Obama Gives LGBT Speech - Openly Mocks God of Bible.

[PennEd]

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.

The height of offense to black people to compare the color of ones skin to a sexual activity one CHOOSES to engage in. Note I said engage in. Obviously we are ALL born with different sinful proclivities, BUT it is our CHOICE whether or not we engage in them. Thank you Jesus for freeing us to choose NOT to engage in them. And please, stop YOUR hatred against Bible-believing Christians. I know it is a just a tactic to try and quash dissent against speaking the truth about this perversion, but it really belies YOUR hatred against Christians.

 

[Lizathrose]

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.

So, the general consensus of the vast majority of contemporary intelligentsia, which happens to be opposed to a perspective heavily rooted in the fringe world of the discredited reactionary, happens to be a "pseudo-intellectual" perspective that has been "destroyed"?

I'm only inviting him to a live discussion to negate his tendency to gish gallop from one irrelevant, misconstrued, or misinformed point to another in a typically long and rambling response that cites material from dubious, biased sources, as I've pointed out in another thread. I'm more than capable of doing the same, but I've had the maturity and the intellectual integrity to refrain from doing so. There's really no point in continuing to entertain a discussion over a chat medium that encourages the sort of fallacious argumentation outlined above. It clogs the forums and muddles the original point of contention -- that's all.

 

[Sirk]

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.

You guys are way smarter than me, but I really think it much simpler thank all of that. It's about votes....the left wing needs votes and they attempt to gain them by (insert bogeyman) pitting people against each other. Granted, both slave and master are willing participants in their circumstance, it is really no more complicated than the desire for a larger and larger base of do-eyed emotionally driven sychophants as their source of power and prestige.

I found it oh so ironic how Ms Pelosi refered to those illegal border jumping children as having "a spark of divinity", but yet only extends that ever so wise assessment to a child outside the womb. For me personally, the left wing in this country, from the intelligent to the touched, display a level of cognitive dissonance unrivaled throughout all history. But I get it.....that is how mankind has justified murder, mayhem and societal upheaval since man rose up on this rock and went against his creator.

 

[PennEd]

I've yet to dispute the notion that morality in general is -- or ought to be -- ultimately subjective. If you'll read my post again, you'll see that I specifically referenced personal choice as a subjective element in morality. While it's easy to cite countless moral discrepancies of varying degrees across countless eras and civilizations, that shouldn't be to imply that the notion of an objective societal moral bedrock of some sort upon which to base the contingent, subjective aspect of human choices with respect to morality isn't a worthy and noble goal, or that a sort of fundamental morality generally exists in human society, even if that bedrock -- for instance, the right to life -- carries certain, justifiable exceptions that undermine its otherwise objective stature.

In this respect, I tend to agree with you -- morality isn't entirely objective or entirely subjective within any one cultural context, but rather exists on a spectrum that the general consensus adheres to that bases a given act as generally moral or generally immoral, even if this spectrum isn't particularly similar across all cultures -- and even if it's arguably inconsistent in terms of justice and social evolution. However, this inherently suggests that morality on a broad, generalist sense is more fundamentally subjective than objective in nature, given the extent to which the capacity for reason and intuition alongside human nature is capable of being changed or molded in light of variables such as the political system in place, the general beliefs of a culture, social dominance theory as it pertains to humans, and so on and so forth to near ad infinitum.

To reiterate, this shouldn't suggest that morality has to be subjective to the point that only an anarchic philosophical template of some sort could consistently apply without suffering some form of self-contradiction. In philosophy, it's generally accepted that, beyond formal logic, it's extremely difficult -- if not impossible -- to pin a given concept or application as flatly contradictory in light of the multitude of variables and circumstances that have to be taken into consideration, many of which present their own plethora of variables to consider. Put simply, morality is a very, very complex game, but that doesn't automatically negate the value of a moral center of some kind. Our legal infrastructure recognizes this through our system of justice, as you've rightly pointed out, which exists to enforce society's general moral principles as we see fit on the basis of variables that factor into the equation of the morality or immorality of a given act or principle.

Since we're at least generally in agreement here, let's move on. You've implied that, because the LGBT movement hasn't "advanced the progress of our society in general" or "developed anything groundbreaking that will be useful to all of us," and that since it's occasionally a temporary detriment to the daily lives of commuters and consumers, and that on extraordinary occasions it's capable of leading to violence, it's somehow unworthy in some respect or another. This is a very questionable point of contention that heavily invokes utilitarianism, which in reference to social equality is generally understood to be both inapplicable and irrelevant. Were the civil rights protests of the '60s as heinous on the basis of their similarly detrimental effects during protests? Did violent disputes that often erupted as a result of these protests undermine the overall goal of the civil rights movement as a noble one? No? If so, why invoke utilitarianism at all in disputing the LGBT movement when moral and philosophical justifications alone should be enough to suffice? Given the size of the movement, why should isolated incidents have any significant bearing on anything? Why? You're attempting to tack on a spare tire to bolster a poor argument. In other words, you're adding fluff.

As for the slippery slope... While cultural evolution in some direction or another is inevitable, to imply that one particular political issue is capable of being legitimately coincided with a completely different issue on the prophetic, unfalsifiable basis of a fear of a "domino effect" that ultimately has an arguably negative conclusion is ridiculous. I challenge you to make anything resembling a coherent argument that legitimately, factually, and relevantly supports the slippery slope argument as it applies to LGBT equality. Considering the extent to which the slippery slope is capable of being invoked to support all sorts of restrictions on civil rights and liberties within the context of an objective morality, and given the absurd degree of variables that have to be taken into consideration when comparing X society with Y society or X policy to Y policy, I very, very sincerely doubt you can. Bear in mind that this entails acknowledging and discussing certain applications of the slippery slope, such as women's suffrage and the statistically significant gap between men and women in terms of conservatism and liberalism.

This is a whole lot of gobblety-gook designed to obfuscate her inability to explain how if there are no definitive moral absolutes then there is no difference between right and wrong, and every man does what's right in his own eyes rules the day. Since humans have demonstrated time and time again that without DIVINE MORAL ABSOLUTES, right and wrong constantly shifts with the whims and evil intent of societies, governments or dictators.

 

[PennEd]

The perversion and indoctrination from this wicked man continues unabated. Protect your children from this monster my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Obama Admin Promotes: “Embrace, Encourage, Celebrate” Gay And Transgendered Children… | Weasel Zippers

 

[J-Kay-2]

The perversion and indoctrination from this wicked man continues unabated. Protect your children from this monster my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Obama Admin Promotes: “Embrace, Encourage, Celebrate” Gay And Transgendered Children… | Weasel Zippers

[h=2]Obama Admin Promotes: “Embrace, Encourage, Celebrate” Gay And Transgendered Children…[/h]

“Transgendered children” = Liberal child abuse.
Via Weekly Standard:
The Department of Health and Human Services recently recognized the RISE project (Recognize, Intervene, Support, and Empower) in Los Angeles County for its work to fight “anti-gay and anti-transgender bias” in the child welfare system in the county:
“To address the over-representation of LGBTQ youth in the foster care system, RISE set out to develop and evaluate a multi-pronged approach to helping LGBTQ youth find permanent and supportive families. Early research revealed that many LBGTQ youth in the foster care system question whether their environments are safe spaces. RISE engaged youth to design posters named “Brave Space” and other materials to let all youth know that caseworkers, offices, and other environments are safe places. Equally important is the message to others that anti-gay and anti-transgender remarks won’t be tolerated.”
One of the posters features the rainbow colors now ubiquitous in LGBTQ literature along with a message to “embrace, encourage, celebrate who we are.” The poster also discourages “homophobic, transphobic, racist, or sexist put downs and remarks.”

I copied this because it is likely not to be clicked on to read the link posted. It appears
some find it too long to click on and read... Thanks Penn-ED

 

[Billyd]

So, the general consensus of the vast majority of contemporary intelligentsia, which happens to be opposed to a perspective heavily rooted in the fringe world of the discredited reactionary, happens to be a "pseudo-intellectual" perspective that has been "destroyed"?

I'm only inviting him to a live discussion to negate his tendency to gish gallop from one irrelevant, misconstrued, or misinformed point to another in a typically long and rambling response that cites material from dubious, biased sources, as I've pointed out in another thread. I'm more than capable of doing the same, but I've had the maturity and the intellectual integrity to refrain from doing so. There's really no point in continuing to entertain a discussion over a chat medium that encourages the sort of fallacious argumentation outlined above. It clogs the forums and muddles the original point of contention -- that's all.

Sweetheart, I was once much like you (I was even raised in a very Christian family accepted my salvation very early). I spent much of my late teens trying to justify my desire to live in a secular world. Then one day a man pulled me out of a fire that was all around me. When I walked out without as much as a breathing difficulty, and there was no one near me, I realized just how wrong I had been. I had a Savior that had been there during my entire life. It was then when I realized that all that secular world that I had been pursuing was nothing compared to what I already had. I pray that one day you will find peace that I have enjoyed for so many years. Please wait until your fire comes.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I'm quite happy sitting here drinking a cup of tea. Why you could say that I'm gay (sans-sexual immorality, of course). I have no hatred or anger toward you whatsoever and I don't listen to Fox News anymore than any MSNBC. I'm not a Republican but a registered independent. Instead of "bearing false witness" against me in the future, just ask instead. Here are five question marks ????? I'm giving them to you. In the future, place them at the end of sentences... lol

And for your information, the founding fathers of this nation are "far right" to you: all of them. They are the original "religious right" which means that people like yourself, "far left" or "irreligious left" or "apostate left" are out of step with them and the worldview this nation was founded on.

Truth is found in correspondence. I'll explain it to you. If you lie, then you are a liar. If you sodomize, then you are a sodomizer. If you engage in sexual immorality, then you are a sexually immoral person. If you tell moral people that they have no right to use the government to maintain standards of morality yet simultaneously attempt to use the government to force them to accept and facilitate immorality, then you are a hypocrite. If you practice immorality and do it then you are an immoral hypocrite. See how this works? Truth is found in correspondence.

It's not my fault that you don't like the truth. It is your own but fortunately, you can do something about it. You can accept the truth and change your life to correspond to it. In theology, this is called sanctification (e.g. to be set apart and made holy). The nature of sanctification is twofold in that Christians have been justified through salvation in Christ but also called to strive for and grow into holiness by cooperating with the indwelling Holy Spirit until they enjoy complete conformity to God's perfect holiness in Christ in heaven (e.g. glorification). Salvation-->Sanctification-->Glorification is God's formula.

Your formula seems to be Salvation-->Desecration-->Glorification. There's an error in your formula. Can you guess where it is? (hint: replace Desecration with Sanctification).

It saddens NAMBlA members that they can't get "equal rights." It saddens people who like to have sex with animals that they can't get "equal rights." It saddens polygamists that they can't get "equal rights." We can keep going. There are many "equal right" examples in which immoral people want society to accept their particular immorality.

It saddens me that immoral people want to use the government to tyrannically force their immorality on moral people and their organizations depriving them of their human right to a free moral conscience, their civil rights, their religious liberty toward a normative morality. But then immoral people are selfish and uncaring in that respect. Their focus is always on themselves and their immorality which was not, is not, and never will be equitable to morality. The "right" to engage in immorality does not equate to a genuine de jure God-given right to be a moral person even when governments exercise their de facto authority to allow it.

Sexual immorality is a corrupting and corrosive influence both in the lives of those who practice it but also for the societies they live in. If you ever take a sociology 101 class, you'll learn that people interact and this interaction causes social change which itself affects people. To put it in a more scholarly way: people's beliefs, attitudes, decisions, and behaviors affect society influencing cultures, structures, and institutions, for better or worse, which, in turn, affects people.

Given the importance of people's beliefs, attitudes, decisions, and behaviors to their own lives, the lives of others, and society; it is imperative that they be rooted in the only objective absolute truth that exists (e.g. Creator God's special and general revelation). Each person has a view of the world which includes their conception of reality, the universe, the world, morality, etc... that they exercise (affecting society). Their worldview may or may not align with truth. If it does, then society benefits from their clarity but if it does not then their distorted reality negatively affects society. Sexual immorality is a negative deviation from normative morality that negatively affects society making your assertion that it does not a false assertion.

No government need adhere to a particular denominational doctrine to benefit from Creator God's normative morality. The founding fathers clearly understood this and established a federal government rooted in the Christian worldview (which aligns with God's normative morality) but free from theocracy. Even state atheism can benefit from Creator God's normative morality if they apply it. Even immoral people like yourself that want to wrongly replace God's normal morality in a nation's rule of law with the immorality they themselves practice (as if immorality is somehow equitable with normative morality and therefore a suitable replacement for it which it certainly is not) can benefit from God's normative morality in areas they apply it as well as when normative morality is practiced by others in society.

Why? Because God's normative morality corresponds with objective absolute truth and objective absolute truth benefits people when they apply it to their lives and societies.

For more information, read: Why I Am a Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe: Norman L. Geisler, Paul K. Hoffman: 9780801067129: Amazon.com: Books

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.

 

[J-Kay-2]

AGEOFKNOWLEDGE : Awesome .... you speak for Christians who know
sinful, immoral lifestyles, perversion, NAMBIA, beastality, are rights we
fight against. It is up to each Christian to keep these sinful acts, and
thoughts out of our life. If we don't entertain them, we might see Godly
morals reign. Thank you for an awesome article...

 

[MrsRoseTreasure]

Well said.

Homosexuality is NOT a civil rights issue.

Its a moral one. If you want our society to be destroyed so democrats can sew up a voting block...

Just a fyi....it would not be western civilization if not for the influence of christianity upon these peoples.

What the bible says is good, is good and it is good for every human on the planet. While theocracies are foolish, having a governmental foundation of christian principles will insure good government....ya wanna know why?

What the bible says is good is good for every human on the planet.

Also what the bible says is bad is bad for every human on the planet.

Our free will has only one purpose....its death. To place a value on it, creates an idol.

Homosexuality is a sin. Its a choice. It literally destroys families. There is no love in it. It is a perversion of natural and spiritual principles. It is NOT a minority.

It IS immorality.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Obviously there is a good reason why Jesus prayed, "Let it be on earth as it is in heaven" where a perfect balance of sinless holiness and indescribably wonderful agape love exist in perfect harmony.

As the theologian Albert Barnes stated, "Thy will be done. The will of God is that men [and women] should be holy [and loving]." When people assert the opposite of what Jesus prayed for, that it be unholy on earth as it is not in heaven, they are taking an anti-Christ position.

"This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil." -John 3:19.

They crucified Jesus, stoned Stephen to death, whipped and finally executed Paul, executed most of Jesus's other disciples, and have persecuted Christians to this very day to the extent that Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world today.

Yet they call us hateful, unloving, etc... and for what: being honest and telling them the truth.

Preaching God’s truth can and will offend people causing them discomfort simply because ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and the Gospel clearly presents this very human condition.

It can cause us Christians discomfort also when we see how our own lives still fall short and need to change with God's help to be conformed further into the image of Christ who knew no sin even though we are justified and presently undergoing sanctification in preparation for glorification having purified a great many sinful activities from our lives that we once engaged in but have found victory over.

None of us are perfect. I'm not and neither are you. But that's the purpose of the Gospel, to reconcile all people to God through Christ and set them on a path of progressive sanctification in preparation for eternal glory and we would be amiss not to share the truth.

AGEOFKNOWLEDGE : Awesome .... you speak for Christians who know
sinful, immoral lifestyles, perversion, NAMBIA, beastality, are rights we
fight against. It is up to each Christian to keep these sinful acts, and
thoughts out of our life. If we don't entertain them, we might see Godly
morals reign. Thank you for an awesome article...

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

"President Barack Obama is the worst president since World War II, 33 percent of American voters say in a Quinnipiac University National Poll released today [7/2/2014]."

National (US) Poll - July 2, 2014 - Obama Is First As Worst Presid | Quinnipiac University Connecticut

 

[Billyd]

"President Barack Obama is the worst president since World War II, 33 percent of American voters say in a Quinnipiac University National Poll released today [7/2/2014]."

National (US) Poll - July 2, 2014 - Obama Is First As Worst Presid | Quinnipiac University Connecticut

Read this morning. It's not surprising to me. What surprises me is the other numbers in this survey. From reading them, I believe that the people are still giving him a lot of leeway. They are much better than the numbers I see in my community.

 

[PennEd]

Not too fascist huh?

Chase Bank Asks Employees If They Are “Allies of The LGBT Community”… | Weasel Zippers

 

[PennEd]

Had my last whopper.....I'd urge people to fight back. Call Burger King headquarters and tell them you will no longer eat there.

No Joke: Burger King Unveils Gay Pride Whopper… | Weasel Zippers

 

[J-Kay-2]

Had my last whopper.....I'd urge people to fight back. Call Burger King headquarters and tell them you will no longer eat there.

No Joke: Burger King Unveils Gay Pride Whopper… | Weasel Zippers

I saw this on my NETB and was being cautious so did not bring it over.
Thanks ...

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

6. Do you or do you not engage in sodomy? [note to Human Resources, if applicant answers no do NOT hire them.].

Not too fascist huh?

Chase Bank Asks Employees If They Are “Allies of The LGBT Community”… | Weasel Zippers

 

[J-Kay-2]

6. Do you or do you not engage in sodomy? [note to Human Resources, if applicant answers no do NOT hire them.].

Now there is one place we should not do business for sure.
That is infuriating...

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I just want to know where the "Moral Burger" LOL. Burger Queenie is all about celebrating the sin of Sodom but where is the MORAL BURGER?

Burger King selling a

http://www.latimes.com/food/dailydish/la-dd-burger-king-sells-a-proud-whopper-for-gay-pride-20140702-story.html

 

[SonInMe]

I wonder if the gays know Obama could care less about them and he is using them to further his ideology.

They are as much pawns for the democrat party as the palistinians were pawns of Yassar Arafat.

Idiots.