation with you. You continue to misconstrue — seemingly willingly, at this point — what FWS has written. I can see that’s going nowhere. I don’t care if you think I’m intelligent or hoodwinked. Have a nice weekend.

  • S. P.

    Fws:

    You occasionally say things that are disturbing or that are likely to raise “red flags” in the minds of some of your audience. When you do that, it makes us feel very concerned about you, and want to do something about it. Your hints of taking a “fatherly” concern in the sexuality of “15 year olds” (maybe you said “16″ I don’t remember) and giving them advice on their sexuality , for example. Of course anyone with even a small amount of compassion is going to be moved by that. I know there is a real person somewhere behind your internet “handle.”

    Why do I mention this? You are doing it again. I wouldn’t deceive myself that you will take my advice, but I can’t ignore it:

    “I strive to be as transparent as glass…:We should all strive to be that.”

    I encourage you not to think that or act on such a belief. Nothing could be further from the truth. You must be careful and protect yourself. In particular please be careful on the internet.

    You are transparent to Christ whether you like it or not. Perhaps in your case He is the only person you can safely be completely transparent with.

    “So it is good to confess our sins to one another in a modest way.”

    Don’t do that on the internet! I mean, if you bear false witness against someone or verbally abuse someone you should repent and ask forgiveness, but in general you should not confess online. It is dangerous in more ways than one.

    “I keep wanting to talk about sin and the cure for sin that is alone in Christ. ”

    You don’t, not in a way that is honest with yourself. You are taking time to talk about sin in general and our own sin in general, in a medium that you should not use for confession, but you do it to avoid thinking about or confronting more specific sins.

    You need to be honest with yourself, and you can’t do that “online.” You should not try. You should not preach. Preaching is a good thing to do but you are not good at it.

  • S. P.

    Fws:

    You occasionally say things that are disturbing or that are likely to raise “red flags” in the minds of some of your audience. When you do that, it makes us feel very concerned about you, and want to do something about it. Your hints of taking a “fatherly” concern in the sexuality of “15 year olds” (maybe you said “16″ I don’t remember) and giving them advice on their sexuality , for example. Of course anyone with even a small amount of compassion is going to be moved by that. I know there is a real person somewhere behind your internet “handle.”

    Why do I mention this? You are doing it again. I wouldn’t deceive myself that you will take my advice, but I can’t ignore it:

    “I strive to be as transparent as glass…:We should all strive to be that.”

    I encourage you not to think that or act on such a belief. Nothing could be further from the truth. You must be careful and protect yourself. In particular please be careful on the internet.

    You are transparent to Christ whether you like it or not. Perhaps in your case He is the only person you can safely be completely transparent with.

    “So it is good to confess our sins to one another in a modest way.”

    Don’t do that on the internet! I mean, if you bear false witness against someone or verbally abuse someone you should repent and ask forgiveness, but in general you should not confess online. It is dangerous in more ways than one.

    “I keep wanting to talk about sin and the cure for sin that is alone in Christ. ”

    You don’t, not in a way that is honest with yourself. You are taking time to talk about sin in general and our own sin in general, in a medium that you should not use for confession, but you do it to avoid thinking about or confronting more specific sins.

    You need to be honest with yourself, and you can’t do that “online.” You should not try. You should not preach. Preaching is a good thing to do but you are not good at it.

  • S. P.

    tODD,

    Thank you! You too.

  • S. P.

    tODD,

    Thank you! You too.

  • Grace

    S. P. @294

    ⚊”The clarifying context is that which came before the part you put in bold type, not that which came after it. If you go back and re-read it, and you are sufficiently intelligent to see that FWS carelessly left out some punctuation and also to see how fws was referring back to his demand in the previous sentence, you will see that he must have meant:”⚊

    SP, I understood what fws stated, and so did others, it had nothing to do with “punctuation.” If you read the link where the remarks were made, you could see it, if you were, “sufficiently intelligent. But instead you lay out a condescending remark, which shows once again that you really are no different than fws, when discussing a subject. The only difference between both of you is, you take the opposite side, regarding homosexuality.

    ⚊”I will not assume you are able to understand all that however. You’ll have to prove it to me if you want me to believe it.“⚊

    I don’t have to prove anything to you. What you have proven to me is this; this blog is nothing but a ‘REALITY GAME’ to you, one in which you twist words, no differently than fws, and a few others. I would lodge my education, career and background against your juvenile approach anytime.

  • Grace

    S. P. @294

    ⚊”The clarifying context is that which came before the part you put in bold type, not that which came after it. If you go back and re-read it, and you are sufficiently intelligent to see that FWS carelessly left out some punctuation and also to see how fws was referring back to his demand in the previous sentence, you will see that he must have meant:”⚊

    SP, I understood what fws stated, and so did others, it had nothing to do with “punctuation.” If you read the link where the remarks were made, you could see it, if you were, “sufficiently intelligent. But instead you lay out a condescending remark, which shows once again that you really are no different than fws, when discussing a subject. The only difference between both of you is, you take the opposite side, regarding homosexuality.

    ⚊”I will not assume you are able to understand all that however. You’ll have to prove it to me if you want me to believe it.“⚊

    I don’t have to prove anything to you. What you have proven to me is this; this blog is nothing but a ‘REALITY GAME’ to you, one in which you twist words, no differently than fws, and a few others. I would lodge my education, career and background against your juvenile approach anytime.

  • fws

    SP @ 302

    Nowhere, have I ever said or implied that marriage is a perversion.
    I have stated this in various ways. You persist in putting this untruth into my mouth.

    I also say this:
    ALL you can see and are able to do in your marriage is a perversion from what God[s perfection demands of you. You are far from treating your wife from how Christ treats the church for example. Perversion.
    You said that that is not a conversation you want to have. Romans 2 verse 1.

    May Gods Word terrify your conscience dear SP.

    “the faith of which we speak exists in repentance, i.e., it is conceived in the terrors of conscience, which feels the wrath of God against our sins,and seeks the remission of sins, and to be freed from sin. And in such terrors and other afflictions this faith ought to grow and be strengthened. ”
    http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_5_love.php#para21

    Wherefore, [such faith] it cannot exist in those who live according to the flesh who are delighted by their own lusts and obey them. (ibid)

    [Only a true believer can know and experience] how the remission of sins occurs, and how, in the judgment of God and terrors of conscience, trust in works is driven out of us.
    http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php#para20

    To have any discussion without a clear intent to be useful and do good is to feed the Old Adam.

  • fws

    SP @ 302

    Nowhere, have I ever said or implied that marriage is a perversion.
    I have stated this in various ways. You persist in putting this untruth into my mouth.

    I also say this:
    ALL you can see and are able to do in your marriage is a perversion from what God[s perfection demands of you. You are far from treating your wife from how Christ treats the church for example. Perversion.
    You said that that is not a conversation you want to have. Romans 2 verse 1.

    May Gods Word terrify your conscience dear SP.

    “the faith of which we speak exists in repentance, i.e., it is conceived in the terrors of conscience, which feels the wrath of God against our sins,and seeks the remission of sins, and to be freed from sin. And in such terrors and other afflictions this faith ought to grow and be strengthened. ”
    http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_5_love.php#para21

    Wherefore, [such faith] it cannot exist in those who live according to the flesh who are delighted by their own lusts and obey them. (ibid)

    [Only a true believer can know and experience] how the remission of sins occurs, and how, in the judgment of God and terrors of conscience, trust in works is driven out of us.
    http://www.bookofconcord.org/defense_4_justification.php#para20

    To have any discussion without a clear intent to be useful and do good is to feed the Old Adam.

  • Grace

    fws @ 267

    Regarding “marriage” and “perversion” ⚊ per fws

    ⚊”What you, personally do with your marriage and your sexuality IS a hideous and heinous perversion SP. God’s judgement upon how you use marriage and your sexuality is eternal death. Rom 2:1 says that about you. Personally. Your perverted use of God’s merciful gifts of marriage and sexuality is at least as bad as anal sex SP. Again romans 2:1 . How else can that verse be read?”⚊

  • Grace

    fws @ 267

    Regarding “marriage” and “perversion” ⚊ per fws

    ⚊”What you, personally do with your marriage and your sexuality IS a hideous and heinous perversion SP. God’s judgement upon how you use marriage and your sexuality is eternal death. Rom 2:1 says that about you. Personally. Your perverted use of God’s merciful gifts of marriage and sexuality is at least as bad as anal sex SP. Again romans 2:1 . How else can that verse be read?”⚊

  • fws

    grace @ 307

    How else would you understand romands 2 verse 1?

  • fws

    grace @ 307

    How else would you understand romands 2 verse 1?

  • S. P.

    Grace,

    “which shows once again that you really are no different than fws, when discussing a subject.”

    Yes, I would agree with you that he and I are very similar in many ways.

    I don’t know, i suppose since fws is reading this it’s possible that he might tell us which of us interpreted him correctly (if either of us did). If he did that, that would settle the question for me.

  • S. P.

    Grace,

    “which shows once again that you really are no different than fws, when discussing a subject.”

    Yes, I would agree with you that he and I are very similar in many ways.

    I don’t know, i suppose since fws is reading this it’s possible that he might tell us which of us interpreted him correctly (if either of us did). If he did that, that would settle the question for me.

  • Dust

    ok so marriage, per soe, is not a perversion, but how fallen men and women do it, sinfully by nature, is a perversion of the ideal, the one instituted by God in the Garden of Eden (am no theologian, but isn’t that where is started?) don’t think it’s necessary to use the word perversion to make the same point, but eh, not important.

    but sp’s point is whether or not homosexuality, per se is a perversion from the get go….not homosexuality the way a fallen man or woman does it, but on it’s own, being that is was not ever instituted by God, or was it?

    thanks!

  • Dust

    ok so marriage, per soe, is not a perversion, but how fallen men and women do it, sinfully by nature, is a perversion of the ideal, the one instituted by God in the Garden of Eden (am no theologian, but isn’t that where is started?) don’t think it’s necessary to use the word perversion to make the same point, but eh, not important.

    but sp’s point is whether or not homosexuality, per se is a perversion from the get go….not homosexuality the way a fallen man or woman does it, but on it’s own, being that is was not ever instituted by God, or was it?

    thanks!

  • Dust

    ps. and fws’s point would be that regardless of the answer to the second question, everything we do is a perversion (again would choose a different word….it still gets the idea across) of one sort or another and the judgement and value or that in God’s eyes is the same? we are all sinners and it’s Christ alone for the propitiation of our sins? so there is no difference…all have fallen short of the glory of God?

    thanks again!

  • Dust

    ps. and fws’s point would be that regardless of the answer to the second question, everything we do is a perversion (again would choose a different word….it still gets the idea across) of one sort or another and the judgement and value or that in God’s eyes is the same? we are all sinners and it’s Christ alone for the propitiation of our sins? so there is no difference…all have fallen short of the glory of God?

    thanks again!

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “Nowhere, have I ever said or implied that marriage is a perversion.”

    If I insist that marriage is not a perversion, and you argue with me, that is a pragmatic implication (though not a logical one) that you are taking a contrary position. Perhaps you failed to consider that fact. You should have considered it. I strongly suspect that I don’t need to tell you how you could have quickly cleared up the confusion, if clarity had been something you desired.

    As I said, you aren’t good at preaching, and the medium is not conducive to preaching. I am sorry. In case this reassures you, I will let you know that I hear the word rightly preached and receive the sacrament on Sundays.

  • S. P.

    Fws

    “Nowhere, have I ever said or implied that marriage is a perversion.”

    If I insist that marriage is not a perversion, and you argue with me, that is a pragmatic implication (though not a logical one) that you are taking a contrary position. Perhaps you failed to consider that fact. You should have considered it. I strongly suspect that I don’t need to tell you how you could have quickly cleared up the confusion, if clarity had been something you desired.

    As I said, you aren’t good at preaching, and the medium is not conducive to preaching. I am sorry. In case this reassures you, I will let you know that I hear the word rightly preached and receive the sacrament on Sundays.

  • S. P.

    Dust,

    “don’t think it’s necessary to use the word perversion to make the same point”

    No, but if somebody rightfully calls homosexuality a perversion and you are trying to paper over that uncomfortable fact and find a way to put the institution of marriage and the perversion of homosexuality on some kind of parity (and you aren’t particularly honest in your rhetoric), you might try to find a way to associate the word “marriage” with the word “perversion.” Apparently there is a valid and truthful way to do that, as you have noted. Whether the whole enterprise was worthwhile or benevolent is another question. Doing something like that should raise the question of motive in any wise and attentive reader.

    As for the rest of it, good questions!

  • S. P.

    Dust,

    “don’t think it’s necessary to use the word perversion to make the same point”

    No, but if somebody rightfully calls homosexuality a perversion and you are trying to paper over that uncomfortable fact and find a way to put the institution of marriage and the perversion of homosexuality on some kind of parity (and you aren’t particularly honest in your rhetoric), you might try to find a way to associate the word “marriage” with the word “perversion.” Apparently there is a valid and truthful way to do that, as you have noted. Whether the whole enterprise was worthwhile or benevolent is another question. Doing something like that should raise the question of motive in any wise and attentive reader.

    As for the rest of it, good questions!

  • kerner

    Forgive me, as a lurker in this conversation, for butting in. But I think this focus on the term “perversion” is causing more problems of confusion than it solves. Maybe if you could stick to whether something is sin or not, your arguments would be easier to follow.

    As I said, I’m just lurking and reading, but just a suggestion.

  • kerner

    Forgive me, as a lurker in this conversation, for butting in. But I think this focus on the term “perversion” is causing more problems of confusion than it solves. Maybe if you could stick to whether something is sin or not, your arguments would be easier to follow.

    As I said, I’m just lurking and reading, but just a suggestion.

  • kerner

    one other thing SP. I am 99% sure that fws defines “homosexuality” differently than you do. When most of us use it we are talking about an activity. fws usually means a state of being, if I understand him correctly, which I’m not sure I fully do.

    Because of that, I tend not to use the word at all when I talk about male-male of female-female sexual activity.

  • kerner

    one other thing SP. I am 99% sure that fws defines “homosexuality” differently than you do. When most of us use it we are talking about an activity. fws usually means a state of being, if I understand him correctly, which I’m not sure I fully do.

    Because of that, I tend not to use the word at all when I talk about male-male of female-female sexual activity.

  • Grace

    Kerner @ 314

    “Because of that, I tend not to use the word at all when I talk about male-male of female-female sexual activity.”

    That’s just what “homosexuals” would like you to do – leave it out of the conversation, that way, it can be distorted.

    Homosexual men have transmitted the disease HIV/AIDS more than anyone else in this country. No one is misusing the identifying name of men who have sex with men, it’s common to call them “homosexuals” others might refer to them as “gay” but I do not. There is nothing gay about their lifestyle, or the diseases they transmitt, including STDs

    New HIV Infections

    ⚫ In 2009, MSM accounted for 61% of new HIV infections in the US and 79% of infections among all newly infected men. Compared with other groups, MSM accounted for the largest numbers of new HIV infections in 2009.

    Among all MSM, white MSM accounted for 11,400 (39%) new HIV infections in 2009. The largest number of new infections (3,400) occurred in those aged 40–49.

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/

  • Grace

    Kerner @ 314

    “Because of that, I tend not to use the word at all when I talk about male-male of female-female sexual activity.”

    That’s just what “homosexuals” would like you to do – leave it out of the conversation, that way, it can be distorted.

    Homosexual men have transmitted the disease HIV/AIDS more than anyone else in this country. No one is misusing the identifying name of men who have sex with men, it’s common to call them “homosexuals” others might refer to them as “gay” but I do not. There is nothing gay about their lifestyle, or the diseases they transmitt, including STDs

    New HIV Infections

    ⚫ In 2009, MSM accounted for 61% of new HIV infections in the US and 79% of infections among all newly infected men. Compared with other groups, MSM accounted for the largest numbers of new HIV infections in 2009.

    Among all MSM, white MSM accounted for 11,400 (39%) new HIV infections in 2009. The largest number of new infections (3,400) occurred in those aged 40–49.

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/

  • Grace

    Kerner,

    Read my post @ 245 at the LINK – forth and fifth paragraph. Is that not a contradition of what we read now?

  • Grace

    Kerner,

    Read my post @ 245 at the LINK – forth and fifth paragraph. Is that not a contradition of what we read now?

  • Grace

    Luther identifies homosexuality Genesis 19:4-5

    “I for my part do not enjoy dealing with this passage, because so far the ears of the Germans are innocent of and uncontaminated by this monstrous depravity; for even though disgrace, like other sins, has crept in through an ungodly soldier and a lewd merchant, still the rest of the people are unaware of what is being done in secret. The Carthusian monks deserve to be hated because they were the first to bring this terrible pollution into Germany from the monasteries of Italy”.

    (Luther’s Works Vol. 3 p. 251-252)

    “the heinous conduct of the people of Sodom ” as “extraordinary, inasmuch as they departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which is implanted into nature by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity? Undoubtedly from Satan, who after people have once turned away from the fear of God, so powerfully suppresses nature that he blots out the natural desire and stirs up a desire that is contrary to nature.

    (Luther’s Works Vol. 3 p. 255)

  • Grace

    Luther identifies homosexuality Genesis 19:4-5

    “I for my part do not enjoy dealing with this passage, because so far the ears of the Germans are innocent of and uncontaminated by this monstrous depravity; for even though disgrace, like other sins, has crept in through an ungodly soldier and a lewd merchant, still the rest of the people are unaware of what is being done in secret. The Carthusian monks deserve to be hated because they were the first to bring this terrible pollution into Germany from the monasteries of Italy”.

    (Luther’s Works Vol. 3 p. 251-252)

    “the heinous conduct of the people of Sodom ” as “extraordinary, inasmuch as they departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which is implanted into nature by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity? Undoubtedly from Satan, who after people have once turned away from the fear of God, so powerfully suppresses nature that he blots out the natural desire and stirs up a desire that is contrary to nature.

    (Luther’s Works Vol. 3 p. 255)

  • fws

    kerner @ 314

    I dont think it really matters actually Kerner to argue over a definition.

    Instead it is more useful to agree upon a definition and insist that whatever that definition is, is then used consistently.
    Would it be wrong to point out that christians take great care to start with a definition of terms in many other areas, but somehow this never happens with the topic of homosexuality.

    I have yet to read a paper by any christian that takes the care to define “homosexual, homosexuality, homosexual act, homosexual lifestyle, etc etc. ” They simply assume we all know what those terms mean.

    Sp says “homosexuality is a perversion”. Define homosexuality. Anal sex? heterosexuals do that. not all homosexuals do that. It doesnt fit with the medical description of that term, which is a medical term. It is reductionist. To homosexuals reading this blog and their families and many others, the common courtesy of words precisely used makes a great deal of difference.

  • fws

    kerner @ 314

    I dont think it really matters actually Kerner to argue over a definition.

    Instead it is more useful to agree upon a definition and insist that whatever that definition is, is then used consistently.
    Would it be wrong to point out that christians take great care to start with a definition of terms in many other areas, but somehow this never happens with the topic of homosexuality.

    I have yet to read a paper by any christian that takes the care to define “homosexual, homosexuality, homosexual act, homosexual lifestyle, etc etc. ” They simply assume we all know what those terms mean.

    Sp says “homosexuality is a perversion”. Define homosexuality. Anal sex? heterosexuals do that. not all homosexuals do that. It doesnt fit with the medical description of that term, which is a medical term. It is reductionist. To homosexuals reading this blog and their families and many others, the common courtesy of words precisely used makes a great deal of difference.

  • fws

    sp @ 311

    If I insist that marriage is not a perversion, and you argue with me, that is a pragmatic implication (though not a logical one) that you are taking a contrary position.

    I am not arguing with your point SP. I was stating a fact.

    If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations—“Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh. (Colossians 2:20-23 ESV)

    You can insist on calling all the homosexuals you meet perverts and go out of your way to drive that point home as you seem intent on doing here. But this is of no value in stopping the indugence of the flesh SP. That is not an argument . It is a fact.

    What will , alone, stop the indulgence of the flesh? It is what you say you do… you regularly hear Gods Word and receive the Blessed Sacrament . This, Alone, is the cure for your perverted self and me and anyone else.

    We need to welcome practicing homosexuals into church, tell them to be sure to bring their boyfriend or “husband” and kids as well as the inlaws and all their homosexual friends. We need to urge them to be baptized?

    Do we need to make sure , before all of this, that they accept the proper distinction between perverted and not perverted and natural vs unnatural? before we baptize them? before we welcome them into church and make them feel truly welcome? no.

  • fws

    sp @ 311

    If I insist that marriage is not a perversion, and you argue with me, that is a pragmatic implication (though not a logical one) that you are taking a contrary position.

    I am not arguing with your point SP. I was stating a fact.

    If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations—“Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh. (Colossians 2:20-23 ESV)

    You can insist on calling all the homosexuals you meet perverts and go out of your way to drive that point home as you seem intent on doing here. But this is of no value in stopping the indugence of the flesh SP. That is not an argument . It is a fact.

    What will , alone, stop the indulgence of the flesh? It is what you say you do… you regularly hear Gods Word and receive the Blessed Sacrament . This, Alone, is the cure for your perverted self and me and anyone else.

    We need to welcome practicing homosexuals into church, tell them to be sure to bring their boyfriend or “husband” and kids as well as the inlaws and all their homosexual friends. We need to urge them to be baptized?

    Do we need to make sure , before all of this, that they accept the proper distinction between perverted and not perverted and natural vs unnatural? before we baptize them? before we welcome them into church and make them feel truly welcome? no.

  • fws

    sp @ 311

    And you will hear my scream of frustration all the way from Brasil if you interpret what I just said to say we are to ignore morality and the Law of God or am trying to imply that this passage is saying that.
    Original Sin needs to be dealt with.
    Properly distinguishing between perverted vs not perverted does not even come close to getting that job done SP.

    It is what God does in Baptism, that alone can deal with the perversion that is sin that is the same perversion that is in both you and any homosexual you will meet.

  • fws

    sp @ 311

    And you will hear my scream of frustration all the way from Brasil if you interpret what I just said to say we are to ignore morality and the Law of God or am trying to imply that this passage is saying that.
    Original Sin needs to be dealt with.
    Properly distinguishing between perverted vs not perverted does not even come close to getting that job done SP.

    It is what God does in Baptism, that alone can deal with the perversion that is sin that is the same perversion that is in both you and any homosexual you will meet.

  • fws

    Sp @ 311 and Kerner @ 314

    So then what about sin? Are we supposed to soft pedal sin to homosexuals? no. Of course not. the Gospel then would be meaningless. Christ then saved us from what?

    But we need to define what we mean. If we wish to define the word “homosexual” narrowly as being anyone who is regularly practicing anal sex, then maybe we should just say that?

    Why ? 100% of the medical community and 100% of the homosexual community has a different definition of that word.
    It is reasonable to expect confusion.
    Why make that argument the main deal? Webster is not canonical.
    So we need to define what it is that is sin, and point to the Scripture that says that.

    If homosexuality=sodomy=anal sex, then many heterosexual couples fit that definition as well. And it is also true that a majority of homosexuals, especially if one includes lesbians, do not practice anal sex. So there is that. Then the “them” we are referring to becomes somewhat less clearly demarcated.

    Is it sophistry to expect a clear use of language and terms? Why argue about such things rather than come to agreement on such things and argue as to the substance of the matter rather than over definitions?

  • fws

    Sp @ 311 and Kerner @ 314

    So then what about sin? Are we supposed to soft pedal sin to homosexuals? no. Of course not. the Gospel then would be meaningless. Christ then saved us from what?

    But we need to define what we mean. If we wish to define the word “homosexual” narrowly as being anyone who is regularly practicing anal sex, then maybe we should just say that?

    Why ? 100% of the medical community and 100% of the homosexual community has a different definition of that word.
    It is reasonable to expect confusion.
    Why make that argument the main deal? Webster is not canonical.
    So we need to define what it is that is sin, and point to the Scripture that says that.

    If homosexuality=sodomy=anal sex, then many heterosexual couples fit that definition as well. And it is also true that a majority of homosexuals, especially if one includes lesbians, do not practice anal sex. So there is that. Then the “them” we are referring to becomes somewhat less clearly demarcated.

    Is it sophistry to expect a clear use of language and terms? Why argue about such things rather than come to agreement on such things and argue as to the substance of the matter rather than over definitions?

  • fws

    kerner @ 314

    I favor the APA definition in their online paper in sexual orientation.
    It is not the inspired Word of God but neither is Webster.

    So why do I favor it? It is a definition of terms that any homosexual would recognize as fitting his experience, and that 99% of medical professionals would also recognize as conforming to what has been found in clinical studies. It is the most universal definition avaliable.

    So then one can feel free to point out what in that very broad definition is sin, and what is indifferent without aiming to offend anyone. It prevents no one from turning to scripture to define sin as being sin.

    What christian paper have I read that starts with this? None. Why is that? I wish I knew.

  • fws

    kerner @ 314

    I favor the APA definition in their online paper in sexual orientation.
    It is not the inspired Word of God but neither is Webster.

    So why do I favor it? It is a definition of terms that any homosexual would recognize as fitting his experience, and that 99% of medical professionals would also recognize as conforming to what has been found in clinical studies. It is the most universal definition avaliable.

    So then one can feel free to point out what in that very broad definition is sin, and what is indifferent without aiming to offend anyone. It prevents no one from turning to scripture to define sin as being sin.

    What christian paper have I read that starts with this? None. Why is that? I wish I knew.

  • fws

    Kerner @ 314

    I would be very interested to hear your thought as to what, if anything here, would need to be clearly rejected as being contrary to the Word of God…

    http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx

    there are some things I could identify as contrary to Scripture.
    Rather than tell you what those are, I would be interested in hearing your unvarnished thoughts….

  • fws

    Kerner @ 314

    I would be very interested to hear your thought as to what, if anything here, would need to be clearly rejected as being contrary to the Word of God…

    http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx

    there are some things I could identify as contrary to Scripture.
    Rather than tell you what those are, I would be interested in hearing your unvarnished thoughts….

  • fws

    kerner @ 314

    Ah. I found what I was looking for. This would be a far better paper for you to respond to if you would be so kind. I find very little in this paper to quibble over.

    http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.pdf

  • fws

    kerner @ 314

    Ah. I found what I was looking for. This would be a far better paper for you to respond to if you would be so kind. I find very little in this paper to quibble over.

    http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/sorientation.pdf

  • fws

    kerner @ 314

    You might want to google Warren Throckmorton.
    He is a christian.
    He is on the conservative side of things.
    I disagree with lots of what he says.
    He seems interested in telling the truth.

    I think he would represent someone who is fairminded to disagrees with me on lots of stuff.
    He is trustworthy when he presents facts.

    That sort of trustworthiness is rare on both sides of any argument about homosexuality.

    Yet none of this discussion requires Christ or the Holy Spirit……

  • fws

    kerner @ 314

    You might want to google Warren Throckmorton.
    He is a christian.
    He is on the conservative side of things.
    I disagree with lots of what he says.
    He seems interested in telling the truth.

    I think he would represent someone who is fairminded to disagrees with me on lots of stuff.
    He is trustworthy when he presents facts.

    That sort of trustworthiness is rare on both sides of any argument about homosexuality.

    Yet none of this discussion requires Christ or the Holy Spirit……

  • Grace

    fws @ 318

    ⚊” Define homosexuality. Anal sex? heterosexuals do that. not all homosexuals do that. It doesnt fit with the medical description of that term, which is a medical term.”⚊

    There are two distinct ways in which to transmitt HIV/AIDS. “Anal sex” and “oral sex” –

    BELOW is from the CDC, HIV/AIDS is transmitted by “anal sex” and “oral sex” – there are other ways, but for homosexuals the two mentioned are the most common.

    CDC

    Basic Information about HIV and AIDS

    HIV is spread primarily by:

    ⚫ Not using a condom when having sex with a person who has HIV. All unprotected sex with someone who has HIV contains some risk. However:

    ⚪ Unprotected anal sex is riskier than unprotected vaginal sex.

    ⚪ Among men who have sex with other men, unprotected receptive anal sex is riskier than unprotected insertive anal sex.

    ⚫ Having multiple sex partners or the presence of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) can increase the risk of infection during sex. Unprotected oral sex can also be a risk for HIV transmission, but it is a much lower risk than anal or vaginal sex.

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/basic/index.htm

  • Grace

    fws @ 318

    ⚊” Define homosexuality. Anal sex? heterosexuals do that. not all homosexuals do that. It doesnt fit with the medical description of that term, which is a medical term.”⚊

    There are two distinct ways in which to transmitt HIV/AIDS. “Anal sex” and “oral sex” –

    BELOW is from the CDC, HIV/AIDS is transmitted by “anal sex” and “oral sex” – there are other ways, but for homosexuals the two mentioned are the most common.

    CDC

    Basic Information about HIV and AIDS

    HIV is spread primarily by:

    ⚫ Not using a condom when having sex with a person who has HIV. All unprotected sex with someone who has HIV contains some risk. However:

    ⚪ Unprotected anal sex is riskier than unprotected vaginal sex.

    ⚪ Among men who have sex with other men, unprotected receptive anal sex is riskier than unprotected insertive anal sex.

    ⚫ Having multiple sex partners or the presence of other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) can increase the risk of infection during sex. Unprotected oral sex can also be a risk for HIV transmission, but it is a much lower risk than anal or vaginal sex.

    http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/basic/index.htm

  • fws

    kerner @ 214

    See Kerner . as i was saying….

  • fws

    kerner @ 214

    See Kerner . as i was saying….

  • S. P.

    fws,

    “You can insist on calling all the homosexuals you meet perverts and go out of your way to drive that point home as you seem intent on doing here.”

    “Drive point home” how? By repetition?

    Why did the repetition occur? Was it because I wanted to drive a point home by repetition, or was it because I was dragged into a long discussion by someone who acted as though he were arguing with me but admitted later that he agreed with me the whole time. Will it surprise you that I know have a vague feeling that I’ve been manipulated?

    ” But this is of no value in stopping the indugence of the flesh SP. ”

    Of course “this” (anything that I am able to say or do) is of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh. I do not suffer from grandiose delusions that I have the ability to stop the indulgence of the flesh.

    “Original Sin needs to be dealt with…Properly distinguishing between perverted vs not perverted does not even come close to getting that job done SP.”

    Of course. The only thing that comes close to getting that job done (and then gets it done) is Christ being incarnate and dying on the cross for our sins. What properly distinguishing things does is enable us to tell one thing from a different thing. It’s a species of abstract thought.

  • S. P.

    fws,

    “You can insist on calling all the homosexuals you meet perverts and go out of your way to drive that point home as you seem intent on doing here.”

    “Drive point home” how? By repetition?

    Why did the repetition occur? Was it because I wanted to drive a point home by repetition, or was it because I was dragged into a long discussion by someone who acted as though he were arguing with me but admitted later that he agreed with me the whole time. Will it surprise you that I know have a vague feeling that I’ve been manipulated?

    ” But this is of no value in stopping the indugence of the flesh SP. ”

    Of course “this” (anything that I am able to say or do) is of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh. I do not suffer from grandiose delusions that I have the ability to stop the indulgence of the flesh.

    “Original Sin needs to be dealt with…Properly distinguishing between perverted vs not perverted does not even come close to getting that job done SP.”

    Of course. The only thing that comes close to getting that job done (and then gets it done) is Christ being incarnate and dying on the cross for our sins. What properly distinguishing things does is enable us to tell one thing from a different thing. It’s a species of abstract thought.

  • S. P.

    Kerner@314,

    I meant neither “an activity” nor “a state of being.”

    I did not know that most people defined “homosexuality” as simply an activity nor was I aware that fws defined it as a state of being. I guess if it had occured to me that those definitions existed I would have clarified what I meant.

    I meant by “homosexuality” a sexuality that is directed toward other people of the same sex instead of toward marriage and people of the opposite sex. It is not “an activity” per se but of course it includes some unmentionable activities which we need not talk about. It includes a sexual orientation toward people of the same sex.

    I don’t know what fws’s “state of being” is about. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of that.

  • S. P.

    Kerner@314,

    I meant neither “an activity” nor “a state of being.”

    I did not know that most people defined “homosexuality” as simply an activity nor was I aware that fws defined it as a state of being. I guess if it had occured to me that those definitions existed I would have clarified what I meant.

    I meant by “homosexuality” a sexuality that is directed toward other people of the same sex instead of toward marriage and people of the opposite sex. It is not “an activity” per se but of course it includes some unmentionable activities which we need not talk about. It includes a sexual orientation toward people of the same sex.

    I don’t know what fws’s “state of being” is about. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of that.

  • S. P.

    fws@321

    I stopped reading when I got to the four-letter word beginning with “a.” Then I didn’t read any of the comments you posted after that. I didn’t like the direction you seemed to be going with your comments.

    If there is something you want to ask me or tell me you’ll have to try again, rephrasing it.

  • S. P.

    fws@321

    I stopped reading when I got to the four-letter word beginning with “a.” Then I didn’t read any of the comments you posted after that. I didn’t like the direction you seemed to be going with your comments.

    If there is something you want to ask me or tell me you’ll have to try again, rephrasing it.

  • fws

    sp @ 328

    I was dragged into a long discussion by someone who acted as though he were arguing with me but admitted later that he agreed with me the whole time. Will it surprise you that I know have a vague feeling that I’ve been manipulated?

    dragged it… someone who acted as though… admitted…. vague feeling… manipulated…..

    Whatever.

  • fws

    sp @ 328

    I was dragged into a long discussion by someone who acted as though he were arguing with me but admitted later that he agreed with me the whole time. Will it surprise you that I know have a vague feeling that I’ve been manipulated?

    dragged it… someone who acted as though… admitted…. vague feeling… manipulated…..

    Whatever.

  • fws

    sp @ 328

    I was dragged into a long discussion by someone who acted as though he were arguing with me but admitted later that he agreed with me the whole time. Will it surprise you that I know have a vague feeling that I’ve been manipulated?

    dragged into…. someone who acted as though… admitted…. vague feeling… manipulated…..

    Whatever.

  • fws

    sp @ 328

    I was dragged into a long discussion by someone who acted as though he were arguing with me but admitted later that he agreed with me the whole time. Will it surprise you that I know have a vague feeling that I’ve been manipulated?

    dragged into…. someone who acted as though… admitted…. vague feeling… manipulated…..

    Whatever.

  • Dust

    wow…so this is the way this thread ends….not with a bang, but with a whimper :(

    have been away off the grid but was hoping on return to see an answer to my simple questions in 309 and 310…oh well, thanks just the same :)

    cheers!

  • Dust

    wow…so this is the way this thread ends….not with a bang, but with a whimper :(

    have been away off the grid but was hoping on return to see an answer to my simple questions in 309 and 310…oh well, thanks just the same :)

    cheers!

  • Pingback: get cialis fast

  • Pingback: payday loans brampton

  • Pingback: direct payday loans fast no credit checks lender

  • Pingback: drugrehabcentershotline.com drug programs


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X