anti-Ron Paul Talking Point: "Ron Paul says homosexuality not a sin"

[FrankRep]

Ron Paul on Homosexuality


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE




Being 'gay' a sin? Ron Paul can't say (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=88600) -
Congressman on God condemning homosexuality: 'I have trouble with that'

World Net Daily
February 11, 2009


Only months after announcing his candidacy for president, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, declared that he could not judge homosexuality as a sin and affirmed his support for the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy – a rule the Obama administration has indicated it plans to repeal altogether.

[WilliamC]

A sin against who? God?

That's like saying something is criminal because it hurts the State.

No victim, no crime.

No victim, no sin either.

Let the homosexuals love each other, it does no harm to me or mine.

[FrankRep]

A sin against who? God?

Ron Paul claims to be a Christian, but the Christian bible calls Homosexuality a sin.

[specsaregood]

Let those who never had sex out of wedlock cast the first stones.

Edit: and this reply is why I support Dr. Paul:


"They're imperfect because we're all imperfect, and we all sin. So, if the heterosexual or the homosexual sins, that, to me, is a category dealing with their own soul," Paul replied. "… I sort of think that for the practicality of running a military, I just assume not know every serious thing that any heterosexual did or any homosexual did. Those flaws have to do with all our flaws because each and every one of us has had imperfections, and we all are sinners."

[FrankRep]

Let those who never had sex out of wedlock cast the first stones.
That's also a sin.

Calling something a sin doesn't mean you're throwing a "stone" (judging a sin).
Judging a sin (throwing stones) and Calling something a sin are two separate things.

[specsaregood]

That's also a sin.

Calling something a sin doesn't mean you're throwing a "stone." Calling something a sin and judging a sin are two separate things.

What I said went over your head. The fact that it is a sin, is exactly why I said that and it ties into the quote from RP.

And as far as judging......judge not, lest ye be judged.

[FrankRep]

What I said went over your head. The fact that it is a sin, is exactly why I said that and it ties into the quote from RP.

And as far as judging......judge not, lest ye be judged.

Calling something a sin and Judging a sin are two separate things.

Do you not understand that?

[jazzloversinc]

Yes, the Holy Bible , Old and New Testaments , both condemn homosexuality among a list of other sins. All of us are sinners and we all have to work at it and repent. Now, for people to say "there is nothing wrong with being gay", is excusing the sin just substitute any of the other sins "there is nothing wrong with murder" or "there is nothing wrong with stealing"...it is not up to MAN to decide what is a sin or not a sin. CLEARLY the list of sins cause danger and damage to the preserverance of humans...and that is why GOD pegged it as a sin. Homosexuality , like promiscuous sex, spreads diseases and how can you continue the species if everyone is gay? THe homosexuals better be glad their parents weren't gay...and the abortion people better be glad their parents didn't believe like they do...see my point? I certainly do not hate homosexuals though and most of them tell me "I didn't ask for this"...so i am sympathetic....I don't judge, I'm just telling what the Bible say. That is God's call.

[jazzloversinc]

says****

[specsaregood]

Calling something a sin and Judging a sin are two separate things.
Do you not understand that?

Yes and we are all sinners. So if you follow the logic of that article, we shouldn't allow anybody in the military.

[MelissaWV]

The title is misleading.


Congressman on God condemning homosexuality: 'I have trouble with that'

Having trouble believing God condemns homosexuality is not a non-Christian standpoint. "The Bible says so" is a weak and oft-used argument on this point. The same section most reliably quoted to show God hates gays is also rife with information on how to properly conduct animal sacrifices. Food for thought.

[FrankRep]

The title is misleading.

I made the title slightly misleading on purpose. I put it under Media Spin and put it in quotes.

The media can have a field day with Ron Paul's answers in this video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE

[VIDEODROME]

Is it the place of a Congressman to discuss what is and isn't a Sin?

If you want to ask someone about sins ask a priest.

[Aratus]

Ron Paul has taken a stance
on "don't ask don't tell" that is
like most of the GOP right now?
seems to me UNCLE SAM can get
way too intrusive into private lives...

[mport1]

Don't you mean pro-Ron Paul talking point?

[FrankRep]

Don't you mean pro-Ron Paul talking point?
Do you want Ron Paul do get elected or not.

[Yieu]

I made the title slightly misleading on purpose.

Have you read the thread in my sig yet?

How about now?

:)

Edit for clarity: You know, the media might not do such things if you didn't give them suggestions... which is the point of the thread in my sig.

[Aratus]

the mccain version of this issue may play in peoria and traditional neo-con
strongholds. the more open policy that barack obama likes plays in liberal
precincts. expecting final judgement day in the next month and desiring a
total makeover of our laws at the expense of our BILL OF RIGHTS is a more
severe stance. seems to me the variations on these basic stances gains and
looses voters if we look at what polling tells us. ron paul says what he thinks.

[speciallyblend]

you know if the bible was written by god or jesus. I would say take it word for word but the bible was written by man or "inspired men" Something tells me not to trust inspired men! I feel god gave me a brain to question human propaganda!!! The bible is a collection of writings that was pulled together by powerful men who had powerful needs to control the masses ! bottom line have faith in god but having to much faith in what man wrote in the bible is blind faith!! some would say i will go to hell just for that but i say let god be the judge of that since god gave me a brain to question men!! Does god condemn homosexuality or does man? I think the later!! Can someone please show me where God said this?? I actually had someone tell me the writing in red in the bible is what god said! I counter no, what is written in red is what man said god said! that is a huge difference!! waits to get attacked now!

[jazzloversinc]

God is a spirit and does his work on earth through humans...He did his work through the prophets and Jesus. Now, Christians believe that the Bible was written BY GOD through Human hands. If you are not a Christian or a person of faith you will probably have issues with this ..."there is a way that seems right for a man but in the end leads to death". No Christian is going to listen to a non believer concerning matters of faith.

[Yieu]

you know if the bible was written by god or jesus. I would say take it word for word but the bible was written by man or "inspired men" Something tells me not to trust inspired men! I feel god gave me a brain to question human propaganda!!! The bible is a collection of writings that was pulled together by powerful men who had powerful needs to control the masses ! bottom line have faith in god but having to much faith in what man wrote in the bible is blind faith!! some would say i will go to hell just for that but i say let god be the judge of that since god gave me a brain to question men!!

Well, if writings by man do not satisfy one's thirst for God, the Supreme Person (He is the reservoir of all pleasure, after all, so many will desire to seek Him), we are also lucky to have some texts preserved that were spoken by God directly in-Person like the Bhagavad Gita (http://www.asitis.com/). :)

[Yieu]

God is a spirit

Such a limit, on an unlimited being! In order to be unlimited, He must be a Person, not just some wisp or spirit, and he has all the faculties of a Person such as intelligence, and personality, and form, etc. Otherwise, we would have something that He does not (form, personality), which would make us superior to Him in a manner -- it puts a limit on Him.

[Perry]

He never said it wasn't a sin. He also never said it was a sin. He said it was a complex subject and obviously does not want to be put into a box by other fallible and imperfect human beings. I'm a Christian and I do believe homosexual sex is a sin but i also believe that all sex outside of marriage is a sin and I have no problem whatsoever with Ron Pauls statements here. It's good to see that Ron Paul is putting his love of people before their imperfections. I think Ron Paul knows that he himself is a sinner and if it weren't for the grace of Jesus Christ he himself would be separated from God and therefor he obeys the bible and does bot judge his brothers.

[Kregisen]

As a Christian I'm a little disappointed in Ron here....I think he was just afraid to say it in an interview in case it comes back to bite him.


•Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
•Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
•1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
•Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."


Now homosexuality being a sin still has nothing to do with DADT. That should definitely be repealed.

[mport1]

Do you want Ron Paul do get elected or not.

It doesn't matter to me. The only thing that will bring about real, lasting change is a change in the belief systems of people. If Ron Paul gets elected by selling out libertarian principles, we will not have change. This doesn't really fall into that category, but calling homosexuality a sin is despicableand does not follow from logic that I hope we would be trying to spread.

[thehighwaymanq]

Wait, Ron supported DADT???

News to me!

[MelissaWV]

As a Christian I'm a little disappointed in Ron here....I think he was just afraid to say it in an interview in case it comes back to bite him.


•Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
•Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
•1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
•Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."


Now homosexuality being a sin still has nothing to do with DADT. That should definitely be repealed.

I hope you also adhere to these very important Biblical teachings:


1: And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,
2: Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.
3: If his offering be a burnt sacrifice of the herd, let him offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD.
4: And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him.
5: And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
6: And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into his pieces.
7: And the sons of Aaron the priest shall put fire upon the altar, and lay the wood in order upon the fire:
8: And the priests, Aaron's sons, shall lay the parts, the head, and the fat, in order upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar:
9: But his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water: and the priest shall burn all on the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.
10: And if his offering be of the flocks, namely, of the sheep, or of the goats, for a burnt sacrifice; he shall bring it a male without blemish.
11: And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron's sons, shall sprinkle his blood round about upon the altar.
12: And he shall cut it into his pieces, with his head and his fat: and the priest shall lay them in order on the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar:
13: But he shall wash the inwards and the legs with water: and the priest shall bring it all, and burn it upon the altar: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.
14: And if the burnt sacrifice for his offering to the LORD be of fowls, then he shall bring his offering of turtledoves, or of young pigeons.
15: And the priest shall bring it unto the altar, and wring off his head, and burn it on the altar; and the blood thereof shall be wrung out at the side of the altar:
16: And he shall pluck away his crop with his feathers, and cast it beside the altar on the east part, by the place of the ashes:
17: And he shall cleave it with the wings thereof, but shall not divide it asunder: and the priest shall burn it upon the altar, upon the wood that is upon the fire: it is a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.


And when any will offer a meat offering unto the LORD, his offering shall be of fine flour; and he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense thereon


Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for her uncleanness. <- Make sure no woman you've "uncovered" was on her period, folks. It's important!

My favorite, though, have to be the lines RIGHT BEFORE AND AFTER the "holy" lines that people take as 100% accurate about homosexuality.

Right before:

And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.

Yeah... keep your sperm from getting to Molech, guys.

Right after:

Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion.

So, lying with mankind as with womankind is an abomination... but lying with animals is just confusion. Good job.


Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When any man hath a running issue out of his flesh, because of his issue he is unclean.
...
And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even.
20: And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean.
21: And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
22: And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
23: And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even.
24: And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean.
25: And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean.
26: Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation.
27: And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even.
28: But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean.
29: And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

I must admit, I have not taken two young pigeons to the priest after my period before. I guess I'm still unclean.

This is the section, folks, the book and gospel that people use to condemn homosexuality. Why aren't they going after women for their unclean practices, or after people who are not properly offering animal sacrifice to God?

[Kregisen]

I hope you also adhere to these very important Biblical teachings:





<- Make sure no woman you've "uncovered" was on her period, folks. It's important!

My favorite, though, have to be the lines RIGHT BEFORE AND AFTER the "holy" lines that people take as 100% accurate about homosexuality.

Right before:


Yeah... keep your sperm from getting to Molech, guys.

Right after:


So, lying with mankind as with womankind is an abomination... but lying with animals is just confusion. Good job.



I must admit, I have not taken two young pigeons to the priest after my period before. I guess I'm still unclean.

This is the section, folks, the book and gospel that people use to condemn homosexuality. Why aren't they going after women for their unclean practices, or after people who are not properly offering animal sacrifice to God?

If you aren't a Christian, then stay out of this. I really hate it when non-christians talking shit over this when it doesn't even concern you.

There is a huge difference between the old testament and new testament. As Christians we believe the rules of the old testament don't apply after Jesus died because he did away with the old law. I quoted both old and new testament verses. You can do the same if you want, but you only quoted old testament.

[specsaregood]

Wait, Ron supported DADT???

News to me!

He supported it when he thought it was being used as a non-fraternization policy, which is what he thinks would be ideal. When he found out it was being used to kick out well-trained professionals when they were "outed" he came out against it -- after speaking to some former members that had been kicked out because of it. The thing is DADT is the policy that allowed gays to be in the military, officially. They just had to stay in the closet. The problem was this opened up gay members of the military to blackmail and other abuses. Whereas a no-fraternization policy would deal with any dropped soap butt banging fears as well as inappropriate heterosexual behavior.

[fj45lvr]

you can be tempted with something and not give into that temptation.

[MelissaWV]

If you aren't a Christian, then stay out of this. I really hate it when non-christians talking shit over this when it doesn't even concern you.

There is a huge difference between the old testament and new testament. As Christians we believe the rules of the old testament don't apply after Jesus died because he did away with the old law. I quoted both old and new testament verses. You can do the same if you want, but you only quoted old testament.

:rolleyes:

You know, you can be Christian and not be a literalist. You quoted (and many people on these forums have quoted) Leviticus as evidence of God's distaste for homosexuality. If that section is true, then why are none of those other passages relevant? The NT verses you quoted were unimpressive. I see letters from somesuch to so-and-so. They reflect on God as much as the newsletters reflect on Ron Paul.


Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

That knocks out an awful lot of other people, but it isn't talking about specific sins. The word "sin" is not even in the sentence. We're all sinners, as others have pointed out. If the first thought into your head as a rebuttal is that sins can be repented and forgiven, then what's the issue with homosexuality that makes the zealous leap out of their robes in furor? Love the sinner, hate the sin, no?


For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

Interesting how this specifies the "Natural" function of women as, in your interpretation, being there for vaginal intercourse. Wow. That's a GREAT point of view. You might want to leave that off of your Mother's Day card next weekend, though. I don't see gay sex as indecent, nor the natural function of women to be as before stated. I don't see where something in that passage would lead me to think otherwise. I also see that the last line is about non-believers, yet there are plenty of LGBT who do believe in God or a higher spirituality of some sort.

All of this adds up to a whole lot of personal opinion on the matter, which means it's neither surprising nor patently "unChristian" for Ron Paul to say things how he did.

Oh and by the way? None of what I said in the section you quoted was "talking shit." It was quoting out of the same anthology you used to make your point earlier, in fact from the same book as a couple of your quotes. How is that "talking shit," and wouldn't you be just as guilty?

:)

[thehighwaymanq]

He supported it when he thought it was being used as a non-fraternization policy, which is what he thinks would be ideal. When he found out it was being used to kick out well-trained professionals when they were "outed" he came out against it -- after speaking to some former members that had been kicked out because of it. The thing is DADT is the policy that allowed gays to be in the military, officially. They just had to stay in the closet. The problem was this opened up gay members of the military to blackmail and other abuses. Whereas a no-fraternization policy would deal with any dropped soap butt banging fears as well as inappropriate heterosexual behavior.

Gotcha!


"I have received several calls and visits from constituents who, in spite of the heavy investment in their training, have been forced out of the military simply because they were discovered to be homosexual," Paul said Friday. "To me, this seems like an awful waste. Personal behavior that is disruptive should be subject to military discipline regardless of whether the individual is heterosexual or homosexual. But to discharge an otherwise well-trained, professional, and highly skilled member of the military for these reasons is unfortunate and makes no financial sense."

Link (http://dailypaul.com/136125/patriot-ron-paul-changes-stance-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-votes-for-repeal)

[MelissaWV]

you can be tempted with something and not give into that temptation.

Yes, but per the Bible thinking of the act and going through with it are just as awful. Plus the covetous will not inherent the Kingdom of God.

;)

[Brian4Liberty]

The media can have a field day with Ron Paul's answers in this video.

So far, you seem to be the main person making an issue out of it. And considering the left leaning of the mainstream media and the neo-conservatives, it is probably low on the list of things they would truly consider a big issue. Perhaps you mean it will be a big issue on the 700 Club...

[Benjam]

Paul is obviously talking to a guy on talk radio that has listeners vote on 1 or 2 issues: abortion and homosexuality. If he is blunt and says homosexuality is wrong, he gets crucified and people say he's going to try to outlaw homosexuality at a Federal Level. If he says it is perfectly fine, he loses all credibility of the 1 or 2 issues voters.

He brought up his medical experience in this issue. I believe when he said it can be wrong, but not STRICTLY in ever case, he was referring to medical issues such as emotional/physical abuse, and maybe even birth defects (mental, not genetics). I don't believe he wanted to lay a generalization on this topic. Yes, I believe homosexuality is wrong, as is sex before marriage, but it's not a strict line with medical issues mentioned above.

[thedude]

If you aren't a Christian, then stay out of this. I really hate it when non-christians talking shit over this when it doesn't even concern you.

There is a huge difference between the old testament and new testament. As Christians we believe the rules of the old testament don't apply after Jesus died because he did away with the old law. I quoted both old and new testament verses. You can do the same if you want, but you only quoted old testament.

You know what? It's a big f*cking deal when YOUR religion spills over into OUR lives and dictates to us how we should live. If you just KEPT YOUR RELIGION TO YOURSELF, we wouldn't get involved!! Your defensive position against our questions is a sign that you don't have the answers. If you can't answer a few simple questions, then your understanding lacks any real sustenance; and throwing around bits and pieces of your holy book is, on its face, just as credible.

When you leave us alone, we'll leave your science fiction alone.

[Feeding the Abscess]

The vast majority of people, including Republicans, would take his answer of "we're all God's children" as positive.

Also, I have NEVER seen this as an anti-Ron Paul talking point. Aside from you. U mad that he isn't against gays, Frank?

EDIT: Also, Part II: The Return of Also, a couple of Ron's brothers are ministers. If anybody does bring up this issue as a stupid, inane talking point, use that to refute it.

[FrankRep]

Also, I have NEVER seen this as an anti-Ron Paul talking point. Aside from you. U mad that he isn't against gays, Frank?

You kinda missed the point.

Does Ron Paul want the Republican nomination or not?

[MelissaWV]

You kinda missed the point.

Does Ron Paul want the Republican nomination or not?

You kinda missed the point. Talking about Christianity, admitting to being Christian, saying he believes that life begins at conception and hasn't seen a medical reason to ever perform a late term abortion, having military experience, and saying "Personal behavior that is disruptive should be subject to military discipline regardless of whether the individual is heterosexual or homosexual." ... those are good for the GOP nomination.

If the establishment doesn't want him to win, and can come up with a way for him not to, he won't get it.

If people don't get up off their butts and become engaged in trying to get him wins in key states, he won't get it.

I hightly doubt, though, that THIS is going to be a talking point that needs to be addressed.

[NYgs23]

Homosexuality isn't a sin, even according to traditional Christianity. Homosexuality acts are considered sinful. So far as I can tell, he did not explicate a clear stance one way or the other.

[Sola_Fide]

I really don't see this as a big issue for a couple of reasons:

1. "Christians" today are becoming so religiously liberal that many would probably agree with Ron's statement.

2. If Republicans would potentially nominate a Mormon as president, they might not think theological purity is much of a sticking point, so Ron's statement might not matter that much.

3. Obviously I disagree with Ron on this point, but I am still willing to vote for him because I don't think we need a theologian-in-cheif. Theologians-in-cheifs are statists anyway, and they advocate for the state-religion.


I disagree with Ron on this point. In my mind, he could have affirmed the Scripture's clear condemnation of homosexuality while affirming the right of free people to engage in voluntary associations. Sin does not equal crime.

[nate895]

Yes and we are all sinners. So if you follow the logic of that article, we shouldn't allow anybody in the military.

Homosexuality is a particularly grievous sin. It goes beyond the normal perversion of the created order (sex outside of marriage) into a total rejection thereof. While it is incredibly important to not commit any sin, certain sins are more grievous than others and warrant serious action. Homosexuality is one of them.

[cdc482]

This whole issue has absolutely nothing to do with politics, and if you vote based on this, you're a dumbass

[cdc482]

For the record, I agree with Paul. There's nothing wrong with homosexuality in my worldview.

[low preference guy]

The media haven't attacked Ron Paul on this. Apparently they don't think about gays as much as FrankRep does. Mods, please eliminate this thread to not give them ideas.

Big thread fail.

[MelissaWV]

Homosexuality is a particularly grievous sin. It goes beyond the normal perversion of the created order (sex outside of marriage) into a total rejection thereof. While it is incredibly important to not commit any sin, certain sins are more grievous than others and warrant serious action. Homosexuality is one of them.

Then don't be gay, and don't preach at people who are ;) Problem solved! Oh and pray for them to see the error of their ways, and to gain the wisdom to realize they should repent.

That SEEMS to be the most Christian solution to thinking that. The trouble is what usually HAPPENS is that you get people beating you over the head with Bible verses and telling you that your sexual practices will cause you to become an eternally-bound crispycritter.

[Sola_Fide]

The media haven't attacked Ron Paul on this. Apparently they don't think about gays as much as FrankRep. Mods, please eliminate this thread to not give them ideas.

Big thread fail.

Actually, Collins posted an anti-Ron email that had a link to this video in it. Its out there, unfortunately.

[MelissaWV]

Actually, Collins posted an anti-Ron email that had a link to this video in it. Its out there, unfortunately.

Random email =/= the MSM. It's out there, and so are the newsletters, and donations from unsavory people (self included in that one), and soundbytes that are less than flattering, and possibly even video of Ron Paul cursing.

The point is it's not a huge deal... except for this thread.

[nate895]

This whole issue has absolutely nothing to do with politics, and if you vote based on this, you're a dumbass

While I'm still an ardent Paul-supporter, I could imagine voting against someone based on their opinion on homosexuality. You're the dumbass if you really think that politics and theological points-of-view have nothing to do with each other. If you do not take God at His Word, and the clear and consistent teaching of the Bible to the point of undeniability within the realm of orthodoxy is that homosexuality is a perversion, then there could be serious problems in the way you govern. What is to bind a governor more than the God Himself? Why should I trust that someone will obey the Constitution, written by men, if they are unwilling to bow to the authority of God? I'm not saying that Paul is unwilling to bow to the authority of God or would violate the Constitution in office, but if someone consciously rejects what they know to be the Bible's teachings, and claims to believe it to be the Word of God, how can we trust them?

[nate895]

Then don't be gay, and don't preach at people who are ;) Problem solved! Oh and pray for them to see the error of their ways, and to gain the wisdom to realize they should repent.

That SEEMS to be the most Christian solution to thinking that. The trouble is what usually HAPPENS is that you get people beating you over the head with Bible verses and telling you that your sexual practices will cause you to become an eternally-bound crispycritter.

"So, then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God."-Romans 10:17

The Law is the Word too. One must admit to being a sinner before they can be saved, and in order to admit that, you must hear the Word of God.

[cdc482]

On a serious note, you can't legislate morality. That's the point of freedom. Whatever you believe, you believe. You don't force others to share you're opinion!!!-->FREEDOM

[Sola_Fide]

Then don't be gay, and don't preach at people who are ;) Problem solved! Oh and pray for them to see the error of their ways, and to gain the wisdom to realize they should repent.

That SEEMS to be the most Christian solution to thinking that. The trouble is what usually HAPPENS is that you get people beating you over the head with Bible verses and telling you that your sexual practices will cause you to become an eternally-bound crispycritter.


Not to point out the obvious, but there are many people who become Christians and come out of the homosexual lifestyle.

Exodus ministries is a ministry geared specifically toward helping homosexual people come out of that lifestyle and follow Christ. It is a heart-rending ministry that deals with men and women who have dealt with childhood sexual abuse, prostitution, drug addiction, mental problems, etc. Some "gay" people do repent and follow Christ...seriously.

[specsaregood]

//

[nate895]

Probably because the interviewer followed up Dr. Pauls comment about us all being God's children with:


I can't see any serious media running with it when the interviewer talks like that.

Yeah, anyone who is a serious Christian isn't popular in the media. How dare he talk about the devil or what Jesus says? I mean, that's only for them there Bible-thumpers who don't know nothin'.

[nate895]

Not to point out the obvious, but there are many people who become Christians and come out of the homosexual lifestyle.

Exodus ministries is a ministry geared specifically toward helping homosexual people come out of that lifestyle and follow Christ. It is a heart-rending ministry that deals with men and women who have dealt with childhood sexual abuse, prostitution, drug addiction, mental problems, etc. Some "gay" people do repent and follow Christ...seriously.

How dare you say that the Holy Spirit can work wonders in people's hearts!!!

[BlackTerrel]

I disagree with Ron on this one but I'm not going to judge him on his views. Like all of us, he needs to be right with God, all the rest is irrelevant.

[nate895]

I disagree with Ron on this one but I'm not going to judge him on his views. Like all of us, he needs to be right with God, all the rest is irrelevant.

That is another thing. Perhaps he is too consumed with his political activities, which are good, to seriously reject the new secular approach to homosexuality. It wasn't an issue in his generation, really, so I can understand why he would not be prepared to come out and take an unpopular stand on the issue.

[MelissaWV]

Not to point out the obvious, but there are many people who become Christians and come out of the homosexual lifestyle.

Exodus ministries is a ministry geared specifically toward helping homosexual people come out of that lifestyle and follow Christ. It is a heart-rending ministry that deals with men and women who have dealt with childhood sexual abuse, prostitution, drug addiction, mental problems, etc. Some "gay" people do repent and follow Christ...seriously.

I know that some do decide that's the route for them. For those that don't, do you think it's effective of even "Christian" to stand around telling them they're going to hell, frightening their children, making bad situations worse, and generally being jerks? That seems to me to be a silly tactic, and to imply it's the one needed to win the GOP nomination is silly.

There should be places ready to welcome and assist sinners regardless of the sin, if that sinner decides to repent and move forward in a more pious life. Those places are few and far between these days.


How dare you say that the Holy Spirit can work wonders in people's hearts!!!

I was under the ridiculous impression that the Holy Spirit was something people came to, not that magically took effect like a pill force-fed down their throats. You can't really bash someone over the head into having an epiphany. Isn't there someone, from some segment of the population, who has annoyed you with their constant preaching on a subject you really disagree with them on? Is it the global warming folks? The feminist types? Heck, is it even the gay rights folks? Don't you wish they'd kind of shut the heck up and let you go to them if you really felt like joining their ilk?

Literalists are like that for me. Thank you, but no thank you.

Peace be with you.

And also with you... unless you're gay or on your period or had "irregular" sex including oral or anal sex, or rubbed your holy bits against someone else's body in an act that could not result in more happy offspring in the future, because that's the only purpose for sex which, of course, should only happen within the confines of a marriage that cannot end because divorce is also a huge big bad sinful thing.

I liked the shorter version, myself ;)

[Liberty4life]

really? which ten commandment says its a sin? or are you adding sins to the bible? while it may be a disgusting behavior, a sin it is not.

[nate895]

I was under the ridiculous impression that the Holy Spirit was something people came to, not that magically took effect like a pill force-fed down their throats. You can't really bash someone over the head into having an epiphany. Isn't there someone, from some segment of the population, who has annoyed you with their constant preaching on a subject you really disagree with them on? Is it the global warming folks? The feminist types? Heck, is it even the gay rights folks? Don't you wish they'd kind of shut the heck up and let you go to them if you really felt like joining their ilk?

Literalists are like that for me. Thank you, but no thank you.

I love how you so easily dismiss those who believe what the Bible means and just call them "literalists." "Oh, sorry, you're a literalist, you don't have anything worthwhile to add to the conversation, only higher critics do."

And yes, you're impression is ridiculous. The Holy Spirit is something that comes over people by the will of God, not of man. The Acts of the Apostles makes that pretty clear. The Holy Spirit, in that moment, liberates humans from their bondage to sin and unites them to Christ. Then the Holy Spirit goes about the work of sanctification. Every step of the way is done by the power of God, not the power of man.

[nate895]

Peace be with you.

And also with you... unless you're gay or on your period or had "irregular" sex including oral or anal sex, or rubbed your holy bits against someone else's body in an act that could not result in more happy offspring in the future, because that's the only purpose for sex which, of course, should only happen within the confines of a marriage that cannot end because divorce is also a huge big bad sinful thing.

I liked the shorter version, myself ;)

As if we wish people to go to hell and not repent of sin? It must be easy to burn a straw man.

[MelissaWV]

As if we wish people to go to hell and not repent of sin? It must be easy to burn a straw man.

Jesus didn't sit around telling people they were going to hell quite nearly as often as His followers seem to. In fact, He associated with quite a bevy of sinners on a regular basis. It's one of life's little ironies.


The Holy Spirit is something that comes over people by the will of God, not of man.

Precisely. So what does one gain by badgering people about their sexual activities?


I love how you so easily dismiss those who believe what the Bible means and just call them "literalists." "Oh, sorry, you're a literalist, you don't have anything worthwhile to add to the conversation, only higher critics do."

Earlier in this thread, I posted excerpts from Leviticus to counter those which had been posted by someone else. If you really are a literalist, then you believe in all parts of the Bible and that it is an infallible book, written by God to govern the imperfect creation of mankind on earth. The term "literalist" refers to something very particular. It is not an anti-Christian term. If you were a literalist, you would be arguing that I am impure because I did not surrender two turtledoves to a priest after my last period (see earlier post). There is a world of difference between believing everything the Bible says, as it is written, and believing in the spirit of what was meant, the life of Christ, and the teachings of the Lord in general. There are those who believe the Bible is a very helpful and astounding book, an anthology filled with metaphor, historical fact, fiction, and a healthy dose of hyperbole. There is certainly an awful lot of evidence to suggest, for instance, that Revelation is an allegory. That doesn't make those folks any less Christian. If anyone here is insulting Christianity, I'd say it's a couple of folks in this thread who seem to have a very, very narrow definition of what's permissible in it :D

* * *

Anyways, seriously, peace be with you, and prayers of wisdom to light the room and make it clearer who is an enemy, and where the real face of the devil may lie.

[Brian4Liberty]

I wish we could focus more on the "sins" (or crimes for the secular people) of lying, cheating, and stealing, which are rampant in DC and Wall St. Other people's private activities just don't have the same effect on the rest of us. Jamie Dimon and Obama could have sex with each other everyday in the Oval Office, and that wouldn't effect us as much as when they really screw the taxpayers and the economy.

[nate895]

Jesus didn't sit around telling people they were going to hell quite nearly as often as His followers seem to. In fact, He associated with quite a bevy of sinners on a regular basis. It's one of life's little ironies.

Anyways, seriously, peace be with you, and prayers of wisdom to light the room and make it clearer who is an enemy, and where the real face of the devil may lie.

Do you believe man is inherently sinful? And what do you think sin does to our relationship with God?

[BlackTerrel]

As if we wish people to go to hell and not repent of sin? It must be easy to burn a straw man.

I already gave you rep on this thread. Otherwise I would give it again.

[WilliamC]

Ron Paul claims to be a Christian, but the Christian bible calls Homosexuality a sin.

Then the Christian bible is wrong.

I agree with Heinlein.

“Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful - just stupid).”

[nate895]

Earlier in this thread, I posted excerpts from Leviticus to counter those which had been posted by someone else. If you really are a literalist, then you believe in all parts of the Bible and that it is an infallible book, written by God to govern the imperfect creation of mankind on earth. The term "literalist" refers to something very particular. It is not an anti-Christian term. If you were a literalist, you would be arguing that I am impure because I did not surrender two turtledoves to a priest after my last period (see earlier post). There is a world of difference between believing everything the Bible says, as it is written, and believing in the spirit of what was meant, the life of Christ, and the teachings of the Lord in general. There are those who believe the Bible is a very helpful and astounding book, an anthology filled with metaphor, historical fact, fiction, and a healthy dose of hyperbole. There is certainly an awful lot of evidence to suggest, for instance, that Revelation is an allegory. That doesn't make those folks any less Christian. If anyone here is insulting Christianity, I'd say it's a couple of folks in this thread who seem to have a very, very narrow definition of what's permissible in it :D

* * *

Anyways, seriously, peace be with you, and prayers of wisdom to light the room and make it clearer who is an enemy, and where the real face of the devil may lie.

A "literalist" also understands the differences between the Old Covenant and New Covenant, the primary being that Christ is our High Priest who has already fulfilled all of the requirements relating to priests and such in the Mosaic Law (AKA, ceremonial law). Also, a "literalist" factors in what literary genre he is reading. If it's poetry or prophecy, we read the symbolism accordingly. If it's a parable, we read it accordingly.

[Sola_Fide]

Then the Christian bible is wrong.

I agree with Heinlein.

“Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful - just stupid).”

That is a dangerous view, because it does not consider the holiness of God. God's holiness is real, and His judgement is real.

[WilliamC]

As a Christian I'm a little disappointed in Ron here....I think he was just afraid to say it in an interview in case it comes back to bite him.


•Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
•Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
•1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
•Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."


Now homosexuality being a sin still has nothing to do with DADT. That should definitely be repealed.

So it's still ok then if I sleep with two women at the same time?

Whew! Thank Go...

er, nevermind.

[jmdrake]

I hope you also adhere to these very important Biblical teachings:

{a bunch of stuff from the Old Testament}


I hope you noted that Kregisen quoted from both the Old Testament and the New Testament. The animal sacrificial system ended with the crucifixion of Jesus since is only purpose was to point to Jesus. In contrast the moral law (don't steal, don't fornicate etc) continued past the cross. Christians are not supposed to condemn, but there still is a moral standard. Ron Paul should have said that he wasn't running for a religious position and that politicians shouldn't go around defining sin at all.

[WilliamC]

If you aren't a Christian, then stay out of this. I really hate it when non-christians talking shit over this when it doesn't even concern you.

There is a huge difference between the old testament and new testament. As Christians we believe the rules of the old testament don't apply after Jesus died because he did away with the old law. I quoted both old and new testament verses. You can do the same if you want, but you only quoted old testament.

Hey now this is a public forum and I'll damn well chime in if I want to, Christian though I am not.!

How else am I to learn how other people with different beliefs think?

(not said in anger, but really, telling someone on a public forum to 'stay out of this' is, well, counter to the whole idea of a PUBLIC FORUM isn't it?)

[jmdrake]

Jesus didn't sit around telling people they were going to hell quite nearly as often as His followers seem to. In fact, He associated with quite a bevy of sinners on a regular basis. It's one of life's little ironies.

He hung around them in order to influence them to change their lives. He didn't just hang around "victimless" sinners. He hung around thieving tax collectors too. Those thieving tax collectors (like Zaccheus and Matthew) changed their ways. He told the woman caught in adultery "Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more). Christians are not to condemn anybody. But Christians aren't supposed to condone just to make people feel good.

[MelissaWV]

A "literalist" also understands the differences between the Old Covenant and New Covenant, the primary being that Christ is our High Priest who has already fulfilled all of the requirements relating to priests and such in the Mosaic Law (AKA, ceremonial law). Also, a "literalist" factors in what literary genre he is reading. If it's poetry or prophecy, we read the symbolism accordingly. If it's a parable, we read it accordingly.

So God saying do not lie with men as you lie with women (which could just be a prohibition on penetration, but that's a horse of another color) is Old Covenant. Thankfully the stuff about doves is all Old, too, which means I won't go to hell for that. The newer quotes that the other poster showed, which I addressed, are New Covenant. I don't see them talking about homosexuality being an abomination.

As for the wishing people to burn in hell for their sins, I am quite sure I could find some folks who firmly believe the internet is of the devil. Perhaps I could hire them out to hang around and tell you often and explicitly how the fires of hell will consume you for your sin unless you repent and cease your evil deeds. It's not about wishing. It's about doing. It's about words and deeds and how you treat your fellow man. Telling someone that their entire self is a sin does not often make that person better themselves. I don't recall a Biblical verse about pointing out everyone else's flaws being good. I do recall something about a mote and a beam.

Have you ever been preached to about something you hold dear, something you love, someONE you love, on a very regular basis ... all the while knowing in your heart that God is Love and more's the pity for those who spend their time on hate and judgement? It strikes me that such a life is rather Christlike in many ways, especially if all you can do to defend yourself is just talk, explain, and hope, knowing that in the end it's those same misguided souls who know not what they do.

Again, and finally, peace be with you.

[WilliamC]

you can be tempted with something and not give into that temptation.

Again to quote Heinlein (who wasn't any sort of god of course but he wrote better science fiction than what's in Revelations)

“Yield to temptation. It may not pass your way again.”

[nate895]

So God saying do not lie with men as you lie with women (which could just be a prohibition on penetration, but that's a horse of another color) is Old Covenant. Thankfully the stuff about doves is all Old, too, which means I won't go to hell for that. The newer quotes that the other poster showed, which I addressed, are New Covenant. I don't see them talking about homosexuality being an abomination.


You assume a break between Old Covenant and New Covenant that simply isn't there. The Law was not abrogated by the New Covenant. The New Covenant simply permanently fulfills the ceremonial law. There is no more need for the Day of Atonement because Christ has atoned for our sins once for all. That is the significance of the New Covenant, not some abrogation of the moral (and dare I say it, civil) law.

[WilliamC]

This whole issue has absolutely nothing to do with politics, and if you vote based on this, you're a dumbass

Thank you!

Unfortunately though there are lots of folks who are dumbasses.

[nate895]

Again to quote Heinlein (who wasn't any sort of god of course but he wrote better science fiction than what's in Revelations)

“Yield to temptation. It may not pass your way again.”

I was unaware that Revelations was supposed to be a science fiction text.

[MelissaWV]

Hey now this is a public forum and I'll damn well chime in if I want to, Christian though I am not.!

How else am I to learn how other people with different beliefs think?

(not said in anger, but really, telling someone on a public forum to 'stay out of this' is, well, counter to the whole idea of a PUBLIC FORUM isn't it?)

Hmm. You know, your response made me revisit this. If non-Christians are supposed to "stay out" of conversations because the subject matter "doesn't even concern" them, then isn't that anathema to everything else that's been said? Christianity, by that poster's standard, is a kind of club that only concerns Christians.

*shrugs* What an interesting attitude. Keep out of it, you're a sinner, shut the hell up and stop talking shit. I think that one got left out of the Bible, too.

[MelissaWV]

You assume a break between Old Covenant and New Covenant that simply isn't there. The Law was not abrogated by the New Covenant. The New Covenant simply permanently fulfills the ceremonial law. There is no more need for the Day of Atonement because Christ has atoned for our sins once for all. That is the significance of the New Covenant, not some abrogation of the moral (and dare I say it, civil) law.

So, then, it still IS a sin to sit in a chair that someone with their period has sat in, or at very least it makes you unclean. Every office needs to send their furniture out for cleaning, I think. :p I notice, however, that now we are picking and choosing which parts of a given book within the Bible are true and still apply. I will just bow out on that one, as I don't have the holy authority, nor do I believe anyone on earth does, to pick and choose like that if I'm to believe the Bible is direct instruction from God.

[WilliamC]

That is a dangerous view, because it does not consider the holiness of God. God's holiness is real, and His judgement is real.

I'm not overly concerned with pissing off god, if he's out there I'll deal with him when I'm dead.

Since I have zero belief in an afterlife however I could really care less about being judged in one.

'Tis only the legacy I leave behind in this world that I work towards.

[LibertyEagle]

Ron Paul claims to be a Christian, but the Christian bible calls Homosexuality a sin.

I think his point is that it is not up to us to judge; it is up to God.

[Freedom 4 all]

What the bible says about homosexuality, what it says about anything really, is extremely vague and open to interpretation. I personally see Jesus as a rebel against the corrupt government and religious institutions of his times. I also believe that God's one true law is the Golden Rule. Statists may see him as some sort of cop, ensuring people don't fall out of line and believe all the nitpicky things must be followed to the letter. I've heard it argued everything from that Jesus was a virgin, to that he was married to Mary Magdaline, that he was an anarchist, to that we wished to establish a theocracy. And you know what, none of these interpretations are "wrong" per se. They all fall within the realm of possibilities and each can be made a case for using scripture. Personally, my belief is that this was no an accident on God's part. Different people need and will be inspired by different things from the Bible. I believe that the way in which one views the Bible and Jesus reflects the way one views his own self and world. If one comes to a conclusion about the Bible after careful thought and consideration, that is what God intended that the Bible mean for that person. Like the time Jesus was speaking to a crowd and the Greek woman believed he was speaking Greek, and the Jewish dude thought he was speaking Hebrew. They don't agree on what actually happened, but both got exactly what they needed from Jesus.

[WilliamC]

I was unaware that Revelations was supposed to be a science fiction text.

That's how it reads to us from a non-Christian point of view, well with a large amount of the horror genre tossed in.

But hey, it's a free country, believe in the Rapture all you want even if I personally think your, well, less than rational for doing so.

Just know that I'll side with peaceful, tolerant Christians against militant, intolerant atheists every time.

Freedom can bring us together, yes?

[LibertyEagle]

On a serious note, you can't legislate morality.

Oh yes you can. Let's start with "Thou shall not kill". All manner of legislation deals with morality and it has since the very beginning.

Who started that buzz phrase, "you can't legislate morality"? People seem to just accept it without question, without really stopping and thinking what they are agreeing with.

[Sola_Fide]

Oh yes you can. Let's start with "Thou shall not kill". All manner of legislation deals with morality and it has since the very beginning.

Who started that buzz phrase, "you can't legislate morality"? People seem to just accept it without question, without really stopping and thinking what they are agreeing with.

Yes. Every legislative act is a legislation of morality. You cannot BUT legislate morality.

Its not a question of "morality vs. no morality", its always a question of "which morality".

[WilliamC]

Yes. Every legislative act is a legislation of morality. You cannot BUT legislate morality.

Its not a question of "morality vs. no morality", its always a question of "which morality".

100% correct sir.

[jmdrake]

So God saying do not lie with men as you lie with women (which could just be a prohibition on penetration, but that's a horse of another color) is Old Covenant. Thankfully the stuff about doves is all Old, too, which means I won't go to hell for that. The newer quotes that the other poster showed, which I addressed, are New Covenant. I don't see them talking about homosexuality being an abomination.


Fine. You don't see it that way. Many Christians (and non Christians) have an opposite view. The only sensible solution is for politicians to refuse to answer the question of "is X a sin". Ron Paul could have done better on this interview....period.



As for the wishing people to burn in hell for their sins, I am quite sure I could find some folks who firmly believe the internet is of the devil. Perhaps I could hire them out to hang around and tell you often and explicitly how the fires of hell will consume you for your sin unless you repent and cease your evil deeds. It's not about wishing. It's about doing. It's about words and deeds and how you treat your fellow man. Telling someone that their entire self is a sin does not often make that person better themselves. I don't recall a Biblical verse about pointing out everyone else's flaws being good. I do recall something about a mote and a beam.


I'm sorry. I haven't read every post in this thread. But who was wishing anyone in hell??

Let's look at this another way. Say if I know there is a minefield outside your front door. Say if I say "If you go out your front door you could get blown up. You'll be safer going out the back door." Does that mean I'm wishing you would get blown up?



Have you ever been preached to about something you hold dear, something you love, someONE you love, on a very regular basis ... all the while knowing in your heart that God is Love and more's the pity for those who spend their time on hate and judgement? It strikes me that such a life is rather Christlike in many ways, especially if all you can do to defend yourself is just talk, explain, and hope, knowing that in the end it's those same misguided souls who know not what they do.


I'm not sure why you paint this as an either or. Jesus didn't go around condemning people, but on multiple occasions He told them "Go and sin no more". He didn't say that because He hated them or wished them in hell or wanted them to feel bad about themselves. Quite the opposite. Because Jesus loves everyone He wants them to have the most abundant life possible. People think they can have the abundant life choosing their own path. Christians just happen to think God may know more than us. Forgive us if that offends you.

[MelissaWV]

Christians just happen to think God may know more than us.

This is the exact opposite of what's been talked about in this thread, unless one believes that the Bible is directly and precisely "God," in which case the Bible's quotes should be taken as proof enough.

If you would have read the entire thread, which you say you have not, you might have noticed what I was referring to.

Have you been on these boards? Pretty sure you have been. Seeing thread after thread about how homosexuality is an evil perverse sin and all gays are going to hell and people should disassociate themselves with such, and even things like "Yes, in my perfect world, gays WOULD be executed if they didn't repent" (which I got to hear firsthand on a Skype call, to boot)... you don't think that gets old? You don't think seeing a thread where someone was buddying up with a mentally ill guy... until that guy turned out to be gay, at which point they flipped out and started asking for advice on how to back out of it... you don't think crap like that gets obnoxious? It's a pain in the ass. It's ridiculous. And when it's done under the banners of Christianity, yeah, it's offensive. It should offend any Christian who actually read the Bible cover to cover, rather than just stopping on the highlighted condemnation throughout various of the contained books.

How about this: You take your lessons from it, and I take mine, and go with God, hmm? Why does that not work here? Why must people go out of their way to "save" me?

[nate895]

This is the exact opposite of what's been talked about in this thread, unless one believes that the Bible is directly and precisely "God," in which case the Bible's quotes should be taken as proof enough.

Do you just believe God can't communicate with us or something? How else are we supposed to know God but by Him telling us about Himself? You would think I was arrogant if I started telling other people about what you think without using your words. Why do you apply a different standard to God?

[MelissaWV]

Do you just believe God can't communicate with us or something? How else are we supposed to know God but by Him telling us about Himself? You would think I was arrogant if I started telling other people about what you think without using your words. Why do you apply a different standard to God?

I would find it pitiable if you started trying to be similar to me based on words written by other people in my name. I apply the same standard to God.

If God is communicating with everyone in this thread, or even a few of the people in it, then why are the views so utterly different? If God knows more than all of us, then why so much emphasis on what you or he or she or they or we ... why all of that? If the words are God's, then why all of this changing around? Why are some things anachronistic and some are to be taken literally? Who decided which parts are allegory, and which ones are not, since they are not clearly marked? I see mankind's hands and fingerprints all over those things.

If God can speak to me, and does, then why do I need the braying of others trying to tell me what He says? Why not merely listen to the source? :)

Gosh, maybe Ron Paul feels the same, and doesn't need some poster on an internet forum digging up Bible quotes to tell him that God disagrees ;)

[WilliamC]

Why must people go out of their way to "save" me?

Insecurity as to their own convictions perhaps?

Brownie points with god?

Compulsion to share what they are enthused about?

Heck I'm sure some are simply saddened by what they see as a lost soul.

There is no one answer.

[specsaregood]

On a serious note, you can't legislate morality. That's the point of freedom. Whatever you believe, you believe. You don't force others to share you're opinion!!!-->FREEDOM
Oh yes you can. Let's start with "Thou shall not kill". All manner of legislation deals with morality and it has since the very beginning.

Who started that buzz phrase, "you can't legislate morality"? People seem to just accept it without question, without really stopping and thinking what they are agreeing with.

LE, I think that phrase is meant differently than you are interpret it. What I get from it is that you can't make people moral or determine their behavior via legislation. People will still find ways to do those things. eg: Sure, murder is illegal, but it still happens all the time, thus you have not effectively legislated morality on that issue.

I've heard Dr. Paul use that phrase a few times, and he always uses it in context of controlling behavior.

[Brian4Liberty]

Proverbs 6:16-19*(King James Version)

*16These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

*17A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

*18An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

*19A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

------

Proverbs 6:16-19*(American Standard Version)

*16 There are six things which Jehovah hateth; Yea, seven which are an abomination unto him:

*17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood;

*18 A heart that deviseth wicked purposes, Feet that are swift in running to mischief,

*19 A false witness that uttereth lies, And he that soweth discord among brethren.

[LibertyEagle]

You know what? It's a big f*cking deal when YOUR religion spills over into OUR lives and dictates to us how we should live. If you just KEPT YOUR RELIGION TO YOURSELF, we wouldn't get involved!! Your defensive position against our questions is a sign that you don't have the answers. If you can't answer a few simple questions, then your understanding lacks any real sustenance; and throwing around bits and pieces of your holy book is, on its face, just as credible.

When you leave us alone, we'll leave your science fiction alone.

This entire thread has been dealing with homosexual acts and sin. So, the fact that the Bible was quoted is in fact warranted. You knew what this thread was going to be about when you read the title. If you didn't want to see the discussion, why did you click on it?

You know, Humanists do not dictate what the rest of us can talk about. Keep your own religion to yourself, please.

[LibertyEagle]

LE, I think that phrase is meant differently than you are interpret it. What I get from it is that you can't make people moral or determine their behavior via legislation. People will still find ways to do those things. eg: Sure, murder is illegal, but it still happens all the time, thus you have not effectively legislated morality on that issue.

I've heard Dr. Paul use that phrase a few times, and he always uses it in context of controlling behavior.

I see what you are saying, specs. But, the fact that some people still murder doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a law against it. You aren't arguing otherwise, are you? Somehow, I think I still may be missing your point. heh

[jmdrake]

This is the exact opposite of what's been talked about in this thread, unless one believes that the Bible is directly and precisely "God," in which case the Bible's quotes should be taken as proof enough.

So because the Bible is finite we should reject it in favor of making it up as we go along? That's like the people who say since we don't fully understand everything the founding fathers were thinking we shouldn't try and just treat the constitution as a "living breathing document". You're giving a recipe for theological disaster that is just as certain as today's political disaster that America has become.



If you would have read the entire thread, which you say you have not, you might have noticed what I was referring to.


Just because people in this thread may or may not have mis-represented the Bible is no excuse to throw it out.



Have you been on these boards? Pretty sure you have been.


LOL. I have a higher post count than you do. I've probably been on these boards too much.



Seeing thread after thread about how homosexuality is an evil perverse sin and all gays are going to hell and people should disassociate themselves with such, and even things like "Yes, in my perfect world, gays WOULD be executed if they didn't repent" (which I got to hear firsthand on a Skype call, to boot)...


You're talking about Theocrat. If I recall you were aware of his views on gays and executions before accepting his Skype invitation. So...why did you? I have a bisexual family member. (He mistakenly thought he was gay. But he told me he could fall for a woman just as easily as he could a man. It's funny but some gay people aren't even sure about who they are themselves.) I'm not wishing anyone dead or in hell or anything else. But I don't have the audacity to rewrite the Bible just to make it more convenient.



you don't think that gets old? You don't think seeing a thread where someone was buddying up with a mentally ill guy... until that guy turned out to be gay, at which point they flipped out and started asking for advice on how to back out of it... you don't think crap like that gets obnoxious?


The irony here is that the APA used to view homosexuality as a mental disease. I don't agree with that. But I wonder how this person would have reacted if that were still the common view? He could deal with some mental illness but not others?

Anyway, the sad fact is that Christians, being human, are just as apt to be gripped by fear as anyone else. Jesus didn't give us the spirit of fear, but of love, power and a strong mind. If you have a strong enough mind you can deal with the Islamist, the gay, the streetwalker, the atheist or anyone else different from you.



It's a pain in the ass. It's ridiculous. And when it's done under the banners of Christianity, yeah, it's offensive. It should offend any Christian who actually read the Bible cover to cover, rather than just stopping on the highlighted condemnation throughout various of the contained books.

How about this: You take your lessons from it, and I take mine, and go with God, hmm? Why does that not work here? Why must people go out of their way to "save" me?

I have no problem with that. But why do you go out of your way to cause yourself pain? I'm specifically talking about Theocrat's Skype session. Or this thread. Why should it bother you that some people still believe the Bible for what it says? You disagree, you disagree. Note that I've never condemned you. Not in this thread or in any other thread. You want others to accept you for you. Why can you not accept me for me?

[specsaregood]

I see what you are saying, specs. But, the fact that some people still murder doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a law against it. You aren't arguing otherwise, are you? Somehow, I think I still may be missing your point. heh

No, we should not remove the laws against murder. But laws where the only person "hurt" is themselves or willing participants? Sure.

eg: Dr. Paul has used this phrase many times in regards to the War on Drugs. They have not been very effect have they? Because "you can't legislate morality (behavior)", people are going to get high with or without the laws.

[jmdrake]

And this would have been Ron Paul's perfect answer. "There are a lot of sins. Why obsess about one?"


Proverbs 6:16-19*(King James Version)

*16These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

*17A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

*18An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,

*19A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

------

Proverbs 6:16-19*(American Standard Version)

*16 There are six things which Jehovah hateth; Yea, seven which are an abomination unto him:

*17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood;

*18 A heart that deviseth wicked purposes, Feet that are swift in running to mischief,

*19 A false witness that uttereth lies, And he that soweth discord among brethren.

[LibertyEagle]

No, we should not remove the laws against murder. But laws where the only person "hurt" is themselves or willing participants? Sure.

eg: Dr. Paul has used this phrase many times in regards to the War on Drugs. They have not been very effect have they? Because "you can't legislate morality", people are going to get high with or without the laws.

Ok, yeah, I see your point. Though I don't like the phrase being used in that way, because I think it is very misleading. Almost every law we have ever had is legislating morality. But, I do agree with you, of course, about victimless "crimes". What you do to your own body should be no one else's business, unless you infringe on someone else's liberties in doing so.

[Kregisen]

You know what? It's a big f*cking deal when YOUR religion spills over into OUR lives and dictates to us how we should live. If you just KEPT YOUR RELIGION TO YOURSELF, we wouldn't get involved!! Your defensive position against our questions is a sign that you don't have the answers. If you can't answer a few simple questions, then your understanding lacks any real sustenance; and throwing around bits and pieces of your holy book is, on its face, just as credible.

When you leave us alone, we'll leave your science fiction alone.

lol what do you mean keep my religion to myself??? Wanna give me just 1 example of me laying my religion out on you? Because all that I've said is answer a Christian question to a non-christian who doesn't believe the Bible anyway - so it's irrelevant.

if you're gonna troll me then leave.

[Kregisen]

Hey now this is a public forum and I'll damn well chime in if I want to, Christian though I am not.!

How else am I to learn how other people with different beliefs think?

(not said in anger, but really, telling someone on a public forum to 'stay out of this' is, well, counter to the whole idea of a PUBLIC FORUM isn't it?)

I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to melissawv, who was trying to start an argument with me over a Christian argument when she doesn't even believe the Bible. A debate over something in the Bible using verses as proof is only good if you value them as legitimate sources. If you don't believe in the Bible then there's no point starting an argument over something in it.

[specsaregood]

Ok, yeah, I see your point. Though I don't like the phrase being used in that way, because I think it is very misleading. Almost every law we have ever had is legislating morality. But, I do agree with you, of course, about victimless "crimes". What you do to your own body should be no one else's business, unless you infringe on someone else's liberties in doing so.

That there can be multiple interpretations of a simple phrase would indicate to me that it shouldn't be used either.
Dr. Paul's people: if you are reading this, help him come up with another way of saying it that is clear and concise.

[MelissaWV]

I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to melissawv, who was trying to start an argument with me over a Christian argument when she doesn't even believe the Bible. A debate over something in the Bible using verses as proof is only good if you value them as legitimate sources. If you don't believe in the Bible then there's no point starting an argument over something in it.

So the Bible is actually only open to debate by people who believe in every single aspect of it? And those who don't believe every possible portion of the final edited version should just "stay out of it"? lol Okay, fine; I'll abide by that. But how about you stop talking about homosexuality, since you don't believe in it or practice it. Stay out of it!

* * *

Kregisen and I are actually having a better discussion on this in private, but I'm leaving this up in case someone's already in the process of quoting it. ... Yeah, never mind. 2nd edit. Some folks might want to reread that book they keep ranting about.

[Sola_Fide]

That there can be multiple interpretations of a simple phrase would indicate to me that it shouldn't be used either.
Dr. Paul's people: if you are reading this, help him come up with another way of saying it that is clear and concise.

I think I tried to do that by saying that free associations that are sinful are not neccessarily crimes. I think Theocrat and Nate may disagree with me here. I am open to the Reconstructionist position, but I think there are some inconsistencies in it. I think I would be more in line with John Robbins on this than Gary North.

[Kregisen]

So the Bible is actually only open to debate by people who believe in every single aspect of it? And those who don't believe every possible portion of the final edited version should just "stay out of it"? lol Okay, fine; I'll abide by that. But how about you stop talking about homosexuality, since you don't believe in it or practice it. Stay out of it!

Stop twisting my words around. The Bible states in the new testament homosexuality is a sin. If you don't believe it, that's fine. No one here is telling you to believe it. Stop trying to argue with me saying things like "That knocks out an awful lot of other people" or "Interesting how this specifies the "Natural" function of women as, in your interpretation, being there for vaginal intercourse. Wow. That's a GREAT point of view. You might want to leave that off of your Mother's Day card next weekend, though. " - I did not come onto a political forum to argue religion with people who are obsessed with making fun of other people's religion. It's gonna make people hate you in real life if that's how you act towards them.

[WilliamC]

I wasn't talking to you.

Actually yes, you are talking to me and everyone else who reads your words in this public forum.

If you want to keep it between you and an individual well that's what PMs are for.

Again, not trying to pick a fight, I just find it amusing that someone would be offended to a reply of a post in a public forum.

[WilliamC]

I did not come onto a political forum to argue religion with people who are obsessed with making fun of other people's religion. It's gonna make people hate you in real life if that's how you act towards them.

Just saying, if anyone wants to make fun of me for being an agnostic/atheist, have at.

I make fun of myself all the time anyway.

Again quoting Heinlein,

"One mans religion is another mans belly laugh"

[Kregisen]

Actually yes, you are talking to me and everyone else who reads your words in this public forum.

If you want to keep it between you and an individual well that's what PMs are for.

Again, not trying to pick a fight, I just find it amusing that someone would be offended to a reply of a post in a public forum.

Quoting someone and replying to them is talking to them, that's why there's a quote button.

[WilliamC]

I have a bisexual family member. (He mistakenly thought he was gay. But he told me he could fall for a woman just as easily as he could a man. It's funny but some gay people aren't even sure about who they are themselves.)

I've actually considered the bisexual thing but when I figured out my being bi would involve another guy instead of two girls at once I decided against it ;)

Now if I woke up tomorrow in a female body then I'd be all for it.

Gay that is. Nothing is going to make me interested in some guy.

[WilliamC]

Whenever I post something in a public forum I anticipate that everyone will read those words, regardless if I'm responding to a quote or not.

And I'm never offended if someone else wants to use my post as a launching point for their own.

It's the entire rational behind having a PUBLIC DEBATE in the first place.

[Golding]

Ron Paul is running for president, he isn't running for God. Ron Paul is right. Let consenting adults do what they wish to do, and if it's a sin then God will be their judge. We don't need people minding others' business.

On top of that, the host is discussing how our military should be composed of people with "good moral character". The concept strikes me as odd, since our military seems to have no qualms following orders to kill individuals in countries that have done America no harm. What good is "good moral character" in our soldiers when the orders imposed upon them demonstrate no such thing?

[emazur]

If Ron Paul said divorce is not a sin, will we be seeing "Ron Paul says divorce is not a sin" threads? Somehow I doubt it, and we'll only see threads that pick and choose wedge subjects that happen to be in style and the inconvenient ones will be brushed aside. Brush all of them aside, I say.

Matthew 5:32
But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery. (NIV)

Matthew 19:9
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.

[AJ187]

Golding, that's the first sensible thing I've read on this thread. Thanks!

[anaconda]

So we lose a few red neck homophobes and get millions of independents. Duh: "Winning..."