Chasing the Wind

44 responses to “Texas Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage”

1. 

   Jo

   April 5, 2005 at 8:48 am

   OK, you know I’ve gotta ask – why pick and choose from Leviticus? Why does “look to your faith” only mean “look at certain passages and not others”?

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   Michael

   April 5, 2005 at 8:50 am

   Which ones are the pro-homosexual passages?

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   Jo

   April 5, 2005 at 10:15 am

   Nice dodge. Not buying it, though.

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. 

   Anthony

   April 5, 2005 at 11:17 am

   Ok, how about:

   Romans 1:26-27 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

   There are some other passages. How much more do you need? I for one would LOVE to see a pro homosexual verse in Scripture ANYWHERE.

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. 

   Sean

   April 5, 2005 at 11:26 am

   I think Jo’s a little Christophobic. Don’t we have a hate crime statute somewhere for our protection in cases like this?

   She didn’t answer the question. Please show us pro-homosexual passages. (Or cover your ears an close your eyes and say nananananananaanananaana….really loud).

   Oh, darn……more confession for me. That pride thing again…..

   Forgive me father…..

   LikeLike

   Reply
6. 

   Michael

   April 5, 2005 at 11:57 am

   Heh. Jo, it wasn’t a dodge. I quoted from relevant scripture that I know. If someone claims they “looked to their faith,” then I’d like to know what that means if it doesn’t involving researching scripture.

   Anthony – thanks for the additional scripture. That certainly covers old and new testament, doesn’t it?

   Sean – “Christophobic” is a good word. I think I’ll add it to my vocabulary. The closest I’ve read from a christian that supports gay marriage was in the comments to this post, but he confused agape love with eros love to make his point.

   LikeLike

   Reply
7. 

   Jo

   April 5, 2005 at 12:26 pm

   I didn’t answer the question because it wasn’t pertinant to my point. I’m not commenting on homosexuality one way or the other; since I’m not a homosexual, I have little vested interest in what the bible has to say on the subject.

   What I’m commenting on is “cafeteria Christianity” where people pick and choose which biblical commands are the important ones, and which to conveniently ignore. It’s always highly amusing, especially when it’s invariably passages that apply only to someone else that get tossed about as the “must follow” ones.

   Since God was was talking to Moses and not Jesus in Leviticus I’m not following how commenting on picking and choosing specific passages from there makes me “Christophobic”, but…whatever. I suppose one could argue that whole holy trinity thing and claim that everything in the Old Testament might as well have been said by Jesus, but then that kinda blows the whole “new covenant” thing, doesn’t it? Such a conundrum.

   LikeLike

   Reply
8. 

   Sean

   April 5, 2005 at 12:38 pm

   Michael.

   To help Jo’s confusion problem in the future, just include the entire Bible by reference. For instance, Lev. 18:22, but in no way does the naming of this specific scripture exclude any other passage or reference therein, including but not limited to KJV, NIV, and St. Jerome’s initial latin vulgate. Hmmm. That tends to be rather non-specific and safely fuzzy. And you don’t have to address the topic……which she is not interested in…….anyway…….but whatever…..what were we talking about?

   Straw men don’t talk back.

   Harumph.

   LikeLike

   Reply
9. 

   Jo

   April 5, 2005 at 12:57 pm

   I’m not a bit confused, but apparently you are.

   So Sean, are you saying you believe all rules in Leviticus are equally binding? That breaking any of them is a sin equal to homosexuality, and ought to be curtailed by our government as much as possible?

   If so, I sincerely hope all the meat you eat has been drained of blood. And you’d better start lobbying for that anti wool-blend legislation. Heck, you’d better start lobbying for a lot of things, because there are a heck of a lot of rules other than same-sex intercourse in Leviticus that people don’t seem to be getting all riled up about these days.

   And in case you’re still lost, I think anyone who quotes Leviticus as proof of why they’re justified in trying to ban gay marriage while living their lives in total disregard of other rules stated there is being more than a tad hypocritical. Does that clear it up for you?

   LikeLike

   Reply
10. 

    Michael

    April 5, 2005 at 1:24 pm

    I don’t get your point, Jo. “Cafeteria Christians” are usually criticized for excluding scripture they don’t agree with, not including it. “Cafeteria Christians” overlook biblical teachings on premarital sex, adultery, abortion, etc. I asked you to show me any scripture regarding homosexuality that I’m excluding, and you declined.

    So when “people look to their faith” to support homosexual behavior, what scripture should they research? I already quoted the scripture against it.

    I can’t speak on Sean’s behalf, of course, but I think by “Christophobe” he’s implying that you seem to argue *against* every conservative interpretation of Christianity that I post about, almost to the point where it appears you harbor an intense dislike of evangelistic Christians.

    It’s always highly amusing, especially when it’s invariably passages that apply only to someone else that get tossed about as the “must follow” ones.

    I’m assuming you’re trying to change the topic here, and register an observation that I’m not following some other scripture that relates to something completely unrelated. If that’s the case, I’d be happy to accept your rebuke on that topic. You have my email address; I’ll accept your instruction and study it. I do accept your contention that I only seem to object to other people’s behavior, but I’m doing my best to live my life daily as an example of my faith, and expect Christian brothers and sisters and church leadership to hold me accountable. I’d ask this question of you, “How can I improve my obedience to God’s Word?” but that’s sort of off-topic for this post.

    I see as I’ve been writing this that you’ve taken literally the instructions in Leviticus without applying Paul’s words from Acts and Romans regarding animals, sacrifices, and things Christians eat. Colossians 2:13-14 relaxes much of the Old Testament laws, and Peter himself ate meat that was considered “unclean” in Acts 11:4-10. The laws against sexual immorality were not relaxed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. So I don’t understand your “hypocritical” label.

    LikeLike

    Reply
11. 

    Sean

    April 5, 2005 at 1:54 pm

    (Jo Mode:)

    Michael, you can’t speak for me, but I agree with you since you think that the trouble started then we capitulated to universal suffrage for the fairer sex.

    Then they started to drive.

    The fall of Western Civilization was traced to this.

    😎

    LikeLike

    Reply
12. 

    Jo

    April 5, 2005 at 2:02 pm

    I have no problem with Evangelical Christianity particularly. I do think if you’re trying to demonstrate the joy of living in Christ’s love, you’re going about it all wrong. Seems to me none of your posts on religion are particularly joyful or loving sounding. But then, I suspect we simply have a different approach to evangelism in general. If you’re looking for something to read, how about Matthew 7? Something Jesus said himself.

    Since you don’t care for me sharing my thoughts on the subject, I’ll happily stay out of any religious discussions here.

    LikeLike

    Reply
13. 

    Sean

    April 5, 2005 at 2:29 pm

    Maybe if we simply ban her from using the second person in her communications, she will have to stop assigning easily attacked positions to us. If you’re trying……then (slap, slap slap). If your looking…..then (slap slap slap). Or maybe its just that those if/then statements set me off.

    I’m cranky, and I apologize for my tone. But if you think/say/suppose/ something, ..then I say the opposite in a condescending tone.

    Sniping from the bushes, I am

    Your humble and loving servant,

    Sean.

    LikeLike

    Reply
14. 

    Michael

    April 5, 2005 at 3:20 pm

    Do I not sound like Christian living is love? That I’m having fun? First Contact Day, flinging Santa Clause games, pigs jumping hurdles, googlisms? I’m having fun, enjoying life, and yes, I’m loving my neighbor. I love my neighbor so much I want my neighbor to hear God’s Word.

    Doesn’t mean I love the sin though. Jesus trashed a temple when he felt righteous anger. If all I’m doing is opposing homosexual legislation, then I’m probably within the limits allowed for anger in the New Testament. I don’t cuss or insult or use the Lord’s name in vain. If I’ve sinned in this regard, I’m open to a rebuke.

    No need to stay out of religious discussions, of course. I just can’t figure out your opposition to everything I post on the subject. You want me to spend less time on topic regarding sexual immoraility and more time on topics you choose, yet you think *I* am the cafeteria Christian.

    I understand Matthew 7; that was a warning to the people not to become like the pharisees and hypocrites who believe they are above sin. I am not, nor have I claimed to have been. Romans 3:23 was the first passage I ever memorized. But there are many examples in the New Testament that we *are* to judge, especially John 7:24. We are to judge righteously, using the Truth of the Word, not by appearances only. To follow on your Matthew 7, verse 6 tells us to judge who the “dogs” and “pigs” are.

    In other words, using the Word of God I am called to judge unrighteous behavior as long as I do it in love in order to encourage others to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. I am *not* to judge who is saved and who is not; that task belongs to Jesus alone. If I tell a gay person, “you are going to Hell,” then I have violated Matthew 7. If I tell a gay person, “the bible says in these verses that homosexuality is wrong, but Jesus loves you and forgives you, and I point them out because *I* love you,” then that’s precisely what Jesus calls us to do.

    If I’ve misunderstood, please teach me.

    LikeLike

    Reply
15. 

    Jo

    April 5, 2005 at 4:30 pm

    Sean – I haven’t assigned any position to anyone – thus the word “if”. I say “if” because I honestly don’t know what the objective here is. From my perspective, leading people to Jesus doesn’t seem to be it, but I understand that could be due to my own bias on how best to do that.

    Michael – I specificially said your posts *about religion* aren’t particularly joyful or loving. First Contact Day and Santa flinging don’t exactly fall in that catagory. Well, First Contact Day, maybe, but not the particular religion we’re discussing. 🙂

    “If I tell a gay person, ‘the bible says in these verses that homosexuality is wrong, but Jesus loves you and forgives you, and I point them out because *I* love you,’ then that’s precisely what Jesus calls us to do.”

    Hmmm…maybe you can point out the posts where you’ve actually said that. ‘Cause I haven’t seen any. Not saying you haven’t made them – just saying I haven’t seen them.

    And I’ve never asked you to spend less time posting topics about sexual immorality, or to spend more time posting about anything else, so I have no clue where you’re going with that one. It’s your blog – why in the world would I tell you what to post on it? Wouldn’t that sort of defeat the purpose of you keeping it and me reading it? If I only want to read what I already think, I’ll read my own blog.

    What I have done is disagreed with your belief that your religious convictions should be a basis for any government legislation. Guess what? I can be a good Christian (despite the many snide comments claiming otherwise I’ve received on numerous occasions by the many loving Christians posting here) and still believe in the separation of church and state.

    And as for John 7:24, wasn’t Jesus specifically talking about people jumping to conclusions about Him, not each other? And even more specifically, about Him doing something they perceived as against God’s law? I find that a bit…ironic.

    LikeLike

    Reply
16. 

    Michael

    April 5, 2005 at 5:59 pm

    Perhaps I don’t make myself clear then, since I attempt to do that every post. Although I’ll actively oppose those who advocate a sinful lifestyle, I don’t think I attack the people themselves. Or at least I try not to. I’m pretty sure I’ve expressed my agape love in many of the comments.

    You told me you’d rather I’d discuss Matthew 7 instead of Leviticus. That’s where I was going with that.

    And as you know, there is no constitutional requirement for a separation of church and state. The government cannot oppose or condone a religion, but nothing says they happen to be separate. I would oppose legislation that, for instance, outlawed Ramadan. And if you don’t use your faith as an initial basis for what’s right and wrong, then we’ll never agree on what is proper legislation. As soon as the gay and lesbian lobby stop trying to get me to accept homosexuality as a normal and proper activity, then I’ll stop opposing legislation and activist judges doing the opposite.

    And while Jesus was indeed talking about himself in John 7:24, it was in the context of what is proper to judge and what is not. He encouraged rightful judgement which is what you were opposing a bit ago.

    LikeLike

    Reply
17. 

    Jo

    April 5, 2005 at 7:38 pm

    If you don’t think you’ve attacked anyone, so be it. It’s all in the perception, I suppose.

    And I never asked you to discuss anything. *You* asked *me* how you could improve your obedience to God’s Word; I said if you were looking for something to *read*, start with Matthew 7. Never even REMOTELY suggested you discuss it, much less “instead of” anything else.

    And no, I don’t know that there is no constitutional requirement for the separation of church and state. I do know that those who which to use their religion as a basis for law often lean towards that interpretation; the courts, whose job and responsibility it is to interpret and uphold the constitution have differed with that interpretation enough to make it suspect.

    The difference between us (well, one of them, anyway) is that I don’t have a problem with the government passing a law allowing the government to establish a legal relationship between two consenting adults who wish to have that relationship established. The law will have no effect on homosexuality one way or the other. Homosexual people will be homosexual regardless of whether the law allows them to marry – we have thousands of years of history to prove that, if there’s some sort of question about it. The law isn’t requiring anyone to enter into a homosexual union, so it’s not infringing on anyone’s rights. From a legal perspective, I have yet to see a convincing argument as to why the law should not recognize same-sex marriage. And since to me it’s a legal issue, I can’t jump on the “I think homosexuality is a sin so we’d better not let homosexuals join in a legal relationship that will have absolutely no effect on their homosexuality” bandwagon.

    LikeLike

    Reply
18. 

    Jo

    April 5, 2005 at 7:39 pm

    Oh, and I also disagree with your interpretation of the context of John 7:24. It’s not that broad.

    LikeLike

    Reply
19. 

    A.M.M.

    April 5, 2005 at 10:01 pm

    Wow. I think Jo has managed to oppose *everything* you said, Michael, and in the vast majority of them there’s no valid counter arguement.

    LikeLike

    Reply
20. 

    Stephen

    April 5, 2005 at 10:47 pm

    *scroll back to the top*
    That was a long trip. Bring me a t-shirt ❓

    (I know… I’m in time out again)

    LikeLike

    Reply
21. 

    Jo

    April 6, 2005 at 6:04 am

    A.M.M. – what do you mean by “no valid counter arguement?” Because so far, that seems to translate to “anything I don’t agree with.”

    The problem I have with the scripture Michael has quoted is that it doesn’t say what he claims it said. Take, for example, the verse from Acts that Michael claims illustrates that Peter ate unclean meat, thereby proving that the dietary restrictions in Leviticus had been lifted.

    In fact, the story from Acts proves nothing of the sort; it’s not about dietary restrictions, other than implying that they ARE still in place (because Peter is still following them). And Peter did NOT eat unclean meat; he had a vision in which the Lord offered him unlcean meat as a meal. If you read the WHOLE story, and don’t pick a couple of verses out of context, you find that the message God was sending Peter was this:

    “27Talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. 28He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean.”

    Context is important. (A recurring theme here, it seems, where things are taken out of context so often). Peter was about to be called to the house of a Roman Centurian – not only a Gentile, with whom he was forbidden by Jewish law to visit, but in essesence “the enemy”, one of the group (by association) who had crucified Christ. But this particular centurian was a devout man, whom God had loved and cleansed. The lesson Peter learned was that Jesus wasn’t sent just to save the Jews; he had to put aside an old prejudice and embrace a new way of looking at men, without the distinction between Jew and Gentile.

    There are similar problems with the passage from Colossians.

    I’m not asking Michael to change anything about what he believes. I don’t see why he should be forced to believe homosexuality is OK if he doesn’t believe it is. I don’t think the government allowing same-sex couples legal rights forces him to do that. Adultery is a sin, too, but we don’t have laws forbidding it. That doesn’t mean we’re all forced to believe swinging is a normal healthy perfectly acceptable lifestyle.

    Funny, those passages from Corinthians also speak out against Christians suing each other, but I don’t see any Christian Conservative movement to abolish the civil court system. Why is that? I’m genuiunely curious.

    LikeLike

    Reply
22. 

    A.M.M.

    April 6, 2005 at 6:15 am

    Hey, leave me out of this. I learned my lesson from our last debate that you’re going to bring up valid points on contentions with little relevance while dodging and accusing larger points.

    “A.M.M. – what do you mean by “no valid counter arguement?” Because so far, that seems to translate to “anything I don’t agree with.”” – I have not said I agree or disagree with either side on any point. Don’t be so defensive about my snide little comment. Pick on Stephan; he *wants* to go to the time out corner.

    LikeLike

    Reply
23. 

    Michael

    April 6, 2005 at 7:02 am

    The problem I have with your interpretation, Jo, is that it seems you don’t agree with anything that pushes Christians to follow the Word more closely. While telling me I’m quoting scripture out of context and being a cafeteria Christian, you seem to want to disregard *all* biblical text rather than take any of it out of context. When I give you what I believe is biblical support for my position, you either change the subject or claim I took it out of context. You seem to oppose so vehemently any conservative evangelical agenda.

    If you don’t like Acts, then read Romans and see how it releases Christians from the law. I’m done looking up scripture since you’ll dismiss it anyway. And the bible calls Christians to support their secular government so complaining that Christians aren’t aboloshing the court system is a red herring. The court system in the US was established by Christians. *And* we used to have laws against adultery, too. We still have them against other sexual immoralities such as incest, bigomy, and bestiality. For now.

    I’m not asking Michael to change anything about what he believes.

    Of course not. You only want to point out that the conservative Christian viewpoint is wrong, which is the exact opposite of what I am trying to do.

    LikeLike

    Reply
24. 

    Jo

    April 6, 2005 at 7:49 am

    A.M.M. – First, you come on here, talk about me in the third person as if I can’t hear you, then tell me to leave you out of it when I address the accusations you’ve made against me? You want out of it, don’t get into it.

    I’m glad you recognize that my point about Michael misinterpreting scripture is valid. Because it is absolutely relevant to the larger point, depsite the fact that you haven’t realized that yet.

    If you haven’t said you agree or disagree with any point on either side, then what does your statement “in the vast majority of them there is no valid counter point” mean? I asked you to clarify once, because I honestly don’t understand that remark. If you say there is no valid counterpoint to Michael’s points, then you are agreeing with those points. If that’s NOT what that statement means, then in what way did I misinterpret it?

    LikeLike

    Reply
25. 

    Michael

    April 6, 2005 at 7:56 am

    I’m glad you recognize that my point about Michael misinterpreting scripture is valid.

    I don’t believe I’ve misinterpreted scripture, especially since there’s ample evangelical protestant support for my position. It’s in agreement with Southern Baptist churches, and it’s in agreement with comments I’ve read by the Pope.

    I already asked if you can support a pro-homosexual agenda with scripture, and you declined.

    LikeLike

    Reply
26. 

    Jo

    April 6, 2005 at 8:19 am

    >

    In what way? Genuine question. How is pointing out that you are misinterpreting Peter’s vision disagreeing with something that pushes you to follow the Word more closely? Isn’t it simply refocusing attention on what that Word actually is? How are you going to follow God’s Word if you’re not getting the acutal message?

    >

    Hey, good sweeping generalization. Unfortunately “Not being a biblical literalist conservative” is not the same thing as “disregarding all biblical text”. Neither is “Taking a chapter as a whole lesson instead of trying to assign conservative meaning to selective sound bites”.

    >

    I haven’t changed the subject. I adressed something different than you intended. I’ve been talking about the same subject all along; that it isn’t the exact subject you want to discuss doesn’t make me evasive. And yes, when you quote scripture out of context, I will point it out. You were wrong about Peter eating unclean meat. You specifically stated that you’d be happy to accept my rebuke; yet you don’t accept it. Like I said earlier, if you don’t want me to express my views here I will happily keep silent.

    And I never said I don’t like Acts. I love Acts. I especially love the particular part you sound-bited; IMO it’s one of the most moving stories in the New Testament. The realization of the enormity of Jesus’ sacrifice, of the scope of His love, of the power of the Spirit – these people who have believed their whole lives that when the Messiah came, He would come for *them* suddenly facing the truth that He came for everyone, that we are all precious in God’s eyes – you don’t get much more powerful than that.

    >

    I’m not complaining – I was asking. This drives me crazy. I ask a question, and everyone jumps all over me claiming I’m bashing. I’m trying to understand. I’m trying to understand where you see the distinctions, and why. Because to me it seems arbitrary. The court system in the U.S. was established by Christians, yet it seems to go against Paul’s directives. How do you explain the discrepancy? I know how *I* explain it, but you haven’t appeared in other debates on scripture to apply the same restrictions of context and intent, so I’m genuinely curious how you interpret this one.

    And yes, we used to have laws against adultery. We don’t any more. Conservative Christians don’t seem to be lobbying for any. Why is that? They push to have same-sex marriage made illegal because the bible says homosexuality is wrong, yet they don’t push to have remarriage after divorce made illegal even though those exact scriptures say it’s wrong, too. Why is that? What makes one more worthy of attention than the other? Where do the lines get drawn? Which scriptures make us follow God’s Word more closely and which don’t? How do you decide?

    And yes, since I’m not a Conservative, I point out where I think the Conservative viewpoint is wrong. Why is that a shocker? If it’s any consolation, as a raging Moderate, the liberals think I’m hopelessly conservative. Again, if this is a “don’t disagree with Michael because it’s his blog, darnit” zone, let me know and I’ll stop. And before you jump on me AGAIN, that’s not a dig. This is YOUR forum and you have the right to have your say unopposed, if that’s what you want this forum to be, and I see no fault with that.

    LikeLike

    Reply
27. 

    Jo

    April 6, 2005 at 8:25 am

    You really don’t think you’ve misinterpreted the scripture regarding Peter’s vision? Even though you claimed he ate unclean meat and he didn’t? Even though the verse you quoted was about a vision Peter had which he himself interpreted to mean something entirely different than you attribute?

    Yes, I declined to quote “pro-homosexual agenda scripture”. I have no clue what a pro-homosexual agenda is, so I’m not sure how I’d even go about supporting or refuting it.

    LikeLike

    Reply
28. 

    Jo

    April 6, 2005 at 8:27 am

    Darn this html. All those > in my post were originally quotes from your post. Hope you can follow along anyway.

    LikeLike

    Reply
29. 

    you

    April 6, 2005 at 8:40 am

    Uh-oh…don’t bring up divorce and remarriage around here! We might make someone feel uncomfortable. And we all know that the push to ban homosexual marriage has nothing to do with the Bible and everything to do with the attempts of certain politicians to gain power / get re-elected. Why do we read the Bible selectively, and apply its messages selectively? There are hundreds and hundreds of verses addressing the issue of poverty, and only a few about homosexuality, yet we don’t see any major movement by politicians or “religious conservatives” to adjust our current kleptocratic system, in which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Doesn’t the Bible offer many stories of corrupt leaders who unfairly take advantage of the poor? Why aren’t these verses as popular as the ones that decry homosexuality?

    LikeLike

    Reply
30. 

    Michael

    April 6, 2005 at 8:51 am

    I think I can follow, even with the weird symbols. You must be cutting and pasting from a word processing software that WordPress doesn’t like. I use Notepad instead. Either that, or you’re using the > symbol to quote from me which the html validator will eat.

    I’m going to drag this back to the topic I started: I believe homosexuality is a sin. I believe sin is wrong. I believe laws that promote homosexuality send an opposing message to salvation and therefore must be opposed.

    I also pointed out the newspaper article said “they looked to their faith” to support homosexual marriage and neglected to say exactly how they did that, since biblical scripture opposes homosexual relationships.

    LikeLike

    Reply
31. 

    Jo

    April 6, 2005 at 8:55 am

    It was the > character. Bad habit from my ivillage posting, where > are commonly used to enclose quotes.

    And you don’t have to answer if you think it’s off topic, but I am still genuinely curious – how do you make the distinction between homosexuality and other sexual sins supported by our government that you aren’t opposing?

    LikeLike

    Reply
32. 

    Michael

    April 6, 2005 at 9:07 am

    Remarriage after divorce is not always a sin. Divorce is granted after adultery, for instance. The government doesn’t do judgement calls very well. Forcing people to prove adultery to get a divorce is a bad idea as some people will lie to accomplish their goals.

    LikeLike

    Reply
33. 

    Michael

    April 6, 2005 at 9:23 am

    World Patriot’s comment (#29) is hogwash. The push to ban homosexual marriages is not simply a power play to get re-elected. I, for instance, am not running for anything.

    The bible says that if a man doesn’t work, he doesn’t eat. Take that into consideration when discussing what the bible says about poverty. Disagreeing on the application of welfare reform shouldn’t be sole cause for approving homosexual marriage.

    P.S. I bought a bunch of stock in oil companies this month, too. Valero (VLO) is up $2.32 so far this morning.

    LikeLike

    Reply
34. 

    Sean

    April 6, 2005 at 10:40 am

    Posit a statement.

    Jo’s position is “X”.

    ____________________________________________. 🙄

    LikeLike

    Reply
35. 

    Sean

    April 6, 2005 at 10:46 am

    And, Sean’s position is:

    Mike has accurately identified the hypocritical reference to “faith” used by the parents in the article – if and only if we assume that the faith referenced was Christianity.

    Mike has identified this as a tactic of the left, most recently seen in statements by H.Clinton.

    Mike has called attention to this duplicity.

    Mike has NOT stated his position of the separation of church and state.

    How did we get here, Gretl?
    I dunno Hans, I thought you were leaving the breadcrumbs!

    My, its dark in here.

    

    LikeLike

    Reply
36. 

    Jo

    April 6, 2005 at 1:21 pm

    Sean, why are you pretending I’m not in the room? If you have a question, simply ask.

    I never said Mike was incorrect about the left being hypocritical. I never commented on it one way or the other. My position is that Michael is guilty of the same thing he’s accusing others of. He hasn’t posted anything yet to dissuade me from that position (note that I’ve never claimed he’s doing it intentionally; I think his intentions are good but he’s simply wrong). I think he’s wrong not because he’s a Conservative, but because he seems to be a literalist who believes meaning can be found in isolated soundbites rather than the actual message in the context in which a verse resides.

    Michael HAS stated his position on the separation of church and state, by saying it’s not in the constitution and therefore an invalid ideal. He has stated several times on this board that religious beliefs should guide not only voters, but politians as well. That he is in favor of the government passing laws against activities which he considers sinful, based on his religious beliefs, for no other reason than the fact that they violate his religious beliefs.

    What is your position, other than cranky?

    LikeLike

    Reply
37. 

    Jo

    April 6, 2005 at 1:34 pm

    Whoever “you” are in post 29, even though I think you’re trying to agree with me, I find your comments unkind. I did not bring up remarriage to make Michael uncomfortable; I have no reason to believe the topic would make him so.

    I might disagree with much of what he says, but I also believe that when it comes to his own life, he strives to live the Word in all ways.

    And I’m sorry, I can’t address you comments on poverty without knowing what exactly you’re trying to say. I just don’t see the relationship between “our kleptocratic system” and anything the bible says about the poor.

    LikeLike

    Reply
38. 

    Michael

    April 6, 2005 at 2:12 pm

    I don’t use “soundbites.” I try my best to study the whole Bible. And I spend a *lot* of time at it lately, too. I would appreciate it if you’d refrain from the implication that I’m snippeting only parts that support my position and avoiding bible verses that are contrary. I’m not aware of any scripture that promotes or allows homosexuality, so I believe I’ve been complete in my study. It’s simply not possible to quote all 700,000 words every time which is the only way to avoid your accusation of “soundbiting.” Since you also state you believe I “strive to live the Word in all ways,” I will thank you for acknowledging my attempt to be complete.

    Your understanding of my “separation of church and state” is generally correct, except for your last sentence. I am not in favor of the theocracy you imply, nor do I favor passing laws simply because it is sin. I consider homosexual marriage detrimental to society for a variety of reasons that I haven’t discussed in this post as they were not the primary point I was making, which was the “look to their faith” statement as a strategy instead of a belief in pushing liberal issues. Many sins such as gluttony or idolatry cannot reasonably be outlawed nor should they be, and I don’t believe I’ve ever suggested such.

    The “you” in post #29 is “World Patriot”. He’s permanently moderated because of his inflammatory language; I only let the milder ones through.

    LikeLike

    Reply
39. 

    Jo

    April 6, 2005 at 4:23 pm

    And I’d appreciate it if you’d refrain from the hyperbolic claims that the only way to convince me you’re taking scripture in context is to quote the entire bible. Since I’ve given an example of context using less than one chapter, your claim is absurd.

    I admit to confusion on your views regarding my views on your views regarding the separation of church in state, (are you lost yet) given that I never claimed you favored a “theocracy”. You have stated repeatedly that faith should be used as the basis of determining right and wrong – and laws should follow that determination. If that doesn’t make laws based on faith, what is your point?

    As for passing laws based on sin, all I have to go on are your own words such as these from post 30: ” I believe homosexuality is a sin. I believe sin is wrong. I believe laws that promote homosexuality send an opposing message to salvation and therefore must be opposed.”

    I remember World Patriot. A misnomer if ever there was one.

    LikeLike

    Reply
40. 

    Stephen

    April 6, 2005 at 9:36 pm

    *puts t-shirtless self in corner without further ado* 😐

    LikeLike

    Reply
41. 

    Michael

    April 6, 2005 at 9:51 pm

    Stephen, I most certainly understand. 🙄

    LikeLike

    Reply
42. 

    Sean

    April 8, 2005 at 7:56 am

    Boy, I hit the refresh button and boom.

    OK, Michael how do I tell where post 29 is? -neophyte.

    LikeLike

    Reply
43. 

    Sean

    April 8, 2005 at 8:05 am

    Jo,

    My aplogies. I simply note that your comments to Michael’s entry were off topic.

    I think I now have found your point in your last post. Here it is:

    “but because he seems to be a literalist who believes meaning can be found in isolated soundbites rather than the actual message in the context in which a verse resides.”

    Is this a synopsis of your position when you first posted on Michael’s entry?

    If it is, then I can comment upon this if you wish. 😮

    LikeLike

    Reply
44. 

    Michael

    April 8, 2005 at 9:01 am

    Use the “Theme Selector” and choose the “Blue Swirlies” theme which numbers all the comments. The Kubrick and Manja themes don’t show the numbers. Or look for the post by “you” at 8:40am April 6th.

    LikeLike

    Reply