Updated 12:58 pm.EST, Sat November 21, 2009

Society|Mon, Dec. 24 2007 05:44 PM EST

Pro-family Group Identifies Worst Offenders of Faith, Family Values

By Katherine T. Phan|Christian Post Reporter

Reflecting back on 2007, a California pro-family group has identified what it considers the worse cases of hostility toward faith, family, and freedom in the state.

At the top of Pacific Justice Institute’s “National Hall of Shame” was a California bill allowing public school children to arbitrarily choose their gender or sexual orientation. In October, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the legislation, known as SB77 or the “homosexual indoctrination” bill, which adds gender and sexual orientation to a list of traits protected under the state’s education code on discrimination.

Pro-family groups, however, say the legislation, which will take effect in January, will not only promote transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality to impressionable children but also lead to situations where children can enter any bathroom or locker room they choose because prohibiting them would be discriminatory under the law.

The issue has many pro-family groups seeking legal recourse to overturn the law. Capitol Resource Institute, a Sacramento-based pro-family group, is in the process of gathering the 400,000 petition signatures required by Jan. 10 in order to place the issue before voters on the 2008 ballot.

“This is absolutely one of the most radical pieces of legislation we have ever seen," Karen England, the group’s executive director, told USA Today.

Another group, Advocates for Faith and Freedom has filed suit in U.S. District Court, contending the law "will eliminate the biological understanding of the term 'gender.' "

Ranking second on list of PJI’s top offenders was a Hate Crimes Bill (HR 1592), which would add “actual or perceived” sexual orientation and gender identity to a list of federally protected classes.

The institute said the legislation “could criminalize speech by clergy,” who may preach to churchgoers that homosexuality is sinful.

Earlier this month, congress dropped the legislation, which was tacked onto the 2008 Defense Authorization bill.

Other instances of hostility toward faith and freedom that made the list include a school’s attempt to censor God out of private yearbook ad, the suspension of over 100 students for wearing t-shirts displaying a Bible verse, and the refusal by the Red Cross to accept Bible donations to California fire victims.

Recent events show that the growing sense of antagonism toward faith and religion, particularly Christianity, is not an isolated case in California.

Two weeks ago, a 24-year-old killed five people, including himself, after opening fire at two ministry sites in Colorado in what appeared to be an act of revenge against Christians.

Police officials later discovered an anti-Christian online message posted by gunman Matthew Murray in between shootings, and some believe that he had acted out of revenge against Christians. Subsequent reports also revealed that Murray, despite his religious upbringing, had been studying the teachings of Aleister Crowley, the late occult author who is considered a mentor to the founder of the Church of Satan.

Dr. Gary Cass, founder of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, who authors a book entitled Christian Bashing, called the incident the worst case of Christian bashing and bigotry this year, according to World Net Daily.

"It is clear that persecution has not ceased to exist in the modern era,” said Cass in a statement. “Defamation, which leads to marginalization and persecution, is not an irrational fear for Christians.”

On the Web: To view the full list of hostile incidents by Pacific Justice Institute, visit www.pji.org

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2
  • Mon Jan 07, 2008 2:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Wow, David and Jonathan as gay. So is Sam and Frodo gay too? I bet J.R. tolkien and C.S. Lewis must have been too, eh? You obviously have never been in war, or the militry for that matter, to fail to understand how close a friendship can be. To suggest homosexuality is the behavior present is, quite frankly, ignorant and inflammatory by design.

  • Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:26 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    I can say that as a Christian, I am commanded to love the sinner and hate the sin. We are commanded in Scripture to love what God loves, and hate what God hates. I can choose to show love to homosexuals, adulterers, fornicators, drunkards, etc.. as a fellow human, but need to say that the lifestyle that some people choose to live out is not God's best for them. I have included some more Scriptures to show you that Homosexuality as well as a number of other sins is not pleasing to God. If we profess to be born again, and there is an evident desire to change and to repent, then that pleases God. Otherwise, we are in disobedience to our Lord and Savior. If we confess our sins, HE is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us of all unrighteousness. Once we chose to follow Christ and accept Him as Lord and Savior, we also choose to die to our flesh, our wills, and choose to pick up our cross daily and follow Christ.

    Leviticus 18:22
    22 " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

    The leviticus passage really leaves no room for interpretation does it? Hey ifeelfine, does this one also imply an older male with a younger male boy, like you were talking about?

    1 Kings 14:24

    24 There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites.

    1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (New King James Version)

    9 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 homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

    Footnotes:

    a. 1 Corinthians 6:9 That is, catamites

    A proverbial term of reproach applied to those who practiced sodomy (ritual homosexuality) (Deuteronomy 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24;15:12;22:46; 2 Kings 23:7; Job)
    And is applied to males (Deuteronomy 23:17)
    Destroyed by fire as a judgement (Genesis 19:24,25)
    Wickedness of (Genesis 19:4-14)
    The word "harlot" ("shrine prostitute" (N. I. V.)) appears in (Genesis 38:21,22)
    And is the translation of a Hebrew feminine form of the word translated elsewhere "sodomite" (Hosea 4:14)
    To be judged according to opportunity (Matthew 11:24; Luke 10:12)
    See SODOMY"

  • Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:21 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine wrote:

    "Maranatha - Check out the story of David and Jonathan in the Book of Samuel. They were clearly gay - there wasn't anything "brotherly" about it."

    Shame on you for distorting the Scriptures. If you don't repent of your twisting the Scriptures, you will have to answer to God one day for your beligerant promotion of sinful behavior. As i've said to you before, Repent ifeelfine, repent.

  • Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:24 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Also, I am not going to say what the worst offender of family is. Homosexuality is just too small to do the same damage as something like divorce, but if 50% of the population was gay, then we would have a huge problem, and if 100% was gay then we would not have any families in a generation. This all goes without defining what a family is. There is a difference between saying worst offender, and saying what does the most damage right now.

  • Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    You are still twisting that story. For example, it is not too hard to find guys who love their best guy friends more than their girlfriends or even wives (I don't agree with this, but trust me it exists) Still these guys are in no way gay, and for you to assume they are is shear bias. If that can exist today who is to say that it couldn't then? Besides that if the contemporaries of David knew he was in a gay relationship, they would have been appalled, if that story even suggested it they would have been appalled. You are still just reading a modern interpretation into it. And still, even if David was, that wouldn't change the fact that the Bible is markedly against homosexuality. David and Johnathon would have been sinning and against God.

    Here is another example that could be twisted. When Christ drove the merchants out of the temple, somebody could take that out of context and say, "Jesus calls for us to violently oppress everyone against us!" This is clearly wrong and doesn't take into consideration the situation of Christ, or the context and obvious message of Christ against violence. Just saying something doesnt make it right.

  • Mon Dec 31, 2007 5:21 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Anyway, the article is about the worst offenders of family values - even if you believe gay people are evil, they don't even come close to the worst offenders of family values. Divorce is easily the worst thing for "family values."

  • Mon Dec 31, 2007 5:19 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Chris333 - I meant to say Maranatha was equating the two. He / she said that I am confusing anger and hatred and I am doing no such thing.

    Anyway, just read about Jonathan and David - "His love for him surpassed that of even a women." There isn't anything brotherly about that. Scripturally I am right. God condemns the kind of lustful, gay acts and condemns gay acts performed by heterosexual people. He does not condemn loving same-sex relationships.

  • Sun Dec 30, 2007 11:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Chris333 said that Jesus didn't disapprove of anger and said that he did - I was simply quoting scripture to back it up. "

    What is this ifeelfine? When did I say anything about this? Also, David and Johnathon were definitely not gay you are reading a modern twisted interpretation into the Bible, but you know what, if they were then they would have been sinning against God. Stop twisting scriptures.

  • Sun Dec 30, 2007 10:26 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Maranatha - I wasn't equating anger and hatred at all. Chris333 said that Jesus didn't disapprove of anger and said that he did - I was simply quoting scripture to back it up.

  • Sun Dec 30, 2007 10:25 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Maranatha - Check out the story of David and Jonathan in the Book of Samuel. They were clearly gay - there wasn't anything "brotherly" about it.

    Strudelcookies - It's what Christians on this site tend to do: They talk about the "evils of homosexuality" and the "gay agenda" and then ignore true threats to family. You missed it yourself - DIVORCE!

  • Sat Dec 29, 2007 11:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    What I mean is, this group considers homosexuality to be the big offender of breaking down the family structure, but homosexuals are a tiny minority. I'm surprised that this group isn't attacking pornography and sleeping around, because that's a HUGE problem in our society! Scads of people don't even find a problem with it. I consider it unfair for this group to point fingers at homosexuals as the "worst offender," 'coz they're only a tiny piece of the pie.

    Peace out.

  • Sat Dec 29, 2007 10:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine, you are equating anger and hatred. They are not the same.

    You cannot support your beliefs about homosexuality with scripture. There is not even one which deems it acceptable in the eyes of God. And I honestly can't believe you really believe the last statement you wrote.

  • Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:32 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

    ifeelfine,

    The next thing you will be saying is, Oh you know Jesus only SAID He was the only way to Heaven, we have to take that in context and put modern ideas of right and wrong into it and then we see that obviously He MEANT everything is ok, as long as it feels good. Think about what you are saying, it is nonsense, if you apply what you are saying to the Bible, why should anyone believe in it? Postmodernism does not set the standard for God, God sets the standard for us. You are confusing that.

  • Sat Dec 29, 2007 6:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Maranatha - That take on homosexuality is based on scripture, historical context and common sense (all three are necessary when quoting scripture) . Think about it - all of the "sexual sins" are based on lust - except in your mind homosexuality. But based on historical context that one is based on lust as well - I would contend that a heterosexual man and a younger (submissive) male is about lust and not love. Gay relationships as we know them now are based on love and mutual respect - not lust.

  • Sat Dec 29, 2007 6:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Maranatha - Check this out Matthew 5:21-26

  • Sat Dec 29, 2007 3:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    RE: "Many Christians have lost their way these days because they've abandoned the truth of God's Word."

    s: Is there an epidemic of christians becoming gay or lesbian? The question is, why are some people so obsessed with a sin that the overwhelming majority is not tempted by? While apparently going with the flow on just about everything else?

    The first statement refers to the truth of God's Word concerning every area of life, not just one.

  • Sat Dec 29, 2007 3:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    P.S. About anger: The Bible says, "Be ye angry and sin not."

  • Sat Dec 29, 2007 3:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine72, when/where did Jesus condemn anger? Do you not know He Himself became angry, overturned the moneychangers' tables, and drove them out of the temple?

  • Sat Dec 29, 2007 3:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Strudelcookies, porno and fornication are also on God's list of sinful behaviors.

  • Sat Dec 29, 2007 3:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine72, you cannot support your belief with any scripture at all. That is purely man's invention.

  • Sat Dec 29, 2007 6:38 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    jesus4me - You keep asking that same question and I keep answering it. It should be obvious by now: I don't believe that God sees homosexuality the way you see homosexuality as sinful. I believe what God sees as sinful is the lustfulness that embodies adultry, pornography, etc. God doesn't see a committed same-sex relationship as a bad thing. That's your prejudice - not God's.

  • Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I don't condone homosexuality, but I'm a little concerned that things like porno and living with someone who's not your spouse isn't on the list here.

  • Fri Dec 28, 2007 1:01 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

    ifeelfine72:

    Why do you continue to rationalize sinful behavior; regardless of the sin? In this case, as in every other case, you relativize, and twist the Scriptures to make it acceptable in defending open homosexuality?

  • Fri Dec 28, 2007 12:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    SportinLife - I've asked the same question before. I believe I know the answer - its easy to condemn a "sin" for which you have no proclivity.

    Think about how much better the world would be if there was no anger. Jesus used pretty strong words in his condemnation of anger. I've seen pretty angry statements on this site. Yet no one calls sin a sin in that case. Instead they rant and rave about the "gay problem" and "gay agenda."

  • Fri Dec 28, 2007 10:45 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    "Many Christians have lost their way these days because they've abandoned the truth of God's Word."

    Is there an epidemic of christians becoming gay or lesbian? The question is, why are some people so obsessed with a sin that the overwhelming majority is not tempted by? While apparently going with the flow on just about everything else?

  • Thu Dec 27, 2007 10:52 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Merkin,

    A simple answer would be, look at what the New Testament says. "New Testament" means "New Covenant" or promise. In the Old Covenant the idea was that if Israel followed God's Commands then they would prosper. The purposes of this we can see were both for the good of Israel, but ultimately for the good of all humanity by creating the way for Jesus to come. The New Covenant is now the New Promise that has been given to us, that if we believe in Christ then we will have the relationship with God restored to us, and part of believing is following, and part of following is repenting and obeying. We obey the moral laws exemplified in the New Testament. Christ said it well when He said He came to fulfill, not destroy the Old Testament. If we look at the New Testament, we clearly see Paul saying that (at the least) the act of homosexuality is a sin. The apostles who wrote the epistles were commissioned by Christ Himself, with the special empowerment of the Holy Spirit for the task of establishing the Church and right doctrine. If you go against Paul or any of the apostles, you are going against Christ.

  • Thu Dec 27, 2007 5:22 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    thanks maranatha. i've got my study bible open to hebrews.

  • Thu Dec 27, 2007 4:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    merkin, a study of the book of Hebrews in the New Testament would help you with this. The ceremonial laws were those given to Moses which had to do with outward forms of worship, such as the way priests were to wash before entering the Holy of Holies, animal sacrifices, etc.

    The moral law of God is comprised of His standards regarding morality and immorality. If you read the OT and NT, you'll see that Jesus continually upheld the moral law of God (as did the apostles in their epistles), but that Jesus continually showed that His coming fulfilled the ceremonial laws. This is why the Pharisees hated Him so much that they tried to kill Him the very first time He ever spoke in a synagogue, this is why they continually dogged Him with fruitless and insincere questions.

  • Thu Dec 27, 2007 4:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Chris333
    What criteria is used to distinguish ceremonial from moral law?

  • Thu Dec 27, 2007 10:01 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    This is discusting its definitely the last days. Praise Jesus Christ

  • Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:52 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    merkin, Biblical injunctions against homosexuality (as well as other forms of sexual immorality) are not only found in Leviticus/OT, but are also found in the New Testament.

  • Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:27 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    2holy, why shouldn't watchdog groups such as this seek to ensure American Christians' right are not violated? Haggard is no longer in the pulpit, as I'm sure you know; that situation has indeed been dealt with.

    xrk9854, I completely disagree with your statement that PJI is condoning violence in any way. Many Christians have lost their way these days because they've abandoned the truth of God's Word. That is the real tragedy.

  • Thu Dec 27, 2007 8:05 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    How about Pastors of mega churches caught for hiring male prostitutes and dabbeling in illeagel drug usage? Maybe we should clean up our own back-yard before we attempt to point fingers at others who probably don't even care what Evangelicals are thinking these days. Why should they? With problems we have, and articles like this, we just look like a bunch of hypocrites anyway.

  • Thu Dec 27, 2007 8:01 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    This article makes no sense. For example PJI is completely wrong about HR1592, the Hate Crimes Bill. The bill is about violent crime offenders ONLY. It does NOT impinge on free speech. As a matter of fact that was specifically spelled out in the legislation! This is blatant misrepresentation of the facts by PJI. By coming out against the Hate Crimes Bill the PJI is condoning violent crime. Violent crime is NEVER right no matter who the victim is. Shame on PJI. What would Jesus do? Would he say it's okay to kill somebody just because they are different from you? No, he would tell you to love EVERYONE. By condoning, and indirectly promoting, violence the PJI has shown itself to be a bunch of hypocrits. Supposedly Christian on one hand, while condoning violence with the other. You have truly lost your way.

  • Thu Dec 27, 2007 7:10 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Chris333 is correct when s/he distinguishes between the ceremonial laws given to Moses in OT times and the moral law of God which is for all time, both OT and NT.

    Jesus CONTINUALLY distinguished between the ceremonial laws of Moses (which were fulfilled in his life, death, and resurrection and are no longer in force today for believers) and the moral law of God. THIS is the very reason why the Pharisees opposed Him so strenuously and tried to kill Him on several occasions. When Jesus did not condemn people for doing necessary work on the Sabbath (i.e., getting the ox out of the ditch), when He healed people on the Sabbath, etc, the Pharisees were up in arms.

    OTOH, Jesus continually upheld the moral law of God -- He consistently affirmed God's plan for man and woman, as evidenced in Matthew 19 and many other places, as well. He did not need to teach against homosexuality, for He was always addressing a Jewish audience who already knew the moral law of God. The apostles, however, ministered to Gentiles who did NOT have the benefit of already knowing God's moral law, and for that reason, they did have to teach those believers the moral law of God.

  • Thu Dec 27, 2007 5:52 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Chris333 - When did Jesus ever say that homosexuality was a sin or part of "moral" law rather than ceremonial? He never once made that distinction.

  • Thu Dec 27, 2007 4:05 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    please nobody bring up the evolution debate in here, there is enough of that on respective sites in here, that was just a joke, I meant nothing by it.

  • Thu Dec 27, 2007 4:04 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Oh yeah,

    And as far as it not letting some things go through, I get that a lot too, it is very annoying because I have to go back and rewrite my beautiful ideas all over again =*( Yeah, yeah they aren't all that great but still it takes some time. What I usually do is write it in word or just copy it before I submit just in case. It doesn't seem to have to do with the content though, just a random glitch...maybe...evolution!!!!

  • Thu Dec 27, 2007 4:01 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Merkin,

    It is important to realize that there are two different kinds of legal systems in the Old Testament, the ceremonial, and the moral. Christ clearly got rid of the ceremonial whenever He died on the Cross and we can be sure of that through various things that He said. For instance He said that it was not what enters a man (via food) or the externalities that makes him unclean but what is in his heart. And then Christ caused some controversy by healing on the Sabbath and His disciples picked grain or somesuch, which was deemed wrong to do by the Old Testament Law. These laws served there purpose in the context of the Old Testament in preparing the way for Christ and for separating the Israelites from the surrounding people, but Christ supercedes them in His coming. Nonetheless, Christ never abolished the Moral Law, and it is clear that He upholds that moral law. Also to take note is that while the apostles never went against the moral law, but rather took good lengths to explain what that law included (the sin of homosexuality being a part of that) whereas they obviously did not continue or endorse the ceremonial laws (and as Paul shows Peter it would have been a mistake to do so). I hope this clears up the confusion (sometimes reading what the Bible actually says helps) By the way, the Jewish diet as described in the Old Testament is very good for you, there was some Jewish Christian who endorsed it and I think made a good case for it. But for Christians that is choice.

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Jesus4me says "You can't pick and choose what is sin and what is not" and "We are to follow the Old Testament as well as the New Testament."

    The first question that comes to mind is, Do you eat shellfish? It is an abomination.
    Why aren't there Christians picketing Red Lobster? It's written in completely straightforward black and white: Abomination. Leviticus 11:9-11

    Also, trimming the hair around your temples or the edges of your beard is explicitly forbidden by the Lord your God. Leviticus 19:27

    And you realize that working on the Sabbath is a capital offense. Exodus 35:2

    And have you read Leviticus 19:19? I hope you aren't wearing a cotton/polyester blend!

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Sorry if that last comment is a little cryptic. I had to delete certain phrases before it would be accepted. Can somebody explain this? There was no offensive language.

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "You can't pick and choose what is sin and what is not" and "We are to follow the Old Testament as well as the New Testament."

    The first question that comes to mind is, Why aren't there Christians picketing Red Lobster?

    Also trimming the hair around your temples, or the edges of your beard is explicitly forbidden by the Lord your God.

    And you realize that working on the Sabbath is a capital offense.

    And I hope you aren't wearing a blend of cotton/polyester!

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    will this comment be accepted?

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 9:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    is

  • Wed Dec 26, 2007 8:39 am Agree: 6   Disagree: 1

    Merkin, I am male, and you do not need to apologize. To answer your question - yes, we are to follow the whole counsel of God. We can't just pick and choose what is sin and what is not. We must take God's Word and His definition of sin at what He calls sin. If we could pick and choose what is relevent to today's culture, etc, then we could do as the heretical post modernists within the liberal factions of today's churches are doing. They choose to question the Virgin Birth of Christ, or flat out choose to deny it by removing the Virgin Birth of Christ from their teachings all together, Christ's ressurrection, Christ's miracles, etc, the notion of Hell fire and damnation as a very real place for those who choose to reject God and His Son, the removing of the 10 Commandments out of the Courtrooms and North American Society, the removing of the account in Genesis of literal, Biblical God Spoken Creation, the removing of the term sin from everyones vocabulary for being labeled "politically incorrect" or "hatemonger", etc. We must remember, the Old Testament was pointing us in the direction of Jesus, so yes, we are to follow the Old Testament as well as the New Testament, and ask for the Holy Spirit's guidance on discerning false doctrines from sound doctrines.

  • Tue Dec 25, 2007 9:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    I just made the sexist assumption that Jesus4me is male. My apologies.

  • Tue Dec 25, 2007 9:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    Jesus4me quotes Leviticus to defend his view that homosexuality is sinful. Does that mean the laws that are spelled out in the Old Testament still apply? This is not rhetorical question.

  • Tue Dec 25, 2007 8:12 pm Agree: 6   Disagree: 3

    I'm done throwing my pearls here at you Ifeelfine. You are obviously oblivious to the whole counsel of God, and only make reference to what you want to show your post modern liberal interpretation of the Word.

    By the way, ifeelfine, the comment you made about David and Jonathan is a total perversion of Scripture just like every other liberal interpretation you have given to condone homosexual behavior within the church. May Christ open your eyes, for you are spiritually blind and deceived. Have you ever heard of brotherly love? This is what David and Jonathan had for each other. It was not homosexuality. Obviously you have never heard of brotherly or sisterly love. You pervertedly twist the Scriptures to suit your agenda on the matter. You should be ashamed of yourself to call yourself a Christian. REPENT Ifeelfine; REPENT.

  • Tue Dec 25, 2007 8:10 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Correction, jesus4me: I see it in your list now.

  • Tue Dec 25, 2007 8:05 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

    jesus4me, you left out NAMBLA.

    ifeelfine, it's not what I identified as abomination, it's what the Bible says is abomination. Same-sexual relationships are not the only abomination, but they are one of them.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • Music
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links