On MSNBC, Olbermann made a plea for fairness to gays last night, saying they had the right to all that marriage provides. Mudrageous has printed the whole thing on my previous post, as a comment. There isn't anything there except an appeal to maudlin sentimentality and compassion that kills. For no matter what recognition the state gives, the wages of sin is STILL death! Homosexual approval will help to march these people straight to Hell when they die --if they don't see the light before then and come to the realization that it is the devil's lie that they had to be gay. They had choice in the beginning. God can still deliver them.
Keith quotes Darrow quoting a Persian poet --a very appropriate quote --about the poet preferring the Book of Love to having his name in the Book Above.
The Bible clearly says that the Book Above IS the Book of Love and the Book that counts --for Eternity. It is God's love for us that writes our name in the book above --the Lamb's Book of Life. Jesus sacrificed His life by God's will --that we may be in that book by believing in Him. There is no greater love than His for us.
He is calling homosexuals to wholeness --to truth --to his purpose for their bodies --not this sham half-life and imitation marriage that produces nothing but death --eternal death if they miss "the book above" --temporal death by the risks inherent in the lifestyle.
Satan is the great deceiver and he uses people like Keith Olbermann --obviously --because there is no alternative Book of Love --except The Book Above.
Well, I should say that the Bible is The Book of Love --but not the same one in which our names are written. That is a record of the REdeemed for Eternity --kept by the Lamb, Jesus Christ.
There is a maudlin sentimentality and compassion that is disingenous and misplaced when we think homosexuals really want and really need to have their couplings sanctified by "marriage." It won't help them be less lonely --or help them feel more normal and legitimate. Sin brings guilt and estrangement from God and nothing they can do ceremonially will fix it --until they repent and see that they have exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped the creature instead of Creator.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
That is just so sweet, Mudrake!
Yes, I think there are ways in which Jesus would be said to be liberal and radical for the middle-eastern culture. He challenged the "eye for an eye" philosophy with forgiveness. He said it's not what people put in their mouths that defiles them, but what comes out of the mouth--and what comes out of the heart as well. (If memory serves me correctly.)
He said the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath--a reminder to not be legalistic about Sabbath-keeping. And so we aren't --we keep Sunday, the Resurrection Day, more than Saturday, which was the original Sabbath. He said it was ok to heal on the Sabbath--just like they'd pull their donkey out of a pit if he fell in. (A preacher once said that this, however, was no excuse to park our donkeys so close to the pit!)
With respect to abortion, we can apply the scripture "whoever harms one of these little ones --were better a millstone were hung about his neck and he were cast into the sea."
with respect to homosexual activities, Jesus said a man is to leave parents and cleave to his wife --because God had made male and female at Creation.
"In the image of God, male and female, created He them."
TRuth and love are compatible. Satan has been deceiving mankind since the Garden and Paul calls homosexuality a result of exchanging the truth about God for a lie. The truth is that God did not design us for homosexual relations --but for procreative hetero marriage. Love tells the truth about these things--so Satan will not win and deter people from the Way to Heaven.
Yes, that's a great verse about the indwelling God --through His Spirit --through our faith in Christ.
Luke 17:20-22 (New International Version)
The Coming of the Kingdom of God
20Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within[a] you."
He also said "Repent for the Kingdom of God is nigh." and "My kingdom is not of this world."
14Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
15And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
So the Kingdom starts here and now and starts within us spiritually.
Any more comments on this, fellow believers?
"And one of His signs is that He created mates for you from yourselves that you may find rest in them, and He put between you love and compassion; most surely there are signs in this for a people who reflect."
Qur'an 30:21
"It may be that Allah will bring about friendship between you and those whom you hold to be your enemies among them; and Allah i s Powerful; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."
Qur'an 60:7
It is in love that religion exists and not in ceremony-in the pure and sincere love in the heart. Unless a man is pure in body and mind, his coming into a temple and worshipping Shiva is useless. The prayers of those who are pure in mind and body will be answered by Shiva, and those who are impure and yet try to teach religion to others will fail in the end. External worship is only a symbol of internal worship, but internal worship and purity are the real things. Without them, external worship would be of no avail.
Vivekananda
The people of California have spoken. Get over it and stop trying to intimidate 69 year old women with big homos surrounding her and hiding her face with their placards.
Schwartzenegger wants the amendment overturned. Sounds like Marie Antoinette. And we know how she fared. Go with the will of the people and accept you are strange to the majority of people.
homosexuality is genetic, they are born that way, so it's God's will that they behave as their maker made them.
Proof, Steve. No proof of genetic cause at all. When researchers first claimed to find genetic markers, they were later disproven.
Researchers are always under pressure to prove the validity of their work and their salaries--and gay researchers especially want to find that gene. So Dean Hamer was the first --and his work was debunked and he was chastised by his employer for research irregularities.
homosexuality is genetic, they are born that way,
Okay....same for pedophiles, beastiality patrons, and the oh-so-trendy necrophiliac.
Besides this, even if there is genetic predisposition, that doesn't mean they "ought" to engage in sodomite behavior. Of course, if you wanna play the genetic determinism card, you ought to be willing to let everyone do as they will based on genetic determinism.
Mudly--there is no reason why a man should be SO attracted to a man--that he would let his posterior be assaulted --or want to put his procreative member into someone's waste portal.
This is disgusting--not normal. You'll never find a genetic predisposition to do this with your body. Attraction? Everybody is attractive. We all want to be friends with attractive people. But getting our orgasms with them? This is a problem between the ears, not made by genes.
I should say --when we are young we are especially desirous of a niche with the attractive, ideal people of our own sex --and any sex. With maturity, we are less vulnerable to youthful beauty or the handsome and the macho.
I still believe homosexual attraction is a case of arrested development. Something went awry back in the day....
But it starts with first thoughts --and that's when we should be taught to bar the door and direct our minds in wholesome directions. Flee temptation.
Granted, most of us don't have such temptation --BUT neither are we all tempted to adultery and pedophilia, rape, incest. But some are. Genes?
Bar the door to the mind --teach our children to flee temptation.
Mudly--there is no reason why a man should be SO attracted to a man--that he would let his posterior be assaulted --or want to put his procreative member into someone's waste portal.
EXACTLY! except that maybe there is a mutation in this person's epigenetic makeup that maybe causes more androgen vs estrogen, or vise versa at certain points in this person's development so that they develop an affinity for their same sex. This usually happens prior to puberty and isn't sexual in nature, but manifests sexually after puberty.. how do you explain that? Nature or Nurture?
More nurture than nature --and it's not inevitable. It's very like pedophilia affliction --not genetic.
They know it's not hormonal. They theorize about hormones in the womb --but if the child is a normal male genetically and hormonally, the womb can't be the cause of his abnormality.
My husband claims that any gays he knew through medical practice would cite an abnormal childhood experience --like the gay bros molested by Grandpa.
This is where mudly comes in to say my husband has violated pt. confidentiality--but as usual, mudrake is wrong. I have no idea what patients of his are gay --I know few of his patients anyway --I just know he makes a point to inquire about psycho-sexual history with gay patients if the topic of their orientation comes up -- as a matter of health history and says ALL of his gay patients had an induction to male sex in adolescence or childhood. I have no idea how big that sample is.
And then there's the story about the ER case back in med school days --when a lightbulb had to be carefully extracted from a homosexual's posterior --they used a baby forceps as I recall.
These inclinations are not genetic --they are part of the sin nature of mankind --the pursuit of orgasm through unnatural, unsanitary and disgusting means.
People keep trying to find an explanation--and yet God gave us the explanation. It's yielding to temptation based on a lie about God --that He would give people this abnormal appetite. It does say He gives them over to their perversion --because they have worshipped creature instead of Creator --themselves instead of Creator--their own sex instead of the opposite sex which God intended for them --
You look for excuses in their genes; I look for excuses in their upbringing --addicted by the experiences with molesters--self-image as the opposite sex due to parental influence --parents who cultivate opposite sex identification --like Mom keeping jr. in bed with her too long. And everybody babying a boy child as though he were a girl --far too long after infancy. These are guesses that have some potential, I think. I've seen some gays in the making who turned out as expected. Mother and sister who traumatize and dominate and emasculate a sensitive boy child who is not effectively rescued by Dad.
Bottom line: it's a sin like pedophilia, adultery, incest and rape --a compulsion for illicit or abnormal sex. Not genetic. Just our sin nature at work.
Well, at least Mudrake, you participated in the discussion here for once. Good!
Tell me why you wouldn't see the compulsion to promiscuity (say with prostitutes or in serial adultery), rape or pedophilia --the way you see homosexuality --AS GENETIC AND THEREFORE FORGIVEABLE. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE AS FAR AS CULPABILITY GOES? (Granted rape and pedophilia are non-consensual --though pedophiles claim their relationships can be good AND CONSENSUAL for children.)
Why not see those other abnormal "sexual obsessions" as GENETICALLY-CAUSED --for they also are compulsions mis-directed in counter-productive, even harmful ways (harmful to self at least in case of homosexuals --who are generally miserable, diseased and unfulfilled emotionally.)
that will come next --the idea that a God-given constitutional right to a pursuit of happiness exists for pedophiles with under-age people who are consenting. Other countries have child sex trade on a big scale. Some people don't seem to think it's wrong --including Americans who go there to indulge.
If homosexual orientation, desire and activity (repugnant and distasteful as those activities are) are caused by a gene, why not all sexual orientation and compulsion?
If we found that homosexual orientation victims shared a gene in common that didn't mean theater talent or musical ability or any number of other shared genetic features (Usually they have to admit that they found their gay gene markers in straights too -shooting their gay gene theory in the foot)
But say they do find a gene shared only by homosexuals, it would be a mutation --something to fix --as we would hope to fix Down's Syndrome someday by genetic manipulation. The gays would not want the genetic fix --
BECAUSE IT IS THEIR PREFERENCE TO BE LOVERS OF SELF, SEXUALLY.
If it's genetic, then so is the tendency of the serial killer, serial adulterer, serial rapist, serial pedophile, the habitual thief, the incestor, chronic liar -they cross the lines of moral behavior and LOVE THEIR SIN! Some may feel shame and self-loathing --which is what homosexuals hope to alleviate by gaining gay marriage. They think that will make them feel more moral, more acceptable, more normal. It won't help. But it will dull the national conscience about sexual immorality and encourage others into the activities--as legitimate alternate lifestyle choices.
mud_rake said...
steve- Do you know what scared the living hell out of evangelicals like barbara? It is the very thing you said about a genetic link.
It is a terrifying prospect for them to face. Why? Because in that truth, their entire anti-gay argument melts like an ice cube on a hot summer's day.
Actually you are wrong. Even if homosexuality were genetic that would not then make it ok to practice homosexuality.
I am genetically predisposed to having sex with lots of women, and as much of it as I can get. There is no doubt whatsoever that my sex drive is genetically motivated. However, the bible also tells us that we should only have 1 mate. So it would be morally wrong for me to follow my genetic pre-disposition.
For another thing the world we live in is corrupted from its created perfection. It was not only man that became corrupt as a result of sin but the earth itself.
Some gene, C.A.! Seriously, good comment.
I agree with CA, that the more science finds out about the foundations of nature, their findings really don't effect faith or spirituality, or the voracity of biblical canon. It is true that Homosexuality is a deviation of nature and for many faiths an abhoration. But the fact remains that it is an action between 2 consenting individuals that does no harm to no other persons. So from a secular political point of view, the state needs to "get out of the bedroom", whether you agree with homosexuality or not. Because if you allow the state to regulate morality, which is a very subjective topic depending on your point of view, state legislation of morality could be a double edged sword. I see no problem in granting homosexuals "civil unions". If you legislate their moral activity, then you open the door for the state to legislate YOUR moral activity.
How many times do I have to say that I'm not interested in getting in the gays' bedrooms. The issue is an ages-old definition of marriage. There is nothing to be gained by changing it to accommodate perversion --and having the state recognize perversion as "marriage." This is a change that we don't need.
It's just so NOT about one person with one person. It's about a lifestyle for the men of linkages all around the country which make the lifestyle a public health hazard, a public expense, a never-ending cycle of perversion and disease passed from one generation to the next --
Partnership and marriage won't change the fact that homosex is casual sex and promiscuous sex --typically --not exceptionally.
Go look up what Pastor james Manning says about Obama and his alleged bisexuality and cocaine use as recently as 1999, and that of the blacks --including the pastor and the murdered choir director of Obama's church.
Manning is an NYC pastor --and he says the "down low" prevalence is great among black men and it is giving their already beleagured women AIDS. He says bisexuality is most certainly a common problem in the black community and that Obama is most certainly bi-sexual. He said this appetite for anonymous gay sex doesn't go away and says that puts Obama in a position to be blackmailed and make decisions accordingly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqxmn1ZuMw4&feature=related Pastor james Manning on Obama
I realize anyone can say anthing about a celebrity--but there are those who say Obama and the choir director were an item in the past -- the choir director got murdered last Dec. --another man, Larry Sinclair, accused Obama of relations and drugs with him --a taxi driver supports the story -- Sinclair fears for his life which is one reason he's gone public.
Why is it that the democrats always have these scandaloous stories around them about murder and sex--not from GoP, either --but from people who know them --as Gennifer Flowers and a whole host of women accused Clinton. And somebody always dies. Vince Foster and a bunch of secret service guys under Clinton. This is in books with names and dates--where no libel suits have been filed that i've heard of.
The state does regulate morality--like theft, murder --and yes, they have had marriage law to protect kids and women, in particular.
Kids raised by lesbians are to have the support and visitaion with fathers -- --that's legislating morality, on behalf of children.
Gay marriage confuses kids and entices children to ponder gay marriage as a life choice-- which life is promiscuous, by any honest definition.
so gay marriage isn't just affecting two people.
Do you have any idea, Mudrake, what you look like to us with those sorts of comments? Like a guy who just can't quit digging himself in deeper --who just can't stop sliding into the pit of Hell with his hate obsession.
You COULD blog politely like "a nice guy"--and still hold your liberal views, you know. Others accomplish this.
UTF told you you were obsessing on fundamentalism in your non-muck-raking blog. Sepp told you you were hateful. These guys aren't my fans --but they know when someone is off the deep end --and you are.
Steve said...
Because if you allow the state to regulate morality, which is a very subjective topic depending on your point of view, state legislation of morality could be a double edged sword. I see no problem in granting homosexuals "civil unions". If you legislate their moral activity, then you open the door for the state to legislate YOUR moral activity.
The only reason for the state to have anything to do with marriage in the first place is to promote a structure which is conducive to raising children in a healthy way so that they can go on to be productive members of society. The state provides benefits to married couples through taxation. Thus it is completely ridiculous to give a same sex couple the benefits of state sanctioned marriage, as they cannot procreate.
For some years, there was a marriage penalty --in taxes. Single people fared better, so I'm not sure what gays really want as benefits of the married.
They mostly object that the society doesn't see their unions as equal or normal or good --and they think forcing gay marriage upon us will give them the respectability and self-respect they now lack.
I've heard there is a lot of self-loathing after a gay sex act --as with illicit sex in general.
You can't get rid of guilt for sin with societal approval. Or can we? is there a seared conscience that really allows a person to feel happy in his perversion or sexual sin of any sort?? I don't think they ever reach happiness.
That sex quiz link of yours was blocked by my "be Safe online" service. I figured it therefore wasn't something to share with readers here. Sometimes it's over-sensitive, as a service, but probably not in this case.
Authors on the subject of gay sex have said there is a lot of self-loathing after same sex sodomy. I would think so, but I didn't conjure up this idea on my own. I would think the same for using a prostitute and adultery.
You are hilarious, Mudrake --objecting to my deletions. How can you be so blatantly hypocritical and face yourself???
Awwww just ignore the rantings and ravings of the feeble minded.
Or delete them. It's your blog after all - and it is absolutely a glaring deliciousness that the king of deleting comments would object so strenuously about his comment being deleted.
Very funny indeed. And thanks, I needed the laugh. Barb you rock.
Hear that, Rob? I rock!
Post a Comment