ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Gov. Sarah Palin's church is promoting a conference that promises to convert gays into heterosexuals through the power of prayer.
-
(Photo: AP Images / Morry Gash)Republican vice presidential candidate Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin shakes hands at a rally, Friday, Sept. 5, 2008, in Cedarburg, Wis.
"You'll be encouraged by the power of God's love and His desire to transform the lives of those impacted by homosexuality," according to the insert in the bulletin of the Wasilla Bible Church, where Palin has prayed for about six years.
Palin's conservative Christian views have energized that part of the GOP electorate, which was lukewarm to John McCain's candidacy before he named her as his vice presidential choice. She is staunchly anti-abortion, opposing exceptions for rape and incest, and opposes gay marriage and spousal rights for gay couples.
Focus on the Family, a national Christian fundamentalist organization, is conducting the "Love Won Out" Conference in Anchorage, about 30 miles from Wasilla.
Palin, campaigning with McCain in the Midwest on Friday, has not publicly expressed a view on the so-called "pray away the gay" movement. Larry Kroon, senior pastor at Palin's church, was not available to discuss the matter Friday, said a church worker who declined to give her name.
Gay activists in Alaska said Palin has not worked actively against their interests, but early in her administration she supported a bill to overrule a court decision to block state benefits for gay partners of public employees. At the time, less than one-half of 1 percent of state employees had applied for the benefits, which were ordered by a 2005 ruling by the Alaska Supreme Court.
Palin reversed her position and vetoed the bill after the state attorney general said it was unconstitutional. But her reluctant support didn't win fans among Alaska's gay population, said Scott Turner, a gay activist in Anchorage.
"Less than 1 percent of state employees would even apply for benefits, so why make a big deal out of such a small number?" he said.
"I think gay Republicans are going to run away" if Palin supports efforts like the prayers to convert gays, said Wayne Besen, founder of the New York-based Truth Wins Out, a gay rights advocacy group. Besen called on Palin to publicly express her views now that she's a vice presidential nominee.
"People are looking at Sarah Palin as someone who might feasibly be in the White House," he said.
RSS
I would like to believe you have proof, but it's just not there....
Homosexuality is a sin. And those who willingly and unremorsefully practice it will be judged harshly.
I wasn't silent out of stupidity. But I am rather enjoying listening to you make assumption after assumption, because of my silence. So it seems that neither of us are able to produce anything to back our claim.
And so you discount the Bible for science. And you call yourself a Christian. But I will still continue to speak the truth. That homosexuality is a sin. And God wants homosexuals to remove themselves from that sin, because it separates them from God. Well, a lot of habitual and willful sin separates us from God, but we are talking about homosexuality at this time.
Oh my bad, so you compared yourself to Jesus? The thing is, Jesus wasn't silent out of stupidity, whereas you are. I told you, I would be more than happy to provide you with scientific data, loads of it, about homosexuality, if you will kindly provide me with one scientific document proving that you were, in fact, born a sex addict. Its really not much to ask, is it?
You should reread my post. I neither compared myself to pharisees, nor said that Jesus was friends of theres. I compared you to the pharisees. But you already knew that...
I'd like to see some of that scientific data about homosexuality.
I like how you attempt to use the same things I have said to you as a put down for me. Did you REALLY compare yourself to the Pharisees? Clearly you don't know as much about the Bible as you claim, or else you'd know Jesus wasn't exactly their biggest fan! Homosexuality has plenty of scientific data showing sexual orientation is determined prenatally. All I asked for was one simple study showing sex addiction was determined at birth. You could not produce a single study, whereas I said I could produce multiple had you produced me 1 study. Seems simple, but I forget who I am dealing with...
Your claim of being born a homosexual is just as hypocritical. Nothing definitive in the scientific field has ever been produced to support that claim. It's all conjecture and theory.
"pretend to be philosophical by saying "some questions don't need an answer"
Well, I'm sure that the pharisees said the same thing about Jesus when He didn't answer all their questions. He didn't even answer Pilate.
So, no it's not whether I have the answer or not, it's called self-control. Something that my fight against sexual addiction has taught me. Not every question needs or deserves to be answered.
If you want to say I don't have the answer...if that makes you feel superior...then by all means say it. I've had worse things said about me by better people than you.
See this is where your hypocrisy shows its true colors! You know you don't have an answer to the argument and pretend to be philosophical by saying "some questions don't need an answer." I asked you to find me references which back up your claim that you were born a sex addict, which you have never once done anything but dance around, and its because its a false claim. You then go on to act all pious and talk about my sins and tell me I am an unrepentant sinner who needs to be prayed for. Forget about you, the only thing you are capable of is having discussions which you inevitably turn sophomoric and dull.
Because I speak the truth, I am not living a holy life? You have no idea about my life, but you have made it clear about your sinful lifestyl. Am I perfect? Not by a long shot. But I still hold myself to the same standard that I preach. And though I sin, I don't justify it, as some do. Rather, I ask for forgiveness and the strength to overcome.
Though I don't believe anyone will ever come to the point of not sinning, but I do believe that we can get to the point where we are not practicing sin.
That is the problem. Willfull and unrepentant practicing of sin...
Mike,
Did I ever give any kind if indication that I don't pray for myself?
Not every question deserves an answer.
Ha! A holy life like the one you are not living? You think so highly of yourself, the way you talk in these forums. You never once made a halfway decent argument, and STILL you are ignoring any question I asked. Rather, you attempt to attack my character to shine the light away from your face, and the fact that you do it in the name of God is shameful. Instead of praying for me, pray for yourself.
You're right. I should just be like Jesus and come right out and call you a hypocrite. I was trying to be loving. But I've discovered that your definition of "loving" is to accept sin because someone else likes it, and to call it "sin" would somehow damage their fragile egos.
But then again, I was forthright and you still didn't hear. So what does it matter if I'm passive aggresive or brutally honest. The point is that you don't want to hear the truth.
And there is no longer and sacrifice for your sin. You can pity me. And I will pray for your soul. You willfully remain practicing sin, without remorse. I'm afraid for your soul. You are living in sin. You need to repent and start living a holy life.
Passive aggressive much? You are already lower than me, as you avoid any kind of tough question by spewing something as you just did. You don't answer my questions not because they are absurd, but because you don't have the answers to back up what you say! I truly pity you, from the bottom of my heart, but take solice in the fact that you could never surpass my spirit on its journey.
Believer,
It's like beating a dead horse. He is right in his own eyes. His justification and logic (however skewed it is) is all that matters. "There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof is destruction."
He's on his way to a place he won't want to be, but at least for now he's enjoying the ride. Everyone deserves to enjoy life from time to time right?
So, I will let him continue to win the arguments. And I will continue to speak the truth. I will not continue to argue with him. To do so would mean that I would have to lower myself to man's logic and wisdom. I will not lower myself to that, and he will not raise himself to God's standard. So there will always be that difference.
I would encourage you to let Mike be. Some people will not receive the truth. At that point, you shake the dust from your clothes and move on....
Prophet, I have said nothing in this post that suggests a knowledge or lack thereof the Bible. You do not know the Bible well either, but you attempt to spew quotes to show off.
Believer, there is much more evidence that being gay has no choice, that it is prenatal, than to say prophet would be born a sex addict. Again, and I have said this many times before, it is possible prophet was born with an addictive personality, but you cannot be born addicted to something which you have never experienced. That, again, is why homosexuality is not to be compared to an addiction, because it is not about a chemical dependence and because it shows signs in children's personality at an early age.
Mike,
I'm gathering by your lack of Bible knowledge, that you are either not a Christian, a "baby" Christian, or a willingly immature Christian.
mike2685, nor can you provide authoritative medical evidence saying that you were born a homosexual. Plus there is just as much speculative research saying a person can be born addicted to certain things as there is speculative research saying a person can be born a homosexual.
Typical...claim you were right then throw in a Bible quote as if to reinforce that you were right. You are not infallble, and on the issue to which you speak, you are dead wrong and know it, which is why you could not produce any medical evidence which would show you were born a sex addict.
Naw, I spoke the truth. Homosexuality is a sin. And those who willingly practice that sin without remorse, and those who promote it, are not Christians.
Hebrews 10:26-27 "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries."
Wrong! You spoke what you pretend to be the truth, but you did not back it (the fact that you were born a sex addict) up with any kind of research or logic whatsoever, so you really failed miserably. So sorry!
But, at least we both got what we wanted. You won the argument, and I spoke the truth.
Ok, if you think so.
Uh, no, in the other article you got offensive, then pointless, and once I handed your a$$ to you on a silver platter you decided it was time to leave.
And if I wanted to "shut down conversation" I would do like I did in the other article. I'd just say "I'm done." And then leave.
I'm not saying you don't like to pray. Muslims love to pray. Buddhists love to pray.
What I'm saying is how you pray and what you're praying for is the issue.
So, now you're God and know my heart? I am praying from my heart. Those are prayers I pray on a constant basis. I do pray for the lost. Those bound by sin. Those in need. But I guess I'll just stick with scripture then.
Homosexuality is a sin. People who are involved in homosexuality need to pray for deliverance and forgiveness.
And I guess I should thank you for your persecution. God promised that when I speak the truth that I would encounter persecution.
I love to pray, and you were not praying from the heart. you said a prayer as a way to try and shut down conversation rather than truly meaning what you were praying for. Think about it, honestly, and tell me that you think you are doing the right thing. You keep calling yourself a Christian, but I've yet to see a glimmer of it
Mike,
Naw, I don't talk big. I just speak the truth.
Prayer can be a weapon. We pray against dark spiritual powers. We are at war. And if you don't like me praying, feel free to leave. I guess you look at prayer as "Gimme this, gimme that, I want this, I want that, give it to me now!".
Maybe that's why homosexuals remain in sin. Because they never fight. They never pray against it. They never realize that it is a spiritual battle, and requires spiritual warfare.
I'm sure that those Christians who were homosexuals at one time, and are no long homosexuals...that's probably how they did it.
"Not by might, nor by power, but by My Spirit says the Lord of Hosts." Zechariah 4:6
I must be doing something right if satan hates it that I pray.
Typical...you talk a big game when the spot light isn't on you, and as soon as it is, try to change the subject by praying...I don't think God likes it when people use prayer as a weapon as you just did.
And there was no choice in me being a sex addict. Unlike the homosexual, I have fought to not give into the temptation.
God, help those in bondage to such devestating sins such as fornication, adultery, homosexuality, greed, jealousy and the likes. Help them to overcome the spirit behind those sins. Let them see the real battle is not one of the flesh, but of the spirit. Their sin separates them from you. Remove their sin so that they may be with you forever. Lord, help them.
Homosexuality isn't about "engaging" in a relationship, its about the attraction. You are either attracted to men, women, or either sex...that's what makes your sexual orientation. I actually can provide articles that back up the no choice involved in sexual orientation issue. You may not believe them, but they are out there. I doubt there is a single study which would argue that sex addiction starts at birth. Nice attempt though!
You said "Provide me with a medical study that shows sex addicts were born that way, and I'll gladly provide you with studies saying I was born gay."
Precisely. I can't, and neither can you.
Sorry about the typo. It was supposed to read "homosexual relationships", not "homosexual relations" Meaning, any type of romantic involvement with someone of the same sex, whether sex was involved or not.
How can a man be addicted to sex without having sex? Well, how can a man be a homosexual if he never gives in to those feelings?
I had an extremely strong sex drive as a young man. Starting in my preteen years. Yes, I could have choose to not engage, but I did.
Homosexuals have that desire to be romantically involved with another of the same sex. They, too, can choose not to engage.
It's all about choice.
You truly just proved my point: Whatever I say, you poorly attempt to turn around as an insult for me, and it doesn't work. I do choose to have "relations" with my partner, but whether or not I ever engaged in sex with another man, I would still be gay. Tell me: How could you be addicted to sex if you never chose to have sex?
Provide me with a medical study that shows sex addicts were born that way, and I'll gladly provide you with studies saying I was born gay.
Naw. You see it as a 5th grader. Because you don't like it. I was not told I was a sex addict (like someone had to) and I didn't decide I was a sex addict. I was born that way. It wasn't something I decided to do.
"But wait!" you say, "You did decide to have sex!"
"But wait!" I say, "You did decide to have homosexual relations."
Now that we've clarified that it's all about decisions, we realize that it is a sin to decide to act upon those temptations.
No, and I never said a sex addict had to go to counseling (although I would strongly recommend it for any addict.) The reason I was asking was because I wanted to know if someone who knows what they're talking about told you that you were born a sex addict or if you just decided that on your own.
I did use logic, and your level of discussion is that of a frustrated 5th grade child. This isn't an issue of right or wrong, its an issue of common sense. Babies are not born addicts unless they are getting the drug in their mother's womb, such as crack or alcohol. Its not me who is saying this, it is science, and your continual disputing makes you look quite foolish.
Common logic. Hmmm, that's a way of saying "I can't prove it, but I must be right....I said it."
Have I been to a counselor who said I was a sex addict? No. Do I need to? No. If I am addicted to something, I must be an addict. Now THAT is common logic. But answer this...Do homosexuals have to go to a doctor to be told that they are homosexuals?
Its not me saying it, its common logic. Please answer my questions.
I think it's rather egocentric to believe that you proved you were right based on the fact that you said you are right.
I can, and I did! You were born with an addictive personality, you chose to become addicted to sex, but you cannot be a sex addict until the first time you've had sex (whether with a partner or your hand) at the earliest. Unless you've been doing that since infancy, you were not born a sex addict. Have you ever been to a counselor who said that you were born a sex addict? If they did, I would really challenge you to get a second opinion, because it sounds as if you're using your addiction to try and prove a point about homosexuality and it simply isn't working.
I thank my God that His power is stronger than any condition I was born with. Being born a sex addict, I fought for 2 decades to overcome. By His spirit and the blood of Jesus Christ, the battle is being won. I know that my God can overcome anything.
But I guess it's all about submission. I submitted. Many homosexual "christians" don't. That's probably the key right there.
You can't prove that I wasn't born a sex addict. Nice try though.
Prophet: I actually said that you may have been born with an addictive personality, try reading my post next time. Believer, not everything in the brain has a switch. Our brain chemistry can be changed in terms of chemical effects on it, whether natural (lack of seratonine with depresson) or reliance on (alcohol, drugs, dopamine released during sex) but things like personality are determined at birth and cannot really be changed. You can tell a baby's personality from an extremely young age (there is a direct correlation between colicky babies and IQ levels as adults.) I do not think sexual orientation is something having to do with a sinful nature, but its rather something we are born with, a part of the brain that cannot be controlled or changed with substances, or else doctors would have found a way to do so already.
Prophet, you WERE NOT born a sex addict. It has nothing to do with me wanting to feel special. I actually am glad God made me gay, it has allowed me to empathize with other groups that face oppression on a daily basis. You may have been born with an addictive personality, but to be a sex addict, it would mean that you were addicted to sex as an infant if it was from birth, and that is quite literally impossible. You became a sex addict. Sorry to burst your bubble.
prophet, I've been watching your interaction with mike2685 with some curiousity as to where you were going with this. So correct me if I'm wrong, but would your bottomline in this discussion be that every human being is born with a sinful nature which leads some to be more vulnerable or weak in some areas and someone else in another area?
Mike,
Please do not tell me I was not born this way. Homosexuals do not like it when I say the same thing, and I think it's rather immature of you to judge others the way you hate being judged. I know that homosexuals feel threatened. Because they want to be special. They want to be the only ones "born that way". If someone else claims to have been born a certain way, their feathers get all ruffled. That's insecurity.
I cannot have been born with an "addictive" mind. Can yo prove that I was? No. Can a doctor? No. Can a scientist? No. So please don't make incorrect assumptions just because your "special condition" is being threatened. If I was born with an "addictive mind", then I would be addicted to a lot more than sex.
I was born a sex addict, just as homosexuals were born the way they were. I thank God that through His power that He has helped me overcome. I pray that homosexual "christians" would come to that same realization. Their desire to remain in sin will have disasterous results, and I don't want to see that happen. I pray that they will see the truth and call on God.
mike2685, so then where is the control mechanism, for lack of a better term, that makes a person homosexual or heterosexual located if not in the brain? Especially since to this point there is no valid proof or science that proves a person is born either homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual.
Prophet, you were not born an addict. Born with an addictive personality, maybe, but to be born a sex addict would mean that from the moment you came out, your brain was wired to think of nothing but sex, the way an addict's brain would work. I just don't believe that to be true. I wouldn't tell your wife she can overcome it. Many people I love dearly have struggled with their depression their entire lives. The difference is, they have medications that can put your depression in check and help you because it is a chemical imbalance. Homosexuality is not an imbalance or addiction, and that is indisputable because the brain chemistry of homosexuals has been studied verses straight folks, there is no difference that makes our brains work a different way. An addict or a person with a mental disorder does in fact has a different brain chemistry, hence why medication can help them.
I was born a sex addict, the same as homosexuals were born the way they were. I was able to overcome my sin. I pray for those who are in bondage to homosexualty, that their hearts would be opened to hear the truth that God is bigger than their sin, and that He can help them overcome too.
By the way, you need to tell my wife, who was chronic depressive and suicidal (due to "chemical imbalance") how it "can be overcome". I dare you to tell anyone who is chronically depressed that they "can contorl it". Please let me know when you do that, so I can watch you make a fool of yourself.
I could go on about some personal things from my wife's past that would blow your views to shreds, but they are personal. But sufficeth to say, people who call themselves Christians and willfully continue to practice sin, will find themselves in a world of hurt. I pray for them. I hope they find out before they die. I wish they would stop listening to the lies that people like you tell them, that God is incapable. It's sad when people make God into their own image, in order to justify their sin.
That's a position that I would not want to find myself in.
Gay-homo relations? As opposed to straight-homo relations? If you're going to contribute something, at least make it sound educated.
Gay-homo relations are wrong and unnatural. A penis was never meant to be stuck up another man's bum!
One more thing Prophet, please tell me exactly where I said homosexuals cannot make choices. We can make plenty, but I said we did not choose our sexual orientation any more than a straight guy did.
Prophet, who is your shrink, because you need to tell them they suck! A chemical imbalance in terms of an addiction is something that can be overcome. It has been studied by the APA, and you will not always NEED to have that chemical. I guess I should say chemical dependence to be more accurate, and you most surely did choose to begin having sex, which you BECAME addicted to. As a child, I doubt you were walking around humping everything in sight. Psychological and medical professional agree that sexual orientation is not a matter of choice. Is choosing to have a partner a choice? Absolutely, I've never claimed it wasn't, but whereas alcohol or a sex addiction can destroy your life, loving another person so genuinely that they bring out the best in you, and you in them, is not sinful. We are sexual beings (although, Prophet, not sexually addicted beings) and sex can be a beautiful expression of love when done inside a loving, committed relationship.
MIke thinks that homosexuals cannot make choices.
Point is this. I was born a sex addict, as much as a homosexual is born a homosexual. A homosexual has as much choice in succumbing to the temptation (having a desire for someone of the opposite sex does not constitute a sin. Acting upon it does.) as I do.
There is no difference. Mike says that addictions (including sexual addictions) are a chemical imbalance. Hmmm. You just made my point. I was born that way. Just as homosexuals are.
But apparently, I don't want to remain in sin like many of them do.
mike2685, there are many in the addictions field who would contend that there indeed is a genetical reason for a person having a certain addiction or addictive personality. But the bottomline is that regardless of the cause, God says in His Word that He'll never allow us to be tempted anymore than we can handle and He will always provide us a means of escape. So no Christian can blame their sin on either the devil or the gene, but must take personal responsibility for their sin.
Addictions are a chemical imbalance. You choose to put drugs in your body, you choose to have sex, you do not choose your sexual orienation, and if you find it convenient that's fine and dandy, but its the truth. You too often ignore what science is telling you because it might make you think critically about your beliefs.
mike2685, I find it strange that according to you the only thing that were born with is our sexual orientation. In the words of the Church Lady, "how convenient!". But when it comes to issues such as addictions and other behavior issues those are always a matter of choice.
Its really not though....there's sexual orientation, and then there is sexual deviation, which you are not born with. Sexual orientation is innate, no one chooses to be gay or straight, and most doctors feel it is neonatal. Pedophiles are usually people who were molested when they themselves were children, as are sexual deviants (addicts are not born addicts, you develop it as a coping mechanism, I'm sorry if you think differently, but you either saw a bad psychologist or you are trying to prove a point about sexual orientation which is grossly misinformed.)
"There in lies your problem; sexual oreintation (gay, straight or bi) is not a moral issue. What you do with that orientation most definitely can be a moral issue (pedophila, bestiality, etc)"
That's wrong. Whether a man "loves" another man, or a child, or his own sibling, is all the same.
I was born a sex addict. Homosexuals who feel threatened that their "special status" would be severely undermined if they admitted that, argue that I wasn't. Well, I cerainly wasn't taught to be a sex addict, that's for sure. No one taught me or showed me how or what or anything. It's just the way I was made. I, unlike homosexuals though, have learned to overcome and learn self-control.
schumacher said: "Respectfully, I'd say you don't fully grasp Kant's argument that I use in my paper. It is for *moral* actions alone, not vocational or other choices. So take your pick (stealing, murder, lying, etc.), apply the imperative, and see where you end up."
There in lies your problem; sexual oreintation (gay, straight or bi) is not a moral issue. What you do with that orientation most definitely can be a moral issue (pedophila, bestiality, etc) certainly can be but orientation itself is not a moral issue any more than dominent hand dexterity is. . . I am left handed and was raised Catholic but was taught to do everything with my right hand because some catholics believed left-handedness is of the devil.
By the way, those statistics were taken from "World Christian Trends" by Barret and Johnson.
As the creator of that video states, this is the numbers.
5 million killed by Godless Catholic church in past 1700 years.
100 million dead in the past 100 years by atheists.
You should be so proud.
And you notice that didn't even mention Hitler?
And history says that if we put you in charge of anything, like a country, you are likely to kill us too.
Mike,
I hope that answers your question.
1959: 15,000 Christians killed by atheist Castro in Cuba.
1962: 10,000 Baptists killed in Albania by atheists.
1966: 2.5 million Christians killed or in prison camps during "Proletarian Cultural Revolution" in atheist China.
1969: 7,000 Roman Catholic leaders killed by atheists in Czechoslovakia.
1970: 60,000 Protestants die in mass killings by KGB.
1974 20,000 Christians killed or imprisoned by communists in Laoz.
1975-1985: 65,000 Christians butchered by atheists in Vietnam.
1975-1979: 2 million slaughtered by atheist Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, including all Christians.
1977-1980: 90,000 Christians die in "Red Terror" in Ethiopia.
1979-1983: 70,000 die in Sandista Revolution in Nicaragua.
1980: 400 Christian Soldiers refuse to kill Afghanis and are executed.
1980-1993: 30,000 Christian peasants are killed by "Maoist Shining Path" guerillas in Peru.
1984: 5,000 Christians die in communist Poland.
1989: 3,000 die in Tiananmen Square massacre by atheiest China.
1989: 20,000 Christians massacred by secret police in Romania.
At present time there are millions of Christians still in prison camps in China.
And yet Christianity survives and thrives.
So I hope that next time any group of people feel persecuted...they will take a look at these numbers and realize that they don't even know what persecution is.
1937-1945: 120,000 martyred in final attempt to destroy orthodox church in USSR.
1938: 30,000 Armenian orthodox and Catholics martyred by Soviet Secret Police.
1940: 150,000 shot or die in prison in Baltics.
1944: 5,000 Christians die in Albania
1945: 3.5 million Ukrainian Catholics killed by atheist Soviets.
1948: 70 Baptists are martyred (some buried alive) by Chinese atheists.
1948: 500,000 in underground churches are martyred in Russia.
1948: 2,500 Christians die in Hungarian prisons.
1949: 1.2 million Tibetans (not all Christians though) were massacered by atheist China.
1950: 500,000 more killed by atheist Chinese.
1950: 200,000+ North Korean Christians killed by atheist government.
1950-1980: 900,000 Christians "liquidated" in Eastern Europe by atheists.
1950-1980: 5 million Christians die in prison camps in USSR.
1952: 74,000 Christians die in vicious persecution in China.
1959-1963 (only three years time): 25 million (25,000,000)Christians die in "great leap forward" in China.
My fingers are tired, but I'm gonna keep going...
For those of you who can't or won't see that video, let me give you a run down of how great atheism has been to this world. Mike asked "Who is the atheist that I speak of?". Here's the answer.
1789: 5,000 clergy martyred by atheists in France
1871: 20,000 clergy martyred by atheists in Paris
1917: 1 million Russsian orthodox believers martyred by Bolsheviks in USSR
1918: 60,000 orthodox martyred by Bolsheviks in Georgia
1921-1950: 15 million Christians die in prison camps in USSR
1925-1950: 1.2 million Christians die as USSR tries to liquidate Roman Catholicism.
1927: 500,000 Iranian Christians are slaughtered by USSR...many by crucifixion.
1927: 600,000 all German origin Lutherns are killed by Stalin
1928: 95% of all orthodox parishes martyred in Ukraine.
1929-1937: 14.5 million Christian peasants are starved to death by order of Stalin.
1927-1938: 200,000 Christians exterminated in Belarus, USSR
1935: 1 million in underground churches martyred in USSR
Anyone keeping track so far?
I found this to be an eye opening description.
http://technorati.com/videos/youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DvW62EilDXPY
Let's see the religious atrocities.
Salem Witch trials. That was religious in nature. 25 people killed. Wow.
Oh wait, let's not forget the Crusades (which was more of a defensive war than an atrocity, but we'll humor the atheists). Between 10,000 and 100,000 killed.
Let's check out atheist atrocities:
Stalin, Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler, etc...over 100 million people killed in the name of atheism.
Religion is looking more and more enticing...
Mike,
You said "You feel a constant need for validation."
Well, not necessarily constant, but I do like hearing God tell me once in a while "Great job! Just keep going!" It makes what I'm doing so worthwhile. And I know that I'm pleasing the most important person in the entire universe.
Now, as far as validation from humans...I have no idea where you get that idea.
"No one can truly prove what happened back then,"
One can deny anything with that arguement. It is the golden ticket of denial.
Words which have their root meanings from places/events tend to be self explainitory. It would be illogical to say that the English word sodomy (defined: homosexuality) would have been given that assignment with no basis in fact.
The word sodomy is not defined as rape. It is defined as homosexual. So, unless you are prepared to say that all words in the English language have no meaning other than what each person is willing to accept then it does mean homosexual. Any statement otherwise would only be babble.
It's a simple matter of logic. For what you have said to be true would be like someone to say that 'eat' actually means 'sunlight'.
Ifeelfine72 -
<<From the argument you made, no one should become a doctor, because if they did, there wouldnt be any farmers.>>
Respectfully, I'd say you don't fully grasp Kant's argument that I use in my paper. It is for *moral* actions alone, not vocational or other choices. So take your pick (stealing, murder, lying, etc.), apply the imperative, and see where you end up.
Your other argument about the theological voices I pay attention to could easily be turned around and applied to you - perhaps you listen to only those who tickle your ears? And again, I ask you: supply for us the learned theologians who utilize the historical, grammatical, literal interpretation to Scripture who say homosexual behavior is justified in the eyes of God. I genuinely don't know of any. There are certainly those who take your side, but their hermeneutic isn't the above.
To those wishing to see a detailed response to the arguments Mike's using (no word for homosexual in Scripture, the sin of Sodom was rape, etc.), I do address those in the link to the paper I posted.
Who is the atheist you speak of? I can answer your question: You feel a constant need for validation. No one can truly prove what happened back then, but again, have you ever seen the movie For the Bible Tells Me So...very interesting, you might want to check it out.
I do have a question for other Christians here.
Why am I trying to explain spiritual things to a atheist?
Sin makes people the way they are. Not specific sins, but sin in general. Is a person born a way because of a specific sin? No. Sin (evil) affects everything.
And remember, the way a person is born, isn't the way God wants us to remain. If He did, then Christ wouldn't of had to die for us.
Interesting. God doesn't make mistakes. Tell that to the child born with Down Syndrome, or with one arm, or numerous other genetic abnormalities.
I was born a sex addict. I've learned to overcome that. What's your excuse?
We do see though, that the Bible does speak against a man in a sexual, romantic relationship with another.
Mike,
Can you prove that?
If conservative churches think that they can have these 'pray away the gay' movements, then I guess liberals can have their own 'pray for churches to go away' movements'? I guess it would be okay to have a conference to turn God-fearing Bible Church members into atheists, to 'transform the lives of those affected by conservative religion?' I guess we can picket and protest, and demand that these church members have no federal benefits, no minority representation, and no discrimination considerations (oh, and absolutely no tax-free exemptions.) And oh, since those church members probably represent less than 1/2 of 1 percent of citizens in Alaska.. well.. it is such a small number, who would really care, right? If the meaning of liberty can be stretched to distortion, then all sides are considered.
There is great debate about what God was condemning in Sodom. Again, if Sodom was about homosexual sex, it was about rape, not about committed gay relationships based on love.
"You will see that the Bible never speaks of homosexuality as we know it today, because the word wasn't there."
Mike is absolutely right. In fact, none of the words in any of our English Bibles were in existance at the time. English wasn't developed until the anglo/saxon era.
The Jews had a different word for it which were variations on Sodom. God called the practice of the Sodomites (homosexuality in our English) 'disgusting' as well as calling it sin.
You will see that the Bible never speaks of homosexuality as we know it today, because the word wasn't there. People who had sex with men in Greece, where St. Paul would have encountered it, were often doing so through adult-child relationships, or through pagan orgies. That is a radically different notion than two people of the same sex, who through no choice, are gay. I don't think you can wrap your minds around the idea that I was born gay because it then conflicts that God cannot create something to be sinful, so it makes your worldview come crashing down and you do whatever you can to discredit that information.
"The Bible, like morals, isn�t as black and white as one might hope."
That's called secularism. The foundation of Christianity is that God is right. If He is not right then Christianity isn't worth believing. This is the appeal of secularism because it denies the Lordship of Christ. After all, if He is always right then anything that does not agree with Him is wrong. Secularism is against dying to self.
"I think you need to check other sources because I haven't found that to be the case."
Just like with math, there are rules to hermeneutics. If you don't follow the rules you can make it say anything. The problem is many don't like what the Bible really says because it really does mean to die to self and live the life Christ has for you. People don't like that deny yourself stuff. Deny your selfish desires. Deny your choice of what is right and wrong and accept Him as Lord of your life. Deny your rules and play by His.
Anything that does not agree with these statements is not hermeneuticly correct.
Anyone who reads the Bible with no preconceptions will see God has condemned all homosexual sex. Anyone who reads it with a historical contextual grammatical hermeneutic will come to a similar understanding. To read the Bible in any other way is read into the Bible what is not there.
There is no reference to orgies in Romans 1. The reference is to people who put created things before God. People are created things, and when people put themselves before God and His thoughts, they are guilty of one of the things condemned in Romans 1. Homosexual sex and desire are also condemned, but again, no reference to orgies.
Schumacr: That is not the only reasonable view on the subject. I have not quite finished your paper but based on the authors you chose to cite, your mind was made up before you wrote it. Homosexuality doesn’t fail from a standpoint of pure moral reason, the argument you made in your paper on that was weak. From the argument you made, no one should become a doctor, because if they did, there wouldn’t be any farmers. The Bible, like morals, isn’t as black and white as one might hope. Clearly the overwhelming number of Christians who supported slavery in the early to mid-1800’s were wrong and yet, they concluded they had the full support of the Bible. Most folks who support the union of loving gay couples don’t subscribe to a “pro-gay theology†for the most part, they subscribe to a “pro-Christian theology.†You quoted authors and theologians who are against homosexuality; I could quote authors and theologians who don’t share those views. We’re not both going to be right on this issue and there are certainly many perspectives on the one Truth but I know I can sleep well at night knowing that when I die, A) I will go to heaven and B) God won’t be asking why I treated the least of His people that way.
ifeelfine72 -
Not sure what you're referring to about the '5th grader' comment - was it Prophet's last post? If so, he's merely pointing out that a moral erosion is underway and without moral absolutes and an absolute reference, there's nothing to stop it.
Look, I'm sure you want to know the truth about God's will just like I do as there are consequences for dispensing error (James 3:1), which I most definitely want to avoid. Respectfully, I believe that when you say things like "Homosexuality can be wrong but only outside committed, loving, monogamous relationships.", you are making an *assertion* that lacks overt Biblical support. Moreover, not only do I believe that homosexual practices fail that Biblical test, they also fail the pure moral reason test (as evidenced by Kant's categorical imperative that I cover in my paper), and the naturalistic/evolutionary test as the practice does nothing to further advance or propagate the human race.
The theological voices I generally turn to (MacArthur, Swindoll, Ingram, Sproul, Mohler, Geisler, Zacharias, Begg, Piper, Craig, Ryrie, Unger, Moreland, Edwards, Spurgeon, Aquinas, and a few more) share one thing in common: a historical, grammatical approach to Scripture. Using such an approach, it becomes fairly difficult (if not impossible) in my mind to tease a pro-gay theology from the text. That said, I honestly welcome correction on this subject, but it will have to come with evidence and not assertions.
Peace.
It's like talking to fifth graders.
Anyone want to see what's waiting around the corner as soon as homosexuals win their right to marry?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1607322,00.html
http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=590
star: I have people that are divorced in my family (not many but a couple) and that is still obviously wrong. I have a couple of alcoholics in my family as well and that is wrong as well. Homosexuality can be wrong but only outside committed, loving, monogomous relationships.
ifeelfine72 - Would you be of the opinion that gay sex is OK as long as the homosexuals are in a committed realtionship had you not had a number of family members that are gay?
DP: I think you need to check other sources because I haven't found that to be the case.
Hello! I have returned.... Kansas is indeed flat. It's Texas with corn....
"paper? Biblical hermeneutics isn't a matter of opinion, but proper exegesis"
One of the formost experts in hermeneutics is Robertson McQuilkin of Columbia International University. You will find that all text refering to homosexuality in any form comes out as sin. It is a non-approved application of sexuality.
Robin: I'm not quite halfway through your paper (I am taking the time to read it).
As for what is easier as a Christian, I can tell you it would be easier for me to be a "nod of the head" Christian and agree that homosexuality is a sin because trust me, I don't need the stress or headache of this. And, as a heterosexual, I don't have a "dog in the hunt" as they say. Plus, let's face it, to a heterosexual - gay sex is "icky" just like heterosexual relations are "icky" to gay people. So as far as what is easy, I can say without a doubt you are wrong on that count.
ifeelfine72
<<Robin: That is your opinion. Many prominant theologians disagree with that hermenuetic.>>
Such as? Troy Perry perhaps? Did you read the paper? Biblical hermeneutics isn't a matter of opinion, but proper exegesis, and when you separate yourself from what you want the text to say and let it speak for itself, only then is the actual meaning grasped. It would be *far* easier for Christians to embrace homosexuality than oppose it in today's culture, but that's just not what He says is morally correct, and therefore we can't condone what God condemns (the behavior, mind you, not the person).
Two other possibilities.
Is it because socially they prefer spending time with others of the same sex?
Is it because they have no desire to have sexual intimacy with someone of the opposite sex?
And once again neither one of those are the correct answer.
What makes a person a homosexual?
Is it because they have participated in acts and/or on occasion had thoughts of sex with a person of the same sex?
Is it because they have attributes that are considered feminine and they are a male or masculine and they are a woman?
Is it because they believe that the only way they can be sexually fulfilled is in having sex with a person of the same sex and in fact they are only sexually stimulated by someone of the same sex be it physical or mental stimulation?
The correct answer is the last response and that is why it is called homo-SEX-uality, so yes it is ultimately all about sex and so is hetero-SEX-uality and even bi-SEX-uality.
Mike is grasping at anything and everything to justify his sin.
Hebrews 10:26 "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins..."
He has recieved the knowledge of truth...his sin is upon himself.
Of course Mike, I knew I was hetero since I was a little kid. All the gay folks I know tell me they knew they were gay from a very young age. It's ridiculous being gay or straight has nothing to do with sexual acts.
Robin: That is your opinion. Many prominant theologians disagree with that hermenuetic.
Mike2685 -
<<The Bible is referring to pagan orgies, that is what St. Paul experienced as he traveled writing letters.>>
With all respect, no it is not. In the research paper I referenced in my original post, I show that the hermeneutic you're suggesting is not valid and requires intense verbal and false exegetical gymnastics to support. Please have a look at it when you can.
The fact that I have sex or do not have sex is not what makes me gay! It is about way more than just sex, it is about an emotional connection and attraction I have between my partner and I as well. When we're old and gray and viagra doesn't work anymore, we'll still be gay.
I love that you keep asking the same questions "Where in the Bible does it say its OK?" Its been answered about 5 times so far, please read! The Bible is referring to pagan orgies, that is what St. Paul experienced as he traveled writing letters. He would not have experienced gay couples living in committed relationships, that wasn't really "practiced" because being gay was punishable by stoning (unless you were Greek and having relations with an older man as part of a ritual, which Paul wrote against.) The Bible is silent on committed gay relationships, but it talks plenty about love (which is the basis for my relationship with my partner, not the fact that we have with each other.)
Oy! It's like talking to a 5th grader sometimes....But then again, those who are carnally minded cannot know the ways of the Spirit.
Where in the Word of God does it say that gay sex is OK with God as long as the gay couple is in a committed relationship?
Prophet: I think I get it now - when the Bible talks about slavery, it really isn't but when it talks about pagan rituals, it is really talking about homosexuality. Right?
There is no love in your hermenuetic.
All sin in conquered through prayer with repentence and acceptance of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.
itsallaboutjesusnotme.blogspot.com
Shucks,
Then what is a heterosexual who hasn't had sex?
"What I have with my partner is love, as it is not based on sex, but rather, a mutual devotion to each other and a fundamental wanting to bring out the best in each other by being supportive and nurturing to each other. There is nothing sinful in that."
agape - unselfish love of one person for another without sexual implications; brotherly love; the love of God or Christ for humankind
Mike, no, what you are talking about is not sinful. As a matter of fact, if your relationship is not based on sex then you are not even a homosexual. A homosexual is a person who has sexual relations or a sexual attraction to somone of the same sex. Hence the word homo-(or same)-sexual.
Mike2685 -
I would respectfully disagree with your position on the Bible's teaching of homosexuality. I've written a research article on the pro-gay theology hermeneutic and I would ask that you would prayerfully read it and consider the evidence. You (and others on this board) can find it here: http://www.confidentchristians.org/resources_tqra/A%20Response%20to%20Modern%20Pro-Gay%20Theology.pdf. If the above link doesn't work, just go to http://www.confidentchristians.org/resources_tqra.html and scroll down to the Gay Marriage heading.
prophet, a man as head of a man or a woman as head of a woman, that's truly an approach to the issue of same-sex marriages I never thought of, but a definite teaching to look seriously at.
star, you have to realize who you're dealing with here. Here's a man (mike) who claims that love between homosexuals in a committed relationship is okay. But love between siblings (adults) in a committed loving relationship, or even polygamy in a committed loving relationship is unacceptable. He's talking out of both sides of his mouth. He's a hypocrite and as narrow minded as he accuses us of being.
Just keep that in mind. And pray that he will find a true relationship with God and be delivered from this sin.
I'm still doing research, but so far I haven't seen where God says that the head of man is another man. Or that the head of woman is another woman.
I haven't found any scriptures anywhere to point out that homosexuality is accepatble to God. But I do find some that condemn it.
I Corinthians 6:9
"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"
Anyone else here know that homosexuality is effeminate?
I Corinthians 11:3
"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."
Hmmm...interesting.
Mike2685 - What if your love relationship goes sour with your partner, does having sex with him then become sinful?
No, those scriptures are not "actually condeming pagan ritualistic practices." They are condemning homosexuality, whether in, or outside of a "committed" relationship.
I don't want to watch a pro-homosexual commentary, funded by pro-homosexual groups. I just read the Word of God and listen to His Spirit.
Star, the passages in the Bible which you claim condemn homosexuality are actually condeming pagan ritualistic practices, which has historic documentation (watch the documentary "For the Bible Tells Me So" for my references there.) God speaks throughout the Bible about the power of love. What I have with my partner is love, as it is not based on sex, but rather, a mutual devotion to each other and a fundamental wanting to bring out the best in each other by being supportive and nurturing to each other. There is nothing sinful in that.
mike2685, using your criteria to show that God condemns the practice of pedophilia, then yes the Bible condemns the sexual practices of homosexuality. So if you can enter into a homosexual partnership that does not involve sexual intimacy of any kind be it in word, thought, or deed, then perhaps God would not see that as a sinful relationship.
Mike2685 - Please answer, with scripture references, the questions I asked you on my Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:38 pm post.
Oh I understand now! The Bible doesn't condemn things you don't want to or feel are fuzzy, but if it conflicts with your views, then yes, it most certainly does condemn. Gotcha, thanks for clearing up the misunderstanding.
I guess I need to get Biblically literal then: Unless you eat my body and drink my blood, you shall not have life within you. I guess all non-Catholics who don't receive the Eucharist won't be getting into Heaven!
Funny, yes the Bible does condemn homosexuality....period. Whether committed or not.
Mike2685
Does the Word of God condemn gay sex?
Does the Word of God say that gay sex is righteous as long as it is done in a committed relationship?
Funny, the New Testament does not directly condemn committed homosexual relationships either!
When I worked for two different NASA contractors back in the 80's, believe me, I was their slave. They 'owned' my life.
No human being can escape 'slavery' in some kind of form.
Beleiver,
Exactly!
As that article I quoted on goes on to say:
The New Testament does not directly condemn slavery, but neither does it accept slavery as an ongoing social fact. The New Testament deals with master/slave relationships so as to render slavery unjustifiable. Slaves and masters are brothers. In Christ, all are one; there is no bond or free (Galatians 3:28; Ephesians 6:9). The New Testament writers try to correct the injustices of slavery by encouraging improved attitudes on the part of both masters and slaves.
The New Testament does not advocate the overthrow of slavery by forcible revolution. Rather, it condemns and removes the abuses of slavery by striking at its roots, by lifting up the power of the Gospel to change hearts, and by setting forth principles for dealing with fellow human beings:
1) All human beings are made in the image and likeness of God and are worthy of respect (Genesis 1:28).
2) All human beings are loved by God who cares for us (John 3:16).
3) All Christians are to love their neighbors as themselves (Matthew 22:39).
The abuses of slavery have disappeared wherever the Word of God has been widely and faithfully taught. Christianity never had as its immediate goal an attempt to change society, but to change people. And to the degree that people change, to that extent, society and its structures change. And so wherever the true Christian message has made deep inroads, slavery has been eliminated.
prophet, I agree with you on why the Church would not get on the soapbox with regards to slavery, but wouldn't you agree that Paul in Philemon basically shares God's view on this issue when he challenges Philemon to treat Oneisimus as a brother in Christ. I believe that Paul is not only speaking to Philemon but to the Church as a whole with how we as Christians should regard slavery and slaves.
In those early days, the Church did not emerge as the opponent and the would-be destroyer of slavery by violent and sudden means. And the Church was wise. There were something like 60,000,000 slaves in the Roman Empire ... For the Church to have encouraged slaves to revolt and rebel and rise against their masters would have been fatal. It would simply have caused civil war, mass murder, and the complete discredit of the Church. (Instead), what happened was that as the centuries went on, Christianity so permeated civilization that in the end the slaves were freed voluntarily and not by force.
Here is a tremendous lesson. It is the proof that neither men nor the world nor society can be reformed by force and by legislation. The reform must come through the slow penetration of the Spirit of Christ into the human situation. Things have to happen in God's time, not in ours. In the end, the slow way is the sure way, and the way of violence always defeats itself.
http://www.brfwitness.org/Articles/2003v38n1.htm
Check it out. Good information.
ifeelfine,
"Slavery in the Roman world did not generally involve inhuman treatment. Slaves often managed money, guarded children, cooked food, and sometimes were even family doctors. We generally associate the word "slave" with the ideas of forced subjection, involuntary service, and harsh treatment. Those terms are not accurate descriptions of slavery in the Roman Empire.
It is estimated that there were 60,000,000 slaves in the Roman Empire, but the average slave was not abused and exploited. Some slaves did suffer at the hands of their owners, but slaves under Roman law could usually count on being set free. While slaves remained their owner's property, they themselves could own property...including other slaves.
We note too that being a slave did not indicate one's social class. Slaves were accorded the social status of their owners. And outwardly, one could scarcely ever distinguish a slave from a free person. A slave could be a custodian, a merchant, a salesman, a teacher, or a government official. Slaves were often highly educated. There were a few slaves who were elders in the church, and thus had authority over the masters whom they served all week. Selling oneself as a slave was commonly used as a means of gaining Roman citizenship.
Roman slavery in the first century was far more humane and civilized than the African-American slavery practiced in the he United States during the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries.
continued....
Mike: You're right. I was being facetious.
"It is great work and great art NOT to take life too seriously."
I think Freud said that.
ifeelfine, Ken Ham has an excellent video called "One Blood, The Biblical Response To Racism". It is deals with the issue of interrracial marriage and other issues linked to racism.
ifeelfine, there is no where in the Bible that prohibits interracial marriages. The only thing that comes close is that God told the Jews not to marry outside their religion as were encouraged by Paul in the New Testament to not marry a non-Christian if we are a Christian. And like Christians, Jews come in a wide variety of shades and colors.
believer: Should doctors be exempt from providing services to an inter-racial couple if it is against their religious beliefs?
believer said: "My only concern has and continues to be the issue of equal rights that would condone a lifestyle that advocates sexual practices that I believe clearly violates the Word of God."
Well then, what about inter-racial marriage? The Bible is definitely against that, right? My grandmother was one of the best Christians I knew, she prayed for three hours every day, it is what got her through the day and yet when I brought a girl of a different race I was dating into her home I got an earful later about how unBiblical it was and that it was wrong, etc.
Thomasofdoubt: Many of the folks on this thread care more about republican politics and getting someone in office whom they think is ideologically the same as them. Those folks don't care about values and standards of behavior unless they're their own.
star: Actually, if the conception took place in some other state besides Alaska, he may have raped her . . . she is only 17 now (illegal in some states) . . . was she 16 when she concieved (illegal in more states)?
I actually think Chicago was being facetious, but apparently that went way over your head.
You're right prophet, let's bring back slavery. You must be completely for that.
People want an "evolutionary Gospel". They want a God who changes according to man's ethics and morals and views. In other words, they want a god made in their image that they can control.
Y'hwh is not that type of God. That's why people reject Him. He is unmovable, unbendable, eternally holy. He does not bend nor bow to man's whims and follies. His judgement is sure, but his mercy is everlasting. His ways are above ours. His love knows no bounds, nor no end. He is truly a holy God, just and righteous, loving and merciful, true and pure and sinless.
Is Chicago equating Dear Abby with the Pope?
Abby is a human. I know at least two people in my life that are as insightful and knowledgable (if not more) as she is. The difference is that she marketed her stuff.
"Abigail Van Buren" (real name Jeanne Phillips, daughter of Pauline Phillips who started "Dear Abby" in 1956) will die some day. Her columns will be forgotten...or someone else will take up the mantle, so to speak. But God's Word endures forever. Jesus is alive forever. And God's Word does not change with the times or with evolving ethics (as Dear Abby does). It is eternal, inerrant, and inspired by God Himself.
chicago, I more concerned with WWJD than WWDAD, but I know that doesn't surprise you!
Believer: I know if I were getting married, I'd certainly not do so in a church that didn't welcome same sex marriages. And if a gay couple were demanding ceremony just to be antagonistic, then shame on them.
As far as what you and your wife would do, it might be best to ask WWDAD?
(What Would Dear Abby Do?) She always had pretty insightful solutions.
chicago, I truly hope and somewhat believe you are right on this one and as I said to feet, if indeed same-sex unions do become legal even though I won't agree with them I will indeed respect a couples right to enter into one. But to be honest, as you know I have friends who are homosexual and I am not sure how my wife and I would respond if they were to invite us to the ceremony. Needless to say it would certainly call for a whole lot of prayer.
feet, how does my speaking out against what I consider to be sin in the sight of God infringe on your right to commit that sin? Plus, just because something is legal does not necessarily make it right in the sight of God. Prior to the Civil War slavery was legal in our country but it didn't keep the abolitionists from speaking or preaching against it.
Believer: Again, I think that precident would be the determining factor. Medical providers have been successfully sued when they withhold medical treatment because of their personal beliefs.
But In the hundreds of years of the Catholic church's history in the U.S., I've not known of any case where they've been sued for refusing the sacrament of marriage. (And they do it all the time)
feet, what part of "that I believe violates the Word of God" do you not understand?
chicago, but if the case in California where two doctors were forced to provide services to a lesbian regardless of their personal or spiritual views can happen what's to say the same can be said to ministers and churches who are opposed to same-sex marriages as a result of their spiritual beliefs. And as I said that is the major reason I'm opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriages and unions.
the belief that homosexuality was a sin could not be contested in this country as long as homosexuality was held illegal.
that all changed when the supreme court deemed it legal. when it became legal it was immediate covered by all the rights of all things legal.................and includes freedom from religious condemning public proscelitizing.
its much more than that. it means you cannot take your beliefs out of your church and publically disseminate them, because your beliefs disparage and denegate others..............others who believe differently than you.
Believer: It seems that because we do have a separation of church and state that churches in the U.S. are able to decide who they can perform weddings for. The Roman Catholic church is a good example of this. RC priests and bishops have continually denied many couples from getting married in parishes or have said they couldn't perform certain weddings. (Couples who may not both be Catholic, couples who may not have gone through marriage preparation, etc)
So, the Catholic church has already set a precident on that.
As far as free speech, we have that written into the constitution. I know there have been examples in Canada where certain pastors have been cited for discriminatory statements against gays, but that's Canada. As long as it doesn't provoke violence then it would seem that the constitution would protect one's free speech. We can thank the ACLU on that one :)
to this church: Be very careful what you promise, it is only the power of Christ that can transform a sinner's life and make them a new creation. Only repentance and faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior can save a person.
". But if allowing you certain rights keeps the Christian community from tactfully and lovingly speaking out against sin of any kind or forces me to perform weddings of same-sex couples or forces my church to be used for such services then I will do all in my power to take a stand against all such laws and if need be willfully disobey such laws."
believer when ever you speak of your understanding you never write of it owning it as merely your own belief it is THE BELIEF. you keep making the assumption that all real christians believe it is a sin. but that again is just another of your beliefs
what about the millions of congregants of other faiths who dont believe it is a sin. why do you refuse to honor their beliefs?
the christian community................................there is only one universal church, and christ lives in each believer. are you saying the only true christians are those who have your same understanding about the law. the thing that even if we follow, and do nothing more in regards to faith, we receive no righteousness.............................no salvation, christ does not live in us ........................and would say to us "i never knew you"
". But if allowing you certain rights keeps the Christian community from tactfully and lovingly"
rather than this why are you not saying
"but if allowing certain rights keeps THOSE WHO BELIEVE AS I DO from tactfully..............."
or
"but if allowing certain rights keeps those CHRISTIANS WHO BELIEVE AS I DO from................"
and in answer to your questions, in the u.s., their rights trumps your freedoms when your freedoms infringe on their rights. here again you are not honoring their beliefs in the same way you are not honoring your christian brother's beliefs
in the realm of the 2nd commandment how are you loving another by not honoring their beliefs............ because they are different from your own?
feet, on your last post I can agree with you probably 90% if not more. My only concern has and continues to be the issue of equal rights that would condone a lifestyle that advocates sexual practices that I believe clearly violates the Word of God. And even if same-sex unions become the law of the land I will respect your right to enter into that type of relationship even though I will still disagree with the sexual practices of homosexuality. But if allowing you certain rights keeps the Christian community from tactfully and lovingly speaking out against sin of any kind or forces me to perform weddings of same-sex couples or forces my church to be used for such services then I will do all in my power to take a stand against all such laws and if need be willfully disobey such laws.
what gays want is quite simple. they want complete equality with heterosexuals. which makes complete sense since gays have never been found lacking in any sector of society compared to heterosexuals. they are not less a brother, friend, attorney, administrator, counselor, pastor, soldier,neighbor, doctor etc.
they are not saying dont believe what one believes. but they are saying that they want to live freely without being subject of any recrimination or exposure to any derision, because of another's beliefs.
and this is as it should be, in a country where there is seperation of church and state, and homosexuality has been deemed legal by the supreme court.
For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man --1Co 11:8, 9
In a homosexual relationship no one can be (of the other) or (created for the other). Homosexual relationships are unnatural, an abomination, against God our creator.
Take heed, "He that refuseth instruction despiseth his own soul: but he that heareth reproof getteth understanding" (Pr 15:32).
ok feetxxxl, if gays got everything they wanted in every part of the world today, what would that be? I mean whatever they asked for they received from anyone they asked it of.
my understanding is that most orientation changing websites emphasize sexual addiction. sexual addiction means using sex to cover up unacknowledged pain. the acting out could be sex with either or both genders particularly because the addict has a problem with sexual identity or because the person is bisexual............bisexual, .having the capacity to be atttracted to either gender in such a way as to desire intercourse with them.
i find it so interesting this theory about choice held by heterosexuals, when they cannot recollect no time in their lives or their friends or relatives liives when there needed to be made a choice about orientation. yet they have no problem crediting homosexuals with having needed to make that same decision.
or they credit homosexuality as coming form traumatic parenting. however nurturing parenting is something that has only been identified in the last 50 years. historically speaking, the concept of parenting has only recently been acknowledged in the last century or so. prior to that children had no rights and were considered property. if the trauma theory was correct then homosexuality would have been prolific during those times. my understanding is that homosexuality has stayed consistent within the 4% range throughout recorded history
the thing that makes exodus and others different from aa is that aa says get in touch with your feelings own the pain, and seek healing from trauma.
exodus tells the person what the trauma is and tells what his true feelings are because" the bible says", crediting themselvews with believing the only true interpretation of scripture. however, this belief is without witness, without witness thru fellowship, without testing, without reasoning of the scriptures and without objective reason.
but, think of how transitional belief has been throughout history from belief in indulgences, to the burning of witches at the stake, to believing what constituted a witch, that women should be deprived of all rights because they were responsible for the fall in the garden, that the jews TOOK the life of jesus and should subsequently be persecuted, about one denomination over another, that islam was the religion of the devil. etc
in all these cases of belief if was antiquity that was used to validate them.
CONTINUE
CONTINUE
this, when christ says that in recognizing ones fruit we will determine if what is being done is or is not of god. because we know.the fruit of the spirit of satan is different from the fruit of the holy spirit.
exodus may be helpful in some cases of sexual identity, or sexual addiction among heterosexuals. but how can it be expected to get results about actual change of orientation. scientifically how can anything happen based on principles that are based solely on religious belief
in regards to spiritual healing, that is of a dynamic that only god knows if,why, and when healing it will happen,
that is why i asked the question about differentiating addiction, issues of sexual identity from . actual orientation.
of all the people that have gone to healing shrines, what percentage was ever healed less than 1 tenth of 1 percent, and in this case it is those who sought healing. in regards to exodus if there is indication of a change we dont even know what the change was from.
philo, I'm not saying that one form of treatment fits all. But I know many people who have or are active in AA as well as biblically based treatment programs who are leading clean and sober productive lives as a result of what they gained in these treatment programs. But as a Christian if the only thing that results is a clean sober person and lifestyle and that person has still not come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ then we have not completed our task. That was the main reason I left the substance abuse field was because the agency I worked for would not allow me to share the greatest help of all for every human being. That is that God loved them enough to send His only Son, Jesus Christ to die one the Cross for their sins and if they would turn from their sins and turn to God through the person and finished work of His Son, they could have a personal relationship with God through Christ, have eternal life and be with God for the rest of eternity. To me what good would it do to only get a person clean and sober knowing they would be spending the rest of eternity separated from God. And that's why I recommend Rapha and Teen Challenge to people because I know they will take that person one step further in their treatment program.
philo, As far as Teen Challenge and Rapha along with other biblically based treatment ministries go, I do not need to make them acceptable since there success rate does that in itself.
philo, as a matter of fact if I would have just turned around I would have seen my 12 Step Book from both AA and Rapha, so please excuse my mistake. No AA meeting or similar type meeting I've ever attended have I heard somebody get up and say my name is Bob and I have an incurable disease, what they do say is my name is Bob and I'm an alcoholic or what ever the issue is they are struggling with. Someone admitting they are powerless over someting can lead to a victim mindset, but it can also get someone to realize they can't do it alone and they need someone else who is having the same struggle, but is having success in that struggle to come alongside them and be there for them during the tough times.
philo, my bad I got 10 in my head and you're absolutely right they all use the 12 Step approach which has no magic involved at all. It's called hard work, commitment, and accountability.
I guess I'll go a little further, since you obviously thought that making them similar to AA somehow should make them acceptable.
I said these programs (and now AA included) are based on magic 'cause they clearly are. first you tell someone they have an incurable illness, then you tell them they are absolutely powerless over it, then you tell them ONLY a conscious contact with a "higher power" can bring them "salvation" in the form of sobriety, or abstinence over whatever it is they are afflicted with.
There are several problems with this model, which will, I admit, work for some but not all. First of all, drinking is a choice, not an "incurable disease." Over 70% of users quit entirely on their own, without help of any kind, on motivation alone. I quit smoking this way, and so have others.
Telling someone they are powerless makes good victims, but seldom works for very long. AA itself did a survey in 1989 & discovered that only 5% of people who walk through the door stay for even 3 years. They dealt with that by not taking any more surveys.
None of these groups, 10 or 12 step, have ever been tested by a full, double-blind scientific survey. The group I started uses a technique known as cognitive behavioral therapy, specifically REBT.(smartrecovery.org)
It has a pretty good success rate, at least as good as 12-step, and can be modified as the science changes.
I never did like the "disease" aspect of AA, always smacked of "original sin" to me.
Oh boy, where do I start with this one, Believer? Point one, I guess, is that AA and the others are 12-step, not 10! If I had not been an AA member for the last 18 years, I might not have known that. You are obviously sticking you nose in (again) where you have no knowledge.
I am fully, and I mean fully aware of all of the aspects, beliefs and dogmas of these programs, and speak from personal experience.
About 5 years ago, I started a meeting of a secular recovery group here in town, and it is doing quite well. Although I have not attended AA for several years, my wife still does, so I know they havn't changed much.
Believe me, you do not want to debate the history of AA with me, or its 12 steps. Where did you get the idea it was 10 steps anyway? That's not biblical at all. You need at least 12 of anything to be biblical. Ever wonder why that is, by the way? I'll give you a hint: Zodiac.
No, seriously, why 10? It wasn't a typo, you did it several times.
philo, apparently you no little about Teen Challenge or Rapha. Their approach to treatment is very similar to AA and in fact they use the same 10 step method with the exception being they believe that the God of the Bible is the higher power. Plus if you would do your homework you would see that even the 10 Steps of AA are biblically based in the first place. Study the history of AA and you will see that both Bill and Bob the founders of AA relied heavily on the Bible to develop the very successful 10 Step Program.
"Teen Challenge and Rapha who use an almost 100% biblically based approach to their treatment methods are not eligible to receive either federal or state funding"
"Those who get federal funding don't want the competition from groups the the success rate these two have."
Utter nonsense! They don't receive federal funding 'cause they rely on purely supernatural methods, magic, in other words. No supernatural method has ever been proven to provide a greater chance of success then chance alone in any scientific study, ever.
Like so-called "intelligent design," which also relies on magic, faith healing is clearly only religious and should never be supported by the state.
of those ministered to by palin's church, how are they able to distinguish between those that have a sexual identity issue, those that are sexual addicts, and those are actually homosexual?
again i ask what fruit is palin's church or palin herself accusing homosexual marriage of producing?
"you will recognize them by their fruit"
it is interesting how political this website has instantly become with the nomination of palin. things that were once acceptable are now considered in appropriate.
was jesus an overseer of politics?
"Teen Challenge and Rapha who use an almost 100% biblically based approach to their treatment methods are not eligible to receive either federal or state funding"
Those who get federal funding don't want the competition from groups the the success rate these two have.
igh: The APA is the American Psychological Association.
Believer: I see your point about Exodus being 100% Bible-based and would not be eligible.
I know that Exodus touts some stories of those who have left the gay lifestyle (a phrase that eludes me - - that's like saying the heterosexual lifestyle)
Anyway, my suspicion is that those who claim to be 'ex-gay' are those whose sexuality was somewhat fluid to begin with.
For the majority of gays, the concept of attempting heterosexuality is, well, like a heterosexual attempting to be exclusively homosexual. It's preposterous.
Also, for me to attempt a relationship with a woman (I'm male) would be totally unfair to her and morally way out of line.
I appreciate the dialog we're having. I'm off to church now as well.
ty believer, u2.
chicago, got to get ready for church so don't think I'm ignoring you if I don't get right back to you, have a great Lord's Day, believer, you to igh!
chicago, alcoholism and drug addiction are in the DSM Manual and yet organizations like Teen Challenge and Rapha who use an almost 100% biblically based approach to their treatment methods are not eligible to receive either federal or state funding. This is a separation of church and state issue as opposed to a treatment issue and the same is true with ministries such as Exodus. But I'd be willing to acknowledge it could be both since your 100% correct about the DSM Manual no longer citing homosexuality as a disorder. But even before they removed it from the manual I'd be willing to bet Exodus still would not have been eligible to receive federal or state funding. Plus there are many biblically based treatment ministries that I believe would be leary of taking state or federal funding even if they could for fear it might hinder them in using their biblically based treatment approach.
chicago24 who is the APA? And do all those involved/members of the APA support 100% and without reservation that being gay is healthy and normal? Or is it that a few who are executives have pushed there beliefs on the rank and file members?? Becareful what 'expert opinions' you espouse.
chicago, there are homosexuals who have left the homosexual lifestyle and are living very satisfying lives as heterosexuals and yes I am sure at times they are still tempted to go back to the homosexual lifestyle the same way many recovering alcoholics and addicts will have to fight the temptation to go back to drinking and drugging. Trust me, I am not saying that this is an easy battle, our battle with sin and temptation is never easy and especially in those areas where we are most vulnerable. But with man some things are impossible, but with God all things are possible to include consistent victory over sin and temptation.
Star2: Do I believe God is a miracle working God? My first reaction is to say 'no'. I see no evidence of that.
But in all humility, I will admit that I do not know how God works. I have obtained an M.A. in Theology and Master of Divinity. After all that education, I can honestly and humbly say "I don't know" with regard to how God works or if God intervenes in our lives.
But frankly, my faith doesn't require that God display miracles or interventions in my life.
Believer: The point I'm trying to make is that organizations like Exodus would never be able to receive funding because (1) Homosexuality is not a disorder according to the APA and is not listed in the diagnostic manual and (2) so-called ex-gay therapy is proven to be psychologically damaging to the individual and is not advocated by mainstream psychology.
The fact that Palin advocates it really indicates her poor judgment.
What the mainstream media continues to cover-up:
Obama, Ayers, Dohrn and double jeopardy
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=74486
chicago24 - Do you believe God is a miracle working God?
chicago, so if the goverment funded agencies like Exodus or allowed medicaid funding then you would accept the fact that you have a psychological disorder and it could be reversed? Well I can't say you have a psychological disorder but I can say you have a spiritual disorder as we all do and it's called our sinful nature. In your situation it appears to manifest itself mainly in the area of homosexuality and for me I think mainly in the area of self-centeredness. But the good news is there is hope and forgivenenss for both of us when we repent and confess our sins to God through Christ.
chicago, perhaps as I should have said agencies that use a biblically based approach to substance abuse treatment do not receive federal or state funding. Case in point is Teen Challenge.
chicago, as a former substance abuse counselor I can tell you that substance abuse programs that get state and federal funding are not specifically Christian agencies as is Exodus. And many of them do deal with the concept of a higher power, but do not require that the clients believe that higher power is the God of the Bible as is the case with AA.
Believer: Even treatment centers affiliated with Christian denominations (Catholic, etc) receive Medicaid funding.
Why?
Because addictions are bona fide psychological disorders.
Homosexuality is not!
Plain and simple.
Believer: you said "please don't insult YOUR intelligence, these are Bible-based organizations which are not eligible nor would they want to receive federal or state funding out of concern of losing their freedom to continue using a Bible-based approach to helping the homosexual overcome this problem."
Then explain why most substance abuse treatment centers are able to utilize a spiritual component in their treatment plans and still obtain Medicaid dollars for over a third of their funding. They're never in jeopardy of losing their funding.
I've yet to hear of ANY organization like Exodus be eligible for public funding. Why? Other forms of "treatment" do.
Getting back to the "on-topic" portion of the thread, it appears to me that this article is serving no other purpose than to shed light on the reversal of a political decision by Senator Palin.
While Palin was clear on her own views on the subject of homesexuality, she could not place her political office at legal risk. The constitution is the constitution.
Otherwise, I am failing to see why this church or any other church should be criticized for wanting to help homosexuals who want the help dealing with this sin.
If anything, the church should also be spending as much time helping attendees with other forms of sexual sin as well.
thomas, that being the case that you are concerned about kids and not just taking what appeared to me to look like cheap shots. I personally think they made the best of a very difficult situation and I honestly do not know how they could have handled it any better considering the circumstances and the fact they were in the national limelight.
Alright, alright, I've said my bit. I'll let you all get back to on-topic threading. I do care about the children, but I'm more concerned with the values of our society. Our standards of behavior are slipping, and I don't like to see people cheering as if that's a good thing.
thomas, since you seem so knowledgeable in this area maybe you could apply to be their nanny. Of course you are really concerned about these children and not just taking cheap shots at this family?
ThomasOfDoubt
Based upon your criteria, there is no individual family member qualified to hold any position of authority in any office anywhere.
How old is the second daughter? She just watched her sister become famous and applauded--for having a baby when she's seventeen. And the Palins are moving into a fast lifestyle now. I hope someone is watching out for her and the other children. Their background doesn't prepare them for the kind of world they're entering.
ThomasOfDoubt
The Palin family cannot change the mistake that was made. But they can demonstrate the willingness to love their daughter and this young gentleman regardless.
This is what good parents do and this is what is taught in the family. This is the example the Palin family wants to be.
Oh dear. Another thing that makes all the cheering wrong.
He should get back in school and get his diploma and stop flying around to political rallies for standing ovations. What kind of job is he going to be able to get to support his new family?
Governor Palin still has an active role in her family's life. She takes her baby to work with her. She has Trig with her in her business meetings, changes his diapers in her office, and etc. The kids come in and out of the office during the day. Their drawings are under the glass top of her desk and etc.
ThomasOfDoubt - When Bristol found out she was pregnant she left the high school she was in at Wassil and went to another in Anchorage. They say that Levi, who is a hockey player for his high school, is not on the roster for this 2008-2009 school year. They say they don't know where he is and assume that he has dropped out of school.
Forgot to add: my son and my daughter are grown and out of the house with their own families now. We all made it through the teenage years without too much crisis, luckily!
Hi star2. Thanks for responding. It was really the standing ovation that bugged me. For some people, politics is everything, but the rest of us should be concerned about right and wrong. I was exaggerating a bit when I talked about a thrashing, though a generation ago or two, that wouldn't have been uncommon, I don't think.
I hadn't heard that he is a high school dropout. That's sad. Like I said, these things happen, but I think you do have to wonder where the parents were. I suppose the Governor was quite busy with her career and her husband was away from home a lot for seasonal work, or something.
ThomasOfDoubt - Got children? If yes, do you raise them with Christian values? If yes, do they always follows the morals you lay out for them? If not, does that mean you are a bad father and you are failing in your responsibilities to be the spiritual leader of your home?
ThomasOfDoubt -
Why should Todd Palin thrash Bristol's boyfriend Levi Johnson? He didn't rape her. Bristol was a willing partner. If Todd was going to thrash Levi then he would have needed to thrash his daughter as well.
According to Levi Johnson's mother, Bristol and Levi had planned to get married before they knew she was pregnant. Bristol and Levi probably figured that since they were going to get marrtied that there wasn't anything wrong with having pre-martial sex. Or maybe they just yielded to their sexual temptations/arousals as many people do who are dating.
I am sure when Bristol told her parents that she was pregnant they probably were angry with her.
The Palins love their daughter. I am sure they don't approve of her behavior but it seems to me that they are forgiving as well. I am sure there were many discussions about the choices their daughter and Levi made that resulted in Bristol getting pregnant. The Palins and the Johnsons will be there to help these two young people in their struggles to raise their child.
BTW, Bristol and Levi are in the same grade in high school. Levi has withdrawn from school and apparently will not complete his senior year. Maybe he quit to get a job so he can support his wife to be and their child. Who knows?
I'd love to hear the arguments of whoever gave my post thumbs down. Teenage pregnancies happen, and they have to be dealt with responsibly. In my mind that doesn't include celebrating them and congratulating men who impregnate high school students.
What is the father's role in this family?
chicago24 - Do you believe that God is a miracle working God?
I am so glad that Sarah Palin may be the person who is one heartbeat away from the presidency!
<If homosexuality is disordered and these organizations can "reverse" it, then why don't any of theme receive federal or state funding?
The fact that they don't receive taxpayer funding only indicates that it cannot be reversed, nor should it.>
The presence or absence of taxpayer funding of an organization is indeterminant regarding the veracity of a group's viewpoint.
Federal funding of abortions does not suddenly make killing unborn babies morally acceptable.
Nor does the absence of government funding of restorative homosexual counseling indicate that such a sexual health status is irreversible.
Bottom line: The government is NOT the final authority on truth.
chicago, please don't insult YOUR intelligence, these are Bible-based organizations which are not eligible nor would they want to receive federal or state funding out of concern of losing their freedom to continue using a Bible-based approach to helping the homosexual overcome this problem.
The fact that Palin advocates one of these organizations clearly indicates how ill-informed, ignorant, and out of touch she is with reality.
Such a person has no business being in public office, much less a step away from the White House.
If homosexuality is disordered and these organizations can "reverse" it, then why don't any of theme receive federal or state funding?
The fact that they don't receive taxpayer funding only indicates that it cannot be reversed, nor should it.
Does Todd Palin provide the kind of Christian leadership for his family that we expect of a man? Bringing the guy who knocked up his daughter onto the national stage for a standing ovation? Shouldn't he have thrashed him instead? Serious question.
feet, as usual you're dodging the issue in that there is a difference between choosing not to have children and a whole class of people not being capable as "married" couples to naturally as an exclusive couples have children, which is 100% true of all homosexual couples.
since when has twisted bias been hope for anything?
There is help for you
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/resources/index.php
thank you narth
you are trying to identify god's purpose thru your position on homosexuality?
we know according to scripture no human knows his mind.
if a woman gets a histerectomy prior to marriage to avoid child birth, would that diminish the essence of the acceptability of the marriage.
if a man choses to marry a woman with a histerectomy over one than is capable of bearing children does that in any way diminish the spirit and acceptability of the marriage.
Your percentages are off
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/two.php
The shame-filled history of the homosexual has left nations less populated, sicker, and emotionally and financially drained. Even the vast majority of their leaders per capita have fought hard to preserve the STD curse on the earth, while taking pleasure in destroying the minds of children with despicable acts of lewdness and molestation.
Homosexuality is a DEATH-style which destroys the family, manhood, womanhood, and childhood in order the mock at God's divine order and destroy the future generations of humanity. Sometimes youth are bent toward to same sex when they were exposed to sexual images of the same sex during puberty while lacking a father figure at home. This emotional disorder is spread primarily by pornography and child molestation from the same sex. Then feelings of rejection from the opposite-sex have perpetuated this unhealthy dysfunction into adulthood.
Homosexual Child Molesters
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php
NAMBLA And Homosexual Activism
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/nine.php
Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is Normal
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php
Mr feetxxl,
Your percentages are off
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/two.php
The shame-filled history of the homosexual has left nations less populated, sicker, and emotionally and financially drained. Even the vast majority of their leaders per capita have fought hard to preserve the STD curse on the earth, while taking pleasure in destroying the minds of children with despicable acts of lewdness and molestation.
Homosexuality is a DEATH-style which destroys the family, manhood, womanhood, and childhood in order the mock at God's divine order and destroy the future generations of humanity. Sometimes youth are bent toward to same sex when they were exposed to sexual images of the same sex during puberty while lacking a father figure at home. This emotional disorder is spread primarily by pornography and child molestation from the same sex. Then feelings of rejection from the opposite-sex have perpetuated this unhealthy dysfunction into adulthood.
Homosexual Child Molesters http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php
NAMBLA And Homosexual Activism http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/nine.php
Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is Normal http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php
feet, but at this point in time there is no way for a homosexual couple to naturally produce a child of their own and on their own as an exclusive couple, do you think this is one way God shows He does not condone the homosexual lifestyle and mainly the sexual practices of the homosexual lifestyle?
What do people think about putting that hockey player on stage for a standing ovation? For knocking up a young lady in high school?
I don't think that would have happened back when I was a teenager. And I'm not sure that's a change for the better. (That said, I fully approve of the way that the family is handling the situation, other than that.)
according to the 4% rule there are 12 million gays in the us. what percentage are you calling "many".
and how have you been able to differentiate those who are actually homosexual from those with difficulties of sexual identity.
i disagree a political dialogue can be done thru objective reason. particularly between 2 sides of different positons to find a compromised solution.
however if one side holds that there position is of god.........compromise becomes out of the question.
Everthing political is ultimately a religious/philosophical issue and it should not be avoided or censored. There are many people geting treatment for the emotional disorder called homosexuality. People are known to have great results through prayer in JESUS name. There is deliverence in Jesus.
ATHEISM is a CATASTROPHIC FAILURE
http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
Everthing politic is ultimately a religious/philosophical issue and it should not be avoided or censored. There are many many geting treatment for the emotional disorder called homosexuality. People are known to have great results through prayer in JESUS name. There is deliverence in Jesus.
my understanding is that they produce loving nurturing homes for raising children equal to those of married heterosexuals, and some are credited with adopting abandoned and rejected children from heterosexual unions.
this is acceptable compared to the obama's old church pastor. my understanding was everything he said was true. th offense was the way he said it.
homosexuality is deemed legal. which means the freedom to live unencumdered by the beliefs of others or the aspersions of those beliefs.
to think that because palin belongs to a church that shows no indication of honoring this.
sorry, this is more of the same.......................accept it is much worse.
more of the same in that puts religious and moral characterization on political positions.
worse........... because it is being done and acknowledged with a zeal that has never been seen before.