http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/10/31/democrats-court-winners-election-day-losers/

It’s funny, I was reading an article about various political people who were opposing gay marriages, but had been married and divorced several times.

I think the goal of christians is to preach the good news to everyone, that’s it. not to fuss about laws and politics.

If each christian were to get one person saved per week, or per month ect… then more people will be christian, if more people are christians, then, the people at the government are christians and the rest is easy.

Now, my simple strategy may sound TOO simple as people may say it’s easier to say than do. But that’s when the power of prayer comes into play, if you pray to God to help you save that next door neighbor, I think he will help.

Rather than praying and fasting about making sure that anti-gay laws or anti abortion laws are passed, let’s just pray for our brothers and sisters in our community, city, state, country, world for them to get saved.

I think many NOT ALL evangelicals are having the wrong agenda.

Each day when i pray, i really ask God to give me his strenghts and courage for me to go around and minister the word of God to people I encounter.

Cause at the end of the day, it’s really about brining more souls to Christ, we’ll be judged on that not “demonizing” sinners.

They aren’t and we can pretty much stick a fork in the moonbat’s woldview by the time ‘10 rolls around. Whenever the grownups decide to take the reins back from the looney left fringe, it would behoove them to pay attention to her.

Ciao

Let me suggest something to the readers here that will either bounce off the thread as if it was never metioned or cause an all-out flame war: I think that homosexual agenda in the U.S. (if not world-wide) is a function of the way the church views all sins today and not a function of clever marketing on the part of homosexuals.

See: if the church viewed all sin as an offence to God — you know, divorce for reasons other than adultery, living together outside of marriage, sex outside of marriage, not to mention lying, theft, murder and (wait for it) coveting things your neighbor has, and not just homosexuality — and was teaching people that only God’s grace overcomes sin, there would be a lower divorce rate, a lower teen pregnancy rate, a lower rate of corporate scandal and greed, and no issue at all regarding homosexual marriage because Christian marriage would be intimidating to those who think they want a weak imitation of it.

The question is not whether the church should oppose homosexual “marriage” but, in fact, how the church ought to oppose homosexual marriage. Is it by causing laws to be passed which criminalizes everything without any reference to God and His holiness, or is it by evangelizing and harvesting the people God is calling to Himself and then, as the Bible tells us to do, exhorting them by the word and by the biblical model of church discipline and fellowship to do the good works God has made us to do?

The real answer to homosexual marriage is not stoning those caught in the act: it is by confessing that we are saved by grace through faith — and that all sinners ought to seek that grace while it is available to them rather than to seek their own vain reasonings which justify their own sins. Like the sin of legalism, the sin of hypocracy, the sin of snobbery, etc.

Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.

Anyway, I used to be quite a fan of Camille Paglia, because she is extremely intelligent and has incisive, non-PC opinions about cultural matters. She was great at pointing out how feminist ideas of “sexual harassment” and “date rape” deny all agency to the woman and that that’s not the way sexuality works in real life. However, in recent years I’ve come to think she is quite nihilistic, celebrating “paganism” and making often irresponsible statements. Like Andrew Sullivan, a good writer and smart commentator, but very radical on sexual issues.

No, these in the closet practicing homosexuals in the Republican party does not set well with me and I am sure quite a few others.

John

John

How many times do I need to say that I’m not asking for punishment for anyone, beyond what we already have? We punish murderers. Fine. We don’t punish homosexuals. Fine.

My objection is that our culture (the MSM, our schools, etc.) actively promotes homosexuality as a good thing. This is the only activity that I can think of (off the top of my head) that is widely viewed as sin that is being promoted by the culture. All the rest (murder, alcoholism, prostitution, drug abuse, smoking, and mostly adultery) are frowned upon by the culture.

When the culture promotes sex outside of marriage, I object to that as well.

Please read more carefully. There’s no inconsistency.

There are many important things that came out of the Catholic Church scandal, including:
- a greater awareness of how much sexual abuse is entrenched in every corner of society, even in the ones deemed the holiest;
- the first and only chance for many of the victims to put forth a lawsuit regarding their ordeal;
- the punishment for men who destroyed the well-being and lives of many vulnerable kids.

However, there are other aspects of the media coverage of the Catholic Church scandal that have been detrimental regarding the problem of sexual exploitation in society.

A recently released study has shown that 81% of the priest abusers exploited male adolescents, and not small (prepubescent) children – or girls. In the great majority of cases there was no physical violence involved, it was expressly a homosexual case of exploitation or abuse, not “pedophile” abuse (pedo as in children).

The media, which for the most part is obsessed with pro-homosexuality, insistently hid this fact from the public. Why is this a grave problem? Because awareness that homosexuals and bisexuals exploit minors is essential for action to be taken in every case where it occurs, just as awareness that priests abuse kids was necessary to break through the cloud of denial that often hanged in a Church cover-up. The same can be said regarding society’s denial of women abusing children.

When many of the boys in the Catholic Church scandal tried to tell someone about their abuse, the reaction was often one of extreme denial. The Church and others would also attack the victim for suggesting “such a bad thing” about a priest. The Church’s powerful lawyers often informally (and sometimes formally) bullied the victims into silence. In a set of attitudes and behaviors that profoundly mimics the Catholic Church hierarchy, pro-homosexuals often insist that homosexuals do not abuse minors, period. This is as monstrous a lie as saying that priests do not abuse minors, or that women don’t either. What this creates is an environment of denial that makes it virtually impossible for other victims to come foward and seek justice.

Read this letter to the editors of Beaver County Times regarding the ACLU – written by Dan Reeping – Oct. 12, 2006:

” The writer [of Thursday's editorial "Blind Eye" ] does not understand the legal problems the superintendent of the pretend school district would be subject to if he started an investigation of a gay teacher or gay person without iron-clad proof of sexual activity.

If the superintendent would start an investigation of a gay with e-mails similar to those sent by Foley (before the text messages), the ACLU would bring suit immediately against the superintendent, and the district would pay millions.

The e-mails did not demonstrate any real indication of being of a sexual nature. Therefore, any questions or suggestions using these e-mails that a gay communicating with a student was improper would be considered harassment of a gay.

By law, the superintendent must have a blind eye until he has proof of a crime. That isn’t the way it should be, but that’s the law. ”

You have pointed to how sickening Foley’s mind is. What I find sickening is how much the media and society likes to narrow their attention to priest abusers. Are they joking to themselves that the only sexual exploiters of minors in the US are confined to the priesthood?

Pro-homosexuals also insist that the majority of abusers are heterosexual males. Although the assertion is disputable depending on the way the measurement is taken, or the population studied, the numbers game is besides the point. A case of abuse is not life-damaging because it produces one statistical number or another. Take the case of gender. A minor that is sexually abused by a woman does not suffer less than one abused by a man, even though women have a lower statistical total of perpetrators than males. The focus of attention should be on investigating perpetrators who are homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, priests, rabbis, lay teachers, counselors, mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts, coaches, that is, everyone. One category is not more special or more innocent than another. Even if the majority of perpetrators are male, does that mean, for example, that the victims of female perpetrators should be relegated to invisibility, silence, trivialization, and consequently, lack of justice?

Every time a pro-homosexual says homosexuals don’t abuse minors, or that the majority of abusers are heterosexuals, what they are really doing is creating a climate of denial about the countless real cases that exist where the perpetrators are homosexuals and impeding preventive action. Similarly, compared to the millions of estimated abuse cases, only a tiny minority of sexual abusers are priests. Should we then divert attention from all the real cases where the perpetrators are priests and focus only on the big total of “lay men?” Are the victims less important because of the statistical total of their perpetrator category? Should we systematically erase the fact that such abusers are priests, just like the media has done with the homosexual factor in the Catholic Church and other cases?

This brings us to the tawdry PR excuse that this Republican leadership put forth. Let us not forget that most of these Republican leaders are libertarians, not social conservatives, which means they are quite pro-homosexuality, pro-pornography, and possibly pro-prostitution – as long as it’s not publicly stated so. One of the Foley excuses put forth by the Republican leadership was saying that had they acted on the first ambiguous but non-sexually explicit Foley emails, the media would have tarred and feathered them as “homophobic.” The latter part of the excuse is totally true, but responsible people do not go along with a cowardly media obsessed with pro-homosexuality – they fight it. Responsible people do not fail to investigate homosexual exploitation of minors because they are afraid of being slandered as “homophobic.” Responsible people investigate both the possible homosexual exploitation and they denounce the dishonest manipulations of a pro-homosexual media that silence awareness regarding homosexual abuse.

I have no doubt the Republican leadership knew about Foley’s sick homosexual mind and behavior, and, like the Catholic Church, preferred to turn a blind eye instead of taking firm and responsible measures. Now they want to find someone to blame, so it’s all the liberal homosexuality-obsessed media’s fault. It is not.

However, let us imagine that they had gone to the media with the first set of emails and made Foley resign. Can you imagine the “Gay Witch Hunt,” “Republican Homophobia Hysteria,” headlines that our dominant pro-homosexual media would have screamed? “Tar and feather” is an euphemism to what the media would have done to such Republicans. The media reaction would be one of extreme attack on the Republicans for suggesting “such a bad thing” about a homosexual. Because, just like Foley and the Catholic Church, the media may make all kinds of speeches blasting the exploitation of minors, but, like Foley, many of their actions or inactions are one of the cornerstones of the current system of sexual violence that exists in society. And this also includes the media’s pro-homosexual attitudes which destroy awareness that homosexuals and bisexuals are, like other categories, abusers and exploiters. The media, by creating a climate of denial and silence, is profoundly failing the countless victims of harassment, exploitation, or abuse where the perpetrators are non-heterosexuals.

And this is just as sickening as what Foley has done.

Creationists often make the false accusation that Darwinism/Evolution theory is literally a ‘blind faith’-type religious ‘experience’ for scientists.

The truth is actually far removed from such propaganda. Evolutionary evidence (unlike religious claims) is constantly questioned and peer-reviewed by scientists.

There is a saying that the thief is always afraid of being robbed

So, that being the case, we should punish people for adultery (or thinking about sex with someone else) and prostitution and homosexuality the same way we punish murderers.

Electrocution or beheading? Which would God approve?

Apparently I was unclear.

My comment about adultery and murder both being sin has nothing to do with punishment by the government. I was referring to what I believe is sin in the eyes of God. God Himself will do whatever punishing or forgiving is necessary. But it is up to those of us who wish not to sin to understand when our thoughts take us into the terrriory of sin. If we let ourselves go there, God will not see our sin as any different from the sin of a murderer.

So, that being the case, we should punish people for adultery (or thinking about sex with someone else) and prostitution and homosexuality the same way we punish murderers.

Electrocution or beheading? Which would God approve?

I’m curious to know Lashawn’s point of view in this.

Great to see you at GBC! I hope the rest of your weekend was wonderful.

If Christians are so worked up about gays, then what about alcoholics, drug addicts, prostitution, dirty corporate dealings ect…

The difference between the homosexual issue and alcoholism or prostitution is not the fact that it’s sin. Of course you’re right that they are all sin. The problem is that homosexuality is being promoted by our culture as a good thing, a healthy thing, a non-sin (if the culture were to actually use that “s” word). On the other hand, our culture frowns upon alcoholism, prostitution, drug addiction, and dirty corporate dealings, so there’s no point in protesting–the culture is doing that for us already.

Homosexuality is no different than lying, cheating, gossiping, or even looking at someone. How many times, have we looked at anyone on TV, public place and say “he or she is cute”, that’s adultery.

Looking at someone and saying, “he or she is cute,” is not adultery. That’s just acknowledging beauty, the way we would say that a particular painting is beautiful or a rose is especially pretty. Adultery in your heart is looking at someone and saying, “I wonder how he or she would be in bed,” and maybe even toying with the idea for a while. That’s sin. That’s as bad as homosexuality or prostitution or murder.