Headlines & Current Articles

Friday, November 8, 2013

Illinois Approves Gay Marriage By False Parallel Of Race

Job 12:25 ~ They grope in the dark without light, and he maketh them to stagger like a drunken man.

Rep. Mary Flowers (D) 
"I really did not appreciate race being injected into this conversation. When I was discriminated against, it was not because of who I love, but because of the color of my skin.”...“Homosexuality has nothing to do with race,” ~ Rep. Mary Flowers (D) Chicago
The Illinois Legislature, making news for all the wrong reasons, decided in a 61-54 vote late Tuesday night to affirm gay marriage in spite of strong and vocal support against the measure by both Republican, Democrat and politically Independent citizens of the state. 

In what was building as a fight since a late last year's rejection of the measure, in what has become known as "President Obama's State", House Speaker Mike Madigan (D) along with other supporters were able to convince legislators to approve the measure by means of what he deemed as the "art of persuasion"  That "persuasion" included doing what gay marriage advocacy adherents do best, create a totally FALSE argument to promote their agenda and shame into submission all those who disagree. 

Such tactics were clearly seen as more and more representatives were convinced to relate the struggle for homosexual marriage to the struggle for civil rights. To highlight the utter confusion as it pertains to this issue, in my own back yard, Representative, Jehan Gordon-Booth (D) in The Peoria Journal Star News Opinion article entitled "Equality Under The Law Is The American Way" stated:
Rep. Jehan Gordon-Booth (D)
"My thinking on this matter has been deeply influenced by the heroes of the civil rights movement. Congressman John Lewis of Georgia is the former chairman of the Student nonviolent Coordinating Committee. a Freedom Rider who had his skull fractured on the march across Selma's Edmund Pettus Bridge, and a man of strong faith who graduated from the American Baptist Theological Seminary. He supports marriage equality."..."Obama wrestled very publicly with his views on the issue, ultimately realizing that his Christian faith is fully compatible with his endorsement of equal marriage rights." ~ Rep. Jehan Gordon-Booth (D)11/5/2013 Peoria Journal Star
To which I simply say, what does any of that have to do with the price of tea in China? This sort of sentiment is not uncommon among politicians and Mrs. Gordon-Booth is certainly not the progenitor of such thinking, but it must be noted that there has never been a more inept, invalid and totally false correlation and relationship to facts and the struggle for human rights than the correlation of the fight for sexual preference to the fight of basic human dignity.

Utter Presidential Liberality & Confusion

First, President Barack Obama espouses ultra liberal Christian views and values. He doesn't believe in the inspiration or infallibility of the scriptures and believes some scriptures are valid while others are not based on his own guidance. Therefore to base one's decision on how he has come to reconcile "faith" with homosexuality is very shaky ground upon which to build  especially considering such a very important issue.



In addition, being Black or an apparent minority and struggling for equality based on skin color which cannot change, and struggling for human dignity because of racism, has NOTHING to do with being gay and struggling to have gay marriage. Gay marriage is based on how one feels about whom they "love" and the FACT is that loves change as do people. 

Overcomers Network and other such organizations are filled with testimonies of people who have stopped finding fulfillment in same sex relationships and turned to fulfill their God given sexuality in the order and under the moral circumstance and freedom that God has ordained. If nothing else, these multiple testimonies from countless thousands all around the country who have left homosexuality in the dust as both a lifestyle and way to "love", PROVES that being gay is not something that is fatalistically determined or tantamount to skin color in the least bit. In other words "Lady Ga-Ga", it doesn't matter if you were born that way...YOU MUST BE BORN AGAIN!(John 3:3) 

Sexual "Equality"? An Insult To All Those Who Fought For Racial Dignity?

Calling the struggle for same sex affection a struggle for "equality" is an insult to the civil rights movement and ALL people of color, gay and straight. The struggle for gay marital acceptance in all actuality cannot be considered a struggle or fight for equality UNLESS one is willing to accept the polygamous, polyamorous, bigamous and a whole host of other type of illegal and socially condemned marital and relationship arrangements are also suffering from "inequality"  and should be allowed based on civil doctrines imposed for homosexual marriage. In essence, if one fights for gay marriage one must also acknowledge that the aforementioned sexual arrangements are only a matter of "equality" and "equal access" under the law, as opposed to an issue of social or moral standing. The plight and denial of the polyandry and even the pedophilia therefore deserve to be exalted and placed within the law as both acceptable, and as President Obama has stated regarding homosexuality, "admirable". What is the reason that they should be denied their brand of "equality"?

It can't possibly be consensus and public acceptance, because the consensus and public sentiment yet disfavors homosexual marriage. There is no compelling study or research to the contrary especially when in every venue that has had the opportunity to vote on the issue overwhelmingly denies the institution and implementation of homosexual marriage. 

Are Gay marriage advocates willing to stand behind and for other forms of sexual "diversity"? (since now, actions and personal preferences have been exalted to the status of culture) Or will these so called "equal rights" supporters cower in hypocrisy and therefore reveal the true aim of their proposed desire for homosexual marriage? That aim goes well beyond tax treatment of benefits to survivors. The aim is nothing less than the normalization and acceptance of homosexuality and the gay lifestyle. Politicians may be tricked in favor of their name, legacy and popularity and a boat load of tax money, but WE shall not be tricked, deceived, or bamboozled by these that are empty clouds whose only purpose is to block the sun from shining the light of truth upon a very pertinent moral situation.  

Set The Record Straight     

Let me be clear so when this is repeated and pasted so that it is NOT repasted with misrepresentations of facts....There is no homosexual or other citizen, that deserves to be discriminated against in housing, access to medical care, employment or any of those things that it takes for individuals to live and pursue happiness. No one is becoming a "house police" regulating who goes in and who comes out of their homes or regulating lawful activities of one's own home and environment. The right to live in dignity is an inalienable right which every man is born into and entitled to. This ministry will fight for the dignity of every man and women gay or straight. HOWEVER, there is a vast difference between that and the extension and redefinition of something so fundamental to societal values such as marriage, based on feelings and preferences at the end of the day, and baseline fundamental and unchangeable and undeniable facts such as race. Those arguments are incompatible.

Being denied housing because one is gay is WRONG. 
Being denied medical care because one is gay is WRONG.
Being denied the right to redefine a fundamental institution such as marriage and redefining the family is RIGHT every day!

Utilitarian Morality

As stated, we can already recognize that marriage simply based on "love", feeling, emotion or capacity is NOT a standard whereby a marital arrangement can be or should be justified or supported. One can 'love" many things and many different ways but the right of marriage to what one loves rests on a completely different basis. In addition, the argument of moral harm as we will note below, can not be a standard of what is right either. 

Pt. 1: The argument that, "others lose nothing if gays have a right to marry" is a utilitarian moral construct which is proven to be froth with problems, and a false moral construct in deciphering this issue. Utilitarian morality would hold that the "end" justifies the "means", that there is a "greater good" that is accomplished even if lies and immorality are the methods used to accomplish such. In other words if there is a good or a pleasurable outcome, or if the "more" good is done than bad, then that particular path is an acceptable path to follow. President Obama embraces this moral construct and value. His views on homosexuality, along with many homosexual advocates are identical. This is the prevailing moral seduction among them in the political arena as well.   

Is something only wrong because it harms someone or something? Or is something right or wrong in and of itself? 

Pt. 2: Similarly, utilitarianism, along with the argument of moral harm, suggests that something is only wrong when one is caught. Look at this practically however, are we to dare suggest that as long as one does not get caught, they are not really wrong, because one is only "hurt" when one is caught??? Look at it this way...a man commits adultery and does not, for whatever circumstance get caught. He continues to live as he does, gets out of the relationship and it is never found out. Are his actions somehow absolved from wrong because he was not caught in his sin? In this circumstance, based on utilitarian view of moral harm, he would be exempt from wrong. In fact, under this construct, to bring it up would be doing the most harm and would therefore be wrong. One says, there has been no hurt without being caught right? But we should ask, since there is no "harm" is the action by virtue of that somehow right?

COMMON SENSE says that adultery is WRONG. Caught or not. It is an immoral act even if no one is harmed. Some things are wrong even if no one is hurt as a result of the actions. Utilitarianism morality, such as President Obama's and many politicians who are conveniently pandering for votes and popularity, is both intellectually unfulfilling, confusing, and contradictory to the truth and real life situations.  

This is no way to assess a moral standard, but over and over, this is exactly the method used and the thought process of those, especially politicians, considering the extension of gay marriage. 

Many things that do not harm are yet indeed wrong. So what is the basis for the establishment of truth and what society should embrace? 

The Building Block Of The Community 


Aside from a strong biblical direction and support, the basis for marriage is the procreation of strong families and units whereby children can be reared responsibly, and the community can further be benefited by the development of children into responsible and contributory adulthood. Society itself is built upon in tact families and citizens with the ability to procreate within society. That model, with a relationship between a man and a woman, has a PROVEN record of success. Marriage as defined by the legal cohabitation of a man and woman is what society is built upon economically, socially and even legally. To ignore this FACT is  not only denial of the facts but a blind leap into abject IGNORANCE! 

Could Homosexual Marriage Itself Be An Act Of Discrimination?

Unfortunately homosexual marriage denies and removes from the child the ability to have a true mother which is a female and a true father which is a male. Under this rubric, replacements and impostors are sent in to assume the role. No one knows the effect of this sort of pretense and denial of all the pertinent character influences upon a child's life and psychology. A woman, no matter how "butch" she may be, cannot replace the physical capacity, character and characteristics of a man. A man, no matter how effeminate he may be, cannot replace the inflections, feelings and physiological makeup of a woman. They have been given to society for a reason and playing the role of a cross-gender personality may be entertaining to some, but could have some sincere and dire circumstances in the future. 

A child needs to see a "man" not just in physical body, but a man in actions and deeds. He or she also needs to see a "woman" in the same light. Children need to be exposed to true and real characteristics that both male and female individuals posses in order to gain a healthy psychological balance.

Genesis 1:27 ~ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Do we need voices of men in our family who believe themselves to be females? Then how are the true and real women represented? How about the other way...do we need voices of women who believe themselves to be men to be the only voice in the family? Then what of the real men? Where are their voices? This becomes a complex question. Those who endorse gay marital acceptance by means of "civil rights"could be promoting a discriminatory and anti-civil right position, imposing the denial of a "real" man or "real" woman upon the child replacing the inflection, tone and intellect of a genetically real man or woman with one who can only be identified as a man or woman by their feelings, reflections and inclinations. Has anyone ever stopped to think for a minute that there may be something lost by not having a real chemical or biological makeup, no matter how much hormone replacement therapy they go through? Are we to assume, that the only difference between men and women are genitalia? To think so would be the most unscientific and unreasonable claim that could ever be made.   

Both men and women exist on this earth. We need BOTH authentic male and female voices to make our community and families work as they should. There are simply are NO SUBSTITUTES for the REAL thing!

Homosexuality Itself, Still Medically Problematic  

The effect of homosexuality upon them that embrace the lifestyle is still yet full of issues both emotionally, physically and medically. For example, all reputable modern studies suggest that Lesbians yet are the leading group among recipients of psychotropic drugs. As I stated in my article "HIV/AIDS & Health Care Reform, What Do We Really Know?", homosexual men (or MSM according to the CDC in the United States) are yet the leading category of individuals contracting AIDS/HIV annually.  Current studies have also concluded that mental and emotional problems are not made any better by gender reassignment. In fact one current study says that gender reassignment surgery should be warned against as it offers no better psychological, physical or emotional condition for the recipient.

None of what I have said broaches on any biblical construct of why homosexual marriage should be disallowed. Every Christian FAITHFULLY observing the biblical message should already know the biblical prohibitions against such perversion. There remains to be NO SCRIPTURAL support for the institution of homosexual marital unions. There is no endorsement for the state or even secular institutions to reassign marriage or approve it based upon the feelings of love or affection for anything or anyone. 

Conclusion

Illinois Representative Greg Harris, who cosponsored the bill said:
"At the end of the day, this bill is about the vision that the founders of our country had and wrote into our Constitution, where they said America is a journey. … And we'll continue to walk down that road to make America a better place, to make ourselves a 'more perfect union,' to ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,"
What "blessings" can there possibly be? Who is to provide these "blessings" and on what basis are they to be provided? This is not liberty, it is irresponsibility run amuck.

Greg, I can't walk down the road of BONDAGE and loving sin with you and neither will the millions of fellow believers in truth and morality whether they are bible believers or not. we know that the "sky is not falling". The sun will shine tomorrow. This is not an alarm and we are not in the least bit panicked. The problem is however that it seems that many of these politicians have forgotten that this is not just a fight from the church against homosexual marriage. There are many secular institutions and organizations that realize the damage on this redefinition of the family to accommodate one group of people who feel that their feelings of love should be normalized. They now line up at the door and await your response to them.

I wholesale and wholeheartedly REJECT the Illinois state legislature's imposition in a matter which they have no right to impose! They, along with 14 other legislative bodies have done damage the half of which has not been told yet. 
One thing is for certain, whether one believes in God or not, we will not be able to escape HIS judgment. Not believing in God does not change facts or truth. One can escape political ruin by adapting to the winds of political change, but one cannot and will not escape the hand of God. 

Wait for the next wind to blow. What will you do then. we will see. 

Hosea 8:7 ~  For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk: the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up.
Blessed!

11 comments:

  1. From those who have examined the details of the law, the Illinois approval of gay marriage is the WORST approval yet of the 15 for religious freedoms.

    Tired of these late night political ram rods down the throats of the citizens. It is sad and they ought to be ashamed. If this is honorable, place the issue on the table before the people instead of seducing weak minded and vote centered politicians who think they would be better off. Let the PEOPLE speak on the issue. If they approve gay marriage, then I as a citizen would at least feel better about my freedom and voice being in tact.

    Don't forget this article:THIS ARTICLE There are compelling reasons why homosexual marriage should be rejected.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I sent this article along with others I had written to some of the individuals featured in the article and Illinois Honorable Governor Pat Quinn. This is what I got back:

    Response from the Governor's office:

    "Dear HARVEY,

    Thank you for contacting my office with your concerns about same-sex marriage in Illinois. Your message has been reviewed by my staff. I value your feedback and appreciate the insight you have shared with me. Each day, as I make decisions, I take your opinion, and those of others who write and call my office, into careful consideration.

    As Governor, it is always helpful to hear from residents about the issues concerning our state. Throughout my time in office, I have admired people like you who take time to provide ideas, ask questions and offer constructive criticisms. With your continued participation in our democracy, we can make the will of the people the law of the land.

    Thank you again for expressing your interest in same-sex marriage. Please feel free to contact me in the future. My office phone numbers are (217) 782-0244 and (312) 814-2121. You can also stay updated on state programs and services by subscribing to my E-Newsletter by clicking here.

    Sincerely,
    Pat Quinn
    Governor"


    Most people would be happy right? He wrote back or had someone write back right? Well I wrote him and addressed him as "Governor Quinn" from "PASTOR" Harvey Burnett...he writes me back as "HARVEY"....That tells me all I need to know!

    ReplyDelete
  3. This sounds like a "Form Letter." Just type in the concern and add a name. Preferably the first name, it's more "personable and pal-zie.:

    "Dear (fill in the blank)

    Thank you for contacting my office with your concerns about (fill in the blank) in Illinois. Your message has been reviewed by my staff. I value your feedback and appreciate the insight you have shared with me. Each day, as I make decisions, I take your opinion, and those of others who write and call my office, into careful consideration.

    As Governor, it is always helpful to hear from residents about the issues concerning our state. Throughout my time in office, I have admired people like you who take time to provide ideas, ask questions and offer constructive criticisms. With your continued participation in our democracy, we can make the will of the people the law of the land.

    Thank you again for expressing your interest in (fill in the blank). Please feel free to contact me in the future. My office phone numbers are (217) 782-0244 and (312) 814-2121. You can also stay updated on state programs and services by subscribing to my E-Newsletter by clicking here.

    Sincerely,
    Pat Quinn (STRANGE THAT HE DIDN'T SIGN IT AS JUST "PAT")
    Governor

    This is so sad. It didn't even reach his desk. No one really cared.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Pastor Harvey Burnett you are a voice crying out in the wilderness. I pray more than the trees and animals are listening.

    ReplyDelete
  5. As far as same sex marriage goes, I think that as long as marriage is being defined as a secular contract between 2 people, then gays should be able to get married. However, I don't think churches or other religious institutions which are religiously convicted against same sex marriage should be forced to bless such unions. That is interfering with churches right of freedom of worship, by forcing them to do something contrary to their religious convictions.

    I grew up in COGIC, which taught that no one is born gay and that it is always a choice. And because of what I was taught in church, I never questioned it. I later knew that if I wanted to be intellectually honest, I would have to acknowledge that some are indeed born that way. If people who are heterosexual were born as such, and didn't make a conscious decision to be attracted to the opposite sex, then that same line of reasoning can be applied to homosexuals. And when I realized that I couldn't defend the position that heterosexuals are born as such, but gays are not, without resorting to logical fallacies such as special pleading, then I had to look differently at the situation.

    I mean, how do you explain a woman who from a little girl was masculine and like to dress up like a boy and do typical "boy" activities, and who just never had any feelings towards men, but only towards women? I don't think it's fair to say she is making a conscious decision to like other women and act masculine and that she could change "if she wants to". Being a straight man, can you will yourself to like other men and want to start wearing skirts and stiletto heels? Of course not. You have to admit that she may have indeed been born a lesbian. Sexuality can be influenced by environment as well. I was watching a prison documentary where a man who had a 20 to life sentence was being interviewed. He said when he was on the streets, he could never think about being with a man, but after "all these long, lonely years, without a woman to stand by my side, I can definitely see being with another man".

    I also don't think the church should be trying to force it's brand of morality on the rest of society, anymore than I think Islam or Hinduism should be doing it. I think the church trying to prevent people doing what they want, simply because the church believes it's immoral is the wrong thing to do. Why should adults be forced to live as the church sees fit? In the city I live, a couple years ago, Marvin Winans was trying to get the city council to pass stringent restrictions on strip clubs, with the idea of getting them closed down. There is reason to believe that Marvin Winans is opposed to strip clubs, because he believes they are immoral.

    However, issues like gay marriage and strip clubs are issues of subjective morality. Depending on your world view, those things may or may not be immoral. Things like murder or stealing from others are objective morality, because those things involve inflicting harm on others. A man going to a strip club isn't harming anyone and he has a legal right to be there. The people who run it are running a legal business, the girls who work there have every right to work there if the management lets them. So it's not fair for Marvin Winans to push his view of what's right and wrong on everyone else, when they may not subscribe to his version of morality. And the same goes for gay marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The poster asks, “How do you explain a woman who from a little girl was masculine and like to dress up like a boy and do typical 'boy' activities, and who just never had any feelings towards men, but only towards women?" And also said this, “If people who are heterosexual were born as such, and didn't make a conscious decision to be attracted to the opposite sex, then that same line of reasoning can be applied to homosexuals." The explanation for the same sex attraction according to the Bible is SIN. It is the same reason that some people cannot control their sexual desires whether they be homosexual or heterosexual. It is the same reason why some people cannot control their use of alcohol or drugs. It is the same reason that some people are prone to violence and mayhem. We were ALL born this way. We are all born sinners with the inability to do the things that are right without God.

    Any argument that uses this as a premise is trying to avoid the obvious. It doesn't matter how you were born, if you accept the provision of Salvation that God has provided through the Lord Jesus Christ, you can be born again. You can be made new, and you can be free from the bonds and chains of sin. Including the sin that is homosexuality. It is a cop out to try and play the 'born this way' card as an excuse for our sinfulness. There some indication that a person can be genetically predisposed to violence, and to being a drunk or drug abuser. That doesn't mean we should encourage them and affirm them in this condition. We would and should encourage them to resist their inclinations and to seek God's help in overcoming these things.

    I get so tired of the attitude of those who say, "I don't think the church should be trying to force it's brand of morality on the rest of society". First of all the Church isn't 'forcing' anybody. The last time I checked the record being a member of the Christian Church is entirely 'voluntary'. You can choose not to belong and therefore not be exposed to ideas a mores that you find unacceptable. But to call for the Church to conform to your way of thinking is the very narrow-minded attitude that you accuse the Church of having. As you are free to say, believe and do what you think is right, why is it WRONG for the Church, Marvin Winans or anyone else for that matter, to do the same? You are being very hypocritical in this regard. Since you are on record in believing in an 'subjective morality', you are the last person who should tell anybody that they are 'wrong'. You feel free to divide morality into subjective and objective with your own definition of what is immoral or not. And when we refuse to accept your standard of right an wrong you object? Really? I will stick with the Creator's definition if you don't mind. For Christians the Word of God is our standard for morality (right and wrong). This God given standard is not determined by our world view or by our feelings. It is an absolute standard, and not one that is up for modification, or repeal because we don't agree or like what it is saying.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @ FM,

    Finally your comment about frequenting a strip club comes across to me as a bit naive and devoid of the reality of what is taking place in this situation. In reality, a man who frequents strip clubs will eventually bring harm to himself, his family by having his view of women twisted/warped. Continued exposure to stimuli that reduces women to objects of sexual fantasy, and feeds an inordinate desire for possessing/owning them will not result in the long run to 'no harm'.

    Furthermore, many women who work as strippers are themselves troubled, abused and exploited by the very people who use them to make money. Those who 'employ' these women no doubt agree with your 'no harm' argument that I suppose in their minds more than 'justify' their actions. I think that you are wrong to defend/justify what they do.

    It is becoming very clear to me that we live in a world where 'offending' someone is a more grievous sin than simply telling them the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @ warren manigault You said "The explanation for the same sex attraction according to the Bible is SIN"

    May I ask you, where did that sin come from in the 1st place??? According to christian theology, Adam and Eve were put in the midst of a magical garden where everything was perfect. But that wasn't enough, God put a tree in the middle of the garden and ordered them not to eat from it. And to make matters worse he made the fruit "pleasing to the eye" as if to purposely tempt them. On top of that, he let loose a serpent possessed by Satan into the garden in order for Satan to trick Adam and Eve into eating the fruit. Keep in mind, God is supposedly omniscient so he knew exactly what would happen. Adam and Eve were set up by God. So the serpent talks Eve into eating the fruit and while the serpent is talking to Eve, does God rebuke him and chastise him for attempting to fool Eve. No, he stands back and watches.

    So finally they eat the fruit. And God jumps out from behind the bushes and says "Ha I got you!" Now by virtue of his omniscience he knew all this would occur and one can logically conclude that he set up the whole situation as a reason to be able to introduce sin into the world in the 1st place. Furthermore, since Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil, how could they have known it was wrong to disobey God and how could they differentiate between truth and deception? Also, it isn't just to punish someone for being deceived anyway. A person being deceived usually doesn't know it and think they AREN"T being deceived.

    So, what happens next is more shocking. Instead of just punishing the players, Adam, Eve and the serpent, God punishes all of humanity by cursing them with a sin nature and he curses all serpents by forcing them to "crawl on their bellies". Please, explain to me the justification of punishing billions of others, humans and animals alike, for something they didn't do! Out of what necessity did God have to curse everyone and everything with a sin nature? I'll answer for you, there was no necessity. God did so arbitrarily solely because he wanted to.

    God is responsible for sin.

    If you hold that God personally creates every human being and every animal that lives, has lived, or will live then the sin nature goes back to him. There is no reason at all that God cannot create a human being without sin. Instead, by his own wishes, he creates his earthly creatures with a sin nature and then he arbitrarily creates rules contrary to the nature he creates them with. It's the ultimate case of look but don't touch, taste but don't swallow, touch but don't taste. The only reason humans have a sin nature is because God arbitrarily said it had to be so and decided to punish all of mankind for a "crime" they did not commit.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @ Warren Manigault You said "I get so tired of the attitude of those who say, "I don't think the church should be trying to force it's brand of morality on the rest of society"

    You claim the God of the Bible is the "author of morality". Yet, you pick and choose to follow the parts of his morality you find convenient, yet you throw out the rest. You pay attention to the "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and "Thou shalt not steal". Yet you conveniently forget about 2 Kings 2:24 where this author of morality sends two bears to kill 42 children for calling a prophet "baldy". If you agree God is the author of morality, then you have to agree that murdering children for name calling is moral.

    You conveniently forget about 2 Samuel 12:14-18 where God murders King David's baby for a crime committed by King David. If you agree that God is the author of morality, then you have to agree that murdering a baby for something his father did is moral.

    You conveniently forget about Leviticus 21:9 where God orders a priests daughter to be burned to death for not being a virgin on her wedding night (other women who were not priests daughters were to be stoned to death at their fathers door).

    You conveniently forget about Leviticus 25:44-46 and Exodus 21:20-21 where the author of morality specifically sanctions slavery and even goes so far to tell you how to beat your slaves and if they don't immediately die but "linger for a day or 2" and then die, then the owner is not to be punished. If you agree God is the author of morality, then you must agree that slavery is moral.

    Yet, I don't think you really believe any of that is moral. I don't think you believe sending bears to kill children for name calling is moral, I don't think you believe animal sacrifice is moral, I don't think you believe killing a baby for his father's crime is moral, I don't think you believe killing young women for not being virgins on their wedding night is moral and I don't think you believe slavery is moral.

    Of course you're going to excuse it by saying "thats the old testament" or "we're not under the law anymore". It doesn't matter. In Hebrews 13:8 it explicitly states that Jesus Christ (whom you agree is God) is unchanging. So even if he doesn't require the law anymore, if he thought killing children was moral 3,000 years ago he still thinks it's moral today. If he thought killing women for not being virgins on their wedding night was moral 3,000 years ago, he still thinks it's moral today.

    What's changed is secular morality. It isn't because of the bible that you believe killing a baby for his fathers crimes is immoral or killing a young woman for not being a virgin is immoral (I guarantee, if you have a teenage daughter and you find out she has had sex, you're not going to murder her for it, yet in the bible, she was to be stoned to death at your doorstep and YOU had to participate). It's secular morality that tells you those things are wrong.

    Secular morality doesn't stand for animal sacrifice, killing children for name calling, killing young women for not being virgins, and killing babies on account of their parents actions. That's the bible. So if you insist on saying God is the "author of morality" take it or leave it. But don't pick and choose what you want to follow. You cannot judge God's good actions and not judge his bad actions.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @ Warren Manigault
    You said "As you are free to say, believe and do what you think is right, why is it WRONG for the Church, Marvin Winans or anyone else for that matter, to do the same?"

    I didn't say that. I'm pro freedom of speech. For everybody. If Marvin Winans holds that strip clubs are immoral and that he is against them, he has his right to teach his congregation such. He also has the right to publically state his opinion on the matter. But what he and the church must remember is, their opinions are not fact. And attempting to use the government to enforce your personal beliefs and opinions as if they are fact is wrong. I don't think any religion or non religion should be trying to use government to make others live how they think everyone ought to live. I don't think Marvin Winans should be trying to use government to shut down strip clubs because he thinks they're immoral, I don't think some Imam or Sheikh should be using government to ban the sell of pork or make women wear burquahs, I don't think some atheist group ought to be using the government to tell people they can't say "Merry Christmas", but instead have to say "Happy Holidays". Strip clubs are legal businesses. Period. Marvin Winans may not like it and that's his right. But it's wrong to get them closed down simply because he thinks they're immoral. He's not feeding the strip club owners or dancers, he isn't going to pay their bills, and he isn't going to provide them with clothes, food, shelter or luxuries they may be used to.

    You said "In reality, a man who frequents strip clubs will eventually bring harm to himself, his family by having his view of women twisted/warped. Continued exposure to stimuli that reduces women to objects of sexual fantasy, and feeds an inordinate desire for possessing/owning them will not result in the long run to 'no harm'.

    You're just making claims. Demonstrate these claims. Otherwise, you're committing the Slipper Slope fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope. Furthermore, those men are adults. They don't need the church to tell them where they can and cannot go and how to spend their money.

    You said "Furthermore, many women who work as strippers are themselves troubled, abused and exploited by the very people who use them to make money. Those who 'employ' these women no doubt agree with your 'no harm' argument that I suppose in their minds more than 'justify' their actions."

    Again, your making another claim. Demonstrate it. This time, you're committing the argument from ignorance fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance. You're asserting that because you don't know of any other reasons a woman may dance at a strip club, it must be because the reasons you listed, while ignoring the possibility of any other reasons outside of those you listed.

    Furthermore, those women are adult women and don't need the church or Marvin Winans telling them "what's best for them". Especially when the church or Marvin Winans isn't putting a dime in those women's purses.

    ReplyDelete
  11. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXO26pObTZA

    ReplyDelete

Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Dunamis1@netzero.com. Thanks.