For nearly a decade, born-again Christian Neil Clark Warren has been working to pair up men and women to help create lasting marriages.
After 35 years practicing as a clinical psychologist and counseling thousands of married couples, Dr. Warren had observed that, in many cases, marriages that endured were composed of compatible people, while marriages that deteriorated often did so because the differences between the individuals became harder to resolve over time.
With the help of a research professor at the University of Southern California, Warren set out to identify the characteristics between spouses that were consistently associated with the most successful relationships.
And after three years of research and development, they announced that they had successfully identified the key dimensions of personality that predicted compatibility and the potential for long-term relationship success.
In 2000, Warren launched eHarmony, which utilizes a patented Compatibility Matching System to find compatible long-term relationships. Today, eHarmony is touted as the Internet’s No. 1 trusted relationship services provider and claims that an average of 236 eHarmony members marry every day in the United States as a result of being matched on the site. eHarmony is also available in Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom.
While eHarmony’s past efforts have been praised by the Christian community – the site’s initial target – and pro-family conservatives – who helped give the site exposure following its launch – a recent announcement by the company has left both noticeably upset, to say the least.
“To those of us in the pro-family movement who hailed eHarmony's commitment to the virtue of traditional marriage, the company's actions are distressing and damaging,” stated Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, in an announcement to supporters.
“Dr. Warren et al, you sold your soul (or at least eHarmony’s)…,” added Peter LaBarbera, president of Americans For Truth about Homosexuality, in a letter to Warren.
Both Perkins and LaBarbera are referring to eHarmony’s recent decision to offer homosexual dating services through an equivalent website, entitled "Compatible Partners," as part of a settlement to end a three-year court battle.
In 2005, a New Jersey man accused eHarmony of discriminating against homosexuals by operating a setup that did not extend searches to include partners of the same sex.
Theodore B. Olson, an attorney for eHarmony, said that even though the company believed McKinley's complaint was "an unfair characterization of our business," it chose to settle because of the unpredictable nature of litigation.
"eHarmony looks forward to moving beyond this legal dispute, which has been a burden for the company, and continuing to advance its business model of serving individuals by helping them find successful, long-term relationships," Olson said in a statement.
Under the settlement, eHarmony will pay New Jersey state division $50,000 to cover administrative costs and will pay New Jersey resident Eric McKinley $5,000. Furthermore, in addition to setting up the new website, the settlement requires eHarmony to advertise its new site on gay websites and include pictures of same-sex matches in the "Diversity" section of the its website.
News of the Nov. 12 settlement drew strong statements from pro-family conservatives who chastised the company for not following the lead of the Boy Scouts of America, who were also challenged under New Jersey’s “sexual orientation” law. Continue >>
RSS
Do you have some cheese to go with that whine?
Mike,
There have been many times when I've said that you've implied certain things in your posts. You get mad. Then turn around and say that I'm implying things. But it's okay when you accuse me of implying things.
I can assure you I didn't get defensive, and I'm wondering where you think I implied something and where I have let it slide with other people.
I wasn't trying to be heartfelt with you. It won't do any good.
And you haven't answered my question.
Despite your attempt to be heartfelt, you see it as a sin, I do not. There is no common ground.
Why is it that when I say you imply something you get all defensive, but yet, you have not guilt in doing it to anyone else?
I think lowly of the sin. And I think lowly of people who call themselves Christians, live in sin, and try to justify it by saying God approves.
I have tried being "loving" on CP with homosexuals. But I've found that the only definition of "loving" that they possessed is to to tell them that they're ok, that they're not sinning. If I told them that, then I would be lying.
Assertion = implication. Anyone who follows your rants can see fairly clearly that you think lowly of all gays, regardless of whether they have anal sex or not.
mike
"but I think when the mirror was turned to the straight community your tune suddenly changed."
And can you tell me where my tune suddenly changed?
mike,
"I believe your assertion was that gays are a horrific group of people because many practice anal sex.."
Please quote where I said, or implied that.
I wouldn't necessarily say it makes it alright, but I believe your assertion was that gays are a horrific group of people because many practice anal sex, but I think when the mirror was turned to the straight community your tune suddenly changed.
Interesting.
That still doesn't change my comment " far as the anal sex thing goes, does that make it alright then? That some heterosexuals do it? Some heteros also do bondage, s&m, and some even more vile things...."
Really?
Sorry, that's just plain interesting.
I'd rather not discuss my sexual life with you. Those are intimate details that you would love to get your hands on, but I can tell you we do not engage in anal sex.
So you are gay, but do not engage in sex?
You assume my sexual practices.
Mike,
You are gay. You have a gay relationship. What am I assuming?
Prophet, again, you assume actions I take part in just because I am gay. You claim to be a prophet, but you stereotype and assume a tremendous amount.
Arit, what you said is offensive, so I think it deserved a flagging.
aritonang,
That is too funny! I'll have to remember that.
mike, you flag me - i flag you
"...A prudent wife is from the Lord" (Pr 19:14).
In a homosexual relationship neither one can ever be from the Lord.
I speak the truth. I introspect myself daily, and I will not preach anything that I don't practice. As far as the anal sex thing goes, does that make it alright then? That some heterosexuals do it? Some heteros also do bondage, s&m, and some even more vile things that I could post but will not because it is not necessary (I told you I am an ex-sex addict. I've witnessed and done things that would turn your stomach. Thank God He delivered me.)
You need to quit basing your actions on what other people, and animals, do...and base it on the Bible that says homosexuality is wrong.
Delight,
I agree. Satan has been perverting God's Word and creation since the beginning. This is just another example.
well then, that's beyond the realm of common sense...or any good sense; what God-given purpose would that activity serve? None.
Still makes my point, there is no sense to be made of 'gay' christians; you'd have to believe in a god that has no purpose for his design and clearly God has a purpose for everything under the sun.
Delight,
But they argue that they do have a "slot B". But, not knowing how God created the human body, they do not understand that slot B is designed for waste removal only. But they take what God created and pervert it.
"just common sense"
How common is it to put tab 'A' into tab 'A' instead of slot 'B'?
If homosexuality were an option for us as Christians, don't you think that God would have created us with dual sex organs? A set for any occasion?
No, really, think about it; use your common sense.
Anyone who has followed directions knows that only opposites attach; as in put tab 'A' into slot 'B'.
"Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
"For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe." 1Cr 1:20-21
You mean that "Common sense"? The wisdom of the world is both Common and foolish.
And why is speaking the truth lowering myself? Unless you think you're above the truth.
Piousness is a religious attitude. I'm not religious. I'm a Christian.
Delight, its not mental gymnastics, just common sense, although I realize that is a struggle for some. Prophet, do you honestly believe yourself to be a prophet? I'd think you'd try a bit harder to be pious and not resort to lowering yourself in your responses.
Mike,
Um, no they didn't. If you read about the history of Israel, you'll see that they , time and again, fell from a relationship with God and followed idols. And God brought the prophets to draw them back to Him. It was the same thing over and over. You really don't understand the office of a prophet. You think a prophet's main purpose to be a fortune teller. How wrong you are.
wow, we bow to your intellingence Mike,
after all the mental gymnastics you must have to naviate to consider yourself a follower of Christ... and at the same time have unnarural sex with men; well, it takes a great amount of worldly reasoning and a certain type of intelligence...very commendable in the worlds sight.
And here you are chastising Prophet for the sin of 'pride'. If you don't believe sex with men is a sin in the Bible, then why would you think pride is a sin? Can you pick and choose?
In God's Kingdom, you are not wise...even your knowledge of prophets is skewed:
"I wish you all spoke with tongues, BUT EVEN MORE THAT YOU PROPHESIED; for he who prophesies is GREATER than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification." 1Cor 14:5.
As a follower of Christ I find Prophet's posts very edifying and if we (as followers of Christ) are all to be of one accord, why aren't you edified?
In today's world IT IS a 'radical thing' to prophesy against the sin of homosexuality and it's nothing new.
Um, actually, yes they did. They spoke of radical things which is why people turned away. You regurgitate the same thing I have heard over and over, many times from Believer, except with him I am able to have an intelligent conversation (since both people having the conversation show basic intelligence.) I am not persecuting you, but its cute you think so. Its clear this is a fantasy of your, so happy playing.
I accept your persecution. It merely solidifies your position as one who does not believe. The prophets of old did not bring "anything new", for they all spoke of God's children who turned from God and followed their own lusts. They all spoke of God's judgement upon them, and His will that they turn. And they all were persecuted by people such as yourself.
The difference between you and "prophets of old" is that they were intelligent. Someday you will get yours, and I can almost guarantee its not what you're hoping for. I don't deny other prophets, again, they brought something new to the table, you leach off the ideas of those smarter than yourself.
Arit, again, that was added to the Bible. It certainly is not the original translation, but try again!
to mike 22685
nor those who participate in homosexuality,
to mike 22685
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (Amplified Bible)
9Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality,
10Nor cheats (swindlers and thieves), nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards, nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God.
Ahh, come on, feet!
By the way, prophets of old spoke of themselves as prophets. Is that why you refuse their words also?
He said unto him, I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel spake unto me by the word of the LORD, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water. But he lied unto him.
I Kings 13:18
Then said Elijah unto the people, I, even I only, remain a prophet of the LORD; but Baal's prophets are four hundred and fifty men.
I Kings 18:22
And it was so, when Elisha the man of God had heard that the king of Israel had rent his clothes, that he sent to the king, saying, Wherefore hast thou rent thy clothes? let him come now to me, and he shall know that there is a prophet in Israel.
II Kings 5:8
But I like this scripture best. It still echoes the sentiment of people today...
9 These are rebellious people, deceitful children,
children unwilling to listen to the LORD's instruction.
10 They say to the seers,
"See no more visions!"
and to the prophets,
"Give us no more visions of what is right!
Tell us pleasant things,
prophesy illusions.
11 Leave this way,
get off this path,
and stop confronting us
with the Holy One of Israel!"
Isaiah 30:9-11
sorry, cant help you.
Mike,
It is no more a sin to call yourself a prophet, than it is to call yourself a preacher. But it is a sin to call yourself a follower of Christ, when you willingly disobey God.
believer, prophet actually did refer to himself as a prophet earlier in this post. Prophet, you struck no nerve with me, your flagrant hubris (yes, we come back to that) is sinful. I can call myself a Christian because I believe in and follow Christ. Just because you think I am wrong does not mean I am not a Christian.
feet,
As defined by God what is one flesh? How is one flesh accheived?
feetxxxl
you have said...
....but if there is in a heterosexual one then assuredly there is in a homosexual one, as well."
Please explain this statement.
Neither a Heterosexual or Homosexual relationship is supported in the 2nd commandment. The key word is sexual.
I don't understand the argument.
But I see, again, that I hit a nerve with Mike. So it is with prophets. People don't like them because they speak the truth.
mike,
"Prophet, when you sin (as in being prideful enough to call yourself a prophet) you do not love God because you are disobeying him."
Is that anymore prideful than you errantly calling yourself a Christian?
feet, I see you somehow forgot to list the fruit of self-control in your 3:44 post, in the words of the church lady, "how convenient!"
in the relationship of marriage are you saying that the spirit of the 2nd commandment does not apply? how is that? that there is no agapao in a one flesh committed marital relationship?
but if there is in a heterosexual one then assuredly there is in a homosexual one, as well.
and if there is agapao, where is the sin?
in both cases the couples come together because of sexual attraction, to be in a relationship where there is agapao love. one whose fruit is kindness, gentleness, patience...........etc.
feet, I see you're still avoiding the violating of the fruit of self-control issue?
mike22685, how do you know he's not a prophet since a prophet's most important responsibility is to forthtell(proclaim) the truths of God and in some cases foretell future events and/or truths of God? But in truth to the best of my knowledge he's made no such claim.
Hey feet,
Why is homosexuality singled out in different verses as sin? If indeed a relationship is two committed adults why then did God choose to add homosexuality and not simply leave fornication or adultery? Wouldn't that say it all for all relationships?
feetxxxl
The following words, derived from the Hebrew and Greek, are used to explain the meaning of Love in the first and second commandments.
Agapao
Phileo
Philos
In the context of the commandments, none of these words are used to support pro-creation or sex. They are used to support social or moral standards.
wr halver
how many times do i have to ask a question before you are willing to answer them?
please explain how the words of the verses you are referring to say homosexuality is a sin.
wr, who is "we"? You can flag if you want, I said nothing offensive. I pointed out his flagrant hypocricy, and if you want to flag that then go ahead.
Mike22685
We are all trying to learn together. Understanding God's Word can be a great challenge. We need to let the Holy Spirit help us develope the "ears" to hear.
Prophet is learning as well and your slander of his efforts are not necessary. We could have chosen to flag your comment but instead we chose correction.
God Bless.
Feetxxxl
Prophet has stated it simply and accurately. And this has also been stated before in this blog.
God's Word cannot contradict itself. When Fornication, Adultery, and/or Homosexual practices enter any relationship, this becomes dishonorable to God.
We cannot change the meaning of any commandment to counter what God has said. Creating such a contradiction brings further dishonor to God.
I'm sorry if you feel that you need to discredit responces because you are not getting the answer you want.
If our thoughts and perspectives do not line up with God's Word, we need to be open to correction.
I do not know how much longer CP will keep this article linked on the main page. For as long as they do, please have patience with our responces.
God Bless.
Prophet, when you sin (as in being prideful enough to call yourself a prophet) you do not love God because you are disobeying him.
feet,
The spirit of the law is that we love God and each other. When you sin (as in homosexuality), you do not love God, because you are disobeying Him.
prophet, in the case of your friend there is no direct bloodline between the wife and now her former brother in law. But I was indeed surprised that 1st cousins could marry since I was led to believe the possiblity of birth defects was so high. But I do agree that the moral implications in marriage is the more important issue as opposed to the genetics issue.
feet, but you refuse to deal with the sin of violating the Fruit of the Holy Spirit that is the fruit of self-control!
feetxxxl
You asked...
"how does same gender bonding that is motivated by the same spirit as opposite sex bonding which is for the same purposes.................a shared committed life together come against it?"
I want to make sure I understand that we are only talking about "gender bonding" in either case.
Bonding for gender reasons only vs bonding for gender and sexual reasons are different forms of bonding.
The objectives are not the same.
YOU ARE TRYING TO CREATE RABBIT TRAILS.......why dont merely answer my questions. of course im speaking about one flesh bonding. sexuality is an expression of the devotion to that bonded relationship
of all the things i have mentioned i find it interesting that rather than confront my points you bring up points to obfuscate what is being discussed.
Also, another key difference in the two Covenants is that the Old Covenant was given to Israel to be an example to the surrounding Gentile nations.
The New Covenant was given to both Jews and Gentiles just the same. A controversy arose in the early church since the Jewish converts believed that the Gentile converts should still be knowledgeable of the principles of the Law.
But they decided that this was not to be a prerequisite to being taught the Word of God and being Born Again.
The Gentiles converts were recieving the Baptism of the Holy Spirit even without full knowledge of the Law.
The did not make the Law invalid. It only meant that we still follow according to the Spirit of the Law.
WHERE DID I SAY THE LAW WAS INVALID?
IT APPEARS THAT YOU ARE EITHER INCAPABLE OR UNWILLING TO ANSWER ANY OF MY POINTS.
What it comes down to in this day and age, is that incest marriages (among adults, for those sickos on here who have a child fetish) is outlawed on moral issues, rather than genetic. And as we know, man's morals change with time (as seen with our views of homosexuality).
Uh, yah. LOL.
But I still like the "If you get married three times, and still have the same in-laws....you might be a redneck". I have a friend who married a guy, who was killed in Desert Storm, and then just married his brother recently.
prophet, so are you saying it's true that some family trees might be a Christmas Wreath or travel in a straight line!
believer,
Yes, it is between first cousins.
http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/a/cousin.htm
prophet, so Jeff Foxworthy might have to take that out of his reasons why you might be a redneck is if you go to the family reunion to pick up a date!
prophet, yes, but isn't it like third and fourth and maybe even second, but I don't believe any allow first cousins, but I could be wrong.
feetxxxl
You asked...
"how does same gender bonding that is motivated by the same spirit as opposite sex bonding which is for the same purposes.................a shared committed life together come against it?"
I want to make sure I understand that we are only talking about "gender bonding" in either case.
Bonding for gender reasons only vs bonding for gender and sexual reasons are different forms of bonding.
The objectives are not the same.
Also, another key difference in the two Covenants is that the Old Covenant was given to Israel to be an example to the surrounding Gentile nations.
The New Covenant was given to both Jews and Gentiles just the same. A controversy arose in the early church since the Jewish converts believed that the Gentile converts should still be knowledgeable of the principles of the Law.
But they decided that this was not to be a prerequisite to being taught the Word of God and being Born Again.
The Gentiles converts were recieving the Baptism of the Holy Spirit even without full knowledge of the Law.
The did not make the Law invalid. It only meant that we still follow according to the Spirit of the Law.
Believer,
Cousins marrying cousins is legal in 20 states and D.C. already.
feetxxxl, "homosexuals compared to heterosexuals..."
Specific biblical directive for heterosexual relationships: "Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife" (1Pe 3:7).
Specific biblical directive for homosexual relationships:
mike22685, the bottomline is what can be done to stop adult relatives in any combination from being married?
mike22685, so then what will the new definition for marriage be if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land? Will adult siblings be afforded the right to marry, how about adult first cousins, and what about bi-sexuals will they be allowed the right to marry both a male and a female if they desire? And I agree I don't believe our nation has sunk that low that they would allow for adults to marry children, but that won't stop NAMBLA from persuing it under the grounds of the lack of a definition for marriage.
Anyone (feet) want to explain away the first commandment, and the fact that it is broken when you sin.
consider how the understanding of the 2nd commandment has transformed, from "neighbor" meaning someone in your clan, to anyone who is a good neighbor, to everyone else.
Love for Enemies
matt5: 43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.'
44But I tell you: Love your enemies[b] and pray for those who persecute you,
the same verb agapao, is used in both verses.....5:43 and 44.
gal5:13You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature[a]; rather, serve one another in love. 14The ENTIRE LAW is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."[
wrhalver
perhaps you should consider rereading romans and the scriptures i presented
or you could answer paragraph by paragraph
or you could just merely answer my question.......
how does same gender bonding that is motivated by the same spirit as opposite sex bonding which is for the same purposes.................a shared committed life together come against it?
So, Mike,
Now that I've shot your argument to shreds, any other narrowminded objections you have?
" A child simply isn't capable of having a relationship..."
Please please....you're twisted mind needs some self control. In case you haven't noticed, we're not talking about children involved in incestuous marriages. Because just talking about marriage excludes them from the topic. But every homosexual I talk to always brings out children when incest marriages are brought up. Makes me wonder what's really going on in their mind....
"...and popular scientific belief is that incestuous relationships are triggered by some form of abuse, contrary to homosexuality which is not known.)"
Abuse leads to many things...incest, homosexuality, alcoholism, murder, etc, etc.
What's your point? Other than you simply think that incest relationships are disgusting, which is pretty shallow.
mike,
"Incest is not a sexual orientation..."
Yes it is. Most, if not all, are heterosexuals. And therefore their right to marry should be protected under heterosexual marriages.
feetxxx, "homosexuals compared to heterosexuals..."
Specific biblical directive for heterosexual relationships: "Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them" (Col 3:19).
Specific biblical directive for homosexual relationships:
Believer, common sense! Who did interracial marriages hurt? No one, at all. Did people object to them on "moral" grounds? Absolutely! Who do gay marriages hurt? No one, at all. Incest is not a sexual orientation, and it is not something you are born with (you are not born loving your sibling or father, and popular scientific belief is that incestuous relationships are triggered by some form of abuse, contrary to homosexuality which is not known.) NAMBLA seeks to please themselves without regard to the psychological well being of the person they want to love, which isn't really love. My partner and I bring out the best in each other, but we also love each other enough to have hard conversations and call each other out. A child simply isn't capable of having a relationship, especially not with an older man. I believe the common sense of our society can see the difference between a marriage which hurts no one and a marriage that would ultimately damage a person's well being.
feet, I see you're still avoiding the violating of the fruit of self-control, plus the only Old Testament law where the death penalty was mandatory was murder all the other violations of laws that could call for the death penalty could be settled by other means. I believe you'll find that in Numbers 23:24.
mike22685, it doesn't matter if NAMBLA is a big or small group, what I'm saying is they know that if the definition of traditional marriage is trashed that it will provide them with a great opportunity to get their lifestyle legitamized and the question of whether or not they should be allowed to marry minor boys put on the table and so do bisexuals and as I stated earlier what's to stop adult siblings or first cousins from marrying each other?
feet feet feet...
BOTH laws are a sumnation. You cannot do away with the first law, which supercedes the second. If "loving" our neighbor (or partner) is disobedience to God, then you have failed.
feetxxxl
You through out a lot there.
But you seem very concentrated on the application of the 2nd commandment, especially the word Love.
In the Greek, it is the same word used to describe our relationship to God given in the 1st commandment.
But you have said....
"all those laws that we no longer observe are because either, they come against the 2nd commandment(laws about commiting ethnic slavery or burning witches at the stake) or they do not address its essence(laws about eating, wearing mixed fabric keeping the sabbath holy, the mandate of circumcision)"
I'm not understanding how you are trying to relate the following of (or not following) of these laws to the sense of love in the 2nd commandment. Please explain.
Loving God comes first. Loving our neighbor is secondary. Christ did not change the order of these commandments.
Believer, you blow NAMBLA up into this huge group. Their membership is around 1,000 nationally, verses the human right campaign which has hundreds of thousands. NAMBLA represents a group of people seeking to change the age of consent for sex and marriage. They will need to do a tremendous amount of work in order to get any progress, so despite how much you pretend they are an active force to be reckoned with, they will ultimately go nowhere.
Prophet, you consistently put words in my mouth. I have said I am against incest because it negatively effects children should they procreate. You then go down some imaginary path where they love each other so much that they get their parts snipped so they can't have kids, then act all proud as if you've backed me into a corner. I have yet to hear of a single case of brother and sister or father daughter come forward and say "hey, gay marriage is passing, lets give it a go!"
PS, Prophet, are you actually calling yourself a prophet?!? Someone needs to knock you off your high horse buddy. You are far from it by your behavior alone. True prophets are enlightened, you act like a school yard bully.
romans7:5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we SERVE in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
serving of the spirit:
the law is now for making us conscious of loving our neighbor as ourselves, the summation of all the law.
if love is the fulfillment of the law, then by following the 2nd comandment we do more than follow the law we fulfill it.
under the new covenent all law must carry the essence of the 2nd commandment, because it is summation of all the law.
all those laws that we no longer observe are because either, they come against the 2nd commandment(laws about commiting ethnic slavery or burning witches at the stake) or they do not address its essence(laws about eating, wearing mixed fabric keeping the sabbath holy, the mandate of circumcision)
therefore for homosexuality to be a sin it must come against the commmandment.
how does same gender bonding that is motivated by the same spirit as opposite sex bonding which is for the same purposes.................a shared committed life together come against it?
a bonding that produces homes for loving and nurturing children equal to those of heterosexual bonded couples. the homes of married gay couples being equal to married heterosexual couples.
how does it come against the commandment?
numbers 15 denotes a people living under the law. are you saying this is how in christ we are to live the same way. because in your declaration of homosexuality being a sin you are maintaining the same relationship to the law as in numbers................ the old relationship...........and in doing so....
you negate romans.
you negate "you will recognize them by their fruit"
you negate gal5 paul's declaration of the fruit of the spirit
you negate the parable of the good tree producing good fruit.
The Sabbath-Breaker Put to Death
num15:32 While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.
feet,
Knowing the mind of God. What's wrong with that? Can I know everything about everything that God knows? Probably not. But God does show people certain things. Being a prophet, called by God through prophets, trained by prophets, and having prophet mentors, there is a lot about prophets that 95% of people don't know.
Many people are afraid of prophets because they think that prophets can read their mind. Wrong. I only know what God chooses to tell me. I am nothing more than a vessel.
Some people think prophets are here to speak good things to them. Some people think they are here to speak bad things to them. Both are wrong, to a certain extent. Prophets merely speak what God tells them to. And whatever they speak should be to edify, teach, or warn a person, or people...whether the person/people deem it as good or bad.
I've had prophets point out sin in my life. Is that good or bad? Depends on how mature you are. If you're immature, and a prophet points out sin in your life, you will be defensive, angry, try to justify it, and call the prophet a liar. If you're mature, you will embrace the warning and change what needs to be changed.
So, to get to the point, yes we can know the mind of God to whatever extent He so chooses to tell us.
The Bible does tell us that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. Which tells me that really, all the mind of God we need to know is in the Bible. And if you know the scriptures, you will know the mind of God. And God calls homosexuality a sin in His Word. So that is the mind of God.
feetxxxl
You have said....
"if that is your understanding of the old in relationship to the new testament what do you make of hebrews 8?"
The Old Covenant was made with the blood of sacrificed animals with no eternal promise. Faulty.
The New Covenant was made with the blood of the sacrificed Saviour with eternal promise.
Christ said he would send the Holy Spirit to us to be our guide and reminder of the scriptures.
It is by the Holy Spirit that our "eyes" are opened to a better understanding of God intentions.
Man cannot truly understand God based upon his own reasoning.
feet, we don't claim to know the mind of God, but we do know the will of God in this matter because His Word clearly states His will and design in this matter and His Son, Jesus Christ affirmed the will of His Father in these matters.
mike22685, then why is NAMBLA biting at the bit for same-sex marriages/unions to be approved? Because they know if these laws are passed the door has been swung wide open for them to promote acceptance of both their lifestyle and right to marry.
god's design........................for you to claim to know it you have credit yourself with knowing the mind of god. this i have said, one is required to credit himself with in order to claim homosexuality.
where is the word "only" in matthew 19 in regards to heterosexual relationships.
design......... to make a plan.
to credit yourself with knowing the plan. you have credited yourself with knowing the mind of the planner. does man know the mind of another human? how can he credit himself with knowing the mind of god................particularly when scripture specifically states "your thoughts are not my thoughts."
surely one cannot get this by merely reading scripture, no more than one would know the mind of an author by reading one of his books.
if you can please give the name of the author and his book.
if that is your understanding of the old in relationship to the new testament what do you make of hebrews 8?
Mike,
Despite what I might spin? How about convesations we've had in the past where you were adamantly opposed to incest marriages?
Feet,
Under the new covenant BOTH commandments are summnation of the law. The first commandment is to love the Lord with all your heart, soul, and mind. God said homosexuality is a sin. If you choose to disobey Him then you do not love Him and have broken the first law.
feetxxxl
You have said....
"under the new covenant...............the second commandment is the summation of all the law. so now all law that is held up, carries the essence of the 2nd commandment"
Before Christ, and after, the commandments are the same:
Mat 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Also, I'm not clear about the common reference you are drawing between Homosexuals and Heterosexuals.
God has designed a balance between a man and woman. The scriptures are very clear about this. This balance is intended to bring honor to God, and demonstrate the relationship that God wants to have with His very own Bride.
This balance is not reflected in any other form of relationship.
feetxxxl, "homosexuals compared to heterosexuals..."
Specific biblical directive for heterosexual relationships: "Husbands, love your wives" (Eph 5:25).
Specific biblical directive for homosexual relationships:
wrhalver
do you concur that homosexuals like heterosexuals bond out of mutual love respect,love, devotion,affection and trust for a shared committed life together.
and the homosexuals compared to heterosexuals have been found wanting in any sector of society.
jesus said you would recognize them by their fruit.
and 1 thess5:20 says test EVERYTHING, keep the good.
and there is the parable about good tree cannot produce bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot produce good fruit.
under the new covenant...............the second commandment is the summation of all the law. so now all law that is held up, carries the essence of the 2nd commandment.
believer, the thing is: the exact same thing was said when interracial marriage began! I don't think the flood gates are opening to whomever wants to marry. I think each and every case is an individual one, and if polygamists someday want marriage, then they will need to present their case as to why it is not constitutional that their marriage right is not allowed.
feetxxxl
These gentlemen were searching for scripture which "sanctions" the sexual sins. Some of these sins were specifically mentioned by Prophet.
It is clear in the Law that God presents the Israelites with these sanctions.
It is also clear that societies have changed and we do not have the same comparable lifestyles as those who lived when these laws were handed down.
But surely we are intelligent enough to understand that it is not the letter of the Law that is important, rather the Spirit of the Law as was pointed out.
While it is true that our laws today do not advocate putting an adulterous woman to death, it shows us how liberal our laws have become in comparison to how God wanted us to view adultery.
And while I have not been given a field to plant crops in year after year, I am made aware of God's concerns for these areas of nature and what I am to follow.
Our practice of sexual sins today appears to be no different than that which has been practiced from the beggining of time. Adultery is adultery, fornication is fornication, homosexuality is homosexuality.
In respect to sexual sin, I do not see how the letter and Spirit of the Law have changed.
mike22685, do you see my point if we allow for same-sex marriages/unions we open the floodgates to a polthera of marriage options and what grounds do we have to stop them since we no longer have a solid definition for marriage? Plus, Luke Skywalker had a thing for Princess Leah until he found out she was his sister, just kidding!!:) Plus its late and I'm heading to the bed!!!
Yea, but see, you had to change some words in order to make a point...the issues aren't as parallel as you'd have them be. Sorry.
Mike, lets take a look at something you posted a bit ago...
"prophet, there is a huge difference between disagreeing and denying a right. I disagree with abortion personally. I would never encourage a woman to get one and I think they are too easy to get, but I also think I don't have the right to tell someone else they cannot have one. "
a few changed words and you can say this
"prophet, there is a huge difference between disagreeing and denying a right. I disagree with murder personally. I would never encourage a person to kill and I think it is easy to do, but I also think I don't have the right to tell someone else they cannot kill. "
Don't you see the point, if you don't stand up for one wrong then all the wrongs become right....
Believer, I'll be quite honest with you: I don't understand polygamy or incest enough to really have a strong view on it, despite what Prophet may try to spin. I tend to reject polygamy (again, without knowing much about it) because it seems to be a man having multiple wives and I'm not sure you can truly love multiple people. To me, love is that sole dedication to one person, for life. As far as incest, I think my issue is that the children they would have are guaranteed to have birth defects, and I think there needs to be a psychological issue in order for you to become romantically involved with a sibling. You aren't born loving a sibling in that manner, but I think we are all born with an innate sexual orientation (whether you are attracted to males or females.)
wr halver
surely you realize that not all prohibitions of lev. of themselves are sins and some of its sanctioned directings are today intolerable evils.
why is it you feel so comfortable being led by the law, romans says we are to be led by and serve the spirit.
if we follow the law we receive no righteousness. while if we have faith in the spirit we have faith in the truth, the life, and the way.
Mike,
So if a brothers and sisters started pushing for their rights, would you support them and vote to get their rights protected?
mike22685, then you would be okay with polygamy or adult brothers and sisters marrying each other or adult brothers marrying each other or adult sisters doing the same? Would it be okay for a bisexual to have one of each a male partner and a female partner? But you are opposed to Mr. Ed marrying Wilbur, just kidding!!
wr, its clear you don't know anything else in lev. if you don't know the verses surrounding chapter 19. Do you shave your beard or trim your sideburns? Do you plant different crops in the same field? Do you advocate that adulterous women be put to death? All of that is Lev. as well, so unless you are an A La Carte Christian i don't see what your point is.
prophet, there is a huge difference between disagreeing and denying a right. I disagree with abortion personally. I would never encourage a woman to get one and I think they are too easy to get, but I also think I don't have the right to tell someone else they cannot have one.
Believer, civil marriage is a legal contract between 2 people in love. Religion can certainly still say its 1 man-1 woman and I have said multiple times I would vehemently oppose any legislation to try and force a religion to change their views. Again, I think any rational thinker can see the difference between 2 consenting adults and a non-consenting adult/child or adult/animal "relationship."
mike, if same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land then what would the definition of marriage be or could there even be one?
feet, that's because a married heterosexual couple is living within the confines of God's original and only design for marriage and are free to have sexual intimacy with each other and a homosexual couple is not and therefore if they are having sexual intimacy they are violating both God's design for marriage and sexual intimacy.
You're not one to deny anyone their right? And yet you said yourself that incest couples should not be allowed to marry?
Is it just me, or does anyone else see mike speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
Mike22685
You have said....
Wr, I think you need to read up on the verses surrounding chapter 18. You might be surprised to find out what is said in there that we no longer follow.
The laws regarding sexual relations are the same now as they were when God first handed them down. I don't see our ways being any different.
Now if you happen to be raising any of the beasts or animals mentioned in the law, then these commandments are to be followed as well.
Social changes or generational changes, neither changes what is in God's Law.
The word of God gives specific instructions to husbands and wives, but not husbands and husbands or wives and wives. "Christian" homosexuals must believe that they are better than husbands and wives, that they are special and above personal guidance and need no specific instructions. Such would be a haughty attitude.
Prophet, I am not one to deny anyone rights. I think the Supreme Courts need to decide these matters for what they interpret to be constitutional or not. I don't think anyone's rights should be put up to a majority vote.
Wr, I think you need to read up on the verses surrounding chapter 18. You might be surprised to find out what is said in there that we no longer follow.
Perhaps it might be good idea to read up on Leviticus chapter 18. It is pretty well laid out there.
Christ did not come to replace the Law, but to fulfill it. Christ did not make these cammandments invalid.
Rant all you want, you can't drown out the truth, mike. you're rhetoric shines through your posts. You want rights for homosexuals, and homosexuals alone. Who are you to deny marriage to two people who love each other whether they were "born that way" or not?
By the way, that's not a rhetorical question. I would really like an answer to that.
mike,
"I must be a bigot to not support a group of people who are in no way, shape or form tied to me and my love for my partner.'
And you say the same about me because I do not support a group of people who are in no way, shape or form tied to me and my love for my wife.
Prophet, you again try to force a view into my mind. Because I am gay, I must be a bigot to not support a group of people who are in no way, shape or form tied to me and my love for my partner. You think I judge you more? HA, funny funny. I think it is pretty clear to the average American the difference between a gay relationship and a relationship with an animal or with your sibling. You are not born to fall in love with a sibling, but you are born to love a man or woman. Incest is not a sexual orientation.
Where does Jesus speak out against incest? Beastiality? Necrophilia? And I know you're going to say that marriage is between two consenting adults. Who are you to define what marriage is? Christians try to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only and you call us judgemental, and then turn around and prove that we are less judgemental than you.
Mike,
So incest relationships are ok? And please don't give me that worn out, worthless argument that incest marriages produce children with defects. Because, according to homosexuals, marriage isn't about procreation (since homosexuals can't procreate), it's about love. And if you're going to use that lame duck as your stallion to ride on, you need to deny those with dwarfism from procreating as well.
Marriage is about love. Period. (Regardless of how perverted, sinful, and anti-scriptural it is). And love is love, regardless of who it is...at least that's what the homosexuals say. But it's not true because homosexuality isn't real, God-created love. It is a twisted perverted love.
Prophet, I'm still looking for where it says the internet or flying in a plane are OK. Let me know if you find anything about the life partner thing, and I'll keep you updated as well. Happy reading!
i dont get it. in heterosexual unions satisfaction and consistent frequency of sexual intimacy in devoted relationship represents a healthy union..................there is no violation of self control.......the intimacy is considered a way of honoring the commitment to the union. how does different genders doing the same thing make it lack of self control.
Proverb 31 talks about what a virtuous wife is. I'm still looking for the chapter that talks about what a good life partner is.
mike22685, been missing your posts hope you and yours had a good and safe Thanksgiving!
"Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God" (Mt 22:29).
So then it should be illegal for men not to get married, since the Bible says EVERY? Maybe we should bring back arranged marriages so that we can force everyone to get married and carry out God's word.
"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband" (1Co 7:2).
Men who cannot contain but seek another man instead of a wife are rejecting the word EVERY. They have removed themselves from being led by the Spirit of God, elevating themselves to a position outside biblical truth.
feet, Scripture clearly teaches that sexual intimacy is reserved for the marriage bed and at this time very few states allow for same-sex marriage which means that every homosexual couple not officially married who are engaged in sexual intimacy with their partner are living in sin in the sight of God. Secondly, even in those states where same-sex marriage is legal they are still living in sin if they are having sexual intimacy with their partner because in the sight of God they are not married because His original and only design for marriage is one man and one woman united as one in the sight of God for life. Therefore, as a minimum they are sinning against one of the fruits of the Holy Spirit, self-control.
please explain what part of being given to another for a shared committed life together motivated by mutual love,respect,devotion,and trust is not about self control?
when does love not become love and devotion not become devotion?
loss of self control would be being given over to a spirit that comes against these.
feetxxxl, "test everything, keep the good."
Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD. --Pr 18:22
feet, but yet you refuse to come to grips with the "fruit" of self-control and you continue to ignore Christ's challenge to every believer that if we love Christ and if we love His Father we will keep/obey His commands. Plus you give the 2nd part of the Great Commandment a higher priority than it deserves by continually ignoring the 1st part which can only be fulfilled by our obedience to God. Love equals obedience, but obedience does not always equal love.
And so sin is done away with, as is the consequences. Because love is blind.
the whole difference between the old and new covenent stems from the uplifted precedence of the 2nd commandment. all the rules from ethnic slavery, to burning witches at the stake, to the rules for eating, to keeping of the sabbath holy, to killing ones progeny for their cursing their parents have become subordinate to the spirit of the second commandment, which now makes everyone else your neighbor. that is from your parents, to your siblings,to your spouse, to your friends, to your neighbor, even to your enemies.
that is why the directives to" test everything, keep the good." because there is no law that can cover every situation. and because under the new covenent we are led by and serve the spirit. because the god we worship is spirit, and to be part of him we must be part of his spirit.
that is why the directive about" you will recognize them by their fruit". that it is thru regonition of spiritual fruit that we will recognize what is of the spirit of god.
that is why we called in romans to be led by the spirit, rather than the law, because it is by and thru the spirit that we are convicted of all truth.
however you to espouse a theology choses to led by the law, because it cannot stand up to a test of spiritual fruit. it cannot stand up any witness of the spirit.
instead it remains transfixed on an interpretation of regulation, and an obedience to that interpretation. as if to reestablish an old relationship to the law similar to.........................
num15:32 While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the LORD said to Moses, "The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp." 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses.
feet, excellent attempt at taking a verse out of its original context which was Paul speaking to believers with regards to their being subject to government and how to live as good citizens, it in no way teaches them that part 2 of the Great Commandment takes precedence over part 1, please note it is ONE commandment that we are to wholeheartedly love God and to do that we are to keep/obey ALL His commands and in doing so not only do we show the world we love God more than anyone or anything else and as a result it gives us the ability and desire to love our neighbors as ourself.
"you really have no understanding what transpired in germany during the war."
Actually...the town I grew up in between 4th - 7th, 9th grades was a town full of people who fled Germany. The Hitler and his buddies used politics to run 'religion' out of Germany and replace it with puppet religion. Those who stood up for their bliefs were sent to their maker or escaped to the west.
If WWII teaches us anything about Christianity it's that we should not stand by while courts undermine the Constitution in the name of a minority group.
Romans 13:9
The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
Mark 12:31 (New International Version)
31The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[a]There is no commandment greater than these."
your intention is to make any law of god greater than than this, including biblical understandings of the old covenent, that they should supercede those of the new.
when scripture says the reverse.
feet, there you go again ignoring Part 1 of the Great Commandment to justify a sinful lifestyle, as Christ said several times, if we love God we will keep/obey His commands to include obeying His original and only design for marriage and sexual intimacy.
the gospel teaches love your neighbor as yourself......there is none greater. christian culture has attempted to supplant this with"love your family"
jesus gave us no credit for loving those who love us..........."even the pagans do this."
According to the Bible, Christianity and homosexuality aren't compatible. So if there is a church teaching the acceptance of homosexuality then they are not preaching the Truth. I don't want to go to a church that doesn't preach the truth.
See, what's happened at an inclusive church is that they've exchanged the truth for a lie, and have compromised the Scriptures for the sake of being either accepted by man or to be politically correct. Neither of which Jesus was.
This article makes the assumption and prejudicial statement (pre-judgement) that Christianity and pro-family values are incompatible with being gay.
Not so.
Just attend any service at an inclusive church you will see plenty of Christian families with gay heads of households.
Prof: "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."
What are the whack jobs always incoherent? I haven't a clue what "their leaders per capita" means - neither does he I suspect. Could this guy possibly employ less critical thinking?
FWIW; No. I do not believe that this nut is representative of Christians.
profesor x
all theory. you have not a scintilla of personal witness to validate it. arent you even slightly concerned about the issue of false witness.
you,like the others who speak so flagrantly against homosexuals, would never consider speaking these same words face to face to those you accuse.
feet, please define what makes in your mind a nation a Christian nation? The problem in Germany prior to the Nazi takeover was the same thing that has happened in our own country when many who call themselves Christians vote with their wallet rather than with their hearts. As a result Hitler and his thugs came into power and intially the church stood silent until they realized what his true agenda was and even then they were reluctant to do anything. Plus, they were so consumed with taking care of self that they chose to look the other way with regards to things being carried out by the Nazi Party even prior to them coming into power. For me personally I do not believe Germany was a Christian nation.
Wow Feet, that was probably the most readable thing you've ever written on here.
Now I may be a little ignorant of all the things that transpired in WWII, but I do know that to claim Hitler as a Christian is complete bologny! He may have claimed to be but he was in no way a follower of Christ.
Remember, the anti-christ is supposed to have Christ-like appeal also. So can other non-christians. Take the mormons for example....oops did I say that out loud?? O:
you really have no understanding what transpired in germany during the war.
then how come bonhoeffer, the movement he was part of prior to and during the war, all the catholic and lutheran churches and associated clergy, church attendance and celebration of the sacraments, and biblical events before and throughout the war. the fact that hitler needed to use euphemisms and secrecy to hide the use of the death camps from the german people, the 50,000 people who put their lives on the line to hide and transport jews out of the country.
feet, nobody said anything about Germany being a Christian nation and it certainly was in no way a Christian nation when the Third Reich was in power.
in regards to germany being a christian country. germany in the 1500's was the first country to receive the bible in their own language. to my knowledsge germany never went thru a period as did england, where personal ownership of a bible was a capital offense.
martin luther was regaled during this same time as a national hero. however martin luther late in his life was responsible for a number of antisemtic writings(in spite of romans 10 and 11) that were so severe("nothing is too extreme in the handling of the jews") that hitler found it useful for supporting his treatment of the jews. the national churches of germany were catholic(hitler was never excommunicated) and lutheran. both churches played a definitve role in getting hitler elected to chancellor.
so, yes it was christian country that conducted the halocaust.
however it was not just germany that was antisemmetic but the entire world. and it was this worldwide denegating climate that influenced and in a way supported hitler to do what he did.
had one credible world figure(the existence of his death camps were widely known thoughout worldwide counterintelligence circles, and in addition also the vatican)had spoken, out, hitler would have had to stop the extermination.
in regards to homoseexuality in the third reich, if you check any historical writings you will find that along with the retarded and insane, homosexuals was one of the first groups to be rounded up to be slaughtered(this is even before the jews)
dh, I believe the major part that Christians played in the Holocaust was that we stood by and basically did nothing.
dh, I was the one who mentioned the Third Reich, but I do agree that there is no way to conclude that embracing homosexuality alone will cause the downfall of a nation. But at the same time blatant sexual sin is usually a part of the equation and is at times a major player in the overall moral decay that was a key player in the downfall.
I never mentioned the Third Reich - at least I don't think so. BTW, Schaeffer suggests that Christians share some responsibility for the Holocaust. Nevertheless, the REAL issue in this forum (stated or not) is the oft-made claim that (quoting Sally Kern) "Studies show that no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than, you know, a few decades." Aside from the fact that Kern is a nitwit, that statement is completely false on its face. For example, Alexander the Great was openly gay and the Greek empire prospered for almost 200 years after his death. In fact, Hellenistic culture prevailed long thereafter. Indeed, the Hellenistic era was Greece's golden age. Rome's repression and slavery and the Holocaust are depraved indifference to human life. Embracing homosexuality (whatever that means) is not depraved nor representative of moral decay. How consenting adults choose to have sex cannot be demonstrated to have adverse consequences to society. However inconvenient history may be to some points of view, it is what it is. Sexual orientation is really an historical yawn.
dh, are you truly delusional or you're just pretending to be? No one is saying that the reasons you share were not part of the reason those nations fell if not the major reason, but I noticed you stayed away from the Holocaust as part of the reason for the fall of the Third Reich. You also stayed away from greed being a key player in our recent financial crisis. We are saying and history clearly supports the fact that moral decay if left unchecked will lead to the fall of nations and empires by acting as a catalyst if it is not the heart of the problem for the fall in the first place.
Schaeffer.was a man of great erudition and intellectual integrity. His writings are also esoteric. Scholars are still debating whether or not Schaeffer was a dominionist.
More importantly, Schaeffer was an activist who expressed his world view as a theologian in contrast to an historian. The leading authorities on the decline of Rome are Gibbon, Toynbee, Bury, Burke and Barlett. I'm sure there are a dozen more that I am unaware of. Nevertheless, none of these scholars correlate changes in sexuality to the fall of the Roman Empire.
Spain and Greece are simpler issues. Spain had the inquisition and then fought a war to remove Protestant Elizabeth from the English throne. In the process, they lost their entire armada, The decline of the Hellenistic era in Greece (Alexander croaks to Rome occupies around 128 BC) is a direct result of over-extension and constant internal strife from areas at great distance from each other.
No, gay couples do NOT marry. Marriage is instituted of God, between one man and one woman.
No matter what society thinks, declares, votes on, takes polls on, or does, God will not change His definition.
feet,
I am aware of that. And I am praying for God's conviction in your church.
"no scholar has suggested that is has anything to do with sexual practices. "
Your 'scholar' list is obviously shorter than mine. Sexual practices and other 'practices' are evident of a moral decline which is consistant with the decline of each civilization you mentioned. The acceptance of sexual deviation in many forms which included homosexuality was a key sign of the decline.
Every freshman at the college I went to had to take Western Man which was a socialogical study of Western Civilization in the areas of politics, religion, art, science and such. We mapped each societys rise and fall starting in 60 BC. Quite consistant!
Try reading the collective works of Francis Schaeffer. That should keep you busy for a while. The one I'd start with is "Whatever Happened to the Human Race? (Exposing our rapid yet subtle loss of human rights)".
dh, I have not used the word homosexuality once in my posts to you, but I have used the term moral decay which may or may not include the sexual practices of homosexuality which would certainly according to the Word of God be seen as morally wrong. My issue with your posts is the fact that you imply moral decay was not in part responsible for the fall of many nations and empires either as a catalyst or perhaps even as the root cause. If Nazi Germany would have stayed focused on the war as opposed to the extermination of the Jews they very well might have won the war in Europe, but instead they lost the war and the Third Reich fell.
the gay couples in my church marry.
"dh, your complete disregard for truth amazes me"
That's rhetorical and you continue to beg the question - another baloney sandwich.
"Disregard for the truth" constitutes an intentional misrepresentation of the fact. The first component of that would be where I am incorrect on the facts. You haven't cited a factual error.
The second component presents an impossible burden unless you profess to being a mind reader. I'll simply state that I present arguments with a good faith belief that they are accurate.
The simple fact is that there seems to be a talking point of "every civilization that has embraced homosexuality has failed."
The three declines of civilizations (or empires) most often cited by scholars are Greece, Rome and Spain. While there are differing opinions for their decline (particularly with regard to Rome), no scholar has suggested that is has anything to do with sexual practices.
Great article from CrossWalk.com (of all places):
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/commentary/11596130/
I used to be a sex addict. And when I was going through that I talked with drug addicts about my problems and what I felt and went through. It was almost the exact same thing that they went through in their addiction to drugs.
I believe that any addiction is induced spiritually at first. And what happens physically is a symptom of that.
dh, your complete disregard for truth amazes me, but since you reject God's truth as well it doesn't surprise me. And your salt analogy also reveals your inability to carry on a mature discussion.
Feet said: "surely you can differeniate this with from drug(legal, illegal, internal etc) induced and sexual addictive or lust initiated relations."
I have, and I consider anything outside of a marriage between one man and one woman to be 'sexual addictive or lust initiated relations.'
C'mon man. People can get addicted to anything they want to. It doesn't require an actual substance to do it. Anything that makes you feel good can be addictive. Gambling, Alcohol, Sex, Food.
what has this to do with human bonding for a shared committed life together.
surely you can differeniate this with from drug(legal, illegal, internal etc) induced and sexual addictive or lust initiated relations.
Feet said: "here again you are comparing an addictive process which results in putting carcinagenic particles into the lungs and body with a human bonding based on mutual love, respect, devotion, affection for a shared committed life together."
Umm, well if you want to bring science into the equation they say that sex feeds chemicals to the brain. They also say we're attracted to other people by their scent. So those must be more of an addiction than the love you say they are.
C'mon man. People can get addicted to anything they want to. It doesn't require an actual substance to do it. Anything that makes you feel good can be addictive. Gambling, Alcohol, Sex, Food.
"So is smoking...still kills and is unhealthy.
So is being drunk (in private)...still kills and is unhealthy.
The list goes on... so... what's your point? Legal doesn't mean right or moral. Just ask any lawyer. "
here again you are comparing an addictive process which results in putting carcinagenic particles into the lungs and body with a human bonding based on mutual love, respect, devotion, affection for a shared committed life together.
you do this by taking the word "abomination" in some biblical translations of lev that was expressed in the prohibition of same sex relations in the old covenent and imbue it with cultural attitudes passed down by generations regarding homosexuality, and ascribed all this as being of the new covenent. the problem is your validation is based on mere belief and is without supporting objective reason or valid witness.
the democracy of the free market system which this country is so proud, allowed for the possibility of setting up the eharmony service, free from religious prejudice, in the spirit of the idea that all that the courts deem legal should have the freedom to be able seek life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
and you immediately jump on demanding seperate but equal, which the have consistently deemed unjustifable
Let me make this easier:
Every civilization that has embraced the consumption of salt has ultimately failed or;
Every civilization that had a vowel in its name has ultimately failed.
dh, moral decay works much like cancer at first many people don't know they even have it and for a while there appears to be no negative impact but slowly but surely if not dealt with it begins to destroy their body and eventually kills them and the same is true with the moral decay of a nation. This financial crisis is a good example, for years there have been people like Larry Burkett who warned since at least the mid 80s that this was coming, they didn't know the specifics but they knew because of the greed of individuals and corporations this would happen. And I'm sure you can share a lot of data that led to this crisis but at the heart of the problem is moral decay and in this case it can be summed up in one phrase, greed in the hearts of men and women.
dh, Christianity was on the rise and so was the persecution of Christians as is true in countries like China today. And one of the reasons for the persecution is because many times Christians speak out against the moral decay that is destroying lives and nations. No one is negating the facts you are sharing but to say moral decay was not a part of many nations and empires downfall is both naive and ridiculous.
DelightntheLord, I am quite familiar with Gibbon's theory of moral decay. However, what Gibbon referred to was a decline is "civic virtue" which has nothing to do with sex. In fact, Gibbon says that civic virtue was eroded by Christianity as citizens were less concerned with the here and now.
There are many coincident forces that led to the fall of the Roman Empire (I am assuming 5th century in contrast to the fall of Constantinople in 1450 - I may be off by a year or two).
One common theme among scholars is the disintegration of the Roman army due to dependence upon Germanic recruits. A dependence upon slave labor is cited as a factor. Toynbee posits that the empire was doomed from the very beginning (essentially when the Republic became a monarchy) and that slave labor precluded a robust middle class.
Believer, you are framing a statement as a question. You want some mustard with that baloney?
Historical issues should probably not be addressed in hypothetical terms. Returning to Rome, you need to read Gibbon and appreciate that he is referring to a decline in civic virtue (the civic ethic). IIRC, Julius assumed dictatorial power in roughly 70 BC, followed by Augustus in around 86 BC (a few years either way is irrelevant) and Rome ceased to be an empire in 485 AD. Suggesting a moral decline doesn't match the history. Rome was morally corrupt throughout this entire period because of autocratic rule, dependence upon slave labor and draconian law. Indeed, the word "decimation" stems from the Roman practice of killing one out of every ten soldiers in a unit that lost a battle. Torture to death by crucifixion (it took several days to die) was the widely used method of capital punishment and so on. How much more depraved could Rome become? At the same time, Christianity was on the rise. Do you want to suggest that morality decayed concurrently? From the day that Julius assumed power, civic virtue declined for very pragmatic reasons. I can discuss Greece as well. The notion that civilizations failed as homosexuality gained acceptance is mythology. It's not the case in Rome, Persia, China, Greece or Spain.
dh, you're really not that naive to believe the moral decay of a nation does not act as a catalyst to it's downfall if that decay is not the primary reason for the fall?
DelightntheLord, I am quite familiar with Gibbon's theory of moral decay. However, what Gibbon referred to was a decline is "civic virtue" which has nothing to do with sex. In fact, Gibbon says that civic virtue was eroded by Christianity as citizens were less concerned with the here and now.
There are many coincident forces that led to the fall of the Roman Empire (I am assuming 5th century in contrast to the fall of Constantinople in 1450 - I may be off by a year or two).
One common theme among scholars is the disintegration of the Roman army due to dependence upon Germanic recruits. A dependence upon slave labor is cited as a factor. Toynbee posits that the empire was doomed from the very beginning (essentially when the Republic became a monarchy) and that slave labor precluded a robust middle class.
dh, at the heart of the downfall of any nation, major organization, and even churches and ministries is condoned moral decay which in many if not most cases involves sexual sin. At the heart of the very financial crisis were going through right now is greed as a result of the self-centered and self-serving mindset we have in our nation, what ever it costs to make me feel good or look good I'm willing to pay that cost appears to be the mindset of many and unfortunately it includes many who profess to be Christians.
"I am speculating..."
Yes, I can see that. It seems to be widespread phenomenon when one dismisses the Truth; really it's the only thing you have left once the Truth has been denied. It's all relative, right?
What of the petri dish of Rome and Greece? why did they fall?
"If they wanted to market a homosexual dating website they would have before this---without a court case, if they could make money from it."
I am speculating that they might have already had this on the drawing board when this one complaint was lodged which could explain why they didn't put up a fight.
"As you say only 12% of the population are homosexuals (I think it's much smaller percentage but whatever) what percent of 12% will use an online dating service?"
I said that the low end (Hunter College) is about 3%; The high end is 12%. The general consensus seems to be 5% to 7%. I have also stated that the numbers are irrelevant to most gay rights issues. I cannot answer your question. Most of our friends are in long term, committed and monogamous relationships. Mine is 28 years (we are very boring gays). We have a friend who met is wife through a Jewish singles program but I profess complete ignorance with respect to these web dating services.
"It's been empirically studied and we can witness it; the acceptance of homosexuality is one of the last steps a civilzation goes through before it caves in by decay."
a. Aside from factual inaccuracy, it's a flawed argument. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc; It happened after so it was caused by. It's an incorrect correlation of cause and effect.
b. Without writing a post-graduate thesis in limited space, that is an inaccurate characterization. I can actually make a stronger (although equally simplistic) argument for illiteracy as a factor at the fall of (for example) Rome based on a study of the condition of the Roman army and the dynamics of the volkswanderung. The fall of civilizations is extremely complex and not consistent across times and locales. From a historical perspective sexual orientation has nothing to do with these transitions.
DH...what part of this do you not get?
If they wanted to market a homosexual dating website they would have before this---without a court case, if they could make money from it.
As you say only 12% of the population are homosexuals (I think it's much smaller percentage but whatever) what percent of 12% will use an online dating service?
What percentage of Christians will cancel their subscriptions now? Probably more than 12%!
It's just not good business sense.
"They should just admit it was purely a business decision. Now they get free marketing in the gay communit"
You said it better than I did. Just stop blaming "me." It looks like EH has angered just about everyone on all sides.
YankFan and revtheophilus: Well said. One statement I hear Dr. Charles Stanley says over and over again is this: "Fight all your battles on your knees and leave all the consequences to God." From what I've read about Dr. Warren caving in to the gays is that it appears he stopped fighting the battle on his knees and didn't turn it over to God.
In His Grip,
SabbathKeeper
" to broaden their customer base. I suspect that they see gay dating as a means to revenue which might be why they conceded this issue without much fuss."
Yeah, we'll see how much income it produces. There are many to choose from.
eHarmony will have to,of course, OFFSET the business they will lose from their now performing investment by capitulating good business sense to guerilla tactics of the Politically Correct.
It was a business decision made under duress (to say the least) forced by one offended homosexual who files a lawsuit and who states he'll 'consider' signing up once they start a new website. It is to me, a fraudulent use of the legal system to use it as a soap box to get attention along with all the Proposition appeals. It is a systematic attack to break down the status quo and deliver a blow to not only righteousness but reasonableness of society.
DH, you are a man of science; are you also a man of history? Can you tell me the stages in which a declining civilization goes through before it no longer exisits? Tell me about the peer reviewed studies and all the published works about this well known subject.
It's been empirically studied and we can witness it; the acceptance of homosexuality is one of the last steps a civilzation goes through before it caves in by decay.
We who speak against this acceptance are fighting because we know this to be a fact of history. Be relative all you want; but no good will come from the wide acceptance of homosexuals...history has spoken.
""homosexuality is deemed in this country as a legal behavior. "
So is smoking...still kills and is unhealthy.
So is being drunk (in private)...still kills and is unhealthy.
The list goes on... so... what's your point? Legal doesn't mean right or moral. Just ask any lawyer.
Case and point...here in SC we have an Ethics Commission that looks over the ethics of our politicals... things are only "unethical" if money or some sort of monitary gain was involved. In short, morals and ethics are two different things when it comes to politics....
Homosexuality is a lifestyle (every gay and lesbian that I have personally known in over 30 years has used that term to describe themselves in private conversation, and I have interacted with hundreds at this point in life in my career) ... and homosexuals are no more tools of satan than adulterers, thieves, liars, gossips, etc. I suspect that each of us has done this one of these at some time.
I think that rev, DH and fx have analyzed it correctly (this was a marketing decision). But that fact does nothing to negate the appropriate rejection of the use of one's private money for purposes that are offensive (note that I state Private money and not taxes). We still have the right to avoid purchasing products and services from corporations who are offensive (I don't buy things from companies that pollute and refuse to clean it up at their own expense, for example). In legal terms, there still (barely) is a constitutional right of free association (see the Boy Scout case law) that eHarmony refused to assert. So I suspect that the marketers at eH are behind this announcement of the settlement, trying to play the "poor us, we're persecuted through the courts and see how those awful people made us do something that we know is offensive to our clientele" card to their primary customer base. This is what is despicable. They should just admit it was purely a business decision. Now they get free marketing in the gay community (some will subscribe just to "support" the new service as a slap at those mean evil Christians who have swallowed eHarm's bait and issue statement of lack of support). Pretty shrewd? Yes. Manipulative? Absolutely.
Feetxxxl, the more interesting thing is the fact that nobody in the homosexual community thought of this and implemented it first. They waited until a Chritian based site did all the work then sued for equal treatment and money, sounds really noble. Also, just because something is legal doesn't make it right, just makes it legal.
What the secular socitey fails to realize is that the Christian people of this country would like a dating site free from "alternative lifestyles" that go against their core beliefs, suing to get into something that was never intended for you to begin with is equivalent to throwing a tantrum because you dont get your way. I have no issue if the homosexual people want to set up thier own site, but they need to fork over the time, money and expertise on thier own instead of crying foul play. I wonder what research that new site would be based on? Maybe they should do research into homosexuality as relates to long committed relationships and see what they conclude. It seems that this new site is only setup to appease people who think everyone owes them something. If you want it, make it yourself.
"Dr. Warren was NOT forced to accept gay lifestyles into Eharmony. No one is forced to do business with satan;"
Oh please. It's not a lifestyle and we are not the tools of Satan. Why this obsession with gay people? How about all the divorcees and adulterers? I am sure that Newt thinks that all three of his traditional marriages were reverent. McCain? Reagan?
The answer is beyond the limitations of this forum but it constitutes selective observation. We're obviously an easier target with less risk of rebuke.
Whatever happened to "Love thy neighbor" or "Do unto others ...?"
For some reason, my post was removed. Most gay people are as uncomfortable with this issue as anyone else. We are also as sensitive to capitalism as anyone else. We are business owners too. If I start a gay dating service, I don't want Tony Perkins filing a complaint with the NYHRC that I must cater to everyone else.
eHarmony has been pretty shrewd. They knew that a relationship with Focus on the Family was beneficial. They also knew when to pull the plug to broaden their customer base. I suspect that they see gay dating as a means to revenue which might be why they conceded this issue without much fuss.
Delightnthe lord:
One flag will remove a post. I have accidentally flagged a post when I was trying to post a "thumbs down". Thumbs up is peach colored; thumbs down the grey hand.
Also: You can delete your own post by clicking "delete" even though it does not appear as a link.
The comments section on this site is not very intuitive, unfortunately.
Dr. Warren was NOT forced to accept gay lifestyles into Eharmony. No one is forced to do business with satan; they do so of their own free will. What happened to Dr. Warren is that he lacked faith in God to get him through this situation. What occurred with Dr. Warren and Eharmony is no different than the story of Meshach, Shadrach and Abednego in the Book of Daniel. They chose death over compromising their faith, and were thrown into the furnace. They passed God's test and God was with them. But what Dr. Warren did was he failed God's test. He compromised for he was worshipping the almighty dollar.
If Dr. Warren had true faith in God, he would have disassembled Eharmony. His press conference would have inspired so many Christians who looked up to him. Think about how many gays may have seen such uncompromising faith that they may have changed their lifestyle, and been saved.
What a pity Dr. Warren failed God's test. His legacy is tarnished and will be forever seen as a triumph for satan. Maybe satan won this battle, but he doesn't win the war.
Shame on you, Dr. Warren for losing your faith. I will pray that you find it again before it's too late.
In His Grip,
SabbathKeeper
"why were dh and mb flagged?"
Believer,
Thanks for your mini course on CP for me regarding postings; I can't see anywhere on this website an explanation as to why there is no "thumbs down" option, only flagging. Seems we should use a thumbs down for disagreement and flag for abusive.
And, how many flags before the comment gets deleted? As I see it there are comments here that seem benign that are being deleted without cause.
Any insight you could offer is appreciated...always willing to be enlightened.
Now the creator of eHarmony is going to sue eHarmony for violating the agreement they made when he sold eHarmony. In short, eHarmony was to fundamentaly remain as originally created - now it has deviated.
In times like this where we are to put on the full armor of God. We drop our weapons of warfare and decide to be victims instead of victors. That usually happens when we decide to take on the fight ourselves and not let our Lord go before us on the battlefield.
why were dh and mb flagged?
This is a sell-out. I am really disappointed.
Warren's name is now attached to a homosexual match making site. What a legacy to leave.
Didn't Matthew 5 tell us we're blessed when persecuted for righteousness sake? Defending the sancity of marriage falls under that. That's something to stand for.
How much of this also had to do with $$$? If I was Warren and forced to choose between keeping Eharmony or opening a gay section, I'd shut it down.