Obama Gives LGBT Speech - Openly Mocks God of Bible.

[AgeofKnowledge]

Yes, let's coin the facetious term. After all, there is a deity behind homosexuality (e.g. the devil) and the people who choose to engage in the immoral transgression take it as their very identity and prostelize their doctrine (e.g. the homosexual agenda) with religious fervor seeking the levers of government to displace God's normative worldview with their own immoral worldview.

Lol, and yes I chuckle when you dismiss the credible scholarly sources I share and continue to make false assertions after refutation to engage in ad hominem (as if that's scholarly). But I forgive you. It's just a hurt ego which many psychologists assert is much more prevelant with your generation than previous generations (see the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry Vol. 67 No. 7; and Vol. 69, No. 7, for example) aggravated by your denial, your ignorance, and your lack of discernment (e.g. 1 Corinthians 2:14 - 2:16).

The U.S. government is presently discriminating against Christian citizens in the U.S. denying them their human right under natural law to a free moral conscience and their religious liberty to maintain God's normative morality in their organizations (something God's Word [their religious epistemology] instructs them to do).

Furthermore, the government is discriminating against the entire metaphysical worldview of Christianity (not just a denomination) which as I explained to you here http://christianchat.com/christian-...ns-door-muslim-immigration-5.html#post1580225 was the "driving religious epstemology" behind the founding of this nation while simultaneously establishing the metaphysical worldview of atheism.

The establishment clause does not establish atheism nor quarantine Christianity from America. And it IS Christianity, not atheism, which has been the historical wellspring of law and moral values in American civilization something the U.S. government strenously recognized for over two centuries and public schools taught as part of their curriculum and the "driving religious epistemology" behind the U.S.'s rise to supremacy.

The relentless modern liberal persecution of religion in America has done more than maintain a "wall of separation"; it has tumbled the wall over onto Christians despite there actually existing no wall of separation provision in the Constitution or any of the foundational documents. It's found in one of Jefferson's letters and refers, not to the exclusion of religious people from government, but to the protection of religion from governmental interference.

This is not tolerance; this is not neutrality; this is implacable hostility toward Christianity and the country's Judea-Christian heritage. This recent insistance to establish atheism is resulting in what one judge labeled a "tyranny of [in]tolerance" toward Christians in the U.S..

The Declaration of Independence, the birth certificate of our nation, acknowledged that all our rights—such as the right to a fair trial and to elect our own government—are “endowed” by a “Creator.” They are therefore “unalienable” and not to be violated by government. For that reason, the Founders called “free exercise” of religion, guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution, our “First Freedom.”

They regarded the right of everyday people to express open allegiance to the Creator as a safeguard against government attacks on any rights given by that Creator. This new tyranny of intolerance to drive Christianity into the shadows of society while simultaneously establishing an atheistic theocracy and propigating immorality on behalf of groups of immoral people is grave discrimination and persecution for if it's allowed to continue, then government can erase any rights of citizens that it sees fit to, since government, not the “Creator” cited by the Founders has become the ultimate definer, giver, or taker of all rights just as it was under the tyrannical state atheistic Soviet Union.

The truth is that the atheist who resents the Nativity scene at Christmas is no more disqualified from the privileges and immunities of a citizen than is the Muslim who resents seeing a menorah. And that's the real tolerance contemplated by the First Amendment. Americans may espouse any religion or no religion; their representatives may recognize the community significance of any religion or no religion, so long as that recognition carries no penalty or public subsidy.

As there are so many examples that literally a series of books could be written just to document them all, I'm going to just list a few types of discrimination examples with only a few examples for each type of discrimination with the caveat that for every example given a hundred more can used in its place:

Attacks on Companies that Oppose Funding Abortions
• Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius
• Holland v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Etc...

Attacks on Veterans Memorials
• Salazar v. Buono
• Trunk v. City of San Diego
• Hewett v. City of King, North Carolina
Etc...

Attacks on Ten Commandments Displays
• Van Orden v. Perry
• McCreary County v. ACLU
Etc...

Attacks on Public Invocations
• Galloway v. Town of Greece
• Atheists of Florida, Inc. v. City of Lakeland, Florida
Etc...

Attacks on Public Speech and Expression
• Rainey v. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
• Barton v. City of Balch Springs
Etc...

Attacks on Religious Liberty in the Schoolhouse
• Matthews v. Kountze I.S.D.
• Morgan v. Swanson
• Pounds v. Katy I.S.D.
• Schultz v. Medina Valley I.S.D.
• Barrow v. Greenville I.S.D.
• Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC (shared previously in the thread 'Obama the defiler').
• Opulent Life Church v. City of Holly Springs, MS
• Barr v. City of Sinton
• HEB Ministries, Inc. v. Texas Higher Educ. Coordinating Bd.
• Westbrook v. Penley
Student Suspended For Refusing To Stomp On Jesus Will Be Issued Apology By Florida University // Mr. Conservative
(but it's required by law to teach little children that homosexual pedaphiles like Milk are heroes they should aspire to emulate and sodomy is just as biologically normal as hetrosexual intercourse in states like California Rescue Your Child// - SaveCalifornia.com ).
Etc...

Attacks on Christian business owners
• Christian Service Center (CSC) lost USDA food contributions for refusing to stop asking the poor if they would like prayer while gay and lesbian food pantries were allowed to continue accepting USDA food contributions and prostelizing homosexuality.
• Christian sole proprietors around the nation face imprisonment and bankruptcy/life long poverty (from the enormous fines levied which can total hundreds of thousands of dollars per case and do not wash in bankruptcy aside from legal expenses) for exercising their human right to a free moral conscience and religious liberty toward God's normative morality in refusing to accomodate the abomination of homosexual marriage.
• During the period the IRS was fast tracking leftist political applications and refusing to process conservative political applications they targeted the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and other Christian organizations/employers but there is not a single known instance of a homosexual organization being targeted in the same time frame.
Etc...

And many other types of attacks on the human rights and religious liberties of Christians in the U.S. as well including the U.S. military Christians Face Culture of Fear, Intimidation in U.S. Military Today | CNS News and around the world
Pew Study: Christians Are The World’s Most Oppressed Religious Group | CNS News
Etc...

Liberals in Congress formed a so-called "Radical Right Task Force" in 1994, paid for with American tax dollars. This "Task Force" meets in the U.S. Capitol to plan how to intimidate Christians from going to the polls and to deny churches tax-exempt status if they distribute Christian voter education literature. This is a blatant overt government funded attack on the human rights and religious liberty of all Christians in the United States.

Etc... etc.... etc... It goes on and on and it's getting increasingly worse over time. You should ask me what the consequences of abandoning Creator God and His normative morality for immorality and the persecution of Christians are to societies that do so lizathrose. It's not some state atheistic utopia where everyone lives happily ever after like the John Lennon song 'Imagine.' In fact, it's just the opposite for those who choose that road both in this material world and in eternity afterwards.

All is evidence refuting your false assertion that the "vast majority of well-established political commentators, political scientists concerned with public law, the vast majority of legislators and judges, and the actual, legitimate scholarly consensus in general [haven't] picked up on this." They certainly have and the resulting conflict has been evident for decades. It was ignorant of you to assert otherwise.

And you mean "the normative morality" (not "my moral code") which is exactly what the founders asserted. The U.S. was rooted in it not thousands and thousands of moral codes. That's the point. Only one true normative morality actually exists in reality.

That's why immoral sodomy with a plethora of homosexual partners is not equitable to moral heterosexual monogamy even when lizathrose says that it is according to her "moral code." Though you cannot tell the difference between the two, in your spiritual blindness, the first is actually immoral while the second is normatively moral.

It's immoral to steal, to murder, to bear false witness and commit perjury, to engage in sexual immorality, practices, etc... despite manifold human moral codes fabricated by spiritually blind or spiritually deceived people that falsely assert some or all of such things are moral because they are actually immoral and violate God's normative morality no matter what moral codes humans have fabricated to accomodate them.

It doesn't matter which moral code(s) you fabricate to deny all moral people who adhere to the one true normative morality (e.g. Creator God's normative morality) which actually exists in reality their human rights and religious liberties on behalf of the immoral lizathrose: it's immoral of you to do so.

 

[reawakeningmemories]

There is no love in sin. You can call it anything you want to but it does not change the truth.

This is not a civil rights issue. Its a priveledge issue. Its a promotion of sin issue. Its making special exceptions for actions, if youa re a christian, we know that are not only harmful to themselves its harmful to the society at large. To promote this sin is disgusting.

...and I have no want to end up like Soddom or her sister city Gommorah.

We are facing persecution right here and right with this issue. Christian businesses being forced to hire homosexuals, to promote homosexual unions, to be forced to not proclaim the truth of the bible in the public square.

It may not be like the places that kill christians...but because of these immoral ''civil rights'' issues it soon will be and you sir, will be on the forefront of that evil.

You could replace anything you said with "black people" and it would make your hateful attitude more apparent. Even if you believe homosexuality is a sin, not hiring a gay person does nothing to help your spiritual welfare. It just makes you hateful.

And, yes, it IS a civil rights issue. No matter how you want to spin it, it is. Black people were treated as second class citizens (and not even citizens, before) and people used the Bible to support this behavior. You're doing the same thing. You're not trying to separate yourself from homosexuality, you're trying to make life hard for the many gay people in this country. You're making my brother's life harder, and that means you're making MY life harder because I have to watch my blood kin suffer because of hateful people using God's Word to support hatred.

 

[J-Kay-2]

You could replace anything you said with "black people" and it would make your hateful attitude more apparent. Even if you believe homosexuality is a sin, not hiring a gay person does nothing to help your spiritual welfare. It just makes you hateful.

And, yes, it IS a civil rights issue. No matter how you want to spin it, it is. Black people were treated as second class citizens (and not even citizens, before) and people used the Bible to support this behavior. You're doing the same thing. You're not trying to separate yourself from homosexuality, you're trying to make life hard for the many gay people in this country. You're making my brother's life harder, and that means you're making MY life harder because I have to watch my blood kin suffer because of hateful people using God's Word to support hatred.

No your brother is making his life harder because of his choosing
to sin. You are just a victim of circumstances of his choice.
If you have to watch his suffering perhaps you can give him scripture
to help him be freed of the bondage to the sinful lifestyle he is in.
Don't blame another for speaking truth. Lay the blame where it
belongs... Followers of perversion. I pray he will be freed so he
can know peace and you also. In Christ our Lord Jesus I pray.Amen

 

[reawakeningmemories]

No your brother is making his life harder because of his choosing
to sin. You are just a victim of circumstances of his choice.
If you have to watch his suffering perhaps you can give him scripture
to help him be freed of the bondage to the sinful lifestyle he is in.
Don't blame another for speaking truth. Lay the blame where it
belongs... Followers of perversion. I pray he will be freed so he
can know peace and you also. In Christ our Lord Jesus I pray.Amen

Even the Catholic Church and pretty much all mainline Protestant churches accept that people are born gay, with no way to choose to be otherwise. The RCC says they should be celibate, but still, cannot choose to be straight. And fat majorities of all groups of doctors, psychologists and scientists agree with them on that.
So no, my brother didn't choose to be gay. He chose to not lie to a woman and pretend to love her when he didn't.

 

[Lizathrose]

In light of my previous response, I'll be brief.

You dispute my moral perspective on a spiritual basis, which I neither agree with nor recognize as legitimate, before alleging a widely-accepted scholarly consensus that simply doesn't exist in support of your point of view. You're welcome to question this, provided you're capable of utilizing well-substantiated statistical analyses of the perspectives and established opinions of the general consensus associated with political and social issues as opposed to "here's a few examples; I claim that I can cite a hundred more; I win."

You misinterpret the context of the parties and issues involved in the court cases you cite. You grossly exaggerate the scale and perspective of the views of a minority whose academic tenure and scholarly credibility is only becoming more tenuous as society becomes more intellectually and socially pluralistic, and exaggerate the purportedly suppressed status of Christians in the United States from the perspective of civil rights and liberties on the basis of a persecutory illusion that can't be consistently substantiated under the lens of neutral scrutiny.

You make the most absurd extrapolations from the most dubious of material, which is testimonial -- and quite typical -- of a poor pretense of a rational argument. You make unsubstantiated and unwarranted assumptions concerning my moral views. Worst of all, a good portion of the material you indiscriminately cite and rely heavily upon is misleading, if not patently false.

So, I'll reiterate a portion of a previous post I've made.

"If you have a case to make, I'm going to have to ask you to take it to a live chat medium of some sort. I'll happily argue with you via a private chat window or microphone / webcam, but I'm not going to continue sifting through exhaustive gish gallops and material sourced directly from an apologist's biased site dedicated to supplying new twists to outmoded, tired arguments that no longer carry a widely-accepted legal, political, or philosophical consensus. I really don't have the patience or the energy."

Whenever you're ready, I'll be waiting.

 

[J-Kay-2]

Whomever you are going to meet elsewhere... .THANK YOU !!!!

 

[kennethcadwell]

Born gay is one of the most common used thing to justify that sin. The problem is nobody is sitting in a crib as a baby, or crawling around as a toddler wondering/thinking who they are sexual attracted to. That is a developmental stage of affection that one develops as they get older.

Even the Catholic Church and pretty much all mainline Protestant churches accept that people are born gay, with no way to choose to be otherwise. The RCC says they should be celibate, but still, cannot choose to be straight. And fat majorities of all groups of doctors, psychologists and scientists agree with them on that.
So no, my brother didn't choose to be gay. He chose to not lie to a woman and pretend to love her when he didn't.

 

[J-Kay-2]

Born gay is one of the most common used thing to justify that sin. The problem is nobody is sitting in a crib as a baby, or crawling around as a toddler wondering/thinking who they are sexual attracted to. That is a developmental stage of affection that one develops as they get older.

I guess there is nothing I have not shared about myself and if it helps someone
else I really don't mind. When I was a young girl I was fascinated with womens
breast. I did not know that was considered a lesbian trait. I never lusted after
the girls I went to school with because they had breast. I was aware of the
difference between female and male anatomy. It was not something one did
because we knew it was a sin to be homosexual. Turns out a few kept their
sin a secret and I do admit to having been appalled at the 'closet homosexual
men' I learned about later.

Basically I am saying just because a person is fascinated with the opposite
sex, does not mean they have to give into it. Unfortunately, now that it is so
widely open to anyone, more are going to fall prey to that sin and regret it
big time.

I praise God for a conscience that knew being attracted to female breast
was a sin and gave me a husband to love and bear his children.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

You're babbling. I dispute your immoral perspective on a normatively moral basis. The fact you don't recognize normative morality as legitimate simply reveals how truly deceived you are.

And the "widely-accepted scholarly consensus" both advocated and supported this view in North America since the first Christian settlement. Only very recently has the "widely-accepted scholarly consensus" materially diverted from it. Take an American history class Lizathrose. You're false assertions are patently ignorant.

Now you asked for evidence, and I provided empirical evidence both in the form of scholarly case law but also popular literature. But you're so ignorant that you actually respond with "I claim that I can cite a hundred more; I win." No Lizathrose, I actually CAN cite a hundred more that prove my case and that's WHY I win.

And I'm not misinterpreting anything. You are. Both the aggregate as well as specific examples clearly show the scale of divergence occurring away from the normative morality the nation was founded on for the sweeping immorality that you champion (as an immoral person). It's not pluralistic: it's replacement accompanied by persecution.

You are replacing the historical Christian normative morality of the nation with your immorality and persecuting moral people in the process. But then you never took philosophy and learned why relativism fails, why pluralism is illogical, studied the law of non-contradiction, etc...: you just engage in immoral acts and try to get the government to persecute everyone that doesn't facilitate your immoral acts when you tyrannically order them to do so.

Obviously civil rights for normatively moral Christians need to be legislated now because there has arisen so many people like you that refuse to even recognize that Christians have civil rights, human rights, and religious liberties... the very unalienable rights endowed upon humanity by our Creator... the very real supreme being that you will have to give an account to for this life you live.

And your ad hominem, as usual, only reveals your lack of character... which isn't surprising in such an immoral person who seeks to deny moral people their God-given rights and liberty.

In light of my previous response, I'll be brief.

You dispute my moral perspective on a spiritual basis, which I neither agree with nor recognize as legitimate, before alleging a widely-accepted scholarly consensus that simply doesn't exist in support of your point of view. You're welcome to question this, provided you're capable of utilizing well-substantiated statistical analyses of the perspectives and established opinions of the general consensus associated with political and social issues as opposed to "here's a few examples; I claim that I can cite a hundred more; I win."

You misinterpret the context of the parties and issues involved in the court cases you cite. You grossly exaggerate the scale and perspective of the views of a minority whose academic tenure and scholarly credibility is only becoming more tenuous as society becomes more intellectually and socially pluralistic, and exaggerate the purportedly suppressed status of Christians in the United States from the perspective of civil rights and liberties on the basis of a persecutory illusion that can't be consistently substantiated under the lens of neutral scrutiny.

You make the most absurd extrapolations from the most dubious of material, which is testimonial -- and quite typical -- of a poor pretense of a rational argument. You make unsubstantiated and unwarranted assumptions concerning my moral views. Worst of all, a good portion of the material you indiscriminately cite and rely heavily upon is misleading, if not patently false.

So, I'll reiterate a portion of a previous post I've made.

"If you have a case to make, I'm going to have to ask you to take it to a live chat medium of some sort. I'll happily argue with you via a private chat window or microphone / webcam, but I'm not going to continue sifting through exhaustive gish gallops and material sourced directly from an apologist's biased site dedicated to supplying new twists to outmoded, tired arguments that no longer carry a widely-accepted legal, political, or philosophical consensus. I really don't have the patience or the energy."

Whenever you're ready, I'll be waiting.

 

[reawakeningmemories]

Born gay is one of the most common used thing to justify that sin. The problem is nobody is sitting in a crib as a baby, or crawling around as a toddler wondering/thinking who they are sexual attracted to. That is a developmental stage of affection that one develops as they get older.

When I was like 4 I knew I had crushes on girls and that I wanted to hold their hands and kiss them. I didn't have the same feelings for guys. My brother is the exact opposite. He knew at a very young age that he was different from most guys and when we were growing up it became obvious to me that he wasn't into girls the way I was or our friends were. Saying someone isn't born gay is like saying someone is born without a sex drive. Yeah, while it's not active when you're young, it doesn't mean it won't naturally appear later.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

No you couldn't because one's race (which is not a choice) is not equitable with immoral behaviors that people choose to engage in. Could you replace pedophilia with "black people?" No. How about bestiality with "black people?" No again. Neither can you replace homosexuality with "black people."

Refusing to hire pedophiles, people who have sex with animals, wife beaters, homosexuals, embezzlers, drug addicts, etc... definitely does help to maintain a spiritual integrity in organizations while not doing so degrades the spiritual integrity of the organization.

What's hateful is tyrannically forcing these immoral behaviors and the people who engage in them onto organizations in general and especially religious employers tyrannically depriving them of their human right to a free moral conscience, civil rights not to be discriminated against, and religious liberty toward a normative morality.

I agree that it is a violation of religious employers civil rights to use the government as a tyrannous weapon to deprive them of their human rights, civil rights, and religious liberty.

You're trying to make life hard for many normatively moral people in this country. You're making my family's life harder and that means you're making my life harder because I have to watch blood kin suffer because of hateful, immoral, deceived people who engage in immoral behaviors degrade the spiritual and moral integrity of my nation, godly religious organizations and employers that exist in it, and society in general.

In your strong hypocritical delusion, you assert that moral people have no right to force a normative morality (which this nation's founding document asserts is "endowed by their Creator") on immoral people but immoral people have a "right" to force their immorality on moral people depriving them of their rights and liberties to live the normative morality "endowed by their Creator."

So not only is your position tyrannical, discriminatory, hateful, ignorant, illogical, etc... but it is also blatantly hypocritical too.

You could replace anything you said with "black people" and it would make your hateful attitude more apparent. Even if you believe homosexuality is a sin, not hiring a gay person does nothing to help your spiritual welfare. It just makes you hateful.

And, yes, it IS a civil rights issue. No matter how you want to spin it, it is. Black people were treated as second class citizens (and not even citizens, before) and people used the Bible to support this behavior. You're doing the same thing. You're not trying to separate yourself from homosexuality, you're trying to make life hard for the many gay people in this country. You're making my brother's life harder, and that means you're making MY life harder because I have to watch my blood kin suffer because of hateful people using God's Word to support hatred.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I have ex-homosexual friends that are now married with children (to a member of the opposite sex) who stated the same thing you just did and then later acknowledged it was a lie from the devil. It's called spiritual warfare. The devil attempts to deceive and corrupt people to use against God. He was successful with you though not successful with me. I've watched transsexuals come to a saving knowledge of the truth, acknowledge they had been deceived by the devil, and live moral lives afterwards. Human beings are not born with programming forcing them to engage in homosexual acts. It's a choice that you made.

People are not girls trapped in boys bodies and boys trapped in girls bodies as those the devil deceived falsely assert in gender diversity. They are sinners trapped in a world that sin has permeated and need salvation followed by sanctification.

When I was like 4 I knew I had crushes on girls and that I wanted to hold their hands and kiss them. I didn't have the same feelings for guys. My brother is the exact opposite. He knew at a very young age that he was different from most guys and when we were growing up it became obvious to me that he wasn't into girls the way I was or our friends were. Saying someone isn't born gay is like saying someone is born without a sex drive. Yeah, while it's not active when you're young, it doesn't mean it won't naturally appear later.

 

[kennethcadwell]

Notice what you said at a young age, not at time of a baby or toddler. You developed those feelings by the time you reached 4. Sexual feelings are things that are developed. You put two babies in the same crib rather they be opposite sex, or same sex they will not try to develop an attraction to each other. They will cuddle for security reasons, not sexual attraction reasons. It is part of our developmental stage, and you can reward how you want by saying not active when younger. But truth is it still means the same because the reason it is not active is do to it is part of the developmental ( growing ) stage.

When I was like 4 I knew I had crushes on girls and that I wanted to hold their hands and kiss them. I didn't have the same feelings for guys. My brother is the exact opposite. He knew at a very young age that he was different from most guys and when we were growing up it became obvious to me that he wasn't into girls the way I was or our friends were. Saying someone isn't born gay is like saying someone is born without a sex drive. Yeah, while it's not active when you're young, it doesn't mean it won't naturally appear later.

 

[kennethcadwell]

The problem with your theology is didn't our Lord Jesus Christ say to help and forgive others. This includes giving them chances to prove that they can change, by refusing to give them a job is not helping them restore their lives. Which sorry to say is why some offenders reoffend. Life is made to hard for them, and we live in a world of no compassion or forgiveness.

Even the scriptures show we are to go to those who are in prison and preach to them, and help them to turn their lives around and get back to a good life. That can not happen if you chose to hold them back, or refuse them. Jesus said not to refuse anybody who comes to His goodness no matter what they did.

No you couldn't because one's race (which is not a choice) is not equitable with immoral behaviors that people choose to engage in. Could you replace pedophilia with "black people?" No. How about bestiality with "black people?" No again. Neither can you replace homosexuality with "black people."

Refusing to hire pedophiles, people who have sex with animals, wife beaters, homosexuals, embezzlers, drug addicts, etc... definitely does help to maintain a spiritual integrity in organizations while not doing so degrades the spiritual integrity of the organization.

What's hateful is tyrannically forcing these immoral behaviors and the people who engage in them onto organizations in general and especially religious employers tyrannically depriving them of their human right to a free moral conscience, civil rights not to be discriminated against, and religious liberty toward a normative morality.

I agree that it is a violation of religious employers civil rights to use the government as a tyrannous weapon to deprive them of their human rights, civil rights, and religious liberty.

You're trying to make life hard for many normatively moral people in this country. You're making my family's life harder and that means you're making my life harder because I have to watch blood kin suffer because of hateful, immoral, deceived people who engage in immoral behaviors degrade the spiritual and moral integrity of my nation, godly religious organizations and employers that exist in it, and society in general.

In your strong hypocritical delusion, you assert that moral people have no right to force a normative morality (which this nation's founding document asserts is "endowed by their Creator") on immoral people but immoral people have a "right" to force their immorality on moral people depriving them of their rights and liberties to live the normative morality "endowed by their Creator."

So not only is your position tyrannical, discriminatory, hateful, ignorant, illogical, etc... but it is also blatantly hypocritical too.

 

[Lizathrose]

You're babbling. I dispute your immoral perspective on a normatively moral basis. The fact you don't recognize normative morality as legitimate simply reveals how truly deceived you are.

And the "widely-accepted scholarly consensus" both advocated and supported this view in North America since the first Christian settlement. Only very recently has the "widely-accepted scholarly consensus" materially diverted from it. Take an American history class Lizathrose. You're false assertions are patently ignorant.

Now you asked for evidence, and I provided empirical evidence both in the form of scholarly case law but also popular literature. But you're so ignorant that you actually respond with "I claim that I can cite a hundred more; I win." No Lizathrose, I actually CAN cite a hundred more that prove my case and that's WHY I win.

And I'm not misinterpreting anything. You are. Both the aggregate as well as specific examples clearly show the scale of divergence occurring away from the normative morality the nation was founded on for the sweeping immorality that you champion (as an immoral person). It's not pluralistic: it's replacement accompanied by persecution.

You are replacing the historical Christian normative morality of the nation with your immorality and persecuting moral people in the process. But then you never took philosophy and learned why relativism fails, why pluralism is illogical, studied the law of non-contradiction, etc...: you just engage in immoral acts and try to get the government to persecute everyone that doesn't facilitate your immoral acts when you tyrannically order them to do so.

Obviously civil rights for normatively moral Christians need to be legislated now because there has arisen so many people like you that refuse to even recognize that Christians have civil rights, human rights, and religious liberties... the very unalienable rights endowed upon humanity by our Creator... the very real supreme being that you will have to give an account to for this life you live.

And your ad hominem, as usual, only reveals your lack of character... which isn't surprising in such an immoral person who seeks to deny moral people their God-given rights and liberty.

Like I said -- I'll be waiting, my little keyboard warrior.

 

[J-Kay-2]

In a little over a month I will see another birthday. It is not a number I am happy about.
But, as long as I have a mind and memory, I will share what I have learned.

Growing up ( and I am sure this has happened to all children ) little kids were curious
about their anatomy. One look at each other showed them they were made differently.
Curiosity may have led to touching. They did not know better because it was not in
their face ( sex topics, such as television ads, etc.)

The children began to grow up pre-teen. Most were probably modest about the
changes taking place in their bodies. I have never been a boy, so I can't speak for them,
but I am sure when they began middle school, sports activities, they were aware there
was difference in shape and ( you get the picture.) I find it hard to believe there were
many boys curious about what it would be like to have sexual contact with the guy
next to him. I think it was more about size, and envy.

Girls, the most they would have envy was size of bra one wore. In my school we shared
girls restroom and the most we did was put make up on at the same mirror, talking about
our date, or the guy we hoped would ask us to the prom.

All this being said is simply to tell you there was a time this was NOT an issue. People
kept quiet if they heard rumor about Liberace, the piano player. We respected their
privacy. Now we are at a place we have it thrown in our face and commercials are even
beginning to give glimpses of males holding hands. Women, one has to just wonder.
Unless like Ellen they dress manly and make it obvious what they are.

This topic will never go away. And I believe every parent is held responsible for what
they allow the child to think about their sexual preference. Mom and Dad must not
encourage the child into thinking ...'oh, yeah, we thought you were meant to like boys
son, or 'oh, yeah, we think it is okay to dress up like a girl. What does that make ?
A transgender. I am not even going to judge... I am leaving it up to God. I just wanted
to remind people, curiosity was normal among children.

Also the perverts who are pedophiles are really messing with the minds of the
children. We know what God said about the little children.... It is better to have a
millstone thrown around the perverts neck and cast into the sea than to harm
these little children..

All this talk about homosexuality has just opened a can of worms... and in a way
we can only pray God will help the innocent to be kept that way. NOT buy into
the lies of satan. God bless the little babies... the toddlers... the preteens ... and
the young adults. May they be aware of what is happening before it is too late
for them. God bless our innocent, and may parents be aware they can help the
child understand .... we are born to be who we are. Male or female. To marry
some day, and have children as God planned. Notice it is Male and Female are
to marry. Not the male and male or female and female. I pray for deliverance
of those who want out of this lifestyle. God can deliver ...Ask Him when you are
aware this is abnormal.

You know it is a little like when we had the abortion issue...Roe Vs. Wade...
the more we talked about it, the greater it grew into becoming one of the most
cruel way of murdering babies, ever.

So, now we are following suit aren't we ? We are speaking of homosexuals,
transgenders, and it just keeps growing. What if we ignore them ? Wonder
what would happen? Oh, and yes I know I am the original poster of this
topic. Maybe it is time to quit.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

God's special revelation (e.g. the canon) gives specific instructions to Christian organizations designed to ensure that God's normative morality (e.g. holy standards) are maintained within them. Jesus Christ never violated God's holiness nor encouraged anyone to do so. Jesus Christ never said to hire immoral people to lead His church but, in fact, said exactly the opposite as did His apostles. Read first and second Timothy sometime. Jesus Christ said:

"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?’ Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.’" -Matthew 7:21-23.

This idea you have that Jesus Christ ordered Christian organizations and His church to hire and promote unrepentant, unregenerate, practicing homosexuals, practicing pedophiles, people who have sex with animals, etc..., in violation of God's instructions to His church NOT to, so they can corrupt the body from within away from God's holiness to their own standards of immorality is both false and delusional.

Life is hard for regenerate Christians who are slapped with civil rights lawsuits to bankrupt them and leave them and their children in bankruptcy and life long poverty (because those fines don't wash in bankruptcy court) as well as prison sentences simply for maintaining God's holiness in their lives, businesses, and Christian organizations. Life is hard for Christians subjected to difficult peer pressure, bullying, and persecution for refusing to compromise God's holiness in their lives in the public sphere and education. Where's your empathy for them? Where's your empathy for moral Christians... who belong to the most persecuted worldview on earth today?

Christ lived and taught BOTH God's holiness and love. They go together. You can't just trashcan God's holiness and say you have His love. It doesn't work that way.

It is in scripture we find the proper relationship between God's moral law and His agape love. Two equal and opposite dangers must be avoided:

1. Legalism effectively ousts agape love as a dynamic of the gospel and the Christian life by reducing both to obedience or conformity to a set of external commands or rules (after the manner of the scribes and Pharisees in the gospels).

2. Its opposite, antinomianism, ousts God's moral law as a dynamic of the gospel and the Christian life. Antinomianism is heresy that tells Christians it's OK to forget about God's law and concentrate solely on agape love... a course which is a justification for degeneration and immorality rather than promoting the true Christian liberty (i.e. freedom from sin).

The Gospel of Jesus Christ and God's grace in Jesus Christ frees the Christian from both these erroneous tendencies but only if Christians respectfully strive to follow God's moral law and both practice and realize agape love in their lives.

Whether quickly or slowly, easily or most painfully with many battles both won and lost, genuine Christians progress over time in sanctification toward the godliness of Christ after salvation. They don't malign scripture and live a life of sweeping immoral wickedness and seek to use the government to persecute everyone who won't condone and facilitate their "lifestyle."

In total there are two possible spiritual states for a person with respect to regeneration: regenerate or unregenerate. To know whether someone is unregenerate or regenerate, all that's needed is to match what corresponds to regeneration or unregeneration accurately for truth is found in correspondence. This is why Jesus said a good tree doesn't produce bad fruit or visa versa (Matthew 7:18).

This is why John states that when people profess to be Christians but live lives filled with sexual immorality, that the very regeneration of those people should be doubted for the "fruit" of their life shows that they are still a child of the devil in an unregenerate state.

Certainly people who engage in immoral behavior outside the scope of God's holiness and holy instructions for His church are free to start their own apostate religious organizations in which they condone and facilitate immorality, malign God's Word to justify it, and hire whomever they like. And you have a right to hire anyone you like.

But people whose lives are centered on immorality don't have a de jure right to deprive genuine regenerate Christians and their organizations of their human right to a free moral conscience nor their religious liberty to implement and maintain God's normative morality within their organizations (even in nations where they have managed to make it a de facto "right").

Banks shouldn't have to hire embezzlers that embezzle funds and Christian religious employers shouldn't have to hire people who choose to engage in sexual immorality that are obviously out of alignment with their worldview, beliefs, epistemology, and whose immoral behavior undermines the very mission of their organization.

And the Supreme Court, fortunately, agrees as evidenced by both the Hosanna-Tabor ruling where they levied a unanimous Supreme Court decision overturning the federal government ruling:

“Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs.”

That’s a violation of both the Free Exercise Clause, “which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments,” and the Establishment Clause, “which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.” The First Amendment “gives special solicitude to the right of religious organizations.” The government’s contrary view is “remarkable” and erroneous.

Thus, the Court said, while “the interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important,... so too is the interest of religious groups in who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission.”

The latest Supreme Court decision on behalf of Hobby Lobby, that Christian businesses and religious organizations cannot be forced by the government to facilitate the murder of unborn babies, is another example. What the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision means - CNN.com

You've somehow confused evangelism and practicing personal forgiveness with an edict by Christ to hire unregenerate immoral people, against His instructions, to corrupt Christian organizations and it's just not true.

The problem with your theology is didn't our Lord Jesus Christ say to help and forgive others. This includes giving them chances to prove that they can change, by refusing to give them a job is not helping them restore their lives. Which sorry to say is why some offenders reoffend. Life is made to hard for them, and we live in a world of no compassion or forgiveness.

Even the scriptures show we are to go to those who are in prison and preach to them, and help them to turn their lives around and get back to a good life. That can not happen if you chose to hold them back, or refuse them. Jesus said not to refuse anybody who comes to His goodness no matter what they did.

 

[Nate83]

Like I said -- I'll be waiting, my little keyboard warrior.

He just destroyed your pseudo-intellectualism and rationale on so many levels, in so many posts, you've been reduced to mocking his points/posts instead of refuting them directly (because you can't). Instead of simply stating you are tired of arguing because you've bitten off more than you can chew, this is your way out. All you've been capable of is attempting to patronize people with your boring circular logic and smugness. Since you aren't getting much of a foothold here, it's upsetting you. No one needs to continue.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

True, but that's not to say she's isn't intelligent or that God doesn't love her. She is intelligent and God does love her. But she has a lot to learn about God, Christianity, and life and I don't say that condescendingly.

We all experience many things over decades, if we are fortunate enough to live that long, and she will reinvent herself along the way in response to them (as we all do) into a person that it's either genuinely closer to and better aligned with Creator God or further from and more maligned with respect to Creator God.

This life is where the choices are made that determine one's eternal position to Creator God. He knows exactly what she is and He loves her too much to leave her like that but as always God will not violate her free will in the matter.

People whose immorality is so great they take it as their very identity certainly will deprive us of our human rights and religious liberty in this life if they can possibly get the government to do so for them but God won't deprive them of His salvation, sanctification, and glorification should they choose it. I hope ultimately she does.

He just destroyed your pseudo-intellectualism and rationale on so many levels, in so many posts, you've been reduced to mocking his points/posts instead of refuting them directly (because you can't). Instead of simply stating you are tired of arguing because you've bitten off more than you can chew, this is your way out. All you've been capable of is attempting to patronize people with your boring circular logic and smugness. Since you aren't getting much of a foothold here, it's upsetting you. No one needs to continue.

 

[reawakeningmemories]

No you couldn't because one's race (which is not a choice) is not equitable with immoral behaviors that people choose to engage in. Could you replace pedophilia with "black people?" No. How about bestiality with "black people?" No again. Neither can you replace homosexuality with "black people."

Refusing to hire pedophiles, people who have sex with animals, wife beaters, homosexuals, embezzlers, drug addicts, etc... definitely does help to maintain a spiritual integrity in organizations while not doing so degrades the spiritual integrity of the organization.

What's hateful is tyrannically forcing these immoral behaviors and the people who engage in them onto organizations in general and especially religious employers tyrannically depriving them of their human right to a free moral conscience, civil rights not to be discriminated against, and religious liberty toward a normative morality.

I agree that it is a violation of religious employers civil rights to use the government as a tyrannous weapon to deprive them of their human rights, civil rights, and religious liberty.

You're trying to make life hard for many normatively moral people in this country. You're making my family's life harder and that means you're making my life harder because I have to watch blood kin suffer because of hateful, immoral, deceived people who engage in immoral behaviors degrade the spiritual and moral integrity of my nation, godly religious organizations and employers that exist in it, and society in general.

In your strong hypocritical delusion, you assert that moral people have no right to force a normative morality (which this nation's founding document asserts is "endowed by their Creator") on immoral people but immoral people have a "right" to force their immorality on moral people depriving them of their rights and liberties to live the normative morality "endowed by their Creator."

So not only is your position tyrannical, discriminatory, hateful, ignorant, illogical, etc... but it is also blatantly hypocritical too.

It saddens me that your hate makes you so angry. It's blind hatred for a group that you know nothing about. You know what Fox News and the far right fringes of our faith tell you to know. No matter how much you want to argue with me and call me evil and all the other lies you've slandered my character with, on a Christian website no less, I am not wrong in saying that my brother's life is made harder by people like you, who go out of your way to make sure he can't get equal rights in this country.

It doesn't affect you whatsoever. Him wanting to marry his fiance (who genuinely seems compelled to love everyone more than 99% of people I've met) doesn't hurt your family, your marriage or your life. It doesn't and it never will. If you don't want to marry a gay person, don't be gay married. If you don't want to marry a black person, don't get interracial married. I don't understand some Christians' hypocritical attempts to make this country a theocracy, but put even a sliver of Muslim anything near the government and you'd think the Apocalypse had started. Our religion doesn't control this government, and it shouldn't. I don't want to be told how to believe or live and neither does anyone else. Christianity has so many sects and denominations that it would turn into complete chaos if the "Religious" Right got their hands on control of this nation.

This isn't a debate about what is sin or what isn't sin. Jesus spoke out against divorce and that is legal and no one here is freaking out about that. Jesus, however, did NOT speak out against homosexuality and you people are foaming at the mouth at anyone that suggests it's "not that bad" from a legal, democratic stand point.

Call me a bad Christian, call me an evil abomination for being the best man at my brother's soon-to-be wedding to his partner. The Lord knows my heart and last time I checked, you weren't Him. Judge all you like, you are bearing false witness against a brother in Christ by saying the things you've said. Check your hatred at the door next time you speak to me and use God's name to throw lies about me out on the internet.