Should Church and state be separate?

[Paul Hazelwood]

At the constitutional convention, Luther Martin a Maryland representative urged the inclusion of some kind of recognition of Christianity in the constitution on the grounds that "it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism." How ever, the delegates to the convention rejected this proposal and, as the Reverend Bird Wilson stated in his sermon quoted above, drafted the constitution as a secular document. God was nowhere mentioned in it.

[Molly]

This is the text of George Washington's October 3, 1789 national Thanksgiving Proclamation; as printed in The Providence Gazette and Country Journal, on October 17, 1789.


Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.



And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.



Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.



G. Washington.

[Shadow]

I don't look up to Billy Graham.  I think he was used by the powers that be for their own ends.

Do you only consider the people who share your exact viewpoint only, as christians and those that don't share your viewpoint as anti-christians and pagans etc

Even if so I don't see rules that prohibit "non-christians" from participating, people are expected to conduct a civilized conversation and show respect for another persons viewpoint though, without resorting to name calling and speculation about their motives etc

BTW I mostly agree with Paul Hazelwood, however I do agree with you on one thing, a sexual agenda should not be imposed on young and impressionable minds

[Paul Hazelwood]

BTW I mostly agree with Paul Hazelwood, however I do agree with you on one thing, a sexual agenda should not be imposed on young and impressionable minds

I agree with that also, however, that is not necessarily the issue.  Homosexuality in any form is considered a sexual agenda by some who say they oppose sexually oriented material for very young children is schools.   So depicting a family with two parents who are of the same physical gender is promoting a sexual agenda even if such a depiction is that of a family oriented nature and not with sexual implications.

For instance if it is sexually offensive to have two same sex parents holding hands or gently kissing then it is also sexually offensive to show two opposite sex parents holding hands or gently kissing.

I do not believe kindergardeners need to be shown any orientation kissing and I am fine with neither being depicted physically touching at all.

If same gender parents are generally promoted and depicted without any physical contact there are those that would still describe that as a sexual agenda.   

[Shadow]

For instance if it is sexually offensive to have two same sex parents holding hands or gently kissing then it is also sexually offensive to show two opposite sex parents holding hands or gently kissing.

I do not believe kindergartners need to be shown any orientation kissing and I am fine with neither being depicted physically touching at all.

If same gender parents are generally promoted and depicted without any physical contact there are those that would still describe that as a sexual agenda. 

Exactly, this is the point I was trying to make, unfortunately schools are not the only places where kindergartners learn these types of things, the internet is chock a block full with the vilest pornographic filth imaginable at the touch of a mouse click, not to mention cable television with xxx-rated movies or even R-rated movies on a normal TV station etc etc

Sometimes I wonder if the best way to get away from all of it is to live in the middle of nowhere, where one cannot get easy access to these types of things, the trouble is today that childhood innocence is taken away far, far too soon

[Molly]

Do you only consider the people who share your exact viewpoint only, as christians and those that don't share your viewpoint as anti-christians and pagans etc

Even if so I don't see rules that prohibit "non-christians" from participating, people are expected to conduct a civilized conversation and show respect for another persons viewpoint though, without resorting to name calling and speculation about their motives etc

BTW I mostly agree with Paul Hazelwood, however I do agree with you on one thing, a sexual agenda should not be imposed on young and impressionable minds

I consider followers of Christ Christians.  I realize that can take many forms.  You must understand that the people of Massachusetts have no choice in the matter regarding teaching children about the existence, normalcy,  and acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle.  Christians are not allowed to opt out of that teaching for their children.  What do you think of that?  Do you think that is right?  Parents have no choice or say in the matter.

PS I saw your post above.  Two men kissing and even having children together is part of the teaching in the school books I've seen.

[Molly]

This is where we're going with this.  Have a nice day! :boyheart:


Frequently Asked Questions About NAMBLA and Man/Boy Love

Q:  What do you seek to accomplish?

A:  NAMBLA was formed in the belief that if people knew more about the actual nature of typical man/boy love relationships, that there would be less unjust scapegoating and persecution of boys and men who have such relationships.


Q:  Why do you oppose age-of-consent laws?

A:  Opposing age-of-consent laws is not our only focus; it is one part of our broader criticism of North American social and legal practices.  We believe that these laws do great harm to people and relationships that do not deserve to feel the crushing weight of the heavy hand of the law.  Just as important, age-of-consent laws do not adequately protect young people.  They have often been applied arbitrarily and unjustly, and have long been used to terrorize gay males.  Gay youth in particular have been targets of extreme persecution through the selective application of age-of-consent laws.


Q:  What is this "ageism" you refer to?

A:  Ageism refers to age-based discrimination, and includes the tendency to discount and devalue the feelings and opinions of children and youth.  This tendency pervades our society and has implications in every area of a young person's daily life: at home, at work, while shopping, hanging out with friends or going places, and especially at school.  It has the socially corrosive -- and costly -- effect of breeding fear and distrust between the generations and isolating them from each other.


Q:  What do you propose in place of age-of-consent laws?

A:  Age-of-consent laws are those which say that if you are under a certain age, then what you say doesn't matter.  We believe young people would be much better protected by laws -- and social attitudes -- that take their opinions, feelings and decisions into consideration.  We have never proposed specific laws, but in general we advocate changes in society and the law to include greater respect and consideration for children and youth -- not merely in the abstract, but in each individual case.  We reject the cookie-cutter approach often used by authorities, moralists, and legislators who presume to know what someone wants without asking them, and who claim to know what is best for every person without having met them.  Individualism -- the belief that each person is important and deserving of respect -- is one of the core founding values of North American society.  We advocate for a society that lives up to this ideal, as it applies to people of all ages.


Q:  How can society best protect vulnerable people?

A:  The claim is made that age-of-consent laws protect the vulnerable.  In practice, they give undue power to those who already have power -- police and prosecutors -- while removing power from some of society's most vulnerable populations -- notably, gay youth.  We believe that vulnerable people are better served by giving them more choices, not fewer.  Children and youth can be made less vulnerable by giving them more options.  Those who need to escape abusive family members or other abusive situations need more options than we as a society currently provide them with.  Those who live in poverty, those who face racial, religious, and sexual prejudice -- all need more options, not fewer.


Q:  You make this seem like such a noble cause, but isn't it really just a selfish one?

A:  There is a much bigger dimension to the issues we raise, with implications for everyone.  The interest that all people share in widespread access to truthful information is more than just philosophical.  Too often, politicians take advantage of gaps in public knowledge, and play on public fears to divert attention from their own actions.  When they are allowed to do this, the result is bad government for everyone (something we've all seen plenty of in the last few decades).  Our efforts to educate the public on the issues of man/boy love, ageism and anti-sexualism are intended  to help bring about better informed public policy and an electorate less vulnerable to politicians who would use their fears against them.  


Q:  Do you believe it's possible for a boy and a man to have a close, even sexual relationship, without any harm?

A:  Yes it's possible, and it happens every day.  Many studies have confirmed that the large majority of sexual contacts between boys and older partners are both consensual and harmless.  See below for a listing of some of these published, peer-reviewed studies.


Q:  But aren't these relationships always initiated by the adult?

A:  No.  We know from experience that some boys do initiate sexual contacts with adults.  This is confirmed by several published studies, which have found that a substantial percentage of boys' sexual contacts with older partners were initiated by the boy (see references below for details).  


Q:  Do you believe there are actually boys who find men attractive that way?

A:  It is well established that some boys do find men very attractive.  Certainly, plenty of gay men have reported being infatuated during early- and middle-childhood (5 to 10 years of age) with masculine icons such as the "Marlboro Man" and even Peter Graves, the silver-haired leading man of Mission Impossible.  Gay novels, biographies and autobiographies provide abundant examples.  And not all boys who find men attractive identify as gay.  It is very easy to underestimate the sheer scale of the multidimensional rainbow of human diversity -- and the strength of teenaged male sexuality.  


Q:  Ok, but if a boy does come on to you, wouldn't  it be better simply to refuse the advance?

A:  If your concern is for the safety of the man (any man), in today's climate, then the answer is probably, yes -- walk away, and stay away, and just don't have anything to do with kids in general.  But boys take rejection very hard, and they take isolation even harder.  It has a deeply negative effect on their outlook, which can have lifelong implications -- and broad implications for society.   Unfortunately, this kind of self-segregation of men from boys has become a major social problem in its own right -- a problem which will never be solved while man/boy love is stigmatized as harshly as it is now.


Q:  So, does this mean you believe the relationship can benefit the boy?

A:  We know it can; some of us have seen examples in person.  And several peer-reviewed studies have shown that boys who have consenting relationships with men usually feel positively about their relationship and feel that the relationship has had a positive effect on them.




Q:  But isn't the harmfulness of sex supported by scientific research?

A:  Actually, no it isn't.  Peer-reviewed studies have shown clearly that there is nothing intrinsically harmful about sexual experiences between boys and men.  For a full explanation, see:  Outcomes: Can Science Shed Some Light?



http://www.nambla.org/faq.htm

[Molly]

Obama appointee lauded NAMBLA figure
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
10/01/09 12:40 PM EDT

Kevin Jennings, President Obama's Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug FreeSchools at the U.S. Department of Education, is in hot water this week for having failed to report that a 15-year-old sophomore student in his school had told him of having sex with an older man.

But failure to report what appeared to be a case of statuatory rape of a child may be the least of Jennings' worries. Lori Roman of Regular Folks United points to statements by Jennings a decade or more ago when he praised Harry Hay of the North American Association for Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), which promotes the legalization of sexual abuse of young boys by older men.

Roman provides damning details and links here. She also notes that Jennings wrote the forward "to a book called Queering Elementary Education. And another fellow you may have heard of wrote one of the endorsements on the book jacket—Bill Ayers." Ayers, of course, is the Weather Underground bomber from the 1960s who is just an "acquaintance" of Obama.

Every presidential administration ends up with scandals inspired by controversial appointees, but typically those tend to revolve around financial improprieties, conflicts of interest, or some other form of white-collar misconduct. For Obama, the scandals seem to be develping in a pattern of disclosures revolving around radical left ideology that raises questions about their fitness for any job in government.

And that in turn raises the inevitable question: Is nobody minding the White House personnel store?

UPDATE: Who was Harry Hay?

Folks at Media Matters are agitated by the above post and others pointing out Jennings' praise of Harry Hay and the latter's link to NAMBLA. Hay was not an employee or official of NAMBLA, but was during his later years, according to his entry on Wikipedia, a frequent defender of the group, including this 1983 statement: "f the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world."

MM has a point - Jennings praise of Hay was not specifically in the context of the latter's support of NAMBLA. Readers will decide for themselves whether it is appropriate for an individual who publicly praised an advocate of pedophilia to be appointed Assistant Deputy Secretary of Education for Safe and Drug-Free Schools.    






Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-appointee-lauded-NAMBLA-figure-63115112.html#ixzz0kdJBtPre

[Shadow]

I consider followers of Christ Christians.  I realize that can take many forms.  You must understand that the people of Massachusetts have no choice in the matter regarding teaching children about the existence, normalcy,  and acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle.  Christians are not allowed to opt out of that teaching for their children.  What do you think of that?  Do you think that is right?  Parents have no choice or say in the matter.

PS I saw your post above.  Two men kissing and even having children together is part of the teaching in the school books I've seen.

My honest opinion on homosexuality, I once thought it was a lifestyle choice, however I have personally read and heard stories of people agonizing over and having to come to terms with their sexuality, TBH I don't know if it is wrong, however, I don't condemn them for it anymore, I can learn to accept people for what they are, even although I may not agree with their viewpoint, besides I'm not perfect either

HOWEVER

I fully agree with you that 5 years old is far too young to be exposed to this type of teaching and christians should be able to opt out of it if they want (in fact anyone should), children being exposed to sex education too young is wrong, no matter what the orientation is

Unfortunately in this day and age, sexuality is so in your face all the time, it's as if the whole planet has become fixated on it, not to mention that the world is rife with pedophiles

The point I'm trying to make is that it should be up the parents to educate their children about sex and not up to the government

And I saw your post on the article before mine...I'm sure that there, we are in 100% agreement there...I find it absolutely horrifying  :omg: :ticked: :Shoot: :eek:

[Molly]

The point I'm trying to make is that it should be up the parents to educate their children about sex and not up to the government

Nambla makes it pretty clear that they believe that boys as young as 5 to 10 years old want to have sex with men. 

So what do you think they are hoping for in normalizing homosexuality for this age group?

The attack on Christians is brutal and vicious--intolerant, hypocritical witch burners that we all know they are. :mblush:

When you push and push and push the boundaries--where do you expect to end up?

[Shadow]

Nambla makes it pretty clear that they believe that boys as young as 5 to 10 years old want to have sex with men. 

So what do you think they are hoping for in normalizing homosexuality for this age group?

The attack on Christians is brutal and vicious--intolerant, hypocritical witch burners that we all know they are. :mblush:

When you push and push and push the boundaries--where do you expect to end up?

Although I can come to terms with homosexuality between 2 consenting ADULTS, words can't express the horror and shock I feel towards Nambla's motives, to me this is legalizing pedophilia and making a legal loophole for any sexual pervert to get off the hook regarding their pedophilia, I'm not American so this is the first I'm hearing about Nambla

I can just see it now...oh the child found me attractive and I just obliged to make them happy, if indeed the abuse ever comes to the light...talk about blaming the victim

Believe me, I am just as enraged about this as you are  :Shoot: :Shoot: :Shoot: :Shoot: :swordfight: :swordfight: :swordfight: :swordfight:

[Molly]

Homosexuality in any form is considered a sexual agenda by some who say they oppose sexually oriented material for very young children is schools.   So depicting a family with two parents who are of the same physical gender is promoting a sexual agenda even if such a depiction is that of a family oriented nature and not with sexual implications.

You seem to think that you can let the genie out of the bottle and then control it.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.  You can't be a little bit pregnant, either.


2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Homosexuality in any form is considered a sexual agenda by some who say they oppose sexually oriented material for very young children is schools.   So depicting a family with two parents who are of the same physical gender is promoting a sexual agenda even if such a depiction is that of a family oriented nature and not with sexual implications.

You seem to think that you can let the genie out of the bottle and then control it.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.  You can't be a little bit pregnant, either.


2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

No, that is a statement showing you have no real argument against monogomous homosexual couples comitted to one another and neither does anyone else.

[jabcat]

Hi Paul.  Do you mean from a legal aspect, or spiritual?  I think we probably see this at least s/w differently, and I realize there are various interpretations and arguments - and I'm not looking for an argument - but my understanding is that Apostle Paul did address it several times from a spiritual aspect. But legally, it might be a tough issue.  I think many things are, because we really can't legislate a change of heart, yet many of our laws of the land do appear to based on The Law.   :dontknow:   I think it's complicated, and though I do actually pay quite a bit of attention to political stuff, I continue to wonder how much a believer should really be too tied up in "worldly politics".   :sigh:

[Paul Hazelwood]

Hi Paul.  Do you mean from a legal aspect, or spiritual?  I think we probably see this at least s/w differently, and I realize there are various interpretations and arguments - and I'm not looking for an argument - but my understanding is that Apostle Paul did address it several times from a spiritual aspect. But legally, it might be a tough issue.  I think many things are, because we really can't legislate a change of heart, yet many of our laws of the land do appear to based on The Law.   :dontknow:   I think it's complicated, and though I do actually pay quite a bit of attention to political stuff, I continue to wonder how much a believer should really be too tied up in "worldly politics".   :sigh:

Both legally and spiritually.    Whatever people think the bible says about homosexuality is only through intepretation, there are no direct words from ancient hebrew or greek that directly correlates to the term homosexual.

We can discuss the phrases used in that interpretation if you like,  but I find it quite interesting that from the UR perspective there is so much emphasis on mistranslation - misintepretation concerning eternal damanation that it is suprising that more don't see the problem in this issue as well.

That is because from a societal level it is much easier to be against it than for it.  It is only hard on a religious level to be a universalist, society couldn't care less.

[Molly]

No, that is a statement showing you have no real argument against monogomous homosexual couples comitted to one another and neither does anyone else.

Why does it have to be monogamous and committed?  Why are you putting that boundary on it?  You still like boundaries yourself?  And, you think you can create the boundaries to your liking?

Personally, I could care less what adults do behind closed doors. That's between them and God.   It does bother me though if it is constantly in my face, on prime time tv,  changing the curriculum in school, forcing me to share the ladies' room with men, forcing children to deal with it, teaching my young children values that I disagree with,  and so forth.  That's what bothers me.

I want my children to be taught my values, not somebody else's values.  And, my values are pretty standard Christian values.

And, I want all children to be protected.  I do not believe that children should be sexualized or viewed as sex objects.

[jabcat]

Paul, I'll probably say only a few things, because I prefer to not debate.  But I believe much of the argument over the words in question is probably opportunistic by a group that is attempting to legitamize the homosexual agenda.  I am aware of the arguments over the words, including by the (what I consider) very suspect "Jesus Seminar" folks.  Based on what I've personally seen and studied (limited, I'm no scholar) I believe the translations of the following words  actually are accurate - not just the words themselves, but within a larger context of other scriptures, such as the few lines I end the post with -


I'll post the words and translations, but then also say that even without the specific words in question, the NT also defines the situation in other words -

The words and their references;

"Be not deceived, neither ...effeminate [Gk: malakos-catamite/boy with man sex] shall inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor. 6:9-10).

"Be not deceived, neither ...abusers of themselves with mankind [Gk: arsenokoites-sodomites/male bed partners/male-liers] shall inherit the kingdom of God" (I Cor. 6:9-10).

Some of the other passages without "the words"...in Romans 1

"to dishonor their own bodies between themselves"
"women did change the natural use into that which is against nature"
"men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men"

Anyway, that's how I see it, don't know if I have a lot else to say about it.  Take care, James.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Why does it have to be monogamous and committed?  Why are you putting that boundary on it?  You still like boundaries yourself?  And, you think you can create the boundaries to your liking?

Because it is easy to understand that sexual promiscuity from any orientation has a reasonable argument to why it is better not to be that way.  I have yet to have even a homosexual argue with me in any reasonable manner about promiscuity.

I have never argued that there should be no boundaries, but that is the lie from Christianity, I dare to agree something is ok that they do not like and all of the sudden reason flies out the window and that I must also like man boy love, you have to do that because you have no case against what I have said.

I want my children to be taught my values, not somebody else's values.  And, my values are pretty standard Christian values.

Then teach them, if you expecting ANY adult other than yourself to have that responsibility you have already lost the battle.   

[Paul Hazelwood]

Paul, I'll probably say only a few things, because I prefer to not debate.  But I believe much of the argument over the words in question is probably opportunistic by a group that is attempting to legitamize the homosexual agenda.

James, I am not going to try to get you to debate. I will say at this point about what you wrote is that having an agenda does not determine if something is scripturally right or wrong.

A homosexual agenda does not speak inherantly that a homosexual orientation or relationship is right or wrong.

It appears more that your opening statement here is the filter in which you justify your conclusions. No offense intended, just an observation.

[Molly]

Because it is easy to understand that sexual promiscuity from any orientation has a reasonable argument to why it is better not to be that way.  I have yet to have even a homosexual argue with me in any reasonable manner about promiscuity.

I have never argued that there should be no boundaries, but that is the lie from Christianity, I dare to agree something is ok that they do not like and all of the sudden reason flies out the window and that I must also like man boy love, you have to do that because you have no case against what I have said.

What gives you the right to tell homosexuals they must be in committed, monogamous  relationships?

[jabcat]

Paul, I'll probably say only a few things, because I prefer to not debate.  But I believe much of the argument over the words in question is probably opportunistic by a group that is attempting to legitamize the homosexual agenda.

James, I am not going to try to get you to debate. I will say at this point about what you wrote is that having an agenda does not determine if something is scripturally right or wrong.

A homosexual agenda does not speak inherantly that a homosexual orientation or relationship is right or wrong.

It appears more that your opening statement here is the filter in which you justify your conclusions. No offense intended, just an observation.

Good, no debate, but communication and perhaps some clarification since you make said observation.  The opening statement could either be a filter (as we all have them) but it could also be that I've actually studied the issue as I said, and come to what I believe to be an accurate conclusion.  If others think differently, that's between them and God and we're all learning.

I understand we all have filters, yet I do try to look to the scriptures and how God reveals them to me as the final authority - sometimes I learn and have to re-learn as I go.  I know there are things I don't understand, but if anyone can truly scripturally show that "women did change the natural use into that which is against nature" and "men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men" is not speaking against the active lifestyle of homosexuality, then I'll listen.  But IMO, it's pretty clear - and that's not even discussing the translation of malakos and arsenokoites.  Others do as well, but the most literal translation I know of translates arsenokoites as 'homosexual' - add that to the context of the references above, "women..burned.." and "men with men", and for me (as well as my conscience) it's an acceptable saying.

If you're OK leaving as is, that's fine with me.  If you'd like to explain how you see the specific verses, I'll surely listen.   :bigGrin:   (Don't want to hijack the thread though   :punish:).  

Thanks, James.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Because it is easy to understand that sexual promiscuity from any orientation has a reasonable argument to why it is better not to be that way.  I have yet to have even a homosexual argue with me in any reasonable manner about promiscuity.

I have never argued that there should be no boundaries, but that is the lie from Christianity, I dare to agree something is ok that they do not like and all of the sudden reason flies out the window and that I must also like man boy love, you have to do that because you have no case against what I have said.

What gives you the right to tell homosexuals they must be in committed, monogamous  relationships?

Because I can.

[Molly]

"Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428



This means that to Jefferson's mind he had written a Constitution that left all matters of religion to the discretion of the states and of the people.  That was his idea of freedom.  If Massachusetts wanted to run a Puritan government, as they did [read blue laws], that was their choice.  If VA wanted to run a government that left it up to the people of various sects, that was their choice.   The choice resided in the people and in the states.

This is no longer the case in this country.  The control of religious exercise has now been wrested from the states, and is under the thrall and control of a minority agenda in the name of equality and 'social justice'.

But, be assured that someone is going to control it, as they do today.  It's just a question of who.

By the same token, people are going to have some religion--even Atheism is a religion--it's just a matter of which one.

And, 5 year olds are not capable of picking a lifestyle or a religion off a smorgasbord.

Thus, freedom of religion requires that the matter is put back into the hands of the states and the people.  As it stands, we no longer have freedom of religion.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Paul, I'll probably say only a few things, because I prefer to not debate.  But I believe much of the argument over the words in question is probably opportunistic by a group that is attempting to legitamize the homosexual agenda.

James, I am not going to try to get you to debate. I will say at this point about what you wrote is that having an agenda does not determine if something is scripturally right or wrong.

A homosexual agenda does not speak inherantly that a homosexual orientation or relationship is right or wrong.

It appears more that your opening statement here is the filter in which you justify your conclusions. No offense intended, just an observation.

Good, no debate, but communication and perhaps some clarification since you make said observation.  The opening statement could either be a filter (as we all have them) but it could also be that I've actually studied the issue as I said, and come to what I believe to be an accurate conclusion.  If others think differently, that's between them and God and we're all learning.

I understand we all have filters, yet I do try to look to the scriptures and how God reveals them to me as the final authority - sometimes I learn and have to re-learn as I go.  I know there are things I don't understand, but if anyone can truly scripturally show that "women did change the natural use into that which is against nature" and "men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men" is not speaking against the active lifestyle of homosexuality, then I'll listen.  But IMO, it's pretty clear - and that's not even discussing the translation of malakos and arsenokoites.  Others do as well, but the most literal translation I know of translates arsenokoites as 'homosexual' - add that to the context of the references above, "women..burned.." and "men with men", and for me (as well as my conscience) it's an acceptable saying.

If you're OK leaving as is, that's fine with me.  If you'd like to explain how you see the specific verses, I'll surely listen.   :bigGrin:   (Don't want to hijack the thread though   :punish:). 

Thanks, James.

We don't actually have to make this an issue about homosexuality.  The argument you raise here is ambiguous.

What proves something scripturally true?  What makes a verse clear?


Even from the perspective of UR, is the lake of fire real literal fire, is it clear that it is now.  Is it true punishment, how long is it, how terrible will it really be?

Why do we constantly assert that clarity while disagreeing day in and day out concerning what scripture says?  It is an appeal to emotion and has no bearing on truth, so when we say it is clear we try to paint an emotional picture of our opposite to bring a question as to their mental state.  I do not think in most cases it is mean spirited, it is simply our nature as we wrestle to gain the advantage of thought.

It is not clear, never has been.   We decide that clarity to ourselves while forgetting the unclear road to coming to some of those conclusions in the first place.

When you start seeing things of a spiritual nature, then that clarity becomes even less apparent.  The literal word no longer applies to what we think it may apply to. 

The arguments are the same from any side, we always hear how clear something is.  All this from a standpoint and assumption that there is a perfect undisputable translative factor in the first place.

Religion has actually defiled common sense.  No translator will agree that there is any perfect translations, but we are left with perhaps a general message that gets us in the ball park.

Even LOVE, we conclude that LOVE is central to the bible, but it is not clear that it is.  God hated Esau.   Not so clear.

[jabcat]

OK, have a good night.