Wednesday, June 01, 2005

Are Democrats the More Christian Party?

By Andrew Pritt (click "comments" below for the article).


Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Editor's Note: Mr. Pritt approached me saying he was a liberal Christian and asked if there was room on the blog for someone of his viewpoint. I told him the Democrat-Gazette and the Morning News already cover that alleged ground, but why not try some guest columns and see if it turns into a regular contribution.

Let me begin by stating that since there is a strong desire of this site to mix Christianity with Politics, I am going to speak about platforms and individual votes. This is not a blanket critique, black and white, of Democrat vs. Republican, or Liberal vs. Conservative. Indeed few absolutes are sure in humanity and Christianity. Rather God's creation and even his parables are complexities, that are not always face value. As a Christian, I have always felt that God wants us to dig deeper, to do our homework as it were. So this next column of mine, is an exercise in just that there.

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory....He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left." Matthew 25:31,33

As a child growing up as the son of a minister, many Sundays found me pouring quite deeply over reading the Bible, whilst my father preached. This was not a dig at my father, who I have found to be a theological giant on par with Spurgeon and Lewis, but rather a deep desire to find.

One passage, more than most, deeply struck me and colored many of my political persuations. The passage is found in Saint Matthew, the twenty-fifth chapter, versus thirty-one to forty-six. The passage is part of sermon Jesus Christ gave on the Mount of Olives concerning the end of time. In the verses mentioned, it states when God comes back, he will have us all stand before him and we will be judged, not just by our faith and trust in Christ, but in our deeds. Those deeds include how we handle the hungry, the needy, the destitute, the prisoners, the dejected in society. Those who showed mercy to these in life are now shown mercy by God. Those who didn't are condemned to eternity in hell.

This really stuck with me and when I looked at the two political parties, contemplating a political life, I had to look for which one matches my faith walk with Christ.

The Republican Party today likes to say it's the moral party. I always laugh, when I see that name, because in the time of Christ, Publicans were a self-righteous sect of the Jews. They refused to even look upon others because they felt society as a whole was sinful and would cause them to sin by being gazed upon. I suppose they tripped, ran into walls, etc. But, anyways, Re is the Latin for new. So it's NEW Publicans in todays society. And yes, the leadership and some in the Republican Party act like the old Publicans. They pick out key, emotion-laden issues like abortion or gay rights. To throw in good measure, they attack the occasional dictator and say we are the preservers of freedom. They say they are for less government, yet support laws that determine where the populace may go, say, and do with themselves.

The Democratic Party of today, is a lot to me like the sheep found in the above passages. Many Democrats see it as our inherent duty to take care of the less fortunate in society. Social Security, Peace Corps, Medicare, Kids First, Americorps, many government programs started under successive Democratic Administrations seeks to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, fellowship with all members of society, making them equal, and giving those who have messed up, a second chance at life. In foreign policy, the Democratic Party has sought to bring about peaceful change, that is the will of the people in that land. From Corazon Aquino in the Phillipines, to Violetta Chamarro in Nicaraqua, to Lech Walsea in Poland, to the deposition of Slobodan Milosevich in Bosnia, the Democratic Party has seen the Ballot Box as the chief answer to ending tyranny.

The Bible is clear about this, going even further when Christ is asked what the chief law is and Christ replies, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your mind, all your soul. Love your neighbor as yourself. On these hang all the laws of the Bible." He also cautions us to build treasures in heaven, not on earth. He emphasizes those who use their talents for good, are rewarded.

Yet the chief argument today is how can we give each individual as much of their own money. Taxes are an investment in our society. So for us to invest less, means less of an investment in ourselves and our community around us.

If we are to compare our political parties to Christianity, then lets start by being honest!

Andrew C. Pritt

1:16 PM, June 01, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Democrats are more gay, not more Christian.

1:20 PM, June 01, 2005  
Blogger terrymcdermott said...

You are getting the Publicans confused with the Pharisees. Look at the passage again. The Publican repented of his sins. The Pharisee said he was glad we wasnt like the Publicans.

The Publicans were outcast. The Pharisees turned their noses up at people.

1:20 PM, June 01, 2005  
Blogger terrymcdermott said...

By the way in my blog The Shamgar Report. I am writing articles about Babylon.

1:21 PM, June 01, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pritt, while I disagree with your sexuality, I respect your forthrightness.

1:31 PM, June 01, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

I think that "publicans" were tax collectors, not a sect of the Pharisees. The pharisees would not associate with the publicans. Zacheus was a "publican" and it outraged the pharisees that Jesus would have dinner with one.

But surely we can find more in this opinion piece to find fault with than a mixed up ID of bibical groups!

1:39 PM, June 01, 2005  
Anonymous Drew said...

Apparently not!

Actually, I wanted to see a Holy Number of messages listed and since there is 6, I added this to be 7.

It's spiritual superstition, I know.

5:42 PM, June 01, 2005  
Anonymous Mark Moore said...

I thought our readers would jump all over this. Either they are truly stunned into silence or the idea is so outlandish that they don't even feel the need to refute it! (That is my position).

7:07 PM, June 01, 2005  
Blogger terrymcdermott said...

In my opinion no true Christian will vote for a candidate that stands for abortion and gay rights. Regardless if they are Democrat, Republican or any other party label.

7:14 PM, June 01, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You rock, Terry!

7:24 PM, June 01, 2005  
Anonymous Drew said...

Democrats do not stand for abortion or gay rights. They do support equal rights as guaranteed by our constitution. They do support the right to choose, as preserved by our Supreme Court, and first guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

I never thought a party who claims to be the CONSTITUTION PARTY would seek to support aims that are not constitutional.

7:25 PM, June 01, 2005  
Anonymous Drew said...

Its also my opinion, no true Christian can pass judgement on what a TRUE Christian is, thinks, or does.

7:26 PM, June 01, 2005  
Blogger terrymcdermott said...

I am not judging just telling the trurth. You can tell a tree by the fruit it produces.

7:27 PM, June 01, 2005  
Anonymous Drew said...

Then if this is true, I guess your premise is wrong.

The Democratic Party has produced many fruits which benefit the American people :

* Medicare
* Social Security
* Americorps
* Peace Corps
* Minimum Wage Laws
* School Breakfast Program
* Urban Housing Standards
* Five day work week
* A surplus
* Peace between Northern Ireland and the rest of Eire.
* Peace between Egypt and Israel

Shall I continue?

Shall we discuss the Republicans :

* Deficit, not once, but twice.
* A disastrous war, where over 1,000 service members have died and there is no exit strategy.
* 3 Million children in poverty.
* Interest rates increasing yearly
* Housing shortages
* Loss of Civil Liberties

Want to go another round???

7:33 PM, June 01, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Then are you not violating your own standard when you judge the Christian who passes judgement on what a true Christian is? Do you condemn the apostle John when he writes "no longer believe every spirit but test the spirits to see if the are true"?

What about the apostle Paul when he writes in 1 Cor. 5: 9 - 13 that we are not to associate with anyone who bears the name of Christian if they are known to be guilty of immorality or of a foul tounge, or is a drunkard or swindler. We are not to even eat with such a person. Wicked unbelievers we can associate with, but not someone who bears the name of Christ and then persists in willfull wickedness.

7:34 PM, June 01, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Rights come from God, as the Declaration of Independence. There can be no "right" to do what is wrong in His sight.

Liberty is the freedom to do what we ought, not the power to do whatever destructive impluse takes hold of us.

The founders never dreamed that godless judges would twist their words and intent to justify abortion and homosexual "marriage" as "constitutional rights". I suspect that if the founding fathers could spend 20 minutes talking to some of these liberal judges, far from approving, they would probably challenge them to a duel!

7:39 PM, June 01, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Social Security and Medicare, as currently done, will bankrupt this nation. It has divided America and turned otherwise respectable people into liars, beggars and thieves. Some elderly will vote for any democrat, even the most wicked, just for their empty promise of continuing to rob the upcoming generation to give money to them.

Peace Corp and Americ Corps are not so great, just a way to spend a lot of money to do a little good.

I don't have the energy to go on, but what you are bragging about, I see as things that have divided and bankrupted this country.

7:44 PM, June 01, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Add to that, Terry and I are Constitution Party, not Republicans. Republicans have learned that they can buy votes with other people's money, just like the Democrats.

The Constitution Party is the party whose platform most closely reflects the Bible's idea of the role of government. In addition, it acknowledges Jesus Christ as the rightful Lord and Savior of mankind. Just because some party says it does not mean that they are the best choice for a Christian, but let me ask you this, how can the best choice be a party that pointedly REFUSES to say it?

7:47 PM, June 01, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


8:12 PM, June 01, 2005  
Anonymous Drew said...

Mark, I shall pick this up in the morning. But I find it interesting that whenever we discuss rights, conservatives want to go back to our Founding Fathers.

If we are to retain the government that they first gave us, we would have :


Yeah....that sounds like a world I want to live in....NOT!

As for pulling obscure Bible verses and twisting them to fit your doesn't work.

Why is it, whenever we discuss Homosexuality and the NEW TESTAMENT, conservatives want to use the Apostle Paul. The one man who did NOT walk with Christ. The one man who was NOT an apostle or disciple.

Strange how fundamentalists quote WWJD except when it doesn't fit their argument's boundaries.

8:13 PM, June 01, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Not true. The founders included the AMENDMENT PROCESS in the Constitution so that changes could be introduced. THose changes are either things that were handled by state governments or things that were handled by Constitutional Amendment.

WHat liberals want is a bunch of judges to force things on the populace that the cannot get through the consent of the governed.

I was not discussing homosexuality on this thread was I? We like to quote Paul because by the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit the man PENNED HALF OF THE NEW TESTAMENT! And what makes 1 Corinthians "obscure"? It is either inspired by God or it is not.

Since Paul is not to your liking perhaps you can quote some other New Testament writer that claims homosexuality, or any other sexual immorality, is now OK?

8:20 PM, June 01, 2005  
Blogger terrymcdermott said...

Paul was apostle and he saw the Lord on the Damascus. He also went up into the third heavan.

8:21 PM, June 01, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

a good christian blog here:

8:24 PM, June 01, 2005  
Anonymous Drew said...

Oi veh....look, if we are to discuss homosexuality, then lets have a separate blog entry.

Second, if you are not gay, I find it interesting that you are such an "EXPERT" on the subject. See thats the problem with this whole argument.

You read into things too much.

If we have the amendment process, then that is what most LGBT groups seek is an amendment to protect their rights....not change the institution of marriage.

8:30 PM, June 01, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

What I see is the opposite. Citizens are bringing to the ballot, and passing, bans on homosexual "marriage". They do this because JUDGES are inventing hithero unknown "rights" to homosexual marriage. Judges are overturning laws duly passed by the legislature. Now even state Constitutional Amendments, passed by the consent of the governed in a fair and free election, are being overturned by black-robed leftists on the bench.

Never mind what the particular issue is. The point is that we are becoming a judgocracy. It almost does not matter which party wins as long as neither of them will exercise their constitutional powers to reign in out-of-control judges.

Government derives all just powers from the consent of the governed, or so our declaration says.

8:43 PM, June 01, 2005  
Anonymous Drew said...

Actually this is a misconception of the facts.

First of all, not all states that have Domestic Partner Acts had it imposed by a Judge.

* Connecticut passed a Civil Union bill, through the legislature.

* Vermont was not a JUDGE imposing their beliefs, but an interpretation of the laws that are in place.

* Same for New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts.

* The people who passed the measures that were anti-Civil Union have been challenged in Court.

Do you realize, that these bills, if allowed to stand deny you, heterosexual couples, of more rights than homosexual.

Are you aware, as they are written, if a child is in a common law marriage enviroment, they can be denied medical care.

Are you aware, as they are written, these bills set a dangerous precedent.

Our laws are built on legal precedence. You say, I am against homosexuality, so this is okay. But this allows the government the right to define more and more of your life. Till we have lost the Bill of Rights and are a dictatorship.

Finally, why is it, you have supposed anger against a Judge, yet in the same breath, Democrats are criticized on here, for filibustering Judges???

Our laws....our courts....our Judges are not based on public opinion. It is based on the rule of law.

Are we to be governed by laws, or by simple public whim???

Also, going back to your comments on the Bible, I suppose you have learned and know Aramaic, Hebrew, and Ancient Greek. I suppose that allows you to interpret the scriptures.

Or do you accept what has been a constantly revised document since the days they were written???

Do you feel we should have Bishops???

What about women wearing coverings on their head? What about the whole idea of women being allowed to teach?

You cannot read the Bible at face value. If you did we would be stoning children in the streets. We would be kosher.

What did Christ say?

Furthermore, why did Christ, the SON OF GOD, never condemned homosexuality. Why is the only writings, those of a man, who was a devout Jew, who had obvious problems with women?

You say the Scripture is totally infallible. Does that mean that NIV is just as true as King James Version???

Come on....lets be real here.

9:06 PM, June 01, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


As much as I have enjoyed some of your other posts, you seem to be becoming a bit of a belligerent troll.

I believe it is clear from scripture that charity is best administered first by the individual, then corporately by the church, and finally and as a last resort by civil government.

Democrats (look at statistics on charitable giving) are woefully poor givers as individuals and prefer to take by force (i.e. the sword borne by civil government) from others to then redistribute to those they deem "worthy". This is not Christian at all, but rather should best be described as "theft".

The Republican and Constitutional Parties are both guilty of a different kind of un-Christian attitude. That is a lack of social justice, mercy, love, and humility. We, and I include myself in this condemnation, should INDIVIDUALLY be much more likely "to act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly." (Micah 6:8) Our Republican leaders should publicly and vocally cajole our churchs and our brethren to remember Leviticus 19:33 and Isaiah 10:1-3. If the INDIVIDUAL brethren fail, then our churches are responsible. If our churches fail, sadly I must concede that the Christian thing to do is for our Christian civil government to assume the role of benefactor. Without a Christian civil government, the logical thing to do is as the Libertarians suggest ... "let the lazy beggars starve." Thank God we have a somewhat Christian civil government.

The Democrat way breeds hate and contempt for those who require assistance. The Christian way (which is sadly not the Republican or Constitutional Party way) builds fellowship and friendship among the social classes.

Ultimately, this debate should be about renewing the hearts and minds of INDIVIDUALS who alone or as part of congregations extend charity to the needy. If civil government becomes involved, then it is a clear indication of a dismal failure of our churches.

Why hasn't Bellvue Baptist in Memphis or FBC Springdale created a free Christian school for the students in Lakeview, or in other areas where consolidation has robbed the community of a local school? What a wonderful mission field that is being overlooked.

And yet, I point fingers but am to cowardly to expose my true identity. Pray that God does not judge me twice as harshly.


The Anonymous Coward

9:33 PM, June 01, 2005  
Anonymous Drew said...

Anonymous Coward, did you read the standard I began this thread with? I didn't say either party was superior. Secondly, I cannot speak for ALL Democrats collectively, as you just have, but as a whole, most Democrats I know in my family and friends believe in helping one another out.

I think most have forgotten what it means to be a Democrat or a Republican.

Also, I never said that the government should be a theocracy. Rather, I think Christ is clear when he says "Render unto Caesar what is Caesars....Render unto God, what is God's."

9:41 PM, June 01, 2005  
Anonymous lonely republican in district 4 said...

dang! who is this anonymous coward dude/chick? i don't agree with everything he/she says but i am impressed by the quality of his/her posts!

mark, that sucker ought to be one of your contributors or writers or whatever.

9:48 PM, June 01, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...


you write "You cannot read the Bible at face value. If you did we would be stoning children in the streets. We would be kosher.

What did Christ say?"

If I can't read the Bible at face value, then I don't suppose I would have any way of knowing what Christ said. If the scriptures can't be taken at face value, then how can we take what they say about Christ at face value? And if we cannot take what the scriptures say about Christ at face value, then what does it mean when you say you are a "Christian"? Based on what?

How do you determine who Christ is if the scriptures are not to be taken at face value?

Christ affirmed that the law was good and that He did not mean to undo it, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17).

The ceremonial and sacrificial law were fulfilled in him. They were only types of what was to come- his own obedience and sacrifice. What he did with the rest of the law was to move it to the inside, to the heart.

The law said not to commit adultery- an outward act of which I am not guilty. He got to the real root of the problem and said not to even look at a woman with an evil desire for her, because that is adultery in the heart. I am regrettably guilty, but we all are because our hearts need regeneration by the Holy Spirit.

He took outside actions of the law and showed how they spring from evil desires in the heart. He advocated mercy for sinners- He came to show mercy, but He never excused their sin. "Go AND SIN NO MORE" He said to the woman caught in adultery. He never excused the sin, just the sinner. And He never gave an exception for homosexuality.

In addition, where the scriptures condemn "sexual immorality" they clearly mean sexual relations outside of the Old Testament Law. No exceptions (from the Old Testament Standard) are given. Indeed, it is harder because divorce was easy to get in the OT, but Jesus went back to Genesis and said that when the man and woman joined together they became one flesh. WHat God has joined let no man tear asunder. The NT is also down on those who have more than one wife.

Look, we all sin. I confess I do. And we all need to confess our sins. We need to agree with God that our sins are sinful. And repent of them. When we stumble and fail, we need to get up, dust ourselves off, and lay aside every encumberance that destroys fellowship with other believers and with God.

9:48 PM, June 01, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Dear lonely,

Yep, cowardly or not, I am glad to have them here. It has me curious. They know where to find me if they write an article about Arkansas stuff.

9:52 PM, June 01, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Awww....Shucks, Thanks "Lonely"


Your posts bring up way too many issues to be dealt with in a single thread.

Inerracy of the Scripture
Proper Biblical Hermeneutics
Theonomy / Theocracy
Biblical Translations
Judical Activism

You overwhelm me, and frankly you probably out class me intellectually. Please give my small Christian mind abit longer to contemplate. I am neither a theologian nor a pastor, I am simply a political junky who attempts to allow my faith to permeate all areas of my life.

I would love to deal with each one of the topics listed above, but this is not the time or the place. Perhaps we can work on our friendship and as we fellowship here and on other blogs we can deal with each in its own time?

Hopefully we can still call each other "friend," nay, even "brother."

By His Grace and For His Glory,
The Anonymous Coward

10:18 PM, June 01, 2005  
Anonymous Drew said...

All on here, who claim Christ as Savior, who seek him daily, and who greet I greet. That is a Biblical standard I apply.

Mark....we are dealing with a lot of issues here. Unfortunately, you misconstrue the idea. Probably because this is the first true time you may have had to deal with this issue. But thats a guess.

First, there must be a separation between who someone is attracted to....who someone is genetically coded to be attracted towards....and the actual act of sex.

There is heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and yes, even asexuality.

When we look at the scriptures....its not enough to say, IT SAYS IT, SO IT IS SO. No, as Christians, we must look at the context. We must read what is around the passage. We must compare it overall with the main point.

Believe it or not, human sexuality is not the main thrust of Christ's message. Remember what was said, when asked, "WHAT IS THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT?"

Christ said to Love God with all your heart, all your mind, all your soul and to love your neighbor as yourself.

I cannot equate with what Christ, our Savior says, with the advise of a rather Johnny-Come-Lately to the cause....meaning what you wrote of Paul saying we should ostracize. We cannot take that as the norm for all time?



Also, if God is truly omnipotent and omniscient, then how can God create an imperfection?

Look, you can say I was not born gay. But if you are not born a certain way, how can you say how it is for a person?

Can I tell Debbie what its like to be a woman???

No, so don't be ridiculous.

This is an emotional issue, where many rather than examining it with an open heart/open mind and the guidance of the Spirit....respond with emotional appeals.

I am growing tired....but I am filled with joy at discussing REAL issues instead of that jabber from earlier this evening.

11:24 PM, June 01, 2005  
Anonymous Drew said...

Anonymous Coward....speak with your name. You have no reason to fear anyone. If Christ be for you, who can be against you?

You are among brothers and sisters and I greet you as one.

11:25 PM, June 01, 2005  
Blogger Ontario Emperor said...

One comment that applies both to (a) Constitution/American Independent Party members and other members of Christian political parties, and (b) those of the Tip O'Neill persuasion who feel that Christ's/Isaiah's call to minister to the poor is best executed by government means.

In both cases, there is a desire to institutionalize the work of the church in secular institutions, such as political parties and governments.

If we look at the history of the church, it has done its best work when it HASN'T become part of the secular machinery. Did Constantine's adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire lead to heaven on earth? No, it led to the Dark Ages.


10:15 PM, June 02, 2005  
Anonymous Drew said...

Umm, I think it was the invasion of Europe by the Islamic armies and the subsequent collapse of the Byzantine Empire that led to the Dark Ages. As well, as once the Byzantine Empire, Roman, and Greek Empires fell, there was a backlash against "learned societies" which meant there was a period of backlash against free thought and education in general.

THATS what the Dark Ages were.

12:25 AM, June 03, 2005  
Anonymous God Fearing Man said...


There is no way any reasonable person can read the Bible and arrive at the conclusion that homosexuality is ok. If you believe that being a homosexual is not a sin then their can be no sexual sin whatsoever. Romans 1 is very specific and about Homosexuality. It is a sin. You cannot be a homosexual and claim to live a Christian life.

In this country you can certainly be a homosexual. And, you should be free to do whatever you want with whoever you want, but don't try to claim Jesus and his book support your lifestyle. Its offensive.

7:05 AM, June 03, 2005  
Anonymous Drew said...

First of all, what is offensive is you claiming absolute truth on your interpretation of the Bible.

You cite Romans....let me ask you. There is infallability in the writing of the Bible....this I have never disputed.

BUT....are you aware the only thing we have of the New Testament is the COPY of the New Testament. Which has been translated from ancient Greek....into at least seven different standards of English through the years.

Are you aware King James, actually changed the tone and actual verses in his version to suit his political purposes???

But you base EVERYTHING on a few obscure verses and by obscure, you cannot cite to me in the original Greek what they say.

Furthermore, with all due respect, being gay is not a lifestyle. I refuse for you to claim you know absolute truth on this situation when you do not. I think you sir, with all due respect, should show some humility.

Ever heard the phrase, "WHEN YOU WALK A MILE IN A MAN'S SHOES???"

Recently, studies have proven, that homosexual males respond due to the scent of males, not females. Which for the first time gives us proof that this is part of someone's genetic makeup. can believe what you want....but in this case, I have to tell you, you are wrong. I am gay....I was born gay....but I am a Christian....and I can be both.

8:03 AM, June 03, 2005  
Anonymous God Fearing Man said...

I will never walk a mile in a homosexual man's shoes.

You asked me if I had ever read the Greek texs of the Bible. I would ask you, have you ever read the Greek text of the Bible? Have you ever discussed its meaning with Greek scholars? Don't assume that I am a mouth breathing cretan because I actually believe the Bible is true. I have seen the Greek texts of the New Testiment. I have a Greek Bible and a Greek Thesaurus. I am capable of translating the text.

The New Testiment could not be any clearer, homosexuality is a sin. You can attempt to justifiy your lifestyle choice however you please, but don't defame the Bible by claiming Jesus supports your deviant actions.

8:19 AM, June 03, 2005  
Anonymous Mark Moore said...

Ontario Emperor,

Have you ever read the Constitution Party Platform? ( )

The CP does not want to institutionalize church roles as government programs. I am afraid it is Republican President G.W. Bush that wants to do that with his so-called "Faith Based Initiatives".

I gaurantee you that he who pays the piper will eventually call the tune. If churches become government programs then they will lose the ability to critisize government policy when it is contrary to scripture. Bush's policy is a direct violation of the 1st amendment. It is exactly the kind of thing that the Founders meant to stop when they put it in.

The problem is that non of this welfare stuff should exist as a govrenment program. It is not the governments function to meet "needs", even real ones.

The bibical function of government is to punish evil and honor good. The chuch takes care of the chairity part, because "compulsory compassion" just turns into groups lining up to pick our pockets by government decree.

10:45 AM, June 03, 2005  
Anonymous Mark Moore said...

I don't know of any man who is "born monagamous". It is a choice some men make to overcome the way they were born in order to do right by their wives.

We are all born unto sin. "It's the way we were born" is no excuse for anything. At the same time, it could be used to excuse everything. A murderer? I was born with a violent temper! A thief? I was born with poor impulse control and a stong desire to have things!

10:49 AM, June 03, 2005  
Anonymous Drew said...

Mark, do not equate homosexuality, a state of being, with murder, thievery, violence, etc. That is a vain attempt at emotional control, gone awry.

As for the one who says he has a Greek Bible and Greek Thesaurus. you have seen the original COPIES of the New Testament. The original New Testament does not exist.

Furthermore, lets talk verses. Bring them out and we can go verse by verse. You say its a sin.

It's not.

Furthermore, you are not a cretan, but very much like the Pharisees. You claim to know fully the mind of God. That sir, with all due respect, is arrogance. You cannot speak God's mind, God's intention. The best you can speak is your interpretations, and your own personal walk. But if we have free choice and free will. If we have a God whose love abounds all. If we have a God who is as great as we all say, then don't box him up.

It makes me laugh how those, when confronted with something they do not understand, try to justify and postulate. We all try to bend God to our will.

I am at peace in my walk. I know being openly Gay and being a CHRISTIAN is okay. God has spoken to my heart, as he has so many.

So no matter what you try to infer, that cannot change.

3:25 PM, June 03, 2005  
Anonymous God Fearing Man said...


You said, "You cannot speak God's mind, God's intention. The best you can speak is your interpretations,". If you are right Christians can never cast any judgement on any behavior we believe is sinful. If we follow your logic my "interpretations" of the Bible cannot be used to tell someone any specific act is wrong. Lying is no longer wrong, lust is no longer wrong, adultry is no longer wrong, and murder is no longer wrong because believing those things to be wrong is just my "interpretation".

I think for you Romans 1 is of particular importance. You cannot read this passage of scripture and maintain the belief that God accepts homosexuality.

Romans 1:22-32

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them

4:40 PM, June 03, 2005  
Anonymous Drew said...


First of all, it is NOT your job to convict someone of their sins. That is the work of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, everything is not black and white, but all your arguments are in black and white.

Now, as for the passage of scripture, if you tried to apply it on face value to homosexuality, then it might work. But it does not. Look at the context of when it was written.

First of all, Rome had become a decadent empire. It was a place where brothels were at and where men were forced into situations that were unnatural. But that describes a sexual form of rape. One of the concepts of Rome was that "CONQUEST" made one more of a God.

Romans believed that they all eventually became gods themselves. The more they conquered and controlled made them a greater god.

Also, you pull out this verse, then ignore what follows it :

ROMANS 2:1-5

"You there, have no excuse, you who pass judgement one someone else. For at whatever point you judge someone else, you are condemning yourself. Because you who pass judgement, pass judement on yourself. Now we know that God's judgement against those who do such things, is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgement on them and yet ignore your own sin, do you think you will escape God's judgement? Or do you show contempt for the riches of kindness, tolerance, and patience, not realizing God's own patience led to your repentance? But because of your stubborness and your unrepentant heart, your are storing up wrath for the day of God's judgement, when his righteousness will be revealed."

What that passage tells me is emphasized by the proverb of the splinter/plank in the eyes. It is emphasized by "JUDGE NOT, LEST YE BE JUDGED."

Our call on earth is to present the gospel. Our duty is to love God with all our heart, mind, and soul and love our neighbor as ourselves.

It is GOD and GOD alone, who has the right to judge.

6:35 PM, June 03, 2005  
Anonymous God Fearing Man said...

Drew you are blinded by your homosexuality. I will no longer carry on this conversation.

3:57 PM, June 05, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...


You are blind, and your blindness is willfull. I guess if a pedophile or an adulter says "I am a pedophile, and I am a Christian" or "I am an adulter, and I am a Christian." then I am somehow bound to take their word for it? No thanks.

I never claimed to FULLY know the mind of God, as you try to lay on me, but I don't have to know it all to know that God wants you to repent of your sins rather than deny that they are sins.

Those passages you cite to the other fellow are warnings against judging others sin while ignoring your own- and those are passages that we do need to listen to. They do not mean that we are to ignore sin. In fact in Luke 7 Jesus asks "Why do you not judge?", so there are times when both judging and not-judging are the right thing to do.

You seem to want to tell God what a Christian is instead of accept His version.

He says in 1 Cor. 5 : 9-13 that while we shold let God judge unbelievers WE ARE TO JUDGE those who claim the name of Christ. If they hold fast to any of a list of grievious sins while claiming to be a Christian then we are to disassociate with them. We are not even to eat a meal with them.

That is where I am with you. You are an enemy of the Cross of Christ, because you deny that sins need to be repented of, except the of course the "sin" of "judging others".

9:20 PM, June 05, 2005  
Anonymous Drew said...

I live daily what Christ tells me is being a Christian. However, I do not let mortal man, sway me from my own....personal walk.

Look, I know I have the peace of God upon me. I know that if I should die tonight....and I felt it earlier (see other post above in top thread) then when I stand before Christ....he will not say, "I condemn you for being a homosexual." God will say, IMHO, "Why should I allow you into my Kingdom?"

I can truthfully say, with humility, "Lord, I have tried every day to walk, minute by minute with you. Yes, I strayed....but I always came back. I always asked your forgiveness. I always sought you in my life. You promised me if I trust in you, then you will redeem me."

No matter what you, or mortal-interpretations of scripture, will matter at that point.

So I ask one thing. One day, we will all be together. I pray that the Lord allows me to know each of you. I will hug you then, as I will now if we meet in person, and say, "Welcome"

Those thoughts and words come from my heart. They are not the words of a sinner revelling in his sin. They are the words of a mortal, sinful from birth, redeemed by the blood of Calvary, trusting in God every day.

With that....may we learn to be strengthened in our differences and focus together, on our commonalities.

Peace of the Lord.

9:46 PM, June 05, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home