Based on arguments at the time: Acts 17:24-28 says that God made man “and hath determined the bounds of their habitation.” Genesis 28:1, says that the Canaanites were the “servants of servants” and Isaac called Jacob and said unto him, “Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan.” Sorry, but you’re wrong on that one.

Uproight left said “As for slavery, the Bible addresses it as a reality of the time. It doesn’t condone slavery.”

Wow, you really don’t read the Bible at all, do you?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

Again, you’re wrong about your assumptions of what the Bible actually says.

Well, enough of my rant. Merry Chrismas, and Happy Holiday’s, all!
Comment by Democrat Soldier — December 21, 2007 @ 8:50 am

Once again, thanks for the prayers. I always need the help.

Oddly enough, I anticipated your use of racism and slavery to justify homosexuality. Interracial marriage isn’t condemned by the Bible, is it, bud? Kind of makes it irrelevant to the discussion. Sorry. As for slavery, the Bible addresses it as a reality of the time. It doesn’t condone slavery. Homosexuality is different in that it is condemned by the Bible and is believed to be morally wrong by the majority. Yes, that is changing and homosexual marriage will soon be commonplace. The morality of our society has been declining steadily and will continue to the end.
I don’t think homosexual marrigage will contribute to any sudden decline in marriage and family. The decline will continue as in the past. Acceptance of it may result in people choosing to live that lifestyle who otherwise wouldn’t have. The general effect will be reinforcement of the turn away from God and everything that goes along with that.
But, I’m not worried about how it turns out. I’m assured. Merry Christmas to you and yours!

I always pray for those I think need the help. Much like the lawyer-like attitude you have in your perspective.

Based on your above statement, the people who actively supported the laws against mixed-race marriages are fine and dandy. It was something that was not supported by the majority, so it was fine to keep those laws on the books.

Much like slavery is supported in the Bible, the majority of Americans that had slaves and fouhgt to keep slaves are fine and dandy as well.

I think you seem to forget that the practices of yester-year were something that the majority have always stood for. Or at least didn’t do much to stand against. It doesn’t make it right, or moral, just “majority supported”.

You have to admit that 50 years ago, openly gay men & women didn’t have much support for any discrimination. During the late 70’s, when Harvy Milk was murdered, Dan White used the famous “twinky defense” to receive a reduced sentence. It wans’t “right”, but the judge was influenced by the “majority” opinion that the murder was less important that had he killed a straight man.

The times, they are-a changing! Eveentually, gay people will be afforded the same rights as their straight counterparts, and it won’t bring about the destruction of the US anymore than did allowing inter-racial marriages. There were just as many people crying about how churches would be forced to hold inter-racial marriages as there are crying about forced same-sex marriages.

The law will never force a single church to conduct a marriage they don’t want to perform. It just does not happen. Many churches have not allowed multiple-divorced people to have services at their churches, but no discrimination changges have been filed.

People who refuse to follow the teachings of Jesus, and treat others as they would like to be treated, are guilty of hypocrisy. I have been guilty of this myself, but I try to correct my mistakes.

Well, enough of my rant. Merry Chrismas, and Happy Holiday’s, all!

They (self-named heterosexual “c”hristians that refuse to follow the words of Jesus) are the most immoral people in the world, and will be very surprised when they fail to be recognized by Jesus when they are judged. (”You refused me, so I refuse you.”)

Maybe, some day you will begin to address the beam in your eye before you start complaining about the splinter in others eyes, but I’m not holding my breath waiting for your enlightment.

I’ll keep praying for you, though!

Comment by Democrat Soldier — December 20, 2007 @ 4:48 pm

Thanks for the prayers, bud! I didn’t know you had it in ya. I always appreciate prayers no matter the source.

Now, to your comment. You just really don’t get it, do ya bud? I apply the same standards to myself as to everyone else. If I’m doing something that is prohibited in the Bible, I’m committing a sin and have no complaints about being called on it. Had I been attracted to my own gender and chosen to live as a homosexual, I’d never expect others to condone it. Similarly, I don’t ask anyone to condone the sins that I do commit. (I’m not sure what you mean by “self-named Christians.” Only the individual knows if he is a Christian or not, so all Christians, hetero and homo, are “self-named.”
I don’t make a point of telling homosexuals my opinion of their lifestyle. I don’t advocate any different treatment of them except for recognizing their “unions.” I don’t think the majority is under any obligation to equate their “unions” with marriage as long as the majority thinks it’s immoral. That is not un-Christian. It allows them to live their lives, doesn’t require the majority to compromise their beliefs, and leaves the condition of their souls to them and God.
I appreciate your concern for the condition of my soul as well. While I’ll have plenty to account for, I’m not the least bit concerned that I’ll hear Jesus say “I never knew you.” See, even if I was guilty of the hypocrisy that you suggest, that’s not what determines one’s salvation. ;)

Wow, you really go out of your way to ignore the truth, don’t you?

The self-named heterosexual “c”hristians that refuse to follow the words of Jesus (”Treat others as you would have them treat you”) are, by far, much more hypocritical. They “claim” to follow Jesus, but refuse to actually do so.

They (self-named heterosexual “c”hristians that refuse to follow the words of Jesus) are the most immoral people in the world, and will be very surprised when they fail to be recognized by Jesus when they are judged. (”You refused me, so I refuse you.”)

Maybe, some day you will begin to address the beam in your eye before you start complaining about the splinter in others eyes, but I’m not holding my breath waiting for your enlightment.

I’ll keep praying for you, though!

You are so damned lame — and quite a liar.

How very un-Christian of you.

Comment by Zooey — December 19, 2007 @ 8:27 pm

Which part of the comment was a lie, zooette? That you needn’t worry about doing the research or that you are unaware of an event so it must not have happened?
Un-Christian? Ah, the irony of you as the judge of what is Christian. ;)

You are so damned lame — and quite a liar.

How very un-Christian of you.

Comment by Zooey — December 19, 2007 @ 12:44 pm

You needn’t worry about the fact that I won’t do your research for ya, zooette. I’m sure you were right in your earlier post. You aren’t aware of it so it must not have happened. ;)

The truth will set you free. . . . ;-)

Comment by Democrat Soldier — December 19, 2007 @ 12:26 pm

Yep, some do and that’s why they aren’t getting reelected. ;)
——

Yes, hypocritical “c”hristians are immoral and deserve to be treated as they treat others. I’m glad we agree on some things! ;-)

Comment by Democrat Soldier — December 19, 2007 @ 12:28 pm

I’m not sure why you say homosexual Christians are hypocritical, but, yes we do agree on the immoral part. ;)

Actually, think he/she/it is related to Mighty Aphrodite — since it doesn’t know how to research and provide links to it’s moronic allegations.

Yes, for any who choose to live an immoral life style. Comment by upright left — December 19, 2007 @ 11:36 am

Yes, hypocritical “c”hristians are immoral and deserve to be treated as they treat others. I’m glad we agree on some things! ;-)

Except for the fact it’s not a “chosen lifestyle”.

“they still recognize that the Republican party is needed to balance the far left.” Comment by upright left — December 19, 2007 @ 11:43 am

And that Republicans continue to part ways with what the Republicans used to stand for (limited government, states-rights, deficit spending, civil-rights).

The truth will set you free. . . . ;-)

Because they aren’t hated. Their choice of lifestyle isn’t accepted, but they still recognize that the Republican party is needed to balance the far left.

Most Chrisitans have no problem with others practing their religions. We just don’t want those of other, or no, religions trying to remove Chrisitanity from public view and saying that’s what the founders wanted.

“This means that “c”hristians want to have laws passed that would deny them getting married.”

Yes, for any who choose to live an immoral life style.

“This means that “c”hristians want to be fired for their sexual orientation with no recourse to litigation.”

Only in a very limited number of positions in which one’s sexuality could be construed as being pertinent to the job or those affected by the job. Otherwise people should be allowed to hold any job as long as they don’t make an issue of their choice.

“Yup, that is exactly how American “c”hristians want to be treated, based on their following the words of Jesus.”

Comment by Democrat Soldier — December 19, 2007 @ 10:54 am

Exactly. ;)

Gays are rampant in the Republican party as well, and you would ask why if they are so hated. Because powerful men acknowledge that sexuality is not really that important, and what fellow senators do is no business of theirs. Money, wealth, power, and control over the culture and populace is what’s important. Gays can actually help them, assist them in maintaining unfair systems, the same systems which supress their freedom.

Why would gays do this? Because breaking out of a dishonest life is a lot of thankless work. It’s easier and more profitable to go along with the power structure, and get all the advantages of a privilaged life, to “get theirs” essentially, and not worry about the millions of other gays who are struggling for freedom. Freedom? Who needs that when all your Republican friends respond to your closeted behavior with rewards. Respect? Who needs that when you can be feared and have power instead. Family and a legacy? Who needs gay marriage with a loved one when you can have a brokeback mountain marriage instead, with the wife doing her duty, producing sons for you, while you go on your “buddy” trips or shake your foot under a bathroom stall.

For those gays who reject all that, who have seen the light, and recongnize that living an honest life, a free life and a true life is more important and is the true calling, there is a wall of resistance.

It is not hard to be gay in a certain sense. Or hard to get a job if you’re gay. After all, Huckafruck will hire you. But you’ll have to be a part of the lies and the torment of others. What is hard is being gay and being honest. What is hard is being gay and having your life validated by the culture around you.

This means that the so-called “war on Christmas” was directly due to the “c”hristian tendancy to eschew any other faith and they brought it upon themselves.

This means that “c”hristians want to have laws passed that would deny them getting married.

This means that “c”hristians want to be fired for their sexual orientation with no recourse to litigation.

Yup, that is exactly how American “c”hristians want to be treated, based on their following the words of Jesus.

Bitbit, if you don’t understand the words of the right-whining “c”hristians about how the Bible is the WHOLE word of God, and that everything IN the Bible is supposed to be followed, I wish you would stop commenting on it.

Either that, or you don’t listen to the right-whining “c”hristians and purposefully ignore them when they spout their nonsense. (One of the very few things we would agree upon, if that is what you do.)

Then again, if wishes were fishes we’d all cast nets.

Hey bitbit, what about when Jesus said, I come not to destroy, but to fufill…??? All the laws were not washed away with the coming of jesus. And Christians today DO pick and choose what laws they want to follow and which they don’t. You can’t argue otherwise.

Who knows how much of a new order Jesus wanted to bring, because we know little about him. We have some of his words, but then we also have the preferences of the guys who ran around and tried to spread the new religion and remake it to what they wanted.

It’s a shame that most christians today aren’t really even “christians,” per se. They instead are people who follow many of the old jewish laws, they accept the old testament completely, and merely add to the top of that, like a spurt of whip cream, the ponderings of a jewish messiah called jesus. (Along with that, was introduced the century old idea of the virgin birth, which had appeared in many previous myths and legends.) It’s a shame that the see nothing new in the practices of Jesus. They still war, still judge others, still cling to old laws, still worship wealth and still enjoy destroying the lives of other people.

Maybe we need Jesus to come back around and clarify things for you new christians.

Comment by Democrat Soldier — December 19, 2007 @ 10:17 am

Nope, I only make generalizations about viewpoints for the sake of discussion with the understanding that there are variations in every group. ;)

You may have noticed that Christians don’t require animal sacrifices and that Christians don’t have to be circumcised. Do you know why that is?

The Apostle Paul, yeah that rascally religion hijacker, that self described Pharisee of Pharisee, that commentator on sexual behavior – both heterosexual and homosexual, who wrote such beautiful words about Christ and taught us much of what we know about Spirit and God’s Grace, has something to say about the relationship of Christians to the law.

Romans 7:4,5,6,

So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

And as usual, if you don’t believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God, most of this will not make any sense to you.

Appears to me, DS, that the Apostle Paul gave us Christians something very valuable.

DS, if you don’t understand the relationship between Christians and Law of Moses, I wish you would stop commenting on it.