I can\’t resist. The one who is the father of the child is responsible for his health care. What is preventing him from providing health care for his child (though I believe of course that the child should be removed from such a situation)?
If they adopted, which is an abomination in itself, then one (or both?!) is the father and can add the child to his employer\’s policy.
If you want to consider whether a sodomist\’s \”life partner\” or \”husband\” should be covered by an employer\’s policy, the answer is no if based strictly on actuarial bases, since homosexuals\’ life expectancy is 46 years even excluding AIDS, because they have such high rates of alcoholism, drunk driving, drug use, and domestic violence, not to mention other health problems endemic to them.
I was working in D.C. when the city council passed a law forbidding life insurers to test for AIDS when writing policies, and so they all quit writing there the same day. This is what happens when politics infringes in areas where it has no business. Somebody had the stupid idea that this was the moral thing to do (since all legislation is someone\’s morality),and it adversely impacted the whole community.
Now that you think they could get the employer\’s insurance benefit, go back and read the original article. The employer denied the benefits because they weren\’t married.
Oh, and let me guess: did the 46 year life span come from Cameron and the Family Research Council web site, too? Have you read the voluminous debunkings of that so-called \”study?\”
You\’re evading the issue: alcoholics, drug users, rapists, and sinners of all types can get on an employer\’s health plan if they\’re married. Heck, they can even get married! But you believe that one specific class of sinner should not. I\’m still wondering why.
Where\’d you get the idea that I agree that they should get the benefit? It should be left up to those paying the bills, and if it\’s me, then I should not be forced to pay for the anal suspensor repair of some sodomist\’s boyfriend.
You keep dismissing my sources and claiming that they are discredited but you have offered none. Fine. Throw in AIDS-related deaths and then tell me what the average lifespan of your garden variety sodomist is.
I\’m done. This is like talking to a post. Have a nice day.
\”Where\’d you get the idea that I agree that they should get the benefit? It should be left up to those paying the bills, and if it\’s me, then I should not be forced to pay for the anal suspensor repair of some sodomist\’s boyfriend.\”
Barney, the problem is you are not reading what is being written. Once again, you\’re attributing something to me that I didn\’t say. I must say, however, that for someone who professes to be disgusted with the gay life style, you seem to really enjoy digging in to the nitty-gritty of the sex and health issues.
\”You keep dismissing my sources and claiming that they are discredited but you have offered none. Fine. Throw in AIDS-related deaths and then tell me what the average lifespan of your garden variety sodomist is.\”
I assume you can use Google; that\’s why I didn\’t bother with specific URLs. Intellectual integrity does take some effort.
\”I\’m done. This is like talking to a post. Have a nice day.\”
See ya. Oh, come on back if you decide to give some thought to my question about, you know, if Jesus ran a company, and He provided health benefits to his employees, and if you worked there, your wife and family would be covered, but do you think He would allow members of a \”sinning\” family to be covered, or would He just tell them, \”Sorry, you\’ll have to see what you can find in the marketplace.\” You know, that question?
\”if Jesus ran a company …would allow members of a \”sinning\” family to be covered, or would He just tell them, \”Sorry, you\’ll have to see what you can find in the marketplace.\”
Jesus did run a company – He was a builder. Obviously, He could provide the best health care ever.
When He refused to condemn the woman taken in adultery, He told her, \”Go and sin no more,\” which He would tell any unrepentant sinner. He let her go because her witnesses refused to testify, not because He countenanced sin. To pardon an adulteress is not to pardon adultery.
1 Corinthians 6:9, \”Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind…\”
If St. Paul can deny them heaven, then Jesus would have no problem denying them fringe benefits.
Paul\’s message is a warning. He is not barring entrance; only God can do that. Jesus\’ message is forgiveness. He didn\’t say \”Go, and sin no more, or I\’ll make your life Hell on Earth.\” You are not Jesus\’ enforcer. You are right when you say to pardon adultery is not to countenance adultery; you just don\’t understand what it means to pardon. You\’ve missed the entire point of Jesus\’ sacrifice.
Jesus\’ sacrifice is off topic. His behavior towards a sinner is not necesssarily indicative of the sinner\’s relationship to the cross. The woman taken in adultery might have gone right back to her lover\’s bed, and ended up in hell. I doubt it, but we don\’t know. Jesus did not forgive her, He only refused to condemn her due to lack of evidence.
Jesus can pardon sinners because He is God. I cannot pardon sinners because I am a creature and a sinner. I can forgive you for punching me in the nose, but if you are unrepentant God will not. And God can forgive you for punching me in the nose even if I don\’t.
God knows the heart, I don\’t. So I can only deal with what I see and hear, and follow the mandate laid down by St. Paul in Ephesians 5:11, \”Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.\” When I see or hear that a man has renounced evil and embraced the gospel, I will assume that he has joined the ranks of the redeemed and behave accordingly. If he renounces evil and doesn\’t embrace the gospel, I will still hire him and add him to the ranks of the insured. I simply do not want to tacitly approve of evil by associating with and supporting it, being forced to treat two homos as if they were on an equal footing with a married man and woman.
One basic definition of freedom is the lack of coersion. To be forced by government to hire people whom I sincerely believe are evil is a violation of my conscience and a further erosion of private property rights, i.e., freedom. This doesn\’t seem to have concerned you.
I am certian that St. Paul would approve of a company not hiring someone dedicated to flouting sexual perversion, and would disapprove of government mandating hiring and providing for him, since he said in Romans 13 that civil magistrates are God\’s instruments for punishing evil. For governemnt to force someone to ignore evil is to turn its God-given mandate on its head.
Since St. Paul was a immediate spokesman for God, there is no doubt in my mind about Jesus\’ disposition on this topic.
\”Jesus\’ sacrifice is off topic. His behavior towards a sinner is not necesssarily indicative of the sinner\’s relationship to the cross. The woman taken in adultery might have gone right back to her lover\’s bed, and ended up in hell. I doubt it, but we don\’t know. Jesus did not forgive her, He only refused to condemn her due to lack of evidence.\”
Really? That’s an interesting interpretation. Are you saying Jesus didn’t know whether she was an adulteress? I always thought He refused to condemn her on the principle that he who is without sin should cast the first stone. You know, Judge not, lest ye be judged? This is one of His most important teachings, and pretty much the whole point of why I continue to type away here.
\”Jesus can pardon sinners because He is God. I cannot pardon sinners because I am a creature and a sinner. I can forgive you for punching me in the nose, but if you are unrepentant God will not. And God can forgive you for punching me in the nose even if I don\’t.
God knows the heart, I don\’t. So I can only deal with what I see and hear, and follow the mandate laid down by St. Paul in Ephesians 5:11, \”Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.\” When I see or hear that a man has renounced evil and embraced the gospel, I will assume that he has joined the ranks of the redeemed and behave accordingly. If he renounces evil and doesn\’t embrace the gospel, I will still hire him and add him to the ranks of the insured. I simply do not want to tacitly approve of evil by associating with and supporting it, being forced to treat two homos as if they were on an equal footing with a married man and woman.\”
As you well know, there is only one unpardonable sin: rejecting God. There are no others. You don\’t get to define homosexual behavior as a de facto rejection of God, because it is only one sin among many which anyone could select to be bad enough to equate to rejecting God. Therefore, you can\’t assume that any practicing homosexual has rejected God or been rejected by Him. Your harsh judgment of homosexuals puts you in jeopardy (Romans 2:1).
\”One basic definition of freedom is the lack of coersion. To be forced by government to hire people whom I sincerely believe are evil is a violation of my conscience and a further erosion of private property rights, i.e., freedom. This doesn\’t seem to have concerned you.”
On the list of things that concern me, I will admit that government-enforced tolerance of people who are different than me comes up pretty low.
“I am certian that St. Paul would approve of a company not hiring someone dedicated to flouting sexual perversion, and would disapprove of government mandating hiring and providing for him, since he said in Romans 13 that civil magistrates are God\’s instruments for punishing evil. For governemnt to force someone to ignore evil is to turn its God-given mandate on its head.
Since St. Paul was a immediate spokesman for God, there is no doubt in my mind about Jesus\’ disposition on this topic.\”
Your analysis of pardoning, forgiveness and evil starts and ends with your tremendous distaste for a particular sin. It then becomes easy to point to verses and say, “See? It’s all right here.”
Romans 13 also tells us to pay our taxes and not to resist governmental authority. If you and I have a duty to think for ourselves and decide whether or not this or that government edict violates our conscience, Romans 13 isn’t going to be much help. You can’t use it to justify civil magistrates punishing people you think are evil and in the same breath complain about laws you don’t like.
It matters not to me what you believe to be true, or whom you believe to be evil â€â€Ŕ even though I disagree with your interpretations of the Bible, I wholeheartedly support your right to believe whatever you want. But it makes a big difference to me on what basis our laws are decided, interpreted and enforced. Whether you like it or not, we are governed by the Constitution, not the Bible. If the Founding Fathers had wanted us to refer to the Bible when making and interpreting our laws, they could have easily included explicit references in the Constitution. They didn’t. If you don’t like the way our laws force you to treat gays, there are plenty of Islamic dictatorships that might be more to your liking. They hate gays as much as you seem to, but their people really get to have fun with their hatred.
Voltaire said, “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” Here’s to continued searching and learning.
> Are you saying Jesus didn\’t know whether she was an adulteress?
Of course He knew. As God the Law of Moses didn\’t apply to Him, but as man He had to keep it in order to fulfill all righteousness. The Law required two or more witnesses, and forbade (in Deut. somewhere) that one could not testify in a case when he is guilty of the same thing. We might call this the Hypocrisy Law. Since these men did not bring her partner, and were apparently adulterers all, they realized that the jig was up and they had been exposed by a prophet.
>\”I always thought He refused to condemn her on the principle that he who is without sin should cast the first stone. You know, Judge not, lest ye be judged? This is one of His most important teachings, and pretty much the whole point of why I continue to type away here.\”
Remember, Jesus told the woman, \”Go and sin no more.\” He didn\’t say that it was no one\’s business. Would you take Him to task for labeling her behavior as sin? In Mt. 7:1 he said, \”Judge not, lest ye be judged,\” then in Mt7:6 He said, \”Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.\” How can one tell the difference between a dog and a swine w/o judging? Jesus said \”Judge righteous judgment,\” meaning consonant with God\’s Law and with a clear conscience in regard to it. What is ultimately the goal is the prevention of hypocrisy.
St. Paul also condemned all manner of evil practice, including sodomy, so obviously pardoning sin is not to be confused with excusing it. There is no need to excuse what has been repented of, for it has therefore also been confessed.
> “As you well know, there is only one unpardonable sin: rejecting God. There are no others.”
I rejected God until He called me out of darkness. Apparently, rejecting Him is not the pardonable sin. I mean, why send missionaries after people who have rejected God? In fact, Mt.21:31 & Mark 3:29 tell us what the unpardonable sin is, “And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.” It is attributing evil to God.
> “You don\’t get to define homosexual behavior as a de facto rejection of God, because it is only one sin among many which anyone could select to be bad enough to equate to rejecting God. Therefore, you can\’t assume that any practicing homosexual has rejected God or been rejected by Him. Your harsh judgment of homosexuals puts you in jeopardy (Romans 2:1)”
See the Scripture quoted above in which the actual unpardonable sin is stated. Since you are wrong on that count you are wrong on this one as well. St. Paul condemned sodomy as well.
> It matters not to me what you believe to be true, or whom you believe to be evil â€â€Ŕ even though I disagree with your interpretations of the Bible, I wholeheartedly support your right to believe whatever you want. But it makes a big difference to me on what basis our laws are decided, interpreted and enforced. Whether you like it or not, we are governed by the Constitution, not the Bible. If the Founding Fathers had wanted us to refer to the Bible when making and interpreting our laws, they could have easily included explicit references in the Constitution. They didn\’t. If you don\’t like the way our laws force you to treat gays, there are plenty of Islamic dictatorships that might be more to your liking. They hate gays as much as you seem to, but their people really get to have fun with their hatred.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.\” Congress of the United States of America, July 4, 1776.
\”Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.\” -John Jay, First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and co-author of the Federalist Papers.
\”The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it.\” -John Marshall, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1801-1835.
“The real object of the [First] Amendment was not to countenance, much less advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Chrisianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects.” \”Christianity becomes not merely an auxiliary, but a guide, to the law of nature; establishing its conclusions, removing its doubts, and evaluating its precepts.\” Joseph Story, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court 1811-1845, founder of Harvard Law School.
\”We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.\” -James Madison, fourth President of the United States.
The founders forgot all of this when they ratified the Constitution, “In the year of our Lord, 1789”?
“I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.” â€â€ŔRoger Baldwin, Unitarian, Founding Director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
We could go on and on like this, but you get the picture. Once people start equating a debating partner with the Nazis or the Taliban it is an admission of defeat. You lose.
> Voltaire said, \”Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.\” Here\’s to continued searching and learning.
The nurse who sat with Voltaire on his deathbed swore that she would never attend the death of another atheist, so horrible was his fear of death and loathing of God. I\’m not surprised that you admire him.
I am really done. Go away. Repent and believe the gospel.
This about my 5th attempt at responding to your post. If you want the last word so bad that you have to kill my posts, you really need to find some inner peace.
“> Are you saying Jesus didn\’t know whether she was an adulteress? ”
“Of course He knew. As God the Law of Moses didn\’t apply to Him, but as man He had to keep it in order to fulfill all righteousness. The Law required two or more witnesses, and forbade (in Deut. somewhere) that one could not testify in a case when he is guilty of the same thing. We might call this the Hypocrisy Law. Since these men did not bring her partner, and were apparently adulterers all, they realized that the jig was up and they had been exposed by a prophet.”
They were Scribes and Pharisees, not fellow adulterers. Fellow sinners, yes.
“>\”I always thought He refused to condemn her on the principle that he who is without sin should cast the first stone. You know, Judge not, lest ye be judged? This is one of His most important teachings, and pretty much the whole point of why I continue to type away here.\”
“Remember, Jesus told the woman, \”Go and sin no more.\” He didn\’t say that it was no one\’s business. Would you take Him to task for labeling her behavior as sin? In Mt. 7:1 he said, \”Judge not, lest ye be judged,\” then in Mt7:6 He said, \”Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.\” How can one tell the difference between a dog and a swine w/o judging? Jesus said \”Judge righteous judgment,\” meaning consonant with God\’s Law and with a clear conscience in regard to it. What is ultimately the goal is the prevention of hypocrisy.”
Most Christians don’t have as much trouble understanding this story as you do. It is about hypocrisy â€â€Ŕ the hypocrisy of those who condemn sinners when they themselves are sinners. You just don’t seem to be able to see your role in it.
“St. Paul also condemned all manner of evil practice, including sodomy, so obviously pardoning sin is not to be confused with excusing it. There is no need to excuse what has been repented of, for it has therefore also been confessed.”
And condemning all manner of sin is not to be confused with not pardoning it. That’s between each person and their Maker. You are not a part of that, unless you aspire to be a Scribe or Pharisee.
“> \”As you well know, there is only one unpardonable sin: rejecting God. There are no others.\”
“I rejected God until He called me out of darkness. Apparently, rejecting Him is not the pardonable sin. I mean, why send missionaries after people who have rejected God? In fact, Mt.21:31 & Mark 3:29 tell us what the unpardonable sin is, \”And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.\” It is attributing evil to God.”
“> \”You don\’t get to define homosexual behavior as a de facto rejection of God, because it is only one sin among many which anyone could select to be bad enough to equate to rejecting God. Therefore, you can\’t assume that any practicing homosexual has rejected God or been rejected by Him. Your harsh judgment of homosexuals puts you in jeopardy (Romans 2:1)\”
“See the Scripture quoted above in which the actual unpardonable sin is stated. Since you are wrong on that count you are wrong on this one as well. St. Paul condemned sodomy as well. ”
You’re conveniently ignoring Matthew 3:28, which states that all blasphemies are pardonable. In that context, it’s clear that only blasphemies that are unrepented are unpardonable. I’m amazed that I have to explain this to you.
“The founders forgot all of this when they ratified the Constitution, \”In the year of our Lord, 1789\”?”
They specifically left it out of the Constitution. Benjamin Franklin and the first 6 presidents were Deists and/or Unitarians. Thomas Jefferson specifically denied the divinity of Jesus. Even Lincoln, although he worshipped God, was not a Christian. I’m afraid you’re going to have to share them with all of us.
“\”I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.\” â€â€ŔRoger Baldwin, Unitarian, Founding Director of the American Civil Liberties Union. ”
Baldwin repudiated this when he discovered, in 1939, how wrong he was about the Soviet Union. Intelligent people are capable of changing their minds.
“We could go on and on like this, but you get the picture. Once people start equating a debating partner with the Nazis or the Taliban it is an admission of defeat. You lose.”
I wasn’t referring to Nazis or Taliban â€â€Ŕ I was referring to some of our partners in the war on terrorism: Saudi Arabia and Dubai. If you want the US to be run by religious fanaticism, you might want to see what it’s like first. You surrendered in your first post when you repeated lies and half-truths, and you can’t seem to stop.
“> Voltaire said, \”Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.\” Here\’s to continued searching and learning.”
“The nurse who sat with Voltaire on his deathbed swore that she would never attend the death of another atheist, so horrible was his fear of death and loathing of God. I\’m not surprised that you admire him.”
There was no nurse at Voltaire’s deathbed. He was so despised by the Catholic Church that they made up a lot of stories after he died. Voltaire was also a Deist; he had no problem with God, only organized religion.
“I am really done. Go away. Repent and believe the gospel.”
This discussion is about honesty and understanding, not your torturing of the Gospels to justify your intolerance. The fact that you keep canceling my posts speaks volumes about you.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
I can\’t resist. The one who is the father of the child is responsible for his health care. What is preventing him from providing health care for his child (though I believe of course that the child should be removed from such a situation)?
If they adopted, which is an abomination in itself, then one (or both?!) is the father and can add the child to his employer\’s policy.
If you want to consider whether a sodomist\’s \”life partner\” or \”husband\” should be covered by an employer\’s policy, the answer is no if based strictly on actuarial bases, since homosexuals\’ life expectancy is 46 years even excluding AIDS, because they have such high rates of alcoholism, drunk driving, drug use, and domestic violence, not to mention other health problems endemic to them.
I was working in D.C. when the city council passed a law forbidding life insurers to test for AIDS when writing policies, and so they all quit writing there the same day. This is what happens when politics infringes in areas where it has no business. Somebody had the stupid idea that this was the moral thing to do (since all legislation is someone\’s morality),and it adversely impacted the whole community.
I knew you\’d be back.:)
Now that you think they could get the employer\’s insurance benefit, go back and read the original article. The employer denied the benefits because they weren\’t married.
Oh, and let me guess: did the 46 year life span come from Cameron and the Family Research Council web site, too? Have you read the voluminous debunkings of that so-called \”study?\”
You\’re evading the issue: alcoholics, drug users, rapists, and sinners of all types can get on an employer\’s health plan if they\’re married. Heck, they can even get married! But you believe that one specific class of sinner should not. I\’m still wondering why.
Where\’d you get the idea that I agree that they should get the benefit? It should be left up to those paying the bills, and if it\’s me, then I should not be forced to pay for the anal suspensor repair of some sodomist\’s boyfriend.
You keep dismissing my sources and claiming that they are discredited but you have offered none. Fine. Throw in AIDS-related deaths and then tell me what the average lifespan of your garden variety sodomist is.
I\’m done. This is like talking to a post. Have a nice day.
\”Where\’d you get the idea that I agree that they should get the benefit? It should be left up to those paying the bills, and if it\’s me, then I should not be forced to pay for the anal suspensor repair of some sodomist\’s boyfriend.\”
Barney, the problem is you are not reading what is being written. Once again, you\’re attributing something to me that I didn\’t say. I must say, however, that for someone who professes to be disgusted with the gay life style, you seem to really enjoy digging in to the nitty-gritty of the sex and health issues.
\”You keep dismissing my sources and claiming that they are discredited but you have offered none. Fine. Throw in AIDS-related deaths and then tell me what the average lifespan of your garden variety sodomist is.\”
I assume you can use Google; that\’s why I didn\’t bother with specific URLs. Intellectual integrity does take some effort.
\”I\’m done. This is like talking to a post. Have a nice day.\”
See ya. Oh, come on back if you decide to give some thought to my question about, you know, if Jesus ran a company, and He provided health benefits to his employees, and if you worked there, your wife and family would be covered, but do you think He would allow members of a \”sinning\” family to be covered, or would He just tell them, \”Sorry, you\’ll have to see what you can find in the marketplace.\” You know, that question?
\”if Jesus ran a company …would allow members of a \”sinning\” family to be covered, or would He just tell them, \”Sorry, you\’ll have to see what you can find in the marketplace.\”
Jesus did run a company – He was a builder. Obviously, He could provide the best health care ever.
When He refused to condemn the woman taken in adultery, He told her, \”Go and sin no more,\” which He would tell any unrepentant sinner. He let her go because her witnesses refused to testify, not because He countenanced sin. To pardon an adulteress is not to pardon adultery.
1 Corinthians 6:9, \”Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind…\”
If St. Paul can deny them heaven, then Jesus would have no problem denying them fringe benefits.
Paul\’s message is a warning. He is not barring entrance; only God can do that. Jesus\’ message is forgiveness. He didn\’t say \”Go, and sin no more, or I\’ll make your life Hell on Earth.\” You are not Jesus\’ enforcer. You are right when you say to pardon adultery is not to countenance adultery; you just don\’t understand what it means to pardon. You\’ve missed the entire point of Jesus\’ sacrifice.
Jesus\’ sacrifice is off topic. His behavior towards a sinner is not necesssarily indicative of the sinner\’s relationship to the cross. The woman taken in adultery might have gone right back to her lover\’s bed, and ended up in hell. I doubt it, but we don\’t know. Jesus did not forgive her, He only refused to condemn her due to lack of evidence.
Jesus can pardon sinners because He is God. I cannot pardon sinners because I am a creature and a sinner. I can forgive you for punching me in the nose, but if you are unrepentant God will not. And God can forgive you for punching me in the nose even if I don\’t.
God knows the heart, I don\’t. So I can only deal with what I see and hear, and follow the mandate laid down by St. Paul in Ephesians 5:11, \”Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.\” When I see or hear that a man has renounced evil and embraced the gospel, I will assume that he has joined the ranks of the redeemed and behave accordingly. If he renounces evil and doesn\’t embrace the gospel, I will still hire him and add him to the ranks of the insured. I simply do not want to tacitly approve of evil by associating with and supporting it, being forced to treat two homos as if they were on an equal footing with a married man and woman.
One basic definition of freedom is the lack of coersion. To be forced by government to hire people whom I sincerely believe are evil is a violation of my conscience and a further erosion of private property rights, i.e., freedom. This doesn\’t seem to have concerned you.
I am certian that St. Paul would approve of a company not hiring someone dedicated to flouting sexual perversion, and would disapprove of government mandating hiring and providing for him, since he said in Romans 13 that civil magistrates are God\’s instruments for punishing evil. For governemnt to force someone to ignore evil is to turn its God-given mandate on its head.
Since St. Paul was a immediate spokesman for God, there is no doubt in my mind about Jesus\’ disposition on this topic.
\”Jesus\’ sacrifice is off topic. His behavior towards a sinner is not necesssarily indicative of the sinner\’s relationship to the cross. The woman taken in adultery might have gone right back to her lover\’s bed, and ended up in hell. I doubt it, but we don\’t know. Jesus did not forgive her, He only refused to condemn her due to lack of evidence.\”
Really? That’s an interesting interpretation. Are you saying Jesus didn’t know whether she was an adulteress? I always thought He refused to condemn her on the principle that he who is without sin should cast the first stone. You know, Judge not, lest ye be judged? This is one of His most important teachings, and pretty much the whole point of why I continue to type away here.
\”Jesus can pardon sinners because He is God. I cannot pardon sinners because I am a creature and a sinner. I can forgive you for punching me in the nose, but if you are unrepentant God will not. And God can forgive you for punching me in the nose even if I don\’t.
God knows the heart, I don\’t. So I can only deal with what I see and hear, and follow the mandate laid down by St. Paul in Ephesians 5:11, \”Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.\” When I see or hear that a man has renounced evil and embraced the gospel, I will assume that he has joined the ranks of the redeemed and behave accordingly. If he renounces evil and doesn\’t embrace the gospel, I will still hire him and add him to the ranks of the insured. I simply do not want to tacitly approve of evil by associating with and supporting it, being forced to treat two homos as if they were on an equal footing with a married man and woman.\”
As you well know, there is only one unpardonable sin: rejecting God. There are no others. You don\’t get to define homosexual behavior as a de facto rejection of God, because it is only one sin among many which anyone could select to be bad enough to equate to rejecting God. Therefore, you can\’t assume that any practicing homosexual has rejected God or been rejected by Him. Your harsh judgment of homosexuals puts you in jeopardy (Romans 2:1).
\”One basic definition of freedom is the lack of coersion. To be forced by government to hire people whom I sincerely believe are evil is a violation of my conscience and a further erosion of private property rights, i.e., freedom. This doesn\’t seem to have concerned you.”
On the list of things that concern me, I will admit that government-enforced tolerance of people who are different than me comes up pretty low.
“I am certian that St. Paul would approve of a company not hiring someone dedicated to flouting sexual perversion, and would disapprove of government mandating hiring and providing for him, since he said in Romans 13 that civil magistrates are God\’s instruments for punishing evil. For governemnt to force someone to ignore evil is to turn its God-given mandate on its head.
Since St. Paul was a immediate spokesman for God, there is no doubt in my mind about Jesus\’ disposition on this topic.\”
Your analysis of pardoning, forgiveness and evil starts and ends with your tremendous distaste for a particular sin. It then becomes easy to point to verses and say, “See? It’s all right here.”
Romans 13 also tells us to pay our taxes and not to resist governmental authority. If you and I have a duty to think for ourselves and decide whether or not this or that government edict violates our conscience, Romans 13 isn’t going to be much help. You can’t use it to justify civil magistrates punishing people you think are evil and in the same breath complain about laws you don’t like.
It matters not to me what you believe to be true, or whom you believe to be evil â€â€Ŕ even though I disagree with your interpretations of the Bible, I wholeheartedly support your right to believe whatever you want. But it makes a big difference to me on what basis our laws are decided, interpreted and enforced. Whether you like it or not, we are governed by the Constitution, not the Bible. If the Founding Fathers had wanted us to refer to the Bible when making and interpreting our laws, they could have easily included explicit references in the Constitution. They didn’t. If you don’t like the way our laws force you to treat gays, there are plenty of Islamic dictatorships that might be more to your liking. They hate gays as much as you seem to, but their people really get to have fun with their hatred.
Voltaire said, “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” Here’s to continued searching and learning.
> Are you saying Jesus didn\’t know whether she was an adulteress?
Of course He knew. As God the Law of Moses didn\’t apply to Him, but as man He had to keep it in order to fulfill all righteousness. The Law required two or more witnesses, and forbade (in Deut. somewhere) that one could not testify in a case when he is guilty of the same thing. We might call this the Hypocrisy Law. Since these men did not bring her partner, and were apparently adulterers all, they realized that the jig was up and they had been exposed by a prophet.
>\”I always thought He refused to condemn her on the principle that he who is without sin should cast the first stone. You know, Judge not, lest ye be judged? This is one of His most important teachings, and pretty much the whole point of why I continue to type away here.\”
Remember, Jesus told the woman, \”Go and sin no more.\” He didn\’t say that it was no one\’s business. Would you take Him to task for labeling her behavior as sin? In Mt. 7:1 he said, \”Judge not, lest ye be judged,\” then in Mt7:6 He said, \”Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.\” How can one tell the difference between a dog and a swine w/o judging? Jesus said \”Judge righteous judgment,\” meaning consonant with God\’s Law and with a clear conscience in regard to it. What is ultimately the goal is the prevention of hypocrisy.
St. Paul also condemned all manner of evil practice, including sodomy, so obviously pardoning sin is not to be confused with excusing it. There is no need to excuse what has been repented of, for it has therefore also been confessed.
> “As you well know, there is only one unpardonable sin: rejecting God. There are no others.”
I rejected God until He called me out of darkness. Apparently, rejecting Him is not the pardonable sin. I mean, why send missionaries after people who have rejected God? In fact, Mt.21:31 & Mark 3:29 tell us what the unpardonable sin is, “And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.” It is attributing evil to God.
> “You don\’t get to define homosexual behavior as a de facto rejection of God, because it is only one sin among many which anyone could select to be bad enough to equate to rejecting God. Therefore, you can\’t assume that any practicing homosexual has rejected God or been rejected by Him. Your harsh judgment of homosexuals puts you in jeopardy (Romans 2:1)”
See the Scripture quoted above in which the actual unpardonable sin is stated. Since you are wrong on that count you are wrong on this one as well. St. Paul condemned sodomy as well.
> It matters not to me what you believe to be true, or whom you believe to be evil â€â€Ŕ even though I disagree with your interpretations of the Bible, I wholeheartedly support your right to believe whatever you want. But it makes a big difference to me on what basis our laws are decided, interpreted and enforced. Whether you like it or not, we are governed by the Constitution, not the Bible. If the Founding Fathers had wanted us to refer to the Bible when making and interpreting our laws, they could have easily included explicit references in the Constitution. They didn\’t. If you don\’t like the way our laws force you to treat gays, there are plenty of Islamic dictatorships that might be more to your liking. They hate gays as much as you seem to, but their people really get to have fun with their hatred.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.\” Congress of the United States of America, July 4, 1776.
\”Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.\” -John Jay, First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and co-author of the Federalist Papers.
\”The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it.\” -John Marshall, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1801-1835.
“The real object of the [First] Amendment was not to countenance, much less advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity by prostrating Chrisianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects.” \”Christianity becomes not merely an auxiliary, but a guide, to the law of nature; establishing its conclusions, removing its doubts, and evaluating its precepts.\” Joseph Story, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court 1811-1845, founder of Harvard Law School.
\”We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.\” -James Madison, fourth President of the United States.
The founders forgot all of this when they ratified the Constitution, “In the year of our Lord, 1789”?
“I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.” â€â€ŔRoger Baldwin, Unitarian, Founding Director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
We could go on and on like this, but you get the picture. Once people start equating a debating partner with the Nazis or the Taliban it is an admission of defeat. You lose.
> Voltaire said, \”Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.\” Here\’s to continued searching and learning.
The nurse who sat with Voltaire on his deathbed swore that she would never attend the death of another atheist, so horrible was his fear of death and loathing of God. I\’m not surprised that you admire him.
I am really done. Go away. Repent and believe the gospel.
This about my 5th attempt at responding to your post. If you want the last word so bad that you have to kill my posts, you really need to find some inner peace.
“> Are you saying Jesus didn\’t know whether she was an adulteress? ”
“Of course He knew. As God the Law of Moses didn\’t apply to Him, but as man He had to keep it in order to fulfill all righteousness. The Law required two or more witnesses, and forbade (in Deut. somewhere) that one could not testify in a case when he is guilty of the same thing. We might call this the Hypocrisy Law. Since these men did not bring her partner, and were apparently adulterers all, they realized that the jig was up and they had been exposed by a prophet.”
They were Scribes and Pharisees, not fellow adulterers. Fellow sinners, yes.
“>\”I always thought He refused to condemn her on the principle that he who is without sin should cast the first stone. You know, Judge not, lest ye be judged? This is one of His most important teachings, and pretty much the whole point of why I continue to type away here.\”
“Remember, Jesus told the woman, \”Go and sin no more.\” He didn\’t say that it was no one\’s business. Would you take Him to task for labeling her behavior as sin? In Mt. 7:1 he said, \”Judge not, lest ye be judged,\” then in Mt7:6 He said, \”Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.\” How can one tell the difference between a dog and a swine w/o judging? Jesus said \”Judge righteous judgment,\” meaning consonant with God\’s Law and with a clear conscience in regard to it. What is ultimately the goal is the prevention of hypocrisy.”
Most Christians don’t have as much trouble understanding this story as you do. It is about hypocrisy â€â€Ŕ the hypocrisy of those who condemn sinners when they themselves are sinners. You just don’t seem to be able to see your role in it.
“St. Paul also condemned all manner of evil practice, including sodomy, so obviously pardoning sin is not to be confused with excusing it. There is no need to excuse what has been repented of, for it has therefore also been confessed.”
And condemning all manner of sin is not to be confused with not pardoning it. That’s between each person and their Maker. You are not a part of that, unless you aspire to be a Scribe or Pharisee.
“> \”As you well know, there is only one unpardonable sin: rejecting God. There are no others.\”
“I rejected God until He called me out of darkness. Apparently, rejecting Him is not the pardonable sin. I mean, why send missionaries after people who have rejected God? In fact, Mt.21:31 & Mark 3:29 tell us what the unpardonable sin is, \”And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.\” It is attributing evil to God.”
“> \”You don\’t get to define homosexual behavior as a de facto rejection of God, because it is only one sin among many which anyone could select to be bad enough to equate to rejecting God. Therefore, you can\’t assume that any practicing homosexual has rejected God or been rejected by Him. Your harsh judgment of homosexuals puts you in jeopardy (Romans 2:1)\”
“See the Scripture quoted above in which the actual unpardonable sin is stated. Since you are wrong on that count you are wrong on this one as well. St. Paul condemned sodomy as well. ”
You’re conveniently ignoring Matthew 3:28, which states that all blasphemies are pardonable. In that context, it’s clear that only blasphemies that are unrepented are unpardonable. I’m amazed that I have to explain this to you.
“The founders forgot all of this when they ratified the Constitution, \”In the year of our Lord, 1789\”?”
They specifically left it out of the Constitution. Benjamin Franklin and the first 6 presidents were Deists and/or Unitarians. Thomas Jefferson specifically denied the divinity of Jesus. Even Lincoln, although he worshipped God, was not a Christian. I’m afraid you’re going to have to share them with all of us.
“\”I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control by those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.\” â€â€ŔRoger Baldwin, Unitarian, Founding Director of the American Civil Liberties Union. ”
Baldwin repudiated this when he discovered, in 1939, how wrong he was about the Soviet Union. Intelligent people are capable of changing their minds.
“We could go on and on like this, but you get the picture. Once people start equating a debating partner with the Nazis or the Taliban it is an admission of defeat. You lose.”
I wasn’t referring to Nazis or Taliban â€â€Ŕ I was referring to some of our partners in the war on terrorism: Saudi Arabia and Dubai. If you want the US to be run by religious fanaticism, you might want to see what it’s like first. You surrendered in your first post when you repeated lies and half-truths, and you can’t seem to stop.
“> Voltaire said, \”Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.\” Here\’s to continued searching and learning.”
“The nurse who sat with Voltaire on his deathbed swore that she would never attend the death of another atheist, so horrible was his fear of death and loathing of God. I\’m not surprised that you admire him.”
There was no nurse at Voltaire’s deathbed. He was so despised by the Catholic Church that they made up a lot of stories after he died. Voltaire was also a Deist; he had no problem with God, only organized religion.
“I am really done. Go away. Repent and believe the gospel.”
This discussion is about honesty and understanding, not your torturing of the Gospels to justify your intolerance. The fact that you keep canceling my posts speaks volumes about you.