Friday, June 26, 2009

New Poster-Boy for Homosexuals Adopting Children

Meet Duke University Professor Frank Lombard. Mr. Lombard is a homosexual who was able to use the power of the state to gain access to children through adoption. He stands accused of trying to persuade a person, who he did not know was an undercover police officer, of traveling to North Carolina to have sex with his five year old son. He adopted the child as an infant. Lombard also bragged of having molested the child himself, after drugging him.

If convicted, he faces a maximum of 20 years in prison.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Imagine that, a homo who is acting... like a pervert. What a shocker!

2:15 PM, June 26, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Imagine what else that poor child has been through.

God have mercy on this nation for tolerating these wicked people.

9:37 PM, June 26, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reason to be a homophobe? What do you think?

9:42 PM, June 26, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Children should definitely fear these creeps.

9:57 PM, June 26, 2009  
Blogger angry said...

This is a sick and disgusting individual. He has basically ruin the innocence of this child.But what i do not believe is that the other man did not see or notice any signs. When Lombard gets to jail they will tear him a new a-ss hole!

11:19 AM, June 27, 2009  
Anonymous Chuck said...

Odds on how this university professor voted in the 2008 Presidential election:
Obama 1:1
McCain 99:1

But, of course, the media won't report that this guy's a liberal or a Democrat, or in any way at all associated with the left. Why, it would be homophobic to mention facts like that!

3:03 PM, June 29, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pedophiles and gay men are not the same thing. There are 100s of kids sitting in foster homes who are more at risk than most kids in loving healthy same-sex households. this is the height of ignorance and prejudice.

10:06 AM, June 30, 2009  
Anonymous Carrie said...

As long as everyone else is venting, I will too. There was a gay pride parade in my city recently. My 90-year-old dad was walking on the sidewalk, trying to get to his office building. A gay guy walked up and tried to give him a gay pride bracelet. My dad was polite and just said "No thanks." I, personally, am sick of all the idiotic gay parades. Give it a rest, gays. And I'm sick of gay people putting the label "hater" on anyone who does not embrace the gay lifestyle. As for the Duke professor, I'm not sure there are any words to describe this detestable man.

11:47 AM, June 30, 2009  
Anonymous Chris Johnson said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

12:55 PM, June 30, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All of you are a bunch of morons. Have you never heard of Father's abusing their daughters? Is that a case against heterosexuals? I hope this man burns in hell for being a PEDAPHILE.

1:01 PM, June 30, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yep, all homosexuals are child molestors - thats why Frank told the undercover agent he was chatting with that all abuse needed to be hidden from his homosexual partner.

I noticed you left out the part that the child's other father was vehemently against child sex abuse and exploitation

3:19 PM, June 30, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

...and what about the fifty heterosexual abuse cases for every homosexual counterpart...selective reporting by religious idiots, big surprise

5:43 PM, June 30, 2009  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

No, not ALL homosexuals are also pedophiles, just a disproportionate number. They also exhibit a marked tendency to disregard the norms of proper behavior (in a Western-Civilization context).

Typical attempt to beat up on a straw man. I never claimed they were ALL pedophiles, but it is an increased risk factor- one children are better off without since there is no compensating advantage to placement with homosexuals but rather the potential for even more problems.

The Catholic Church's problem with with pedophiles for example, is really a homosexual pedophile problem.

5:48 PM, June 30, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think it's important to note that just because someone leans towards homosexuality it doesn't make them a child molester.

Also, a child molester and a pedophile are two different things. A pedophile is someone who is attracted to children sexually, it denotes a psychological disorder, a child molester is someone who actually has acted on the urge from feelings of pedophilia. We must also understand that when a molestation occurs, there can be confusion when the molestation is referred to as a homosexual molestation, this is describing a sexual orientation, when it should be describing simply the sex of the individuals involved. When looking at this particular situation this way, it will eliminate the implicit unwarranted assumptions conveyed from such clumsy wording.

6:46 PM, June 30, 2009  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Some outward attempts at "clarification" actually are attempts at obfuscation. The important thing to remember is that there is a correlation between homosexuality and other dysfunctional behaviors, and if we care about children we should oppose using the power of the state to hand over helpless children to this high-risk group.

9:02 PM, June 30, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I couldn't agree more. I was just making the point that homosexuality and child molestation are mutually exclusive. One can and does exist without the other as a determining factor for that behavior.

6:54 AM, July 01, 2009  
Anonymous Chris Johnson said...

Sorry for profanity in previous post. I was just greatly insulted by the posts on here.

Mark Moore writes "not ALL homosexuals are also pedophiles, just a disproportionate number. They also exhibit a marked tendency to disregard the norms of proper behavior (in a Western-Civilization context)."

I find the general assumption that homosexuals (I am not one by btw) are at a higher risk of molestation of children then heterosexuals ridiculous. Where did these stats come from? The Catholic Church? I simply do not believe this.

Mark, what are your 'norms of proper behavior'??? I mean to some, people drinking alcohol is not a 'norm of proper behavior'... You have your norms and other people have theirs. This does not make them more 'at risk'. I mean there are some things society in general frown upon, such as incest and cannibalism. But we aren't talking about that now are we. And if you are talking about the specific sexual acts of homosexual couple, then please... give me a break... You have no idea what most straight people are doing in their bedrooms.

I get the feeling most of the people reading this site are supposedly 'good' Christians. Since when does the bible promote hate and closed-mindedness.

As I said before, this guy... the guy who molested his adoptive son, deserves no less then life in prison, death or castration. I seriously believe this. But, I find some of the hateful, ignorant and hate fueled comments posted here nearly as offensive.

This is a big world people. We all have to live in it. You can either hate and hurt, or try to live together in peace.

11:39 AM, July 01, 2009  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Sorry for profanity in previous post.

Gladly accepted.

Since when does the bible promote hate and closed-mindedness.

Whether hate is good or bad depends on who or what is being hated. I am sure you share me feelings of hating what has been done to the child in this story. It goes beyond that, sometimes, to really love people, you have to hate what they do.

I am admonishing people (homo or straight) who want to take the easy way out and yield to the homosexual lobby's demands that the state give them what nature and nature's God would deny them- children. Admonishing people, disagreeing with people, telling people what they are doing or supporting is wrong, is not hate.

Now what I just wrote is my opinion, but you wanted to know about what the bible says, and I agree that one cannot claim to be a Christian unless their opinions are informed by the scriptures....

Leviticus 19:17
Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. (Amp. version)

2 Timothy 4:2
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

Proverbs 28:4
They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep the law contend with them.

1 Timothy 5:20
Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

I could go on but I hope that you will see from those passages that what I am doing is a part of the instruction from scripture- a part that is all too often ignored by the post-modern church, It is ignored because it often involves personal sacrifice, such as people being angry with you for speaking these unwelcome truths.


but while hatred of persons is rarely spoken well of in scripture, hatred of evil is demanded....

Proverbs 8:13
The reverent fear and worshipful awe of the Lord [includes] the hatred of evil; pride, arrogance, the evil way, and perverted and twisted speech I hate.(Amplified version)


to be continued I hope....

9:11 AM, July 02, 2009  
Blogger Arkansas Hillbilly said...


I tried not to post on this, I really did, but I find that yet again I can't keep out of this. Like Chris, I am not gay, but many of my friends and fellow parishoners are, and that is why I feel I must protest your tone yet again.

If I could direct you to, it has some very intereting tidbits of information. Some of my favorite quotes:

"Reflecting the results of these and other studies, the mainstream view among researchers and professionals who work in the area of child sexual abuse is that homosexual and bisexual men do not pose any special threat to children. For example, in one review of the scientific literature, noted authority Dr. A. Nicholas Groth wrote:

Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147).

In a more recent literature review, Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy (1998) similarly cautioned against confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. He noted, "The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women" (p. 259).

Here again, there is no inherent connection between an adult's sexual orientation and her or his propensity for endangering others. Scientific research provides no evidence that homosexual people are less likely than heterosexuals to exercise good judgment and appropriate discretion in their employment settings. There are no data, for example, showing that gay men and lesbians are more likely than heterosexual men and women to sexually harass their subordinates in the workplace. Data from studies using a variety of psychological measures do not indicate that gay people are more likely than heterosexuals to possess any psychological characteristics that would make them less capable of controlling their sexual urges, refraining from the abuse of power, obeying rules and laws, interacting effectively with others, or exercising good judgment in handling authority. As explained elsewhere on this site, sexual orientation is not a mental illness nor is it inherently associated with impaired psychological functioning."

And if I remember my Bible right, in Galatians 5, Paul states that we are apart from the Law, and that if we hold ourselves and others to one part of the Law we are under all of it. That being said, why are so many conservatives for closed borders and deporting illegal aliens. From the NRSV I give you Leviticus 19:33-34

"When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God."

12:31 PM, July 02, 2009  
Blogger Arkansas Hillbilly said...

Sorry, the post was too long... to continue

On the biblical front, the Bible does not address homosexuality as we know it today. The word homosexual did not exist before the 19th century with the advent of psychology and is an amalgm of greek and latin. What the Bible addresses in the Old Testament is temple prostitution and in the New Testament is temple prostitution and the practice of pederastry. In total, there are about seven passages, known collectively as the "clobber passages" that address same sex acts. By contrast there are at least three times that many passages that instruct us to take care of the poor, the sick, and the marginalized. Which do you think is the priority?

The simple truth is that homosexuals are just as flawed as you and I are. Crimes against children are horrible and should be punnished. But just because someone is gay does not make them a child molestor, or give them a disproportionate slant toward such things.

Let me ask you, how many kids have you talked to that are being raised by same sex parents? How many adults have you spoken to that came from same sex homes? Reference this article from CNN entitled "'Gayby boom': Children of gay couples speak out"

The whole "Gay Agenda" is simply a desire to be treated as anyone else. LGBT folk just want to be able to have the same rights and priveleges as their heterosexual counterparts. When was the last time your husband's or wife's family was allowed to bar you from their hospital room when they were sick? When was the last time you were denied healt coverage under your spouse's insurance? When were your parenting skills questioned because of your orientation? When were you not allowed survivor benefits for your spouse? All of these things are denied gay and lesbian couples that have been together 10, 20 sometimes 50 years or more. Why should they not be granted the same rights as I have?

Like I said, I try to stay out of some of these discussions, but when the discussion affects people I care about, I have to put in my two cents.

12:31 PM, July 02, 2009  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.


You are misrepresenting this passage, and the rest of the scriptures. While Paul here in Romans 1 is talking about men who cast away the knowledge of God descending into sexual perversion, that in no way limits the sinfulness of homosexuality to such acts conducted as part of pagan worship.

Note that the text says "God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another." and then describes homosexual acts. The acts are degrading, the acts are sinful. They are not described as sinful BECAUSE they were done in the context of pagan worship, but rather they were sinful in themselves and Paul notes that pagans do descend into such sinful acts.

If I say it is wrong for Muslims to convert people to Islam at sword point, I don't mean that it is oK TO convert them to Christianity at sword point, I mean that converting people at sword point is immoral, but Islam is a false system which tends toward such immorality. Paul in the same way warns that worship of creatures rather than Creator dovetails with the already sinful practice of homosexuality.

11:01 AM, July 04, 2009  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

But that you may know that Christ declares that God intends marriage to be between one man and one woman, I direct your attention to Matthew 19.

1When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

7"Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."


Christ goes all the way back to Genesis to declare the Father's original intent for marriage. It is between male and female, man and wife.

"4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'[b]? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."


By assuming the title of minister while declaring two homosexuals are "married" instead of helping them to overcome, you violate God's original intent and come perilously close to separating what God has meant to be joined.

11:11 AM, July 04, 2009  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

As for the "science". it has been hijacked by PC. I could come up with studies that say the opposite of yours

but I don't want to get into an exchange of studies, because I have learned that the homosexual lobby has no regard for truth and no respect for the scientific process, only for using its credibility to advance their agenda. After poring over the details of the first nine or ten studies which had pro-homosexual outcomes and finding rigged methodology, I quit wasting my time trying to pick them apart.

I am convinced that it is usually hurtful for children to be raised by homosexuals, and that they are more likely to be exposed to abuse vs. being raised by heterosexuals, and a pile of rigged "studies" where the researchers started with the conclusion that they wanted and then figured out how to massage the data to get it is not going to change my mind.


As for the attempts at misdirection: the reason we talk about this more than feeding the poor is that feeding the poor is not controversial. We all agree it should be done. This is where the battle is, and that is where the warrior goes.

Other attempt at misdirection: Look in a paper bound Strong's concordance. You will see the OT scriptures on aliens applies to INVITED GUESTS, not invaders. I am amazed that you are going to such gymnastics to read out the clear prohibitions against homosexuality in scripture but have not taken the most elementary steps to discern what the scriptures teach on the illegal immigration issue.

11:20 AM, July 04, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Booooo yaaaahhhh!! you hit that one out of the park!

3:34 PM, July 05, 2009  
Blogger Arkansas Hillbilly said...

Forgive my late posting on this, I ufortunately have been detained with a sick wife and school work. I am going to try to address your points as best I can.

First, our reading of Romans seems to be a bit different. This section of the first chapter is very popular, but we forget that when Paul wrote this he was a) talkin to converts in Rome and b)there were no chapter verse dividers in the original letter (being added much later). As Paul describes these sins he is using a form of argument to make the readers (Roman converts) feel self righteous. It is funny that his next line in Chapter 2 is "Therefore you have no excuse..."; reflecting this anger back upon the reader. Or as the Archbishop of Canterbury put it:

Interpretation by the Archbishop of Canterbury:
Rowan Williams, the spiritual leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion talked to theology students at the University of Toronto in Canada in 2007-APR. He discussed the use that conservative Christians have made of biblical passages to condemn homosexuality. He concentrated on Romans 1. He said that this passage was intended to warn Christians to not be self-righteous when they see others fall into sin. He said:

"Many current ways of reading miss the actual direction of the passage. Paul is making a primary point not about homosexuality but about the delusions of the supposedly law-abiding. [These lines are] for the majority of modern readers the most important single text in Scripture on the subject of homosexuality."

However, right after that passage, Paul warns readers not to condemn others:

Romans 2:1: "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things." (King James Version)

Or as Williams rendered the passage:

"At whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself."

Arland J. Hultgren (from the Lutheran Seminary) writes:

"Paul is not speaking here of homosexual orientation. Instead, he is talking about the gentile world, a world of idolaters, who long ago rejected the worship of God and became a culture of abuse, in which power and conquest were established and displayed in sexual acts."

And you yourself are using scriptural acrobatics with this passage from Matthew. In this the discussion is regarding divorce, not same sex relations or marriage. In no section of the Gospels does Jesus directly discuss same sex attractions. It just does not happen. He even had the perfect opportunity when he healed the servant of the Centurion. Instead he praises the faith of the Centurion. This and other passages of the Gospels lead me to believe that homosexuality was not on the agenda of Jesus.

And in the realm of "science" I do agree that studies can be skewed to reflect what the researcher wants to believe. This is just as true of your side as mine. I find the site you referenced to be just as full of those who have already made their minds up as you found of mine. Rev. Shelton has a clear bias, and I question his "objectivity".

The largest evidence I have, however is that which I can not show you over this forum. I know families that consist of two Dads and children as well as two Moms and children. Some are afraid to come out outside of our church because they fear losing their jobs and the abuse that would be heaped upon their children by others. Again, in all of these cases I find no evidence of anything but healthy and happy families.

11:38 AM, July 07, 2009  
Blogger Arkansas Hillbilly said...

I would love to continue this discussion further, though I doubt either of us will convince the other. If you or your dear readers would like, I can provide my e-mail address, though it should be in my profile. It should prove interesting to say the least.

11:42 AM, July 07, 2009  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

A passage of scripture can say more than one thing. It can have a point leading to X, and along the way to X it says things about Y and Z.

First you try to say that Romans 1 was talking about homosexuality in the context of pagan worship, so that it does not apply to homosexuality today. I answered that by clearly showing that the activity was described as sinful regardless of context.

Then you claim that the main point of the passage is get them to avoid judging! You keep attempting to re-direct attention from what this passage of scripture clearly says about homosexuality by pointing out all of the OTHER things it is talking about.

It simply does not matter if the passage has another point, another main point, or is trying to use how God feels about homosexuality to help make another point. Along the way to making whatever point you think Romans 1 is trying to make, it clearly and unequivically describes homosexual behavior as sinful.

"24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."


Extremely clear stuff. It takes a great deal of effort to explain away what is stated so plainly.

Using the Archbishop of Canterbury is an appeal to authority. The text itself is authoritative. And at any rate the Archbishop must be as determined to miss the point as you have been if he believes that the main point of this passage is to "not judge". The point is just the opposite- DO JUDGE. Judge them as sinners, judge yourself as a sinner. A sinner who commits sin that needs to be repented of.

The whole point of the early part of Romans is to judge us all as under sin so that we might see in later chapters that God's plan to redeem us from our sins is Christ.

But the homosexuals who have stolen the Episcopal church from Christ don't want to repent, don't want to see their conduct as sinful. That is why their itching ears accumulate false teachers, to a considerable number, who will tell them what they want to hear.

They want to hear that all these passages, including Romans where they whole theme of the book is that we are all under sin, is that we "should not judge" their unrepentant behavior as sinful.


You do the same thing in Matthew that you do with Romans. This was where God answered the Pharisees' questions on divorce by going back to Genesis.

Passages of scripture have many valid (and of course invalid) applications. You keep trying to misdirect from what the scripture plainly states by saying "well, these are REALLY talking about something else over here". And in some cases they ARE talking about something else as their main thrust, but in the course of doing that they also have application to the subject at hand.

In fact, the Pharisees could have made the exact same argument that you are making against me to respond to Jesus. They could have said, "That passage in Genesis was about Creation, not Divorce, therefore you are doing acrobatics to get it to apply to divorce when what God was REALLY talking about here was creation".

They COULD have used your tactics, to justify their sinful position on divorce, but even they did not do so. Do you understand the danger you are in? Not even the Pharisees were as determined in their opposition to Christ as you show yourself to be here.

5:42 PM, July 09, 2009  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

"The largest evidence I have, however is that which I can not show you over this forum. I know families that consist of two Dads and children as well as two Moms and children. Some are afraid to come out outside of our church because they fear losing their jobs and the abuse that would be heaped upon their children by others. Again, in all of these cases I find no evidence of anything but healthy and happy families."

The very fact those children are in those situations constitutes abuse. That you can find no evidence of anything other than what you wish to see does not surprise me, given your ability to see only what you wish to see in scripture. That does not mean your perceptions of reality with those families is any more accurate than your understanding of the scriptures. And even if you had a few families where that was actually the case, your anecdotal stories in no way compare to the authority of scripture or facts on the ground in the larger world. If I find a few children whose parents committed adultery and still seemed like "healthy and happy " families does that mean I can swell up with self-will and read-out scriptural prohibitions against adultery?

You could do the same thing with any sin, you can find some folks where they escape the penalty for sin in this life, or for a period of years anyway. That does not mean that it isn't sin, it just means retribution is not always swift and evenly distributed in this life.

5:49 PM, July 09, 2009  
Blogger chris11miler said...

There are a lot of sick people in the world and the US that have done many sickening things, things 10 times worse than this, and none of them were gay, all of you who say this is a reason to be a homophobe or calling them wicked people need to open your eyes.

4:44 PM, July 11, 2009  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

More misdirection. The sinfulness of homosexuality is the issue here, and it is the issue precisely because of the big push to claim that it is not sin. Lots of bad things go on in the world and labeling them as evil is non-controversial. This is where the dispute is.

5:13 PM, July 11, 2009  
Blogger Arkansas Hillbilly said...

I appologize for the tardiness of this comment, but unfortunately, I have other obligations that take up a large part of my time.

Continuing on the previous vein, I appeal to the writings and comments of scholars such as the Archbishop of Cantebury presisely because they are scholars who have spent their lives studying the scriptures, and suppliment my own amateur attempts at hermenutics.

I think the largest part of our disconnect seems to be in how we regard the Bible and which parts we regard as immutable. Your position reflects that at least on some level, you see the Bible as completely authoratative and infallable. I, and many other liberation theologians see the Bible as a response to a culture's relationship to God, and though inspired by God, still reflects the attitudes and prejudices of the day.

The Old Testament is full of tales of Genocide, murder, and other things that God was said to have told the Isrealites to do. If this same position were taken today, we would condem the country as barbaric to say the least. If we were to follow all of the old Mosaic laws, which we would need to do if we are to believe Paul's logic in Galatians 5, then we would have to call women who were raped within the city limits adulteresses (Deuteronomy 22:23-24), since no distinction is made between willing sex and rape, only that they "did not call for help". There are also prohibitions in the Mosaic Laws of interracial marriages, planting two different crops in the same field, wearing fabrics of two different materials, eating pork, shellfish, catfish, certain birds, so much as touching a woman during her menstural cycle... If we are to be under one part of the 600+ laws between Leviticus and Deuteronomy, again, we must be under all of the law according to Paul.

Furthermore, it isn't until the New Testament that we see prohibitions against lesbians. How do we account for this? Was it wrong in those days, or did it matter since women were of less worth than men? Was the prohibition agains sexual relations between men because of procreation, or because it denegrated a man to the status of a woman? Were these laws about sin or were they about the survival of Jewish culture during the time of the invasion of Cannan and the exile to Babylon? These are questions that need to be asked to try to put the Bible into context.

10:04 AM, July 22, 2009  
Blogger Arkansas Hillbilly said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10:11 AM, July 22, 2009  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

"Your position reflects that at least on some level, you see the Bible as completely authoratative and infallable. I, and many other liberation theologians see the Bible as a response to a culture's relationship to God, and though inspired by God, still reflects the attitudes and prejudices of the day."

I think you sum up my position on scripture well, and since yours is so different I think I see why we are talking past each other. I assumed we were treating the scriptures as authoritative sources for Christian faith and conduct. You view it more as a "living document".

That is the root of our lack of agreement. We have different premises about what our guide should be. Until our premises are at least compatible I don't see any point in continued dialog about application- we first need to agree on WHAT needs to be applied.

Perhaps the day will come where we can have a thread about that- the place of scripture in informing the beliefs and practices of a Christian. Your debating skills are first rate, but so long as the grounds are that scripture is authoritative your position was untenable. I was hoping that you would re-consider your position, not re-consider the validity of scripture to inform Christian belief and practices.

At any rate, this seems a good time to close the book on this scholarly debate, as agreement is not possible with such a divergence of foundational premises. Some day soon I hope, when the time is right, we can discuss the more fundamental topic of the role of scripture. My position is a little more nuanced that you describe, but not much. I have a net radio show, maybe we could do it on that using voice.

9:23 PM, July 23, 2009  
Blogger Atlanta said...

Imagine what straight pedifiles do with children? You people are idiots and obbsessed with gay sex ! In fact. The comments on here are by perverted people. Thye have a perverted since of what homosexuals are like and are. thye are no different than you. only they identify with same sex. You people should repent for your sins ! The number of sex abuse by strights is much higher and rape of children by HETEROSEXUALS that identify as striaght. Rape of any person can be done ! the target can be male or female. the rapist does not care.

8:58 PM, October 08, 2009  
Blogger Atlanta said...

New case of child sex obuse and worst child abuse case by a straight man was just discovered and announced on WSB 62 year old man filmed his girlfriends grandchildren and taped some of the worst sex abuse police have ever found! WSB radio just now ! god sent me to this website of hate ! Here in griffin Georgia REPORT REPORT WSB today 12:00midnight reports Child pornographer Pruit is in cutody and now convicted as of today. The news came on as I was typing this ! WSB ALL STRAIGHT IDENTITY girlfriends, ex wives,married men !This is a HATE site ! HATE HATE HATE ! I expose all that are filled with hate including the ILLEGAL ALLIEN LOBBY . I came to this site because of a hateful woman that wanted me to become her friend on Youtube ! She is perverted also. She has some views that match but goes way off with HOMOSEXUALS and Children. My ULTRA CRISTIAN GAY FRIEND RASIED 3 HAPPY NORMAL CHILDREN but later came out about 9 years ago. he now lives with his LOVER and has great relations with his children and family. NO MOLESTING ! He even had a foster child for years and maybe still. Yuck on you people .

9:09 PM, October 08, 2009  
Blogger Atlanta said...

Should Muslems be able to adopt children ? Answer that. Taliban or Gay Christian? Johney is a gay CHRISTIAN with very christian strict upbringing. He and his wife raised three wonderful children and had foster children. One day Johney came out and said he was gay at 35 years of age ! That story is all over the world. A family of three in South Georgia rpaed a next door neighbor while the white wife watched her white husband and white son rape a mexican boy age 8 years old then killed him . 2008 . The husband got the death penalty this year! :) justice ! Children are mollested and raped at the rape trees along the southern border by coyote's male trafficers.

9:41 PM, October 08, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Could not find a suitable section so I written here, how to become a moderator for your forum, that need for this?

11:28 PM, November 24, 2009  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home