Ha Sean, I dunno... that letter is much more sarcastic then my article, I am sure Laura got that she was being mocked... some people miss the sarcasm in my post. Is it because they support what I am saying, or because they think someone can be idiotic enough to actually believe the stuff I propose?

So, some of you can accept homosexuality and dont mind if people practice it, but when it comes to marriage, it is unacceptable? Why is that?

There is a difference between doing what you like in the privacy of your own home, and expecting the state to LICENSE the practice. There is no democratic right to tell consenting adults that they can't have a gay relationship. There is most definitely a democratic right to representation as to the laws we pass in our government.

By the last sentence Bakers, you simply mean you have a right to vote against it? Did I miss something?

...that said, I also don't believe in any constitutional amendment to ban it forever. I think the people of each state should decide, given that marriage licenses are a state affair.



No, there is no license for gay marriages now, except in those places where people want it. The process of adopting such should be a democratic effort.

I dunno baker, there are gays in every state, so people want it everywhere, maybe not the majority, but if you can adopt and be married in one state, what happens if you have to move? Why divide the country like that? Wouldn't it be better for the kids and gays if there were nationwide laws? This seems like to big of an issue to be divided by state.

We have that problem already with divorce proceedings. People travel to Las Vegas for no-fault divorces, so inevitably there will be people who travel to other states to get married. They do so because of age requirements often already.

Like you say, there's no preventing it. Issuing licenses is, constitutionally, in the state's realm, though, and everything we take away from the states and hand to the federal government is one more local decision people on the other side of the nation suddenly get a say in. The less we do federally, the more power we keep in our hands.

I don't believe that I have the right to tell people in California how to govern themselves any more than I think they have the right to tell me.

first what are you saying? I'm not homosexual. At least the last time I checked.

actually if you look at the whole passage carefully you'll see it goes all the way to 3:20. It's really God's indictment of the world showing why man needs God's rightesousness cuz we're not doing so hot down here. Man is condemned because truth was given to him 1:19-20 and because he by his actions rejected it 21-32.

What you pointed out was directed to those who thought they were so moral (that's not me...I already told you I broke all 10 commandments didn't I?) Paul was saying that even those who may not have committed the sins described in Chap 1 are also guilty before God....that means we all are.

But that still doesn't let the homosexual off the hook before God.

And when they stand before God, they'll either be on the hook or not. They don't stand before you or any other person for judgment. You seem to be saying that as long as you admit your guilt, you can judge freely. I remember something about people seeing to the beams in their own eye.

I was about to repost the same thing Sean posted so thanks Sean for saving me the trouble.

Defining what is normal based on what's in the bible is like people defining what's normal based on what's in Lord of the Rings.

The bible is a very nice mythology that millions of people believe is literally true. Good for them. But arguing that the various contradictions in it define "normal" is really pushing it IMO.

"Defining what is normal based on what's in the bible is like people defining what's normal based on what's in Lord of the Rings."

Yes, there is no concise definition of normal, what one person or group of people think is normal can be different then another group. The bible is not the end all be all source for defining normal, sure some things make sense, but not all. The same with your personal views, they may be accurate 80% of the time, but you cannot go by what you find sick/disgusting, you have to think through the behaviour and find who it is harming, if anyone, and are both partners consenting and not forced.

There really is no good definition of normal.... acceptable is a better term to use. Something should be acceptable if it isn't harming anyone and those involved are consenting and not forced or tricked.

you are very welcome brad...it is a classic isn't it?

absolutely agree with ya Baker. Let's put that one down....we hit it once in while.

But we are told to warn and tell the others and that is mentioned biblically many many times. In Isaiah it warns us that if we don't tell or warn them their blood is on our hands and if we do and they don't listen, it's their responsibilty. Didn't Christ say the same...."go and if they don't receive you, shake the dust off your feet and go on." While we are not the judge, we can make right judgments and warn them of impending danger. They don't have to listen....most don't.




is this your favorite verse Baker? Do you ever read the rest of it? There's more than meets the eye...lol.

Do you believe the man conquers his own sin? Wouldn't you say that your entire theology is based upon the idea that without God we can't address our evils? Who is the 'way', you?

So... I'm thinking the part we tell people about is God, right? Do you think someone who doesn't hear about God, and is just told that they are sinful, has more or less of a chance of coming to the appropriate conclusion? Do you think an all powerful God needs us to play janitor in other people's lives, or would it just be better to pave a path toward God and let Him do that?

I don't believe there is any clauses to the contract. I believe that you come, warts and all, and God takes care of the rest. So we have the choice of promoting God, or playing God. Were I to start telling people that 'god hates fags', etc., I wouldn't really be working for God, I'd be trying to BE God.

If you believe that the Bible is literal and that it is the "living word" , and that Jesus is the conduit for salvation, then what you need to do is get people in the position to let those things do their work, not try to do their work for them. God speaks with authority, we don't. We speak as equals promoting a PATH. We don't raise the gate for them.

I don't really have any disagreement here with you Baker. Not really. I actually agree with most of what you said.

Have you ever heard of "Hell"s Best Kept Secret" by Ray Comfort? You can listen to it online. It's pretty good. In it he says that we are going about things all wrong. We are preaching 90% grace and 10% law when we should be preaching 10% grace and 90% law. He's looking at the preachers of yesteryear like Jonathan Edwards and Charles Spurgeon and comparing them to what's going on today. He really gets you thinking It works something like this.

If you go to somebody and inform them that you just sold your house and all your possessions because you know they are sick and need the money to cure their illness they don't know they have they will say, "you're crazy." They will shut the door in your face even tho you have what they really need.

Now, if you go to that same person after they go to the doctor and find out they have a rare form of cancer with no hope of survival without the best care money can buy, you would receive a totally diff reaction. They would gladly take your offer grateful that you offered them a cure, a chance to live. What's the diff?

We're heaping grace (the cure) on people that don't know or think they're ill. Sin is a conditon we're all born with. It makes us sick. The only cure is what God offers (grace) and it requires a blood transfusion that only he can give. The problem is, many don't know this. They don't think they're sick, so they have no interest in the cure.

Jesus frequently spoke of the sin condition when he told them the good news. "Go and sin no more" before he sent them on their way. He wanted them to be aware of this condition. It's Satan that wants us to think otherwise. He wants us to think we're fine. Nothing wrong with you he says. You're good.

The good news is really in a nutshell, a cure for what ails us. The only problem is we need to recognize we are in need of it and tell others there's good news...there's a cure.

As Christians we are to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. That's what Jesus did.


Romans 10:13-16

Preachers switched from Hell and brimstone to Grace because their revenues were dropping. Can't have the religion business going broke now can we?