As the debate heats up once again about different life choices, the usual suspects turn to the Bible to bully other people. Despite the many things he says that I like, the current pope is either misquoted or misinterpreted as being in favor, not of the people, but of their behavior. Our behavior reflects our values, but it does not comport our value in the biblical context, and yet as usual both sides claim to have the Bible on their side. God’s position is very clear, and it always has been. He has always told us that sin cannot be tolerated with allowance but that for the repentant soul it can be forgiven, and that’s the difference.
Behaviors arrive on the scene as “civil rights”. People want to be able to do whatever they like by claiming that it is who they are. I find it funny that this claim was rejected in conjunction with conscientious objections to war and abortion but is accepted when it comes to gay and lesbian lifestyles. This is not new. Sodom and Gamorrah, Athens, and Rome all fell because of licentious and lascivious behavior. We will be no different. I heard Tuesday that America hosts most of the pornography on the internet. How sad. However, since when is it a civil right to have sex with whomever you choose whenever for whatever reason? Since when should I have to provide you with contraception? Since when should I be forced to cater a wedding for a couple I find religiously objectionable? Who is protecting my religious rights? Those who champion this cause claim that marriage is about love, but they don’t really mean that. If they meant that, they would go back and defend Mormons for polygamy and a slieu of pedophiles in prison for their filthiness. This is about the fact that homosexuals want their behavior to be treated the same way as the nature of other people. Since when is bisexuality a civil right? Who goes to a bakery that refuses service to a certain group except to create a media sensation claiming discrimination? It's a setup.
I listened to local radio Monday afternoon and caught a woman who claimed that God has never been condemnatory towards people engaged in what I consider to be aberrant and abhorrent behaviors. Quite contrarily, the God of the Old Testament was very clear, almost vengeful, because His people were slow to listen. Yea, unless He doth constantly chastise them, they are slow to remember the Lord their God. Even after freed from Egypt, when Moses went up on the mount, they were unable to wait a few days before casting an idol of gold to worship! The difference today is not in how God regards the behavior. The behavior is still unacceptable. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. As in Adam, all men die. The difference is that God no longer immediately brings down fire from heaven or opens up the ground from beneath to consume the sinners. The New Testament seems more tolerant because only after that point did the people understand the Atonement, that Christ would suffer by proxy for the truly penitent. With the arrival of Christ, it was not license to change their behavior but a delay in their punishment so that they could repent. God still disproves of certain behaviors; for all this His anger is not turned away but His hand is outstretched still. This woman is NOT penitent. She seeks license in the scriptures. She thinks that she can eat drink and be merry a little and sin because God will save all men. He cannot save them in their sins; He can only save us from their consequences. The people who seek license of their behaviors paradoxically chose the rainbow as the symbol of acceptance. The rainbow does not mean acceptance of aberrant and abhorrent behaviors. The rainbow once followed God cleansing the earth thereof.
Liberals point out the mote in the eye of another to excuse the beam in their own. Sometimes they argue that gay marriage should be accepted because traditional marriages fail frequently. Well, this ignores the fact that many people marry for the wrong reasons, including homosexuals who marry, not out of love for their spouse, but to conform with society. When they cite statistics on marriages that fail, they never provide any data that indicates how many of those marriages were not for love. They never point out how many constitute outright fraud by homosexuals who marry despite their inclinations and thereby deprive me of a chance at their spouse. If they were truly that principled, they would never marry and thereby not mar the field for men like me who desire a good marriage. They also forget that marriage involves the wills of two different people, but then again liberals believe in compulsion by government while emancipating women, which are mutually exclusive prospects in a marriage. You can’t empower a woman and force her to cowtow to the man.
Perhaps the misanthropic view of marriage comes from a difference in opinion regarding what marriage actually means. Marriage is and always has been a sacrament of the faith. During the middle ages, when the church became a political entity, the line between these two entities blurred. By the time of Henry VIII, marriage became a civil matter and lost its meaning to people in Christian nations. Marriage always has been an oath, not just between the man and wife, but between the couple and their Creator. Interestingly enough, when this nation was founded, in recognition of the line of demarcation between Church and State, the Founders left out reference of marriage from the founding documents. Oddly enough, the people who prattle separation of church and state demand the involvement of the state to license their sacraments. They have never before seemed to care about government interference with religious feelings about marriage. As aforementioned, these people never defend polyandry or polygamy; instead they mock it and look down with arrogant condescension on people whose ancestors once believed it part of their Faith. Since they cannot mock Mitt Romney for a failed marriage, they mock him for his failure as a Mormon to have more than one.
As usual, they demand things both ways and are never happy. They are always looking for an Achilles heel. This is not about marriage, and it’s not about love, and it’s not about fairness. Democrats do not support marriage for love. They support themselves. If they supported marriage for love, they wouldn't mock Mormons. Now that it's in the best interest of the Democrat party to accept gay marriage, you must accept it. You will do what the Left demands. Never before in America has the tail wagged the dog, but that’s what is given face time in the forum of public opinion. They are a minority, and they demand representation of their views. Since their arguments are weak, they attack their opponents, not on the merits of the argument, but with accusations of bigotry. Opposition to a behavior is not rejection of or bigotry towards the person. Those who feel that way should grow a thicker skin.
My religion is not a behavior; it is part of who I am. When I stand for something, it’s not because I got up today and decided to don the outer vestments of episcopalean or Baptist or Judaic beliefs. These are not just things I do. I know that some members of my Faith are just going through the motions. So too are those who insist on civil “rights” for their behaviors. If homosexuals were true to their urges, they would breed themselves out of the population in short order because their behaviors do not lead to more children. It’s not evolutionarily advantageous for humans to be homosexual, because if you are true to what you “are”, you will not procreate. Like most liberal causes of late, this is about sex.
The great Christian apologist CS Lewis ardently defined marriage and in a far better way than I ever can. Not fewer than three of his books deal with it- The Four Loves, Mere Christianity, and The Screwtape Letters. The tactics of the left and of the devil are not new.
All we can do is to encourage humans to take the pleasures which our Enemy has produced, at times, or in ways, or in degrees, which He has forbidden. Hence we always try to work away from the natural condition of any pleasure to that in which it is least natural, least redolent of its Maker, and least pleasurable. An ever-increasing craving for an ever diminishing pleasure is the formula…. To get the man’s soul and give NOTHING in return–that is what really gladdens [Satan’s] heart.
The adversary is always about counterfeits. These people talk about love and marriage without ever bothering to look at what those things do and always have meant. He wants the semblance without the substance, which leads men to continually look “for love in all the wrong places” because it is not love. They keep using that word. Like Inigro Montoya, I do not think it means what they think it means. I love God, and so I keep His commandments, but loving God is not acceptable to the left.
Beware the temptation to believe when liberal politicians prattle about faith, virtue, and charity. They speak of this, not because they believe it, but because they know you do.
The gay right push is not about rights as much as it’s about power. They meddle. They are in our homes and heads and haven’t the right. They want to tell us when and what and how to think. They want us to think like them. Since they cannot proselyte us to their cause, they use the truncheon in lieu of conversation. The only reason a gay couple would choose a Christian florist is to impose involuntary servitude. They were trying to drum up business for the ACLU to help destroy American culture and impose their beliefs on the entire nation through the courts. Most of us would simply find another person who would love our business. Also on Tuesday’s local radio, the host acknowledged that it serves businesses in his 90210 to have an employee who speaks Spanish, not because the government forces them to, but to capture the 20% of business they would lose if they didn’t have that person.
They claim to be defending gays, but they do this, if it’s true, at the expense of fighting against the majority of their constituents. When we do not defend our friends, we in essence betray them. You see, this entire campaign is protracted with the premise that Christians are evil, intolerant, hypocritical, bigots who do not tolerate anyone else. By contrary, Christians are the most tolerant of peoples, because they do not light up the streets with riotous looting when attacked or challenged. Nobody worries about upsetting a Christian because they don’t pull your arms out of your sockets when they lose. The vast majority of people in this country, however inexpertly they may be at living those principles, intend and desire to live according to Judeo-Christian values. We live and let live. The left just talks about it. This adherence and aspiration to virtue is why America continues to persist. As soon as Americans become enemies to The Law, our law will have no power to drive their behavior, and the majority will clamour for license for licentiousness. The Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It cannot govern anyone else.
There is God and there is government. God is greater than government, and government doesn’t like that. –Inga Barks
No comments:
Post a Comment