Tuesday, February 15, 2011

"Christian" Get's Straightened Out

In a video that has been seen on YouTube alone by nearly two and a half million people, an out-of-touch man named "Christian" is reeducated and straightened out regarding his understanding about homosexual behavior.

The short educational video cartoon is soft sell and explains to the viewer just how out-of-touch old men in the past have been and typical middle America, particularly Christians, are today. "Christian" is cast as uninformed, unsure and confused about his beliefs.

Focusing on so-called studies on genes, hormones and birth order, the viewer is told homosexuality is common in nature, normal among humans and socially acceptable to most all recognized medical groups.

The educational video takes on what they call, "ex-gay ministries," mocking and discrediting them.

Homosexual behavior is presented as normal and genetic, with birth order playing a significant roll.

I am told this video is being circulated among school children. I am trying to find out if it has been used in any public schools in Washington State. If you are aware of its use as" educational" material in any public schools, please let me know by
email.

It is deceptive on several fronts. It gives the impression that homosexual behavior is genetic, while in fact, there has never, ever been any genetic linkage.

It both mocks those who advocate that homosexuals can change through spiritual restoration and deceptively says they never change, even through spiritual transformation.

Take a couple of minutes and watch the
video. Every Christian and social conservative should be aware of it.

I welcome your feedback.

Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Active.

_____________

Gary Randall
President
Faith and Freedom

Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.

35 comments:

  1. Ha! A 3 year old video - must be a slow news day.

    Ok, what thing said in that video is inaccurate? In even the very tiniest way?

    Oh and as to the birth order thing it is very important because once they noticed it in one study they were able to go back and look for this in other familial studies that had nothing to do with sexuality at all, i.e. there was no possible researcher bias. The same findings were present - more older brothers, more chance a subsequent son will be gay.

    Again, what exactly do you find inaccurate in this 3 year old video? The least tiny thing?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the link, it's a great video. Very well done and completely factual. I'll be sure to share it!

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is, in fact, a lie to say that geneticists have "never, ever" found a "genetic linkage" to homosexuality. While no "gay gene" has been discovered, geneticists have found much EVIDENCE that POINTS TO a genetic cause or influence that predisposes people to homosexuality prior to birth, leading every single major medical / psychological organization in this country to conclude that sexual orientation (yours included) is not a choice and that it cannot (and should not) be changed.

    But this debate truly does not matter. How many of you would be pursuaded by the discovery of a "gay gene"? Raise your hands. I didn't think so.

    Strong prejudice, especially that of an obsessive nature as we see on this site, is not pursuaded by facts. No one questions that skin color is a choice, but we found other avenues to justify unequal treatment of blacks -- from junk science to, yes, even God.

    If our prejudices run deep enough, we will find ways to feed them, even in the most illogical ways -- for example, we'll believe Gary's or Bill O'Reilly's or Pat Robertson's evaulation of genetic research over that of real geneticists and professionals we otherwise trust to take care of our every other medical need.

    Oh, and by the way, geneticists have not found a "straight gene" either.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 10:40 Yeah, they have also found genetic despositions among murderers, rapists and a number of other behaviors. I would not want to stake the legitamacy of behavior on that particular science.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Please note that the following legislative actions have been taken.

    Senate Bill 5793 (Legalizing same-gender civil marriages)
    Introduced by Sen. Ed Murray, (D-Seattle) (D) on February 14, 2011, to declare that it is the intent of this act to end discrimination in marriage based on gender and sexual orientation in Washington. The bill provides that, where necessary to implement the rights and responsibilities of spouses under the law, gender specific terms such as husband and wife shall be construed to be gender neutral.
    http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=131989

    ReplyDelete
  6. Real geneticists? Or only the ones that support your prejudice. Trust them to take care of my medical needs?
    I don't think so, homey don't don't play that. I wouldn't let them scrape the gum off the bottom of my shoe.

    BTW, since we have been created to have children, the "straight" gene has always been there

    Craig in Lacey

    ReplyDelete
  7. I always thought it was more likely a chemical imbalance. You can have an inclination for being good with numbers even, and you can have a inclination for same sex, different sex , and even younger people or children for sex . The same studies are finding homosexuality an orientation, as heterosexuals , as do sex with children. an orientation by birth . But its really just an educated guess. As with the cartoon .

    Of course how we handle this in our culture . Do we punish people for what they are born with . And how do you measure what a person does in their privacy with the outcome it has on our culture and ability to function . Do we pass laws entitling gays to be married and participate in a system designed to take care of the next generation ?
    Because we have done such a rotten job of natural parents taking care of next generation because of divorce and single parents , do we then just say might as well let anyone get married , eben if the natural parents have no chance from the start.
    Do we pass laws to accommodate other orientations because they were born that way ? We have done it with the Disabilities Act , businesses have been force to reasonably accommodate . Its not a persons fault if they born with no legs , do e as a society have to be required to build cars that accommodate their ability to drive a care .

    I think the homosexual movement is succeeding because it is being debated as a civil right . Once the parameters of the debate were switched to that , they debate was really won . But I have noticed the worse outcome of this debate has been the way the left has conducted it . gay Activists have gotten away with much because of ideology and people basing what is right and wrong based on right and left ideologies.

    Also i know people who have changed their lives. Were they homosexual to begin with one can only guess. The cartoon is propaganda , of course people have perhaps wanted to change so much : "who wants to be gay ? " Who wants to get called names . To point out only those who mis led people on the subject is selective reporting . People have been molested in youth , and have also been sexually confused later in life . The fact that to say or even suggest a morality that says sex out of the confines of marriage is wrong and is said to be bigoted or causing others to commit suicide is what this cartoon suggests. It indicates the major religions of the world all are harmful . Its why the places where homosexuality have been advanced , it has always brought a condemnation and bigotry toward people of faith .

    Replacing one bigotry for another perhaps , but
    bigoted ust the same . The result is a culture more likely to implode , as some think is happening .

    Hard to tell, past generations have always thought the newer one was in dire need to behave itself. But this pick and choose your morality has got to have a consequence on all of us . Notice the more acceptance for gays in schools, appear to brought on even more bullying . The nature of bulling is to pick on who is weaker and different. The fact that gays will pick on other gays seems to get lost on this liberal world view, that somehow morality is based on group instead of individual is a dangerous place to go IMO.

    Mick

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oooooo, good one, 12:45... But, you do know you're demonstrating my point precisely, don't you?

    If your prejudice is deep enough, logic does not matter. Let’s make the argument both ways: Sexual orientation is genetic; ok, well, then so is murder and rape, so gay is bad!! Sexual orientation is NOT genetic; ok, well, then gay is not normal so gay is bad!! Both arguments are illogical, and both are commonly made by “Christians.”

    But since you brought it up, let’s address your murder/rape issue anyway: Murder is bad NOT because we determined that it’s caused by genetics, but because it causes the death of a person. We don't even have to get to the genetics question with murder; it is irrelevant. So, do not pretend that murder is bad because of a genetic basis, and then falsely compare that to a genetic basis for homosexuality, and then conclude that they therefore must both be bad.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Please note that the following legislative actions have been taken.
    As they have every legislative session since 2007.

    BTW, since we have been created to have children, the "straight" gene has always been there
    You're missing the point, there is no 'gay' or 'straight' gene, there are just those attracted to women, those attracted to men, those to both and those to neither.

    There is NO indication of any attraction mechanism that checks what the person's gender is before engaging. And in an equal society if some people are allowed to have a particular gendered mate than they all are, simple as that.

    ReplyDelete
  10. If they really want to know what a Christian is, they should read The Pilgrim's Progress. That would be good reading for school children in my opinion.

    Can their literary work hold a candle to The Pilgrim's Progress?

    It's as far as the east is from the west isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Both arguments are illogical, and both are commonly made by “Christians.”


    Oshtur this is circular reasoning . Both arguments are made also by homosexual advocacy groups also. One is it is natural so its good. There is no choice therefore it is good . The action is never considered , the choice only .

    The circular logic is never seen , and it always comes from homosexual activists.
    Mick

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh yeah how you been . Only come here once in a while . man your addicted .

    Mick

    ReplyDelete
  13. Oshtur

    You're missing the point, we were created with the means to procreate, that is the natural order of things. Therefore, to mate in a manner not consistent with that is unnatural and a perversion. I will not support it, you can call me bigoted or prejudiced, it is against nature and nature's God.

    Craig in Lacey

    ReplyDelete
  14. One is it is natural so its good. There is no choice therefore it is good . The action is never considered , the choice only .
    You are misunderstanding the issues. Look at Craig's last note - he thinks he knows what sex is 'for' when most realize that an activity where 99% of it DOESN'T result in procreation obviously has other reasons for its existence.

    Similarly who we are sexually attracted to being natural and not a choice doesn't make it necessarily good but it doesn't mean its bad or 'immoral' either. Again, if some are allowed to have a mate who is male or female then why can't all have the same? What is the rationalization that its ok for some and not others? A religious reason is for those who hold that religious belief and no one else.

    Someone tells me that's because they have a religious belief that sex is only for procreation then that's fine - for them. Doesn't have anything to do with me who doesn't share that belief, right?

    Craig has a right to think his god tells him to do certain things and act in certain ways, its mine to say 'poppycock' and still expect equal treatment in this nation.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Oshtur

    The point I'm making is not that sex is only for procreation; that would be preposterous. Sex was created to strenghten the bond between a man and women within the confines of marriage, with the possibility of children. That is the natural order of things, you can't refute that. It's been that way since the beginning of time, if it wasn't you wouldn't be here, would you?

    You may pair off with whomever you want, that's your business.
    Telling me that I must accept the indoctrination of my kids that you deserve the "rights " of marriage is my business.
    I will not support it and do everything in my power to prevent it.

    Equality is not license!

    Craig in Lacey

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sex was created to strenghten the bond between a man and women within the confines of marriage, with the possibility of children. That is the natural order of things, you can't refute that.
    Oh I can easily do so. Almost 20% of civilly licensed married citizens never pass on their genes, they never have children and yet sex is a very important part of their lives. When you look at mammals the higher and more socialized they are the more 'other' purposes of sex occur. Whether you procreate or not having sex makes people healthier, happier, more socially integrated - shoot one study showed you will even give better speeches for up to a week after having had sex. People who are regularly having sex get along better with everyone, not just the people they had sex with. Sexual activity is part of the glue that holds our society together - just look at the how messed up societies that try and repress it get very quickly.

    Sex and pair bonding that goes with it are good things in and of themselves regardless of if there are any children as a result of it. And if we let some citizens license with their mates regardless of if are going to pass on any genes to children then we really do have to let all citizens, right?

    Again, the reason I got involved in this thread was the implication that there was something inaccurate in the 3 year old video it linked to, and no one has yet pointed out a single thing that wasn't true.

    And so it goes around again.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "inaccurate in the 3 year old video it linked to"

    Just right off hand ostur I would say the first thing I noticed what was wrong with the video was it implies one side of the argument is made by prejudice and mis information. It only provides one side and offers bogus arguments and ptesented in a way that meant to be presented that way . Thats called propaganda.

    It uses facts mixed in a slant . You have never seen a study of homosexuality that used the same methods but from a negative point of view ? I sure have .

    I think what concerns me about gay marriage the most really has nothing to do with gays . I am sure they feel better off in a loving relationship , who does not ? We all function better if we feel we are loved .

    What I am concerned about is a view point that will become universally accepted over time i believe that a man and women , the natural parents are just another choice of "equal" choices for a home where kids grow up . Not if gays can be good parents , of course they can , not if single parents can not fill in a do a good job , and even sometimes a better if one of the parents was an abuser .
    But that society in general sees no preference for the natural mom and dad to be the parents . I think loosing that in our culture will be disasterous . Perhaps it will not happen , but I hear it all the time by some folks on your side of this issue that there is no difference if the family is not not madeof the MOm and Dad . I think that i very very important . Has nothing to dow with gays actually.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Just right off hand ostur I would say the first thing I noticed what was wrong with the video was it implies one side of the argument is made by prejudice and mis information. It only provides one side and offers bogus arguments and ptesented in a way that meant to be presented that way . Thats called propaganda.
    No, it a response piece. Again, is there anything inaccurate in it? That's a Yes/No question, easily demonstrated if it is - what said in the video is 'wrong'?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Oshtur

    What did you refute? I said the possibility of children, not that this must always happen. Wrong, we don't HAVE to license homossexual unions as marriages, because they're not. With the examples you gave it would be permissible to marry my sister or brother or my sheep. What's the difference as long as everybody's happy?


    Craig in Lacey

    ReplyDelete
  20. What did you refute? I said the possibility of children, not that this must always happen.
    You realize you are now saying citizens who are not capable of reproducing together, for whatever reason, can't license the civil contract of marriage, right? And currently almost the majority of civil licenses issued do not result in children between the couple.

    There are and always will be far more knowingly sterile couples of opposite gender than there are of the same, so if one group is allowed to license when there is no chance of mutual procreation then they both must be. Procreation is not a valid reason for licensing exclusion.

    With the examples you gave it would be permissible to marry my sister or brother or my sheep.
    Hardly. Currently over half the population can license a male-unrelated of-age spouse, ditto for a female one. Letting all citizens to be able to do so is just letting everyone do what other citizens can already do - marriage equality. But your examples no citizen is allowed to license a civil contract of marriage, no citizens can license with a brother, sister, or another species.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I see you made the distinction between civil unions and the marriage contract. Good for you, we're getting somewhere.
    No I did not say that, failure to be able to reproduce because of genetic defect or accident is not the same, unless you consider sexual virality to be a genetic defect.

    Do you have statistics to back up the claim that almost a majority of civil licenses don't result in children. How many of these involve abortion(murder)? Miscarriges? Homosexuality? Are you speaking of traditional marriage? Or for civil unions only?

    What % of all opposite gender couples are knowingly sterile? Very few compared to the % of same-sex couples(100%) for the purpose of having children, so that argument goes nowhere.

    Procreation is just one of several valid reasons for denying the marriage contract to same-sex partners; another is the function of the father(male) and mother(female) to the child understanding both who they are (boy or girl)and how to relate to the opposite sex to attract a mate for the purpose of starting a family of their own, whether they choose to do so or not. Another is upholding the moral foundations of our country, which are based on biblical absolute truths and the strength of the family unit. This is the natural order of things, again you can't dispute it. You wouldn't be here without them.

    If you are calling for your 'rights', even though they are destructive to society and still illegal in much of the U.S, why can't the other examples march for their "rights', right?
    They should be allowed to do what everyone else is doing, right?

    This is where moral relatism will take our country and I say enough!

    Craig in Lacey

    ReplyDelete
  22. I see you made the distinction between civil unions and the marriage contract. Good for you, we're getting somewhere.
    I never mentioned civil unions, only the civil contract of marriage to differentiate it from the religious rite of marriage, two different things.

    Do you have statistics to back up the claim that almost a majority of civil licenses don't result in children.
    There are several studies but you can figure it out for yourself. 50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce and 66% of divorces are between childless couples.

    What % of all opposite gender couples are knowingly sterile? Very few compared to the % of same-sex couples(100%) for the purpose of having children, so that argument goes nowhere

    No, just shows your prejudices (pre-judgements) showing. We know that 100% couples where one member has had a hysterectomy are sterile, etc. You are grouping one group to your advantage and ignoring the ones that don't. There are far more women who are known sterile who are licensed contracts with men than there are women who are even likely to license with women. You can't disallow one without the other ethically.

    another is the function of the father(male) and mother(female) to the child understanding both who they are (boy or girl)and how to relate to the opposite sex to attract a mate for the purpose of starting a family of their own, whether they choose to do so or not.
    Since same gender couples can raise and adopt children regardless of their marital status this argument has no basis. In fact, since statistic show the primary factor in good child rearing is stable home environment there are only bad reasons to not allow all couples raising children to license the civil contract of marriage.

    Another is upholding the moral foundations of our country, which are based on biblical absolute truths and the strength of the family unit.
    Our country's moral absolutes are based on equal treatment under the law and this is not a Christian nation - many of our founding fathers were Deists, Freemasons, Quakers, Unitarians and even atheists. And obviously letting more family's license the civil contract of marriage is strengthening the family.

    If you are calling for your 'rights', even though they are destructive to society and still illegal in much of the U.S
    You have provided no rationalization that shows equal treatment under the law is destructive to society and you are mistaken - though many states don't license civil contracts of marriage to same gender couples they can still marry, marriage comes from beyond government all the state does is license a civil contract to some citizens with male or female spouses - marriage equality is about letting all citizens do so.

    Again, letting all people do the same thing others can already do has nothing to do with letting citizens do so that none can currently do. If you are going to let some citizens license an of age unrelated spouse of a particular gender obviously all citizens should have that right, right?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Well the video is, as one of the Anonymous commenters has already pointed out, propaganda. On youTube anybody can call anything they paste up there "educational". Saying a video is educational doesn't make it so. It's a cute, well-made propaganda cartoon.

    The bottom line is that homosexual sex acts are anatomically problematic. That is why homosexuality is problematic. It is a strong urge to use sexuality in a way that can not fulfill the human person as sexuality was obviously intended to do.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I've commented on this before, you need to read the DOI again and last I checked The freemasons who were founders were mostly Christians, so are Quakers, so were Unitarians before they became Universalists and the % of athiets was very small.
    Don't believe me, read the writings of Jefferson,Washington, George Mason(father of the bill of rights)and many others confirming that the laws and rights of this country are biblically based and "endowed by our Creator". Read the writing of the early Supreme Court, ours is a Christian nation.

    If as you state marriage comes from beyond the government and you can marry anyway, then what's the problem? I'll tell you the problem, God says No,you want to do it anyway, and you want everyone else to go along. Sorry but no, I oppose it and will continue to do so. You can call me prejudiced or bigoted, but I must give an account to someone greater than either of us.

    Craig in Lacey

    Equal treatment under the law? Whose law? Your's or God's?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Christians, so are Quakers, so were Unitarians before they became Universalists and the % of athiets was very small.
    Don't believe me, read the writings of Jefferson,Washington, George Mason(father of the bill of rights)and many others confirming that the laws and rights of this country are biblically based and "endowed by our Creator".

    Craig, we aren't talking your usage of the word 'Christian'. Jefferson was an avowed Diest, George Washington was the highest rank of freemason, never took communion at his church, and was described after death by his friends as 'essentially Diest. Quakers don't believe in the Trinity, Unitarians don't believe that the only way to salvation is through Jesus, and the term 'The Creator' that is in the Declaration of Independence written solely by Thomas Jefferson is the term that Deists used to describe the Universal Creator.

    Jefferson loved the philosophy of Jesus, even publishing his own edition of the bible which consists of the books of the gospel with all the magic and supernatural materials removed. He disliked Paul for 'turning the religion of Jesus into a religion about Jesus'.

    Again, if YOU were like the founding fathers we wouldn't be having this discussion because they would take science over bronze age advice. Knowing what we know today I think you would find the founding fathers firmly in the camp that says sexual orientation is irrelevant and would say that 'its better for all people to license their marriages with their spouses, gay or straight, and all citizens have a right to expect equal treatment by the state in this regard.'

    ReplyDelete
  26. Oshtur. Obviously you have not read or have chosen to ignore the most recent and accurate account of Washington's life. Ron Chernow is a well established, highly praised author who has written the recently released "Washington: A Life". It is 800 pages of well documented text and narrative on Washington. Chernow hardly comes to your conclusions about the man.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous I think you didn't read chapter 12 "Providence" very well as it brings up support for my thesis; Washington's church attendance was irregular, he never took communion, that he prayed while standing (as opposed to the Anglican tradition of kneeling) and his public and private comments about God were generic and not Trinitarian.

    That is the point, being 'Christian' and 'religion' doesn't mean YOUR view of either. Being gay is no more incompatible with being religious or Christian than eating shrimp, wearing 2 fiber cloth or having an uncovered head in church. Pedantic rule following isn't going to get anyone into heaven (or lack there of keep them out), on this I think I and the founding fathers would agree.

    ReplyDelete
  28. George Washington's letter to the Hebrew congregation of Savannah, "May the same wonderworking Diety, who long since delivered the Hebrews from their Egyptian oppressors and planted them in the promised land, whose Providential agency has lately been conspicuous in establishing these United States as an independent nation, still continue to water them with the dews of Heaven and to make the inhabitants of every denomination participate in the temporal and spiritual blessings of that people whose God is Jehovah". Washington, Writings(1838), Vol. XII, p.186, May 1790


    "You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ... Congress will do everything it can to assist you in this wise intention"
    Washington, Writings (1932), Vol. XV, p.55, speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs, May 12, 1779.

    Sound like a watchmaker deist to you?

    "The practice of morality being necessary for the well-being of society, He has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral precepts of Jesus, nowhere will they be found in greater purity than in His discourses" The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. XII, p.315, to James Fishback, Sept. 27, 1809.

    Watchmaker deist?

    The DOI was revised and 1/5th of the text deleted by a committee of the Continental Congress, Jefferson was not the sole author, although the basic document remained his words.
    John Adams and Benjamin Franklin also had input.

    John Jay, Zephaniah Swift, Patrick Henry, Josiah Bartlett, David Brearly, John Dickinson, Gabriel Duvall, John Hart, George Mason, John Morton, Robert Treat Paine, Charles Pinckney, Richard Stockton, Gunning Bedford, Daniel Boone, Elias Boudinot, Jacob Broom, James Iridell, William Samuel Johnson, James Kent, Francis Scott Key, Timothy Pickering, Roger Sherman, I could go on for quite a while, but you get the picture, Christians all. They either signed the DOI or Constitution or both or were Governors, supreme Court Justices,
    or U.S. Military.

    Still contend that our Founders were deists and atheists?
    Don't believe me, do the research. You revisionists keep trying, don't you?

    I'll leave you with a finale quote, "Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion whose morality is so sublime and pure ... are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments"
    Charles Carroll, Signer of the DOI.

    Craig in Lacey

    ReplyDelete
  29. Sound like a watchmaker deist to you?
    Absolutely. As the Presbyterian minister, Arthur B. Bradford said"…that while Washington was very deferential to religion and its ceremonies, like nearly all the founders of the Republic, he was not a Christian, but a Deist."

    Jefferson loved the PHILOSOPHY of Jesus and said it was sublime, but he didn't think he was a god. You are acting as if morals don't exist without your religion - Deists are very moral, possibly more so than some Christians. (I once had a conversation with one that said if the Bible was proven wrong they would have no reason to not cheat, maim and murder - I was flabbergasted.)

    Yes there were parts of the Declaration of independence removed and a few lines later in the work revised but fortunately we have the text of his original draft and the line "We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…" was not changed.

    What you can't seem to grasp Craig is that the morals of Christianity are about how you view and treat others - again there is nothing immoral about sexual orientation in and of itself. Lying is immoral, callousness is immoral, not loving your neighbor as God loves you is immoral. Remember Jesus praised the Roman Centurion that asked that his 'pais' be held, and as he chided his apostles God's mansion has many rooms and you don't get to be the concierge. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  30. Vishanti (Feb. 15) You laugh at Gary referring to a "three year old video" yet you choke daily on a 4000 year old book and what it teaches every time you write something.

    ReplyDelete
  31. How can a watchmaker God who started everything and then washed his hands of it be credited with delivering the Hebrews from the Egyptians or by providencial agengy establishing the U.S. as an independent nation and STILL continue to water them with the dews of Heaven? Either He's a watchmaker who is no longer involved in his Creation or He's being recognized as being present and actively involved. The quote indicates the latter.
    I don't know anything about that minister, but the writing of our founders clearly indicates their belief that our rights come from God and that Christianity best exemplifies
    this. Christianity deals with not only the actions, but the thoughts and intents of the heart; that's where sin comes from. No, morals don't exist outside the fear of a Holy and righteous God. There is no greater check on man's baser instincts than knowing he will pay for his thoughts and actions even when he thinks no one sees or knows about them

    What you can't seem to grasp Oshtur is that the morals of Christianity are about how we respond to God's laws; are we willing to deny our baser instincts and seek His will for our lives, Jesus said, "love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind and love your neighbor as yourself. These are the 2 greatest commandments". Not showing the love for God that he shows for you is the most
    immoral thing you can do. You can't truly love your neighbor unless you love God first. I show this by speaking the truth in love, I don't hate you, only the sin that you do. I don't want you to suffer in this life or the next.
    I can think of no higher expression of love.

    As to the centurion, I referenced Luke 7:7 and Matt 8:5-13
    and neither mention Jesus holding anything, the 'pais' was at home and Jesus healed him from where He was.

    You're right, there are many rooms in God's house and I'm not the concierge; Jesus is! =)

    Pendantic rule following will not get you there or prevent you from getting there, Jesus called the Pharisees on their
    rituals. So whether you pray standing up or kneeling or on your head doesn't matter, neither does your church attendance record or whether you take communion or not. If as you claim, Washington was a deist, then why go to church to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ, if God has no further dealings with man?

    When Washington was informed of a homosexual incident among his troops he was appalled and punished the guilty parties. So much for our founders thinking as you do.

    ReplyDelete
  32. 18th century deism was based on a premise that the Creator had made a perfect universe and the morals grew out of this pwrfect creation as naturally as the wind blows and the oceans wave.

    Again the philosophy of Jesus is sublime whether you think he's a god or not and he had nothing to say about sexual orientation. On the contrary he when asked by his decipher made it clear that sexuality or it's lack is a gift from god. There is nothing to indicate Jesus thought sexual orientation was immoral.

    As to George Washington his punishment was mild in comparison to what it could have been and one of the Revolution's generals was gay.

    Your flavor of Christianity might not like gays, abhor my brother's won't celebrate Christmas since it is really the pagan holiday of Apollo - your choice. That doesn't mean either of you get to decide for others what being Christian means and many Christian sects are totally fine with gay people.

    We now know that people, are better people with sex rather than without. We are happer, healthier, are more accepting of our neighbors, more at peace with ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Yeah, and the gay general got drummed out of the army soon after his life style was discovered, because Washington felt the lifestyle was not compatible.
    Studies do not show gays generally are happy. They suffer from higher numbers in a number of negative emotional experiences.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Studies do not show gays generally are happy. They suffer from higher numbers in a number of negative emotional experiences.
    The statement was about people who have sex, not gays. Interestingly a Canadian study of gay teen suicide showed that the rates for those that were having relationships had the same rate as straight teens, it was those that didn't that had higher incidences.

    And general Von Steuben was General Washington’s chief of staff during the final years of the war and discharged from the military with honor on March 24, 1783.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Again, Washington's statement indicated he believed God still acts in the affairs of men.

    Because Washington didn't have those men shot shows his compassion, not that he approved of their behavior.

    As to sexual orientation, read Romans Chapter 1. The apostle Paul, a persecutor and murderer of Christians, was converted
    directly by Jesus himself on the road to Damascus. By direct revelation called Paul to write most of the epistles. Sexual immorality of all types was anathema.

    A decipher? You mean disciple? Where is the verse demonstrating
    your premise?

    No, thankfully I don't get to decide what being a Christian means, I'd screw it up for sure. The Bible makes clear what being a Christian means and those who pick and choose which parts to follow or not, can make no claim to being one.
    I didn't make that up, the Bible says so.

    "Now I urge you, brethren, keep yuor eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting" Romans 16: 17f

    ReplyDelete

Faith & Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.